|
Surprise..look who showed up in Iraq (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
No one else would stand up to terrorism... So America did something about it. |
If you're referring to Afghanistan (sp?), you've got no beef with me. But if you're referring to Iraq, then you're going to have to back up your assertions that they were involved in terrorism that was an imminent threat to us. Funny how Bush himself said there was no connection to Iraq and 9/11:
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/6797311.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm
Or how about that wonderful "leak" by the ever-so credible Weekly Standard on the ties between Al Queda and Saddam?
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17230
http://www.spinsanity.org/
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/995706.asp?0cv=CB20
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono If you remember, truthful or not, the president and his staff, along with Blair, gave the world several credible documents pertaining to WMD and terrorism in Iraq before invading. These, at least at the time, were considered facts, and some may still be.
Truthful or not? I'd say, "not." I'd also say the credible documents were not so credible:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...q_cia&printer=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Sep27.html
[QUOTE]House Probers Conclude Iraq War Data Was Weak
By Dana Priest
Washington Post
Sunday 28 September 2003
Leaders of the House intelligence committee have criticized the U.S. intelligence community for using largely outdated, "circumstantial" and "fragmentary" information with "too many uncertainties" to conclude that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda.
Top members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which spent four months combing through 19 volumes of classified material used by the Bush administration to make its case for the war on Iraq, found "significant deficiencies" in the community's ability to collect fresh intelligence on Iraq, and said it had to rely on "past assessments" dating to when U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998 and on "some new 'piecemeal' intelligence," both of which "were not challenged as a routine matter."
"The absence of proof that chemical and biological weapons and their related development programs had been destroyed was considered proof that they continued to exist," the two committee members said in a letter Thursday to CIA Director George J. Tenet. The Washington Post obtained a copy this weekend. |
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...weapons_blix_dc
| quote: | Hans Blix: Iraq Destroyed WMD 10 Years Ago
Reuters
Tuesday 16 September 2003
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix now believes Iraq destroyed its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago and that intelligence agencies were wrong in their weapons assessment that led to war.
In an interview with Australian radio from Sweden, Blix said the search for evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons would probably only uncover documents at best.
"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found," Blix said in the interview, which was broadcast on Wednesday.
"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991," Blix said.
In 1991, the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found what it called a secret nuclear weapons program in Iraq. It spent the next seven years dismantling Baghdad's nuclear capability, until its inspectors were thrown out of Iraq.
Before ordering the invasion that toppled President Saddam Hussein, President Bush referred to an imminent threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as a prime justification for war.
"In the beginning they talked about weapons concretely, and later on they talked about weapons programs...maybe they'll find some documents of interest," Blix said. |
http://www.mayanmajix.com/art296.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/press/intell.htm
http://www.citypages.com/databank/2...rticle11417.asp
Perhaps the problem with finding WMD is this:
http://globeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/International
Or this:
http://www.huh.34sp.com/latimes.html
Personally, I think Rummy shouldn't have bent over for Chalabi - that guy is nothing but a piece of . A wanted criminal in Jordan, and a sketchy businessman at best, who's now head of the Iraqi Council? Riiight.
Honestly, perhaps you were a little fooled into this whole WMD deception:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/969219.asp?cp1=1
Besides, if Bush admitted as much, shouldn't you?
http://www.sundayherald.com/33628 |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Sorry, "dude," but a simple google search would have led you to the evidence GW put forth during both the State of Union address, as well as to the UN. Again, you can deny what is reported by our government, but I'd argue it's a lot more factual than some guy writing an inflamatory editorial telling us that Bush's visit to Iraq is going to be the downfall of the US.
Here, I'll skip the googling and get straight to the "evidence" we used to justify our attack.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/ |
From your source:
| quote: | Document 27
Similarly to Blix, he reported that "we have to date found no evidence of nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq," but that "a number of issues are still under investigation." ElBaradei also noted that a new document provided by Iraq contained "no new information," and expressed the hope that the newly established Iraqi commissions "will be able to uncover documents and other evidence that could assist in clarifying … remaining questions."
Document 26:
Blix noted that "so far UNMOVIC has not found any [weapons of mass destruction], only a small number of chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed." However, he also noted that many proscribed programs had not been accounted for, a matter that he characterized as being of "great significance." He specifically mentioned programs for the production of anthrax, VX nerve gas, and long-range missiles. He also noted the status of UNMOVIC investigations of the Al-Samoud and Al-Fatah missiles as well as casting chambers. With regard to Iraqi actions, he reported that Iraq had formed two commissions to search for relevant documents and that the National Monitoring Directorate had provided a list of 83 individuals who could allegedly verify destruction of chemical weapons and expresses his hope that Iraq will draw up a similar of individuals who participated in the destruction of biological warfare items. |
As for Powell's speech, it's funny how he took out the supposed connections between Al Queda and Saddam, as well as the nuclear possibilities from Niger, calling it "bull":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,968581,00.html
| quote: | Mr Powell's team removed dozens of pages of alleged evidence about Iraq's banned weapons and ties to terrorists from a draft of his speech, US News and World Report says today. At one point, he became so angry at the lack of adequate sourcing to intelligence claims that he declared: "I'm not reading this. This is bull," according to the magazine.
Presented with a script for his speech, Mr Powell suspected that Washington hawks were "cherry picking", the US magazine Newsweek also reports today. Greg Theilmann, a recently retired state department intelligence analyst directly involved in assessing the Iraqi threat, says that inside the Bush administration "there is a lot of sorrow and anger at the way intelligence was misused". |
As for his pictures and other evidence he presented:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0427-01.htm
| quote: | | On biological weapons, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the UN Security Council in February that the former regime had up to 18 mobile laboratories. He attributed the information to "defectors" from Iraq, without saying that their claims - including one of a "secret biological laboratory beneath the Saddam Hussein hospital in central Baghdad" - had repeatedly been disproved by UN weapons inspectors. |
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=1512&ncid=1480
| quote: | US Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told the UN Security Council last February that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and his regime were "concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction" and that their weapons programs "are a real and present danger to the region and to the world."
However, an explanation issued over the weekend by veteran CIA (news - web sites) analyst Stuart Cohen, who was in charge of putting together the 2002 intelligence estimate and currently serves as vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, made clear the case against Iraq, as presented by the CIA behind closed doors, was much less clear-cut and more nuanced.
"Any reader would have had to read only as far as the second paragraph of the Key Judgments to know that as we said: 'We lacked specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD program,'" Cohen wrote in an article posted on the agency's Web site.
The document still concluded that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150-kilometer (93-mile) limit imposed by the UN Security Council. It also said that Baghdad did not have nuclear weapons. |
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0822-12.htm
| quote: | German Intelligence on Powell’s “Solid” Sources
Bittner notes that, like their American counterparts, German intelligence officials had to hold their noses as Powell on February 5 at the UN played fast and loose with intelligence he insisted came from “solid sources.” Powell’s specific claims concerning the mobile laboratories, it turns out, depended heavily—perhaps entirely—on a source of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s equivalent to the CIA. But the BND, it turns out, considered the source in no way “solid.” A “senior German security official” told Die Zeit that, in passing the report to US officials, the Germans made a point of noting “various problems with the source.” In more diplomatic language, Die Zeit’s informant indicated that the BND’s “evaluation of the source was not altogether positive.”
German officials remain in some confusion regarding the “four different sources” cited by Powell in presenting his case regarding the “biological laboratories.” Berlin has not been told who the other three sources are. In this context, a German intelligence officer mentioned that there is always the danger of false confirmation, suggesting it is possible that the various reports can be traced back to the same original source, theirs—that is, the one with which the Germans had “various problems.”
Even if there are in fact multiple sources, the Germans wonder what reason there is to believe that the others are more “solid” than their own. Powell indicated that some of the sources he cited were Iraqi émigrés. While the BND would not give Die Zeit an official comment, Bittner notes pointedly that German intelligence “proceeds on the assumption that émigrés do not always tell the truth and that the picture they draw can be colored by political motives.”
Plausible?
Despite all that, in an apparent bid to avoid taking the heat for appearing the constant naysayer on an issue of such neuralgic import in Washington, German intelligence officials say that, the dubious sourcing notwithstanding, they considered the information on the mobile biological laboratories “plausible.”
In recent weeks, any “plausibility” has all but evaporated. Many biological warfare specialists in the US and elsewhere were skeptical from the start. Now Defense Intelligence Agency specialists have joined their counterparts at the State Department and elsewhere in concluding that the two trailer/laboratories discovered in Iraq in early May are hydrogen-producing facilities for weather balloons to calibrate Iraqi artillery, as the Iraqis have said.
Perhaps it was this DIA report that emboldened the BND official to go public about the misgivings the BND had about the source.
Insult to Intelligence |
http://www.southbaymobilization.org...0Iraq%20WMD.doc
| quote: | The real test of the government’s case against Saddam came in the testimony by Secretary of State Powell delivered to the United Nations on Feb. 5. Powell, the administration’s in-house moderate, was very wary of being set up for a fall by the administration hawks. Presented with a “script” by the White House national-security staff, Powell suspected that the hawks had been “cherry-picking,” looking for any intel that supported their position and ignoring anything to the contrary.
Powell ordered his aides to check out every fact. And to make sure he would not be left hanging if the intel case against Saddam somehow proved to be full of holes, he gently but firmly informed Tenet that the DCI should come up to New York—and take his place behind the secretary of State at the U.N. General Assembly. (“I don’t think George looked too comfortable sitting there,” said a former top official, chuckling, in 41’s administration.)
For four days and nights, Powell and Tenet, top aides and top analysts and, from time to time, Rice, pored over the evidence—and discarded much of it. Out went suggestions linking Saddam to 9-11. The bogus Niger documents were dumped. Powell did keep a hedged endorsement of the aluminum tubes and contended that Saddam “harbored” Al Qaeda operatives. His most compelling offering to the United Nations was tape recordings (picked up by spy satellites) of Iraqi officials who appeared intent on hiding something from the U.N. arms inspectors. Just what they were hiding was never quite clear.
The almost round-the-clock vetting process in Tenet’s conference room at the CIA was tense and difficult, according to several participants. The debate over whether to include the purported links between Al Qaeda and Saddam went on right up to the eve of Powell’s speech.
CENTCOM VERSUS CIA
Powell’s presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat. As the military began to gear up for an invasion, top planners at Central Command tried to get a fix from the CIA on WMD sites they could take out with bombs and missiles. After much badgering, says an informed military source, the CIA allowed the CENTCOM planners to see what the agency had on WMD sites. “It was crap,” said a CENTCOM planner. The sites were “mostly old friends,” buildings bombed by the military back in the 1991 gulf war, another source said. The CIA had satellite photos of the buildings. “What was inside the structures was another matter,” says the source. “We asked, ‘Well, what agents are in these buildings? Because we need to know.’ And the answer was, ‘We don’t know’,” the CENTCOM planner recalled.
When the military visited these sites after the war, they found nothing but rubble. No traces of WMD. Nor did Special Forces find any of the 20 or so Scud missiles, possibly tipped with chem-bio warheads, that were said by the CIA to be lurking somewhere in the Western Desert. The search is not over. While CENTCOM is pulling out its initial teams of WMD hunters, the Pentagon has created a whole new program to search sites, looking for the elusive WMD. It is disheartening that the military was unable to secure Saddam’s large nuclear-material storage site at Al Tuwaitha before the looters got there. Materials for a “dirty bomb” could have found their way by now into the hands of terrorists. |
|
|
|
| NeoPhono |
This isn't meant to be a copout, but I think at this point we could go back and forth with different sources that can either prove or disprove what was has been said concerning Iraq. My point was only to show that at the time, we all had credible evidence that going into Iraq was the "prudent" thing to do (to borrow a term from another Bush). As we've seen, we can now argue if those "facts" were truthful, and come up with mixed results. However, in the strictest sense of the word, I do not believe that the invasion of Iraq is propaganda, or for that matter based on propaganda.
A previous poster used a middle eastern oriented article to show that Bush's visit was actually harmful, and maybe even a doomsday sign. I just wanted to show that it was propaganda. Unfortunatly, the middle east is rife with propaganda. In example, a current practice is to teach that the holocaust never happened, and that it was merely Zionist propaganda. When these sort of reports are given to the masses, either due to lack of journalistic integrity, or state-fed bull crap, it will be very difficult for the average middle easterner to form an unbiased view on "the West" and it's intentions. I think this is one major road block to a peaceful solution in the middle east. |
|
|
| biznology |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
This isn't meant to be a copout, but I think at this point we could go back and forth with different sources that can either prove or disprove what was has been said concerning Iraq. My point was only to show that at the time, we all had credible evidence that going into Iraq was the "prudent" thing to do (to borrow a term from another Bush). As we've seen, we can now argue if those "facts" were truthful, and come up with mixed results. However, in the strictest sense of the word, I do not believe that the invasion of Iraq is propaganda, or for that matter based on propaganda.
A previous poster used a middle eastern oriented article to show that Bush's visit was actually harmful, and maybe even a doomsday sign. I just wanted to show that it was propaganda. Unfortunatly, the middle east is rife with propaganda. ... |
Regardless of inherent propaganda in the Mid East - why does that mean that those looking outward from the Middle East to the US do not see our 'justifications' as propaganda?
it just seems like you are picking sides. just because there is some misinformation there does not mean that we are above the same problems!
there is a different perspective when looking from Arab, Muslim eyes. and that perspective may not align with Western morals or ideals - yet does that make it wrong? I certainly agree with DaveSaenz that a 3 hour visit under the shroud of night is a bit of a copout - and an insult to those Iraqis that may be on our side| |
|
|
| Shakka |
| I once went to school with a fella who claimed that the Holocaust never happened. He wasn't middle eastern, though he was racist and hated Jews among other groups. Truly sad and infuriating. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | | there is a different perspective when looking from Arab, Muslim eyes. and that perspective may not align with Western morals or ideals - yet does that make it wrong? I certainly agree with DaveSaenz that a 3 hour visit under the shroud of night is a bit of a copout - and an insult to those Iraqis that may be on our side| |
Perspective is one thing, but blatant lies are another. I can't think of a single culture where lying is a positive action. Therefore, when I see middle eastern "news" sources lying to make a point, I am concerned. As I said, we can go back and forth arguing if what Bush said are lies, but depending on sources we can go either way, although there are some that are from outside the US and pretty unrefutable.
Iraq is a hot spot right now, there is a war going on, just not in a traditional sense. It is a drawn out one, faught from battle to battle, not day to day. I believe just yesterday 46 Iraqis were killed in an attempted ambush attack on Americans. That being said, Mr. Bush is a very marked man, especially in Iraq. Although he was only there for three hours, I cannot imagine the amount of Iraqi fighters drueling over the thought of his demise. He chose to travel into the heart of battle to rally his troops on Thanksgiving, not get himself killed or put himself into even more jeopardy. He could have stayed longer, but we could also be talking about a dead American president right now. I think his actions, although maybe a little dramatic, were precidented, justifyable and most importantly, safe. |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
If you're referring to Afghanistan (sp?), you've got no beef with me. But if you're referring to Iraq, then you're going to have to back up your assertions that they were involved in terrorism that was an imminent threat to us. Funny how Bush himself said there was no connection to Iraq and 9/11:
|
I'm referring to both. Saddam, connected or not,is a terrorist. No one deserves to live with a ruthless man like that. We're just doing what's best for the Iraqi's/Iraq.
(Just go back and read about the Spanish-American war. Same kind of situation.You'll see how they did benefit until Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba.) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
I'm referring to both. Saddam, connected or not,is a terrorist. No one deserves to live with a ruthless man like that. We're just doing what's best for the Iraqi's/Iraq.
(Just go back and read about the Spanish-American war. Same kind of situation.You'll see how they did benefit until Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba.) |
Ahh, so now we're into this war for Iraqi's benefit? I thought US policy for war was to protect our interests as well as our allies. Besides, I also thought we went to war because they posed an IMMINENT threat? Now we did it to free Iraq?
Lock and step with Faux News. Am I speaking to Sean Hannity? |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Ahh, so now we're into this war for Iraqi's benefit? I thought US policy for war was to protect our interests as well as our allies. Besides, I also thought we went to war because they posed an IMMINENT threat? Now we did it to free Iraq?
Lock and step with Faux News. Am I speaking to Sean Hannity? |
There are many reasons, Helping the Iraqi's is one of these many reasons.
Hmm, Review. F-O-X. Fox..(Just like on the movie You've got mail)
Sean Hannity rocks.^_^ |
|
|
| biznology |
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
There are many reasons, Helping the Iraqi's is one of these many reasons.
Hmm, Review. F-O-X. Fox..(Just like on the movie You've got mail)
Sean Hannity rocks.^_^ |
OMFG
*Officially* the end of reasonable discussion
Someone must hate the French too, or at least be too lazy to learn one of the simpler French words|
| quote: |
faux
Nom masculin
(a) fake, forgery; le ~ falsehood
|
|
|
|
| Shakka |
| I dig Nellie. He (or she?) doesn't back down from the majority (much more liberal) voices on this board. Gotta respect that. And yes, Sean Hannity is excellent. Alan Colmes on the other hand might be the ugliest human being alive. Well second ugliest next to Jimmy Carville. |
|
|
| biznology |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I dig Nellie. He (or she?) doesn't back down from the majority (much more liberal) voices on this board. Gotta respect that. And yes, Sean Hannity is excellent. Alan Colmes on the other hand might be the ugliest human being alive. Well second ugliest next to Jimmy Carville. |
If not backing down to opinions outside of 'offending military families' and eschewing college education are commendable.
Anyone who thinks we dont know what FOX is, and then references it with 'Youve Got Mail' is coming in here with a sort of blind optimism that can be commended, but apparently not extended much beyond 'remember the Spanish-American War'...
if the Spanish-American War and it's era should be referenced is in the fact that Yellow Journalism and the kind of tripe the average American hears today (along with the Monopolistic media) are largely the same. Perhaps not as fake|
maybe more startling in regard to worldwide influence tho... |
|
|
|
|
