Amazon 7
QuoteThere is no proof that SH didn't have them.
What, like... the fact that they can't be found? By your logic, since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, then they must exist. Your logic is faulty.
skydyvr 0
QuoteYeah, I bet that before the invasion of Iraq you just couldn't get to sleep at night because you were so worried about your imminent annihilation.
The picture is a bit larger than my sleep patterns.
. . =(_8^(1)
QuoteQuoteThere is no proof that SH didn't have them.
What, like... the fact that they can't be found? By your logic, since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, then they must exist. Your logic is faulty.
I've asked other lefties this question, If we sold WMD's to SH where are they now?
never pull low......unless you are
Amazon 7
QuoteIf we sold WMD's to SH where are they now?
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020818-052637-3518r
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 (UPI) -- A covert American program provided Iraq with critical assistance in its war with Iran at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons, The New York Times reported Sunday.
American intelligence officers never encouraged or condoned Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but neither did they oppose it because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival, people involved at the time said in interviews with the newspaper.
Some U.S. military officers agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the Iraq-Iran conflict from 1981 to 1988.
The Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas," said one veteran of the program. "It was just another way of killing people -- whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference," he said.
Iraq's use of poison gas is repeatedly cited by President Bush as one of the justifications for "regime change" in Iraq.
The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.
God I hate it when someone forces me to remember this stuff. DING DING DING DING.. we have a winner.. SADAAM used them
QuoteQuote
SH may have been "politically violent" (....*coughBUSHcough*...), but that was NOT theQuotereason that was sold to the American people for why we had to invade Iraq. The given reason was WMD. The level of intelligence regarding WMD that we allegedly held was said to be so precise that we were told that it was sufficient justification for preemptive war. And yet when no WMD could be found, the political motivation for the invasion and occupation then became the "liberation" of the Iraq people. The same people who we have killed in the thousands:
So you are saying that despite all the intellegence that Iraq had WMDs, that GWB actually was the only world leader who didn't KNEW they didn't and he invaded Iraq anyway?
edited to add quotes.
Well... where are the WMD's then? There are none. If the blame for going to war on a fraudulent basis doesn't ultimately belong with the president (since there are no WMD), then who does it belong with? Santa claus?
The President doesn't have a crystal ball. He relies on what the Intelligence Community tells him. The entire world-wide Intelligence Community including the UN thought SH had WMDs. For your argument to hold weight, GWB would have had to have been smarter than the entire world-wide Intellegence Community because he would have had to have know SH actually didn't have the WMDs the world thought he had. This is the only way he could have "lied" about Iraq having them is if he knew they didn't.
The buck stops with him though, doesn't it? I mean... he IS the president, right? He is ultimately responsible.
So why doesn't he come right out and say that he was given wrong information and that he accepts now that what he said was wrong? Would it kill him to do that?
Instead, we get him squirming around the issue and using phrases like "weapons of mass distruction-related activities". It's kind of pathetic.
So why doesn't he come right out and say that he was given wrong information and that he accepts now that what he said was wrong? Would it kill him to do that?
Instead, we get him squirming around the issue and using phrases like "weapons of mass distruction-related activities". It's kind of pathetic.
Quote
The buck stops with him though, doesn't it? I mean... he IS the president, right? He is ultimately responsible.
So why doesn't he come right out and say that he was given wrong information and that he accepts now that what he said was wrong? Would it kill him to do that?
Instead, we get him squirming around the issue and using phrases like "weapons of mass distruction-related activities". It's kind of pathetic.
Apparently they haven't finished searching for WMDs yet. I'm sure once they are through, there will be a report. Perhaps you should reserve judgement until that report comes out unless you know something the U.S. Military doesn't. If you do, I'm sure they would appreciate you getting in touch with them.
QuotePerhaps you should reserve judgement until that report comes out unless you know something the U.S. Military doesn't.
Well I think this guy just *might* know a little bit more about it than me or you, so I'll defer to his statements in this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3425429.stm
JDBoston 0
Yep, he's relying on the intelligence community for the truth. I mean, that's why we had that crap about Iraq trying to buy weapons-grade uranium in Africa, which the White House badgered and badgered the CIA to sign off on, and then sold them out for it afterwards.
That also must be why there's a "Team B" of analysts supervised by Cheney whose mission is specifically to second-guess the CIA. The concept originated with (and was used by) Papa Bush for the same reason, vis a vis the Soviet threat. About which, incidentally, they were WAY off compared to the real spooks. Also incidentally, Paul Wolfowitz was on the original Team B. But it all must be because the Executive Branch is just looking for the TRUTH, and not because they're trying to create justification for something they plan on doing anyway, even though the real intelligence data doesn't support it.
The intelligence community must be head over heels for Bush. He must really make them feel like it's worthwhile for them to put their lives on the line in pursuit of accurate intel.
Right.
Incidentally, a few days before the Iraq war began, Rand Beers, the top anti-terrorism guy on the National Security Council ("special assistant to the President for combating terrorism"), who's served on the NSC under every President since Reagan, QUIT.
A quote from his wife on it: 'It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view.'
He volunteered for the Kerry campaign right after.
Joe
That also must be why there's a "Team B" of analysts supervised by Cheney whose mission is specifically to second-guess the CIA. The concept originated with (and was used by) Papa Bush for the same reason, vis a vis the Soviet threat. About which, incidentally, they were WAY off compared to the real spooks. Also incidentally, Paul Wolfowitz was on the original Team B. But it all must be because the Executive Branch is just looking for the TRUTH, and not because they're trying to create justification for something they plan on doing anyway, even though the real intelligence data doesn't support it.
The intelligence community must be head over heels for Bush. He must really make them feel like it's worthwhile for them to put their lives on the line in pursuit of accurate intel.
Right.
Incidentally, a few days before the Iraq war began, Rand Beers, the top anti-terrorism guy on the National Security Council ("special assistant to the President for combating terrorism"), who's served on the NSC under every President since Reagan, QUIT.
A quote from his wife on it: 'It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view.'
He volunteered for the Kerry campaign right after.
Joe
QuoteQuotePerhaps you should reserve judgement until that report comes out unless you know something the U.S. Military doesn't.
Well I think this guy just *might* know a little bit more about it than me or you, so I'll defer to his statements in this article:
Yes well that clears it up. Might as well stop looking. Any idea how much Ricin could be stored in a "spider hole like SH was found in? How many of these spider holes do you think could exist in a country as large as Iraq?
I think I'll wait until the search is finished and a final report is published.
And you know all this to be a FACT? Gee you must have some great sources within the CIA and the Bush Admin.
JDBoston 0
All what? It's only been in the national press for about a year. Google it. Anything specific you think is false?
Joe
Joe
QuoteAll what? It's only been in the national press for about a year. Google it. Anything specific you think is false?
Quote
You stated it, you back it up. I gotta get back to repacking my reserve.
wmw999 2,452
Would it make any difference whatsoever if you were to see evidence?
Anyway, here's the press release from when he was appointed to his last office (it shows that he worked for the Bush administration for a number of years -- he wasn't a short-timer)
Appointed
Where he joined the Kerry campaign here
Interesting little sidenote on US News and World Report here
And here's one from UPI
There were a lot more stories; some of the best juice was on NPR, but somehow I thought that what he said to NPR would be labeled without being actually read.
But maybe it didn't really happen because I couldn't find the story on the Fox News website. Or maybe its search engine isn't as good. Who knows.
Wendy W.
Anyway, here's the press release from when he was appointed to his last office (it shows that he worked for the Bush administration for a number of years -- he wasn't a short-timer)
Appointed
Where he joined the Kerry campaign here
Interesting little sidenote on US News and World Report here
And here's one from UPI
There were a lot more stories; some of the best juice was on NPR, but somehow I thought that what he said to NPR would be labeled without being actually read.
But maybe it didn't really happen because I couldn't find the story on the Fox News website. Or maybe its search engine isn't as good. Who knows.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
QuoteQuoteAll what? It's only been in the national press for about a year. Google it. Anything specific you think is false?
Quote
You stated it, you back it up. I gotta get back to repacking my reserve.
You stopped packing your reserve halfway through, came on here, and now you're going back to finish packing it? Oh dear.
QuoteWould it make any difference whatsoever if you were to see evidence?
Quote
Sure, bring it on.
Anyway, here's the press release from when he was appointed to his last office (it shows that he worked for the Bush administration for a number of years -- he wasn't a short-timer)
Appointed
Yep this is the announcement of his appointment. I got that. next.
Where he joined the Kerry campaign here
He quits and joins the Kerry Campaign and criticizes GWB. His "OPINION". Next.Quote
Beers provides faulty info and later retracts his statements.
here
And here's one from UPIQuote
This one talks about how one Intell official was "shocked" nobody had been fired for providing bad intell on Iraq. Beers apparently had reported "faulty intell to the CIA and later had to retract it, then he resigns later which we all know is another Washington word for fired.
Condellizza Rice twice asks Beers in his exit interview whether his resignation is a protest against the war with Iraq and twice he tells her no. Seems like Mr. Beers has a credibility problem.
Interesting how you avoided any further discussion of Cheneys "B" team which is what I was actually asking for more info on.
JDBoston 0
I still don't get what part of my post you're talking about. Is everyone now expected to footnote every single thing they say? Do you?
But just to humor you, here are a couple links:
Weapons grade uranium fiasco:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33639
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3087263/
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/952019/posts
Team B:
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/061603.html
Rand Beers:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/ A62941-2003Jun15?language=printer
Joe
But just to humor you, here are a couple links:
Weapons grade uranium fiasco:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33639
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3087263/
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/952019/posts
Team B:
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/061603.html
Rand Beers:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/ A62941-2003Jun15?language=printer
Joe
The Team "B" is what I wanted resorces on. Thank you for providing one by one writer who doesn't even source his "information". Not too credible IMO.
Forgot to include this in my last 2 posts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
JDBoston 0
I just noticed that Zakaria's site doesn't make this obvious except for the URL, but actually that piece appeared in Newsweek. Good enough for me.
Newsweek also put out a cover story by different authors that discusses Team B, sometimes also called the Office of Special Plans:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/991209.asp
Joe
Newsweek also put out a cover story by different authors that discusses Team B, sometimes also called the Office of Special Plans:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/991209.asp
Joe
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuote
The President doesn't have a crystal ball. He relies on what the Intelligence Community tells him. The entire world-wide Intelligence Community including the UN thought SH had WMDs. For your argument to hold weight, GWB would have had to have been smarter than the entire world-wide Intellegence Community because he would have had to have know SH actually didn't have the WMDs the world thought he had. This is the only way he could have "lied" about Iraq having them is if he knew they didn't.
You don't know what he was told by the intelligence community. You only know what he chose to tell Congress and the American people. The congressmen and senators that supported the war only got to hear what they were allowed to hear.
And what he and his cronies told us appears to be a massive lie....
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,027
Quote
Well... where are the WMD's then? There are none. If the blame for going to war on a fraudulent basis doesn't ultimately belong with the president (since there are no WMD), then who does it belong with? Santa claus?
If Bush actually believed that SH had the weapons, it isn't fraudulent. A mistake for sure, but not fraudulent. Has it been proven that he didn't have them?
What part of "We know where they are" don't you understand?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
WOW he had a whole team of some of the best people we have... he comes home.. tells the truth and the RIGHTIES are already lableling him stupid... next he will be UNPATRIOTIC.. soon to be followed by being traitorous.. just give The right wing attack bitch a week or two.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites