Toad - you wanted proof? It's live right now

[BGBMAW]

LIbya...OPEN Sits doors..admits WMD projects...!!!!!!!!!!!!1


YAAA


USA is not takne there sheite anymore..

SAlute are soldiers

[Dowding]

Erm... Libya wanted to come in from the cold a decade ago and give up its WMD programs, but the US State Department didn't seem to want to listen.

[Toad]

GS: It doesn't mean that yet.

Dowding: Note I said it was a fringe site; I didn't say I believed all of it but I did say they occasionally "scoop" the other news outlets. IE: they have been "right" first a few times that I've noticed.

Now, both of you, if 5 years from now after the world decides Bush and Blair were wrong, Syria comes clean and gives up some old Iraqi WMD.... will you all apologize?

Libya a decade ago? I don't think so.

Libya -bomb finger at Pak

London, Jan. 4 (PTI): Libya bought plans to make a nuclear bomb from Pakistani scientists for “millions of pounds”, Saif al-Islam Gadaffi, son of Libyan chief colonel Muammar Gadaffi, has admitted...

In an interview published in the Sunday Times today, 32-year-old Saif said his country had spent $40 million on its quest to acquire nuclear capability. Some of the “five-star Libyan scientists” working on the bomb had trained in Britain, he claimed. He confirmed that Libya had bought nuclear components, including centrifuges, from a variety of black market dealers.

....British and American experts who went to inspect Libyan weapons sites were taken aback when they found that nuclear scientists working for Gadaffi had what one western official described as a “full bomb dossier” from the Pakistanis....

Western officials said the Pakistani scientists had received payments from Libya — which they said could have been substantially higher, even as much as $100 million — over several years, starting in the late 1990s. [/u]

Guess they were going to "warm up" with nukes?

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by GScholz
So does this mean that the French, Germans and Russians were right when dismissing your "evidence" as unreliable? Will you apologize to them and the world for illegally invading another nation based on faulty intelligence?

That is a fair request GS, one I will vote for when the French, German, and Russian Governments admit to illegally supplying the Iraqi's with weapons and ammunition after a ban on such sales.

[Saurdaukar]

Nakhui/Nexus, you are a troubled little man.

Originally posted by Nakhui
I understand you don't like my characterization that Bush is a liar.

If Bush is a 'liar' then so are most of the Democrats that were in favor of the war - including those who have recently found it convinient to turncoat now that theyve decided to run for President.

Let's see what do we know?

No STOCK PILES of WMD in Iraq - proven.

You cant prove a negative.  Prove to me that WMD dont exist in Iraq.  I wont hold my breath.

You have a quote from Kay.... hmmm... just like all those other reliable quotes about WMD in Iraq. What does that prove? How do you know that Kay's opinion is right or wrong - just because he says so? Naive!

The quote from Kay seems to douse the Liberal fire which is fueled by 'Bush is a Liar' syndrome (a serious condition).  You see - if Bush acted on what he believed to be correct information, the blame is not necessarily his.  I have yet to see any evidence brought forth that Bush is indeed a 'liar' (meaning that he stated information as truth when he knew it to be false at the time of statement).

Well here's a hint...
Kay was appointed to run a Fool's Errand.

I alluded to documents and reports in earliers posts - well now. Today some facts about them became open sourced and placed on the record.

You really have me wrong. I don't think the investigations will be skewed.

There's STOCK PILES of freaking evidence to show that it is the White House that skewed the intel reports.

Where's the Proof! Coming! Be Patient.

And yes you'll read stories about it's the intelligence communities fault. And then you'll read stories that it's the White House's fault.

The finger pointing is starting.
No the Intel Community is not just starting to CYA - not in reaction to this.

So who's telling the truth?

What did I say about matching up what was said and what has come to be known as True or False.

Back to my Pattern theory - Could start thinking for your self and stop letting others think for you. Just because you read it in the news doesn't make it true.

And at this point, the process is really out of the White House's control.
Hint: Two weeks ago Bush didn't want an investigation.
Ding! This week he's all in favor of it.


Why the sudden change of mind - He has no freaking choice!
There's a lot of smart people who just don't like being lied too, and they are the ones who want to know the truth - Bush already knows the truth.

Powell is already distancing himself (at least trying to... the finger pointing is starting!).

Ok here's an example for you: Did you read Saturday's Washington post? The story I'm referring too... no doubt originated from a State Department source, it talked about how Powell repeatedly asked for the CIA to confirm the 10 most solid WMD items, and then rather subtlely it mentions that the CIA intel reports which were sent to the White House came back to the State Department drastically changed.

Did you catch that liberal TV rag 60 minutes tonight?

We'll see...

The rest of this post youre talking alot but not saying much.  I have a vision in my head of a crazed mental patient dancing up and down with drool dripping from a curved grin while clutching a torch in one hand and a rope in the other.

As much as you want it to be - the torch is not lit and the rope is not tied.  You have nothing but spin to work with here - its rather ironic that your entire argument is based on the principal that no evidence exists.

Dont let that stop your bed pan tossing fun, though.

[Toad]

Why, for being totally wrong about the WMD issue and not wholeheartedly supporting UN action, of course!

After all, you want an apology if the intel was faulty. So, why not the reverse if the intel was right?

[Dowding]

This was all happening in the 1990s. Libya wanted start a dialogue on ending the sanctions that were crippling the country (the oil-tech of the West was vital to the economy). This was attempted through a US intermediary at several stages - early nineties and later. The handing over the Lockerbie bombing suspects in '99 was a concession to that. The US State Department didn't want to know.

Now Bush wants to paint the Libyan WMD climbdown as a justification for the Iraq war, when it could have been done much earlier.

BTW, British intelligence has always seen Gadaffi's WMD program as 'aspirational' rather than physical. They don't possess any nukes and don't have the neccessary technology to make any at this time.

BTW, apologize for what and to who?

[Frogm4n]

tennet came out today and stated that nowhere in his reports to the white house did he state that iraq was a grave and imminent threat. So where did bush and blair come up with this idea?

[Dowding]

The wriggling over the 45 minute claim is extraordinary. Now they (Blair and Hoon) are saying it related to battlefield weapons only and that it wouldn't have swung people's judgement to know that. Which is highly amusing, when you remember that it was included in a dossier designed to show that Iraq had WMD posing an imminent threat to the UK and was used in Parliamentary debates as a justification for war.

It's a mess pure and simple.

[Nakhui]

Originally posted by Toad
But you see.. Kay is part of the conspiracy.
No one will tell the truth in this. No one.
Only Nexus knows the truth.

LOL

You got me on that one!
Hey... close your eyes and cover your ears all you want.
Well see in the next two/three months what the truth is.
This is very very very hot in Washington and the DOD right now!

Originally posted by  Saurdaukar

I have yet to see any evidence brought forth that Bush is indeed a 'liar' (meaning that he stated information as truth when he knew it to be false at the time of statement).

You need to get out of your room more or at least pay attention.

State of the Union Address 2003, Bush claimed there was a Niger-Iraq nuclear connection. He was told a year before by the CIA that the intel was bogus and there was no connection. He was told once again when his speach was reviewed by the CIA just before the State of the Union address. Yet he continued to use that information in his speach.

When you know something is not true and you continue to say it -that's a lie! At least that's my point of view... you may disagree.

Want more information?
Here check out this liberal Web Rag for your edification - or not.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/beyond-niger.html

But Wait... how about the State Department explaining the incident or are they too liberal for you?
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/texts/03070700.htm

Former Ambassador Wilson wrote an article in the WSJ exposing this lie - becuase it was exactly that!
And then shortly after the article was printed a senior White House official leaked to Robert Novak, a reporter, that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative, there by blowing her cover and possibly endangering her life and her contacts in other countries.

When people get caught telling lies.. they tend to get irrationally angry... in this case, they committed a felony... gee that must be why the Justice department is investigating the White House now!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

The evidence of what the Intel Community told the White House - is well documented - Those documents of course are classified so you don't know what they say. As I said in my original post, the fact of there existences is now established in open source and were read in to the congressional record yesterday: document numbers, dates, authors, and addressees. Evidence of what the White House was told.

All you know is what the the White House has revealed to the public, which is a twisted and skewed version of the original intel reports and that is also what the Congress was told.

The Congress, Kay, and the American public were all mislead by the White House. What you think was original intel... isn't.

Compare the original reports with what the White House has said and you'll see who's at fault.

Did you read the article in Saturday's Washington Post, did you see 60 minutes last night, did you watch CSpan yesterday?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

Bush may be able to leak to Fox News what he wants the American people to hear. But the people who really know how the system works and the truth aren't buying his BS!

[Charon]

If Bush is a 'liar' then so are most of the Democrats that were in favor of the war - including those who have recently found it convinient to turncoat now that theyve decided to run for President.

I wouldn't go that far Saur. The Democratic politicians in question were/are cowardly, visionless, positionless, leadership challenged, politically expedient, self interested Washington political tools -- but liars is a bit of a stretch. Does willfully negligent work?

IMO everybody, including Bush just "assumed" they were there. But, since WMD were only a means to an end -- the message that best sold the administration's Iraq policy to the American people after the initial Al Queda angle fell through -- there wasn't a real focus on actually confirming what was regarded as conventional wisdom. Then, ironically, it just bit them in the ass.

Charon

[Toad]

Originally posted by GScholz
LOL! No. The intel has already been proven wrong, I belive Mr. Key has done that.

Not in everyone's mind; only those so predisposed from the beginning.

Google up the transcript of Kay's recent Senate appearance and see what else he had to say. You've got the snippets you wanted to hear; why not read the entirety of what he said.

For instance, that SH was clearly in violation of 1441.

[Frogm4n]

but wait a min. i thought you guys dont support the UN. so how could you support 1411?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Dowding
This was all happening in the 1990s. Libya wanted start a dialogue on ending the sanctions that were crippling the country (the oil-tech of the West was vital to the economy). This was attempted through a US intermediary at several stages - early nineties and later. The handing over the Lockerbie bombing suspects in '99 was a concession to that. The US State Department didn't want to know.

Now Bush wants to paint the Libyan WMD climbdown as a justification for the Iraq war, when it could have been done much earlier.

BTW, British intelligence has always seen Gadaffi's WMD program as 'aspirational' rather than physical. They don't possess any nukes and don't have the neccessary technology to make any at this time.

BTW, apologize for what and to who?

Sources?

[Toad]

Let's see, the Libyans were repentant a decade ago <~1994> but the mean old US wouldn't talk to them.

They now admit to buying nuke tech from the Paki scientist in the "late 1990's". Wouldn't that be post-1995? Doesn't sound like they were trying to come in from the Cold there.

They didn't admit Lockerbie until 1999, something a bit less than a decade ago.

Sorry, these aren't the actions of a leader that wants rapproachment with the US.