Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: T0J0 on June 20, 2005, 01:37:06 PM
-
This just keeps getting better everyday!!
More damaging forged documents...
"We now know that the reporter who publicized the memos, Michael Smith of the London Times, claims that after receiving the documents from a leaker, he had a secretary retype the documents using an old-fashioned typewriter, and then either destroyed or returned the copies he had originally obtained"
TJ
-
Haven't seen anything implying forgery. Got a link?
I've only seen that the US and Brit govt's aren't denying the memo.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Haven't seen anything implying forgery. Got a link?
I've only seen that the US and Brit govt's aren't denying the memo.
AP (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBM66LM4AE.html)
Excerpts from material in secret Downing Street memos written in 2002. The information, authenticated by a senior British government official, was transcribed from the original documents.
-
Ok, I've been digging a bit and I think I understand what the brouhaha is now about them.
own admissions, they are third-generation (at best) reproductions (not even copies) of the originals. Their legal value is zero.
The orginals were reproduced, then re-typed, thus we get to 3rd Gen reproductions.
That being said, I have to agree with the guys over at Powerline. I believe that the memos released are, for the most part, accurate representations of actual official documents.
I'm guessing true. As I said, neither the Brits on the White House have denied anything about these yet have they?
But the significance of those memos have been vastly overstated. They are the OPINIONS of one person on what other people THOUGHT other people were THINKING. It's speculation piled upon presumption.
Here's where it finally "gets down to it". If they have something other than specualation, there's the basis for further investigation leading to a Special Prosecutor. If they don't have anything but specualtion... dead end.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Here's where it finally "gets down to it". If they have something other than specualation, there's the basis for further investigation leading to a Special Prosecutor. If they don't have anything but specualtion... dead end.
That's why they are not gaining traction over here.
-
if they were false why wait 1 1/2 months to discredit them now. (they have been out since may..)
Looks to me that now that the major news is showing traction this is dammage control...
look at it from a catalyst level and who may gain or gain not and it becomes more clear the recent new revelation to their challanging the credibility of the downing street minutes..
(note i said minutes, and that alone brings alot of credibility in my book..)(if it was a opinion page then well make your own deductions, minutes are entirely different..)
DoctorYo
-
Apparently minutes of one person's opinions.
It'll all come out eventually.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Apparently minutes of one person's opinions.
It'll all come out eventually.
I understand Dan Rather also has a copy that he will stand by 100%....
-
Much adou about nothing......
TJ
-
first and formost do you even know what minutes are..
minutes are not some opinion.. they are record of what has taken place..
for your ignorance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutes
selective quotes from the above...
"Most public meetings and governmental hearings follow prescribed rules. Often speakers' words are recorded verbatim, or with only minor paraphrasing, so that every speaker's comments are included."
"If the members of the committee or group agree that the written minutes reflect what happened at the meeting, then they are approved, and the fact of their approval is recorded in the minutes of the current meeting. If there are errors or omissions, then the minutes will be re-drafted and submitted again at a later date. Minor changes may be made immediately, and the amended minutes may be approved "as amended." It is normal appropriate to give a draft copy of the minutes to the other members in advance of the meeting so that the meeting need not be delayed while everyone reads and corrects the draft. It is not usually considered appropriate to vote to approve minutes for a meeting which one did not attend. It is also not wise to approve minutes which one has not read."
now connect the dots between Richard Clark...., Mr. Wilson (ex diplo to niger) , and the Downing Street Minutes..
Considering another 500000 people have demanded a response from the White House (hand delivered on friday) lets see if Scotty pulls another "we have no comment thats old news" smokescreen he tried last time... (note the 500000 was achieved in less than 2 months with no major news agency in the USA showing it.. Now I see it on the news every night.. debate and squabbling over it.. how many sigs do you think Rep Conyers will get in 6 months with major news time..)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers
looking forward for them to ignore that one... your inquiry may be right around the corner Toad.
Seems of late that were trying to push democracy around the world .. A good start would be to give the 500000 people a honest and decent answer as opposed to ducking the questions with great implications to our country's future..
your rebuttal?
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
(note the 500000 was achieved in less than 2 months with no major news agency in the USA showing it..
Ummm, that number of sigs took less than two weeks to compile. At one time they were logging something like 2,500 an hour the Friday before last Thursday's meeting in the basement.
-
Wow, a little touchy there DoctorYo. Try decaffe or anger management. Maybe even both.
Here are some 'minutes' that I took in a meeting with myself:
Drunky: I think that Mr. Bush is thinking that he should fake the war, you know, claim there are WMDs in Iraq so he could finish what daddy didn't.
Drunky: I have to say that I don't agree with that line of thinking. I mean, how could you be thinking about what somebody else is thinking, especially the President. I'm sure he wears tin foil on his head to prevent people from stealing his thoughts.
Drunky: Well, I have super x-ray brain powers. That and something called 'speculation', although some people who think that Bush always lies and is evil and call him 'Boosh' and 'Hitler' will call this 'fact' and get jiggy with it.
Drunky: Hmmmmmm. You have a good point. Think we should tell DoctorYo about this?
Drunky: Wow. That is exactly what I was thinking. You must have read my mind.
There. This meeting took place at 4:42 pm at my desk. Me and I were present for the meeting as Myself was in the potty.
Well, DoctorYo, as you can see I have transcribed exactly what I said to myself verbatim. You will notice that I stated a few things that I 'thought' and not necessarily 'facts'. Viola, I have my very own Downing Street Memo. Don't let the news media get hold of it because Congress will start an investigation and I can't explain the white stain on your pretty blue dress.
-
That brought a tear to my eye Drunky...
-
I have a couple questions here. The first being if this is the entire memo that is considered to be the one "alleging" made up reasons to go to war that I am pasting below?
FWIW I got this copy direct from Dr YO's posted links so I am relying on his source, an admittedly unresearched source on my part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
memo:
Downing Street Memo
From Wikisource
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
To: DAVID MANNING From: Matthew Rycroft Date: 23 July 2002 S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
Wikisource:Historical_documents#United_Kingdom
Retrieved from "http://wikisource.org/wiki/Downing_Street_Memo"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second question here. After reading this thing in it's entirety I'm at a loss. I was hoping to see someplace in here where it confirms any allegations that the war was going to be innitiated on a fictitious precept. Is there a paragraph missing here that I should be seeing that says this is going to be a made up reason to go to conflict?
-
Drink the koolaid yo...... it will all be better then..... Stress kills!
TJ
-
we don need no steekn memo, saddam attacked iran, attacked Kuwait, killed his own people, defied UN orders to disarm, shot at allied aircraft.
the iraq people are free of saddam and his 2 idiot sons that killed and raped.
all you whiny liberals can cry all you want, the butcher of bagdad is done. thats my "memo" and i'm stickn to it.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Second question here. After reading this thing in it's entirety I'm at a loss. I was hoping to see someplace in here where it confirms any allegations that the war was going to be innitiated on a fictitious precept. Is there a paragraph missing here that I should be seeing that says this is going to be a made up reason to go to conflict?
when it comes to liberals bashing bush all you need are rumors, acusations, fake memos made with microsoft word, and a liberal Bush hating media to help fan the flames.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I've only seen that the US and Brit govt's aren't denying the memo.
Bush never denied the "other" memo either.
VIA Facsimile
April 9, 1972
To: My Commanding Officer
From: Bush's Commanding Officer
Re: Bush = Bad
Dear Commanding Officer,
Bush is a bad man. He went teh awall and is deserting to snort cocaine. He is a bigot from Texas and should have never gone into Iraq. He ist teh Hitler and bathes in oil. I recommend that this be sent to Dan Rather in 30 years.
Sincerely,
Admiral Smith
Smith@thearmy.com
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Bush never denied the "other" memo either.
:lol
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
first and formost do you even know what minutes are..
[/b]
A baseless assumption and, of course, wrong.
Originally posted by DoctorYO
your rebuttal?
[/b]
No need. I see that Drunky has covered the obvious.
-
It's fake but accurate!
er wait a minute, it's accurate but FAKE!
Uhm... It's no less fake than it is less accurate!
It is no more less accurate than it is no more less fake! But, accurate, but fake.
Uhm.... dang.
-
ps.
This aint all relivin' past powerline Rathergate glory thinkin' ya can simply call "forgery" on any damn thing ya don't like (GOP Schiavo talking points memo anyone?) therefore making it all go away.
Takes 2 seconds to find out the truth here.
Now, dispute the contents as much as you like... but no amount of "Hitler" crying is going to make the Gitmo debate go away.
And no amount of cries of "forgery" is gonna make the DSM go away. Does not pass scrutiny.
Plus, those powerline guys can't write themselves out of a wet paper bag. I wish I could blame that on the material they got to work with.... but.. it's prolly a combination of unforunate circumstances.
-
Are you talking to me? Are YOU talking to ME?
If so, it's a bit too cryptic.
I haven't been watching this very closely. I take it there's a new dustup about it.
After a bit of investigation, my comments here were yeah, it seems the memos are 3rd Generation reproductions but almost everyone one agrees they accurately represent the official documents.
What's really in question so far is what content the official documents contain that might be the long-sought "smoking gun" for the anti-EevVIilL Boosh forces.
For me that remains in question.
Over to you, David.
-
Originally posted by Nash
ps.
Plus, those powerline guys can't write themselves out of a wet paper bag. I wish I could blame that on the material they got to work with.... but.. it's prolly a combination of unforunate circumstances.
Nash
lets see any published material that you have.. Your Lib your not suppossed to like powerline!
TJ
-
FWIW, if that memo I pasted above is the "smoking gun" that is supposed to be undermining Bush, someone is smoking but it ain't the gun. The Memo doesn't support the allegations, period. If ya got something, post it but I hope it's far more relevent to any allegations than the downing street memo above.
-
if they were false why wait 1 1/2 months to discredit them now. (they have been out since may..)
note i said minutes, and that alone brings alot of credibility in my book..)
:rofl
Your tinfoil hat is on crooked and the vast right wing conspiracy is going to invade your brain! Watch out for the black helicoptors. OJ is secretly running the Govt and has a classified memo for you. Turn on your secret agent radio that we cleverly disguised as a box of Cocoa Puffs and planted in your pantry, await orders from the mothership.
-
i see lots of attacks toward DoctorYo but only one and a half of semi rebuttal...
Drunky - attack : has conversation with himself in order to have some angle of discredibility of my and 99% of the worlds defenition of what minutes are.. (pretty feeble method..)
makorov 9 - unknown... maybe cheerleader/or dogpile tactic for Drunky...
maverick - Actually semi rebuttal.. your points are noted.. Now go read everything Richard Clark has to say.. Follow that up with everything Diplomat Wilson has to say about niger and the supposed yellow cake exportation.. Now read the minutes again... If you cant connect the dots well thats on you.. If you want to be blind thats your opinion and it is respected.. this is america last time i checked.. your points again are noted..
Tojo - attack :created the thread but then rebuttals "drink the coolaid.." attempted dogpile..(original.. great points there..)
John9001 - attack: accuses me of being whiny liberal..{kindly define what that means in your own words} {wanting accountability is whiny liberal?;we live in a democratic society elaborate} then goes on how Saddam Defiled the UN and the whole region.. then you claim saddam attacked Iran.. (this is the good one.. and why do you think he attacked Iran.. is my question to you.. there is no doubt Saddam is a tyrant..{being a tyrant is not justification of preumptive war according to international law and the United Nations, We are signitories to the United Nations and international treaties, write your congressman if you want america out of those agreements.} infact if you took the time to do your history the only people able to control that region of the world for the last 2500 years have been tyrants.. I could give you 5 pages of dialogue on why a tyrant is needed to keep the peace but i just start with one reason... geographic location between 3 continents.. but hey i dont expect you to actually understand why that is important becuase you dont even know why Saddam attacked Iran in the first place..)(valiant effort, boneheaded but valiant indeed., attempted dogpile..)
Gunslinger - attack :takes a cue from john9001 and continues the whiny liberal angle, says rumors and other crap is needed to bash bush.. how bout senators (read Clay Shaw), bipartisan diplomats(wilson), or bi partisan cabinet members (clark) breaking the facts out of information vacuum.. (i ask you the same question as John9001 define liberal or whiney liberal..)(attempted dogpile)
Saurdaukar - attack : posts some blatant misinformation with no credibility to this discussion, attempting some discrediting angle of my posting (attempted dogpile but extremely feeble in relevence..)
Gunslinger - self gloating: posting smile (cheerleading attempted dogpile..)
Toad - attack : (my personal favorite) posts no answer at all ducks the debate entirely (attempts discredit angle thru others meritless posts..)(fails to understand that a few posts above he called minutes "opinion", Doc Slegehammers as always and toad rebuttals with no info or backing....)(dogpile or cheerleading your make the call...)
Nash - i dont get the first post, but brings up valid point with gitmo, granted something different than my posting on the minutes.. (point taken..)
Toad - acts if a answer is not required by the fact that this thead may bore him or something. then rebuttals my original posting even though he's answering nash.. (good for you no ducking ) and claims no smoking gun.. (i agree it isn't a smoking gun but when combined with other testimony of those who had access to our executive i think it deserves a congressional inquiry at a minimum and full blown investigation at maximum.. )(ducking a inquiry(read Scotty Mc's response) in a democratic society is contempt for the very democratic process we are supposed to be exporting..)(hence making this country a laughing stock of credibility for our foriegn policy that will have repercussions for the next 30-50 years)(i use germany as my timetable example as they are still not liked in europe ask any belgian or pole etc....)
There you have it fellas, next time try to get more creative with your attack process its rather feeble when you have nothing backing it..
Insert another quarter and try again..
DoctorYo
PS sad when someone asks for rebuttal and gets all mouth arse with exception of 1 and a 1/2, the one being maverick the half being Toad at the end..
Have a nice day.. :lol
edited to include new steve and maverick posting...
Maverick - attack claims smoking becuase i guess my response was over 15hours... (you can now see my response.. enjoy)
Steve - attack : claims black helicopters Oj running govt.. etc.. discrediting angle to the extreme.. (very creative bonus points for style.. but what relevence does this have to do with Clark, Wilson, Shaw's and many other testimony when combined with the Downing street minutes..)
insert another quarter..
:aok
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
Toad - acts if a answer is not required by the fact that this thead may bore him or something.
[/b]
Nah. I did answer. I thought it was clear enough for anyone but maybe not for someone with a continual anger problem.
It's real, real simple.
I clearly said I don't have any doubts that the memos are "accurate representations of actual official documents".
Shouldn't be any confusion there.
then rebuttals my original posting even though he's answering nash
[/b]
I'd think the post where I quoted you would obviously be my reply to you. Sort of like this one?
The reply to Nash seems quite obvious as it comes right after his and directly addresses his issues.
Sorry if that's confusing. I'll start quoting the individual every time I answer someone to help out.
As for the "minutes", they're not specific delineations of facts resulting from a detailed investigation. They're justa record of a meeting where people discussed and gave their opinions on what the situation appeared to be. That's why they show no "smoking gun".
That's all I said and you apparently agree. Although you seem to feel the need to bluster and get red-faced or something.
Are you now going to your standard ad hominem technique and brag about your sledgehammering of this and that?
I'm willing to discuss and clarify whatever I'd said here in a gentlemanly manner but if you're just stoking your ego again I'm afraid you'll have to play by yourself.
Have a very nice day.
-
Steve - attack : claims black helicopters Oj running govt.. etc.. discrediting angle to the extreme.. (very creative bonus points for style.. but what relevence does this have to do with
Yo, take a breath and enjoy the debate. I was just interjecting some humor. I hope you didn't seriously see my post as an attack but rather just poking a little fun for the sake of a chuckle. It certainly wasn't meant as an attack.
Edit: I love Cocoa Puffs.. had them on my mind as I typed the post.
-
Yo
You didn't really add any substance to rebuttal about other than well known dem underground type conspiracy theories.
The whole memo issue is a non issue with no substance at all. And the story about
the reporter making copies of copies and then retyping the copies gives the memo story its only appeal at all....
Its all great that you want to leed and champian the conspiracy cause but alot of us dont drink the Kool-aid you lefties drink. Thats ok, we poke fun at the left you poke fun at the right I dont see it as a personal attack other then a difference of opinion.
And I really dont think the replies were attacks just differences of opinions but its to bad you took it the wrong way really, maybe this whole internet thing is a little to much for some people, having the differences of opinions and all.
Peace out!
TJ
-
The reason conservatives say this is not a smoking gun is because it isn't and then they use the fact that its not to say its utterly worthless then, which it's not. It's just another peice of the puzzle showing that Bush Purposely misled the public when it came to the threat that Saddam posed. That's all it is. Another peice. But because it's not a "smoking gun" Conservs dismiss it as nothing.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
That speaks volumes. Sorry if it's not a signed document by Bush, or cheney or rumsfield but it is still does and should generate suspicion of a leadership who is coming under more and more fire for "questionable" activities. That is why it is important and that is why there is so much talk about. Not because its the "smoking gun". Like someone else said Conservs already used the Rather technique now its the "well its not the smoking gun so lets dismiss it as irrelevant" defense. Well played.
-
Bush Purposely misled the public when it came to the threat that Saddam posed.
====
I keep hearing people say this but I do not know if it is true or not.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Bush Purposely misled the public when it came to the threat that Saddam posed.
====
I keep hearing people say this but I do not know if it is true or not.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
State of the Union Speech 2 months before invasion. 8 months after downing memo.
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)
Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)
Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.
We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail.
-
sorry raider, but your hero saddam the" butcher of baghdad", is in prision and nothing you can do or say will get him out.
-
Originally posted by john9001
sorry raider, but your hero saddam the" butcher of baghdad", is in prision and nothing you can do or say will get him out.
Sorry John9001 but you have no clue as to what you are talking about. You couldnt be more wrong about my feelings about Saddam. But you have a nice day anyway:)
-
You have a speech. You have not proven that there is a deliberate attempt to falsify information, sorry 'bout that.
Anyone who thinks that the intel gathering situation is going to be perfectly or even regularly spot on is having a fantasy or watches way too much TV. All saddumb had to do to squash the invasion and remain in power was to open the doors to the UN inspectors and let them do their job instead of playing games.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
You have a speech. You have not proven that there is a deliberate attempt to falsify information, sorry 'bout that.
Anyone who thinks that the intel gathering situation is going to be perfectly or even regularly spot on is having a fantasy or watches way too much TV. All saddumb had to do to squash the invasion and remain in power was to open the doors to the UN inspectors and let them do their job instead of playing games.
Gee man.. The inspectors were there inspecting.. Bush pulled them out and said no more time to inspect.. Get da funk out!~
Oh, and how many other wars have we started with such questionable intellegence?? I would think if we are ready to kill and put our troops in teh way to be killed we'd be damn sure we were 'spot on'.. Doesn't that seem fair?
Edit: Can we agree that at the time we went to war with Iraqi that our description of Iraqi and the threat that country posed to us was 100% wrong?
-
Really. I seem to recall that saddumb sent the inspectors packing. Later he denied them access except when accompanied by "escorts" and with prior notice. Again all he had to do to squash the invasion was to comply with the UN inspectors. If he'd said come look and gave them free access Bush would have had no leg to stand on if WMD's were shown to be non exostant.
As to the second sentence you had, it's rhetorical and a red herring, not rellevant.
As to the third, nope I can't accept your premise en toto.
-
That is incorrect.. The UN inspectors were in country in Iraqi inspecting.. We (the US) told the inspectors were to go.. We ( the US) said we had no more time for inspections as an attack from us was imminant.. Hence we (the US) told the UN inspectors to get da funk out..
My second sentence, red herring or not, is relavent to what you stated.. That anyone expecting our intellegence to always be spot on was watching too much TV.. Hey I can agree with that.. Completely.. As it seems though our intellegence was not spot on, at least in what intellegence we were shown about Iraqi. Does that seem fair or is being incorrect and putting our people at risk a neccassary cost of spreading democracy?
What percentage would you place on the incorrect information we as american were given compared to the actuall truth?
-
DELETED
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
i don't know how many times i will have to say this,
the UN inspectors were not in iraq to play "find the easter egg" , they were in iraq to verify that saddam had desposed of the WMD he had at the end of gulf war 1 as per the UN cease fire.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
I do not claim to have "proof". What I do claim is that looking at what we do know it seems as Bush followed an agenda to take out Iraq right after 9/11. All he did was look for excuses/reasons. The main ones of which WMD and Terrorist have proven unfounded. IMO the threat of Iraq was deliberately overstated by our president and his cabinet so that the American Public and the rest of the world would go along with the attack. I am not sure if violation of UN resolutions and Saddam being an evil dictator would have been enough on its own to foster this support. But that is just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
All saddumb had to do to squash the invasion and remain in power was to open the doors to the UN inspectors and let them do their job instead of playing games.
1) see my post on "proof" I do not claim to have it. But I do have suspicions.
2)Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the recommendation was given late Sunday night both to his Vienna-based agency hunting for atomic weaponry and to the New York-based teams looking for biological and chemical weapons.
"Late last night ... I was advised by the U.S. government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad," ElBaradei told the IAEA's board of governors. He said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Security Council were informed and that the council would take up the issue later Monday.
U.N. officials have said the inspectors and support staff still in Iraq could be evacuated in as little as 48 hours.
No one has yet given the order for the inspectors to begin pulling out, and they were working on Monday.
hmm still working when US "advised" them to pull out.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm
-
"Fixing The intelligence" is such a crude expression. I believe the officially sanctioned term is "Policy driven analysis", at least that is what it was called in the 1970's on a previous occasion when Wolfowitz & Co indulged in "threat escalation" and the selective interpretation of intel for politically expedient motives.
Link (http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=apr93cahn)
Link (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0402teamb.php)
A coincidental precedent to also be dismissed by the latest "true believers"?
-
Thanks for that last post Raider!
Great articles Momus.. I was not familiar with those happenings.. I guess if it works in the past, it will prolly work in the future as well.. Amazing!!
-
It is healthy to suspect government no matter what the "proof"..
let's hope you socialists still feel the same when it is a liberal politician or judge that needs to be looked at.
lazs
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
Saurdaukar - attack : posts some blatant misinformation with no credibility to this discussion, attempting some discrediting angle of my posting (attempted dogpile but extremely feeble in relevence..)
Cry for me.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It is healthy to suspect government no matter what the "proof"..
let's hope you socialists still feel the same when it is a liberal politician or judge that needs to be looked at.
lazs
These are not the droids you are looking for.
Just ignore the past.
Ignore the facts and let our government guide us without question. Its only half of the country + that thinks these antiAmerican thoughts about this administration.
Democrats and Liberals are UnAmerican and want to pander to the terrorists.
Silence those who question our government.
:lol
-
nope silat... I am all for removing more and more power from government... Unlike the liberal socialists... I don't think that any government is altuistic and good.
Less government is better not... more government is better so long as it agrees with me.
So far... I gotta say that the socialists are the ones who threaten me with more and more real government power.
How bout you? more or... less government? What do you want?
lazs
-
Cry for me.
heh
cry why cry??? more like pity the fool.. I called your disinfo tactics.. your bitter for it..
like a mathmatical function..
DoctorYo
-
(http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg)
There never was any secret Downing Street memos written in 2002. And if there was then it was Boosh who put them their and reproduced them. See Boosh assumed we had speculated on what he thought he was thinking and therefore speculated that we had assumed that he wasn't thinking.
:D
*edited for clarity*
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
heh
cry why cry??? more like pity the fool.. I called your disinfo tactics.. your bitter for it..
like a mathmatical function..
DoctorYo
I have nothing to be bitter about and I can spell you're.
-
Well here is some breaking news.
Cheney Says Downing Street Memo Is Wrong
Fri Jun 24 2005 09:43:30 ET
Vice President Dick Cheney was asked on CNN about the 'Downing Street memo' which said the Bush Administration had decided to go to war with Iraq and the intelligence would be fixed around that policy.
Asked if he disputes the memo's claim, Cheney said, "Of course. The memo was written sometime prior to when we actually got involved in Iraq.
"And remember what happened after the supposed memo was written. We went to the United Nations. We got a unanimous vote out of the Security Council for a resolution calling on Saddam Hussein to come clean and comply with the UN Security Council resolution. We did everything we could to resolve this without having to use military force. We gave him one last chance even, and asked him to step down before we launched military operations.
"The memo is just wrong. In fact, the president of the United States took advantage of every possibility to try to resolve this without having to use military force. It wasn't possible in this case. I am convinced we did absolutely the right thing. I am convinced that history will bear that out."
END
I like this part... Asked if he disputes the memo's claim, Cheney said, "Of course. The memo was written sometime prior to when we actually got involved in Iraq. "
lol of course its fake. Its from before we even went to Iraq. lol Glad to see Cheney has those dates down.
As for Saddam stepping down, I still think we would have went in in order to "maintain the Peace".
Ok well anyway this lets us know that the Bush Administration refutes the Memo. So now I guess that is saying the Brits are lying.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
-
Originally posted by T0J0
This just keeps getting better everyday!!
More damaging forged documents...
Yep. In 1919, there was a Downing St. Memo going around, advising of the likelihood of a Bolshevik uprising! :aok They banned guns the following year!
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Asked if he disputes the memo's claim, Cheney said, "Of course. The memo was written sometime prior to when we actually got involved in Iraq.
Looks like he disputes the memo's claim.
Just sayin'.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Looks like he disputes the memo's claim.
Just sayin'.
All that matters is they now are pinned down into saying that the "claim" of intelligence fixing in the memo is false. Now Someone is lying. Either the Brits or US. It cant be both ways.
just sayin'
-
'Downing Street memo' which said the Bush Administration had decided to go to war with Iraq and the intelligence would be fixed around that policy.
Looks like the article addresses two claims, the decision to go to war and the intelligence claim.
I didn't see Cheney's interview or read the entire text, so I'll hold right there.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Vice President Dick Cheney was asked on CNN about the 'Downing Street memo' which said the Bush Administration had decided to go to war with Iraq and the intelligence would be fixed around that policy.
Actually as per the memo which I posted above, it does not say anything like the claim in this question.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Actually as per the memo which I posted above, it does not say anything like the claim in this question.
Umm yeah it does...
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
Read the context of the paragraph.
1)A shift in attitude
2)Military action now seen as inevitable
3)justification by terrorism and WMD
4)Intelligence and Facts being fixed around policy
5)no patience for UN and publishing material on the regime's record
6)Little discussion of the aftermath of military action
And now Cheney says "The memo is just wrong. In fact, the president of the United States took advantage of every possibility to try to resolve this without having to use military force. It wasn't possible in this case. I am convinced we did absolutely the right thing. I am convinced that history will bear that out."
Sounds like the memo is right to me.
-
Raider,
I think you are reading too much into that paragraph. I don't see that as indications that intel is being fabricated to form a justification, just that the intel that supports it is being considred as not changing or going to change. In other words confirm the intel as best they can but nothing different is expected to be found.
That's going to be a problem with using "minutes" from a meeting as they aren't going to capture all of the meeting but contain a synopsis. In reading the memo I got the impression there was a lot more discussion other than what was placed into the minutes.
Certainly the UN wasn't going to change their mind regarding changing the saddumb regime, big on rhetoric and short on action regarding the region.