Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Preon1 on October 06, 2003, 09:59:39 AM
-
I found a very eloquent defense of the Kay report in the Wall Street Journal. Everybody is so wound up about finding bunkers filled with anthrax that they overlooked the part of the report that showed the vast underground program to produce those weapons. This was the very evidence that the UN inspectors were looking for in the first place. Does anybody doubt that if Hussein weren't getting such attention, that he would be developing his program and building those weapons?
Wall Street Journal
October 6, 2003
The WMD Evidence
"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."
As we read David Kay's report last week on the weapons search in Iraq, the paragraph above is the real news. It concludes, even in this interim report, that Saddam Hussein was systematically attempting to evade inspections in blatant violation of United Nations Resolution 1441.
We bring this up because five days after his presentation to Congress we haven't seen it reported anywhere else. Instead the headlines have been that Mr. Kay hasn't found any WMD weapons "stockpiles." But the Stockpile Standard wasn't anyone's measure in agreeing to 1441, which was supposed to be Saddam's last chance to comply with U.N. demands. And what Mr. Kay has already found is more than enough proof that Saddam was attempting to deceive the world one more time about his dangerous intentions.
The unclassified portion of Mr. Kay's report contains 10 single-spaced typed pages of revelations about Saddam's WMD programs. It is worth the time to read through them at http:http://www.cia.gov/.
Mr. Kay's team found a prison laboratory complex "possibly used in human testing of BW agents" -- and not declared to the U.N. The home of an Iraqi scientist brought the discovery of strains of biological organisms, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons. The team found new research on "BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin," none of which were made known to the U.N.
The team also found programs for unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, that could possibly be used to disperse WMD agents. We know from other sources that Iraq also had route-mapping software that covered U.S. territory. As to Saddam's nuclear program, the report says that "the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials" makes clear that "Saddam Hussein remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point."
Saddam's program of mass deception has made the Kay team's job especially difficult. It arrived at some sites, such as the Revolutionary Command Council Headquarters in Baghdad, to find documents burnt to ashes, computer hard drives destroyed and equipment cleaned of all traces of use. The assumption that Saddam is still alive and in the country also creates a sense of fear among those in the know. Mr. Kay reports that two Iraqi scientists working with the weapons team after the war were shot -- and one was killed -- apparently as a signal to anyone else who would cooperate.
None of these facts have been allowed to get in the way of those who posit the Imminence Test and the Stockpile Standard as the new goalposts for clearing President Bush and Prime Minister Blair from the charges of waging unjust war. Both are postwar inventions, and transparently political devices to portray the war in Iraq in the worst possible light.
West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller walked out of the Kay briefing to assert his dismay that nothing he'd heard proved Saddam's threat was "imminent" and thus pre-emption is wrong in all cases. In fact, the Bush Administration never subscribed to the "imminence" test when making its case for deposing Saddam. Mr. Bush flatly rejected it in this year's State of the Union address as too risky. The argument was that Saddam was continuing to hide the WMD capabilities he was known to possess in the 1990s and had used against Iran and his own Kurdish population -- with the clear intention of resuming these programs once the political heat was off. The Kay report proves this is precisely what Saddam intended.
What happened to the stockpiles he was known to have in the 1990s is of course an important question, not least to reassure us they weren't spirited away to another country where they can pose a new threat. By all means the CIA and White House should be honest about any intelligence mistakes, and explore and then explain the reasons. But even if no stockpiles are ever found, the Kay report provides ample proof of Saddam's WMD threat and how much safer the world is with him out of power.
-
Good read
But those who are anti-war will remain anti-war for any reason they can muster. Facts won't mean a thing to them.
-
"Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment."
both outlawed by 1441
unless they find filled 55 gallon drums labeled "SADDAM"S WMD HERE!" in 24" letters - they dems won't know they found "it"
-
Yup
People seem to insist we need a smoking "gun"...they've many many many crucial pieces of a very dangerous "mechanism" for these WMDs. Its amazing how some want to thumb their noses at these finds. People seem to have already made up their mind that Bush is wrong, the war is wrong and no factual information will sway them otherwise.
Yet these same people, back in February, were frothing at the bit to get in there and kick ass.
:confused:
-
I wanna kick OBL's ass.
-
Doesn't change the fact that Bush looked into the cameras and lied to us.
(http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW09-24-03.gif)
-
Preon-
Great post!
Printed and hung on my office wall for all passsing libs to read.
It's really sad when politcians will put their own agenda ahead of the country's well being.
In this case, the dems would rather tear at Bush's reasons for going to war, which were justified, and try to get into the white house this way, rather than come up with their own solutions.
Hey, let's trash bush. Let's make our own country look like a loose cannon on the world stage. What's the difference as long as we get into power. (Note, both sides do this).
Pathetic.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Doesn't change the fact that Bush looked into the cameras and lied to us.
Cok-
Why don't you reply to Preon's post with your own words and not the one's the liberal press put in your mouth.
How did GWB lie? Be specific.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Doesn't change the fact that Bush looked into the cameras and lied to us.
(http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW09-24-03.gif)
That's only how you and those left of center view it....time will bear out the truth, of which I'm certain you will cherish if it proves Bush a liar and will ignore if it proves him to have been honest.
-
From Kay's unclassified portion of the report:
Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed but have been removed? Our search efforts are being hindered by six principal factors:
1. From birth, all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program;
2. Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict;
3. Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime;
4. Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;
5. Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage;
6. The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of threats and attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks on ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was bombed and four staff injured, two very seriously; a two person team had their vehicle blocked by gunmen and only escaped by firing back through their own windshield; and on Wednesday, 24 September, the ISG Headquarters in Baghdad again was subject to mortar attack...
...For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined.
As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous.
-
This is too easy muckmaw, Bush is a serial liar, let's start with his first lie:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."
It's been all downhill since.
-
HOLY ****!
How come we never hear this stuff in the mainstream media, Toad?
-
Notice it requires cartoons to completely convey the moronic point of views of the left...
I suspected sock puppets but I stand corrected :p
-
Originally posted by k2cok
This is too easy muckmaw, Bush is a serial liar, let's start with his first lie:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."
It's been all downhill since.
Cok-
If you want to have a serious discussion, answer the question.
What did GWB intentionally mislead this country about? When did he lie?
If your just going to post cute little cartoons, and make pointless statements, then have at it, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
The more some of these folks open their mouths, the more I see there really is no meat to their argument. Many are just parroting what they hear on the 10 o'clock news...in a 14 second sound bite.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
HOLY ****!
How come we never hear this stuff in the mainstream media, Toad?
said the same thing last week:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97703
-
What are you trying to say with your Avatar?
Are you weasel?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
HOLY ****!
How come we never hear this stuff in the mainstream media, Toad?
Muck, it's there.
The text of the unclassified part of Kay's statement was posted on the CNN website. Can't get much more "mainstream" than that.
CNN.com: Text of David Kay's unclassified statement (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/index.html)
Now, why wasn't some of this stuff given emphasis in the "short version" provided by US news outlets?
Well, I've been assured right here on this BBS that the media isn't biased at all, so it can't be THAT.
:rofl
But, I do love to read the posters that are founding members of "Short Attention Span Theater" that rail and rant about this stuff without even a slight attempt to read and understand what the guy actually said. ;)
Hey, if you can't prove WMD in 90 seconds or less, the whole thing was obviously a hoax right?
And what the Fork does KAY know about looking for WMD in Iraq, anyway? We should get somebody truly unbiased and completely experienced in there to wrap up the job in three days. Maybe a stalwart like K2 or something.
-
I don't get it. Rumsfeld say they know where the WMD were. And Bush said they actually found them. If they found WMD, were are they? :confused:
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
What are you trying to say with your Avatar?
Are you weasel?
Nah, that's just to let people know not to take anything he says seriously, since he's only trying to piss them off.
-
:confused:
Me too!
I mean, sure, they knew we were coming for a month or more but it's not like you could load that stuff on a truck and move it or bury it in the desert like some MiG-25 or tote it out to your pals in Syria.
So, yeah, me too... a little bitty barren wasteland like Iraq? No WAY they could hide it where it would take a while to find it.
:confused: :confused:
Kay is obviously incompetent.
-
Martlet
Yeah prolly true.
-
Flying the flag upside down is a standard military distress signal and is not intended to be disrepectful.
It means we need some help here, it has nothing to do with saying anything bad about the flag.
The United States Flag Code supports this.
The code formalizes and unifies the traditional ways in which we give respect to the flag and includes the following:
The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing. It is flown upside down only as a distress signal.
No, I'm not a weasel, and I'm not trying to piss anyone off, just pointing out the discrepancy between how the war was sold by Bush vs what Kay has to say about it.
Where did I say anything about 3 days Toad? I also haven't called anyone names other than Bush a liar.
IIRC you said something about six months in your bet with 10Bears, how long do you think we should give Kay to find WMD?
Based on past responses I'll bet the answer is until he finds them.
-
What did GWB intentionally mislead this country about? When did he lie?
I can give you at least 5 examples Muck..
-
then do it 10bears.
-
Ok. well thanks for the info, learn something new everyday.
Oh and not A weasel
I was thinking THE weasel.
A guy who got banned from here.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Notice it requires cartoons to completely convey the moronic point of views of the left...
I suspected sock puppets but I stand corrected :p
Ain't that the truth. :D
-
Here is an article about others who "lied".
Dem Liars (http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/5/193645.shtml)
-
Makes me wonder how long it will be before GWB is accused of molesting and raping women, murdering dozens of political opponents including hacks within his own administration, conspiring with the columbian drug cartel to smuggle drugs into florida, selling secret amercian spy satellite technology to China for campaign money.....the end is listless.
Its all just a bunch of smack.
-
^Yeager,
This thread is about Bush, not Clinton ;)
-
Originally posted by Sox62
Here is an article about others who "lied".
quit pointing out the double standards of our friends on the other side of the issue :)
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, 2-17-98
"The risk Iraqi leaders may use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us, or our allies, is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, 2-18-98
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor, 2-18-98
"... take necessary steps to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton from Sens. Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others, 10-9-98
"Saddam's engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology." Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., 12-16-98
"He's reinvigorated his weapons programs ... biological, chemical and nuclear programs ... he continues to redefine delivery systems to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush from Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, 12-5-01
"Saddam is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He's ... building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., 9-12-02
"He's stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, 9-23-02
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., 9-27-02
"Saddam retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons ... he is seeking nuclear weapons ..." Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., 10-3-02
"I'll be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force ... to disarm Saddam. ... I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., 10-9-02
"Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons." Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., 10-10-02
"Hussein's worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He's given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members." Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., 10-10-02
"... a brutal, murderous dictator ... an oppressive regime ... continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... the threat of Saddam with weapons of mass destruction is real." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., 1-23-03
-
"quit pointing out the double standards of our friends on the other side of the issue"
Only one problem with this statement and Sox62's link, none of those people are currently president.
Not to mention none of them lied us into a war.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Only one problem with this statement and Sox62's link, none of those people are currently president.
Not to mention none of them lied us into a war.
They said or were saying the same thing that the current administartion said so wtf is your point again?
-
YOU PEOPLE ARE ARGUING WITH A MORON. THIS ARGUMENT WILL NEVER BE OVER AS THE MORON WILL NEVER ADMIT ANYTHING CLOSE TO BEING WRONG. HE HATES BUSH AND THEREFORE THIS WAR IS EVIL, PERIOD.
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
-
K2, you have asserted a common logical flaw.
The absence of evidence does not prove anything, and it does not prove GWB lied. All it can possibly do is bring into question the push for war.
If and/or when weapons are found, you will have to rethink your stance on the honesty of GWB.
You have not shown a provable lie GWB said. As provable as WJC's famous finger wagging "I did not have...."
The 16 words in the SOU address which British Intellegence continues to assert as true does not qualify as a lie, as it has not been proven false.
List something....
-
Here's Kay's interview with Tony Snow...
Transcript: David Kay on 'FOX News Sunday'
Monday, October 06, 2003
The following is a transcribed excerpt from FOX News Sunday, Oct. 5, 2003.
TONY SNOW, FOX NEWS: Joining us to determine what the Kay report does and does not say is David Kay, the CIA special adviser on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs and head of the Iraqi Survey Group.
Mr. Kay, welcome.
DAVID KAY, CHIEF IRAQ WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Happy to be with you, Tony.
SNOW: Let's take a quick look at some of the headlines from this week characterizing your report. I want to get your reaction to them.
Here we see The New York Times: "No Illicit Arms." The Washington Post: "No Banned Weapons." The Los Angeles Times: "No Illicit Iraqi Arms." USA Today: "No Illegal Weapons."
Is that what you found?
KAY: Well, we certainly found that — have not yet found illicit arms. But that's not the only thing the report says. In fact, I'm sort of amazed at what was powerful information about both their intent and their actual activities that were not known and were hidden from U.N. inspectors seems not to have made it to the press. This is information that, had it been available last year, would have been headline news.
SNOW: One of the things that you found, for instance, is the Mukhabarat, the secret service, in fact had a vigorous weapons program of its own. Tell us about it.
KAY: Well, we have found right now — and we're still finding them — over two dozen laboratories that were hidden in the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, were not declared to the U.N., had prohibited equipment, and carried on activities that should have been declared.
Now, at the minimum, they kept alive Iraq's capability to produce both biological and chemical weapons. We found assassination tools. So we know that, in fact, they had a prohibited intent to them.
SNOW: You also talk about reference strains of biological agents. What does that mean?
KAY: Well, that's one of the most fascinating stories. An Iraqi scientist in 1993 hid in his own refrigerator reference strains for — active strains, actually would've — were still active when we found them — Botulinum toxin, one of the most toxic elements known.
He was also asked to hide others, including anthrax. After a couple of days, he turned them back because he said they were too dangerous; he had small children in the house.
This is typical. We now have three cases in which scientists have come forward with equipment, technology, diagrams, documents and, in this case, actual weapons material, reference strains and Botulinum toxin, that they were told to hide and that the U.N. didn't find.
SNOW: You believe that there are similar strains perhaps throughout Iraq right now?
KAY: We're actively searching for at least one more cache of weapons — of strains that we know exists.
SNOW: This is a cache that had been referred to by a scientist. The first bit of information paid off; you're still looking for the second one?
KAY: Exactly.
SNOW: And the second one is a large cache.
KAY: It's much larger. It contains anthrax, and that's one reason we're actively interested in getting it.
SNOW: Now, you also talk about new research on biological capable agents, such as Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, Ricin and Naflotoxin (ph).
KAY: That's exactly right, and that's the things I'm surprised no one has paid attention to.
The new strains they're working on, including Congo-Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, are something that should have been reported to the U.N. In fact, all of the work should have been reported. It was not reported.
This is activities, prohibited activities they've carried on. And this continued right up to 2003 in these four cases, unreported, undiscovered.
SNOW: Unreported and undiscovered.
When you're analyzing how much information was kept from the U.N., how would you characterize it?
KAY: Dozens of cases right now that are significant. The most significant, of course, is in the missile area, where we're talking about activity on four different fronts that would have provided missiles capable of exceeding the U.N. limit of 150 kilometers.
SNOW: All right, I want to get to that in a moment. Before we do that, one final note on Botulinum. The State Department is now calling this discovery in fact the discovery of a weapon of mass destruction. Would you accept that characterization?
KAY: It's not a weapon in the sense of it was ready to be fired. It is absolutely the essential element that only time and a little growth media would have produced large amounts of Botulinum toxin.
SNOW: And you also had a number of scientists coming forward and telling you that there were plans afoot that, if they were given the orders to create chemical or biological weapons, there was a certain timetable in which they would be able to produce them.
KAY: That's correct. We've had very senior scientists — and this is actually a good news story. People don't realize how many Iraqis we now have cooperating with us. That's one reason for my optimism that we'll get to the bottom of the program. But it would have taken them from weeks to months to restart mustard production, and for months to — the maximum estimate is two years on VX production.
SNOW: Now, a lot of these scientists — you talk about one scientist being assassinated the same day he talked to your people.
KAY: Yes.
SNOW: Somebody else was shot six times. They're still subject to considerable intimidation?
KAY: They certainly are, and they report that to us every day. And that's why I guess I have great admiration for those who are talking to us. They're talking to us not for rewards; they're talking to us in the face of active threats against them for collaborating with us.
SNOW: Why can't you protect them?
KAY: Well, you know, we could take everyone out of the country, but realize in Iraq you're talking about extended families. We are taking steps to try to protect them, but we're never perfect at that.
SNOW: Let's talk about the volume of arms. How many arms depots are there in Iraq?
KAY: We've identified 130 ammunition storage points of significant size, some larger than 50 square kilometers. These are sites that contain, the best estimate is, between 600,000 and 650,000 tons of arms. That's about one-third of the entire ammunitions stockpile of the much-larger U.S. military.
SNOW: So that's pretty astonishing for a country of that size and population.
KAY: It's very astonishing when you're on the ground looking at it.
SNOW: You've only been through 10 of those so far. Why so few depots have been examined at this point?
KAY: Well, it's a size issue and going out. For example, we spent 10 days on a very large one about three weeks ago, operating in temperatures that range from 130 — that was a low day — to 150. And literally, you have to go — this one was over 200 square miles. It's damning, in terms of the scale, to have to do that.
SNOW: So you have still 120 of these to examine?
KAY: And we have 26 on a critical list to examine. That's really the number that drives us right now.
SNOW: What do you want to find in those?
KAY: Well, the Iraqis have told us, and we learned in 1991, that they have the habit of storing their chemical munitions right in a mix with these standard conventional armaments. And they also tended not to mark them. So you really have to examine each one, and that's why we're going there looking at them.
(continued)
-
(continued from previous post)
SNOW: There were claims before the war by Secretary of State Colin Powell that Iraq had weaponized and ready-to-use chemical weapons. He was very confident about the existence of chemical weapons. You have not yet found actual chemical weapons, correct?
KAY: Tony, it's important to stress the word "yet." We have not only Secretary Powell, we have Iraqi generals telling us that they had them. Unfortunately, they're not able to tell us where they are now. And that's why we're looking so hard.
SNOW: Biological weapons, you have found some strains; you think you're going to find more based on the testimony you've received?
KAY: Based on information leads, we have no reason to believe that we will not find more. But we're searching still.
SNOW: Let me ask you about the veracity of the people who are coming forward. Are they reliable sources? Have they given you information that's paid off, or are you getting a lot of crank information from people?
KAY: Well, they're not all reliable, and I wouldn't expect them to. We have to deal with them much like the way journalists do. I need to separate out what they really know personally from what someone has told them, and then go find the sub-sources who told them that. It's a very time-consuming process.
SNOW: Senator Carl Levin said the other day that there was no evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program. True or false?
KAY: Well, I think in the nuclear area there's evidence that they were putting small amounts of money and starting rudimentary experiments. But we haven't finished our examination there. On the basis of what we've examined, I think there is evidence that they were interested in restarting their nuclear program, but it was at a very early stage, based on what we have currently found.
SNOW: You also had heard that Saddam Hussein had gotten frustrated with the U.N. weapons inspectors and was simply ready to go ahead, regardless of their presence on his soil.
KAY: His senior head of the arms industry has told us that in 2000 he believed that Saddam had simply gotten fed up with the U.N. restrictions and was ready, in the face of them, to start restarting the program.
Now, the one piece of evidence that confirms that is in the missile area, where exactly that's when it restarted.
SNOW: And you also found propellants.
You mentioned that there are four classes. You had cruise missiles. You had the attempt to buy the Nodong missile from North Korea that can have a range of up to 1,300 kilometers, about 800 miles...
KAY: Right.
SNOW: ... and a series of other things. You had rocket propellants, correct?
KAY: Well, the rocket propellants are really an interesting story I'm surprised no one has picked up on. We have Iraqis now telling us that they continued, until 2001 or early 2002, to be capable of mixing and preparing Scud missile fuel.
Scud missile fuel is only useful in Scud missiles, no other class of missiles that Iraq has. And yet Iraq declared that it got rid of all of its Scud missiles in the early 1990s. Why would you continue to produce Scud missile fuel if you didn't have Scuds? We're looking for the Scuds.
SNOW: In speaking to reporters the other day, you also said that you were examining the possible cross-border transportation of arms into Syria, Jordan and Iran. Now, the Jordanian government has said, absolutely not true. Do you still think it's possible that arms could have made their way into Jordan?
KAY: Well, we're still examining what moved where. We have multiple reports from Iraqis of moving material. We do know that documents were taken to Jordan, because we're engaged in negotiations with someone who is in Jordan to recover those documents. I have no personal knowledge that weapons were moved into Jordan.
SNOW: Does this person in Jordan have any official relationship with the government, or is this a private citizen?
KAY: Oh, absolutely no official relationship with the government. He fled there, and he's there solely on his personal basis.
SNOW: How about Syria? I've heard talk of convoys making their way out of Iraq into Syria in the weeks before the war. What have you heard?
KAY: We've heard the same reports. Actually, we have probably more specific evidence on that, on dates, times...
SNOW: I would suspect you know more than I do on that.
KAY: ... and routes taken. The difficulty we have is proving what was in the convoys, and that's where we're stymied right now.
SNOW: You also have reports of a number of nations engaged in illegal trade or dual-use technology trade with Iraq. Why won't you tell us who those countries are?
KAY: Because we're continuing to investigate to find the exact details and to be sure that we have absolute accuracy. Also, because we suspect that these same companies have been engaged with other proliferant regimes, so we want to get to the bottom of this.
And let me say, it's not just dual-use. The equipment that we're after and the information we have relates to things that were clearly illegal to sell to Iraq. This is illegal procurement. It's not something that could have other uses. They shouldn't have had it.
SNOW: Were any American companies involved?
KAY: Not that we've discovered to date.
SNOW: What about the United Nations? There's some talk that the United Nations ought to handle weapons inspection. What do you make of that?
KAY: Well, I certainly — we've used and are using today former U.N. inspectors. But the idea of turning it back over to the U.N. just doesn't hold any credibility.
The U.N. has pulled essentially all of its staff out of Iraq because of two explosions. I've had teams attacked four times in September and four serious injuries. Every one of the people we have on the ground, including myself, is weapons qualified and routinely carries weapons. We operate in a very non-permissive environment.
That's not what the U.N. does. I can't believe that the U.N. — as a U.N. inspector, I never carried a weapon, and we never operated in this type of environment.
SNOW: You've been looking for weapons. Have you found any documentary evidence of ties to Al Qaida or other terrorist groups?
KAY: We have not — with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and that is really the area I operate in, no, we have not.
SNOW: But how about in other weapons? Has anything else come across? Because one of the things you document is a very thorough program of trying to destroy evidence in the wake of the U.S. and British invasion.
KAY: We have discovered documentary evidence that relates to various terrorist connections, and what happens, Tony, when we do that, is we immediately turn it over. I have an FBI rep who's on the Iraq Survey Group. We turn it over to those people whose professional business is investigating those ties.
SNOW: So when you look at the totality of the investigation, in Iraq and in surrounding countries, what would you put the probability of finding weapons of mass destruction?
KAY: I simply don't know. I have tried to conduct a work program that guarantees us that if they are there, we will find them. Rather than estimate — I don't want to estimate. I want to have proof, and that's what we're driving toward that conclusion.
SNOW: All right, David Kay, thanks for joining us today.
KAY: Thank you, Tony, very much.
It is amazing that, while some mainstream news source made passing mention of "evidence of WMD programs", all had headlines that read (paraphrased numerous ways) "No WMD found in IRAQ!" as if that was the important info, or indeed that this was a final report, rather than a progress report.
Given the stuff Kay's teams have come up with so far -- and with far more agressive (and armed) methods than anything the UN could have or would have tried, does anyone really in their hearts believe Hussien would have refrained from rebuilding his stockpiles after the UN gave him a passing grade? Indeed, does anyone actually beleive even another few years of UN inspections would have been able to uncover a fraction of what Kay's team has, or certified honestly that Iraq had come clean?
I see alot of you Bush-bashers calling him a liar and worse, but what of this evidence? When confronted with a reality that doesn't fit you predetermined mantra, can you come up with nothing better than to call names and post political cartoons? You make me sad.
-
^ Personal attacks and cartoons, but definitely NOTHING of any substance what so ever. This weekend was a jolt I needed to remember how vile the left is and that they will go to NO end to win victory to get their power back. LA Times..... Greyout Davis - watched part of an interview with him yesterday. At the beginning of the interview he said he would comment on the LA Times story about Swartz. By the end of the interview all he was talking about were the allogations against the Swartz. They offer nothing but venom.....
[edit]
Oops forgot to add.... Thanks for posting that interview Sabre, I saw it yesterday morning on TV when I woke up. Amazing the contrast of what was actually in the report to the headlines the report recieved. How typical of the left.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
-
David Kay told Congress last week that his survey team had not found nuclear, biological or chemical weapons so far. But he argued against drawing conclusions, saying he expects to provide a full picture on Iraq's weapons programs in six months to nine months.
Well, I think I'll give the guy actually doing the job a chance to do it.
How about you, K2?
Oh, silly me... sorry.
-
Originally posted by Udie
YOU PEOPLE ARE ARGUING WITH A MORON. THIS ARGUMENT WILL NEVER BE OVER AS THE MORON WILL NEVER ADMIT ANYTHING CLOSE TO BEING WRONG. HE HATES BUSH AND THEREFORE THIS WAR IS EVIL, PERIOD.
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Another graduate of the Grunherz School of Debate I see. :rolleyes:
When have I ever said I hate Bush?
Your mistaking my holding him accountable for his words and deeds for hatred, but feel free to continue your "personal attacks" against me.
AKIron, I suppose I could be PC and use the words coming from Republican and Democrats in the Congress alike that Bush "misrepresented the evidence for war" but that is intellectually dishonest.
I prefer it unvarnished, Bush lied.
Fast forward another 6-9 months Toad, will you be willing to give Kay more time then?
You've already fudged from your original posistion. (the 10Bears wager)
-
K2, I'm still waiting to hear in what way he lied? What were his actual words that have since been unequivically proven to be deliberately false? The cartoon was fiction, political satire. Do you actually believe it represents real life? Please be specific. Thanks. And when all those democrats in the above post said all those horrible things about Saddam, where they lying then or lying now? (True, maybe they aren't President now, but most want to be.) And finally, what about this report by Kay? Do you believe he's making all that up? If so, where's your proof?
-
K2, Please do try to keep up, OK?
Reread the wager thread.
I initially wanted more than 90 days which is what 10Bears required before he'd wager the family fortune. I have ANOTHER wager with Nash that runs 180 days and is almost at that point.
But if you READ those threads, I said I might lose on the time issue but I was fairly confident of them finding WMD. I lost on the time issue to 10Bears. According to KAY, I'll probably lose on the time issue to Nash.
I'm still comfortable with the "Saddam had WMD" at this point. Kay sounds like he thinks they'll find something too. However, he's pretty clearly delineated the difficulties they face in the search.
You know, those parts of his unclassified text that the news doesn't want to report and that some BBS posters don't seem to be able to bring themselves to read.
As to Kay, I guess I'm adult enough to realize it'd be best to see what he has to say in six to eight months and then decide.
Rather than just pitch a tantrum right now when, according to the guy actually on the scene doing the work. (As opposed to BBS commentators that "know" everything about everything anyway)he needs 6 to 9 more months for a realistic appraisal. The work seems well started but far from complete.
Unless of course one is on a Jihad.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
What were his actual words that have since been unequivically proven to be deliberately false?
Sadly, I don't think you're going to get a quote, source, and time reference... if K could produce that, he'd have done it already.
Didn't read the unclassified report myself until this afternoon. Pretty astonishing stuff.
-
It doesn't take much effort to expose Bush's lies.
Sabre, let's go back to Bush's SOTU - which was really a "Please Don't Ask Me About the State of the Union While I Distract You With War" Address (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/index.html)
It's exasperating to see the length with which this administration will peddle hearsay and innuendo as fact, presenting information to support its claims that the sheeple/dumb americans won't think twice about checking for reliability.
There were many credibility holes in the speech -- taking credit for putting money in our pockets through a tax cut (actually, the Democrats sponsored the $300 checks), Homeland Security (and, again, the Democrats created the idea, which Bush and Co. HATED until the public screamed for it), safer airports (um, federal airport baggage checkers was another idea from the Democrats), and an education bill (which everyone says is under-funded and, therefore, useless) -- but the most egregious factual liberties were taken during the warmongering section of the speech.
Bush played loose with the facts to win support for a unwarranted and ill-conceived war.
Bush says he's "moved on" and that the "case is closed" with regards to the infamous "sixteen words" in his SOTU.
The CIA assumed tepid responsibility for not insisting Bush remove the sixteen words about British evidence of Hussein's alleged attempts to purchase uranium from Africa.
Fine. What about these 71 from the same speech?
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
To date, not a single UAV has been found, or drop of CBWs, or any munitions capable of delivering the alleged weapons.
Is the CIA responsible for those words as well?
What about these 26, also from the same speech?
"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 Qaida."
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations (besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US) have been revealed.
And then there are these 20:
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
The IAEA as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.
Here's what Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency said:
"We believe the tubes were destined for the conventional rocket program," ElBaradei said. He said the tubes could be modified for uranium enrichment, but the process would be expensive, time-consuming and detectable."
Fine. Bush must take responsibility for the rest his words, all 117 of which were lies.
Lies that have resulted in the deaths of over three hundred American GIs, and the wounding of at least 1,200.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
It doesn't take much effort to expose Bush's lies...
...To date, not a single UAV has been found, or drop of CBWs, or any munitions capable of delivering the alleged weapons.
But probably even less to find this from Kay's unclassified report:
Iraq was continuing to develop a variety of UAV platforms and maintained two UAV programs that were working in parallel, one at Ibn Fernas and one at al-Rashid Air Force Base.
Ibn Fernas worked on the development of smaller, more traditional types of UAVs in addition to the conversion of manned aircraft into UAVs.
This program was not declared to the UN until the 2002 CAFCD in which Iraq declared the RPV-20, RPV-30 and Pigeon RPV systems to the UN.
All these systems had declared ranges of less than 150km. Several Iraqi officials stated that the RPV-20 flew over 500km on autopilot in 2002, contradicting Iraq's declaration on the system's range.
The al-Rashid group was developing a competing line of UAVs. This program was never fully declared to the UN and is the subject of on-going work by ISG.
Additional work is also focusing on the payloads and intended use for these UAVs. Surveillance and use as decoys are uses mentioned by some of those interviewed. Given Iraq's interest before the Gulf War in attempting to convert a MIG-21 into an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry spray tanks capable of dispensing chemical or biological agents, attention is being paid to whether any of the newer generation of UAVs were intended to have a similar purpose.
This remains an open question.
ISG has discovered evidence of two primary cruise missile programs. The first appears to have been successfully implemented, whereas the second had not yet reached maturity at the time of OIF.
The first involved upgrades to the HY-2 coastal-defense cruise missile. ISG has developed multiple sources of testimony, which is corroborated in part by a captured document, that Iraq undertook a program aimed at increasing the HY-2's range and permitting its use as a land-attack missile.
These efforts extended the HY-2's range from its original 100km to 150-180km. Ten modified missiles were delivered to the military prior to OIF and two of these were fired from Umm Qasr during OIF -- one was shot down and one hit Kuwait.
The second program, called the Jenin, was a much more ambitious effort to convert the HY-2 into a 1000km range land-attack cruise missile.
The Jenin concept was presented to Saddam on 23 November 2001 and received what cooperative sources called an "unusually quick response" in little more than a week.
The essence of the concept was to take an HY-2, strip it of its liquid rocket engine, and put in its place a turbine engine from a Russian helicopter -- the TV-2-117 or TV3-117 from a Mi-8 or Mi-17helicopter. To prevent discovery by the UN, Iraq halted engine development and testing and disassembled the test stand in late 2002 before the design criteria had been met.
-
Ko2**** will never be convinced, don't waste your time. Personally, you should fly your own little flag, not the U.S. one, because I do not sense this distress you speak of. I look at your avatar as pretty sorry, but par for (your) course.
-
K2, a lie is different from being misinformed. If indeed he was misinformed. Absence of evidence of WMD does not disprove the contention that WMD exist or existed. It could just as easily be that they haven't been found yet.
You and I do not have enough information to decide which theory is correct. In a few months we may.
-
Holden, I guess we disagree on the definition of the word "lie", Bush was told by the US Air Force before the war that the Iraqi UAV's were not WMD delivery systems. ;)
Toad:
U.S. military analysts say unmanned Iraqi drones not usable as weapons (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2003/08/24/168088-ap.html)
(AP) - Huddled over a fleet of abandoned Iraqi drones, U.S. weapons experts in Baghdad came to one conclusion: Despite the Bush administration's public assertions, these unmanned aerial vehicles weren't designed to dispense biological or chemical weapons.
The evidence gathered this summer matched the dissenting views of U.S. air force intelligence analysts who argued before the war with Iraq that the remotely piloted planes were unarmed reconnaissance drones.
In building a case for war, senior officials in the administration of President George W. Bush had said Iraq's drones were intended to deliver unconventional weapons. Secretary of State Colin Powell even raised the alarming prospect that the pilotless aircraft could sneak into the United States to carry out poisonous attacks on American cities.
Personally I'm inclined to believe military experts over a Bush shill. (Kay)
-
You must have missed this part.
Additional work is also focusing on the payloads and intended use for these UAVs. Surveillance and use as decoys are uses mentioned by some of those interviewed. Given Iraq's interest before the Gulf War in attempting to convert a MIG-21 into an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry spray tanks capable of dispensing chemical or biological agents, attention is being paid to whether any of the newer generation of UAVs were intended to have a similar purpose.
I think it's a bit early to be talking absolutes with respect to UAV's. The job's not done their either.
Aside from that, what do you think they could possibly put in the payload of a cruise missile?
Maybe any munitions capable of delivering the alleged weapons.
Just maybe? Do ya think? Huh? Possibly?
Could you possibly be a bit premature with this argument line as well as the others?
-
Okay... According to Kay's report, Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution 1441. No big surprise there, but there's nothing in it that sanctions the use of force by the U.S.
I'm sure I'll see the argument that 1441 authorizes such action but first, I'll have to completely forget that the U.S. submitted a draft resolution for the disarmament of Iraq but this was never approved.
-
At least get it right k2cok, the union is still on the left when flown in distress.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Holden, I guess we disagree on the definition of the word "lie", Bush was told by the US Air Force before the war that the Iraqi UAV's were not WMD delivery systems. ;)
No disagreement at all, k2.
Lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.
This requires one telling a lie not to be deceived himself. If one knowingly tells falsehoods, then it is a lie. If one one believes it to be the truth, then no intent exists: therefore it is not a lie.
The 16 words in SOU are still backed up by British intel.
I could convert a Piper tri-pacer into a weapons carrier with a plastic bag and some duct tape in about 10 minutes. Worrying about Iraqi RPV's is not unreasonable.
You argue that Bush lied because we have not found WMDs. We could find a stash tomorrow, and your argument would prove baseless. Your argument on WMD's is based on no WMD's found, therefore your argument is based on nothing.
The information that the public presently posesses is enough to develop a healthy skepticism, but going beyond skeptic thinking to believe you have absolute knowledge which is based on the lack of information is foolish.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
At least get it right k2cok, the union is still on the left when flown in distress.
Only if the wind is blowing from the left, we all know it's currently blowing from the right in the U.S. :D
-
Your flag isn't flying from a flag pole and in such a static display the union is to the left. You remind me of a kid I went to school with in the late 60's. He wrapped himself in a flag and wore it to school one day. More for attention than any political statement I think.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
The IAEA as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.
As I recall, the administration publicly addressed that one...
hmm
Secretary Powell's Remarks at U.N. Security Council Meeting (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030307-10.html)
yep
Secretary Powell
I also listened to Dr. ElBaradei's report with great interest. As we all know, in 1991 the IAEA was just days away from determining that Iraq did not have a nuclear program. We soon found out otherwise.
IAEA is now reaching a similar conclusion, but we have to be very cautious. We have to make sure that we do keep the books open, as Dr. ElBaradei said he would. There is dispute about some of these issues and about some of these specific items.
Dr. ElBaradei talked about the aluminum tubes that Iraq has tried to acquire over the years. But we also know that notwithstanding the report today, that there is new information that is available to us and I believe available to the IAEA about a European country where Iraq was found shopping for these kinds of tubes.
And that country has provided information to us, to IAEA that the material properties and manufacturing tolerances required by Iraq are more exact by a factor of 50 percent or more than those usually specified for rocket motor casings. Its experts concluded that the tolerances and specifications Iraq was seeking cannot be justified for unguided rockets. And I'm very pleased that we will keep this issue open.
President Bush uttered no lie here. Those tubes may not have been specificly for U-235 production. Notice that the IAEA said that, not the President. So far, I can't find any administration press release that states that the tubes were meant for Uranium enrichment. The tubes were still more than ordinary rocket casings and would have been suitable for a guidied rocket carrying an increased payload (such as a nuke).
-
Your flag isn't flying from a flag pole and in such a static display the union is to the left.
The patch on our soldiers uniforms in Iraq aren't flying from a flag pole either and they are oriented backwards.
You remind me of a kid I went to school with in the late 60's. He wrapped himself in a flag and wore it to school one day. More for attention than any political statement I think.
Let me guess, you have ESP - or is it just that when reasonable discourse escapes you that you turn personal?
The avatars orientation is for exactly the reason I stated.
No disagreement at all, k2.
Lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.
This requires one telling a lie not to be deceived himself. If one knowingly tells falsehoods, then it is a lie. If one one believes it to be the truth, then no intent exists: therefore it is not a lie.
The 16 words in SOU are still backed up by British intel.
Holden, since when does the U.S. go to war based on British intelligence? :p
And let's not forget that Bush was informed prior to the SOTU that the Niger information was based on a forgery.
"Lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive."
It's clear Bush lied.
-
why bother guys....
Mr. Foot meet Mr. Dead Horse.........
Mr. Foot meet Mr. Dead Horse.........
Mr. Foot meet Mr. Dead Horse.........
Mr. Foot meet Mr. Dead Horse.........
Mr. Foot meet Mr. Dead Horse.........
Mr. Foot meet Mr. Dead Horse.........
Mr. Foot meet Mr. Dead Horse.........
Mr. Foot meet Mr. Dead Horse.........
Mr. Foot meet Mr. Dead Horse.........
Mr. Foot meet Mr. Dead Horse.........
Mr. Foot meet Mr. Dead Horse.........
-
Originally posted by k2cok
And let's not forget that Bush was informed prior to the SOTU that the Niger information was based on a forgery.
Somebody better tell MI-5 (or 6 or whatever it is now), because they continue to say it is sound intel.
That was just a piece if the pie, not the whole picture. Your assessment of Bush's honesty in this particular case is based on the non-existance of contemporary evidence.
Hmm.... Based on the non-existance...... based on nothing..... baseless....
Skepticism yes, but you should get more information and not voice a baseless opinion.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Let me guess, you have ESP - or is it just that when reasonable discourse escapes you that you turn personal?
No esp needed to see you are making a political statement with our flag which is an abuse of our national symbol. You're attempting to inflame rather than express true distress. I know this from the nature of your posts. I just chalk it up to either youth or ignorance, or maybe both. Neither is usually a crime but is sometimes sad to see.
-
Funny, the flag flying from the pole in my yard is displayed upside down.
When my neighbors asked about it I told them what it signified-they all agreed with me.
I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites.
So keep on spinning Iron, it's what you do best-welcome to my ignore list.
-
First time anyone's admitted to putting me on their ignore list. In your case I think I should feel proud.
-
This is just too good to let go. You whined about it getting personal and then you respond with this. Who exactly are you calling "scumbags and liars and wife beaters"? Oh wait, I'm being ignored. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by k2cok
Funny, the flag flying from the pole in my yard is displayed upside down.
When my neighbors asked about it I told them what it signified-they all agreed with me.
I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites.
So keep on spinning Iron, it's what you do best-welcome to my ignore list.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people,
I was talking to a lying scumbag wife-beater today and he said the same exact thing!
Wow!
This is amazing!
-
lol you cant see any lies your livin in a different world.
still laughing at toad for selling cs gas as chemical weapons.
yea its true they are but they arent baned lol.
so its a lie ment to decieve but not a technical lie. a quibble per say. you call it what you like but a rose by any other name.
shame on you toad. you know better.
and yea the deserter coke head must go.
-
ps k2cok there is a 50 to 1 bias on this board right wing. you are getting pounces by about 10 guys who have fox "news" runing in the back ground.
stand your ground, lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. when it starts a war.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
stand your ground, lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. when it starts a war.
Dunno, man... We asked for specific lies. He gave us three. We have discounted two without rebuke from him (well, he responded to the UAV issue with half a source, which was immediately cleared up.) The last statement, Saddam's direct link to OBL, is quite a bit harder to prove, but also irrelevent seeing as he publicly supported terrorism in Isreal.
Bush uttered no lies, the world is safer without Saddam in power, it was worth the cost in dollars and lives. (that's an opinion)
-
think his names says it all "K2cok" --I agree with him --the flag needs to be flown upside down for the distress signal --there is an obvious problem at his house --and maybe a WMD is the answer--drop it on him......
Bet you where leading the "cheerleaders" when Clinton bombed Saddam to take the focus off his infidelities.....and probably cheering him on while he was getting his "presidental" BJ too....
-
Originally posted by k2cok
It doesn't take much effort to expose Bush's lies.
What about these 26, also from the same speech?
"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 Qaida."
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations (besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US) have been revealed.
K2cok your statement appears to be a lie !
http://www.insightmag.com/news/477622.html
while Saddam Hussein may not have had details of the Sept. 11 attacks in advance, he "gave assistance for whatever al-Qaeda came up with." That assistance, confirmed independently, came in a variety of ways, including financial support spun out through a complex web of financial institutions in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Italy and elsewhere. Long suspected of having terrorist ties to al-Qaeda, they now have been linked to Iraq as well.
and another
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:
* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.
* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.
* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.
* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.
* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.
* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Flying the flag upside down is a standard military distress signal and is not intended to be disrepectful.
It means we need some help here, it has nothing to do with saying anything bad about the flag.
The United States Flag Code supports this.
The code formalizes and unifies the traditional ways in which we give respect to the flag and includes the following:
The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing. It is flown upside down only as a distress signal.
No, I'm not a weasel, and I'm not trying to piss anyone off, just pointing out the discrepancy between how the war was sold by Bush vs what Kay has to say about it.
Where did I say anything about 3 days Toad? I also haven't called anyone names other than Bush a liar.
IIRC you said something about six months in your bet with 10Bears, how long do you think we should give Kay to find WMD?
Based on past responses I'll bet the answer is until he finds them.
You are wrong boy wonder.
Sec. 8. — Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
If you life is not in extreame danger I expect you will correct your error. If you can admit you made a mistake.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
The patch on our soldiers uniforms in Iraq aren't flying from a flag pole either and they are oriented backwards.
What is the proper way to wear a flag patch on one's shoulder sleeve?
Left Flag
Right or "reversed field" flag
To wear our country's flag properly, the field of stars should be worn closest to your heart. Thus, if your patch is to be worn on your LEFT sleeve, use a left flag. For patches worn on your RIGHT sleeve, use a "right" or "reversed field" flag. Since the law does not specifically address the positioning of the patch, a decision is left to the discretion of the organization prescribing the wear. Some elect to use the "left" flag on both sleeves. [Note: many states and cities have ordinances pertaining to the use of the flag; you may wish to contact the Attorney General of your state or the City Attorney’s office regarding this matter.] If you are planning to wear only one patch, it is recommended that you wear a "left" flag on your left sleeve. Military guidelines specify that in support of joint or multi-national operations, the "right" flag is worn on the right sleeve, 1/4" below the shoulder seam or 1/8" below any required unit patches.
Source: Army Website FAQs
Why is the flag sometimes backwards on the side of airplanes, buses, and other vehicles?
The flag decals have the union (the blue area with the stars) on the side closer to the front of the plane. On the plane's left, the decal shows the flag with the union at the left, as usual. On the plane's right side, the union is on the right. This is done so that the flag looks as if it is blowing in the wind created by the forward movement. You can see this on cars and trucks as well.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Only one problem with this statement and Sox62's link, none of those people are currently president.
Not to mention none of them lied us into a war.
You see what you want to see...you ignore the facts of the past 12 years....kinda convenient for your cause I suppose.
If you truly believe that Bush intentionally misled the American people, then you have allowed your politics to polute your judgement.
He and the world intelligence agencies could have been wrong I suppose...that does not make him a liar.
I don't think they were wrong at all...I have a friend over there and that is a big desert...more time is needed. Of course you and the left seem to think that all can be resolved within a few months...only your reality would allow for that I'm afraid.
-
As far as I can see, K2, you've been pretty well debunked by others more eloquent and informed than I. As for your comments on domestic issues, I'll only point out that not one democrat I've seen on the news bashing the President and calling for the reversal of the tax cuts has used the words "my tax cuts" or "our [i.e. us democrafts] tax cuts." It's always "the President's tax cuts." Same with those other domestic issues.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
As far as I can see, K2, you've been pretty well debunked by others more eloquent and informed than I.
that statement scares me!! if there are those more eloquent and more informed than you that must make me a crazed lunatic!
wait....
ok..
nevermind :D
-
LOL!:lol Nice one, Udie
-
hey who ever said being crazy can't be fun? :D
-
From your second link Krusher:
A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994.
Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? (http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,1056702,00.html)
(http://www.bartcop.com/int-terr-t-shirt.jpg)
I guess this kid is right based on that articles logic?
After all, the Bush family has ties to bin Laden going back 25 years.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
From your second link Krusher:
Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? (http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,1056702,00.html)
(http://www.bartcop.com/int-terr-t-shirt.jpg)
I guess this kid is right based on that articles logic?
After all, the Bush family has ties to bin Laden going back 25 years.
This shed some light for me...I feel sorry for you.
-
Gettin' deperate now, obviously.
Jeez... that's the best he do?
-
No more desperate than Krusher was to post that link, I'm just showing how easy it is to turn the same type of argument against Bush.
Those who try to whitewash Bush's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:
Is it true that the Bin Ladens have had business relations with Bush and family off and on for the past 25 years?
Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have known the Bin Ladens for a long time. What, exactly, is the extent of this relationship, Mr Bush? Are you close personal friends, or simply on-again, off-again business associates? Salem bin Laden - Osama's brother - first started coming to Texas in 1973 and later bought some land, built himself a house, and created Bin Laden Aviation at the San Antonio airfield.
After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a company known as the Carlyle Group - one of the nation's largest defence contractors. One of the investors in the Carlyle Group - to the tune of at least $2m - was none other than the Bin Laden family. Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the Carlyle Group.
After September 11, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this connection. Your first response, Mr Bush, was to ignore it. Then your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't paint these Bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! These are the good Bin Ladens.
And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of these "good" Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden had access to his family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least $30m), and the Bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and his group, al-Qaida, well funded.
Using the same tortured circular logic as in krushers link it's clear that Bush is an al-Queda operative. :rolleyes:
In the end the backpedaling and obfuscating by the right wing will still not be able to disguise the fact that Bush lied to us about the reasons for war with Iraq.
Just what was the "imminent threat" posed by Saddam?
I don't see it anywhere in Kays report.
-
As Kay pointed out, he's not done yet.
Puzzle on that a while.
-
Puzzle over this Toad:
Main Entry: im·mi·nent
Pronunciation: 'i-m&-n&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of imminEre to project, threaten, from in- + -minEre (akin to Latin mont-, mons mountain) -- more at MOUNT
Date: 1528
ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head
Main Entry: 1threat
Pronunciation: 'thret
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English thrEat coercion; akin to Middle High German drOz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust
Date: before 12th century
1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
2 : one that threatens
3 : an indication of something impending
-
Still haven't fixed your flag, putz-Stars to the LEFT.
-
This weekend was a jolt I needed to remember how vile the left is and that they will go to NO end to win victory to get their power back.
glad to see you finding justification for your prejudice! A real growing experience.
It seems that you guys are all in a tizzy about the lack of reporting of this matter in the "liberal press"
here is an EDITORIAL from the washington post on Sunday
Mr. Kay's report contains powerful evidence that significant illegal weapons programs were not discovered by U.N. inspectors and that Saddam Hussein was aggressively violating U.N. Resolution 1441
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45278-2003Oct4.html
here is COlin Powells own take on it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53173-2003Oct6.html
here is another one
Kay states that while no ready-to-use weapons have been found, Iraq is a big country and many depots and other locations are yet to be inspected. However, the Kay report does list evidence of continuing research and development (though not production) in each weapon category. It also describes activities and equipment that Iraq failed to declare to the United Nations and that were not discovered by the inspectors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48562-2003Oct5.html
The freakin NY TImes has a story on Bush's take of the report
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/04/politics/04WEAP.html
and the LA times has 2 stories on it, but Im not subscribing to either of them just to post stuf here.
what vile liberal scum, to report the news like that! This research took abot 2 minutes on Google, yet you popped off with an assumption before even looking into it. Even the zoo monkey would have checked first, although it might have taken him longer. sheesh
strk
-
^ strky, how bout put the whole quote of what I said up huh? :)
^ Personal attacks and cartoons, but definitely NOTHING of any substance what so ever. This weekend was a jolt I needed to remember how vile the left is and that they will go to NO end to win victory to get their power back. LA Times..... Greyout Davis - watched part of an interview with him yesterday. At the beginning of the interview he said he would comment on the LA Times story about Swartz. By the end of the interview all he was talking about were the allogations against the Swartz. They offer nothing but venom.....
It had little to do with the Kay report, though it was part of my thought. It had more to do with everything I saw last weekend, and last week, from the left. The Rush thing, the Kay report (and just because you post stories from 2 papers doesn't mean you've refuted my point) and then the Swartz thing and greyout davis himself. Reminded me exactly how vile the left is and will do just about anything to get back in power. It also had a lot to do with the 'debating' tactics used by you leftist here on this UBB. Cartoons and personal attacks.....
I stand by my statement.
[edit] missed this part of your post....
what vile liberal scum, to report the news like that! This research took abot 2 minutes on Google, yet you popped off with an assumption before even looking into it. Even the zoo monkey would have checked first, although it might have taken him longer. sheesh
:rofl looks like you were the one popping off with an ASSumption. How'd you do in reading comprehension?
-
Originally posted by Sabre
...debunked by others more eloquent and informed than I.
Sabre. Few are as well informed or eloquent as you are.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head
Hilarious being given dictionary quotes by one who can obviously read but then can't comprehend.
Here, read this again then think about it as long as you like. Feel free to keep posting, even before you finally understand what the guy said. It's entertaining.
KAY:
For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined.
Now, just to be helpful...
There is at this time no proof that there was not an "imminent threat" simply because of facts like the one posted above.
It's going to take more time. Anyone with any sort of adult approach to the subject realizes that.
Now, in time these places will be searched and others like them. And if nothing is found, THAT would be the moment to mount your soapbox and spew forth like you're doing prematurely right now.
Of course, in time WMD may well be found and proof of an "imminent threat" would be undeniable. In that event, you'll look even..... less intelligent...... than you do right now.
-
and just because you post stories from 2 papers doesn't mean you've refuted my point
well, it kinda does. you have some evidence?
sorry if I misundrstood what you meant and you got in the way of my axe grinding. I did make an assumption that you were discussing the thread topic but I will take you at your word and offer this apology
you are still wrong about everything though :)
strk
-
I still think the democrats need to invite Sadam hussein into there party....since he was such a swell guy that we did not need to go to war with obviously they should embrace him with "open arms" (cue the journey music)
k2cok
Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have known the Bin Ladens for a long time. What, exactly, is the extent of this relationship, Mr Bush? Are you close personal friends, or simply on-again, off-again business associates? Salem bin Laden - Osama's brother - first started coming to Texas in 1973 and later bought some land, built himself a house, and created Bin Laden Aviation at the San Antonio airfield.
but, osama himself never came to texas nor did any of these companies meet with osama HIMSELF. And please correct me if I'm wrong isnt the bin laden family HUGE and isnt osama considered mostly the astranged or outcasted one?
is that a picture of you wearing the Tshirt...if so i'm gonna shut up right now (youth is waisted on the young)
(end journey music)
ps change your flag avitar...it is disrespectfull to display it incorrectly....if your gonna run it upside down do it the right way
-
Originally posted by Eagler
unless they find filled 55 gallon drums labeled "SADDAM"S WMD HERE!" in 24" letters - they dems won't know they found "it" [/B]
And if they actually found something meaningful the conservatives would be dancing in the street.
-
Originally posted by Snork
And if they actually found something meaningful the conservatives would be dancing in the street.
More like dancing on the grave of the Democratic party. ;)
-
I think the main question has to be Is what we did in Iraq worth all the American lives It took to do it?
I voted for Bush But I must say that I do not believe that the people of the middle east are worth one single American live for anything NOT ONE THING!!
As far as I am concerned They can all kill eachother and starve to death.
There all Idiots that cant reasone and Have no respect for Human life.
And Now look at all the Billions being spent to rebuild the silly country !!
And do you see the jerks there! screaming Americans GO HOME!! we dont want you here!.
Fine we should come home and never go back.
And never send One red cent there way again.:mad: :mad:
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Doesn't change the fact that Bush looked into the cameras and lied to us.
lie ( P )
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
v. tr.
To cause to be in a specific condition or affect in a specific way by telling falsehoods: You have lied yourself into trouble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
mis·guid·ed
adj.
Based or acting on error; misled: well-intentioned but misguided efforts; misguided do-gooders.
Do a google for CIA/Cabinet information/actions if you don't get it.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Funny, the flag flying from the pole in my yard is displayed upside down.
When my neighbors asked about it I told them what it signified-they all agreed with me.
I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites.
So keep on spinning Iron, it's what you do best-welcome to my ignore list.
------------------------------------------------
USC Title 4
Sec. 8. — Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property
---------------------------------------------------------
You are in error. You are abusing the flag, and that is a fact. Displaying the flag with the union down has a purpose, and your "agenda" does not qualify.
Spin?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Of course, in time WMD may well be found and proof of an "imminent threat" would be undeniable. In that event, you'll look even..... less intelligent...... than you do right now.
Hey Toad... just for giggles, show k2(can't properly display the flag)cok where Bush used the words "imminent threat".
-
Originally posted by Udie
YOU PEOPLE ARE ARGUING WITH A MORON.
A shocking confession, but your honesty is commendable.
-
Originally posted by Snork
A shocking confession, but your honesty is commendable.
whew! I'm humbled by your searing wit!
NOT....
-
Originally posted by k2cok
No, I'm not a weasel,....
OMG!!... we've been hornschwaggled! lol It's all coming clear now. :rofl
-
Iraq had WMD.
umm read the kay report
Iraq's stockpile of WMD was large
again read the kay report
Iraq's WMD was battlefield ready
ever hear of a scud...or the ability to move it and WMDs...do you think this is at all possible.
AGAIN just invite Sadam to join the democratic party (cue the journey music) with "open arms"
cause he was just a swell guy. He was a good neighbor and a heart felt humanitarian
(end music):D
-
He was a good neighbor and a heart felt humanitarian
IMHO saddam's atrocities were enough reason to go in there and take control. I dont think that Bush would have gone in there for that reason though.
And it does create a slippery slope. Were next? China? Saudi? France?
strk
-
weasel was banned from the AH UBB? LOL thats funny! Best news I have had today. I need to get out more often.
-
Irrelevant. The USA did not go to war because Hussein was a monster.
umm yea we did....i've heard several mentions of torture and oppression as well as WMD
I have. It offered no conclusions except; no illicit weapons found so far.
from KAY himself:
In fact, I'm sort of amazed at what was powerful information about both their intent and their actual activities that were not known and were hidden from U.N. inspectors seems not to have made it to the press. This is information that, had it been available last year, would have been headline news
Well, we have found right now — and we're still finding them — over two dozen laboratories that were hidden in the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, were not declared to the U.N., had prohibited equipment, and carried on activities that should have been declared.
This is typical. We now have three cases in which scientists have come forward with equipment, technology, diagrams, documents and, in this case, actual weapons material, reference strains and Botulinum toxin, that they were told to hide and that the U.N. didn't find.
if these arnt illicit well than why cant i buy them on ebay
When's the last time Iraq used a Scud? Have any Scuds
been found?
1991...yes we found several burried in the desert. He aslo used several missles during the invasion that could have carried a payload of significant amount of deadly toxins that far exceeded UN limits
-
Specifically, from Kay's report:
ISG has discovered evidence of two primary cruise missile programs. The first appears to have been successfully implemented, whereas the second had not yet reached maturity at the time of OIF.
The first involved upgrades to the HY-2 coastal-defense cruise missile. ISG has developed multiple sources of testimony, which is corroborated in part by a captured document, that Iraq undertook a program aimed at increasing the HY-2's range and permitting its use as a land-attack missile.
These efforts extended the HY-2's range from its original 100km to 150-180km. Ten modified missiles were delivered to the military prior to OIF and two of these were fired from Umm Qasr during OIF -- one was shot down and one hit Kuwait.
In addition to the activities detailed here on Iraq's attempts to develop delivery systems beyond the permitted UN 150km,
Specifically.
-
These efforts extended the HY-2's range from its original 100km to 150-180km.
30km is a rather unspecific window, especially for one whose lower bound is the maximum permitted. Why didn't he just say that it had a range beyond the UN allowance, rather than qualify it in this vague manner?
-
We havnt found any yet, but those missles question could be converted to a different warhead AND there range exceeded the UN limit.
Look, Its a big destert out there and i just think its silly that people think Sadam had all these labs but wasnt producing. I think it is even more foolish to beleive he is just going to leave them were they are when he knows full well US troops are coming.
As for tryants:
we've gone after several in history. unfortunatly I dont have time right now to post them (shift change)
Will follow up on a later date
-
Well, Lawyer Daggett, you may or may not have found a loophole that your client might have squeezed through.
I'm sure not going to search all the UN resolutions against Iraq looking for ballistic vs cruise distinctions.
Why not?
Seems pretty clear what the UN intent was though. It was to restrict Iraq from being able to strike with missiles with a range greater than 150km.
And, since it made the Kay report in the fashion it did, one would seem there are others that hold that opinion as well.
Oh, and lastly, again from Kay:
2. In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn.
Looks like somebody didn't give a hoot about UN Resolutions.........
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Puzzle over this Toad:
Main Entry: im·mi·nent
Pronunciation: 'i-m&-n&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of imminEre to project, threaten, from in- + -minEre (akin to Latin mont-, mons mountain) -- more at MOUNT
Date: 1528
ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head
Main Entry: 1threat
Pronunciation: 'thret
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English thrEat coercion; akin to Middle High German drOz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust
Date: before 12th century
1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
2 : one that threatens
3 : an indication of something impending
Were we under an imminent threat on Sept. 10th?
You appear to be a bitter and hateful person, just like some others on this board.
-
You totally missed Rude's point, I think.
-
Did you hear the wooshing noise that point made when it flew by? :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Perhaps, please enlighten me.
Btw. nice touch on the Lawyer Daggett comment. For some reason I assumed that people actually read about what they are discussing, I was obviously mistaken. Reading the UNSC resolutions isn't that much work, and they might give you some insight in how and what must be found in Iraq to justify this war.
Dude, you do realize you're talking to Toad right? :rofl He's probably better read than most on this board.....
-
I think we all know what must be found.
You choose to push Saddam through the 150 KM loophole based on one of the many resolutions passed by the SC regarding weapons and Iraq.
I could read every single one and see if a later resolution said anything about cruise missiles but it's certainly not worth my time. It might be there, it might not. If it was, I'd probably read "well it was only two missiles.. they were aimed at Kuwait, not the US.. etc, etc."
You want to believe that Iraq was complying with every UN/SC resolution, go ahead.
It's immaterial because, had Iraq dumped a ton of VX on Kuwait the day before the invasion, the apologists would have still been out in full force.
If we find a few tons of VX, the apologists will find some exonerating excuse.
BTW, the point Rude was making, I believe, is that it's pretty tough to define "imminent danger" anymore. A few guys can grab an airliner on a no-notice terrorism ride and put a country and it's economy.. and most of the world's economy, into recession.
A few guys releasing VX in various busy airport lobbies.... before they get to the security screeners.. on heavy traffic holidays could easily accomplish the same.
So, when are you SURE you're in imminent danger? How long do you wait to decide? After they hit the WTC or after they release the VX?
I believe that was what he was saying.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
From your second link Krusher:
Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? (http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,1056702,00.html)
(http://www.bartcop.com/int-terr-t-shirt.jpg)
I guess this kid is right based on that articles logic?
After all, the Bush family has ties to bin Laden going back 25 years.
This Kid needs to worry more about things he can control.
like his complextion and getting his hand up some girls shirt for the first time.
-
They will need to find significant quantities of chem, bio or nuke weapons. Not one artillery shell, an amount that shows Iraq had a credible threat using these weapons. And this isn't new for me.. go back and read the various wager threads.
Yes, I imagine the UN/SC specifically thought they'd be using them as coastal defense missiles, too... not modified land attack missiles. Have YOU checked all the resolutions? Each one? I haven't and I'm not going to do so. Your theory is the loophole excuse.
Well, the UN only prohibited ballistic missiles from having range >150. It said nothing at all about an anti-ship missile modified to do the same job as a ballistic missile and upgrading it's range to >150. So.. it's all legal.
Yeah, technically I suppose it is. But it clearly violates intent. But, hey, any excuse will do.
I'm not apologizing for the US invasion of Iraq. WMD or not, I think it was, is and will be a good thing for the world and the region.
HOWEVER.. it's also my firmly held opinion that you don't send the sons and daughters of this country to war and then just say "oops! we were wrong!" The invasion was justified on the basis of WMD. The man ultimately responsible for send our greatest treasure into combat has to be held responsible and accountable if he was wrong. He should also get all the credit and accolades if it turns out he was right. Pretty simple. And, as I've also said before... and as KAY clearly points out... it's too early to make that judgement.
I think you're being naieve about attacks on the US. Rude's point is clear. Was their any way we could have prevented 9/11? Was their "imminent danger?" Not realistically; we didn't know we were in a war.
Assuming Iraq did have WMD, was there anyway we could have prevented SH from equipping a terror team with same and releasing the agent at a huge gathering? Superbowl? Airports during Christmas? It's pretty clear SH wasn't too happy with the US after GW1 and the no-fly zones. In fact, the no-fly zones were actually places of open combat between Iraqi Air Defense and US pilots.
9/11 doesn't make sense either.. except to a few nutbags.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
From your second link Krusher:
Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE
I guess this kid is right based on that articles logic?
again you seem to be hard pressed to stick to the point.
You claim there is no evidence and then when you see evidence you change the subject.. wtg..
-
It doesn't matter how old or how capable the HY-2 is. That is what I find so frustrating and gives rise to the "apologist" remark.
The buggers had NO respect for UN/SC resolutions. Kay's report pretty much says that outright.
Yet here we go.. "well, it really isn't a good missile". Hey.. they're NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT STUFF! Doesn't matter how well or poorly.. they're not supposed to be doing that.
"Only two of them".. well, ONE would have been plenty with WMD on it, right? If it hit the target? It's not a question of "only a little bit pregnant".
"Limited threat"? The idea is NO THREAT, as in NONE.
As for "ballistic missile" they were modding SA-2's to act as a ballistic missile. It would have been a crappy one. Should they get to do that because the SA-2 would make a crappy ballistic missile?
Again, it's not how successful they were in their attempts. It's the fact that they're not even supposed to be trying.
Personally, I DO view this as a "with us or against us" situation vis--vis the Muslim nations. Unquestionably, the current world-wide terrorist situation centers around ideological hard-line Muslim people. Chechnya, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Phillippines.. all places where fundamentalist Muslims are responsible for ongoing terrorist activities. Bottom line, those governments can help in the fight... or be considered my enemy. That's about all the "linkage" I need in today's world. Iraq was clearly in the "not helping" category.
And for those who think "ah, they're only mad at the US"... you need to get more knowledgable about fundamentalists of any sort. They're against everyone that isn't just like them. Your turns will come if they beat us into submission.
"The no-fly zones were not UN sanctioned."
The US, Britain and France set them up. The French withdrew support (probably because they don't have an Air Force budget up to the task ;)).
Now, show me where the UN/SC told the US & Britain that they had to stop doing that? Looks to me like the failure of the SC to clear this up speaks volumes.
-
Saddam was an evil cruel man, as was his regeim.
Saddam attacked a 'sovereign' country on more than one occasion.
Kay has found hard evidence of his continuing illegal arms program.
Saddam has had no problem is using bio/chem weapons in the past.
There is no doubt if the US had not had intervened at some point in the near future these weapons programs would have been revived to full functionality.
Now, it has stopped, Saddam is gone. Iraq is reinventing itself.
If you defend Saddam on technicalities, on political agenda's (ie Bush's previous presidential involvements), on legal rights, etc, then IMHO you are taking the side of someone I consider as bad as Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin... and so on.
GS, Saddam is gone, by whatever means, if you don't like the way it was done, tough luck. I'm sick of people like you playing with nuances in words and 'legalities' from the safety of your PC while people like ordinary Iraqi's are starved and tortured.
Millions of Jews died in WW2 because of arguments like yours.
Millions of Cambodians died at the hands of the Khmer Rouger because of arguments like yours.
Does it make you feel good to be 'PC'?
-
Here, read this... Kay spelled it out for you:
[/quote]
The first involved upgrades to the HY-2 coastal-defense cruise missile. ISG has developed multiple sources of testimony, which is corroborated in part by a captured document, that Iraq undertook a program aimed at increasing the HY-2's range and permitting its use as a land-attack missile. [/quote]
The modified missile is someting completely different from what the UN allowed. Ten were completed, two were used. Credible threat? Armed with WMD, it da n sure is. But stick to your loophole. The UN didn't envision the mods, so it's "o-tay".
The modded SA-2's were a violation and they were in production, IIRC. They just didn't get them done. Well, there ya go.. they didn't get them done. Use that loophole. It's "o-tay".
We don't have to invade. Nor do we have to aid or assist them in any manner. That'd be my first step.
I think you need to review the Islamic fundamentalists record of tolerance of others. Or lack of same.
to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with achieving the objectives of the resolution,
There's where your argument falls down. And the UN/SC never said a word about it. The US and Britain took the view that the no-flys were consistent with achieving the objectives of the resolution.
Defend Iraq all you like; to me, you merely illustrate the reason why the UN will never be a truly effective force for world peace.
-
Allowed = not banned?
Banned = not allowed?
Thanks, Lawyer J. Noble Daggett. You continue to make my point.
ISG has gathered testimony from missile designers at Al Kindi State Company that Iraq has reinitiated work on converting SA-2 Surface-to-Air Missiles into ballistic missiles with a range goal of about 250km.
Engineering work was reportedly underway in early 2003, despite the presence of UNMOVIC. This program was not declared to the UN. ISG is presently seeking additional confirmation and details on this project. A second cooperative source has stated that the program actually began in 2001, but that it received added impetus in the run-up to OIF, and that missiles from this project were transferred to a facility north of Baghdad. This source also provided documentary evidence of instructions to convert SA-2s into surface-to-surface missiles.
You tell me, Daggett.
Ah, the old "you supported him, nah, nah, na, nah, nah!" Yep we did. You do what you have to do based on the situation, information and capability at the time. Sort of like we did with Stalin.
Oh yeah.."you supported HIM too, nah, nah, na, nah, nah!"
But then sometimes, you have to do different things later. This is known as "times change" to a lot of folks.
Bet you had a gun when you were dealing with the fundamentalists.
Obviously, GB & the US didn't think that "Iraq had fully complied with 660 and 678 when the no-fly zones were still going on."
And the UN/SC never did a dang thing about the no-flys. So they must not have had a real problem with it either.
After all... they're the ~UN~ and they would've done something, right?
-
I would also like to point out that the current president did not institute the no fly zones.
Also prior to the invasion this current president gave Sadam MANY MANY MANY MANY chances to clean up his act or face consequences.
The weapons labs alone are evidence that he was not in complience. The diplomatic way was done, force was then necsesary.
Its funny how people forget....or just use selective memory
-
I never said the invasion was sactioned.....we had proof at the time...the UN did not listen and every effort was blocked by the french or somone esle. With diplomatic failure we took action.
the war was justified on the premise that Iraq's WMD was a threat to the USA.
not true...it was justified that iraq was a threat to the WORLD!
I think sadams track record speaks for itself
-
Originally posted by Toad
Thanks, Lawyer J. Noble Daggett. You continue to make my point.
Bet you're not nearly as cute as Kim Darby... LOL...
-
Yeah, and friends have, can and always will change to enemies in less time than the lifespan of a goldfish.
Well, maybe I ramble when lawyers loophole.
Yep, US troops aren't trained in peacekeeping much. Mainly in the air/land battle combat stuff. You may have noticed how they performed recently. We probably need to train a lot more military cops and peacemakers though.
The "perp"? :D Nicely done, lawyer. The "perp" was on the other side of the fence.
Funny the UN didn't even TRY though, isn't it? Are you aware of any SC resolutions offered with the purpose of stopping the no-flys? Russian and China condemned the no-flys, but that's about the maximum protest I can find.
Curious, don't you think? I mean if it really was a hot-button issue, wouldn't the SC have at least TRIED to go on record as standing for "the right thing"?
Guess not.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Selective memory runs rampant in both "camps" I'm afraid, like how this war was justified. The UN did not sanction an invasion even if Iraq was not in compliance, the war was justified on the premise that Iraq's WMD was a threat to the USA.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
How many times must it be said before you remember about the other resolutions. You know the one's dating back to the cease-fire?
Main Entry: cease-fire
Pronunciation: 'sEs-'fIr
Function: noun
Date: 1859
1 : a military order to cease firing
2 : a suspension of active hostilities
When you lose a war and you do not follow the terms of surrender guess what? Just because there is a cease-fire doesn't mean the war has ended. Where did SH comply with ANY of the resolutions? He fired missles at my countrymen and English pilots for 12 freakin years. You do remember why we put the no fly zones up right? TO STOP HIM FROM MURDERING HIS OWN PEOPLE FROM THE AIR So please save your breath about him defending his country, it doesn't fly. I heard not one person question anything that was done to Iraq any time we dropped bombs on them in the past 12 years, and it was almost daily. No one ever disbuted what SH was up to for 12 years. Until Bush finally decided to end the situation the only way it was going to be, with force.
We can sit here and argue this for ever. This is the last post I'm going to make on this subject. Any valid justification, and there are many that haven't even been mentioned, is just ignored by you guys. I just think you people either hate a conservative so much that you would never agree to be part of "his war". By the way, it's not his war. One of the reasons I voted for him was because he said he would do something about Iraq. I cant tell if you really just don't want a war or if you guys just hate America, which I'm sure some do. Frankly I don't care anymore. America has protected the free world for over 60 years and I would think most of the free world would be smart enough to realize how bad it would have been if we had not have stood up to the soviet union and that the USA was more interested in freedom and liberty than being an empire.
Then there's 9/11. Dude I can't tell you how much that still pisses me off. I have an image that's been in my head ever since that day. An African American man jumping to his death. His red tie clearly visible flapping in the wind. We ain't ****in around with the terrorist. You want to know what I'm mad at Bush about? Hezbala, Islamic Jihad and the other palestinian terrorist that operate out of lebenon financed by Iran, Syria and most other Islamic countries, and formerly financed by saddam himself. Why are they still there? That's why I'm mad at Bush, he's not doing enough in my opinion. I'm sure he has his reasons though. My point is we're damned serious about what we're doing here. It is a with us or against us kind of situation. That doesn't mean I expect you guys to go fight along side of us, though that would be nice. It does mean that expect you not to get in our way, that's considered against us to me. You know with the terrorist.
The war on terror is a 2 front war, for now.....
-
Brutality? :rofl
Cripes, your the Johnny Cochran for Iraq!
"Yer honor, my client's deliberate slaughter of his citizen after the Gulf War was nothing of the sort!"
Too funny!
However I think the UN for political reasons wanted to be seen as united against Iraqi aggression following the quite fragile coalition that ousted Iraq from Kuwait.
So, you agree then that the UN itself really didn't have a problem with the no-flys. Thanks.
Therefore ... inaction rather than take sides.
We agree again. This is the standard operating procedure for the UN in all cases.
-
I just think you people either hate a conservative so much that you would never agree to be part of "his war".
NEWS FLASH:
Bush is not a conservative, he just plays one on TV.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Vulcan, I'm sick of people like you who think you have the right to do whatever you want just because you feel it is good. Does it make you feel good to be an international vigilante?
Yes it does. Its better than standing aside having philosophical arguments while people die needlessly.
My inlaws are Cambodian, for the last 15 years I've heard many stories. My wife lost her father and sister to the Khmer Rouge, my ex girlfriend lost her entire family and saw her parents beheaded.
Its a pity Cambodia didn't have oil, any reasons better than standing by and letting millions die.
IIRC one quarter of the Iraqi population lived in exile. Saddams sons used a giant 'brand mulching' machine to execute dissidents. So, please, return to your bashing of GWB, and defence of Uncle Saddam, I'm sure he appreciates it ;)
p.s. I'm not American, so I don't give a flying f*** about the Libs vs Dems rubbish. All I care about is the ends justifies the means.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm glad I can amuse you ;)
In most cases, yes. And in most cases inaction is the best solution. War on the other hand is not.
Tell the victims of Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler etc that. Or do you have something against Asians, Jews etc that you think justifies the genocidal actions of these maniacs?
-
Vulcan
The UN was the entity that condemned Iraq in words only, then hid it's collective french and german head in the sand when words needed action. Makes me sick, some people.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Vulcan
The UN was the entity that condemned Iraq in words only, then hid it's collective french and german head in the sand when words needed action. Makes me sick, some people.
I had little faith in the UN since I research why no one helped in Cambodia, basically the UNs attitude was it doesn't get involved in internal issues and the US was getting spanked at home by the anti-war crowd. Now whenever I see peace-marches I call them murderers, it usually provokes a stunned response followed by a 'what do you mean'.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What was done with Stalin or Pol Pot? And why not?
There are plenty more cruel leaders around the world, most of them could be taken down with far less resources than what was needed for Hussein. Why isn't this being done?
If you think that the USA went to war in Iraq because Hussein was a monster you are deluding yourself. Think happy thoughts and conveniently forget that nations don't have motives, they have interests. Yes, that the ticket.
Are you saying that you support getting rid of cruel leaders, yet are against getting rid of Hussein because we dont get rid of EVERY cruel leader? Please explain.
-
You are correct, the US ( and UK ) didnt go to war against Iraq because they had a cruel leader. We went to war because they did not comply with their obligations that they committed to in order to secure a cease-fire after they were routed out of Kuwait.
If they had complied, they would have been okay.
They posed a threat to the US and others, and they could never be trusted.
So, do you want the US to attack China? Explain your logic because I dont see any logic in your argument.
Please go on record and tell everyone why the US went into IraQ, just so the average Joe will know. You seem to be an insider that knows why the US went into Iraq.
-
(http://www.dubyasworld.com/dubya-veterans-cuts.jpg)
-
Originally posted by rpm371
(http://www.dubyasworld.com/dubya-veterans-cuts.jpg)
:eek:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The mere fact that Iraqi oil will be free for sale after the UN sanctions are lifted will save the USA billions in lowered oil prices. Then there is the rebuilding of Iraq's oil industry. I can see how US companies can get very lucrative business deals in future Iraqi oil deals, especially with your guys running the country. Hussein was the only Arab leader so far to oppose the US and survive (GW1), and he got lots of kudos from Arabs in general for his stance. I can see how getting rid of him would strengthen your position in the Middle East both politically and militarily. All this and more! For the mere price of a few sons and daughters. What a bargain.
Say what you want. The fact remains that Saddam was a brutal and murderous dictator who tortured and killed thousands. It seems to me that if it were up to you he would still be reigning terror upon his people, no?
-
Originally posted by rpm371
(http://www.dubyasworld.com/dubya-veterans-cuts.jpg)
WASHINGTON (April 24, 2003) - The statement below was issued today by Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi:
One of the byproducts of the Internet Age is the blinding speed with which rumor becomes accepted "fact" among those willing to believe. More than a century ago, a wise man wrote, "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on." Today, lies can rocket around the world before the truth can even find its socks. Only prompt intervention can squelch rumors before they are widely accepted as truth.
Here`s a rumor that desperately needs squelching -- On the eve of our battle to liberate the Iraqi people, Congress slashed funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the organization I am privileged to lead. This rumor has the potential to frighten America`s veterans, and to undermine morale among our brave troops in the field.
The rumor has already surfaced on the Internet, in Hollywood, and on the op-ed pages of the venerable New York Times. Even a member of Congress, in a Chicago Sun-Times op-ed published April 13, wrote of a "$28 billion cut in veterans` benefits and health care."
If any such cut in veterans` benefits were made, veterans and their families would be justifiably concerned. But there is no truth to any suggestion or assertion that VA`s budget will be "cut" or "slashed" next year. In fact, funding for veterans programs will increase in fiscal year 2004, probably by record levels.
President Bush`s fiscal year 2004 budget requests a record $63.6 billion for our nation`s veterans, including a nearly 8-percent increase over the fiscal year 2003 budget for discretionary funding - which mostly pays for VA`s health care system -- and a 32-percent increase in overall funding since fiscal year 2001. And the Budget Conference report the House and Senate agreed to on April 11 raises the suggested levels of discretionary funding for veterans by an additional $1.8 billion.
This rumor may have been fueled by a parliamentary maneuver that escaped even the most die-hard C-Span viewers. At about the time the Iraq war began, the House of Representatives passed a resolution requesting House and Senate Appropriations Committee members to reduce most federal agencies` funding, including VA`s, by 1 percent in fiscal year 2004, a reduction they believed could be made up by reducing waste, fraud and abuse at each department.
If that measure had passed, it would have lowered the amount of the record increase in funding President Bush proposed for veterans, but it would not have cut VA`s funding. Lawmakers, however, quickly recognized the impact upon veterans and exempted VA from the across-the-board reductions.
So, despite rumors they may hear to the contrary, veterans and their families, including our newest generation of veterans, should rest secure in the knowledge that a grateful nation honors their service to America. These days, the only cuts at VA are to the waiting lists for medical care and the backlog of compensation claims. While VA can always use more money, the interests of America`s veterans and their families will continue to be protected by Congress, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the President.
Nice try though :rofl
-
Didn't the demo's teach you anything in 1995? Remember when they school lunched the repubs? Don't you remember that if you lower the rate increase percentage that's in fact a cut and that you are trying to starve children and kill your parents. Sheesh I think you need to go back to the re-education camp.
-
LSD.... PCP...
Aberdeen proving grounds, secret chemical and biological experiments on US citizens up into the mid 70s.
Anthrax experiments - to this day.
Nuclear tests in Arizona and New Mexico with military personelle exposed to radition.
Jet pilots order to fly through mushroom clouds.
Bikini Island - sailors told to stand and face the blast.
What do all of these have in common?
The US Governement tested WMD upon its own people.... mostly military personel... in some cases US cities were down wind of the fall out.
Let's not forget CIA assasinations and coups in other countries...
Iran Contra... remember that one? Arms given to terrorists in exchange for hostages..... when was that? 20 years ago... Bush Senior was involved in that fiasco.
How many times has the US Governement lied to the people, lied to Congress when all of these activites were discovered...
Cover ups and punishing whistle blowers
Sure Saddam is evil...
Now what makes us so pure and rightgeous?
Oh yah... we're the biggest bully in the world.
We talk about democracy and freedom... and international law.
Yet.. when it comes to an international democratic vote and everyone votes against us... we go and invade a 3rd world country that was never an immediate threat to us.
Self protection - hardly.
We say look they have WMD and they've used them on their own people - we must stop this evil..... yet look at our selves... we sold them the weapons... and we too are quilty of using WMD upon our own people.
Now the International Red Cross is calling for us to abide by the Geneva convention in regards to those being detained for 9/11.
Why doesn't Mr. Bush abide by this convention?
We would expect Iran, Iraq, China, and North Korea to abide by it
if our military personel were captured.
A captured enemy combatant is a prisoner of war - are we at war or aren't we? If we are at war then this is war time.
Leaks of national secrets is punishable by death. Who ever leaked the CIA operatives name... should be executed.
Bush was suppose to bring dignity to the White House - he has disgraced America. We've lost credibility with the world. We are blind to our own hypocrisy.
The truth will be told. Murder and violence doesn't make Bush a strong leader. It makes him a stupid leader. Violence is stupid.
The truth will come out about how Bush and his administration is lying to the American people.
-
DMDNexus,
Your WHOLE statement...wich may be partley mostly or not at all true...doesnt matter in my opinion.
By your statement because we may have had a bad track record in the past means we do nothing in the present or in the future. Its that same attitude that IMO got us in trouble in the first place. By your statement becuase we may have supplied future terrorists in the past for what ever reason we dont fight them in the future because they threaten the lives of the innocent.
If your gonna complain bout the current administration and not offer any other opinion other than that he did wrong IMO you are ignorant....you cant offer a complaint with out offering a viable solution.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If it were up to me, the invasion would not have taken place unless a credible justification was presented. Yes, that would in all likelihood leave Hussein in power to this day.
Well, guess what?
It's not up to you or your EU or the UN...sucks don't it? Looks like the only thing you get to do is come to a US owned and operated BBS and whine about how unfair the US is.
Knock yourself out...hope ya have fun.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Aberdeen proving grounds, secret chemical and biological experiments on US citizens up into the mid 70s.
Some type of documentation here? Or is this off one of your 'Black Helicopter Sighting' websites?
Anthrax experiments - to this day.
Trying - trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. What do you mean - *specifically* - by 'experiments'? Do you mean work with anthrax to develop vaccinations?
Nuclear tests in Arizona and New Mexico with military personelle exposed to radition.
True, but they had no idea what the effects would be. I'd call that 'inexperience' as opposed to 'evil experimentation'.
Jet pilots order to fly through mushroom clouds.
I have never heard of this. I have heard of aircraft flying near mushroom clouds to collect data/samples/etc.
Bikini Island - sailors told to stand and face the blast.
You forgot the 'while wearing protective eyewear' part. I had an Uncle who was there. He said it was one of the most amazing things he'd ever seen.
The US Governement tested WMD upon its own people.... mostly military personel... in some cases US cities were down wind of the fall out.
They tested nuclear weapons in the desert and had no clue as to what fallout was. It was a mistake caused by inexperience. My Mom grew up in a mining town in the middle of the desert in Utah. The cancer rate in that town was unbelievable. My Mom has had cancer numerous times. One of her Sisters died from leukemia that was determined to have been caused by fallout. The Government SCIENTISTS (yes, they determined how the tests were conducted, etc. so some 'evil government conspiracy to test weapons on the unsuspecting people' won't really hold up here - the guys involved with the nuclear program were recruited from the civilian sector - so if you are going to convene a war crimes tribunal don't forget to invite the academia) simply had no idea. And in the '70s and '80s the U.S. Government offered to heavily compensate (monetarily) almost everyone who was affected by the tests. Want to hear a shocker (for you)? A lot of the people affected passed on the compensation. They're pretty patriotic out there in those areas, and they figured that since the medical bills were already being covered...why take $$$ the U.S. Government could use elsewhere. Suffice it to say that's not a particularly 'liberally extreme' part of the Nation.
Let's not forget CIA assasinations and coups in other countries...
Yup, assassinating and overthrowing leaders propped up by Nations hostile to the U.S. and (sometimes) the Allies of the U.S. They were doing their job - like everyone else's intelligence services. The only difference is they were working from the disadvantage of representing an open, democratic society.
But your disdain is okay - dislike of the 'dirty play' *required* in covert and clandestine situations is disliked by many Americans both conservative and liberal. That just makes you guys naive - in a good way (not joking). But if you're going to list the coups and assassination (attempts - the KGB were the past masters of actual removal of people they wanted out of the way - and I say this with professional respect not with 'they're bad' disdain in my voice) performed by the CIA, please keep it in context. Every major power screwed over whoever they thought necessary in the intelligence war - and they still do. It's how the game is played. As the saying goes - "I hate to break it to you my American Friend but Benjamin Franklin was a diehard spy and he read other people's mail like you would not believe".
Iran Contra... remember that one? Arms given to terrorists in exchange for hostages..... when was that? 20 years ago... Bush Senior was involved in that fiasco.
What terrorist groups - be specific - were given arms? I think your memory on this is a little faulty. And Bush Senior was in charge of the CIA when some of the greatest victories in the history of American intelligence operations took place. Just because you hate the Bush Family does not mean they sucked at the various services they performed on behalf of the people of the U.S.A.
Yet.. when it comes to an international democratic vote and everyone votes against us... we go and invade a 3rd world country that was never an immediate threat to us.
'Everyone votes against us?' How about a dual homework assignment - you and me together. You list who voted against 'us', and I'll list who helped us. I gurantee I can list some Nations who voted for military action - so 'everyone' is a very, very inaccurate statement.
Self protection - hardly.
'So says a democratic hack with an axe to grind'. We'll keep your opinions in mind.
Not.
We say look they have WMD and they've used them on their own people - we must stop this evil..... yet look at our selves... we sold them the weapons... and we too are quilty of using WMD upon our own people.
What *weapons* did we sell Iraq? Be very specific please. If it happened, I'm sure you can find a detailed manifest on some French website (that probably won't list what Iraq was provided with by France and other Nations). So - to recap - I want a list of *weapons* (chemical and biological) that were sold or given to Iraq by the U.S.A.
Now the International Red Cross is calling for us to abide by the Geneva convention in regards to those being detained for 9/11.
No, they aren't. You're either lying here or you don't have a clue. The IRC was allowed (and still is) 'into the camp' and they don't have complaints. Amnesty International wants them declared 'POW' as opposed to 'enemy combatant', but like you, Amnesty International probably never bothered to read the Geneva Convention in detail - thus the assnine arguments/demands/requests.
Why doesn't Mr. Bush abide by this convention?
Because he does?
We would expect Iran, Iraq, China, and North Korea to abide by it if our military personel were captured.
Actually, we wouldn't 'expect' it. The word I got was if I wound up fighting Iranians, Iraqis, Chinese, or North Koreans was to 'save a couple of rounds for you and your wounded buddies'. If they did abide by it it would be a shocking and pleasant surprise. I guess you never heard about the U.S. POWs (That's UNIFORMED SERVICEMEN WHO SURRENDERED) who were photographed dead - one hole at the base of the skull and hands behind their backs tied at the wrists with barbed wire - courtesy of NK and Chicom troops during the Korean war.
Spare me the 'brutal U.S.' comments. We're Choirboys compared to most of the Nations in the world during wartime.
A captured enemy combatant is a prisoner of war
According to whom? Not the Geneva Convention (see above). I think (know) you have a very flawed understanding of the type of people being detained in Cuba. ATF soldiers who surrendered while wearing a uniform were not taken to Cuba. I know this because I was there several times when they were released to go back to their Family/village/etc.
Leaks of national secrets is punishable by death. Who ever leaked the CIA operatives name... should be executed.
Technically speaking, the leak of the (alleged) covert CIA officer's name is a felony, but it is not treason so it isn't punishable by death.
However, I think it should be. And I agree with you that whoever did leak the information - *if* such a leak occured, i.e. *if* the CIA employee in question had/was actually operating under a NOC - should be hanged...
...regardless of their political affiliation.
The truth will be told.
It will. 20 to 30 years from now for the most part. I'm tempted to have an 'AH BBS reunion' 30 years from now, just to see what people think. Archive the posts, etc.
Violence is stupid.
I'd have to say it is only when there is no cause or purpose. Sometimes violence is necessary. Like when Drex doesn't want to drink his JM. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Say what you want. The fact remains that Saddam was a brutal and murderous dictator who tortured and killed thousands. It seems to me that if it were up to you he would still be reigning terror upon his people, no?
But are they really worth American lives?
I dont think so our military is to protect us from our enemies.
At what point did saddum become our enemy?
Before or after we put him in power and gave him the technology to build WMD?
Look Im as glad as the next guy that that Jerk aint killing any more people and his Bastard sons are Dead.
But I am Sick to death of all the Metal coffins coming back to America.
This may sound harsh but I dont think those people are worth ONE American life!
:mad:
-
Originally posted by Tumor
WASHINGTON (April 24, 2003) - The statement below was issued today by Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi:
... But there is no truth to any suggestion or assertion that VA`s budget will be "cut" or "slashed" next year. In fact, funding for veterans programs will increase in fiscal year 2004, probably by record levels.
President Bush`s fiscal year 2004 budget requests a record $63.6 billion for our nation`s veterans, including a nearly 8-percent increase over the fiscal year 2003 budget for discretionary funding - which mostly pays for VA`s health care system -- and a 32-percent increase in overall funding since fiscal year 2001. And the Budget Conference report the House and Senate agreed to on April 11 raises the suggested levels of discretionary funding for veterans by an additional $1.8 billion.
If that measure had passed, it would have lowered the amount of the record increase in funding President Bush proposed for veterans, but it would not have cut VA`s funding. Lawmakers, however, quickly recognized the impact upon veterans and exempted VA from the across-the-board reductions.
So, despite rumors they may hear to the contrary, veterans and their families, including our newest generation of veterans, should rest secure in the knowledge that a grateful nation honors their service to America.
Nice try though :rofl
From Gannett News:
Meanwhile, New York's House Republicans are considering a number of options. Kelly has asked Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Syracuse, chairman of a House panel that oversees VA spending, to remove $225 million to implement top priorities of the plan when House and Senate negotiators write the final VA spending bill. The money is already in the House bill.
Other options being considered are a direct appeal to Bush and asking VA to voluntarily give the plan further study.
New York veterans agree with the move to slow down the CARES process. "The acronym CARES doesn't make sense," said Dan Griffin, who heads the Westchester chapter of Vietnam Veterans of America. "Who are they caring about? It's about the almighty dollar. It's supposed to be about veterans."
Nice try tho :rofl
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
LSD.... PCP...
Aberdeen proving grounds, secret chemical and biological experiments on US citizens up into the mid 70s.
Anthrax experiments - to this day.
Nuclear tests in Arizona and New Mexico with military personelle exposed to radition.
Jet pilots order to fly through mushroom clouds.
Bikini Island - sailors told to stand and face the blast.
What do all of these have in common?
The US Governement tested WMD upon its own people.... mostly military personel... in some cases US cities were down wind of the fall out.
DAMN, Nexus. You forgot the use of flouride in our water to control our minds, the introduction of AIDS to pacify the populous, and the use of the VLA to communicate with aliens to direct precision meteor strikes on our enemies.
Just to clear something up. I'm sure you've seen plenty of footage of US soldiers digging foxholes in a desert and then watching an artillery piece fire a nuclear shell down range. Then, when the shock is done, the soldiers walk to the mushroom clouds.
Yes, this happened (my Dad was there). What nobody realizes is that tactical nukes were made much safer (as far as fallout was concerned) in the late '70s and '80s. The idea was that if we were going to roll over a Soviet tank column, we might have to nuke them and then assault their position. Those soldiers walking into ground zero were all carrying geiger counters and RED badges. The point was to show the soldiers that there was very little fallout and the ambient radiation was just slightly over what we get from the sky every day. American nukes haven't been 'dirty' since the city killers of the early '60s.
-
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Nice try tho :rofl
RPM... I don't do google wars, but you really should read the whole article, I'll refrain from embarrasing you in public. :rofl
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes why didn't the USA do something about Pol Pot? Why did they do something about Hussein?
I'll give you a clue, take a look in the mirror...
Now would you like to buy a vowel?
-
DmdNexus: Now the International Red Cross is calling for us to abide by the Geneva convention in regards to those being detained for 9/11.
Mike/wulfie: No, they aren't. You're either lying here or you don't have a clue.
Associated Press:
Red Cross Condemns Guantanamo Detentions (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031010/ap_on_re_us/guantanamo_protests_3)
Fri Oct 10, By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
Reuters, 10.10.03, 2:57 PM ET:WASHINGTON - The International Red Cross said it was unacceptable that the United States continues to detain more than 600 people at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba without charges or prospect of a timely trial.
But [the United States] refuses to treat the detainees as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions and reserves the right to hold them indefinitely without bringing them to trial.
Nash: Not the first time you've used the "lying or doesn't have a clue" remark, Mike. Pot/kettle/black... shack?
-
Originally posted by Nash
DmdNexus: Now the International Red Cross is calling for us to abide by the Geneva convention in regards to those being detained for 9/11.
Mike/wulfie: No, they aren't. You're either lying here or you don't have a clue.
Associated Press:
Red Cross Condemns Guantanamo Detentions (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031010/ap_on_re_us/guantanamo_protests_3)
Fri Oct 10, By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
Reuters, 10.10.03, 2:57 PM ET:WASHINGTON - The International Red Cross said it was unacceptable that the United States continues to detain more than 600 people at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba without charges or prospect of a timely trial.
But [the United States] refuses to treat the detainees as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions and reserves the right to hold them indefinitely without bringing them to trial.
Nash: Not the first time you've used the "lying or doesn't have a clue" remark, Mike. Pot/kettle/black... shack?
Nash,
When DmdNexus said what he said:
'Now the International Red Cross is calling for us to abide by the Geneva convention in regards to those being detained for 9/11.'
'A captured enemy combatant is a prisoner of war'
I thought he was stating that the ICRC had said that the U.S. was in violation of the Geneva Convention. Amnesty International said this shortly after the detention center was opened (their charge was 'inhumane living conditions) and it was the ICRC that 'debunked' the AI charges when the U.S. allowed the ICRC to review the facility (this is where my thinking that maybe DmdNexus had confused the ICRC with AI came from, along with my comment about the ICRC 'finding nothing wrong').
I also took exception to what I thought his line of reasoning was: 'ICRC says U.S. in violation of Geneva Convention' = 'U.S. in violation of Geneva Convention'.
To be in violation of the Geneva Convention is a strong accusation. It usually has something to do with actions in the realm of war crimes. I did not feel that describing a difference of opinion between the ICRC and the U.S. over 'who is a POW and who is a battlefield detainee' as 'a violation of the Geneva Convention' was 'accurate wording', and to be honest - when considering the tone of most of DmdNexus posts - I thought he was intentionally mistating things. He has before.
The article which you posted a link to (an article which I had no idea existed - it was released by AP on the same day that my repsonse to DmdNexus was posted to the AH BBS) primarily addrsses concern over detainees mental state as affected by their lack of legal status and thus any certainty regarding their future (as opposed to inhumane treatment, torture, etc.) and ICRC concerns over the detainees not being given the due process and legal rights afforded to POWs (kind of an impasse as the U.S. considers itself to be classifying the detainees correctly as detainees as far as the Geneva Convention goes). DmdNexus statements, while apparently referring to the report that you listed, in fact deal with entirely different issues.
If he had posted the link you did, and/or worded things with any attention to accuracy I think a misunderstanding could have been avoided.
Did that make any sense? :)
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Mike/wulfie, you are right of course! It's not like Dr. Oppenheimer and his team had already figured out the theoretical fallout effects of atomic bombs before they were even made, and I'm sure Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a good indication of what would happen seeing how radioactivity was an unknown thing, and the Geiger counter suuuuuure as hell wasn't invented in 1928! (You're such a tool!)
I don't think they had theorized about fallout yet. And I'm fairly sure that the tests that caused fallout to impact the small towns in the midwest and southwest took place before the weapons were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My memory on it could be fuzzy, but I recall my Dad telling me how he saw the light from the first atom bomb test on the horizon while he was delivering papers in Salt Lake City, UT. and that was while the war was still going on.
Sorry to hear that you consider me a 'tool'.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Nash
shack?[/COLOR]
What does 'shack' mean? I know it's probably a 'put-down' but I was curious as to the specific meaning.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by wulfie
So Nash - I'd like your personal opinon. Be honest - do you think I was lying and/or 'clueless' with regards to the situation?
Mike/wulfie
It wasn't lying... but...
Unlike DmdNexus, you just weren't aware of the facts when you called him clueless or a liar for posting those facts. Which would put you in the "clueless" category (your labelling system, not mine), wouldn't you say?
"Shack" is a term used around here when one makes an irrefutable point. I have to confess, however... Due to the highly selective nature of its use, I'm not sure which is a more egregious abuse of AH BBS protocol; to use it referring to your own post, or to use it when it's not given as the official 'attaboy' response to a right wing/conservative/republican poster. No matter how good an argument you'll hear out of, say, MT, Dowding, Thrawn or Erlkonig, you'll never see it followed by the word "Shack" and some smug little emoticon... such as this: ;)
;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nash,
I edited my response above to better explain where I was coming from.
By the way - is your squadron named after a band? :)
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm sorry I called you a tool, but please stop being so naive. Radioactivity and its negative effects were discovered in 1896, and confirmed by Niels Bohr in 1913 as a nuclear property. The effects of radiation on a human being was well known (in scientific circles) indeed Harry K. Daghlian, a Manhattan Project scientist died of radiation poisining in an accident in 1945. The effect on a population was of course unknown ... but they tested that too.
Just so you don't think poorly of U.S. public schools - I know all about the history of radiation. I was saying I don't think (but I don't know) that they really knew what the true effect and extent of fallout would be. I think the implication (made by someone else, not you) that the U.S. Government set off nuclear bombs on U.S. soil with the intent to 'test fallout effects on U.S. citizens' is ridiculous.
Mike/wulfie
-
SBM? You got it - it's after the band. It just struck me as making for a great squad name.
As to your explanation, you say "If he had... worded things with any attention to accuracy I think a misunderstanding could have been avoided."
But he simply said: "Now the International Red Cross is calling for us to abide by the Geneva convention in regards to those being detained for 9/11."
That's clearly worded and quite accurate.
Your excuse broken down into two parts:
a) You say that you "thought he was stating that the ICRC had said that the U.S. was in violation of the Geneva Convention." Again, what he said was "abide by". He didn't say it wrong, you read it wrong.
b) You "also took exception to what [you] thought his line of reasoning was: 'ICRC says U.S. in violation of Geneva Convention' = 'U.S. in violation of Geneva Convention'." So here not only were you still confused with your "abide/violation" misread but, just as you point out, you then extrapolated it incorrectly.
Now, all of this would be fine if your new explanation was to show how/why you got his one, perfectly accurate sentence so totally distorted... but you seem to want to use this explanation to further demonstrate why HE is still in error.
I don't think we can erase the check mark from the clueless box just yet... eh?
-
(http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/031004/ramirez.gif)
-
That would be a whole lot funnier if it was followed by an announcement saying WMD was just found.
-
The following words of Colin Powel sum up the Kay report far better than I could hope to. I didn't see them posted anywhere above, and apologize in advance if it has already been posted.
Friday, October 10, 2003
Ample cause to oust Saddam
What David Kay found
By COLIN POWELL
THE INTERIM findings of David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group make two things abundantly clear: Saddam Hussein's Iraq was in material breach of its United Nations obligations before the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 last November, and Iraq went further into breach after the resolution was passed.
Kay's interim findings offer detailed evidence of Saddam's efforts to defy the international community to the last. The report describes a host of activities related to weapons of mass destruction that "should have been declared to the U.N." It reaffirms that Iraq's forbidden programs spanned more than two decades, involving thousands of people and billions of dollars.
What the world knew last November about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs was enough to justify the threat of serious consequences under Resolution 1441. What we now know as a result of David Kay's efforts confirms that Saddam had every intention of continuing his work on banned weapons despite the U.N. inspectors, and that we and our coalition partners were right to eliminate the danger that his regime posed to the world.
Although Kay and his team have not yet discovered stocks of the weapons themselves, they will press on in the months ahead with their important and painstaking work. All indications are that they will uncover still more evidence of Saddam's dangerous designs.
Before the war, our intelligence had detected a calculated campaign to prevent any meaningful inspections. We knew that Iraqi officials, members of the ruling Baath Party and scientists had hidden prohibited items in their homes.
Lo and behold, Kay and his team found strains of organisms concealed in a scientist's home, and they report that one of the strains could be used to produce biological agents. Kay and his team also discovered documents and equipment in scientists' homes that would have been useful for resuming uranium enrichment efforts.
Kay and his team have "discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery ... has come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that the Iraq Survey Group has discovered that should have been declared to the U.N."
The Kay Report also addresses the issue of suspected mobile biological agent laboratories: "Investigation into the origin of and intended use for the two trailers found in northern Iraq in April has yielded a number of explanations, including hydrogen, missile propellant and BW (biological warfare) production, but technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers. That said, nothing ... rules out their potential use in BW production." Here Kay's findings are inconclusive. He is continuing to work this issue.
Kay and his team have, however, found this: "A clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to U.N. monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW (chemical-biological weapons) research." They also discovered: "a prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N."
The Kay Report confirms that our intelligence was correct to suspect the al-Kindi Co. of being involved in prohibited activity. Missile designers at al-Kindi told Kay and his team that Iraq had resumed work on converting SA-2 surface-to-air missiles into ballistic missiles with a range of about 250 kilometers, and that this work continued even while UNMOVIC inspectors were in Iraq. The U.N.-mandated limit for Iraq was a range of 150 kilometers.
The Kay Report also confirmed our prewar intelligence that indicated Iraq was developing missiles with ranges up to 1,000 kilometers. Similarly, Kay substantiated our reports that Iraq had tested an unmanned aerial vehicle to 500 kilometers, also in violation of U.N. resolutions.
What's more, he and his team found that elaborate efforts to shield illicit programs from inspection persisted even after the collapse of Saddam's regime. Key evidence was deliberately eliminated or dispersed during the postwar period. In a wide range of offices, laboratories and companies suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, computer hard drives were destroyed, files were burned and equipment was carefully cleansed of all traces of use - and done so in a pattern that was clearly deliberate and selective, rather than random.
One year ago, when President Bush brought his concerns about Iraq to the United Nations, he made it plain that his principal concern in a post-Sept. 11 world was not just that a rogue regime such as Saddam Hussein's had WMD programs, but that such horrific weapons could find their way out of Iraq into the arms of terrorists who would have even fewer compunctions about using them against innocent people across the globe.
In the interim report, Kay and his team record the chilling fact that they "found people, technical information and illicit procurement networks that if allowed to flow to other countries and regions could accelerate global proliferation."
Having put an end to that harrowing possibility alone justifies our coalition's action against Saddam's regime. But that is not the only achievement of our brave men and women in uniform and their coalition partners.
Three weeks ago, I paid my respects at a mass grave in the northern city of Halabja, where on a Friday morning in March 1988, Saddam's forces murdered 5,000 men, women and children with chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein can cause no more Halabjas. His "Republic of Fear" no longer holds sway over the people of Iraq. For the first time in three decades, the Iraqi people have reason to hope for the future.
President Bush was right: This was an evil regime, lethal to its own people, in deepening material breach of its Security Council obligations and a threat to international peace and security. Saddam would have stopped at nothing until something stopped him. It's a good thing that we did.
COLIN POWELL is secretary of state.
THE WASHINGTON POST
D. GRETHEN / LOS ANGELES TIMES SYNDICATE
-
FYI Marie Sklodowska Curie died because of radiation as soon as 1934.
-
Yet.. when it comes to an international democratic vote and everyone votes against us... we go and invade a 3rd world country that was never an immediate threat to us.
The international community does not govern the United States, much to your disapointment.
-
Here's some food for thought. According to an article by Charles Krauthammer in Sunday's paper, U.S. and coalition forces have discovered 130 of Saddam's ammunition dumps. Two of them are the approximate size of Manhattan island. The number of weapons that are having to be sorted through, inspected, and catalogued is undoubtedly immense. So immense, in fact, that our forces have completed searching and cataloguing only 10 of these dumps so far. Given that a considerable amount of evidence has been unearthed indicating that Saddam possessed the infrastructure to produce weapons of mass destruction. It is therefore possible that these weapons may be "hidden" in plain sight.
It is also possible that, given the amount of time Saddam had to prepare before the U.S. invasion, any completed weapons may have been sent across the border to Syria or other countries sympathetic to Iraq.
Lastly, it wouldn't be as hard to hide such weapons in a country the size of Iraq as some seem to think. Biological weapons that Saddam's minions wished to hide would not be placed, I don't believe, in clearly marked containers. The same could be said for the materials used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. After all, the people in charge of these programs were not stupid.
Regards, Shuckins
-
I could site my sources, however, I'm a rabble rouser, and I'm too lazy, and I don't care if any one thinks I'm lying or not.
Did the US government nuke US citizens no. I never said that.
However, it did conduct nuclear experiments knowing that US citizens would be affected by radiation. That many US citizens would die from leukemia, and other cancers caused by radiation poisoning.
There are many books out on this subject - with documented evidence (like US Governement documents from the Phds doing the experiments) as a result of FOIA (freedom of information act).
Is our government inherently 'evil', no. Inherently incompetent - yes. Well some government officials are.
However, did our governement cover up and hide the wrongs it does - yes. Does it still do this - yes.
The CIA experiemented with LSD with the promise of it being the next truth serum.
Our government continues to experiment with biological/chemical warfare, regardless of international treaties and bans. Why? In order to develop counter measures. And because this activity is illegal, it's classified, and our government will deny any such programs exist. Perhaps the WMD inspectors should come to America - we have plenty of WMD - with documentation.
Remember Dr. Hatfield? The guy accused of sending the Anthrax letters... what was his job? Why did the facility he worked at have Antrax - what were they doing? Experiementing with biological weapons.
What has our governement done to it's people:
Experiemented on black men by injecting them with syphilis.
ok here's a link for those who don't have a clue: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtuskegee1.html
They did this for 40 years. And this was discovered 30 years ago.
CIA eperiments with LSD
http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/lsd/
Iran Contra - Arms for Hostages - Not more than 20 years ago!
BTW - George Bush Senior was the Vice President at the time.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh
http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/side/irancont.html
The US Government under the auspices of Ronald Reagan - the Repubilcan - sold arms to IRAN.
US Governement Sells Mustard gas to Iraq and encourages Iraq's use of Mustard gas on IRAN
http://monkeyfist.com/pipermail/bonobos/Week-of-Mon-20020930/000926.html
Why is war with Iraq wrong? Because it wasn't self defense and UN resolution 1441 did not authorize it.
It's and an example of vigilantism, and it create unstability in the world because it's an act of lawlessness. If we can invade Iraq, then china can invade Taiwan. And Japan can invade North Korea.
If we set a precidence of unjustified agression, other nations - like Israel vs Palestine and Syria will follow suite.
And then it's a free for all... might makes right.
We no longer become a world of laws and justice, and disputes settled by reason and arguement.
We become a world of violence, death, destruction, and hate.
Hate is the chant of the conservatives. they hate drug users, they hate gays, they hate muslims, they hate everyone who is not like them, just like them, act like them, speak like them, even 3rd world countries that have different cultures, they hate blacks, latins, and all other minorities, the poor, the non-christians.
There is no tolerance of differing opinions in the conservative camps - this is exemplified by Rush's rants, O'Reily, Coutler, Hannity, Pat Robertson, Buchannan, Cheny, and Ashcroft.
Bush and the constitution.... There's a bill of rights, which states every American has the right to due process. The right to cross examine their accussers, the right to a speedy trial.
There are Americans (nationalized and native) in jail, with out access to a lawyer, with out bail, with out formal charges, with out the right to examine and refute the evidence against them.
Thank god it's none of you... yet.
The right extends to non-citizens as well, that is a interpretation set by the US Supreme court.
Cases are working their way through the court system now.
Bush/Ashcroft and his prosecutors have been loosing in the courts. Unfortunately it takes time for the courts to do their thng.
When Bush was sworn in to office he made a pledge to protect the constitution of the US.
In my opinion, he's done more to undermind the constitution and has done more to damage US interests in the world and in short he is a traitor to this country and the constitution.
It's odd that only his buddies are getting the Iraw Reconstruction WarBucks - that's a powder keg about to exploid in his face big time!
US Hipcrisy ... At one time or another, in the US has been guilty of every crime Saddam has been accused of. The persecution of the Kurds - how about the persecution of the Blacks and the American Indians - more like Genicide of the American Indians. Use of chemical and biological warfare weapons against US citizens with out their knowledge, violation of human rights, violation of international law, acts of unlawful aggression against neighbor nations.
We are no different today than we were 20 years ago, or 30 years ago, even 20 years ago, we would like to think that all those events are in the past... they are not. There is watermelon going on today we'll find out in 5 years, and it will be even more shocking.
Another conspiracy therorist? - no. Get off the pompous self rightgeous pedistool and be a student of history.
The US is full of it.
And the only way the US will change is by abiding by international law, and joining the world in a democratic process of enforcement of those laws- and taking responsibility when even the Self Righteous US does wrong.
The US is the number exporter of DEATH - Cigarrettes and Military Weapons.