Iraq Had WMD

[maslo]

lol lance could you translate it at least to british english ?

anyway we do not represent euros...

we represent lobotomized HC euro commies

you should read more carefully

[AKIron]

May have already been posted but here's an interesting take:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61949-2004Jan29.html

Scientists were bluffing Hussein. Hussein was bluffing the world. The Iraqis were all bluffing each other. Special Republican Guard commanders had no WMDs, but they told investigators that they were sure other guard units did. It was this internal disinformation that the whole outside world missed.

Congress needs to find out why, with all our resources, we had not a clue that this was going on. But Kay makes clear that President Bush was relying on what the intelligence agencies were telling him. Kay contradicts the reckless Democratic charges that Bush cooked the books. "All the analysts I have talked to said they never felt pressured on WMD," says Kay. "Everyone believed that [Iraq] had WMD."

That includes the Clinton administration. Kay told The Post he had found evidence that Hussein had quietly destroyed some biological and chemical weapons in the mid-1990s -- but never reported it to the United Nations. Which was why President Bill Clinton in 1998 declared with great alarm and great confidence that Hussein had huge stockpiles of biological and chemical arms -- "and some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nakhui
You dont' have to take my word for anything.
There's plenty of open source information to back up what I say.
 

Ah, so you intend for us to go search the internet for proof of your accusations/suspicions/conspiracy statements?

Too tough to post a few links that support your position?

[ravells]

Lance said:

You zany euros! You need to get your own righteous|illegal toppling of another country.

Oh Lance!

That's like so 19th Century, man!

Ravs

[maslo]

LOL what a BS .... that sentense EVERYONE BELIVED THAT THEY HAD WMD

LOL they did run out of excuse ....  LOL

Everyone said that inspectors need more time to check it out ... dont forget that SH accepted inspectors... he were cooperating and now we can read that all did realy belive in WMD LOL LOL

edit .. and ofcourse its all fault of goverment before us

man they are as good as our commies

[Yeager]

Another point to consider is the actual combat being encountered is sharpening the overall skill of US commanders and soldiers.
Not to downplay the loss of life and property.......

I always have thought that if you are to have an effective and capable military then you need to kick some bellybutton from time to time.

Hussein certainly deserved it.  Many others do as well.

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by GScholz
How does a roadside bomb, or sniper fire improve the combat skill of your soldiers and commanders? And btw. they're not any better dealing with the situation now than ten months ago if you go by the death toll.

Any combat experience, even if it is not the traditional large scale pitched battle, should in theory improve a soldier's combat skill, at least in the sense of adapting the the situation and learning how to deal with it.

[Nakhui]

Originally posted by AKIron
"All the analysts I have talked to said they never felt pressured on WMD," says Kay. "Everyone believed that [Iraq] had WMD."

Read that statement once again carefully, and notice how it's phrased.

He doesn't say he talked to them all. He doesn't even categorize which types of analysts he's talked with.

Perhaps he didn't talk to the onces directly involved in the analysis of the intelligence. Especially the key analysts involved in analyzing the Iraqi WMD program, who were by their own admission before the ISC interviewed by officials from the White House several times. And those White House officials repeatedly tried to persuade them to change their opinions about the intelligence they were analyzing.

You're read news paper articles claiming - no evidence was found that the White House pressured analysts. What's the sources of those stories?

Want the proof? It will be in the ISC report. It's not done yet. It takes time because...

Well...

There are consequences for speaking out against the White House. As the leak of Ambassador Wilson's Wife shows - had she been a handler, people would be dead.

Who ever leaked that information has no regard to US law, US lives or US national security interests, and that person works directly for the President and is still working for the President.

Oddly enough in this time of "terror", the President isn't taking dire measures (like he is with "enemy combatant") to root this renigade out - I'm assuming he/she is a renigade because certainly the President did not authorize their action.

Too tough to post a few links that support your position?

I've said a lot. Specifically, which aspect of my position do you want to know?

The Body Count someone else has provided a link.

What strikes me about your previous comment about 500+ dead... was that just like how most Americans think - your comment was only referening to American soldiers dead.

No mention of any one else's dead, wounded and maimed.

Not even American wounded and maimed. A significant omission.

Were the wounded and other dead even a thought in your mind?Are they even a consideration in any ones calculation of this war as one tries to determine if it's a good/bad/justified war?

It's interesting how "those" numbers are conspicuously absent from the American media.

If they were a daily and prominent figure in everyones mind, I suspect peoples attitude toward this war would be different.

I'm not saying this is a conspiracy - it's not. It's simply an omission of thought. A rather calous approach to other people's suffering.

The problem with the "media"... there's a lot of noise... there's the sensational stories.. that run and regurgitate from one news service to the next, and volume is influences the "non-thinkers" to believe these stories are true. Which volume does not make a story true or fals.

Is Michael Jackson a child molestor? Did OJ Kill Nicole.

Underneath this noise, there are stories that do speak the truth. They don't always get heard... and I'm not talking about UFO either.

Watergate was dismissed - at first.... until it built it's momentum and the truth came out.

Iran/Contra was and it's connection to senior officials was dismissed - at first... until it built it's momentum and the truth came out.

Time has changed... but it is still the same all chit.. just a different day... different administration.... a different agenda.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Nakhui
There are consequences for speaking out against the White House. As the leak of Ambassador Wilson's Wife shows - had she been a handler, people would be dead.

Who ever leaked that information has no regard to US law, US lives or US national security interests, and that person works directly for the President and is still working for the President.
 

You have any evidence to support your accusation?

[Toad]

Yeah, you've said a lot, supported little. Mostly you post your view without support.

As for the wounded count, etc. I looked at the links. Yes, my focus is on the US dead. Those are the unrecoverable losses. If the war was justified, I'll consider any losses as the cost of removing WMD from a man that would have, IMO, certainly been capable of providing them to terrorists.

Without the WMD, however, the war is unjustified and all losses are unacceptable to me.

You may focus on the omission of the wounded as some other evidence of another administration plot or insensitivity or whatever. I think everyone knows that any war generates both dead and wounded and the same rational just stated applies to wounded as dead.

Civilian casualties? Who amongst us doesn't realize that wars also generate casualties among the civilian population with the same rationale?

Is war terrible? Is that your point?

Yes it is.

There you go.

[yowser]

And all this time I thought Hortlund had justifiably disappeared from the BBS because of embarassment over his previous WMD "find".

I guess some people cannot be embarrassed.


yowser

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Hortlund
For it to be a felony, you'd still have to show intent.

You need to brush up on your US jurisprudence, Hort.  Intent is not requisite for a felony charge in the US.  For example manslaughter is a felony but does not carry intent.

In the case of the Bush, the Federal definition of perjury does not require intent (Bronston v. U.S).  The Administration was aware that the yellow cake allegations were false.  They admitted that they knew that it was false, but simply "forgot" when writing the State of the Union address.  Intent is irrelevant.  It was the truth or it was a known falsehood.  If it was false, then by the Federal definition of perjury, Bush is guilty.  He is damn lucky that the Congress is controlled by the Reps or he would be facing impeachment right now.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Saw on the news this morning that a top iraqi official said sadam had an extensive program with a highly sofisticated method of hiding them.  

Still looking for a link to the story



I still think they're in syria

What about Iran?  How come they aren't mentioned, people forget about the 100 Mig-29's that they flew into that country during Operation Desert Storm.

Karaya

[Toad]

Response was to Nexus

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by crowMAW You need to brush up on your US jurisprudence, Hort.  Intent is not requisite for a felony charge in the US.  For example manslaughter is a felony but does not carry intent.

In the case of the Bush, the Federal definition of perjury does not require intent (Bronston v. U.S).  The Administration was aware that the yellow cake allegations were false.  They admitted that they knew that it was false, but simply "forgot" when writing the State of the Union address.  Intent is irrelevant.  It was the truth or it was a known falsehood.  If it was false, then by the Federal definition of perjury, Bush is guilty.  He is damn lucky that the Congress is controlled by the Reps or he would be facing impeachment right now.

Id say back to the law books crow... Your Bronston v US story just proved my point. For it to be perjury, the statement must be false, and Bush would have needed to know that it was false. The highlighted part shows that...asuming that you have quoted the basics of the case correctly that is...