US weapons team quits Iraq

[multi]

Originally posted by span


what a load of shit

you can take your fake sympathy and shove it up your ass, the majority of troops actually think what they're doing is a good thing, not everyone is a bleeding heart tree hugger like you and Greedy, especially not people who volunteer to train in the ways of killing people.

im glad you found it amusing...

no i dont have any real symapthy for them ...but i do feel for thier freinds and relavtives...

the majority of troops actually think what they're doing is a good thing

you dont say ?


i wonder if the number of hand lanched ground to air missiles the iraqi insurgents have..out number the amount of blackhawk choppers that are over there?

[tambourine-man]

So... some inspectors have left... there's jack shit to be found... well, excuse me if I don't piss my pants in surprise.

It amazes me that there are still people on this board (like Span... yes, I'm singling you out) that fit perfectly into the knee-jerk, xenophobic, binkered, characature-like terms that 'The Left' like to describe 'The Right' in.

First of all, we have people arguing that the reason the US went to war wasn't about the 'presence' of WMD, but about the possibilty of Hussain becoming a further danger... but remember sheeple, Bush never said said the word "imminant".... oh no, no... he said the words "grave and gathering danger", with his fellow chum Cheney claiming that Hussain possessed "reconstituted nuclear weapons" - which as we all know is entirely different to giving the impression that there's any "imminant danger". Use your fucking common sense... the repeated statements about Iraq/Hussain at the time were designed to stop short of claiming attack was imminant, but to make people feel threatened enough to feel comfortable with a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.

Ah yes.... then there's the issue of 11th Septempber. I agree with you Span, being reactive after terrorist events isn't good enough (then, neither is letting it happen). Rather than bombing the shit out of people and calling it progress, there's an interesting idea that involves trying to undestand why terrorism is happening... (i'll give you a clue: it aint because "evildoers hate our freedom and way of life"). I know that's a difficult concept to entertain - the fact that there might be shades of grey out there surrounding terrorists and that... god forbid... there might be an argument to be had over policy, but try... try.

Which leads nicely onto a shitload of issues - one of which is Israel. It amazes me that in a supposed desire to promote freedom and democracy around the globe, that anybody who dares to criticise Israel, it's links with terror or it's present role... is suddenly faced with subtle accusations of being anti-semite, anti-jewish or some such other bullshit like "blaming it on dem dirty joooos". Why not go the whole hog and suggest anyone who questions the obvious bullshit surrounding Israel, could be (but possibly not) a holocaust denier? You seem to have no problem with the of labeling US citzens that question their government as 'traitorous'... and non-US citizens who crititcise US policy as anti-american or GWB-haters.

Well, I can't stand GWB for many reasons. But you're right about one of the reasons, Span. I find it frustrating that people are prepared to go along with someone like Bush... but then again, the populous of both our countries are no different when it comes to facing home truths... a nice comfortable lie feels so much more cushy. As for anti-americanism... it's a convenient phrase considering there's so much of it in the world. There are people who hate the US and there are people who like what America used to stand for (that Constitution thing you guys always used to bang on about)... and it's usually the latter that criticise the present government - but why bother make a distinction between the two - it's much easier to blanket the whole lot as anti-american?

A distinct theme emerging here..... take a variety of views, throw them into the same tincan, slap the 'evil' label on them and a use-by-date that says 'do not open until 2005'. Nice try.

Sleep tight, Span.

[tambourine-man]

Saddam's presidential secretary ''dies'' in US custody
Al Bawaba
Unofficial Iraqi sources told Al Bawaba Wednesday that Abed Hamoud al-Tikriti, presidential secretary of former leader Saddam Hussein died two days ago while in US custody.

Iraqi security officials contacted by Al Bawaba declined to comment on the report, but have not denied it either.

Read More...
--------------
Report: Saddam Hussein Has Cancer
Sofia Morning News
The ousted Iraqi dictator, who is currently under custody with the coalition forces, suffers from cancer of lymph glands, Kuwaiti Al-Anba daily reads, citing an Iraqi official. According to the daily, the disease is in an advanced stage, so doctors predict the former dictator would probably live a couple of years more.

Doctors came out with the fatal diagnosis while making thorough medical checking of Saddam Hussein at his capture near his hometown of Tikrit in December 2003.

Allegations of Saddam's illness appeared during the military campaign in Iraq last year, when one of his private doctors, residing in Syria, claimed that the former dictator suffered from cancer.

A well-known, under-reported story - now probably about to gather more attention as the pressure for an international trial increases... he'll be dead before any trial - as will most of his aides.

[Wenchie]

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
October 7, 2002
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio

[Wenchie]

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003





More great WMD quotes

[span]

Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_54281.asp

[greedy_lars]

Originally posted by span
Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_54281.asp

that could well be, for that matter santa claws might to, but big differance between they and Busie and pals. they dident yell and rant and carry on and on about how much danger the poor little US peeps were, and then proceed to knock the shit out of a country that we already been kickin ass on for 12 years.

try again.

[Sinner]

Originally posted by greedy_lars
they dident yell and rant and carry on and on about how much danger the poor little US peeps were, and then proceed to knock the shit out of a country that we already been kickin ass on for 12 years.

try again.

Nope, They had a different agenda...



"Wag the Dog" bombings. The first came in the August 1998 missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan, three days after Clinton's grand jury testimony and in the midst of a media firestorm over his televised non-apology for the Lewinsky affair. The administration has refused to release the evidence it claims to have relied on for its assertions that the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant made nerve gas and that its owner was linked to terrorist Osama Bin Laden.

The second "Wag the Dog" bombing occurred on the eve of the House impeachment debate when the president ordered air strikes on Iraq. Attempting to explain the curious timing of the attack, Clinton asserted that "we had to act and act now [because] without a strong inspections system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs—in months, not years." As a result of the president's action, we've since gone two years without any weapons inspections.

The timing of Clinton's actions gave rise to suspicion that he was applying a chillingly literal version of Clausewitz's dictum that war is politics by other means.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-20-01.html

[greedy_lars]

you guys dont have to convince me Clinton did some shitty things, i agree completely, but Clinton isnt really the focus of this thread is he? again, he dident run us headlong into full war over lies about Iraqs bad things. so give him a rest. and hahahhah at Gadhafi saying look over here, we got all kinds of nastys. perhaps we attacked the wrong one eh?

if keeping wmd out of the hands of extremeists is the stated goal, then how come Israel has all kinds of wmds?

[span]

Originally posted by greedy_lars


if keeping wmd out of the hands of extremeists is the stated goal, then how come Israel has all kinds of wmds?

because they didn't sign the NPT , plus they aren't threatening to use them on anyone.

[Sinner]

I will help you guys out.........



To quote Charles V Pena (Charles V. Peña director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute), The whole analysis is here http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa502.pdf


President Bush asserts that U.S. military action against Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was in material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. But even if Iraq was in violation of a UN resolution, the U.S. military does not exist to enforce UN mandates. It exists to defend the United States: its territorial integrity and national sovereignty, the population, and the liberties that underlie the American way of life. So whether Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1441 is irrelevant. The real question is whether Iraq represented a direct and imminent threat to the United States that could not otherwise be deterred. If that was the case, then preemptive self-defense, like Israel's military action against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in the 1967 Six Day War, would have been warranted. And if Iraq was not a threat, especially in terms of aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, then the United States fought a needless war against a phantom menace.

In the final analysis, the war against Iraq was the wrong war. Not because the United States used preemptive military force—preemptive self-defense would have been justified in the face of a truly imminent threat. Not because the United States acted without the consent of the United Nations—no country should surrender its defense to a vote of other nations. And not because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—none has been discovered and, even if they existed, they were not a threat.

The war against Iraq was the wrong war because the enemy at the gates was, and continues to be, Al Qaeda. Not only was Iraq not a direct military threat to the United States (even if it possessed WMD, which was a fair assumption), but there is no good evidence to support the claim that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaeda and would have given the group WMD to be used against the United States. In fact, all the evidence suggests the contrary. Hussein was a secular Muslim ruler, and bin Laden is a radical Muslim fundamentalist—their ideological views are hardly compatible

[Repo]

Finally someone from the Bush Administration has told the truth. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has told everyone what we already knew; that Bush was a moron, a lying one and that the reason to invade Iraq was not weapons of mass destruction but oil and was bandied about months before the 9-11 attacks. O'Neill backed it up with Pentagon documents proving without a doubt American soldiers died for oil and money and not to save America from weapons of mass destruction. The Pentagon had Iraqi maps for potential areas of oil exploration in March of 2001 and two years later suddenly Bush starts lying about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq as an imminent threat. They just happened to have maps of oil drilling sites, what a coincidence that suddenly Iraq becomes this great threat. How is the Bush Administration and the Pentagon going to explain their desire to invade Iraq just 10 days after his inauguration? Throw in the fact that David Kay's search for WMD has uncovered absolutely nothing. Did Bush have some secret info when he was governor of Texas? Sure he did, it was given to him by his campaign contributors, aka the big oil companies. The oil companies placed a stooge to be elected president and had their oil man Dick Cheney running the show so they could all make more profits at the expense of the American budget deficit and the American soldiers' lives. Paul O'Neill's documents prove it. Paul O'Neill is a hero for coming forward and telling the truth, however I would advise him to get some bodyguards because he might mysteriously disappear or have an accident. It is not that I don't trust the Bush Administration but O'Neill should watch his back just the same...

The former Treasury Secretary described Bush and his cabinet in meetings as a ''blind man in a roomful of deaf people,'' which is a nice way of saying he was a moron being pushed and prodded by his so-called advisers. This verifies everything we have heard. Bush is a simpleton. Cheney runs the show. The oil companies set the agenda. The war was for oil. It is no longer an argument; it is now fact, backed up by O'Neill and his documents. The Bush Administration is the most corrupt administration in the history of the country. With all the facts now out there for everyone to see, it is time for those taken in by the Bush Administration's big lie to admit that they had been fooled and repent. All those flag waving patriots should start by apologizing to the antiwar group who had this administration pegged from the get-go. And if you still believe the WMD and the 'Iraqi people are better off now' propaganda, then I suggest you click here and find yourself some help...

As for me I'm going to sit back and give you a big, fat I TOLD YOU SO....

[span]

regime change in Iraq has been an official US policy since '98, i think it's great that Bush actually decided to enfore that policy.

All those flag waving patriots should start by apologizing to the antiwar group

ah so finally someone admits the anti-war crowd isn't patriotic.

[span]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005628.php

Lid Blown Off O'Neill/Suskind Hoax

Laurie Mylroie sent out an email about Paul O'Neill's appearance on 60 Minutes last night; she notes what appears to be a major error in Ron Suskind's book, which casts doubt on the credibility of both Suskind and O'Neill. Here is the key portion of Mylroie's email:

"In his appearance this evening on '60 Minutes,' Ron Suskind, author of The Price of Loyalty, based to a large extent on information from former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, made an astonishing, very serious misstatement.

"Suskind claimed he has documents showing that preparations for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11. He cited--and even showed--what he said was a Pentagon document, entitled, 'Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield Contracts.' He claimed the document was about planning for post-war Iraq oil (CBS's promotional story also contained that claim): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...le592330.shtml

"But that is not a Pentagon document. It's from the Vice-President's Office. It was part of the Energy Project that was the focus of Dick Cheney's attention before the 9/11 strikes.

"And the document has nothing to do with post-war Iraq. It was part of a study of global oil supplies. Judicial Watch obtained it in a law suit and posted it, along with related documents, on its website at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml Indeed, when this story first broke yesterday, the Drudge Report had the Judicial Watch document linked (no one at CBS News saw that, so they could correct the error, when the show aired?)"

What Mylroie says about the "Foreign Suitors" document is correct. The Judicial Watch link still works as of this morning, and as you can easily see, the document, dated March 5, 2001, has nothing to do with post-war planning. It is merely a list of existing and proposed "Iraqi Oil & Gas Projects" as of that date. And it includes projects in Iraq by countries that obviously would not have been part of any "post-war" plans of the Bush administration, such as, for example, Vietnam.

So Suskind (and apparently O'Neill) misrepresented this document, which appears to be a significant part of their case, given that Suskind displayed in on 60 Minutes. It would not be possible for anyone operating in good faith to represent the document as Suskind did.

But the truth is even worse than Mylroie pointed out in her email. The CBS promo linked to above says that this document "includes a map of potential areas for exploration. 'It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,' says Suskind. 'On oil in Iraq.'"

True enough; there is a "map of potential areas for exploration" in Iraq here. But what Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind don't tell you is that the very same set of documents that contain the Iraq map and the list of Iraqi oil projects contain the same maps and similar lists of projects for the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia! When documents are produced in litigation (in this case, the Judicial Watch lawsuit relating to Cheney's energy task force), they are numbered sequentially. The two-page "Iraqi Oil Suitors" document that Suskind breathlessly touts is numbered DOC044-0006 through DOC044-0007. The Iraq oil map comes right before the list of Iraqi projects; it is numbered DOC044-0005.

DOC044-0001 is a map of oil fields in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0002 is a list of oil and gas development projects then going on in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0003 is a map of oil fields in Saudi Arabia. DOC044-0004 is a list of oil and gas projects in Saudi Arabia. So the "smoking gun" documents that Suskind and O'Neill claim prove that the administration was planning to invade Iraq in March 2001 are part of a package that includes identical documents relating to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Does Paul O'Neill claim the administration was planning on invading them, too? Or, as Mylroie says, was this merely part of the administration's analysis of sources of energy in the 21st century?

There is only one possible conclusion: Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind are attempting to perpetrate a massive hoax on the American people.

[scooobiedooobie]

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has told everyone what we already knew; that Bush was a moron, a lying one and that the reason to invade Iraq was not weapons of mass destruction but oil and was bandied about months before the 9-11 attacks. O'Neill backed it up with Pentagon documents proving without a doubt American soldiers died for oil and money and not to save America from weapons of mass destruction. The Pentagon had Iraqi maps for potential areas of oil exploration in March of 2001 and two years later suddenly Bush starts lying about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq as an imminent threat.

paul o'neil is a disgruntled insider who was disgraced and fired.

maybe he should've included this letter in his book, written by democrats...sent to clinton in 1998, and take note of the signatures.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/gen/Document.jpg

since he says bush lied about wmd's and iraq being an imminent threat, then every democrat who signed that document must have been lying as well.


"Let us be clear on one thing about Paul O'Neil: He was one of the worst Treasury secretaries in memory. During the height of a currency crisis and meltdown in the stock market, Mr. O'Neil was playing the role of a rock groupie as he followed Bono around Africa. Many Washingtonians, not least of all, Mr. Bush himself, half hoped he would never come back. He had a penchant for wedging his foot in his mouth, talking down the dollar and the need for tax cuts, and then pathetically blaming every faux pas on his penchant for "telling the truth."

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...5239-4470r.htm

[theknife]

you fellas just cling to the WMD hoax like drowning men with a life preserver...

WASHINGTON: David Kay stepped down as leader of the American hunt for banned weapons in Iraq today, and fired a parting shot at the Bush administration, while pressure mounted on the United States to hold early direct elections in Iraq.

In a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which says its invasion of Iraq was justified by the presence of illicit arms, Kay said in a telephone interview he had concluded there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found.

"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the nineties," he said.

[scooobiedooobie]

you fellas just cling to the WMD hoax like drowning men with a life preserver...

and you fellas just cling to the word hoax


a quote from hillary...

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


"Some are suggesting, certainly, that (Saddam) destroyed the weapons after 1998 or maybe even sooner. It's just counterintuitive that he would have done that. His would have been the greatest intelligence hoax of all time, fooling every intelligence agency, three presidents, five secretaries of defense and the entire world into thinking he still had the weapons."

--Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House intelligence Committee

I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the nineties," he said.

that's rather contradictory to his interim progress report.


STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP (ISG)
BEFORE THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE, AND THE
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

October 2, 2003

some excerpts.........

"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. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have 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 ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.


A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.


Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.


New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.


Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).


A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.


Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.


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."

full report here....

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html



in addition.....


"David Kelly, the weapons expert whose suicide rocked the British government, believed Iraq did pose an immediate threat, the BBC said on Wednesday, just days before a critical report into his death."

"Kelly's comments on Iraq's weapons -- never previously broadcast -- were to be aired on Wednesday evening in a BBC "Panorama" programme that reconstructed the run-up to his death and Hutton's inquiry.

Asked if Iraq was an "immediate threat", Kelly, a former United Nations weapons inspector, said: "Yes."

"Even if they're not actually filled and deployed today, the capability exists to get them filled and deployed within a matter of days and weeks," he said in the October 2002 interview with the BBC, which was submitted to Hutton."

full story here....

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21296095.htm

[theknife]

what part of the qoute didn't you get, bunkie? ok, i'll repost it:

WASHINGTON: David Kay stepped down as leader of the American hunt for banned weapons in Iraq today, and fired a parting shot at the Bush administration, while pressure mounted on the United States to hold early direct elections in Iraq.

In a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which says its invasion of Iraq was justified by the presence of illicit arms, Kay said in a telephone interview he had concluded there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found.

"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the nineties," he said.

the Bush's top WMD inspector in Iraq says, when it's all said and done, at the end of the day, that they aren't there.

think you better fall back to the "save the poor Iraqi people" line...you might get better mileage out of that one

[span]

Originally posted by theknife
what part of the qoute didn't you get, bunkie? ok, i'll repost it:



the Bush's top WMD inspector in Iraq says, when it's all said and done, at the end of the day, that they aren't there.

think you better fall back to the "save the poor Iraqi people" line...you might get better mileage out of that one

so is he lying now, or was he lying in his interim report?

[scooobiedooobie]

what part of the qoute didn't you get, bunkie? ok, i'll repost it

and what part of kays complete interim progress report (that fully contradicts himself in your quote) didn't you get?

he's changed his story.

even though his revised statements blatantly contradict his previous statements you believe his revised statements...and why? 'cause it's what you want to believe.

if only you could take the words "i don't think..." out of kays latest statements. but as is, it's just a collection of conjecturous statements from a failed "expert" who couldn't find a the broad side of the great wall of china if he was standing right in front of it.