GOG

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2970064.stm

Was this the report you were refering to before, JavaFox? Liars and war criminals...

digitalwanderer

Yes, but some of us have thought/believed that for a while and it comes as no big shocker. Don't be surprised when it just disapears too.

__________________
WTF is up with the sigs?

Falstaff

and it was approved by Mr. Rumsfeld for release, but it merely identifies problems with sources that provided the information, chiefly an IRAQI defector...

__________________

JavaFox

Let me just disarm you right up front: there are a few large problems with your argument.

Firstly, the report does not say "there are no WMD" -- it says this: "We could not specifically pin down individual facilities operating as part of the weapons of mass destruction programme."

Secondly, the problem with your argument is your assumption that only the US government said that there were potential WMD in Iraq. That is not the case. No country denied this as a possibility. Russia, France, and Germany did not say "there are no WMD, why are we going to war?" They said "There might be WMD, the UN is better suited to deal with this problem."

The UN itself resolved that it "deplor[es] the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure [..] of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles [....]" The international community did not say that Iraq was free of WMD. On the contrary, most governments realized that this was a very real threat, and the UN itself resolved that "Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security."

See the problem? Did the UN say "we resolve that we must ascertain whether or not Iraq has terminated its WMD program?" No, it says "Iraq is IN noncompliance." The debate that raged was a debate over what to DO about that non-compliance; nobody thought that Iraq was actually complying.

That said, do I think the US over-stated its claims? Yes, absolutely. Only an unobjective partisan could say that they didn't.

But do I fault them for it? No, absolutely not. There was no way to know for 100% whether or not Iraq had WMD. And the fact is that no nation DENIED their existence. It was debate over the means, not the ends. Nobody can deny that a WMD-armed Saddam is a danger to the world, and the fact that he was non-compliant was enough to send us to disarm him.

Falstaff

I think the BBC really made this whole issue a great deal bigger than it really is to restore the anit-Blair posture of popular disent in the Parliment, it is amazing how much influence the sensationalism the BBC manages to incur from merely spinning an argument or perpetuating a rumour, but then we have the NEW YORK TIMES, lol

edit-I would rather read the Palestinian news that anything the BBC produces...in my opinion it is all crap...

__________________

GOG

You guys are just amazing. Both your President and that horror-figure, Rumsfeld have stated that THERE ARE wmd in Iraq, it was their main reason for this invasion. When it now creeps out that there in fact was no evidence what so ever, noone of the pro-bush here takes notice of that you've been lied to. You just continues to defend their actions, it's like just a parrot which repeats itself - time after time.


Read that article again, and try to understand it this time...

Falstaff

This man has my admiration and my support, he is a career seviceman and in my opinion able to respond to the challenges of office in a pragmatic manner. He would be one of the first people that would question the validity of reports from the CIA about WMD. He also served during the Gulf War and was in a position of authority with access to information in real time about intelligence from reliable sources. He after some convincing and countless meetings went before the United Nations and pleaded the case for support based on evidence of WMD..This is a man of integrity, and not likely to act irrationally. He like other members of the Bush administration are senstive to the risks that bad information might entail, especially asking our allies, (whom we helped through a world war) to assist us. He also quietly criticized Mr. Rumsfeld. Because he was once a member of the United States Army, this man deserves more respect in my opinion that Mr. Rumsfeld, because frankly he scares me..
If the picture is a mystery it is Colin Powell, and if he believes there are WMD in IRAQ or once were, then clearly there is a distinct possibility..I was in IRAQ after the first war, and I am familiar with atrocities Hussien inflicted on his people and the Kuwaiti people. I am also aware of the presence of chemical weapons as well. I am familiar with Hussiens weapons programs and his nuclear program...so I can with my limited experience draw my own conclusions...and I would say there is a damn good possibility myself....If the former satellites of the Soviet Union had WMD, and the French have WMD, and the N. Koreans have WMD now...then I am sure the possibilities are even greater...
This is in and of itself just a report, and the substence of which says conclusively nothing...just raises questions....that is all...

__________________

JavaFox

I think maybe you need to re-read the article, my good and honorable friend. I can't help but think that you are just reading the sensationalized headline ("fresh doubt on the coalition claims that Iraq had banned weapons") instead of reading and digesting the article in its entirety. I also recommend that you read Hans Blix's recent interview with the BBC -- it may open your eyes.

Articles all over the world carried headlines practically announcing that "there were no WMD!" but if you actually read the articles, the kernels of truth shine through. Such examples:

The DIA's director, Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, said the leaked extracts from the intelligence report should not be taken to mean his agency doubted that Iraq had a WMD programme.

The DIA "could not specifically pin down individual facilities operating as part of the weapons of mass destruction programme, specifically the chemical warfare portion".

A summary of the DIA report, quoted by CNN, said Iraq was "steadily establishing a dual-use industrial chemical infrastructure that provides some of the building blocks necessary for production of chemical agents".

And it said Iraq was "assessed to possess biological agent stockpiles that may be weaponised" - though the size and nature of those stockpiles was unknown


So tell me this, GOG, if there WERE no weapons, which you are claiming but nobody else has said --not the DIA, not the UN, not Hans Blix, not the international community-- then why did you support sending inspectors? Why did there need to be an inspection regime at all if there WERE no WMD? The fact is, everyone thought there were WMD --not just the US-- but the US and the UK were the only ones that wanted to fight a war over it. Show me where some other nations said "There are no WMD in Iraq!" and I will show you a fabricated article.

Falstaff

Hey Java Fox....he called us Parrots didn't he?
For more enlightenment about WMD check this out

__________________

GOG

Your government had "hard evidence" that there were wmd in Iraq, the man on the pic posted by Jeff tried to sell that fairytale to the UN. They also had evidence of a link between Hussein and al Qaida. None of these two has been proven. There's hell of a difference between proof and suspicion.

GOG

I'venever said that Iraq never had wmd, what I'm saying is that there's absolutely no evidence of them having them now. And for Christ's sake, if your going to get me to read your links, provide me with one where the originator doesn't has his nose so far up the a** of Bush that you can see it through your President's mouth.

Falstaff

LMAO ROOTF...................you know you caught me at a weak moment........I dont' think I can finish my dinner...GOG.....you got me this time.... lol......ha ha ha ha ha..

__________________

digitalwanderer

Can they impeach Emperor Bush I? I know they can impeach presidents, but what about our emperor?

EDITED BITS: Doh! I sort of forgot this link to John Dean's take on the WMD issue that is about to embroil our government in a bit-o-chaos, but should be worth it to get rid of the Shrub & his lackeys.

__________________
WTF is up with the sigs?

JavaFox

No, they can't because most American's are objective, and they don't succumb to left-wing partisan rants. Democrats should just throw in the towel this year and start thinking of 2008 strategy (or is that strategery?). The latest stunt the DNC is trying to pull is health care, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that Americans care more now about security than they do anything else.

This is the era of terror, and we Americans don't want weak leaders -- never again.

JavaFox

Maybe you didn't watch Powell's address to the UN. What he presented was not hard evidence, nor did he claim it to be. What Powell showed was evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime was ready and willing to conceal and cover-up their illegal activities. Powell's evidence included officers in the Republican Guard talking about their willingness to hide "illegal rounds" from "Mister Al Baradei" and talked about "converted vehicles." That was not hard evidence, but it was compelling evidence.

And it remains uncontroverted.

Falstaff

are not a fairytale GOG, absolutely not, but I think fairytales came from europe didn't they..(snicker)..In this instant gratification world, it will take a little longer than most people will tolerate...I think I am actually going to read a book written by the wife of another president that had detailed knowlege of WMD in IRAQ...long before Pres. Bush..

__________________

JavaFox

is Dick Morris' upcoming books. Dick Morris has been blasted as a turn-coat Republican (this is the standard treatment for liberals that critisize liberals*) but he is an unabashed liberal who happened to be one of Clinton's top aides. He was the one Clinton called late at night to discuss strategy.

At any rate, he has said that the Clinton administration cared more about everything more than terrorism (which I have quoted numerous times), and, unforunately, these words have rung painfully true in the ears of Americans.

It will be an interesting book.


--

* If you say bad things about a liberal, you HAVE to be a conservative! Even though Dick Morris was once Clinton's right hand man, he is generally disregarded by liberals as some right-wing partisan, even though he is quite clearly a liberal. This also happened to Bernard Goldberg, a 30-year veteran of CBS News. He wrote a book a few years back detailing the systematic left-wing bias on TV news. Of course, following that expose, his qualifications (if he was a bad reporter, why did they keep him for 30 years?), and his political position (this man has never voted for a conservative in his life, but since he wrote his book about left-wing bias, he MUST be a conservative!) were called into question. So, again, repeat after me -- if you say bad things about the left, you ARE a conservative. I guess being conservative means being objective.

Falstaff

Wanna good laugh, read "i told you so" Rush Limbaugh.....

__________________

desmo

Sure congress could/should impeach Bush/Cheny. After all lieing about WMD to such a degree where people get killed is a bit more serious then lieing about sex. They had better do the impeachment real quick since King George can have 'um all locked up as enemy combatants if he so chooses.

serAph

you act as if only american politicians are corrupt... look at Russia's government in the 90s

Falstaff

More King George remarks....sigh
President Bush is not a Monarch, he didn't inherit the postion of power and he is not the supreme power in the United States. You can thank the electoral college...What if Gore had been elected, would you call him the "pretender to the throne" or the "court jester", ha ha...

For the record...Bill Clinton spent two terms in office and also pursued WMD in IRAQ, albiet from a limited standpoint. Pres. Bush went looking for it and removed a terrible dictator from power and the world is a more peaceful place now.

We can go on endlessly about politicians, the ones that make the most lasting contributions are in my opinion worthy of note...I believe you will find more corruption and hypocracy in organized religion than in politics though..

__________________

serAph

lmao

so when Bush attacks Afghanistan and Iraq because they harboured ppl and weapons used to attack us, he's "King George - "

but when Clinton bombs Bosnia... nuthin...
Lies bold-faced to the american people and judicial system... nuthin...
says something as incredbly stupid as, "it depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is"... nuthin...


wake up people - just because your news channel hires some filthy liar to slander every republican whos name has ever been on TV doesnt mean you should believe them!

Look at Gary Condit! Look at Tom freakin Daschle! Look what they did! Why arent you complaining, whining about, booing, and protesting them? Do you even know why you hate Newt Gingrich so much? lol!!!

~ Rory K

Falstaff

and in the British Isles will never give Bush a break....they are more interested in selling newspapers by sensationalism..

__________________

serAph

heh - if you ever want to learn how to take advantage of mentally weak people through sensationalism to put yourself or your political party in power, just take notes on what democratic american politicians do....

lol

~ Rory K

Falstaff

GOOD ONE...

__________________

JavaFox

FACT: The anti-Milosevic bombing campaign didn't have UN approval either!

So are we supposed to take seriously an organization that couldn't even bring itself to condemn the universally reviled Milosevic?

Nice to have you abord, serAph!

Falstaff

That the United Nations represents a great deal more to the Europeans than to the average american, I know it is foolish to presume to know the mind of the average american. But even more difficult to know the mind of the average european, my point? I think that the media in europe distorts the truth or facts regarding American participation in international policy either with weapons or diplomacy, We are never going to get a fair shake in the european press unless we are rescuing their butts. The French are going to the Congo, and I still haven't heard so much as a peep about that..

__________________

JavaFox

Well, frankly, I think we ought to be more involved in the Congo, too. It's good that they aren't sending UN "peacekeepers" again, though. Still, the US ought to be more involved in that nation on a unilateral or bilateral level.

Falstaff

in the past have been at best considered unsuccessful, I am familiar with what the region has to offer, and the Aegis the French will provide might create a sense of control and futher polorize the political interest there, but I suspect it is economical in nature, regardless of the human toll it is taking. And yes I agree that we should invest more time examining the long effects of the destruction of cultures in the congo. Does all of this remind you of the turn of the century when the worlds economic interests ran paralell with military interests?

__________________

Falstaff

Mobutu coup’deta in 1965, and I recall special forces people discussing training troops in the congo on both sides, now it seems more clear to me. it isn't just about the diamonds and other resources, it is about genocide and the survival of democracy. I thought for a time it was the christians against the muslims there since there have been religious clashes, but it must be more tribal in nature...bears deeper examination!

__________________