Political Crossfire Forums

[asainspace]

indieinmich wrote: I never did understand how we went from Osama Bin Laden and Al-Quida in Afghanistan back to Iraq once again.And the Headlines or Reasons if you will changed every week seemingly to push some unknown agenda(I assume).First they were in cahoots with Osama.Then it was weapons of mass destruction.Then operation Iraqi freedom.I mean please.I am paranoid I admit it keeps me out of trouble.But bad intell.Bad intell brought all the way to the president on which he acted?Has anyone ever been fired for the poor job they did?Seems more like made up intell to me.Of course this is all speculation and opinion.
I suppose it is possible that our president and his administration simply got it wrong.But even still today they dont really act as if they got anything wrong.Perhaps if they did I would be more likely to believe it was a mistake.Until that day comes which I predict will be never Ill sit soundly in my paranoia and speculation of lies deceit and hidden agendas.

Because.......................because they were so "fundamental" in their belief that it blurred the real picture. They only looked at what supported their position....and like any electorate, we can can be either bought or maipulated to see things in the wrong light.

Now, turn that around onto the Islamists, national resistance or general pissed off people of the middle east and you can see a clear and comparable similarity between both sides. Victims of terrorism...........colatoral damage.................same f***ing thing, same net result to the shame and indignity of the western world.

[flamboyant]

Wow, just when I thought that one, misinterpreted line out of the DSM had had it's rotting corpse dug up out of the grave for the last time, what do you know? Here it is again.

Now that the DSM has been resurrected, isn't it about time we see the obligatory appearance of that list of 75 different Democrats in Congress making just as strong of statement as the President ever did? Or how about Clinton's Address when he lobbed those bombs at Iraq? That may have been the most strongly worded speech ever made for regime change in Iraq.

[Fishstyx]

If Bush knew he was lying for the sole reason to invade Iraq, why not plant some WMDs in Iraq? All it would have taken is one shipping container packed full of VX poison gas. Voila! War is justified! Is it so unfeasible to believe that the intelligence relied on at the time just wasn't good?

[Saracen]

Dookiestix wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Bush believed what the global INTEL network and the Democrats who voted for force against Iraq believed. 8:)
Then 9/11 happened, and everybody "believed" something entirely different. 8:)

How soon we forget what Powell and Rice said back in February of 2001. :roll: ]

No kidding, Dookiestix. I know I've dug this up before, but here's PBS Frontline's take on this issue and how the pRez manipulated intel that was quite reliable. There was no faulty intel: the CIA knew what they were talking about, but the pRez went through Tenet and his bunch first so they could make the case for the invasion. So, yes, Bush did lie. It's bad enough that he invaded Iraq, but it's worse when he's hiding the truth: that Saddam was a non-threat. Such a thing, when viewed from a blank neutral perspective, is truly evil, because he knows he's hiding the very reason that discredits every single action he carried out in Iraq.

In other words, he lied knowingly, not unknowingly like many of his supporters want us to believe.

[Mr. Sunshine]

Dookiestix wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Bush believed what the global INTEL network and the Democrats who voted for force against Iraq believed. 8:)
Then 9/11 happened, and everybody "believed" something entirely different. 8:)

How soon we forget what Powell and Rice said back in February of 2001. :roll:

Everyone from Clinton to Kerry on the Dem side said the same thing Bush said before they authorized the CiC to use force in Iraq. John Kerry said Iraq had WMDs even before Bush was President. Maybe we should impeach Kerry for lying about WMDs first, then Bush could call "no backs". :rofl:

Quote: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

[Mr. Sunshine]

Some more Kerry quotes after Bush became President. 8:)

Quote: "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Any questions? :lol:

www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

Got to love the name of the link. :lol:

[Snoop]

We are going to find out quite a bit more on this in starting Jan 2007 during the Libby criminal trail and the following Wilson civil suit against the administration.

[Claudia Schiffer]

Quote: Did you believe Bush/Powell and that Iraq had WMD's ?

No! Not even close...You could tell by Powell's behavior, he didn't seem confortable in his representation at the UN, he keeped looking down etc...It was really obvious...

...and i started to lauft when he showed the pictures :lol: ...because obvously , those shut could have beed taken anywhere...AND would never have been allowed in court...

...I was very very angry that day.., and i hated America sooo much cause i knew they would end up killing a lot of people for oil...Then came back to my sences and realise that the American people were just being manipulated into this...so now i just hate this Administration. :-D

[Claudia Schiffer]

...Also, when you know your ennemy has WMDs, you tend to negociate with them,...not invade them. :wink:

[Plato & Socrates]

Fishstyx wrote: If Bush knew he was lying for the sole reason to invade Iraq, why not plant some WMDs in Iraq? All it would have taken is one shipping container packed full of VX poison gas. Voila! War is justified! Is it so unfeasible to believe that the intelligence relied on at the time just wasn't good?

Unfortunately for Bush and his neo-con cohorts, but fortunately for us, Bush could'nt do what you suggested and plant some chemical and biological agents/weapons. The main reason he could'nt do this is because, right now our science has reached quite a sophisticated level. As well as the obvious, that we could tell what agents/chemical and biological weapons they were. We can more importantly tell from which country it was produced and even tell which facility produced the agents. So there is a directly traceable path we can follow, to be able to ascertain where the agents come from.

It's the same with nuclear weapons. We can tell exactly which nuclear facility in the world, processed the Uranium or Plutonium for any particular bomb, after it is detonated. Because of this, this is one of the main reasons why governments around the world, haven't given WMD's to lunatics and terrorist groups. Could you imagine the U.S response if a terrorist used a Iraqi WMD, and killed U.S civilians? They would know the response would be justified and devastating.

If one thing is universal and that is politicians where ever they are in the world, are addicted to power. They're not dumb enough or mad enough to let there WMD, fall into the hands of terrorists. It would mean the end of them. They cant even do it by proxy, for the reasons I outlined above. Otherwise they would have done it already and Bush, would have planted the WMD's to save his reputation.

[Heinz]

Snoop wrote: We are going to find out quite a bit more on this in starting Jan 2007 during the Libby criminal trail and the following Wilson civil suit against the administration.

Nothing will come of that suit...mark my words. It is already dead in the water.

Her husband mentioned her in his book before the "leaker" leaked her name. Bunch of frickin' morons those 2. And their pals Larry Johnson and Jason leopold as well.

[Heinz]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: ...Also, when you know your ennemy has WMDs, you tend to negociate with them,...not invade them. :wink:

The US and parts of Europe aren't Canada. It's called "taking the initiative."

[Medius]

Vexillum wrote: Medius wrote: If you are suggesting that Bush never said that Iraq had WMDs, then you just need to do a little research. He absolutely said that Iraq has WMDs. Donald Rumsfeld said the same and then said he knew exactly where they were.

Sorry, Medius, I just didn't think you were forceful enough in your original statements. :)

No problem, I need to watch out when I put an aside into my posts as they generally end up getting the most attention. I simply wanted to state my bias on this issue up front.

[Vexillum]

Fishstyx wrote: If Bush knew he was lying for the sole reason to invade Iraq, why not plant some WMDs in Iraq? All it would have taken is one shipping container packed full of VX poison gas. Voila! War is justified! Is it so unfeasible to believe that the intelligence relied on at the time just wasn't good?

I had half-expected before the war that the Bush administration would plant something like a shipping container packed full of VX poison gas. I think the big reason why he didn't do this is because he got his war, and that's all that mattered.

Bush and Republicans did claim repeatedly that WMDs had been found. Why hassle with planting something (and the big scandal that would erupt once someone admitted to the planting) when you can just point to something in Iraq and claim it is a WMD? When the British-made weather balloon trailer was found, Bush called it a mobile chemical weapons lab and declared that "we found the WMDs."

Or, look at this article from this past summer:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

The article is clearly intended to sucker the reader into thinking that WMDs have been found. But, if you look at the article carefully, it does concede that these "munitions" are "degraded" and from "before 1991." They really are just a relative handful of worthless shells that have simply been lost for over a decade. Crumbs from the 1980s, having nothing to do with Bush's claims that Saddam was making and hiding WMDs.

Fishstyx, the intelligence at the time said Saddam did NOT have WMDs. If you want to make yourself familiar with the intelligence, go ahead. If you want to stay ignorant of the intelligence, at least don't show that ignorance by suggesting that it's feasible that the intelligence just wasn't good.

[flamboyant]

Plato & Socrates wrote: Fishstyx wrote: If Bush knew he was lying for the sole reason to invade Iraq, why not plant some WMDs in Iraq? All it would have taken is one shipping container packed full of VX poison gas. Voila! War is justified! Is it so unfeasible to believe that the intelligence relied on at the time just wasn't good?

Unfortunately for Bush and his neo-con cohorts, but fortunately for us, Bush could'nt do what you suggested and plant some chemical and biological agents/weapons. The main reason he could'nt do this is because, right now our science has reached quite a sophisticated level. As well as the obvious, that we could tell what agents/chemical and biological weapons they were. We can more importantly tell from which country it was produced and even tell which facility produced the agents. So there is a directly traceable path we can follow, to be able to ascertain where the agents come from.

It's the same with nuclear weapons. We can tell exactly which nuclear facility in the world, processed the Uranium or Plutonium for any particular bomb, after it is detonated. Because of this, this is one of the main reasons why governments around the world, haven't given WMD's to lunatics and terrorist groups. Could you imagine the U.S response if a terrorist used a Iraqi WMD, and killed U.S civilians? They would know the response would be justified and devastating.

If one thing is universal and that is politicians where ever they are in the world, are addicted to power. They're not dumb enough or mad enough to let there WMD, fall into the hands of terrorists. It would mean the end of them. They cant even do it by proxy, for the reasons I outlined above. Otherwise they would have done it already and Bush, would have planted the WMD's to save his reputation.

Can I have a link or two on that, because while I have heard chemical weapons can be traced, on the nukes, I seem to remember regarding North Korea we couldn't even figure out if it was indeed a nuke or just a big conventional weapon.

I also think fishstyx raises a great point - if the president was evil enough to completely fabricate a case for WMD which he knew was wrong, he would have definitely been evil enough to see the need to go in there and plant some WMD.

Regarding the tracing of strains - think about it, the US already has the technology to detect and trace the source of chemical weapons, you don't think the CIA also has envisioned a scenario where they use chemical weapons that would trace directly to other governments? You don't think just the same way we can trace them, we can also duplicate the exact same strain?

[Dookiestix]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Bush believed what the global INTEL network and the Democrats who voted for force against Iraq believed. 8:)
Then 9/11 happened, and everybody "believed" something entirely different. 8:)

How soon we forget what Powell and Rice said back in February of 2001. :roll:

Everyone from Clinton to Kerry on the Dem side said the same thing Bush said before they authorized the CiC to use force in Iraq. John Kerry said Iraq had WMDs even before Bush was President. Maybe we should impeach Kerry for lying about WMDs first, then Bush could call "no backs". :rofl:

Quote: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
Impeach Kerry? Why? Was he the one who sent our forces into Iraq?

None of that mattered. Saddam duped many on both sides of the aisle. Ultimately it was Bush who went MUCH farther than Joe's suggestion of air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites.

And besides, according to Powell's former Chief of Staff, they just cherry picked whatever would stick, regardless of the tremendous doubt in much of the intelligence that already existed. Does "Curveball" ring a bell?

This quoting from Democrats regarding Saddam is really foolish. It does nothing in adequately addressing the timeline regarding Saddam, and the revelations that he didn't have any WMDs, nor was an emminent threat to the U.S., as Bush had led us to believe.

Bush is a liar. Accept it. 8:)

[Vexillum]

flamboyant wrote: I seem to remember regarding North Korea we couldn't even figure out if it was indeed a nuke or just a big conventional weapon.

It was a nuke. The only reason anyone doubted it was because it was so small and radiation wasn't immediately found. But, the radiation signature was then found.

Quote: I also think fishstyx raises a great point - if the president was evil enough to completely fabricate a case for WMD which he knew was wrong, he would have definitely been evil enough to see the need to go in there and plant some WMD.

Why would an evil Bush "see the need to go in there and plant some WMD"?

When I see people supporting Bush, it helps me to understand how the Geman people supported Hitler in WWII.

[flamboyant]

Well, the Bush - Hitler analogies are just off the chart asinine if you ask me, but I can very much see that if Bush was the evil man people claim in lying about the WMD to launch a war, don't you think as a shrewd politician he's also going to cover his ass by planting some WMD?

Logistically, I think it was totally feasible. Tens of thousands of vehicles, all it would take is one, plant a big WMD cache under the cover of the fog of war, conveniently find it later - totally doable regardless of any other countries watching via satellite. And regarding the fact that strains can be traced, I think if any government can trace and duplicate a strain, I'd think it would be the U.S., in fact I'm sure they probably have some "samples" of different strains "just in case".

[Plato & Socrates]

flamboyant wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: Fishstyx wrote: If Bush knew he was lying for the sole reason to invade Iraq, why not plant some WMDs in Iraq? All it would have taken is one shipping container packed full of VX poison gas. Voila! War is justified! Is it so unfeasible to believe that the intelligence relied on at the time just wasn't good?

Unfortunately for Bush and his neo-con cohorts, but fortunately for us, Bush could'nt do what you suggested and plant some chemical and biological agents/weapons. The main reason he could'nt do this is because, right now our science has reached quite a sophisticated level. As well as the obvious, that we could tell what agents/chemical and biological weapons they were. We can more importantly tell from which country it was produced and even tell which facility produced the agents. So there is a directly traceable path we can follow, to be able to ascertain where the agents come from.

It's the same with nuclear weapons. We can tell exactly which nuclear facility in the world, processed the Uranium or Plutonium for any particular bomb, after it is detonated. Because of this, this is one of the main reasons why governments around the world, haven't given WMD's to lunatics and terrorist groups. Could you imagine the U.S response if a terrorist used a Iraqi WMD, and killed U.S civilians? They would know the response would be justified and devastating.

If one thing is universal and that is politicians where ever they are in the world, are addicted to power. They're not dumb enough or mad enough to let there WMD, fall into the hands of terrorists. It would mean the end of them. They cant even do it by proxy, for the reasons I outlined above. Otherwise they would have done it already and Bush, would have planted the WMD's to save his reputation.

Can I have a link or two on that, because while I have heard chemical weapons can be traced, on the nukes, I seem to remember regarding North Korea we couldn't even figure out if it was indeed a nuke or just a big conventional weapon.

I also think fishstyx raises a great point - if the president was evil enough to completely fabricate a case for WMD which he knew was wrong, he would have definitely been evil enough to see the need to go in there and plant some WMD.

Regarding the tracing of strains - think about it, the US already has the technology to detect and trace the source of chemical weapons, you don't think the CIA also has envisioned a scenario where they use chemical weapons that would trace directly to other governments? You don't think just the same way we can trace them, we can also duplicate the exact same strain?

It's not so easy to fabricate or duplicate, especially when unscom was involved. In the Unscom team, it was made up of scientists from all over the world, answerable to there governments first, then the U.N. Where you source the precursor agents for you chosen chemical or biological weapon. It has a signature. The water you would use in your biological weapon, would be sourced locally. The water from the Euphrates, it has a distinctive chemical composition, say compared to the Nile, or the Amazon or the Potomac or the local river.

The quality of air, for example the air particles inside the biological weapon, will be distinctive. ie; lets say Saddam had 3 WMD factories. One in Baghdad, one in the Southern Iraqi desert and one in northern Iraq near the mountains. Because of the amount of vegetation and the type of vegetation, the air has a distinctive composition. Add to this the variable of the differing types of industries around the plant (if any at all) and the type of fumes and pollutants they throw out. We can roughly tell where in the world, the air came from.

So now when you put all those variables together, as well as other I have left out. You can now see the picture of how and why we can trace the source plant, where these weapons are made. Plus between the western Intelligence agencies, we know between us where 99% of the chemical/biological WMD factories are. So it is even easier to trace and verify, if required to do so.

[Mr. Sunshine]

Dookiestix wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Bush believed what the global INTEL network and the Democrats who voted for force against Iraq believed. 8:)
Then 9/11 happened, and everybody "believed" something entirely different. 8:)

How soon we forget what Powell and Rice said back in February of 2001. :roll:

Everyone from Clinton to Kerry on the Dem side said the same thing Bush said before they authorized the CiC to use force in Iraq. John Kerry said Iraq had WMDs even before Bush was President. Maybe we should impeach Kerry for lying about WMDs first, then Bush could call "no backs". :rofl:

Quote: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
Impeach Kerry? Why? Was he the one who sent our forces into Iraq?

None of that mattered. Saddam duped many on both sides of the aisle. Ultimately it was Bush who went MUCH farther than Joe's suggestion of air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites.

And besides, according to Powell's former Chief of Staff, they just cherry picked whatever would stick, regardless of the tremendous doubt in much of the intelligence that already existed. Does "Curveball" ring a bell?

This quoting from Democrats regarding Saddam is really foolish. It does nothing in adequately addressing the timeline regarding Saddam, and the revelations that he didn't have any WMDs, nor was an emminent threat to the U.S., as Bush had led us to believe.

Bush is a liar. Accept it. 8:)

Kerry is a liar as well, then.

In 1998 he called for low level military action while Bush was a Governor in Texas. Pre invasion, he really ramped up the rhetoric to strong action.

Some more Kerry quotes after Bush became President. 8:)

Quote: "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Any questions? :lol:

www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

Kerry lied and people died!

Kerry started the rhetoric before Bush. He must pay for his crimes by misleading the incoming Administration for his own genocidal agenda against the Iraqi people. Justice must be served. :rofl: