The White House knowingly misled us on Iraqi nukes

What do you think about the world?
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

The White House knowingly misled us on Iraqi nukes

Post by Voronwë »

the White House knew the main support for the reconstitution of the Iraqi nuclear programs was not at all true.

They knew that the aluminum tubes - their only concrete evidence (unless you count fake reports of yellowcake uranium purchased from Niger) were for artillery missiles not Uranium centrifugation - as they claimed - and still used that as propaganda for the war.

This Sunday's New York Times wrote: How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
By DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH

Published: October 3, 2004


In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.
Rekaar.
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 689
Joined: July 18, 2002, 8:44 pm
Contact:

Post by Rekaar. »

The experts, at the Energy Department
Do you sir, mean to imply that there are multiple experts across multiple Departments and some may have disagreed with each other! Preposterous!

You're better than this Voro.
Time makes more converts than reason. - Thomas Paine
User avatar
Marbus
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2378
Joined: July 4, 2002, 2:21 am
Contact:

Post by Marbus »

Marb's Summary: Very intelligent people informed the Bush administration that they were making a mistake. Being the "unwavering" person he is, Mr. Bush ignored the information so that he could continue to perpepuate his "veil of truth" over the American public and get backing for his holy war... Now the Truth is beginning to come out

Marb
User avatar
Moonwynd
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 919
Joined: July 11, 2003, 5:05 am
Gender: Male
Location: Middle of nowhere

Post by Moonwynd »

I have a hard time believing anything the New York Times posts...
User avatar
archeiron
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1289
Joined: April 14, 2003, 5:39 am

Post by archeiron »

Moonwynd wrote:I have a hard time believing anything the New York Times posts...
A healthy sense of skeptism is laudable, but you are conveniently ignoring the content of the article.
[65 Storm Warden] Archeiron Leafstalker (Wood Elf) <Sovereign>RETIRED
User avatar
Fat
Gets Around
Gets Around
Posts: 50
Joined: September 8, 2004, 4:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by Fat »

I believe the wording by Mr. Cheney, "irrefutable", would cleary be a lie in this situation, wouldn't it? Especially considering the information that would contest their theory came from multiple sources within the administration and the CIA.

-Alfan
User avatar
masteen
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8197
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
Gender: Mangina
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by masteen »

They bought yellow cake in Nigera! Don't you know what you can do with YELLOW CAKE?!?
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Pherr the Dorf
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2913
Joined: January 31, 2003, 9:30 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Sonoma County Calimifornia

Post by Pherr the Dorf »

masteen wrote:They bought yellow cake in Nigera! Don't you know what you can do with YELLOW CAKE?!?
Frost it?
The first duty of a patriot is to question the government

Jefferson
Rekaar.
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 689
Joined: July 18, 2002, 8:44 pm
Contact:

Post by Rekaar. »

"irrefutable" - cannot deny the truth of.

Do we need to have a lesson on the difference between a lie and being wrong? Again, just because some of your experts say one thing and yet another set of experts say another is not a rarity, but the norm. There's always a decision to make, and people in your own administration won't always agree...you still have to act. Hindsight is 20/20, as I heard some liberal say somewhere defending the previous President.

Everything I've seen shows this FRONT PAGE ARTICLE OMG to be an opinion piece, selectively choosing the information that supports the assertion. Maybe I'm just crazy though.
Time makes more converts than reason. - Thomas Paine
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

Rekaar. wrote:
The experts, at the Energy Department
Do you sir, mean to imply that there are multiple experts across multiple Departments and some may have disagreed with each other! Preposterous!

You're better than this Voro.
you obviously didnt read the article, which is OK since it is 15 pages.
George Tenet acknowledged the Nuclear case was very weak. So to suggest that the CIA and the DOE disagreed is not really accurate.

But furthermore, the DOE position was backed up by the IAE as well as the UK's intelligence assessment.


If you actually read the article, the case is extremely drawn out with dozens and dozens of points that seriously cast doubt on how anybody could have credibly considered that Iraq was using these tubes for a nuclear centrifuge.

Not the least of which is that Iraq was conducting all of these negotiations with Hong Kong IN PUBLIC and soliciting competing bids.

If you guys have points of contention with the article, i'm sure they could be valid. There are 15 pages of substance, and if it is a bunch of bullshit, there should be many places to easily deconstruct the assertions.
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Post by Zaelath »

Rekaar. wrote:"irrefutable" - cannot deny the truth of.

Do we need to have a lesson on the difference between a lie and being wrong? Again, just because some of your experts say one thing and yet another set of experts say another is not a rarity, but the norm. There's always a decision to make, and people in your own administration won't always agree...you still have to act. Hindsight is 20/20, as I heard some liberal say somewhere defending the previous President.

Everything I've seen shows this FRONT PAGE ARTICLE OMG to be an opinion piece, selectively choosing the information that supports the assertion. Maybe I'm just crazy though.
Yes jackass, apparently you do need a lesson on the difference between being wrong and lying.

If you say something is "irrefutable" when you have been informed of a dissenting expert opinion, that is a lie.

When you say something can only be used for one thing, and you already know it could be used for something else, that is a lie.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
User avatar
Dregor Thule
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5994
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Xathlak
PSN ID: dregor77
Location: Oakville, Ontario

Post by Dregor Thule »

Rekaar. wrote:"irrefutable" - cannot deny the truth of.

Do we need to have a lesson on the difference between a lie and being wrong? Again, just because some of your experts say one thing and yet another set of experts say another is not a rarity, but the norm. There's always a decision to make, and people in your own administration won't always agree...you still have to act. Hindsight is 20/20, as I heard some liberal say somewhere defending the previous President.

Everything I've seen shows this FRONT PAGE ARTICLE OMG to be an opinion piece, selectively choosing the information that supports the assertion. Maybe I'm just crazy though.
No maybe about it, fucker.
Image
User avatar
archeiron
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1289
Joined: April 14, 2003, 5:39 am

Post by archeiron »

Rekaar. wrote:"irrefutable" - cannot deny the truth of.

Do we need to have a lesson on the difference between a lie and being wrong? Again, just because some of your experts say one thing and yet another set of experts say another is not a rarity, but the norm. There's always a decision to make, and people in your own administration won't always agree...you still have to act. Hindsight is 20/20, as I heard some liberal say somewhere defending the previous President.

Everything I've seen shows this FRONT PAGE ARTICLE OMG to be an opinion piece, selectively choosing the information that supports the assertion. Maybe I'm just crazy though.
For the record:
ir·ref·u·ta·ble Impossible to refute or disprove; incontrovertible: irrefutable arguments; irrefutable evidence of guilt.
It is a necessary condition of something being irrefutable that you do not have reasonable dissent of the validity of the statement. In this case, there is a good case to be made that there were people questioning the Vice President's statements. The conclusion is that he lied about the evidence being incontrovertible.

Ultimately, I do not see that criminal recourse is possible or appropriate under these circumstances. I remain cautiously optimistic that a sufficient percentage of the population will find sufficient complaint with this administration to vote for a new one.
[65 Storm Warden] Archeiron Leafstalker (Wood Elf) <Sovereign>RETIRED
User avatar
Cartalas
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4364
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:39 pm
Location: Kyoukan's Mouth

Post by Cartalas »

Dregor Thule wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:"irrefutable" - cannot deny the truth of.

Do we need to have a lesson on the difference between a lie and being wrong? Again, just because some of your experts say one thing and yet another set of experts say another is not a rarity, but the norm. There's always a decision to make, and people in your own administration won't always agree...you still have to act. Hindsight is 20/20, as I heard some liberal say somewhere defending the previous President.

Everything I've seen shows this FRONT PAGE ARTICLE OMG to be an opinion piece, selectively choosing the information that supports the assertion. Maybe I'm just crazy though.
No maybe about it, fucker.
Maybe about what?
You single handly putting Old Country Buffet out of Business
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

ir·ref·u·ta·ble Impossible to refute or disprove; incontrovertible: irrefutable arguments; irrefutable evidence of guilt.
As in.. Rekaar is an idiot. The evidence is irrefutable.
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Post by Zaelath »

Cartalas wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:"irrefutable" - cannot deny the truth of.

Do we need to have a lesson on the difference between a lie and being wrong? Again, just because some of your experts say one thing and yet another set of experts say another is not a rarity, but the norm. There's always a decision to make, and people in your own administration won't always agree...you still have to act. Hindsight is 20/20, as I heard some liberal say somewhere defending the previous President.

Everything I've seen shows this FRONT PAGE ARTICLE OMG to be an opinion piece, selectively choosing the information that supports the assertion. Maybe I'm just crazy though.
No maybe about it, fucker.
Maybe about what?
You single handly putting Old Country Buffet out of Business
Hey Cart, the 3rd grade class called, they want their material back!
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
User avatar
Cartalas
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4364
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:39 pm
Location: Kyoukan's Mouth

Post by Cartalas »

Zaelath wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:"irrefutable" - cannot deny the truth of.

Do we need to have a lesson on the difference between a lie and being wrong? Again, just because some of your experts say one thing and yet another set of experts say another is not a rarity, but the norm. There's always a decision to make, and people in your own administration won't always agree...you still have to act. Hindsight is 20/20, as I heard some liberal say somewhere defending the previous President.

Everything I've seen shows this FRONT PAGE ARTICLE OMG to be an opinion piece, selectively choosing the information that supports the assertion. Maybe I'm just crazy though.
No maybe about it, fucker.
Maybe about what?
You single handly putting Old Country Buffet out of Business
Hey Cart, the 3rd grade class called, they want their material back!
Your Mom liked it :lol:
Rekaar.
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 689
Joined: July 18, 2002, 8:44 pm
Contact:

Post by Rekaar. »

I'm obviously not an idiot. You may disagree with me, but try to keep it relevant. Maybe even civil.

I certainly didn't read the article in its entirety. The subject itself (of whether the information was misleading or wrong or whatever) has never really interested me. I don't make my living being a critic or an armchair qb.

I understand why they went to war and I think it was the right thing to do. I recognize that a leader never has all the information he would like to have when it comes time to act. I know that mistakes are often made due to things beyond our control. What I don't understand is why I get called an idiot for having a clear position that I can articulate completely, though you may not agree with it.

If conflicting reports and evidence is being tossed around the cabinet until a decision is made or one set of facts determined inapplicable or irrelevant, that doesn't mean it's a lie to say we've examined the alternatives and based on what we know to be true, we are certain that the course we have chosen is absolutely what we need to do.

You can either choose to take a more objective view or you can choose to keep beating this tired old drum of lies and deceit. Either way what remains is that the President had to make a decision and he did, just like he has to do every day. Just like you have to do every day. They got it right, but the basis for their decision turned out to be wrong.

My attitude is to stop beating the long dead horse. Liberals keep beating it because it seems to be all they've got. I know there are much better angles to work. It's irritating that there aren't more constructive debates on domestic policy and how we can truly improve things on the home front - the main area of weakness for the present administration.
Time makes more converts than reason. - Thomas Paine
User avatar
Dregor Thule
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5994
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Xathlak
PSN ID: dregor77
Location: Oakville, Ontario

Post by Dregor Thule »

So, to sum it up, you're an uninformed blowhard guided by blind faith. I know of several religions you should look into if you aren't already a man of faith.
Image
User avatar
Cartalas
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4364
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:39 pm
Location: Kyoukan's Mouth

Post by Cartalas »

Dregor Thule wrote:So, to sum it up, you're an uninformed blowhard guided by blind faith. I know of several religions you should look into if you aren't already a man of faith.

At least he is not guided by his stomach!!!
User avatar
Raistin
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1295
Joined: July 2, 2002, 6:23 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Raistin »

I understand why they went to war and I think it was the right thing to do. I recognize that a leader never has all the information he would like to have when it comes time to act. I know that mistakes are often made due to things beyond our control
But the point is, He did have all the info before we went to war. He twisted it to be 1/10th true, and use the american unity after 9-11 to invade Iraq. That is the problem the majorty of people have a problem with. Sure hind sight is 20/20, but he knew, we didnt, we were lied to.We know better, and have a chance to right a wrong, and regain our stature with the world again.
User avatar
Metanis
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1417
Joined: July 5, 2002, 4:54 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by Metanis »

Raistin wrote:
I understand why they went to war and I think it was the right thing to do. I recognize that a leader never has all the information he would like to have when it comes time to act. I know that mistakes are often made due to things beyond our control
But the point is, He did have all the info before we went to war. He twisted it to be 1/10th true, and use the american unity after 9-11 to invade Iraq. That is the problem the majorty of people have a problem with. Sure hind sight is 20/20, but he knew, we didnt, we were lied to.We know better, and have a chance to right a wrong, and regain our stature with the world again.
1) It wasn't wrong to invade Iraq.

2) Many of us don't worry about our stature with the world.

3) Have a nice day.
User avatar
Raistin
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1295
Joined: July 2, 2002, 6:23 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Raistin »

So in your eyes, we can be just like Saddam, or Cold war Russia?That sits well with you?

Weve killed just as many innoncent Iraqi;s as Saddam. So in your own words Saddam must be good?
User avatar
Cartalas
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4364
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:39 pm
Location: Kyoukan's Mouth

Post by Cartalas »

Raistin wrote:So in your eyes, we can be just like Saddam, or Cold war Russia?That sits well with you?

Weve killed just as many innoncent Iraqi;s as Saddam. So in your own words Saddam must be good?
We have killed no where near as many people as saddam you dumb ass.


We liberated them it just so happens a few were liberated to allah.
User avatar
Traz-KOE
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 321
Joined: July 8, 2002, 3:48 am
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Contact:

Post by Traz-KOE »

Metanis wrote: 1) It wasn't wrong to invade Iraq.
...because Metanis says so. Bow down before the keeper of The Truth, for he will objectify all of the subjectives! He will factualize all opinions!

You will know the power of Metanis, the one true source of knowledge!
Traz Blackwolfe (Retired)
--------------------
I could turn you inside out
What I choose not to do
User avatar
Cartalas
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4364
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:39 pm
Location: Kyoukan's Mouth

Post by Cartalas »

Traz-KOE wrote:
Metanis wrote: 1) It wasn't wrong to invade Iraq.
...because Metanis says so. Bow down before the keeper of The Truth, for he will objectify all of the subjectives! He will factualize all opinions!

You will know the power of Metanis, the one true source of knowledge!
So how is Keeper of never get out of elemantals?
User avatar
Sirton
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 474
Joined: July 31, 2002, 5:20 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Sirton »

Nigeria report that was stated in the State of the Union speech that Bush got attacked on and was mentioned in the 1st post of this thread.....Pls look for any current information if anyone is able. I do not have the time at the moment sorry, and from a independant source pls.

I could of swore that that information wound up to be true and confirmed, but was never widely spread throughout the media...I could of swore I actually saw it being confirmed on snib bits in news reports. I thought Iraq was searching and getting crap from Africa? Anyways Im not sure about it, so intrested. No opnion pieces pls.

Just intrested in current info. about that case. It wont effect my opinion anyway on if should or not, because I thought we should of taken him out of power the first UN resolution he violated after the first Gulf War, because of coarse he violated it after a war that he lost.
User avatar
Aruman
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 683
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:53 pm

Post by Aruman »

I don't recall the exact quote that Condoleeza Rice used, but it was something along the lines of:

Would you rather the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud?

Kind of puts things in a different perspective when you think about it.

Even though WMD of this type haven't been found, given Saddam's history, I truly believe 'Better safe than sorry' could be applied.
Crav
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 447
Joined: July 5, 2002, 8:15 pm

Post by Crav »

Aruman wrote:I don't recall the exact quote that Condoleeza Rice used, but it was something along the lines of:

Would you rather the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud?

Kind of puts things in a different perspective when you think about it.

Even though WMD of this type haven't been found, given Saddam's history, I truly believe 'Better safe than sorry' could be applied.
Yes because disarming an unarmed country certainly did wonders towards trying to stop terrorist from getting WMD. I guess they'll just have to settle for getting them from North Korea, Iran(in the near future), Pakistan or former Soviet regions.
Crav Veladorn
Darkblade of Tunare

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Aruman
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 683
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:53 pm

Post by Aruman »

Crav wrote:
Aruman wrote:I don't recall the exact quote that Condoleeza Rice used, but it was something along the lines of:

Would you rather the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud?

Kind of puts things in a different perspective when you think about it.

Even though WMD of this type haven't been found, given Saddam's history, I truly believe 'Better safe than sorry' could be applied.
Yes because disarming an unarmed country certainly did wonders towards trying to stop terrorist from getting WMD. I guess they'll just have to settle for getting them from North Korea, Iran(in the near future), Pakistan or former Soviet regions.
Unarmed?

1000+ say otherwise. If these people can kill this many with small arms and explosives, imagine what could have been done with more 'dangerous' weapons.
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Post by Zaelath »

Aruman wrote:I don't recall the exact quote that Condoleeza Rice used, but it was something along the lines of:

Would you rather the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud?

Kind of puts things in a different perspective when you think about it.

Even though WMD of this type haven't been found, given Saddam's history, I truly believe 'Better safe than sorry' could be applied.
I agree, it's for just this reason I intend to shoot any boys hanging around my girls before they can get them pregnant.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Crav
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 447
Joined: July 5, 2002, 8:15 pm

Post by Crav »

Aruman wrote:
Crav wrote:
Aruman wrote:I don't recall the exact quote that Condoleeza Rice used, but it was something along the lines of:

Would you rather the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud?

Kind of puts things in a different perspective when you think about it.

Even though WMD of this type haven't been found, given Saddam's history, I truly believe 'Better safe than sorry' could be applied.
Yes because disarming an unarmed country certainly did wonders towards trying to stop terrorist from getting WMD. I guess they'll just have to settle for getting them from North Korea, Iran(in the near future), Pakistan or former Soviet regions.
Unarmed?

1000+ say otherwise. If these people can kill this many with small arms and explosives, imagine what could have been done with more 'dangerous' weapons.
Nice, we're in a discussion on terrorists and WMD and you compare it to the insurgents fighting in Iraq. Since you bring it up though, I wonder how many of those 1000+ would have died if we hadn't invaded under false pretenses, which btw is what is being discussed.
Crav Veladorn
Darkblade of Tunare

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein
vn_Tanc
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2398
Joined: July 12, 2002, 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Post by vn_Tanc »

And now Rumsfeld goes on record saying there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
Squirm out of that one. It should be fun to watch.
A man with a fork
In a world of soup
Image
Sabek
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1702
Joined: July 8, 2002, 4:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: sabek
Location: Columbus, Oh

Post by Sabek »

masteen wrote:They bought yellow cake in Nigera! Don't you know what you can do with YELLOW CAKE?!?
Yea I have the yellow cake right here. I wrapped in this special CIA napkin. :)
Sabek
Just Sabek
Image
User avatar
Truant
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4440
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:37 am
Location: Trumania
Contact:

Post by Truant »

Metanis wrote:1) It wasn't wrong to invade Iraq.

2) Many of us don't worry about our stature with the world.
Ok, first. Let's not even get into whether it was right or wrong to invade iraq, it really doesn't pertain to the point i want to make to you...so for right now, let's just say, it was not wrong to invade iraq. HOWEVER, it was wrong to lie about why we invaded iraq. If Bush just wanted to invade iraq, he could have said "i want to kick Hussein's ass" and I would have more respect for him than the misinformation they produced. I also think he was wrong in the procedure he used once he decided to invade iraq. He completely ignored the international community and did what he wanted to do, and again...didn't even have the balls to just say "because i want to." He lied to the american public and the rest of the world. And that IS wrong.

As far as number two, I say bullshit. Do you really think that you (as an international power) should just do whatever pleases you without regard for consequences. Because that is what you are saying.
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

The Yellowcake Uranium fantasy involved the country Niger, not Nigeria.

And no it wasn't ever found to be true.

buried by the media? i don't know if you pay much attention to television, but Condi Rice could be on television every day if the White House wanted her to. Every single television show would love to have Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, or Cheney on it, and those people could come on and say they wanted to talk about anything. And if that "anything" were that yellowcake uranium really was purchased from Niger by Saddam (it wasn't) then they could do that.

They could do it on Meet the Press, they could do it on This Week, they could do it on Hardball, they could do it on Late Edition. And then the video clip would be played on all the news networks and discussed for that week.

It is propagandic fantasy to even suggest that the administration does not have full and unfettered access to the media to deliver on any points it wants to.
User avatar
Fesuni Chopsui
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1001
Joined: November 23, 2002, 5:40 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Caldwell, NJ

Post by Fesuni Chopsui »

Cart my little love muffin....explain to me the point of attempting to ridicule someone based on real life appearance and/or guild status within EQ when it has quite possibly the LEAST to do with anything talked about in this thread..

I love ya to death Cart...but seriously cut it out :?
Quietly Retired From EQ In Greater Faydark
User avatar
Daboohk
Gets Around
Gets Around
Posts: 75
Joined: October 4, 2002, 1:25 pm

Post by Daboohk »

And now Rumsfeld goes on record saying there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
Squirm out of that one. It should be fun to watch.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=6414697
vn_Tanc
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2398
Joined: July 12, 2002, 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Post by vn_Tanc »

I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two
"strong, hard" = real.
A man with a fork
In a world of soup
Image
User avatar
Aruman
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 683
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:53 pm

Post by Aruman »

Crav wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Crav wrote:
Aruman wrote:I don't recall the exact quote that Condoleeza Rice used, but it was something along the lines of:

Would you rather the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud?

Kind of puts things in a different perspective when you think about it.

Even though WMD of this type haven't been found, given Saddam's history, I truly believe 'Better safe than sorry' could be applied.
Yes because disarming an unarmed country certainly did wonders towards trying to stop terrorist from getting WMD. I guess they'll just have to settle for getting them from North Korea, Iran(in the near future), Pakistan or former Soviet regions.
Unarmed?

1000+ say otherwise. If these people can kill this many with small arms and explosives, imagine what could have been done with more 'dangerous' weapons.
Nice, we're in a discussion on terrorists and WMD and you compare it to the insurgents fighting in Iraq. Since you bring it up though, I wonder how many of those 1000+ would have died if we hadn't invaded under false pretenses, which btw is what is being discussed.
Since I brought it up?

You said/implied Saddam was unarmed when we invaded. Liar! ;)

The number that died under 'false pretenses' probably would have been much greater if Saddam had had stockpiles of WMD. IMO be glad that he didn't have them ready for use. That 1000+ number probably would be more like 10,000+.

You don't get it that the invasion didn't occur solely on the basis of suspected WMD. I'm fairly certain that Saddam had happily thumbed his nose at the UN sanctions for 10+ years prior to the invasion.
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

Aruman wrote:I don't recall the exact quote that Condoleeza Rice used, but it was something along the lines of:

Would you rather the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud?

Kind of puts things in a different perspective when you think about it.

Even though WMD of this type haven't been found, given Saddam's history, I truly believe 'Better safe than sorry' could be applied.
Given the history of the US as the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, I truly believe "Better safe than sorry" could be applied and we should definitely take them out before they get trigger happy again.
That 1000+ number probably would be more like 10,000+.
heh you mean like the 10,000 that you "liberated" by killing them? :)
User avatar
miir
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 11501
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: miir1
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by miir »

heh you mean like the 10,000 that you "liberated" by killing them?
I thought it was up over 15k.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

Probably, I haven't paid close attention to it since I've been busy watching the all-important terrorist alert threat levels!
User avatar
Sirton
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 474
Joined: July 31, 2002, 5:20 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Sirton »

About all this WMD crap that Kerry and Bush agreed was the biggest threat to America atm:

To say that Saddam doesn't have WMD, you have to say after the inspectors left in 98, Saddam destroyed all of his WMD and decided too lose billions of dollars in oil, because of the sanctions rather than just tell anyone about it. Again they have yet been accounted for, which is the true and underying issue.

Saddam refused to let scientists and their families leave the country, defectors talked about WMD, rockets with empty chemical warheads have been found, and the inspectors actually found artillery shells tipped with mustard gas. So yes, Saddam does have some WMD in plain view, and the stockpiles have never been accounted for.

The British government stands by its reports that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Africa. US based its info. not only on what England said, but on other info. including a document that turned out to be forged(the one you talk about). Without that document, the Bush administration didn't feel sure of the claim that Saddam bought uranium in Africa, so they withdrew it.


In short:
The CIA gave Bush some intelligence info and told him it was genuine, Bush told the American people, then the CIA told Bush it was bogus, and Bush told the people about it.




Two months after the President's address to the nation, Cheney on NBC "Meet the Press" talked about Saddam's nuclear weapons program.
"He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons," Cheney said."
Cheney

notice we believe.


Important is now later on in the interview:
"...I think that would be the fear here, that even if he were tomorrow to give everything up, if he stays in power, we have to assume that as soon as the world is looking the other way and preoccupied with other issues, he will be back again rebuilding his BW and CW capabilities, and once again reconstituting his nuclear program."
Cheney

Saddam was reconstituting his program, not that he reconstituted nuclear weapons.

"We know (Saddam)'s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization."
Notice that Cheney says Saddam is "trying...to produce nuclear weapons", not that he has them.




So if the White House mislead us didnt these people mislead us aswell?????

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998-
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-
"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998-
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-
"We 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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-
"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-
"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."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-
"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. 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime 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
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-


Notice some of these quotes were before Bush was even running for President. So maybe for many of you to look in the mirror to hold to your true self and to your convictions should vote neither Bush nor Kerry and vote libertarian or for Nader since they didnt mislead us.







Two other quotes:
When the enemy starts a large-scale battle, he must realize that the battle between us will be open wherever there is sky, land and water in the entire world. ... There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Well, give us time and the necessary means, and we will produce any weapon they want, and then we will invite them to come and destroy them.
Saddam Hussein
"Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?"
Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994

timeline of events and statements from Iraq.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/iraq/sadquots.htm
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

*yawns* of course at the very basis of your argument is the "Have not accounted for". Now, those WMDs you bitch about needed specific storage facilities or they would disintegrate. Those facilities don't go up in smoke.

Oh and as for why not come out and say he destroyed them? Duh? He is surrounded by people who hate him. Iraq would have been invaded faster than people point and laugh at Cartalas. And the US would have sat and cheered them on and done nothing to prevent it after blowing up his military.
User avatar
Sirton
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 474
Joined: July 31, 2002, 5:20 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Sirton »

*yawns* of course at the very basis of your argument is the "Have not accounted for". Now, those WMDs you bitch about needed specific storage facilities or they would disintegrate. Those facilities don't go up in smoke.
Kelshara

No the basis of my argument is if you and many of this board are right how can you vote for either canidate. They both mislead you!!!! Be true to yourself atleast...something I admire in people like Kylere.

Also you assume that he would be invaded by others!!!! HUH? :lol: ummmm Kelshara HADNT YOU NOTICED HES BEEN INVADED, HIS SONS KILLED AND HES IN PRISON???????. . The other countries around him were weak, but insurgents and terrorist organizations were getting more powerful in his country while his regime was struggling. All the more reason to take him out now and deal with the situation at hand.

I can picture your argument, Saddam wondering hmmm Syria? Turkey? Iran? Sadi Arabia? Jordan? hmm maybe that pesky Kuwait? Im more scared of them then the United States invading me and possible the international world and the UN.

Please learn about each of those countrys militarys before commenting on this. The other countries were scared of Saddam the only one that could possibly invade him militarily would be Iran(which it would be a stalemate again), but if ya hadnt noticed they've been invading every Arab and Islamic country in the world atm...Just a smarter, less costly, idealistic, less ties, non conventional military and much tougher invasion to fight.
User avatar
Sirton
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 474
Joined: July 31, 2002, 5:20 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Sirton »

*yawns* of course at the very basis of your argument is the "Have not accounted for". Now, those WMDs you bitch about needed specific storage facilities or they would disintegrate. Those facilities don't go up in smoke.
Kelshara

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-

When the enemy starts a large-scale battle, he must realize that the battle between us will be open wherever there is sky, land and water in the entire world. ... There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Well, give us time and the necessary means, and we will produce any weapon they want, and then we will invite them to come and destroy them.
Saddam Hussein
"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. 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime 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
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-



And now our response is real not just words(Thx Bush), for not accounting for WMDs and there programs. Remember his regime was defeated by the UN and didn't account to the UN about ALL of his regimes WMD programs.
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

No the basis of my argument is if you and many of this board are right how can you vote for either canidate. They both mislead you!!!! Be true to yourself atleast...something I admire in people like Kylere.
Because when you face two evils you go for the lesser of the two. And that is clearly Kerry. Not that difficult for somebody like you grasp, is it? You are a doctor. You have to make the decission between amputating a leg or possibly watching the patient die. You go for the leg.
Also you assume that he would be invaded by others!!!! HUH? Laughing ummmm Kelshara HADNT YOU NOTICED HES BEEN INVADED, HIS SONS KILLED AND HES IN PRISON???????. . The other countries around him were weak, but insurgents and terrorist organizations were getting more powerful in his country while his regime was struggling. All the more reason to take him out now and deal with the situation at hand.
Way to go on ignoring the point completely. If Hussein had admitted after Gulf I just how bad his military was the surrounding countries would have invaded years ago. Hw bought time the only way he could. Yeah he pushed the limit with UN, but it was either that or certain invasion. Once again, the lesser of two evils.
Please learn about each of those countrys militarys before commenting on this. The other countries were scared of Saddam the only one that could possibly invade him militarily would be Iran(which it would be a stalemate again), but if ya hadnt noticed they've been invading every Arab and Islamic country in the world atm...Just a smarter, less costly, idealistic, less ties, non conventional military and much tougher invasion to fight.
That made me laugh and imho shows the complete lack of understanding you (not surprisingly) have for the Middle East. If Hussein had let on just how weakened he was, the other countries would have gone after him like rabid dogs.
When the enemy starts a large-scale battle, he must realize that the battle between us will be open wherever there is sky, land and water in the entire world. ..
Interestign quote you put there. Notice it said "When the enemy starts". It does not say THEY would start. Shot yourself in the foot with that one.

Also love how all of you neocons completely ignore the support the US and Americans have shown for terrorist organizations and dictators. Guess it only counts when it benefits you, eh?
User avatar
Sirton
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 474
Joined: July 31, 2002, 5:20 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Sirton »

Because when you face two evils you go for the lesser of the two. And that is clearly Kerry. Not that difficult for somebody like you grasp, is it? You are a doctor. You have to make the decission between amputating a leg or possibly watching the patient die. You go for the leg.
Kelshara

Nah I can grasp it, but many of you act like this is the deciding issue...when the history of Bush and Kerry on the issue are similar. Good point though that is true.

Way to go on ignoring the point completely. If Hussein had admitted after Gulf I just how bad his military was the surrounding countries would have invaded years ago. Hw bought time the only way he could. Yeah he pushed the limit with UN, but it was either that or certain invasion. Once again, the lesser of two evils.
Kelshara

No it was either certain invasion or certain invasion. One was from enemys he could actually still beat military wise, but would have to face there insurgents(which was happening with or without WMDs) or it was the US, which he would get his ass handed to him. His military after Gulf I was still more powerful than most in the region he still had many republican guard units.

That made me laugh and imho shows the complete lack of understanding you (not surprisingly) have for the Middle East. If Hussein had let on just how weakened he was, the other countries would have gone after him like rabid dogs.
I think I have much more understanding about the world than you, since I have been around it many times. They understand force they see people like yourself as weak and would go after you like rabid dogs. You have no understanding this isnt fairy tale land.



Interestign quote you put there. Notice it said "When the enemy starts". It does not say THEY would start. Shot yourself in the foot with that one.
Kelshara

Umm, we already started it Kelshara with Gulf War I? Get the point? It was already started? Hear that? How old are you? Saddam believes in vengence the war was already started to him and never finished. Why do you think he was a pain in the ASS to the UN. He still considered the war not over. I can copy paste many quotes about his vengence if ya want :) Or just goto http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/iraq/sadquots.htm.
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

I think I have much more understanding about the world than you, since I have been around it many times. They understand force they see people like yourself as weak and would go after you like rabid dogs. You have no understanding this isnt fairy tale land.
Yes because I have clearly lived in the US all my life!

As for starting it for Kuwait.. that is a whole other interesting debate. It's not like the world would have given a shit if it wasn't for oil in Kuwait.
Post Reply