Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Timco, Jun 9, 2005.
'Downing Street memo' gets fresh attention
Why isn't this getting more news?
"Why isn't this getting more news?"
That's nothing! Read this:
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
"Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.
'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing"
America ‘Pearl Harbored’
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
And they did it on 9/11. The Neo-Cons were behind it and bombs brought down the WTC.
There's no doubt about it. There's no evidence to support the hijackers with boxcutters BS.
None at all. Use your brain and come out of the Matrix.
It's reassuring to know that we have a president who plans ahead.
Because it's not a memo of facts, but of a memo writer's opinion?
A SECRET blueprint for US global domination
_______________ :thats: _________________
The partisans who deny that Iraq had a nuclear programs are the ones "selectively" looking at facts. The United Nations, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, American Intelligence, President Bush, President Clinton, Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice, Madaline Albright, and many others all agree that Iraq ABSOLUTELY had a nuclear program. The question is, are the weapons in Iraq, or did they move them to Syria, or somewhere else. There is no question, however, as to whether Iraq had a nuclear program. NO QUESTION.
Correct, "there's no doubt about it".
Had a nuclear program when???
The only "intelligence" team with actual access to Iraq prior to our latest invasion, the UN nuclear inspection team, concluded unequivocably Saddam's Iraq had no nuclear weapons AND no capacity or program to develop them even if they'd wanted to. This fantasy they were moved to Syria or some other location is exactly that, a fantasy. Our own investigators have since concluded very little if any suspect materials, or key personel or even detailed knowledge made their way into Syria before or since our invasion.
Once more, these are OUR inspectors, the Bush administration's and the DOD's, NOT just "United Nations, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, American Intelligence, President Bush, President Clinton, Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice, Madaline Albright"!
(BTW, yours is a lie right here. The UN did NOT claim Saddam had nuclear weapons. On the contrary, they stated plainly, prior to our invasion he DID NOT. This has become a pattern from the right. If caught in a lie, just lie some more, and claim you never lied in the first place. This was seen with the rationale of WMDs for going to war, the claim Saddam was an imminent threat, this myth of his nuclear capabilities and on and on. And it extends to other agenda too, global warming, SS reform, even the Terri Schiavo case. There seems to no penalty for lying any more. The penalty appears to come only when one admits and acknowledges a lie, so the obvious strategy is to continue to lie.)
The fantasy and myth are kept alive however by the likes of Newsmax, Washington Times and Fox News, and mostly by the fact that just like the Downing Street memos, the above report was severely, and I believe intentionally, underreported and largely ignored by the mainstream press. In another exercise of fantasy and myth, this mainstream press has come to be known colloquially known as the "liberal media".:lol::rotfl:
Yeah, that's what I asked. WHEN? Thanks for this fifteen year old information. Information for when Saddam was our bosom buddy partner in crime in the region.
Not that "former" Iraqi advisors or expatriates have ever been wrong or tried to mislead us before, but this guy was obviously dead wrong about chem and bio, a fact now grudgingly admitted by Dubbya & Co. But the discussion here is about nuclear capabilities which this guy clearly states he believes were "dismantled". So what's your point?
And what makes me think this weasal is probably living in a condo in Maryland or Virginia surviving comfortably on a CIA subsidized pension?:nono:
Perhaps the best barometers of the agenda of this site is the banner ad for "conservative books" featuring Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and at least three anti-Clinton screeds out of eight selections, the other two apparently tributes to Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley, or the choice for "Viewpoint" headed again by the ubiquitous and slanderous Ms. Coulter and includes among others Robert Novak.
All of these links are old or bias, or according to current information WRONG to the max, or should I say Newsmax?:sure:
What can I say? How about "Bring 'em on!"?
When the underlying "facts" are wrong, it really doesn't matter who believes them. It appears that everyone got their "facts" from the same unreliable sources. I find it hard to believe that we wouldn't have found evidence of activity by now. Nuclear items have a tendency to leave radioactive signatures.
In any event, there was obviously no imminent threat that had to be eliminated. We were all misled by an administration that had a Snedden against Saddam. We'll be paying a heavy price for the president's decision for a very long time.
The families of our dead and wounded military have a right to be pi****.
Ahhh, yea, sure.
Some reason you didn't quote this?
"UN inspectors uncover proof of Saddam's nuclear bomb plans
By Con Coughlin
United Nations weapons inspectors have uncovered evidence that proves Saddam Hussein is trying to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons, The Telegraph can reveal. The discovery was made following spot checks last week on the homes of two Iraqi nuclear physicists in Baghdad.
Acting on information provided by Western intelligence, the UN inspection teams discovered a number of documents proving that Saddam is continuing with his attempts to develop nuclear weapons, contrary to his public declarations that Iraq is no longer interested in producing weapons of mass destruction."
Are you talking about Humanevents? So, you didn't read the article, but read the ads, and decided?
You'd have seen, had you bothered, that it was merely quoting the Kay report.
Let me paste part here, where there are no ads to distract you:
You asked a question. I linked a bunch of answers, and your reply was mocking yet completely ignored any evidence present except a date of one report and the site presenting it at another. Doesn't that seem a little silly of you?
How about this part which you didn't quote:
So, you asked "Had a nuclear program when???" and it seems the answer "since 1990 and beyond" didn't seem to agree with you, and yet--you didn't actually dispute the underlying fact--that he had such a program, when just in the post a few posts above you seemed incredulous to the idea he had any program at all.
Iraq had an active nuclear program...in the early 1990's. It still had a nuclear program in 2003. However, all it was doing was treading water. What has been shown in the 2 years since the latest of these articles were written was that Iraq had no nuclear program of any substance. Saddam my have thought he still had an active program, he may have still wanted nukes (many rulers with thoughts of world domination do), but his scientists were at most providing him with positive reports that meant nothing. What we have found over the past two years is that it would have taken far more than a year, with the sad state of the equipment scientists had to work with.
Is that your rationale? "No nuclear program of any substance"? Isn't that like saying someone is sort-of pregnant? You either are or are not. Iraq has many engineers trained in some fine US Universities. Making a nuke while trying not to look like you're making a nuke is the hard part. And it seems to me that France and Germany were willing to give Saddam all the time he needed.
No, its not the same. A woman who becomes pregnant generally has all the resources she needs to carry the baby to term. Having a program, even if you have engineers, does not insure you will end up with a nuclear divice. The program Iraq had in the early 1990s was disrupted. Equipment was improperly stored. A nuclear program is not something that can be moved around on a rotating basis and be successful. It seems that France and Germany did a far better job of interpreting the intelligence reports than the U.S. did. They had access to the same reports, the same informants, the U.S. did. The U.S. showed them what they had, trying to convince them to join in the war. France and Germany already had that information and thought from the Administration's statements that we must have more. When they realized there wasn't any more, they declined going to war with a fangless snake.
France and Germany - Ahh yes, you mean the two countries that were funding Iraq's nuclear program. Yes, I'm sure they did a MUCH better job interpreting the intelligence reports.