Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 14, 2007 17:16
VIEWED: 19028
PAGE 20 of 27
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
WHAAA???? Where have you BEEN for the last 50 years?
Well, since you don't seem to trust information unless it's really old and crusty and issued by the Higest Power In The Land, I give you....
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Try the last few thousand years. Lets not forget there has always been a fear of "them"...the Templars, Masons, Illuminati, Jacobites, International Banks, Teddy R's monopolistic corporations, SPECTRE, the International Communist Conspiracy, Barney the Dinasaur, the Nazis (the ones who took Hitler to Argentina), the Mob, the Mob (as in the folk who overthrew the French King), the Mob (the Roman Senate), the evil Military of (Caesar, Washington, etc.), the United States Post Office, Canada, George Bush's 9/11 oil plotters, the Jews, the Arabs, Texans, and the New England Patriots.
Its a world of plots and the real conspiracy is that none of its real and whats happening is whats actually happening, not some big secret behind the scenes crap.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, those guys downtown that hate you because they're envious of your conviction rate aren't secretly trying to have you fired by talkin' s**t about you to the judges, eh?
Originally posted by Hero:
Its a world of plots and the real conspiracy is that none of its real and whats happening is whats actually happening, not some big secret behind the scenes crap.
OK.
No conspiracies then Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero- There you go again unable to process new information. As I said before any statements before approximately 2003 are suspect because they did not have UNMOVIC's assessment at-hand.
Inspections were resumed in Nov 2002. UNMOVIC was forced to w/draw by our impending invasion March 2003, www.unmovic.org/ approximately 2-3 months before Blix felt they would conclude. The best, most current, and most reliable information on WMD was from UNMOVIC/ IAEA on-the-ground inspections which were guided by satellite and other reconaissance, intelligence agency concerns, forensic accounting (materials production and purchase), and past history. By April 2003 it was clear that "stockpiles" of WMD and/ or active production programs were not about to be found.
Any statement about Iraq's WMD stockpiles after January 2003 are irresponsible. That includes statements by Dems playing politics.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, so Saddam's so-called secret WMD stockpiles and production is a conspiracy that "really happened" but the "military industrial complex" is loony-tune paranioa? Sure. Whatever you say, Hero. Don't forget to take your meds at lunch.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:]Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Bush was horribly, irretrievably wrong on everything that had to do with Iraq ...
"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." - President Clinton, Jan. 27, 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 (The same fella that stole classified documents from the National Archives).
"[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." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"s a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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.
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace 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, Dec, 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 mandate 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 away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."- 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.
"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 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 (she can't run from this line).
"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 weaponsNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:So, those guys downtown that hate you because they're envious of your conviction rate aren't secretly trying to have you fired by talkin' s**t about you to the judges, eh?
Originally posted by Hero:
Its a world of plots and the real conspiracy is that none of its real and whats happening is whats actually happening, not some big secret behind the scenes crap.
OK.
No conspiracies then Chrisisall
Well that's probably true. However Dr Evil isn't instructing Oddbob to get Haliburton to put presure on Blackstone, to co-ordinate with the Justice Department to frame Hero as a Columbian drug lord.
Conspiracy theories are a mental coping mechanism, they allow people to remove uncertainty from their world. Uncertainty is scary, people take some comfort in believing that there is a plan, even if that plan is nefarious and criminal. It is better to believe that there are tens of thousands of people in government and elsewhere making 9/11 happen than that 12 guys from a backwoods country can kill 3000 and bring a major city to it's knees. If the government/NPAC/the CIA are responsable that is actually comforting because it would be hard for that to be repeated. There are a lot of pissed off nobodies in the world. If all you need is 12 of them with a plan then you can never be safe.
The Iraq thing was a f*ck up. Accept it, folks were incompetant. No conspiracy needed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jongsstraw- BEFORE the last round of inspections, there was very little real information about what Saddam was or wasn't doing. The fact that Saddam had WMD and had used them in Iran wasn't a real surprise, but once a naiton has the capability its hard to think that the genie has gone back into the bottle. So I understand the suspicion at the time. But once intrusive inspections began to show nothing, and once some of the "compelling evidence" started to unravel, politicians (including Bush) should have taken a more evaluative stance before committing to invasion. If it had been up to me, I would have waited until the inspections were completed. And that's what I found so odd: Just as evidence was accumulating that WMD was not a dire threat, at the time when the press for invasion should have been slowing down, Bush was speeding up. The only intepretation that I could put on this was that Bush wanted to invade before the inspections were complete.
Had the inspections been completed, that would have been a whole nother story, because the oil embargo would be lifted and contracts with Russia and France were about to be signed. We would have been facing a different problem: The problem of ensuring ourselves that Iraq wouldn't restart it's WMD program in the milieu of more open and frequent trade.
I think quite a few Democrats were stampeded into supporting the war because Bush had worked up such a froth of anxiety in the general public that they didn't want to lose credibility with their constituents. In other words, many were prolly- as you say- political opportunists. Hower, I have to point out that a LOT of Democratic Senators voted against invasion (I think it was 22 Senators) so there were a lot of politicians who showed both insight and backbone.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So al Qaida isn't a conspiracy? I think that in order to reduce suspicion about our fearless leaders, you've made an overly broad statement dismissive of ALL conspiracies- which are quire real and DO exist (as docs released by the CIA will prove.)
Conspiracy theories are a mental coping mechanism, they allow people to remove uncertainty from their world. Uncertainty is scary, people take some comfort in believing that there is a plan, even if that plan is nefarious and criminal.
In any case, I don't have to believe in a conspiracy to recognize that some people have different motives that I: The capitalist who seeks to maximize profit by pitting me against a Vietnamese worker, the illegal immigrant who feels entitled by dint of hard work to have a place in this country, the politician who loves treading the halls of power and who will do anything to stay there, and the Zionist neonconservative who places Israel's interests above the USA's. They all exist. Not everyone is a cookie-cutter of me.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Jongsstraw- BEFORE the last round of inspections, there was very little real information about what Saddam was or wasn't doing. The fact that Saddam had WMD and had used them in Iran wasn't a real surprise, but once a naiton has the capability its hard to think that the genie has gone back into the bottle. So I understand the suspicion at the time. But once intrusive inspections began to show nothing, and once some of the "compelling evidence" started to unravel, politicians (including Bush) should have taken a more evaluative stance before committing to invasion. If it had been up to me, I would have waited until the inspections were completed. And that's what I found so odd: Just as evidence was accumulating that WMD was not a dire threat, at the time when the press for invasion should have been slowing down, Bush was speeding up. The only intepretation that I could put on this was that Bush wanted to invade before the inspections were complete.
Had the inspections been completed, that would have been a whole nother story, because the oil embargo would be lifted and contracts with Russia and France were about to be signed. We would have been facing a different problem: The problem of ensuring ourselves that Iraq wouldn't restart it's WMD program in the milieu of more open and frequent trade.
I think quite a few Democrats were stampeded into supporting the war because Bush had worked up such a froth of anxiety in the general public that they didn't want to lose credibility with their constituents. In other words, many were prolly- as you say- political opportunists. Hower, I have to point out that a LOT of Democratic Senators voted against invasion (I think it was 22 Senators) so there were a lot of politicians who showed both insight and backbone.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
I agree with many of your points, especially the "speedup" part. I too thought the "invasion" was ill-concieved and a big mistake. I actually couldn't f'ing believe it to tell you the truth...My little point however is that the Dems have not been truthful, and have used inflammatory language and hateful rhetoric against Bush that has so polarized this nation into fragments at each other's throats. We need to be one country again....When Bush bashing stops, I'll stop my attacks against Dems.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME