New Saddam Documents Detail Terror Training

[ProudAmerican]

Stinger.....

downright impressive!!.

I can only hope to have a grasp of the facts that well. Excellent job.

 

[Stinger]

DAMN impressive on your part!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Stinger
What intelligence stated that Saddam was not threat. Source and cite as has been supplied to you for the other opinion in the matter.

Let's take Dr. Kay and Dr. Duelfer, the two heads of the Iraqi Survey Group, where in their reports do they come to that conclusion.

Your arguement makes as much sense as jumping into a bed of cactus naked.

If all the justification for Hussein to be a threat turns out to be false, why do you stilll consider the threat to be true? If you say I took your can of tomatoes, but you never find that can, nor anything to prove I took it, why would you still accuse me of taking that can?

 

[akyron]

If you say I took your can of tomatoes, but you never find that can, nor anything to prove I took it, why would you still accuse me of taking that can?

Well its probably not a good idea to be taunting him with ketchup on your face either is it? That is exactly what Saddam had been doing for over a decade.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Well its probably not a good idea to be taunting him with ketchup on your face either is it? That is exactly what Saddam had been doing for over a decade.

this is irrelevant to partisan liberals.

also, dont forget, there were MANY REASONS we went to war with iraq. the narrow the scope to ONLY WMDs is a tactic used by the left to support a position that would otherwise be unsupportable.

arguing with the left you would think the president never gave another single reason for war other than WMDs.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Big Question that might come as a shock to most.

Where the **** are the bombs. Where the **** are are they?

Also Who has ever heard of Newsmax? This is a conspiracy site for all I know. Wanna know why? 'Cuz if this document did exisist, it would be the number one priority before anything else to get it out to the public and prove the critics wrong thus soaring his approval ratings and adding a boost to the GOP 2006 campaign.

 

[Billo_Really]

Orignally posted by Che:
Big Question that might come as a shock to most.

Where the **** are the bombs. Where the **** are are they?

Also Who has ever heard of Newsmax? This is a conspiracy site for all I know. Wanna know why? 'Cuz if this document did exisist, it would be the number one priority before anything else to get it out to the public and prove the critics wrong thus soaring his approval ratings and adding a boost to the GOP 2006 campaign

That's exactly it. If there was WMD's it would be on the front page of every news outlet in the world. Bush would be on TV going, "You see, you see, I told you so!" But this has not happened because there are none. Even the Administration has publically admitted to giving up the search. Which makes everyone that still chants the mantra "They had WMD's..." a silly joke.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Where the **** are the bombs. Where the **** are are they?

well since we havent found them, clearly that means they never existed. Ive never seen a Lamborghini Diablo in person.....but Im pretty sure they are out there.

Also Who has ever heard of Newsmax? This is a conspiracy site for all I know. Wanna know why? 'Cuz if this document did exisist, it would be the number one priority before anything else to get it out to the public and prove the critics wrong thus soaring his approval ratings and adding a boost to the GOP 2006 campaign.

yeah cause news organizations like the one Dan Rather was a part of would immediately put forth any information that gave credit to the Bush administration.

 

[Stinger]

Big Question that might come as a shock to most.

Where the **** are the bombs. Where the **** are are they?

Yep good question. Why don't you know. Saddam was required to tell you else be removed, by force if necessary. You still don't know and Saddam has been removed.

Also Who has ever heard of Newsmax? This is a conspiracy site for all I know.

They are a widely read news source both on the web and with thier monthly magazine. Those in the know as far as political matters know full well who NewsMax is.

Wanna know why? 'Cuz if this document did exisist, it would be the number one priority before anything else to get it out to the public and prove the critics wrong thus soaring his approval ratings and adding a boost to the GOP 2006 campaign.

Well go tell that to NewsWeek, you do know who NewsWeek is don't you, they reported on this several weeks ago and have pictures of the documents on their website. I have posted the links elsewhere in this thread.

 

[KCConservative]

They are a widely read news source both on the web and with thier monthly magazine. Those in the know as far as political matters know full well who NewsMax is.



Well go tell that to NewsWeek, you do know who NewsWeek is don't you, they reported on this several weeks ago and have pictures of the documents on their website. I have posted the links elsewhere in this thread.

Touche' :bravo: :applaud

 

[Binary_Digit]

There is good evidence that Saddam Hussein wrote $25,000 checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. So Hussein was not completely innocent in the war on terror; he knowingly made contributions to those who would initiate terror attacks against our allies (Israel).

The problem is, that's not what Team Bush sold us on before the war. Team Bush focused on the imminent threat posed by Iraq's WMDs. We were told about mobile chemical weapons facilities, aluminum centrifuge tubes, and stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. (all of which turned out to be false) We were warned that Iraq might not only deliver these weapons to U.S. allied cities in the region, but might also sell or give these agents to loosely-nit terrorist organizations hell bent on killing as many Westerners as possible.

It wasn't about any humanitarian crisis going on in Iraq. It wasn't about spreading democracy in the Middle East region. It wasn't about terrorist training camps in the loosely-held northern Ansar al-Islam region. Heck, it wasn't even about the 500 tons of uranium and 10 tons of yellowcake that the IAEA already knew about. It was about the iminent threat of WMDs. That's what finally sold Congress and the American people on the war, that's what turned out to be false (by Bush's own admission), and that's why people feel decieved (or have an excuse to).

If we had found stockpiles of WMDs, there would be little controversy. If the main justification had been Hussein's known ties to terrorism, in the context of the broader war on terrorism, and not the iminent threat of still-at-large WMDs, there would be little controversy. But as it stands, the main justification for war doesn't appear to have existed in the first place.

 

[KCConservative]

We were told about mobile chemical weapons facilities, aluminum centrifuge tubes, and stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. (all of which turned out to be false)

Wrong. They turned out not to be there. That doesn't make it false. And if it is ever proven to be false, this still does not constitute a lie. This would mean the president, his advisors and the intelligence was wrong. The only lies are coming from those saying Bush lied.

 

[Binary_Digit]

The Iraqi defector named "Curveball" was the source of the mobile weapons facility accusations - he later retracted the statement. It was false, and that is undisputed by the administration. German officials have claimed they tried to warn U.S. intelligence about Curveball's credibilility.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1184172,00.html

As for the aluminum centrifuge tubes, Condi Rice told the UN they could "pretty much only be used for nuclear enrichment" which was not true. The 2004 report of the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the tubes were likely intended for an 81-mm rocket program, and that there was insufficient evidence to show a nuclear end use was planned for the tubes.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511160003

The rest of the WMDs? I don't know. I think it's believable that they're in Syria, or even buried somewhere in Iraq like those 30-40 Mig fighter jets they found.

And I never said Bush lied, only that people feel decieved. I personally believe he was biased from the beginning and didn't take an objective look at everything, believing whatever supported war without adequately scrutinizing the sources. Some people may interpret that as a lie, but I just think it was an honest mistake by a man desparate to prevent another 9/11. But he also had a hand in the misinformation, by creating the Office of Special Plans and the Iraqi National Congress to feed them pro-war intelligence. It's no coincidence that much of the flawed intelligence came from these two agencies. I don't see that as intentional decieption, but it WAS a mistake to not be more objective.

 

[ProudAmerican]

There is good evidence that Saddam Hussein wrote $25,000 checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. So Hussein was not completely innocent in the war on terror; he knowingly made contributions to those who would initiate terror attacks against our allies (Israel).

irrelevant to partisan liberals. in order for Saddam to be a legitimate target in the war on terror he had to shake hands with Bin Laden and provide the jets to the 9-11 hijackers.

The problem is, that's not what Team Bush sold us on before the war. Team Bush focused on the imminent threat posed by Iraq's WMDs. We were told about mobile chemical weapons facilities, aluminum centrifuge tubes, and stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. (all of which turned out to be false) We were warned that Iraq might not only deliver these weapons to U.S. allied cities in the region, but might also sell or give these agents to loosely-nit terrorist organizations hell bent on killing as many Westerners as possible.

not just the "Bush Team" see my sig. And I still believe some of these weapons we have not found may eventually end up in the hands of those loosley nit terrorist organizations. if that ever happens, the left is going to have a hell of a lot of spinning to do.

It wasn't about any humanitarian crisis going on in Iraq. It wasn't about spreading democracy in the Middle East region.

General Tommy Franks states in his book "American Soldier" that when he was given the order to go to war, the president said ..... and I quote.....

"All right. For the sake of peace in the world and security for our country and the rest of the free world.....And for the freedom of the Iraqi people, as of this moment, I will give Secretary Rumsfeld the order necessary to execute Operation Iraqi Freedom"

now why in the world would the president mention the FREEDOM OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE there, in the presence of only a few top military advisors if he didnt truly believe it.
it wasnt a photo op. it wasnt a speech on TV. it was a very private moment between the leaders of this mission.

I BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT was very concerned for the Iraqi people.

 

[Binary_Digit]

irrelevant to partisan liberals. in order for Saddam to be a legitimate target in the war on terror he had to shake hands with Bin Laden and provide the jets to the 9-11 hijackers.

That's probably true about partisan idiots. But I wanted to point out that, if the main justification for war had turned out to be true, most of today's anti-war crowd wouldn't be complaining. So that's the thing, Bush should have stuck to what was more credible when building his case, instead of believing half-baked tales that many intelligence experts had serious doubts about at the time, so he wouldn't be facing allegations of lies and deception when the inevitable happens and too many justifications for war don't pan out in the end.

not just the "Bush Team" see my sig. And I still believe some of these weapons we have not found may eventually end up in the hands of those loosley nit terrorist organizations. if that ever happens, the left is going to have a hell of a lot of spinning to do.

Clinton's remarks on Iraq were based on the 1998 UN inspections. Hanz Blitz and other inspectors released an updated report in 2002 after spending time in Iraq, and their findings on Iraq's WMD program was more accurate to what we actually found after invading (not much).

now why in the world would the president mention the FREEDOM OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE there, in the presence of only a few top military advisors if he didnt truly believe it.

Oh I don't know, maybe for political propoganda? What he said in the Oval Office is not important. That's not what drove public support. What he told the American people in all his speeches, and what Colin Powell told the UN, is.

Edit: please disregard the first sentence in the above paragraph, I totally missed the point you were trying to make. I agree that Bush has the well being of the Iraqi people at heart, but he didn't use that as justification for war.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
Wrong. They turned out not to be there. That doesn't make it false. And if it is ever proven to be false, this still does not constitute a lie. This would mean the president, his advisors and the intelligence was wrong. The only lies are coming from those saying Bush lied.

Wrong. Bush was told about the uranium tubes story being false nine months before his speech. If you know it is wrong and you still go ahead and tell the tale, you're lying.

 

[cnredd]

There is good evidence that Saddam Hussein wrote $25,000 checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. So Hussein was not completely innocent in the war on terror; he knowingly made contributions to those who would initiate terror attacks against our allies (Israel).

The problem is, that's not what Team Bush sold us on before the war. Team Bush focused on the imminent threat posed by Iraq's WMDs. We were told about mobile chemical weapons facilities, aluminum centrifuge tubes, and stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. (all of which turned out to be false) We were warned that Iraq might not only deliver these weapons to U.S. allied cities in the region, but might also sell or give these agents to loosely-nit terrorist organizations hell bent on killing as many Westerners as possible.

It wasn't about any humanitarian crisis going on in Iraq. It wasn't about spreading democracy in the Middle East region. It wasn't about terrorist training camps in the loosely-held northern Ansar al-Islam region. Heck, it wasn't even about the 500 tons of uranium and 10 tons of yellowcake that the IAEA already knew about. It was about the iminent threat of WMDs. That's what finally sold Congress and the American people on the war, that's what turned out to be false (by Bush's own admission), and that's why people feel decieved (or have an excuse to).

If we had found stockpiles of WMDs, there would be little controversy. If the main justification had been Hussein's known ties to terrorism, in the context of the broader war on terrorism, and not the iminent threat of still-at-large WMDs, there would be little controversy. But as it stands, the main justification for war doesn't appear to have existed in the first place.

It was about all of those things that you've mentioned, but you've chose not to listen...

From an earlier post....

The problem is the lack of acceptance in the eyes of the general population. Obviously, the events and situations are more complex than the average American understands, and their attention span will only be held long enough until the new "American Idol" season starts, so it's much easier to only filter out what ones wants to hear and neglect the other stuff...

Example...There are about 10 reasons given why we went to Iraq...A couple of them didn't pan out...For some illogical reason(party loyalty?), some people believe that this should negate all of the others. These other reasons are being displayed as if they're hearing them for the first time...welcome to the filter...

Bush : They have WMDs
American : WMDs
Bush : The people of Iraq must be liberated
American : WMDs
Bush : Saddam has buthered his own people by the thousands
American : WMDs
Bush : He has greenlighted terrorism and in some instances financially backed it
American : WMDs
Bush : He has shown his intentions by attacking neighboring countries
American : WMDs
Bush : He has repeatedly stifled inspections and misled the global community
American : WMDs
Bush : He has repeatedly thumbed his nose at the resolutions set forth by the United nations
American : WMDs

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by cnredd:
Example...There are about 10 reasons given why we went to Iraq...A couple of them didn't pan out...For some illogical reason(party loyalty?), some people believe that this should negate all of the others. These other reasons are being displayed as if they're hearing them for the first time...welcome to the filter...

You can come up with a 100 reasons why we attacked, if they are not in concert with Article 51 of the UN Charter they are all illegal.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Wrong. Bush was told about the uranium tubes story being false nine months before his speech. If you know it is wrong and you still go ahead and tell the tale, you're lying.

LOL wrong again! Condoleeza Rice made the centrifuge claim, not Bush. Bush's State of the Union Address referred to Iraq's attempt to buy "significant quantities" of uranium from Niger. British Intelligence corroborated that story, even though Joe Wilson thought he debunked it, so Bush did not lie about Iraq's attempt to buy uranium. He did lie about torture though....

It was about all of those things that you've mentioned, but you've chose not to listen...

From an earlier post....

The problem is the lack of acceptance in the eyes of the general population. Obviously, the events and situations are more complex than the average American understands, and their attention span will only be held long enough until the new "American Idol" season starts, so it's much easier to only filter out what ones wants to hear and neglect the other stuff...

Example...There are about 10 reasons given why we went to Iraq...A couple of them didn't pan out...For some illogical reason(party loyalty?), some people believe that this should negate all of the others. These other reasons are being displayed as if they're hearing them for the first time...welcome to the filter...

Bush : They have WMDs
American : WMDs
Bush : The people of Iraq must be liberated
American : WMDs
Bush : Saddam has buthered his own people by the thousands
American : WMDs
Bush : He has greenlighted terrorism and in some instances financially backed it
American : WMDs
Bush : He has shown his intentions by attacking neighboring countries
American : WMDs
Bush : He has repeatedly stifled inspections and misled the global community
American : WMDs
Bush : He has repeatedly thumbed his nose at the resolutions set forth by the United nations
American : WMDs

Hehe! I would have worded it more like this:

Bush : The people of Iraq must be liberated
American : Lots of people in the world need liberated.

Bush : Saddam has buthered his own people by the thousands
American : That was years ago, not now, we should have responded then, but preemption isn't justified by this.

Bush : He has repeatedly thumbed his nose at the resolutions set forth by the United nations
American : So has practically every other country living under UN sanctions.

Bush : He has shown his intentions by attacking neighboring countries
American : He's not invading anyone right now. He didn't have the military capability after he tried that the first time.

Bush : He has repeatedly stifled inspections and misled the global community
American : He's giving them unrestricted access right now (2002), and the Inspectors say there's nothing to hide (anymore?).


Bush : He has greenlighted terrorism and in some instances financially backed it
American : So has Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine, and America (Contra).

Bush : They have WMDs
American : Ok, now you've got my attention. Assuming that's true, of course!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit
LOL wrong again! Condoleeza Rice made the centrifuge claim, not Bush. Bush's State of the Union Address referred to Iraq's attempt to buy "significant quantities" of uranium from Niger. British Intelligence corroborated that story, even though Joe Wilson thought he debunked it, so Bush did not lie about Iraq's attempt to buy uranium. He did lie about torture though....

I was talking about Bush, not Condi. The State Dept. was informed by British intelligence nine months before the State of the Union speech that the Niger story was fraudulant. After the State of the Union speech, British intelligence went back to the State Dept. and asked why did they run with the story when they were told it was false. So yes, Bush, by blowing off the report nine months before, told a lie.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Hmm, that's not what I got when I read up on all that. It's true the State Department thought the story was false, but British Intelligence has stood by the Niger claim the whole time.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit
Hmm, that's not what I got when I read up on all that. It's true the State Department thought the story was false, but British Intelligence has stood by the Niger claim the whole time.

If that is true, then you won't have a difficult time posting a link that says such. Because I can certainly post a link that says the opposite.

How Bush Got It Wrong
By Thomas Powers
Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
July 7, 2004, 511 pp., with deletions

No tyrannical father presiding over an intimidated household was ever tiptoed around with greater caution than is the figure of President George W. Bush in the Senate Intelligence Committee's fat report of its investigation into the scary stories about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction cited by the President as all the justification he needed for going to war in Iraq.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=17413

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090504J.shtml

 

[Binary_Digit]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Sure![/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

• A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
• A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
• Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
• Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

The Butler Report issued after a review by the British government concluded that the report Saddam's government was seeking uranium in Africa was credible. However, the Butler report fails to advance any evidence to substantiate this conclusion. Furthermore, the Butler report concluded that "The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it." Further, the Financial Times released a story in the summer of 2004, indicating a "strong belief" among European intelligence communities that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger (June 28. 2004). Again, no proof is shown for this claim. In any case, French intelligence had repeatedly warned the Bush administration a year before his State of the Union address that the allegation could not be supported with evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

The British Government has stood by its assertion, saying the forged documents were not the only evidence used to reach its conclusion that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Africa.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm

 

[Billo_Really]

Orignally posted by Binary Digit:
Sure!



Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

The Butler Report issued after a review by the British government concluded that the report Saddam's government was seeking uranium in Africa was credible. However, the Butler report fails to advance any evidence to substantiate this conclusion. Furthermore, the Butler report concluded that "The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it." Further, the Financial Times released a story in the summer of 2004, indicating a "strong belief" among European intelligence communities that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger (June 28. 2004). Again, no proof is shown for this claim. In any case, French intelligence had repeatedly warned the Bush administration a year before his State of the Union address that the allegation could not be supported with evidence.

The British Government has stood by its assertion, saying the forged documents were not the only evidence used to reach its conclusion that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Africa.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm

So your saying "Curveball" wasn't a phoney?

 

[Binary_Digit]

No, I'm only saying what I said, which was "British Intelligence has stood by the Niger claim the whole time." and therefore Bush didn't lie when he said British intelligence has learned etc..