• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

President Clinton Isn't President Clinton?

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
Well how about the Kay and Duelfer reports about what we did find? Plenty enough for me.

Plenty enough for the 2000 some odd soldiers who have given their lifes based on lies? The Kay report concludes there was no resumption of chem/bio weapons.

Stinger said:
They were only concerning with nuclear which we knew he did not have a bomb but he did have in his pocession yellow-cake to make one out of and we had no control over what he did with it.

The yellow cake was destroyed before the war. Yet, still we had the administration lying to us about Saddam attempting to purchase yellow cake from Niger, which at the time, Saddam already had. Besides, yellow cake is worthless without the nuclear centrifuges...all of which give off radiation and gamma rays, easily detected by our surveillance satellites.

Stinger said:
Well first I don't think you can site a NIE from before the invasion that made that uneqivical statement, but again it's not about what we didn't find it's about what we did find.

"Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening." From the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. INR is the State Department's Internal Intellgence Agency."



Stinger said:
How about his testimony about what he did find?
***********************************************************************
NewsMax Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2004 10:58 a.m. EST

Kay described Iraq's government as "a system collapsing."

Boy, that sounds like Saddam had a real strong capability to wage war, doesn't it? LOL

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein "was putting more money into his nuclear program, he was pushing ahead his long-range missile program as hard as he could," Kay said.
Although Baghdad wasn't successful, Kay said Iraq "had the intent to acquire these weapons," adding that Saddam had "invested huge amounts of money" to do so.

Gee, Baghdad wasn't successful...which means any long range missile program wasn't successful...and "intent" is not enough justification to take our nation to war.

The chief weapons hunter also debunked the notion that the White House pressured U.S. intelligence to exaggerate the Iraq threat.

Absolute nonsense here.



Stinger said:
How about his direct statements that there was no connection? Why do you try to infer that they said there was when they were abundantly clear there was not direct connection?

Direct statements? You mean the statements after we were already at war when we couldn't find anything? Bush certainly made NO such statements before this war. The White House and everyone involved led many to believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Even after the brief skirmish, bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln and continued the deception by telling America "We have removed an ally of Al Queda."

Saddam and Al Queda were never allies, and it's never been proven they were allies.



Stinger said:
How about that is a mistatement of what he said and he issue a clarification the next day. Throughout that interveiw he clearly stated "nuclear weapons PROGRAMS" and since he was also clear that Saddam had NEVER had a nuclear weapons how could he have reconstituted one? This is one of the most blantant misrepresentations the left makes. Chaney even went so far as to go back on Meet the Press and state again that in the one reference he had left out the word PROGRAM, and Russert agreed. So why do you and the left keep trying to misrepresent it?

Then why would the Bush administration scare us that Saddam is attempting to purchase yellow cake and aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons?

Bush was NEVER clear that Saddam had no nuclear weapon


Stinger said:
Because he had. And if you read the entire transcript it is perfectly clear. The administration NEVER claimed Saddam had a nuclear weapon. If there had been any indication he did there would not have been ANY discussion as to whether we needed to remove him, there would have been no question.

Bull! Why would Cheney say on Meet the Press, March 16th, 2003 "We believe Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons." This statement was made on national television just days before the war. Later...6 months, in fact, Cheney apologizes for that statement. ( after they realize they're not going to find anything) There's no spin to this...it was a deliberate lie....even Cheney admits he misspoke, and says "we never had any evidence that Saddam had acquired a nuclear weapon." Meet the Press Sept. 14th, 2003


Stinger said:
You have yet to show a specific "lie", something they knew was factually wrong but said was true.

Before Cheney's statement in March of 2003 on Meet the Press, here's what the IAEA had to say....

"After 3 months of intrusive inspections, we have, to date, found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq." March 7, 2003

So, here we have IAEA report on March 7th, 2003 saying there's nothing in Iraq, then we have Cheney telling America that Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons on March 16th, 2003...then we invade Iraq on March 23, 2003.

Liar, liar, pants on fire...no other reasonable, and non-partisan way to look at this evidence. It is your own prejudice that disallows you to face the truth.

Stinger said:
The evidence was overwhelming, it may have been wrong in some cases, but it was overwhelming. And the fact is what we found was reason enough to remove him.

ROTFL! Overwhelming my butt! There was plenty of evidence to the contrary...far more than to make any sane man pause before taking our nation to war! An unforgiveable act by a deceptive administration. And, please tell me...what exactly have we found in Iraq that justifies 2000 lifes of our best? Old munitions...outdated and worthless and of no threat to the United States.

Stinger said:
You have yet to post one specific piece of evidence that Bush had in hand that refuted any of the evidence otherswise. You try to use information after the fact, but that was not what we believed. And you ignore what we did find.

I've refuted everything you've posted. Please tell all of us what we have found in Iraq that neccessitated this war?

Stinger said:
See what? That Saddam left in power was a threat to the region and the world. That his plan to get the sanctions removed was well under way and had he been successful would have turned into a terrorist bonanza.

Go have a strong cup of coffee! We rolled over Saddam's army...with Clintons military, I might add, even the most conservative estimates say Saddam was a good 10 years away from any kind of WMD capability. Saddam was no threat to the region, world, or the U.S. after the first Gulf War.

Stinger said:
You prefer to give Saddam the benifit of the doubt.

Not at all...I prefer the statements from independent investigators like the UN weapons inspectors, and the IAEA, and the Iraq Survey Group.


Stinger said:
What was he doing with the yellow-cake? What was he doing the tons of organophosphate chemicals stored in pits dug at his ammo dumps? What was he doing with the proscribed missle testing?

Yellow cake means absolutley nothing without the ability to transform it into nuclear fissile material! Saddam had no such capability! If you're so worried about yellow cake, then we should've invaded Niger, since they had tons of the stuff...yet, Niger doesn't have a nuclear weapon, do they?

Organophosphate chemicals? You mean the stuff they use on tomato plants and vegetables? LOL!

Stinger said:
In view of Saddam's past, in view of his violation of all cease-fire stipulations and UN resolutions, in view of UNSCOM saying he still was not complying even though there were 400,000 troops on his border. What sane man would not take action?

We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq stating there's nothing here! Sheesh! What more do you need from eye witrness accounts?! These inspectors did ask for about 3 more months to finish their inspections, just to be sure Saddam was harmless, but Bush had to start the bombing! After 12 years of sanctions, you mean to tell me Bush couldn't wait 3 more stinking months before taking us to WAR!!?? Absolute BS!

Stinger said:
McCain endorsed the war.

And McCain was not part of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that did get to see the classified version of the NIE's report and voted 5-4 against giving Bush the authorization to take our nation to war.

The bottom line, the public did not commit troops, and billions of dollars to this invasion acting on the best information its government could provide, instead, we all fell victim to an intense marketing campaign conducted by a small group of influential radicals inside the Bush administration who were persuing their own narrow agenda...with a campaign of deliberate lies, half-retractions, misstatements and a devious attempt to entrap the American people.

Bush 38% approval rating...that says it all right there.

One last thing...you would be wise to get your information from somewhere other than Newsmax...a right arm of the republican/conservative movement, and certainly not unbiased reporting.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hoot said:
Then why would the Bush administration scare us that Saddam is attempting to purchase yellow cake and aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons?
When will some people NEVER give up the partsianship act of crying "Lie!" until they believe it?

This is from factcheck.org...sorry it's not from "ISlurpThePartyLine.com"...:roll:

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

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.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.


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

No lie...repeat...NO LIE!!

I'm wrong again!!!! said:
Bush was NEVER clear that Saddam had no nuclear weapon

Swing and a miss...go back and ask Chairman Dean for your next assignment...

From Bush's speech in Cinncinati BEFORE the war and right before Congress passed House Resolution 114...You know..The one that authorized the use of force?

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
You refuse to look at any of the evidence I posted or even attempt to refute it.

The Bush administration had evidence the aluminum tubes were worthless for nuclear centrifuges, yet we have Rice telling us that was their intended use.

I don't care how you spin it...if you have conflicting intelligence shouldn't you try to find out the truth before taking our nation to war??!!

I can't be bothered reading your post at the moment..perhaps I'll give it another look later today...the bottom line...the Bush administration LIED!!

You can spin it anyway you like, but anyone with a 3rd grade education, or higher, can see the truth behind the spin.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You refuse to look at any of the evidence I posted or even attempt to refute it.

Hey Hoot, seems to me cnredd refuted a couple of your main points pretty darned conclusively.

And if you can't be "bothered" to even read his response, then clearly you are not one to let a couple of inconvenient facts stand between you and your particular brand of dogma.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Hoot said:
Plenty enough for the 2000 some odd soldiers who have given their lifes

Yes.

based on lies?

The Kay and Duelfer reports were based on lies, that's what you are saying?

Hoot said:
The Kay report concludes there was no resumption of chem/bio weapons.

Nothing for mass production but research and developement were in progress.


The yellow cake was destroyed before the war.

No it wasn't. We found about 500 tons. And here is what Kay told congress

"[The Iraqis] started building new buildings, renovating it, hiring some new staff and bringing them together," Kay said. "And they ran a few physics experiments, re-ran experiments they'd actually run in the '80s."

"Fortunately, from my point of view," he added, "Operation Iraqi Freedom intervened and we don't know how or how fast that would have gone ahead. . . . Given their history, it was certainly an emerging program that I would not have looked forward to their continuing to pursue."

And Duelfer told of a lab that was "was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development."


Yet, still we had the administration lying to us about Saddam attempting to purchase yellow cake from Niger, which at the time, Saddam already had.

Well which is it, first he did purchase and attempt to purchase more yellow cake as all intelligence agency has shown. And on the one hand you said he didn't have any and on the other you say he did. Which is it.

Besides, yellow cake is worthless without the nuclear centrifuges...all of which give off radiation and gamma rays, easily detected by our surveillance satellites.

Which he had had and which he had made hi scientist dismantle parts of and hide and which he could have produced again, he had lots of tubes which only needed to be machined to a high specification. But then let's not leave out the more immediate threat of a dirty bomb which did not need refined urainium.



"Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening." From the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. INR is the State Department's Internal Intellgence Agency."

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN
The Associated Press
Friday, July 18, 2003; 2:11 PM


WASHINGTON - An intelligence assessment by the CIA last October cites "compelling evidence" that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute a nuclear-weapons program, according to documents released Friday by the White House.

Mounting a campaign to counter criticism that it used flawed intelligence to justify war with Iraq, the White House made public excerpts of the intelligence community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. That report helped shape now-challenged comments by President Bush in his State of the Union address that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa.

The report asserts that Baghdad "if left unchecked...probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

It also cites unsubstantiated reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from three African countries: Niger, Somalia and "possibly" Congo.


Boy, that sounds like Saddam had a real strong capability to wage war, doesn't it? LOL

But not collolasped by a long shot and with the sanctions gone he would have been right back where he was.

Gee, Baghdad wasn't successful...which means any long range missile program wasn't successful...and "intent" is not enough justification to take our nation to war.

Wasn't successful before we invaded and stopped him. Your arguements grow less convincing and seemingly as if you aren't even reading what I post.



Absolute nonsense here.

Absolutley nonsense on your part and my point remains unrefuted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
How about his direct statements that there was no connection? Why do you try to infer that they said there was when they were abundantly clear there was not direct connection?
Bush certainly made NO such statements before this war. The White House and everyone involved led many to believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Then you should have no problem posting a statement from the administration saying Saddam had a direct connection to 9/11. Either before or after. Or you can save yourself some time and admit they never did and if fact stated directly that that was not their belief. But you got yourself in this far so post the statements your are referring to.

Even after the brief skirmish, bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln and continued the deception by telling America "We have removed an ally of Al Queda."

Which says nothing about 9/11.

Saddam and Al Queda were never allies, and it's never been proven they were allies.

No one said the were allies if what you are now trying to qaulify you statement as to mean they had a diplomatic alliance. An alliance means that if one is attack the other will come to thier aid and rescue. No one ever said they had a fomal alliance. What every commission and report has stated is that they had a working relationship and they were working hard to further that relationship. And of course Saddam was sponsoring terrorist bombing and harboring other terrorist in Iraq.



Then why would the Bush administration scare us that Saddam is attempting to purchase yellow cake and aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons?

He was and we did at the time believe that is what they were used for, and you do ignore the fact that whatever the tubes were for he was required to inform us of them and allow them to be inspected which he did not.

Bush was NEVER clear that Saddam had no nuclear weapon

And that is a absolute lie on your part. Hate to be that direct but the adminsitration NEVER claimed Saddam had a nuclear weapon. We would not have waited 13 months to remove him had we thought he had a working weapon.


Bull! Why would Cheney say on Meet the Press, March 16th, 2003 "We believe Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons."

I have already explain in detail, through out the inteview the discussion was about programs, in one back and forth he left out the word "program". You obviously did not see it nor have you read a transcript. His office released a statement the next day clarify the matter.

Tell me this if he had reconstituted his nuclear weapon, then what happened to the first one?

This statement was made on national television just days before the war. Later...6 months, in fact, Cheney apologizes for that statement.

He didn't appoligize he clarified the mistake even though he had done so the day after.

( after they realize they're not going to find anything) There's no spin to this...it was a deliberate lie....even Cheney admits he misspoke, and says "we never had any evidence that Saddam had acquired a nuclear weapon." Meet the Press Sept. 14th, 2003

The lie is on your part, you now know exactly what happened, that Cheney clairified it and that it was not their position that he pocessed a nuclear weapon, if you continue to repeat that it is a lie.

then we have Cheney telling America that Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons on March 16th, 2003...then we invade Iraq on March 23, 2003.

Nope, go read the entire transcript.

Liar, liar, pants on fire..

Real intelligence there.

Originally Posted by Stinger
The evidence was overwhelming, it may have been wrong in some cases, but it was overwhelming. And the fact is what we found was reason enough to remove him.

ROTFL! Overwhelming my butt! There was plenty of evidence to the contrary

You haven't posted a shred of it yet. Up till the last minute Blix could not account for all the material Saddam himself claimed to have had.

I've refuted everything you've posted. Please tell all of us what we have found in Iraq that neccessitated this war?

The Kay and Duelfer reports tell it all.


We rolled over Saddam's army...with Clintons military,

ROFL Clinton's military, and what great things did Clinton do to make it HIS military?

I might add, even the most conservative estimates say Saddam was a good 10 years away from any kind of WMD capability.

Nope in some instance merely months, it doesn't take long to grow ricin and produce sarin and he had the materials to do it with.


Saddam was no threat to the region, world, or the U.S. after the first Gulf War.

So the president lied when he made that statement, that Saddam was?



Not at all...I prefer the statements from independent investigators like the UN weapons inspectors, and the IAEA, and the Iraq Survey Group.

Who all said he was a threat, was well on his way to complete his plan to have sanctions lifted and ramping up his WMD programs.


Organophosphate chemicals? You mean the stuff they use on tomato plants and vegetables? LOL!

Yes which is also the base chemical for advance nerve gas, note I don't laugh about that. Yes in concentrations deadly to humans, note I don't laugh about it. So if it was for tomato plants and vegatables why was it stored in hidden bunker, camoflauged and at ammo storage sites along with shells that could deliver it? Can you answer that?

cont.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
cont.

We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq stating there's nothing here! Sheesh!

First and foremost it was not their job TO FIND THINGS. They were not there to hunt things down, to be dectectives. They were inspectors. Saddam was required to tell all, to turn it all over, he did not and Blix reported to the UN on his final, this is it, no more runaround, last chance that Saddam was not cooperating even though their were 400,000 troop ready to come over the border.

These inspectors did ask for about 3 more months to finish their inspections, just to be sure Saddam was harmless, but Bush had to start the bombing! After 12 years of sanctions, you mean to tell me Bush couldn't wait 3 more stinking months before taking us to WAR!!?? Absolute BS!

And then another three more months and then another and then the sanction get lifted. It was over, he had had his chance and thankfully we stopped him before he was successful in his plan.


And McCain was not part of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that did get to see the classified version of the NIE's report and voted 5-4 against giving Bush the authorization to take our nation to war.

YOU brought him up not me, I take it you want to withdraw him as evidence of your position now?

The bottom line,

The bottom line is if we had listen to people like you Saddam would be sitting in Baghdad, sipping tea with OBL and a host of other terrorist as they loaded up their trucks with chemical and biological agents.

One last thing...you would be wise to get your information from somewhere other than Newsmax...a right arm of the republican/conservative movement, and certainly not unbiased reporting.

I have yet to see you refute anything they have cite, but you would do good to look and see that many of my cited come from other sources.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Hey Hoot, seems to me cnredd refuted a couple of your main points pretty darned conclusively.

And if you can't be "bothered" to even read his response, then clearly you are not one to let a couple of inconvenient facts stand between you and your particular brand of dogma.

Let me qualify something here...when I sometimes use the expression...."Bush," I am not neccessarily saying that Georgie boy said this, but perhaps one of his administration members told the lie...so here we have Cnredd...going off like gang busters with a looooong drawn out response trying to prove that Bush didn't lie about the aluminum tubes, or the yellow cake and attempting to justify the 'speech' with the 16 words...or whatever, as not a lie because it came from British intelligence...who bloody well cares....?!

condy Rice lied when she said the aluminum tubes were only meant for nuclear centrifuges...I've already proven that the Bush administration had tons of evidence that the aluminum tubes were worthless for making nuclear weapons.

If Rice lies to the American people, as a member of the Bush administration...that is the same as a lie from Bush. He's the man...he's responsible for those he put in charge...end of subject.

As far as the yellow cake, you are probably right CnRedd...Saddam may have very well still have had yellow cake...which futher proves the lie from "Bush" that tried to scare all of us by saying Saddam is attempting to purchase yellow cake...according to Brit intell.....well, gee...CnRedd...you've already stated Saddam had yellow cake, so why the hell would the guy be trying to purchase yellow cake?! Wouldn't that give any sane man pause? We knew Saddam had yellow cake before this war...why say those 16 words...that they knew were questionable, if not to scare the American public into supporting this war?

It was a deliberate distortion of the facts to justify this unjust war.

The bottom line once again..is that Stinger and Cnredd...are both hopelessly lost in their adoration for Bush and refuse to look at the facts and the evidence that States Saddam had nothing wothwhile in Iraq to engage us in this ridiculous and senseless war... Bush ignored all intelligence that did not support his justification for war...and he deliberatley missled the American people and time and time again attempted to create a chain of false facts and innuendo to make Osama and Saddam as co-conspirators.
 
Last edited:

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hoot said:
Let me qualify something here...when I sometimes use the expression...."Bush," I am not neccessarily saying that Georgie boy said this, but perhaps one of his administration members told the lie...so here we have Cnredd...going off like gang busters with a looooong drawn out response trying to prove that Bush didn't lie about the aluminum tubes, or the yellow cake and attempting to justify the 'speech' with the 16 words...or whatever, as not a lie because it came from British intelligence...who bloody well cares....?!

condy Rice lied when she said the aluminum tubes were only meant for nuclear centrifuges...I've already proven that the Bush administration had tons of evidence that the aluminum tubes were worthless for making nuclear weapons.

If Rice lies to the American people, as a member of the Bush administration...that is the same as a lie from Bush. He's the man...he's responsible for those he put in charge...end of subject.

As far as the yellow cake, you are probably right CnRedd...Saddam may have very well still have had yellow cake...which futher proves the lie from "Bush" that tried to scare all of us by saying Saddam is attempting to purchase yellow cake...according to Brit intell.....well, gee...CnRedd...you've already stated Saddam had yellow cake, so why the hell would the guy be trying to purchase yellow cake?! Wouldn't that give any sane man pause? We knew Saddam had yellow cake before this war...why say those 16 words...that they knew were questionable, if not to scare the American public into supporting this war?

It was a deliberate distortion of the facts to justify this unjust war.

The bottom line once again..is that Stinger and Cnredd...are both hopelessly lost in their adoration for Bush and refuse to look at the facts and the evidence that States Saddam had nothing wothwhile in Iraq to engage us in this ridiculous and senseless war... Bush ignored all intelligence that did not support his justification for war...and he deliberatley missled the American people and time and time again attempted to create a chain of false facts and innuendo to make Osama and Saddam as co-conspirators.

Let me make two points first with a question and then with another question:

If you know the tubes weren't to be used for nuclear purposes, what were they to be used for? If you can say nyet to one you must know the uh huh to the other. Since they were aluminum they weren't sewer lines. Don't think there were enough to reach the septic system.

Also - Do you believe Wilsons report he turned into the CIA on his Niger investigation about Saddam and the yellow cake uranium? You are aware that his report and his book tell two completely different stories aren't you?

These are the only two questions I have for you. I think they are good ones though since so much is known about both.
:duel :cool:
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
Let me make two points first with a question and then with another question:

If you know the tubes weren't to be used for nuclear purposes, what were they to be used for? If you can say nyet to one you must know the uh huh to the other. Since they were aluminum they weren't sewer lines. Don't think there were enough to reach the septic system.

Also - Do you believe Wilsons report he turned into the CIA on his Niger investigation about Saddam and the yellow cake uranium? You are aware that his report and his book tell two completely different stories aren't you?

These are the only two questions I have for you. I think they are good ones though since so much is known about both.
:duel :cool:

Let me ask a question. Put aside all the loony conspirasists. Has this Administration ever come out after the invasion and claimed it had found proof (or even evidence) that Iraq had an ongoing nuke program? If this administration doesn't claim the evidence supports that conclusion, I'm not going to waste my time listening to what a bunch of opinion writers contend.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Iriemon said:
Let me ask a question. Put aside all the loony conspirasists. Has this Administration ever come out after the invasion and claimed it had found proof (or even evidence) that Iraq had an ongoing nuke program? If this administration doesn't claim the evidence supports that conclusion, I'm not going to waste my time listening to what a bunch of opinion writers contend.

It wasn't for the adminsitration to say. The Duelfer reports does however.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer2_c.pdf

Were they in the process of assembly, no. But had ongoing experiements at his Tuwaithia labratory complexs, just waiting for the sanctions to be lifted and threat of discovery ended.

"Iraq began a nuclear program shortly after the Ba’thists took power in 1968. The program expanded considerably in 1976 when Saddam purchased the Osirak reactor from France, which was destroyed by an Israeli air strike in 1981. Saddam became very concerned about Iran’s nuclear weapons program late in the Iran-Iraq war and accelerated Iraq’s nuclear weapons research in response, according to Vice President Ramadan. Massive funds were allocated to develop infrastructure, equipment, scientific talent, and research. By January 1991, Iraq was within a few years of producing a nuclear weapon.

Coalition bombing during Desert Storm, however, significantly damaged Iraq’s nuclear facilities and the imposition of UN sanctions and inspections teams after the war further hobbled the program. It appears Saddam shifted tactics to preserve what he could of his program (scientific talent, dual-use equipment, and designs) while simultaneously attempting to rid Iraq of sanctions."

From the first page of the ISG report

"Keep the nuclear scientist together at IAEC in order to pool their skills and have them available when needed"
Saddam Husayn
 
Last edited:

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
It wasn't for the adminsitration to say.

It wasn't for the administration to say whether evidence of a nuke program had been found?! Are you kidding? You don't think that evidence might have been a tiny bit relevant to justifying the invasion?


Says this:

Key Findings

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and signifi cance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date.

• Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

• Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.


Not the strongest claim that Iraq had a nuke porgram in Mar 2003.

Were they in the process of assembly, no. But had ongoing experiements at his Tuwaithia labratory complexs, just waiting for the sanctions to be lifted and threat of discovery ended.

Not according to the Duelfer reports. Which do not even contain the word "Tuwaithia" in them when I searched.

"Iraq began a nuclear program shortly after the Ba’thists took power in 1968. The program expanded considerably in 1976 when Saddam purchased the Osirak reactor from France, which was destroyed by an Israeli air strike in 1981. Saddam became very concerned about Iran’s nuclear weapons program late in the Iran-Iraq war and accelerated Iraq’s nuclear weapons research in response, according to Vice President Ramadan. Massive funds were allocated to develop infrastructure, equipment, scientific talent, and research. By January 1991, Iraq was within a few years of producing a nuclear weapon."

And that was the end of it, according to the Deufler reports you rely upon.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
Let me ask a question. Put aside all the loony conspirasists. Has this Administration ever come out after the invasion and claimed it had found proof (or even evidence) that Iraq had an ongoing nuke program? If this administration doesn't claim the evidence supports that conclusion, I'm not going to waste my time listening to what a bunch of opinion writers contend.

I am not an opinion writer. I write my opinions.

The U.S. Military found a centrifuge buried in the back yard of one of the Iraqi scientists after the initial invasion. This is the essential piece of equipment for nuclear and biological weapons production. Does this mean that is what it was for? Buried in a back yard? Is that hidden? Considering that this scientist was on Saddam's nuclear team and the centrifuge was found in his back yard, this at least constitutes a connection to a nuclear program. Remember, Iraq and France were building a reactor back in the 80's when Israel bombed it. Thank them for that.

I answer or comment on your posts. You've answered my questions with a question and I have answered your question to the best of my ability. If you think I am wasting your time then continue to ignore my post and it will save us both time.
:duel :cool:
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Tashah said:
In the context of his speeches on Iraq/WMD while in the Oval Office, it is evident that Mr. Clinton now favors historical revisionism and political expediancy above simple truth and honesty.

As do Jay Rockafeller, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schummer, Dengal, Gore and on and on and on.

Let's not forget that it was a Democrat President and an overwelming majority of both Dmeocrats and Republicans who made the OFFICIAL POLICY of the United States the removal of Saddam Hussien and by force if necessary.
 
Top Bottom