2
   

Released Iraqi documents - what do they tell us?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 01:43 am
Re: Released Iraqi documents - what do they tell us?
okie wrote:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/16/122915.shtml

I start this thread as I did for the Saddam Hussein tapes for the purpose of calling attention to new evidence as it is released and evaluated. We know that the news media has already written the conclusion of the book purporting to summarize everything known about Saddam Hussein's WMD program, that he had none, he no weapons, and he was absolutely no threat to anyone, and that his regime had absolutely no contact with the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Obviously we are still collecting and evaluating the material that will allow us to write the introduction or the first chapter of the book.

Some of these documents now being released confirm what Bush told us was in fact true, that Hussein was engaged in an elaborate program to continue to hide and avoid detection of his WMD programs, equipment, and materials from the U.N. inspectors, and from the knowledge of other nations. In addition, more evidence comes forth that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were in contact with and may have had assistance from Husseins regime.

Nobody has ever asserted that Hussein was involved with assisting in any way the event of 911. Even though Bush has been accused of claiming that to be the case, he has never asserted that to be the case. I am not going to argue for that possibility here, but as more information emerges, I am not prepared to conclude that such a possibility can yet be discounted for sure. I think there is evidence that Bush has been right all along about Hussein and WMD, and that he also was in communication with and assistance of Al Qaeda. This all means the media and the Democrats have been guilty of lying about this ever since the war started, not President Bush.

To truly acknowledge evidence, we all must throw off all the spin thats been fed us for the last 3 years and be willing to actually judge the evidence for what it tells us, not according to what other people tell us that it tells us, so that their premature conclusion can be protected from being shot full of holes. That is extremely difficult and probably impossible for many people because the blinders are on and they won't come off easily.


We did not find the WMDs
because W moved with the speed of a glacier
in getting the war started. He gave Saddam
the chance to stash the stuff with the Baath regime in Syria,
the same as he stashed his jets in Iran,
during the First Gulf War.
David
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 09:40 am
Re: Released Iraqi documents - what do they tell us?
OmSigDAVID wrote:

We did not find the WMDs
because W moved with the speed of a glacier
in getting the war started. He gave Saddam
the chance to stash the stuff with the Baath regime in Syria,
the same as he stashed his jets in Iran,
during the First Gulf War.
David


I agree we moved too slow after the decision was made. No matter, many said we moved too fast, such as Kerry "we rushed to war." bla bla bla. Can't please everybody. Bush is wrong no matter what he does. But my recollection is in perfect agreement with your assessment. We telegraphed our intentions for months and provided more than ample time for everything to be hidden or probably moved to Syria.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 12:33 pm
Re: Released Iraqi documents - what do they tell us?
okie wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

We did not find the WMDs
because W moved with the speed of a glacier
in getting the war started. He gave Saddam
the chance to stash the stuff with the Baath regime in Syria,
the same as he stashed his jets in Iran,
during the First Gulf War.
David


I agree we moved too slow after the decision was made. No matter, many said we moved too fast, such as Kerry "we rushed to war." bla bla bla. Can't please everybody. Bush is wrong no matter what he does. But my recollection is in perfect agreement with your assessment. We telegraphed our intentions for months and provided more than ample time for everything to be hidden or probably moved to Syria.


It was like crack dealers
flushing the stuff,
when thay see the DEA approaching the front door.
David
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 10:35 am
Maybe someone should tell the Bush administration that Syria has WMD since he got all of them from Iraq.

That has to be it because Bush would never get anything wrong. Except he now has it wrong about Syria not having WMD because he wouldn't have been wrong about Iraq and WMD.

You guys are so predictable at this point. Anything to pretend you to defend your support of a failed policy.
Maybe space aliens took the WMD. That sounds reasonable too.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 11:14 am
Yeah, Syria. That's it!

But, remember, this isn't a good time for a new product roll-out. We'll have to wait until September to sell a new war to the American public.

C'mon, guys. The invasion of Iraq was treated like the introduction of a new car. If that's the way W and crew viewed it, why would any thinking person consider it anything more than "being sold?"
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 12:11 am
Shud we put Saddam BACK
and apologize, Squinney ?
David
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 04:18 pm
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21489

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/29/133526.shtml?s=ic

Has anyone heard of the "Inconvenient Truth?"
After all the information is gathered and documented, history will probably show the truth about Saddam Hussein and his WMD alright. By then, it will be written in stone that Bush lied, no matter what happened. The liberals will move on to the next issue they can demagogue, so no desire to be inconvenienced by the truth involved in what really did happen.

People tend to use the evidence they like and ignore the evidence they don't like, so Democrats will pooh pooh the above evidence because it does not fit their template of demagoging George Bush. The above evidence is inconvenient for them and so they disregard it as speculation, unreliable, and hearsay. I count myself among those that give it credence because we already have established one known, proven fact, that Saddam Hussein was untrustworthy, deceitful, and wanted to further develop WMD. Therefore, it fits my template of common sense, much like a proven criminal is more suspect with circumstantial evidence than a non-criminal.

When you look at the history of all the events played out, it makes perfect sense that stuff was moved off to Syria and/or elsewhere. I also think we may know more than what we are saying concerning the assistance of the Russians, Chinese, and others for Hussein, but we choose not to make a big deal out of it so that we can hope to salvage some future cooperation with them by not embarrassing them and not openly exposing them.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 10:50 pm
okie wrote:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21489

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/29/133526.shtml?s=ic

Has anyone heard of the "Inconvenient Truth?"
After all the information is gathered and documented, history will probably show the truth about Saddam Hussein and his WMD alright. By then, it will be written in stone that Bush lied, no matter what happened. The liberals will move on to the next issue they can demagogue, so no desire to be inconvenienced by the truth involved in what really did happen.

People tend to use the evidence they like and ignore the evidence they don't like, so Democrats will pooh pooh the above evidence because it does not fit their template of demagoging George Bush. The above evidence is inconvenient for them and so they disregard it as speculation, unreliable, and hearsay. I count myself among those that give it credence because we already have established one known, proven fact, that Saddam Hussein was untrustworthy, deceitful, and wanted to further develop WMD. Therefore, it fits my template of common sense, much like a proven criminal is more suspect with circumstantial evidence than a non-criminal.

When you look at the history of all the events played out, it makes perfect sense that stuff was moved off to Syria and/or elsewhere. I also think we may know more than what we are saying concerning the assistance of the Russians, Chinese, and others for Hussein, but we choose not to make a big deal out of it so that we can hope to salvage some future cooperation with them by not embarrassing them and not openly exposing them.

The whole problem was of Bush showing mercy to his defeated enemy,
leaving Saddam intact n hoping for the best. Bush was a liberal,
so we had to pay for the same real estate twice.
The leftists have not screamed about that.


I remember, nite after nite,
in the 1990s, that the UN Inspectors were trying to get in somewhere,
to inspect, by surprize, their being delayed by Saddam 's army,
while the evidence thay sought was spirited out the back door.

I remember Saddam throwing out the UN Inspectors
and tearing down their cameras,
refusing any further co-operation.

Was he doing this to conceal NOTHING ?? just empty space ??
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 10:58 pm
I feel better knowing that the WMD are being safely stored in Syria.
Whew.
Thanks guys.
Dodged a bullet there.....
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 12:12 am
Yeah.
We had a homicidal maniac,
with a grudge against us ( for Kuwait )
just diddling his options ( including nuclear possibilities, a la 9/11 ).


I did not sleep comfortably knowing that.
I ' m glad that 's over.
David
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 06:24 am
Yeah, we should listen to the one general that stood up to Saddam and convinced him to not attack Israel with WMD. Saddam trusted him and we should too. Saddam loved those that stood up to him and disagreed.


He couldn't possibly be self serving in any way by telling this story.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 09:18 am
Parados, there is other evidence besides one general. This is explained in the links I provided. For you to claim it is one general is an example of something I could call a lie, and accuse you of lying if I wished to. As it is, I accuse you of not understanding the argument or just basically having a disagreement between us. What the liberals and Democrats are trying to do is take disagreements in policy between them and Bush and spin them into lies. This is an attempt to redefine lying, or at least for temporary purposes to demonize Bush, this appears to be the case.

Parados, one of the problems I have with the reasoning of Democrats and liberals in this whole affair is that to disagree with the war, there is no need to demonize Bush and rewrite history. Simply admit the truth about what happened leading up to the war instead of trying to spin Bush into a lyer. Maybe it makes you feel better about your position concerning the war, I don't really know. There are people around that acknowledge what happened, but simply disagree with the course of action to solve the problem. I have no problem with that. I don't think other conservatives have problems with that. It becomes a very serious problem with us however when your side begins to accuse Bush of "betraying our country" as Gore has done, and people like Murtha accusing soldiers of cold blooded murder without any proof. The list goes on. We could have a more civil conversation between the parties in Washington if we had more intellectual honesty and less back stabbing for political gain.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 12:19 pm
parados wrote:
Maybe someone should tell the Bush administration that Syria has WMD since he got all of them from Iraq.

That has to be it because Bush would never get anything wrong. Except he now has it wrong about Syria not having WMD because he wouldn't have been wrong about Iraq and WMD.

You guys are so predictable at this point. Anything to pretend you to defend your support of a failed policy.
Maybe space aliens took the WMD. That sounds reasonable too.

AS IF IT MATTERS !
Suppose that a professional murderer
accepted a contract to kill u with his ax.
If u find out about it,
and pre-emptively have him incapacitated,
it matters NOT that u did not find his ax,
as long as HE is out of action.

David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 12:49 pm
parados wrote:
Maybe someone should tell the Bush administration that Syria has WMD since he got all of them from Iraq.

That has to be it because Bush would never get anything wrong. Except he now has it wrong about Syria not having WMD because he wouldn't have been wrong about Iraq and WMD.

You guys are so predictable at this point. Anything to pretend you to defend your support of a failed policy.
Maybe space aliens took the WMD. That sounds reasonable too.

It blows my mind how leftists
can claim that our policy " failed ".

We did not go to Iraq because we don 't have enuf WMDs
and we needed more.

We did not go to Iraq in the same spirit of acquisition of WMDs
that Ponce de Leon went to Florida, to find the Fountain of Youth ( and gold ).

We went there because Saddam was a homicidal maniac with a grudge against us ( for Kuwait )
and demonstrated nuclear proclivities;
( in addition to his living next door to a lot of half starving Russian
nuclear scientists, half starving nuclear engineers
and officers of the former Red Army who like to sell old inventory ).
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 02:54 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:

We did not go to Iraq because we don 't have enuf WMDs
and we needed more.

We did not go to Iraq in the same spirit of acquisition of WMDs
that Ponce de Leon went to Florida, to find the Fountain of Youth ( and gold ).


Strawman.....no moron has ever contended that the US went into Iraq to acquire WMD.
Your grip on reality is fading.....
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 03:08 pm
You missed his point entirely.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 05:34 pm
okie,
Even Bush isn't silly enough to claim the WMD went to Syria. There is not this "evidence" you keep claiming.

OMG trucks went from Iraq to Syria. Syria was the border that MOST goods were moved into and out of Iraq. Because trucks crossed the borders provides no evidence any of them contained WMD. It was well known that Iraq sold oil across the Syrian border in violation of the oil for food program. Some sources say 50% of that black market oil ended up with US oil companies.

There is no evidence of Saddam even having WMD to ship to Syria. You can rewrite history all you want okie. 3 years of US searching has turned up no evidence of any WMD or programs to produce this phantom WMD that went to Syria.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 05:36 pm
okie wrote:
You missed his point entirely.


What was his point other than a lot of illogical arguments?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 05:39 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
parados wrote:
Maybe someone should tell the Bush administration that Syria has WMD since he got all of them from Iraq.

That has to be it because Bush would never get anything wrong. Except he now has it wrong about Syria not having WMD because he wouldn't have been wrong about Iraq and WMD.

You guys are so predictable at this point. Anything to pretend you to defend your support of a failed policy.
Maybe space aliens took the WMD. That sounds reasonable too.

AS IF IT MATTERS !
Suppose that a professional murderer
accepted a contract to kill u with his ax.
If u find out about it,
and pre-emptively have him incapacitated,
it matters NOT that u did not find his ax,
as long as HE is out of action.

David

You have a copy of that contract?

You do realize it would be against the law for you to do that to another person without a direct provable threat. For you to attack and incapacitate another without evidence of his being a real and immediate threat would make you guilty of assault. It matters not how much you wanted to believe he was a threat. You would have to provide evidence of that threat. Of course you could take the insanity defense, which might be appropriate in the case you layed out.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 08:14 pm
parados wrote:

You have a copy of that contract?

You do realize it would be against the law for you to do that to another person without a direct provable threat. For you to attack and incapacitate another without evidence of his being a real and immediate threat would make you guilty of assault. It matters not how much you wanted to believe he was a threat. You would have to provide evidence of that threat. Of course you could take the insanity defense, which might be appropriate in the case you layed out.


Parados, how can you conveniently sweep history under the rug? Do we need to dredge up statements from the 90's and into the 2000s, made by many, many people that were supposedly knowledgable to various degrees concerning the Iraq problem, including those in the CIA, U.N., including inspectors, also from Democrats, from Republicans, from leaders of other countries. Then look at the history of Saddam Hussein. Add to that his statements about annhiliating the evil U.S. in various unimagineable ways. Do you remember him sending his surrogates on TV to proclaim ultimate destruction of his enemies was certain to happen by secret terrible weapons or whatever else he could say to scare everybody once U.S. troops crossed the border. I don't remember the exact words but that was the jest of his strategy and attitude. This was not an innocent man or an innocent regime that never threatened anyone or that nobody considered dangerous, as the left now wants everybody to believe. This whole debate is absolutely bazaar. Its as if half of history never happened to some of you.

A better analogy than yours would be a man that had committed crimes and is on probation. That man is to report to the probation officer at regular times to prove his location, his activities, and that he is abiding by the rules of probation. The burden of proof is on the criminal. Hussein was essentially on probation and he not only tried to evade and fool the probation officer (inspectors) but kicked the probation officer out of his country on at least one occasion. Bottom line, he never proved he had no WMD. The burden of proof was his responsibility. Now the probation officer is accused of being the criminal instead. Ridiculous and insulting.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 03:50:56