Released Iraqi documents - what do they tell us?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ).

You missed his point entirely.

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.