2
   

Released Iraqi documents - what do they tell us?

 
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2006 09:42 pm
Derail? Have you forgotten how this Thread began, Mr. Parados?

note:

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.

end of quote.



Okie talks about the fact that 'Bush has been right all along about Hussein and WMD"

My post asking you to answer a series of questions was EXACTLY RELATED TO THAT POINT MADE AT THE B E G I N N I N G OF THIS THREAD.


It is indeed pitiful, Mr. Parados, that when you cannot respond to evidence, you throw up a bogus smokescreen about "derail"(ng) a thread.

Why don't you re-examine my questions, which are, indeed precisely pertinent to the main points made by the original poster_Okie- and attempt to answer them.

I must tell you, Mr. Parados, that I won't hold my breath until you do!!!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 12:45 pm
Quote:
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.


Perhaps you don't realize it is no longer 1998 Bernard.

For the moment I will assume you are capable of understanding a statement of purpose at the beginning of an essay.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 01:04 pm
Are you able to read, Mr. Parados? Please be so good as to re-read the post made by Okie- the person who started the thread.

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.


SOME OF THESE DOCUMENTS NOW BEING RELEASED CONFIRM WHAT BUSH TOLD US IN FACT WAS TRUE, THAT HUSSEIN WAS ENGAGED IN AN ELABORATE PROGRAM TO CONTINUE TO HID AND AVOID DETECTION OF HIS WMD PROGRAMS, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS FROM THE UN INSPECTORS AND FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER NATIONS.

Anyone who can read, and has read my questions to you, which you have assiduously avoided answering, can clearly see that my questions document the fact that the US and its allies and many Democratic high office holders, did IN FACT AGREE WITH WHAT 'BUSH TOLD US".


Your refusal to confront my questions clearly shows that you are terrified of being shown to be wrong--again!!!!!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 01:28 pm
Thanks for proving once again how much intellectual integrity you have Bernard.

You ignore okie's statement of purpose. You constantly act like a grade schooler accusing me and others of being "scared." Your childish antics are just that, childish. I dealt with your statement by pointing out how it derailed the thread. You can argue the point if you want to look like an idiot. In fact argue away. Not that you need to argue this point to look like what you are. You prove it on a daily basis here.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 01:29 pm
Your rebuttal of my points was astonishingly good, Mr. Parados!!!

LOL!!!!
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 01:42 pm
I may have given you too much to handle at one time, Mr. Parados, and just to show you that I am a resonable person, I will cut my post down so that you can handle five questions at a time. I hope that is not too much for you.

Again:


You will be unable to rebut this statement, Mr.Parados.

Just so you don't skip over any important items I will list what you must rebut.


l.; Tenet says WMD case a slam dunk...HE gave President Bush the assurances. Did he say that, Mr. Parados

2. All fifteen agencies involved in gathering evidence for the USA said Saddam was expanding its biological, nuclear and missle programs- EXPLAIN THAT --MR. PARADOS

3. The Intelligence Agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China. Israel and France all agreed with the above judgment- DON'T DODGE THIS, MR. PARADOS--EXPLAIN IT!

4. Hans Blix noted that several thousands of chemical rockets were unaccounted for--Was Hans Blix lying, Mr. Parados?

5. The British, the French and the Germans all signed on in advance to Colin Powell's reading of the satellite photos he offered to the UN in the period leading up to the invasion. How can the British,French and Germans be so stupid, Mr. Parados--Please explain why they signed on.


You need not hurry to answer, Mr. Parados. Take your time!!!!!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 01:56 pm
1. Nothing to do with Iraqi documents. Please feel free to point it out if I missed your reference to any Iraqi documents.
2. Nothing to do with Iraqi documents. Please feel free to point it out if I missed your reference.
3. Nothing to do with Iraqi documents. Please feel free to point it out if I missed your reference.
4. Nothing to do with Iraqi documents. Please feel free to point it out if I missed your reference.
5. Nothing to do with Iraqi documents. Please feel free to point it out if I missed your reference.

I will bet you can't point to a single reference to an Iraqi document in your 5 points. In fact I guarantee you won't address my points in response to yours or be able to show how they deal with released Iraqi documents.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 02:24 pm
The third paragraph from the author of the thread, Okie, who set up the question. He evidently thinks that the material below falls under the umbrella of the title. You do not, Mr. Parados, That's too bad.

It is obvious that you will attempt every ploy since you cannot answer my questions. But, I will now point out every post on this thread which does not STRICTLY fall under the very limited meaning you give to it.

Perhaps the people that I list will be able to show you why they have made a response under the heading that would not, if limted by people like you, be under the heading.

But, again, I invite you to try to answer my question. I onyu gave you five so that they would not be so burdensome to you.

Your timorousness resulting in ridiculous definitions of the scpoe of the topic has already resulted in your doing more work than you would do if you responded to my questions..But if you cannot respond.....ah yes, that may be the reason why you obfuscate!!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 08:02 pm
Thanks for proving me correct in not dealing with my post.

We both know what it means when you refuse to rebut a post. My post stands.

Laughing
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 10:36 pm
And so does mine with the twenty questions I asked you. And my post is filled with substance. Yours says nothing!!!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Nov, 2006 11:00 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1939054,00.html#article_continue

For somebody that had no WMD and was not trying to make them, why did all these documents show up on the internet, that we captured in Iraq, apparently detailing for and/or by Saddam Husseins scientists how to make nuclear bombs? I think I know what happened. Bush probably concocted this all up and told the CIA to put these documents on the internet as Iraqi documents. He may have pulled Dan Rather out of retirement to help him fake all of this, but of course he would have had to fool Rather into thinking it was for something else because he would never have agreed to help Bush, but lets admit he does have expertise in this field. Bush made it all up, he had to, because we all know from what the Democrats now have written in stone that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD and had no intention of ever making any.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 01:06 am
So, we slaughtered and destroyed in Iraq, and occupied the nation not because, as we were told by the US administration, Saddam had WMD that he could deliver to US targets within forty-five minutes, or because he had mobile bio-WMD labs, or because he had active chemical munitions bunkers and the obligatory "decontamination vehicles," or because he had developed nuclear weapons to the point where all that he lacked was the fissile material needed to produce a nuclear explosion; we slaughtered and destroyed in Iraq, and occupied the nation because Saddam had literature on nuclear weapons.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 10:27 am
okie wrote:
For somebody that had no WMD and was not trying to make them, why did all these documents show up on the internet, that we captured in Iraq, apparently detailing for and/or by Saddam Husseins scientists how to make nuclear bombs?

<snip>

... we all know from what the Democrats now have written in stone that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD and had no intention of ever making
any.


okie, I'd like to know what you think these documents tell us. I'd be particularly interested in your opinion about what these documents tell us about

- Iraqi possession of WMD at the time of the invasion
- Iraqi possession of materials needed for the production of WMD
- an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program at the time of the invasion
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 07:03 pm
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
For somebody that had no WMD and was not trying to make them, why did all these documents show up on the internet, that we captured in Iraq, apparently detailing for and/or by Saddam Husseins scientists how to make nuclear bombs?

<snip>

... we all know from what the Democrats now have written in stone that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD and had no intention of ever making
any.


okie, I'd like to know what you think these documents tell us. I'd be particularly interested in your opinion about what these documents tell us about

- Iraqi possession of WMD at the time of the invasion
- Iraqi possession of materials needed for the production of WMD
- an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program at the time of the invasion


They tell me that although the above listed points have not yet been proven as the slam dunk said by the CIA, that perhaps the CIA had legitimate reasons to believe what they did, and that George Bush did not make the whole thing up, which we all know is ridiculous of course, but the Democrats would like everybody to believe it nonetheless.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 08:08 pm
OMG, Saddam had WMD programs in 1991? Before he was told to stop them? Wow.. That is quite the new news there.

When you find a document that actually shows something after 1991 then we can find something great to talk about.

Meanwhile the US government put up directions of how to build an atomic weapon in Arabic. I'm sure Iran was grateful for the helping hand. Does that make the Bush administration terrorists?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 09:06 pm
So you are admitting Saddam Hussein knew exactly how to build them?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 10:41 pm
okie wrote:
So you are admitting Saddam Hussein knew exactly how to build them?


If not exactly, then let's say Saddam's regime had a pretty good idea as to how to build them.

That said, what's your point?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 03:18 am
okie wrote:
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
For somebody that had no WMD and was not trying to make them, why did all these documents show up on the internet, that we captured in Iraq, apparently detailing for and/or by Saddam Husseins scientists how to make nuclear bombs?

<snip>

... we all know from what the Democrats now have written in stone that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD and had no intention of ever making
any.


okie, I'd like to know what you think these documents tell us. I'd be particularly interested in your opinion about what these documents tell us about

- Iraqi possession of WMD at the time of the invasion
- Iraqi possession of materials needed for the production of WMD
- an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program at the time of the invasion


They tell me that although the above listed points have not yet been proven as the slam dunk said by the CIA, that perhaps the CIA had legitimate reasons to believe what they did, and that George Bush did not make the whole thing up, which we all know is ridiculous of course, but the Democrats would like everybody to believe it nonetheless.


That was a very brief answer. I was hoping for a bit more detail. Well, what I get from your answer is that the documents don't prove any one of the allegations made against the Saddam regime in the run-up to the invasion - namely that Saddam was in possession of WMD, or was in possession of material necessary for building WMD, or even had an ongoing WMD programme.
As far as I know, the argument that the Saddam knew in theory how to build WMD was, to my knowledge, not given as a reason for the invasion.

That said, you're being pretty vague in your post. What exactly is it the CIA believed? What is the "whole thing" that Bush didn't make up?

Maybe you could give some statements of what Bush said that you think were justified based on the documents later found in Iraq?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 09:49 am
Old Europe, the CIA told the Bush administration that WMD was a "slam dunk" in Iraq, or some such words. Other intelligence agencies of other countries had the same belief at that time. I don't feel like going back and researching all of this for you, as its all part of history, and you should know this. I am simply pointing out that the documents do not further the media spin that Bush concocted the whole WMD issue. Rather, it furthers the commonly known likelihood of serious efforts and intents of the Saddam Hussein regime. Whether or not his program or actual possession of WMD at the time of the invasion were active, we do not yet really know for sure now. Intelligence services thought they did at the time of the invasion. The obvious fact is you make decisions based on what you know at the time of the decision, not from a few years later. This is obvious, but this is being clouded and obfuscated by Bush's political foes and by the press.

Does anyone honestly think Saddam Hussein could be trusted, given the fact that he has just been sentenced to death for slaughtering his fellow citizens?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 10:09 am
Sentenced to death for actions before Rummy went over and shook hands with him.

The only one playing politics here is you okie. You keep trying to use information from the 1980s to prove he was lying in the 1990s. Complete bunk. If we use your logic then Bush is still driving drunk.
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 06/26/2019 at 09:52:28