4
   

Remind Me Again... We're Staying In Iraq Why?

 
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 08:40 am
McG is still content that there are/were WMD.
They have just been hidden, moved or secretly stashed in a hole.
Pardon me if I toss you in a pile over there with Zippo and all the conspiracy loonies.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:04 am
You can close your mind all you wish candidone1, doesn't bother me a bit. But, I am hardly alone in my doubts as to what happened to the WMD's Saddam is known to have possessed.

Congress's Secret Saddam Tapes

BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 7, 2006

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is studying 12 hours of audio recordings between Saddam Hussein and his top advisers that may provide clues to the whereabouts of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The committee has already confirmed through the intelligence community that the recordings of Saddam's voice are authentic, according to its chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, who would not go into detail about the nature of the conversations or their context. They were provided to his committee by a former federal prosecutor, John Loftus, who says he received them from a former American military intelligence analyst.

Mr. Loftus will make the recordings available to the public on February 17 at the annual meeting of the Intelligence Summit, of which he is president. On the organization's Web site, Mr. Loftus is quoted as promising that the recordings "will be able to provide a few definitive answers to some very important - and controversial - weapons of mass destruction questions." Contacted yesterday by The New York Sun, Mr. Loftus would only say that he delivered a CD of the recordings to a representative of the committee, and the following week the committee announced that it was reopening the investigation into weapons of mass destruction.

The audio recordings are part of new evidence the House intelligence committee is piecing together that has spurred Mr. Hoekstra to reopen the question of whether Iraq had the biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons American inspectors could not turn up. President Bush called off the hunt for those weapons last year and has conceded that America has yet to find evidence of the stockpiles.

Mr. Hoekstra has already met with a former Iraqi air force general, Georges Sada, who claims that Saddam used civilian airplanes to ferry chemical weapons to Syria in 2002. Mr. Hoekstra is now talking to Iraqis who Mr. Sada claims took part in the mission, and the congressman said the former air force general "should not just be discounted." Mr. Hoekstra also said he is in touch with other people who have come forward to the committee - Iraqis and Americans - who claim that the weapons inspectors may have overlooked other key sites and evidence. He has also asked the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, to declassify some 35,000 boxes of Iraqi documents obtained in the war that have yet to be translated.

"I still believe there are key individuals who have not been debriefed and there are key sites that have never been investigated. I know there are 35,000 boxes of documents that have never been translated. I am frustrated," Mr. Hoekstra said.

He added, "Right now, it's not my job to investigate the specific claims. We are doing this a little with Sada. But we still don't fully understand what happened in Iraq three years after the invasion, three years after we control the country. There are enough people coming to the committee, Sada is not the only one, saying, 'you really ought to look under this rock.' This gives me cause to take up the issue again."

Mr. Hoekstra is one of many who believe the question of what happened to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is still unresolved. Last week Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld voiced similar doubts at the National Press Club. "We have not found them. We also have found a number of things we didn't imagine. We found a bunch of jet airplanes buried in Iraq. Who buries airplanes? I mean, really. So I don't know what we'll find in the months and years ahead. It could be anything," he said.

The former chief of the State Department's Iraq Intelligence Unit, Wayne White, and Mr. Rumsfeld's former undersecretary of defense for policy, Douglas Feith, have told the Sun they believe the question of what happened to the weapons is still open. The former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force, Moshe Ya'alon, told the Sun in December that he believed Saddam sent chemical weapons to Syria before the war in 2002. The last chief American weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, said in the preamble to his final report that looting of sites may have severely weakened his team's ability to piece together a complete picture of Iraq's weapons program.

Mr. Hoekstra said he is not yet prepared to say President Bush was premature in calling off the hunt for the weapons last year, but conceded that his inquiries may lead him to that conclusion if some of the leads offered to his committee check out. He also said the White House has been supportive of his inquiry.

The chairman of the House intelligence panel said he is frustrated with the American intelligence community's lack of curiosity on following up these leads, particularly the story from Mr. Sada. "I talked to one person relatively high up in DNI, and I asked him about this and asked are they going to follow up, and he looked at me and said, 'No we don't think so.' At this point, I guess you guys don't get it.

"I am trying to find out if our postwar intelligence was as bad as our pre-war intelligence, " Mr. Hoekstra said.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:05 am
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

You're just another conspiracy theorist, McG

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:06 am
Yeah, whatever.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:07 am
McGentrix wrote:
Yeah, whatever.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."


I guess you give the 9/11 theorists a lot more credit than most others of your ideological bent, then.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:18 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Yeah, whatever.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."


I guess you give the 9/11 theorists a lot more credit than most others of your ideological bent, then.

Cycloptichorn


Strawman...

Is that the best you can do? Make silly strawman arguments?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:22 am
Well, I could go on at length about how stupid your idiotic theory is, and how it was created merely to make those like you feel better about being completely wrong, but how many times must you read the same thing?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:27 am
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Yeah, whatever.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."


I guess you give the 9/11 theorists a lot more credit than most others of your ideological bent, then.

Cycloptichorn


Strawman...

Is that the best you can do? Make silly strawman arguments?


When you do not want to face reality, create your own reality. The Bushwackers refuse to answer the most basic question... What happened to the WMD Saddam HAD?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:28 am
woiyo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Yeah, whatever.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."


I guess you give the 9/11 theorists a lot more credit than most others of your ideological bent, then.

Cycloptichorn


Strawman...

Is that the best you can do? Make silly strawman arguments?


When you do not want to face reality, create your own reality. The Bushwackers refuse to answer the most basic question... What happened to the WMD Saddam HAD?


He destroyed them or they degraded over time.

This is a far more likely scenario than burying them in Syria's desert...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:34 am
Why would Hoekstra be trying to reopen the WMD issue if that is the simple answer then?

If he destroyed them, there would be evidence that he destroyed them. If they degraded over time, there would be evidence that they degraded. Your "logic" doesn't withstand scrutiny cyc.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:38 am
McGentrix wrote:
If he destroyed them, there would be evidence that he destroyed them. If they degraded over time, there would be evidence that they degraded. Your "logic" doesn't withstand scrutiny cyc.


Uhm, would the degraded pre-1991 munitions found be evidence for WMD that had degraded over time? Yes? No?

And what would be "evidence for destroyed weapons"? Hm? Seriously!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:40 am
McGentrix wrote:
Why would Hoekstra be trying to reopen the WMD issue if that is the simple answer then?


Because he's a grandstanding fool playing up to people like you.

Quote:
If he destroyed them, there would be evidence that he destroyed them. If they degraded over time, there would be evidence that they degraded. Your "logic" doesn't withstand scrutiny cyc.


Excuse me, you are an expert in WMD and chemical weapons, and what happen to them over time? You certainly talk as if you are.

There would not neccessarily be evidence at all that chemical weapons were destroyed. There are many reactions which can change so completely the nature of chemical weapons that they are unrecognizable as the chemicals they started as, ie, you couldn't tell the difference between them and a regular vat of some chemical.

You all really need to face the reality that no matter whose fault it was, the WMD that were so critical in starting the war in Iraq simply did not exist. You claim that others are perpetuating logical fallacies (strawman) while you yourself put forward a Black Swan argument as if there is nothing at all ridiculous about it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:48 am
We found some chemical munitions from 91. They were being used in IED's. That would prove that they haven't degraded over time, and that they would still be dangerous in large quantities.

The facts support me, but because it might support the reasons for war, you are adamently opposed to the idea. If you wish to play ostrich, that's fine, but our government isn't as retarded as that and the threats exist and they should be taken seriously.

Until it is proven they have been destroyed, or degraded, or sent to Syria or abducted by aliens, we must continue to be mindful that they exist and they are a threat.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:14 am
Quote:

The facts support me, but because it might support the reasons for war, you are adamently opposed to the idea.


What facts support you, exactly? Not theories, but facts.

Quote:
We found some chemical munitions from 91. They were being used in IED's. That would prove that they haven't degraded over time, and that they would still be dangerous in large quantities.


I'm pretty sure the munitions we found from '91 were significantly degraded, to the point of uselessness as a WMD.

In fact, here's an article which says exactly that:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Inspector_Kay_testifies_that_degraded_chemical_0630.html

So it seems that the facts support the case for degradation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 12:30 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Yeah, whatever.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."


I guess you give the 9/11 theorists a lot more credit than most others of your ideological bent, then.

Cycloptichorn


Strawman...

Is that the best you can do? Make silly strawman arguments?


When you do not want to face reality, create your own reality. The Bushwackers refuse to answer the most basic question... What happened to the WMD Saddam HAD?


He destroyed them or they degraded over time.

This is a far more likely scenario than burying them in Syria's desert...

Cycloptichorn


So, like GW, you do NOT KNOW what happened to the WMD.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 12:36 pm
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Yeah, whatever.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."


I guess you give the 9/11 theorists a lot more credit than most others of your ideological bent, then.

Cycloptichorn


Strawman...

Is that the best you can do? Make silly strawman arguments?


When you do not want to face reality, create your own reality. The Bushwackers refuse to answer the most basic question... What happened to the WMD Saddam HAD?


He destroyed them or they degraded over time.

This is a far more likely scenario than burying them in Syria's desert...

Cycloptichorn


So, like GW, you do NOT KNOW what happened to the WMD.


Sure, so what?

We still don't know what happened to the WMD. The invasion accomplished nothing when it comes to 'knowing' what happened to the WMD. In fact, the invasion interrupted the work of the UN weapons inspectors who were working to figure out questions such as this. Remember?

The lives which have been lost due to the invasion are equivalent to WMD attacks.... noone seems to care about that, tho, because hey, Iraqi lives don't really matter, do they?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 12:51 pm
Let's not discuss tactics GW used to execute his war. I think on that issue, we agree that the tactics were faulty.

My only point is he had a valid warrent to enter Iraq and eliminate the threat which was WMD and Saddam.


Once we stopped looking for WMD and removed Saddam, we should have left immediately.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 12:53 pm
woiyo wrote:
My only point is he had a valid warrent to enter Iraq and eliminate the threat which was WMD and Saddam.

What was the nature of this "warrent?"
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 12:54 pm
Quote:

My only point is he had a valid warrent to enter Iraq and eliminate the threat which was WMD and Saddam.


Sorry, but he most certainly did not have a 'valid warrant' to enter Iraq.

Just because a country has WMD, doesn't mean we have the right to invade them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 12:55 pm
McGentrix wrote:
We found some chemical munitions from 91. They were being used in IED's. That would prove that they haven't degraded over time, and that they would still be dangerous in large quantities.
From the people that know about this stuff and did the search
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw-anx-f.htm
Quote:
The facts support me, but because it might support the reasons for war, you are adamently opposed to the idea. If you wish to play ostrich, that's fine, but our government isn't as retarded as that and the threats exist and they should be taken seriously.
The facts don't support you. The facts say that the munitions found were unmarked and degraded.
Quote:

Quote:

Until it is proven they have been destroyed, or degraded, or sent to Syria or abducted by aliens, we must continue to be mindful that they exist and they are a threat.

What exists? Give us a list.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 08:20:50