no WMDs in Iraq

[Thedatch]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720520.stm

report from Iraq Survey Group

[Liter22]

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archiv e\200410\SPE20041004a.html there are also 48 pages of Iraqi documents that that report is based on.

[Thedatch]

sorry, but i think bbc is more reliable right now...

[Liter22]

Even if the site has pre war documents? And even though The BBC is a british left wing news service?

[BPBlueSox]

Is anybody really suprised by this? I don't think so. After the faulty intelligence that aided in the decision for this war, I don't think anybody should be surprised by findings like this. The key point should be that Hussein still wanted to aquire weapons, even if he didn't have the resources. That's where Osama could come into play. However, it still makes you wonder about the timing of the war...

[BPBlueSox]

Also, the findings make the claim that Saddam was more worried about Israel and Iran than he was about the United States. He was hoping that they would "come around" after time. Doesn't make him seem like a real imminent threat, now does it?

[Thedatch]

Even if the site has pre war documents? And even though The BBC is a british left wing news service?

the bbc doesn't give its opinions in it's articles...it gets what it gets, and prints it...

[redsoxman]

the bbc doesn't give its opinions in it's articles...it gets what it gets, and prints it...

And pigs fly.

[Thedatch]

just because it doesn't say anything good about Bush doesn't mean it's liberal. learn to realize that this is the truth...there are no WMDs in Iraq! Tony Blaire realizes it...the australian prime minister realizes it...why don't you?

[redsoxman]

I never said there was WMD's in Iraq, and I don't care what it says about Bush. All I'm saying is, how can anybody really trust any media outlet in today's world? They all have an agenda.

[Obri]

I'm sorry, this is news? Anyone with their head screwed on knew that most of the weapons facilities in Iraq had been dismantled by 1998 or so. So, I tried to ignore the use of WMD as reason for invasion, and satisfy myself that at least we were getting rid of a tyrant.

Even if the site has pre war documents? And even though The BBC is a british left wing news service?

Vin, I love ya man. But take it from someone who has to watch the BBC constantly. That statement ain't entirely accurate.

[PopTop]

My crystal ball says this is yet another thread that will die young :hmm:



.

[I Are Baboon]

I call my two cats "my little weapons of mass destruction." They scratch everything, they pull clothes out of the hampers, they get into cabinets and pull stuff out, and they keep pulling at window screens and curtains. MONSTERS I tell ya.

[Obri]

I call my two cats "my little weapons of mass destruction." They scratch everything, they pull clothes out of the hampers, they get into cabinets and pull stuff out, and they keep pulling at window screens and curtains. MONSTERS I tell ya.

At least they exist.:D

Man, I hate getting involved in political threads, what was I thinking? :notme:

[Thedatch]

My crystal ball says this is yet another thread that will die young :hmm:



.

might as well close it now...i got my point across...there's no point in arguing it more :thumbsup:

[Liter22]

Datch trying to be slick eh, try to get the thread closed before I can make a real responce lol. (called sarcastic humor ;))

You know Thedatch I really don't know who your trying to hurt with this, wether it is Kerry or Bush. Kerry who said that Iraq was a major threat and was the most hawkish when it came to launching an attack on Iraq. You can look for his statements they are all over the internet, there is viedo of Kerry talking about Saddams WMD's. As far back as 94 and as recent as April of 03 can I remember Kerry talking about Saddamns WMD's as a threat. You can't take those statements back. Here you can read volume 1 of the report.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

You may need Acrobat Reader to open it up but you then again you may not. Thats the whole first report. I've only read about 4 pages so far. On the first page it states that it was obvious that Saddam was just trying to get the UN santions off of his behind in order for him to start his WMD projects back up.

Here is my point. Everyone in the world said that this man was a threat. We saw what he was capable of March 16, 1989, when 5,000 of his people, innocent, people, wemon, children, and fathers were killed by this sick souless tyrant. With the world in seemingly total agreement we decided to first take the diplomatic approch and the UN inspectors shuffeled in. They were held back by the Iraqi military and werent allowed to search some places because they were being held back, not by America, but by the Iraqi SS and military. The 31 nations that joined the US decided enough of this, the man has not complied to one UN santion in 14 years! The last UN santion threatened force! He did not comply, force was taken. Not by the UN which proved to be useless at that moment but by the 31 nations of the coalition of the willing. Just 3 less nations than Desert Stom.

[Thedatch]

i'm not trying to hurt anyone with this...it's news, and it's big news, so I threw it out there. Not everything I do has a purpose ;)

also, i know saddam Hussain was a threat, but that wasn't the reason Bush said we went into Iraq...it was because he had WMDs. Now that that reason has been disproven, as many people have been saying for a long, LONG time, I was interested to see what Bush would say. Will he finally apologize for lying to the American people about his reasons for going to Iraq? Because people had been telling him before that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Hans Blix had said so, the head UN inspector.

Had Bush told us his real reason for going into Iraq...had he not lied to us...I believe many people would have been OK with this war. Had he said Hussein was a threat, and had to be taken out, I would have been alright with this war...even though I would have questioned the timing of it. Also, his other reason (Hussein was involved with Al Quaida spelling?) was already disproven.

[Liter22]

Since it is late I'm gonna be nice lol. Bush didn't lie to anyone. He had falty intellegence and so did the rest of the world. You may want to say that Hussien never had connections to al qudia but there are numerous CNN reports saying that Iraqi officals met with Al Qudia officals at times of 98-00. One thing you can't denie is that Saddam had connections to Hamas, he gave the families of suscide bombers money for their child murdering Jewish babies.

[Durango53]

There are many links to Saddam and Osama. If you read theSenate Intelligence Report (http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf) you will find they to say there is many links to Saddam and Osama. But I will spare you reading the whole thing it is kind of dry.



In Iraqi Support for Terrorism, the CIA provided the following summary:

Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel, and other allies. Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism. During the last four decades, it has altered its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It continues to harbor and sustain a number of smaller anti-Israel terrorist groups and to actively encourage violence against Israel. Regarding the Iraq-al-Qaida relationship, reporting from sources of varying reliability points to a number of contacts, incidents of training, and discussion of Iraqi safehaven for Usama bin Ladin and his organization dating from the early 1990s.

source: page 314, section G, sub (U)


The CIA assessed that "Saddam is Most Likely to Use the IIS (Iraqi Intelligence Service) in Any Planned Terrorist Attack."

(X) One of the strongest links identified by the CIA between the Iraqi regime and terrorist activities was the history of IIS involvement in training, planning, and conducting terrorist operations. Beginning before the 1991 Gulf War, intelligence reports and public records documented that Saddam Hussein used IIS operatives to plan and attempt terrorist attacks. The CIA provided 78 reports, from multiple sources, [redacted] documenting instances in which the Iraqi regime either trained operatives for attacks or dispatched them to carry out attacks.

"...Baghdad in late 1990 was training [more than 1000] Iraqis in camps southeast of Baghdad to conduct terrorist attacks on US and other coalition targets."

source: page 315, section H, sub (U)

...Abu Zubaydah indicated that he had heard that an important al-Qaida associate, Abu Mus'ab al-Qarqawi, and others had good relationships with Iraqi intelligence.

Source: page 324


The CIA provided seven reports on Iraq-Hamas ties. One foreign government service reported that Iraqi officials were meeting with Hamas representatives. The CIA provided two Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) reports in which Hamas leader Abd-al-Aziz al-Rantisi called upon Iraq to use "martyrdom" operations against the U.S.

Source: page 320


Saddam Husayn and Usama Bin Ladin are far from being natural partners, yet intelligence reports during the last decade point to various Iraq-al-Qaida contacts through high-level and third-party intermediaries....

We have reporting from reliable clandestine and press sources that [redacted] direct meetings between senior Iraqi representatives and top al-Qaida operatives took place from the early 1990s to the present.

Source: page 326, Section M

DCI's September 17, 2002, testimony to the Committee:

There is evidence that Iraq provided al-Qaida with various kinds of training - combat, bomb-making, and [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] CBRN. Although Saddam did not endorse al-Qaida's overall agenda and was suspicious of Islamist movements in general, he was apparently not averse, under certain circumstaances, to enhancing bin Ladin's operational capabilities.

Source: page 329

A CTC operational summary from April 13, 1999, notes four other intelligence reports mentioning Saddam Hussein's standing offer of safehaven to Usama bin Ladin.

Source: page 335


The CIA's assessment that Iraq had maintained ties to several secular Palestinian terrorist groups and with the Mujahidin e-Khalq was supported by the intelligence. The CIA was also reasonable in judging that Iraq appeared to have been reaching out to more effective terrorist groups, such as Hizballah and Hamas...

The CIA's examination of contacts, training, safehaven and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al-Qaida relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question.

The CIA's assessment of safehaven - that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad ... was reasonable.

Source: page 345


Now then also tell me with all the people getting the same information on Iraq (Kerry and such) then how can you say that Bush lied about this war. Everyone said that Saddam had those weapons.


And as for Saddam not provoking war and he didnt have the weapons then why didnt he just open the boarders and let the inspectors come in? That was all we was asking.

[redsoxman]

Kerry voted in approval for the use of force against Iraq. He also threw his Vietnam medals on the lawn of the White House. What a hero.

[Obri]

Bush didn't lie to anyone. He had falty intellegence and so did the rest of the world.

I agree, the intelligence was highly dubious. But if you're willing to admit that, then you can't accuse Kerry of banging on about WMD, since he was only taking the word of the President and the intelligence services that Iraq had WMD.

There also seems to be some debate over the stance of the BBC. Let me clarify, media bias in the UK does exist, but can't even compare to the level that exists in the US. Truth be told, British people find it shocking to watch some American news channels and see how slanted it is in favour of one side or the other.(We get Fox, CNN, and countless others I can't think of right now) And also, the line between left and right is far more hazy than that in the US.

Again, just chipping in, don't wanna take sides or anything. :)

[Liter22]

[QUOTE=Obri]I agree, the intelligence was highly dubious. But if you're willing to admit that, then you can't accuse Kerry of banging on about WMD, since he was only taking the word of the President and the intelligence services that Iraq had WMD.
QUOTE]

That is the only part that I would have to disagree just for the fact that Kerry has been banging on Iraq saying there are a threat from the 90's to about 3 weeks up till the envasion when he became a dove and began saying that we should have used the UN more.

[Durango53]

then you can't accuse Kerry of banging on about WMD, since he was only taking the word of the President and the intelligence services that Iraq had WMD.

Kerry didnt have take the Prez's word for it. He was on the Intelligent’s committee so he gets the same stuff the Prez does from the same people so he dont have to take a Prez's word.

Just wanted to point that out to you Dan :wave1: to show we have the checks that is it. :thumbsup:

[Obri]

Just wanted to point that out to you Dan :wave1: to show we have the checks that is it. :thumbsup:


Not a problem Shad, as long as guys like yourself and Vin are able to back up your opinions with reasoned and thought out debate, which you always do, I'm more than happy to respect them. And by the way, just because I probably wouldn't vote for Bush, doesn't mean I would vote for Kerry. :no: To be honest, I'm glad I'm not obligated to vote at this.:D

[Durango53]

Oh no Dan that aint a opinion. That is how it is done. Kerry is on the senante Intelligent’s committee and they keep track on the same stuff the Prez hears and so it is a check to make sure of things kind of.

And I feel the same as you I dont care for Bush that much (mostly for things he hasnt done here in the home land) but what Kerry did in the past is inexcusable to me.

You just said that Kerry was going off what the Prez told him and I just wanted to point out that he gets the same info from the same place the Prez does so they can tell if he is lying to them.

[Obri]

Oh no Dan that aint a opinion. That is how it is done. Kerry is on the senante Intelligent’s committee and they keep track on the same stuff the Prez hears and so it is a check to make sure of things kind of.

I understand that Shad, I was just generalizing when I said you always support your opinions and back them up solidly. :thumbsup: You know how heated it can get in here. :eek:

[Durango53]

;)

Got you man!!!!

But CLEAN OUT YOUR PM BOX!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

[Obri]

But CLEAN OUT YOUR PM BOX!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

I'm on it. :thumbsup:

[lal4l]

Oh also BBC gives you the real news usually news from the US is what the people want to hear and not the true facts... News around the world is the real facts and what really is going on..

[Obri]

Oh also BBC gives you the real news usually news from the US is what the people want to hear and not the true facts... News around the world is the real facts and what really is going on..

While it would be foolish to claim that the BBC are entirely neutral, I have to admit they are one of the most accurate news sources on the planet.

[Panzram]

Indeed. You're absolutely right Dan. Fox is the worst. CNN isn't much better. BBC is the only one to watch.

[Thedatch]

While it would be foolish to claim that the BBC are entirely neutral, I have to admit they are one of the most accurate news sources on the planet.

i miss european news...i remember in Holland, the news was 60 minutes long, no ads, and just the news. When i moved to America, it was one of the first things I noticed about the news...how unbelievably biased the news is. I wish I could get canadian news or something :(

[rockin500]

i dont watch the news anymore really with anything other than with a jaundiced eye. its all a buncha crap.