or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Bush admin is still lying to start a war - Page 2  

post #41 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by serrano:
<strong>

Yet tied they are, and even Blair is having trouble toting our line. Having the ability to strike Iraq on our own does not change the fact that we would do so without the support of the world. Taking on the world is not a game we want to get into.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nice spin. Blair seems to be hand in hand with Bush. You saw the press conference right? "Weeks not months".

What do you mean "without the support of the world"? The US has many countries that support it on Iraq. Or are you saying that the UN is the only organization that can speak for the world?
post #42 of 631
I say again: NSA Excerpts.


<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/867105.asp?0cv=CB10" target="_blank">Damning Quotes At This Link</a>

Quotes:

For the past two months, ever since the U.N. inspectors re-entered Iraq and began searching for weapons of mass destruction, the NSA has been closely monitoring the conversations of Iraqi officials. The NSA intercepts establish conclusively that the Iraqis have been ?hiding stuff? from the inspectors, the U.S. intelligence official said.

Â* ?They?re saying things like, ?Move that,? ?Don?t be reporting that? and ?Ha! Can you believe they missed that?,? the official said. ?It?s that kind of stuff.?

[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #43 of 631
SDW, don't bother posting words. seems that half the population in AO doesn't understand words.

if it requires reading, it won't be taken into account.

find some pictures of babies dying from Saddam's hands. then you'll get the rest of the support here.
post #44 of 631
this might have better luck

post #45 of 631
Hey guys, don't bother posted anything if you don't care about law. If you feel it necessary to ignore law to reach your goals, then you're less civilized.

Not my fault, I'm sorry.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #46 of 631
Yes, lawyers are the highest lifeform of all.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
post #47 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Well I think this post pretty much sums up the arguments for going to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

As usual, you seem to miss the pertinent meanings. Everybody seems to be doing whatever they please anyway, regardless of what is discussed at the UN. That is bad when it is countries like Iraq arming for the "end of the world showdown". It can also be good when a country like the US can come in and actually do something about it before things are completely out of control. ...or perhaps, you'd rather we wait until France does something about'em? Yes, that could make a good fantasy movie! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
post #48 of 631
This thread is sinking into crappiness quickly.

Someone pull it out, or I'll take it out back and shoot it.
post #49 of 631
On Wednesday, Bush will present the UN with satellite photos of trucks moving away from suspected sites, and exclaim "See! He's hiding his WOMD! Look! Right there!"

Either that, or he's going to show them statements from a defector or a spy which give specific details about Saddam's WOMD. Only problem is, if we still can't find them, we can still do nothing.

Twat. He's going to be crucified at the end of this all, as well he should. If things keep going this way, I think we might see another impeachment.
post #50 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>I say again: NSA Excerpts.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Okay. This is interesting. I could be wrong, and maybe there is actually some compelling evidence. But that still doesn't mean that we can actually do anything.

"One official said next week?s speech by Powell will amount to the most significant release of this kind of sensitive information since President Ronald Reagan revealed NSA intercepts that linked Muammar Kaddafi to the 1986 La Belle disco bombing in West Berlin."

Uh, what happened to Kaddafi? Anyone?

My point is that Bush could be going to all this trouble for nothing, then he'll start a war anyway, the world will further hate the US and terrorism against Americans could get a lot worse and global anti-Americanism will spread. I think I'll start calling myself a Canadian.
post #51 of 631
[quote]Only problem is, if we still can't find them, we can still do nothing.<hr></blockquote>

Why so? If the US can produce reasonable evidence that Saddam still has, and is deliberately hiding from the inspectors, banned weapons, that's clear casus belli. IIRC, the latest UN resolution required unconditional cooperation with the inspectors, anyway. The refusal to alow U2 flights is already casus belli, though not quite so dramatic. The intercepts we are supposed to hear Tuesday will make the non-cooperation hole 10x deeper, even if they don't make the case that Saddam is hiding weapons (which they just might - one kinda goes with the other). We can get absolute (retrospective) proof by finding the weapons in person later on and presenting them to the world.
post #52 of 631
[quote]Uh, what happened to Kaddafi? Anyone?<hr></blockquote>

Kaddafi got bombed (and one of his daughters killed), but more to the point, the intercepts were correct. They helped build a case against two of Kaddafi's intelligence officers, whom you might recall were recently extradited for trial; one of them was convicted and it presently rotting in a Scottish prison. If the proof was good enough for a criminal court in that case, it seems reasonable this proof will be good enough for the UN. TIme will tell.
post #53 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>If </strong><hr></blockquote>

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #54 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>

Kaddafi got bombed (and one of his daughters killed) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Boy, THAT'S a rousing endorsement for an attack on Iraq....
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #55 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong> If things keep going this way, I think we might see another impeachment.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just thinking about that makes my day.
Unfortunatly, under all this war propaganda I can't help but feel that Bush's spin doctors are doing the whole thing just to insure that Bush get's Re-elected next term....like in "Canadian bacon" or "wag the dog"

The whole thing just seems so futile, but as much as I think the whole ordeal is just a pain in the ass, in the back of my mind though I'm caught thinking "well is saddam really has WOMDs then he's gonig to be helluva irked after this whole fiasco and is going to sure as hell want to use them"


I wonder if our anti-missile defense system works?
orange you just glad?
orange you just glad?
post #56 of 631
hmm, are they <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=002654" target="_blank">still</a> lying?
post #57 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>
They helped build a case against two of Kaddafi's intelligence officers, whom you might recall were recently extradited for trial; one of them was convicted and it presently rotting in a Scottish prison. If the proof was good enough for a criminal court in that case, it seems reasonable this proof will be good enough for the UN. TIme will tell.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can't remember the details off-hand but there were large rumblings about the accuracy of these accusations. In particular the prosecution had to decide whether or not to put someone on the stand as a witness who might well have admitted to being responsible. If they did, they would not be liable for prosecution and the defendenants would have been released.

I can't remember how it played out, just wanted to undermine your certainty.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
post #58 of 631
So... if this case follows history, a family member of Saddam will die, and we'll convict one of his associates for something and send them to jail for life.

In the mean time, we'll have made enemies of the world.

Nice.
post #59 of 631
So... if this case follows history, a family member of Saddam will die, and we'll convict one of his associates for something and send them to jail for life.

In the mean time, we'll have made enemies of the world.

Nice.
post #60 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>So... if this case follows history, a family member of Saddam will die, and we'll convict one of his associates for something and send them to jail for life.

In the mean time, we'll have made enemies of the world.

Nice.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No! It get's even better! We'll continue our own WoMD research, while all the time we'll give out *smallpox* vaccines to all the people in social services that we can scare the shit out of by grating their arm with a 10-guage needle, and then have them tell us *citizens* how ****ing horrible it was and you'll get it next and very soon and nevermind that smallpox is, like, 105th on the airborn disease most likely to be used list, and anyway we should all be scared of something 'cause I just got this big ass hole drilled in my arm because the govt said so and you should be scared as much and probably more than I am 'cause you're not treated and I am and........ChristAlmighty. I used to like being an American. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
post #61 of 631
I think this whole discussion is invalid due to asynchronous information. We have no idea what the stakes really are in this dispute. We don't even know what Apple is doing on their Desktops from month-to-month, let alone what entire nations are up to.

How can you have an informed conversation when you know that key facts are being concealed?
post #62 of 631
so are we assuming the papers that ran this story are lying?

[quote] Saddam's bodyguard warns of secret arsenal

02feb03

SADDAM Hussein's senior bodyguard has fled with details of Iraq's secret arsenal.

His revelations have supported US President George W. Bush's claim there is enough evidence from UN inspectors to justify going to war.

Abu Hamdi Mahmoud has provided Israeli intelligence with a list of sites that the inspectors have not visited.

They include:

AN underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad;

A SCUD assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea;

TWO underground bunkers in Iraq's Western Desert. These contain biological weapons.

William Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who has continued to gather information on Saddam's arsenal, said Mahmoud's information is "the smoking gun".

"Once the inspectors go to where Mahmoud has pointed them, then it's all over for Saddam," Tierney said.

Tierney, who has high-level contacts in Washington that go to the White House, said the information we publish today on Mahmoud's revelations "checks out, absolutely checks out".

Mahmoud was a mem ber of the elite unit that protects Saddam. <hr></blockquote>

the entire article is <a href="http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220%5E663,00.html" target="_blank">here</a>
post #63 of 631
I don't know one way or the other. But, has it occurred to you that this guy might say anything to stay alive?

Also I still think big info like this would have been all over the news by now. That was Sunday's paper. So I'm slightly dubious.

[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #64 of 631
That story (discussed in detail in another thread) has yet to be confirmed. If it's true, things will get more interesting.

But as far as the wire taps ("Electronic Intercepts" by another name...) go, even Powell himself has said outright that they don't amount to a smoking gun.
post #65 of 631
The whole Iraq issue is ongoing only because Bush is president. Bush is just using rhetoric to demonize Iraq in order to invade it for his own purposes which include distracting from his unpopular domestic policy. It has nothing to do with WOMD (if they even exist they don't threaten us), or the story that Saddam gassed his own people (this story was debunked recently by Stephen C. Pelletiere who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq at the time) or the alleged links to al Qaeda (denied by Tony Blair, denied by the CIA and according to a radio report tonight denied by Britain's intelligence agency in a new report). We are all getting a front row education in what Henry Kissinger calls statecraft.
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
post #66 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by ena:
<strong>
How can you have an informed conversation when you know that key facts are being concealed?</strong><hr></blockquote>

As a democracy, whenever the key facts are being concealed, we have a right and a duty to demand that information or to keep it from being used in any fashion. The information that's key and being concealed is my own information. I own it. If I want to know it, or to prevent actions from occuring that are using that information for motive, then I have that right and duty. To try anyway.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #67 of 631
I'm loving this "Germany and France could be concealing evidence" hokum. It's brightening my day.

Don't forget that Donald Rumsfeld sold Saddam all those bio-agents Scottyboy. And that the people who have been doing all the concealment of who-sold-what-to-who, (which would have implicated .fr .de .uk as well as the US) is the United States. After all, why did they strip that bit of the Iraqi declaration out?
meh
meh
post #68 of 631
Thread Starter 
Two things, alky:

1. One true statement does not make lies true. Bush fabricated IAEA reports as ultimate justification for war. They have lied about sat. photos (al farat construction). There are so many it's just crazy. Just because the admin says one thing that is true doesn't mean that the IAEA report existed! How could it?!?!?!

2. That story about the bodyguard seems to only have been picked up in Australia and they don't seem to give any indication of source.
post #69 of 631
I think <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z/stories/20030206/dossier.html" target="_blank">this</a> is new information.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #70 of 631
Thread Starter 
Bunge, you should throw that in the powell speech thread.
post #71 of 631
Lets try a different tack since you all seem to be searching for something that exists, yet can't be seen. Yes, he proabably does have some sort of WoMD, but doesn't seem to be inclined to play with them. To all you pre-emptively happy boys out there, lets repeat again:

He doesn't seem inclined to play with them.

Let play a counting game:

1.) Where's Bin Laden? Conservative Israeli papers have him running around the Saudi Arabian desert.

2.) What's up with Qatar? Home of Al Zazeera, Bin Laden's Hollyqood style agents and recent home of a military coup begun by pan-arabic sympathizers. Stratfor could not confirm an Al Qaeda link. And the coup de grace, for the news disabled:
[quote]Mr. Powell withheld some critical details [from his speech] today, like the discovery by the intelligence agencies that a member of the royal family in Qatar, an important ally providing air bases and a command headquarters for the American military, operated a safe house for Mr. Zarqawi when he transited the country going in and out of Afghanistan.

The Qatari royal family member was Abdul Karim al-Thani, the coalition official said. The official added that Mr. al-Thani provided Qatari passports and more than $1 million in a special bank account to finance the network.

Mr. al-Thani, who has no government position, is, according to officials in the gulf, a deeply religious member of the royal family who has provided charitable support for militant causes for years and has denied knowing that his contributions went toward terrorist operations.<hr></blockquote>source: NYTimes

4. What's up with Pakistan? Now how do you think the North Koreans got all that nuclear technology.

5. What's up with Saddam. He's a bad bad man, but boy those ties to Al Qaeda sure are tenuous.

Now play threat assessment and politics, and post:

A.) Which is the biggest threat to the US right now.
and
B.) Whose ass will be the easiest to kick.

Bet A != B
four more beers, four more beers
four more beers, four more beers
post #72 of 631
it's a source . . . so what?

its not as if they are trying to get the Nobel in Lit.

The issue becomes: how accurate was the original research?
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #73 of 631
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>it's a source . . . so what?

its not as if they are trying to get the Nobel in Lit.

The issue becomes: how accurate was the original research?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No. The issue is that sources are questionable. Why does everything have to be spelled out to the letter on Appleinsider? It's really sad. For the future: even if you don't agree, just demonstrate a slight degree of competency by understanding why it was posted instead of just arguing to argue.

I really don't mean to be rude, but the frequency of this is getting really pitiful. It's very indicative of the degree to which people read and digest before posting here.

[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
post #74 of 631
Don't preach to me motherfuucker!!!!!!!

You don't get it . . . . its a government report, they say "sources say" and then they take from some published, or unpublished piece of crap, and paste it in . . . . the only point is that they have a 'source'
that's supposed to imply, however false, a notion of some kind of legitimacy.
That's teh way people think: if it has 'sources' to site, real written down documents then it is legit..
Now, how they treat the said source material is not a matter of wether or not it was plagiarized, chances are it will be, they are government writers and they could care less about the style, coherence or etc, all they want to do is convey the information that they gleened from their source, its rather, a matter of how well the source is researched: did this grad student get an A . . . .
... if they forget to put quotes around it, tant pis!!!

Of course they don't want to say who their source is: "it might jeopardize sensitive information"
which means, in this case, it might show how desperate they are, how far they will cast their nets, and, how feeble their sources are . . . meaning that they, ultimatley, would jeopardize their 'sensitive' argument.

Now, just because I differ on the value of your 'plagairism link' doesn't mean that I don't find it interesting . . . I just think that discounting the information because of the hackneyed cut and paste manner of its acquisition misses its purely pragmatic aims
so don't get all huffy, buddy . . . especially when, for the most part, I agree with your position
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #75 of 631
I originally posted the link because I thought it was a good example of how far the Bush administration is willing to go to make war. I mean, I guess technically you're right, sources do say so, but it just means that they know their sources aren't valid so we shouldn't care what their sources say.

I could say "Saddam doesn't have WOMD." Now if some newspaper decided to run an article "proving" that Saddam didn't have WOMD citing anonymous sources (my quote) then I'd hope everyone would realize how worthless that newspaper would be: as worthless as the data coming from the Bush administration.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #76 of 631
Thread Starter 
pfflam:

You say it better than I did.

But don't think I am discounting information. It's just important for people to learn not to blindly take information at face value.

The one point we seem to differ on is the ethics of what they did. Typically it would be somewhat benign, but altering it to make it seem more sinister demonstrates further how wording is used by these politicians to help sell the war. Of course, that is common knowledge, but many here in AppleInsider, and apparently throughout America, seem to have forgotten that following Sept. 11.

[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
post #77 of 631
Thread Starter 
So Powell's speech is now under fire. This is just the beginning of what I will be posting about it.

About the alleged 'chemical weapons factory'

[quote]The facility, which was discovered to be near the small hamlet of Sargatt – not Khurmal, as Powell had stated – was visited by Western journalists on February 8. The reporters found no obvious signs of a chemical weapons production facility. Ansar commanders said the site had been used as a radio and television studio. A BBC correspondent described the visit: “We were shown radio and TV studios which had obviously been there for some time. But they did not look as though they had been used recently. Other buildings in the compound had apparently been used as residential premises and hastily abandoned because of fears of an imminent American air or missile strike. At the back of a row of buildings there was one drum which had originally contained plastic-related chemicals but it was empty. The Ansar said it had been used to store fuel. … If the site had been used for producing or experimenting in chemical or biological weapons, there was no obvious sign that that is still the case.” The Ansar commanders also contested Powell's statements alleging that their organization had links to al-Qaeda and the Baghdad government. A man named Ayoub Hawleri told the AP he had never heard of Abu Musab Zarqawi. “The first time I even heard of al-Zarqawi was on television,” he claimed. [BBC 2/9/03; AP 2/8/03]
<hr></blockquote>

[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
post #78 of 631
Thread Starter 
And about the missle site:

[quote]Al Rafah Site
Allegation. Describing a photo of the al-Rafah weapons site, Powell said, “As part of this effort, another little piece of evidence, Iraq has built an engine test stand that is larger than anything it has ever had. Notice the dramatic difference in size between the test stand on the left, the old one, and the new one on the right. Note the large exhaust vent. This is where the flame from the engine comes out. The exhaust vent on the right test stand is five times longer than the one on the left. The one of the left is used for short-range missiles. The one on the right is clearly intended for long-range missiles that can fly 1,200 kilometers.” [U.S. Secretary of State 2/5/03]

...Criticism. The AP reported, “But the U.N. missile experts have reported inspecting al-Rafah at least five times since inspections resumed Nov. 27, have studied the specifications of the new test stand, regularly monitor tests at the installation, and thus far have reported no concerns.” [Associated Press 2/7/03] Similarly, Reuters quoted Ali Jassem, an Iraqi official, who explained that the large stand referred to in Powell’s presentation was not yet in operation and that its larger size was due to the fact that it was designed to test engines horizontally. [Reuters 2/7/03]

02. Removing items from various sites.
Allegation. Powell showed the UN Security Council satellite shots depicting what he said were chemical weapons bunkers and convoys of Iraqi cargo trucks preparing to transport ballistic missile components from a weapons site just two days before inspections. Powell said: “We saw this kind of housecleaning at close to 30 sites … We must ask ourselves: Why would Iraq suddenly move equipment of this nature before inspections if they were anxious to demonstrate what they had or did not have?” [Washington Post 2/6/03]

...Criticism. Reported the AP: “An incredulous site director, Karim Jabar Youssef, said such shipments of parts and finished missiles were an everyday occurrence at the Rasheed Co. site. ‘On any day there would be constant activity, so any day Colin Powell can claim there is intense activity here,’ Youssef said. Besides, he noted, U.N. inspectors have visited al-Musayyib 10 times since November. The short-range Fatah missiles there, legal under U.N. resolutions, bore U.N. inventory stickers. Inspectors have not reported any violations at the site.”

03. Iraqis appeared to have scraped away topsoil.
Allegation. The Washington Post summarized: “In one series of photos taken last spring and summer, Iraqis appeared to have scraped away a layer of topsoil from what was described as a transshipment point near Al Moussaid chemical complex -- a move intended to eliminate evidence that might be discovered later by inspectors.” [Washington Post 2/6/03h]

...Criticism. The act of scraping topsoil does not necessarily imply the act of eliminating evidence.

04. Removal of truck and guard.
Allegation. The Washington Post summarized: “[A] weapons bunker near the town of al-Taji appeared to have been furnished with a special guard station and a decontamination truck. In a later photo of the same facility -- taken on Dec. 22, when U.N. inspections were well underway -- the decontamination truck and guard had disappeared.” [Washington Post 2/6/03h; see also Washington Post, 2/6/03]

...Criticism. Powell did not explain how he knew the truck in the photograph was a ‘decontamination truck’. The subsequent disappearing of a truck and a guard does not necessarily imply covering up of illegal activities.
<hr></blockquote>

[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
post #79 of 631
Thread Starter 
About the alleged 'mobile labs'

[quote]Mobile biological weapons facilities.

(a) Evidence.

(i) Colin Powell said that U.S. intelligence had “first-hand descriptions” of mobile biological weapons factories mounted on trucks and railroad cars. He said that there were some 18 vehicles in all configured as such. [U.S. Secretary of State 2/5/03; New York Times 2/6/03; New York Times 2/6/03; Reuters 2/8/02]

(ii) Information about the mobile weapons labs were based on the testimonies of at lease 4 human sources [U.S. Secretary of State 2/5/03; Washington Post 2/5/03d] including an Iraqi chemical engineer. [U.S. Secretary of State 2/5/03; New York Times 2/6/03]

(iii) According to Colin Powell, the mobile units are capable of producing enough dry biological agent in a single month to kill several thousands people [U.S. Secretary of State 2/5/03; Washington Post 2/5/03d]

(iv) Two weeks before Powell’s presentation to the UN Security Council, U.S.A. Today reported that U.S. Intelligence had photos of tractor-trailers configured with unusually large roof-mounted air vents, which according to the Bush administration, indicated possible mobile biological weapons labs. [USA Today 1/20/03] These photos, however, were not shown to the UN. Instead Powell displayed computer-generated sketches of the alleged labs based on descriptions from unnamed sources. [U.S. Secretary of State 2/5/03; Washington Post, 2/6/03; Washington Post 2/5/03d; New York Times, 2/6/03b] The Times of London described the pictures as “childlike graphic of lorries laden with fiendish-looking tanks and tubes.” [Times, 2/6/03]

(v) Colin Powell said that during the late 1990s, Iraq’s biological weapons scientists would often begin the production of pathogens on Thursday nights and complete the process on Fridays in order to evade UNSCOM inspectors whom Iraq believed would not conduct inspections on the Muslim holy day [Washington Post 2/5/03d] But Raymond Zilinskas, a microbiologist and former U.N. weapons inspector, challenged this account, arguing that significant amounts of pathogens such as anthrax, could not be produced in such a short span of time. He said, “You normally would require 36 to 48 hours just to do the fermentation … The short processing time seems suspicious to me.” He also explained: “The only reason you would have mobile labs is to avoid inspectors, because everything about them is difficult. We know it is possible to build them -- the United States developed mobile production plants, including one designed for an airplane -- but it's a big hassle. That's why this strikes me as a bit far-fetched.” [Washington Post 2/5/03d]

(b) Criticisms

(i) Prior to Colin Powell’s presentation, Hans Blix had dismissed suggestions that the Iraqis were using mobile biological weapons labs. He explained that he had already examined two alleged mobile labs and discovered nothing. “Two food-testing trucks have been inspected and nothing has been found,” Blix said. [Guardian 2/5/03]

(ii) Sources were not named and no pictures were provided [Pitt 2/6/03] in spite of USA Today having reported earlier that U.S. intelligence allegedly had such pictures. [USA Today 1/20/03]

(iii) Scott Ritter, a former Marine intelligence officer and chief weapons inspector, speaking to an audience in the United Arab Emirates, contended that no evidence existed to back this claim. He said, “These labs exist purely in the minds of inspectors. We hypothesized their existence. There is no information to say they ever existed. We made them up. But they have taken on a life of their own.” [Reuters 2/8/02]

(c) Observations

(i) The Washington Post noted, “The mobile labs were the highlight of a presentation on biological weapons that otherwise yielded little new information.” [Washington Post 2/5/03d]

<hr></blockquote>
post #80 of 631
Oh, honestly, why do we do this over and over again?

Bush is the bad guy : Saddam is a good guy?!

Saddam is the root fo all evil: Bush is our savior?

Don't even try to tell me that Saddam is without a lot of these weapons. But don't tell me that he has been indesputably collaborating with Al Qaeda and crap like that. The man uses these weapons to hold power. Why can't we have some levity? Hopelss. No wonder we're all ****ed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war