What neocons don't tell you - Page 3

Exactly! That's why I think all these threads are important. Not to just bash Bush but so people get it hammered into their heads ( given that they elected him twice it seems that's what is required ) that this wasn't the best kind of star to hitch your wagon to. Not by a long shot!

We need to remember so we don't make this kind of mistake again!

Bullshit. Do I need to go back and find the actual quotes? You've said, in THIS thead that WMD was the ONLY reason. Jesus.


I love you just rewrite facts and expect people to go along with them. The Bush Administration relied on intelligence, and came to the judgement that Saddam had weapons. Congress saw the same intel they did. Don't pretend that they only saw what Bush wanted them to see. Hillary Clinton herself said she did her own research and came to the conclusion that Saddam had to be taken out.
OK, that's an opinion you hold. That's fine...it seems reasonable, though I don't agree. What I object to is you presenting it as fact. It's not a fact. It's a supposition. This is a prime example of your inability to distinguish between the two.

Everything I've said did happen!

Jesus! SDW do I have to go to that website again and look up the timeline for you??????

Also quit twisting what I say to fit your rebuttal! I said WMD was the only reason that mattered. Because the president couldn't have possibly got the support ( Hilary doing her own research ) he did without this! I'm not saying he held anything back ( ) I'm saying he hard sold this stuff and embellished it with a little reference to 911 and terrorism to spike the punch! Any thinking person could see it needed more verification because the inspectors were saying the exact opposite. Also letting people believe Iraq was a threat to us ( a quote from this forum at the time " Just wait until the mushroom clouds start blooming in your backyard " ) is just irresponsible! But he did it and even encouraged it to up the odds that we'd be paranoid enough to go to war.

Uh, actually no. Not at all.


Yes, you do.


jimmac wrote:


Yeah, that means THE ONLY REASON. There is no material difference between the "only reason" and the "only reason that matters." It's the same argument. And the second statement is still not fact, it's your opinion.
Opinion, and directly contradicted by what Hillary said. If she did her own research, Bush's reasons weren't an issue. If she had other reasons, she should list them.

GASP! They were making a case for war! They tried to communicate their message to the people! And they said 9/11 changed the way we view threats! OMFG!


No they weren't. They were saying nothing had been found. Gee, that's a surprise. Hans Blix, the 22nd choice for the job, had never found any weapons in his career. Hmmm.



You only consider it irresponsible because you think the Admin. KNEW Saddam didn't actually have any weapons. However, assuming they believed it sincerely, why is such a statement unthinkable? The position was that Saddam, who clearly hated the United States (he openly praised 9/11, as you may recall), would pass off these weapons to a terrorist network. This was a possibility before, but the position of the government after 9/11 was not to wait for that threat. There was no other nation that presented that threat. We even had better relations with NK than we did with Iraq. We had relations with Pakistan as well.

So once again, we had a situation. We had a brutal dictator (fact) that was violating UN resolutions (fact), praising 9/11(fact), judged to be pursuing WMD(fact), firing on our aircraft (fact), etc. We had tried sanctions, inspections, more inspections, limited bombing campaigns during the Clinton admin, and one more "final" resolution (fact, fact, fact, fact and wait for it...fact). Nothing changed Iraq's behavior (fact!) Nothing. Those are the facts, and you can't change them, jimmac. Given those facts, the government developed the opinion that Saddam was going to have to be taken out. If you disagree, it is your responsibility to present a reasonable alternative. Hint: A reasonable alternative to what should have happened isn't "leave Iraq alone" or "let the incompetent UN WMD scavenger hunt continue."

Really, I'm waiting.

Waiting for Godot....

Ok here's the link.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...vasion_of_iraq


Last time I quoted the jucy parts for you but since this is the third time I've shown this to you you'll have to look them up for yourself.

This is what really happened and it doesn't shed a kind light on the Bush administration.

It's a pretty hefty piece of info but I'm sure you can find the right parts.

Then you'll dismiss it for some lame reason.

Iraq - "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud,"

Iran - "spectre of a nuclear holocaust"

jimmac,

Since I must assume you CAN read, I am forced to conclude that you just refuse to do so. I didn't ask for events leading up the war. I asked for an ALTERNATIVE.

But since you offered the link, let's address it. No, I won't dismiss it. I'll just repost some parts of it, keeping in mind that it clearly is authored with an anti-Bush, anti-war view.


See how easy that was? And that's from your source, which also makes claims like this one, that you present as "fact."


Of course, that little timeline doesn't begin to take into account this:

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

17 resolutions, jimmac. Sanctions. Strikes. Inspections. What was a good alternative?

I thought you wouldn't read the important parts. " If I don't see it the thing's not really there! "

Yeah I see!

Weren't we talking about the most recent gulf war? All that stuff happened years before!

Why do you just focus on that?

How about stuff like : " March 22, 2003: Pentagon Official Continues to Assert that US Knows Location of WMDs in Iraq Victoria Clarke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, says during a televised briefing at the Pentagon that the administration knows about “a number of sites” where Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Clarke refuses to provide any estimate of how many sites the US knows of. [Washington Post, 3/23/2003 "

and " Evening February 4, 2003: CIA Officer Reminds Tenet that Source for Mobile Labs is Not Reliable CIA Director George Tenet calls Tyler Drumheller at home and asks for the phone number of Richard Dearlove, the British intelligence chief. Tenet wants to get Dearlove’s approval to use British intelligence in Powell’s speech to the UN. Drumheller takes the opportunity to remind Tenet that the source for the alleged mobile labs, Curveball, is not reliable. “Hey, boss, you’re not going to use that stuff in the speech…? There are real problems with that,” Drumheller says. Tenet, distracted and tired, tells him not to worry. [Isikoff and Corn, 2006, pp. 184; Washington Post, 6/25/2006]
Entity Tags: Tyler Drumheller, George J. Tenet, Richard Dearlove
Category Tags: Biological weapons trailers, Powells Speech to UN, Curveball Fabrications "

Gosh those WMD seem to be a big focal point for something you seem to indicate was just a minor issue?

Besides I thought you didn't like delving into the past? Like Cheney's statement from 1994 saying what a mistake it would to go to Iraq.

And yes by the way the inspectors you mention were saying he didn't have anything!

If you want there's quite a bit more damning stuff in that timeline that I could pull up. But what would be the point? You saw some of it last time this came up and I printed for you. Face it SDW you just don't want to look at the reality because it doesn't jibe with your preconceived notions.

A good atlernative would have been something other than the mess we're in right now.

God! Everytime I see that bottom movie I choke I'm laughing so hard!

I DID. This is getting comical now.
Uh...what the hell does that prove? That we were wrong? SHOCKING!

q[uote]
and " Evening February 4, 2003: CIA Officer Reminds Tenet that Source for Mobile Labs is Not Reliable CIA Director George Tenet calls Tyler Drumheller at home and asks for the phone number of Richard Dearlove, the British intelligence chief. Tenet wants to get Dearloves approval to use British intelligence in Powells speech to the UN. Drumheller takes the opportunity to remind Tenet that the source for the alleged mobile labs, Curveball, is not reliable. Hey, boss, youre not going to use that stuff in the speech? There are real problems with that, Drumheller says. Tenet, distracted and tired, tells him not to worry. [Isikoff and Corn, 2006, pp. 184; Washington Post, 6/25/2006]
Entity Tags: Tyler Drumheller, George J. Tenet, Richard Dearlove
Category Tags: Biological weapons trailers, Powells Speech to UN, Curveball Fabrications "[/quote]

OK, let's assume that is accurate, even though it's clearly on a rabid anti-war site. Again...what does that mean? Curveball or not, didn't we think Saddam had WMD when Tenet worked for your favorite President?
Hold on...is it my site? You're criticizing me for what's on a site YOU linked to?


Nonsense. I never said anything of the kind. I addressed Cheney's statement, and at no time did I say that.
Let me ask you a question. Let's say you go to a store and you're looking for a certain product. You hear no one is supposed to have it because it's not being made anymore. But, you've also hear rumors of others finding the product at this one store. Plus, you're pretty sure you've seen other people WITH the product on the street. So you go to the store and they say "nope, we don't know what you're talking about." Oh, and there is the whole section of the store they don't let you into. Now keep in mind, you saw three people in the parking lot walking out with the product as well. What do you conclude...do you just go home and assume they never had it to begin with? I mean, clearly all those people are lying and trying to trick you!

Of course, the point is the inspectors never had full access. It was a farce.
It's a site with a clear anti-war agenda. Even so, it's easy to see the pattern of Iraq's deception and non-compliance. Still, you act as if what you posted was the bible. It's not. Surely by your age, which you like to quote all the time, you must understand the concept of neutral point-of-view. Here is a link in case you never learned that lesson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._point_of_view


Pathetic dodge. I asked for an alternative. You can't provide one. The choices were to ignore Saddam and leave him alone, continue bombing him every few years while leaving sanctions in place, or invade. That's all, folks.

OK, let's assume that is accurate, even though it's clearly on a rabid anti-war site. Again...what does that mean? Curveball or not, didn't we think Saddam had WMD when Tenet worked for your favorite President?

Hold on...is it my site? You're criticizing me for what's on a site YOU linked to?



Nonsense. I never said anything of the kind. I addressed Cheney's statement, and at no time did I say that.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say you go to a store and you're looking for a certain product. You hear no one is supposed to have it because it's not being made anymore. But, you've also hear rumors of others finding the product at this one store. Plus, you're pretty sure you've seen other people WITH the product on the street. So you go to the store and they say "nope, we don't know what you're talking about." Oh, and there is the whole section of the store they don't let you into. Now keep in mind, you saw three people in the parking lot walking out with the product as well. What do you conclude...do you just go home and assume they never had it to begin with? I mean, clearly all those people are lying and trying to trick you!

Of course, the point is the inspectors never had full access. It was a farce.

It's a site with a clear anti-war agenda. Even so, it's easy to see the pattern of Iraq's deception and non-compliance. Still, you act as if what you posted was the bible. It's not. Surely by your age, which you like to quote all the time, you must understand the concept of neutral point-of-view. Here is a link in case you never learned that lesson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._point_of_view



Pathetic dodge. I asked for an alternative. You can't provide one. The choices were to ignore Saddam and leave him alone, continue bombing him every few years while leaving sanctions in place, or invade. That's all, folks.[/QUOTE]

End of SDW's post.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------









The alternative would be to leave.

SDW you're starting to lose it now. Making increasingly desperate posts in a lame attempt to shore up the case for the Bush administration. You're just fighting against the inevitable.

" Rabid antiwar site "

" Antiwar agenda "

Good for them!

Just lame SDW!

Quit before you make a fool of yourself. Please.

Holy christ! NOT THE ALTERNATIVE AT PRESENT. I am asking...AGAIN...what was the alternative BACK IN 2003! You have three choices:

1. Continue to bomb them intermittently, leaving sanctions in place that harm the population.

2. Invade

3. Leave him alone.


And yes, that is a site with an anti-war POV. If you can't see that, I am speechless.

1 or 3 are the only options that have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.

And you always attack the source. Always even if it's CNN!

First, show me in my post where I attacked the source. I mean the one you just quoted.

Secondly, I do often dismiss or attack sources that are clearly biased. That said, I do like to point out what POV an article is written from. Often you'll post something and opnely state that it's "fact" or imply that it was written with a neutral POV, when in fact it's not. All I'm saying about your previous source was that it had a clear anti-war POV. That doesn't invalidate it, but it must be taken into consideration. You clearly did not do that. You posted it as "what happened" without qualifying it at all.

Thirdly, options one and three had their problems. Iraq was under sanctions that were hurting the population. I suppose we could have just kept containing him, but the judgement was made after 9/11 that we couldn't do that with such states and individuals. I think that conclusion was very reasonable and to be expected after we got hit like we did. We had 3,000 people dead in the streets of South Manhattan. The government decided that wasn't going to happen again, nor was Saddam going to be allowed to pass of a WMD to one of the networks that would hit us. Given that Saddam had openly praised 9/11 (I believe the only world leader to do so, including Cuba, NK, Libya, etc), it was not crazy to think me might do just that. The final option, that of just ignoring him? Well again...I guess we could have, but who knows what would have happened then. We ignored him the late 80's and he ended up invading and raping Kuwait. Look what we had to do then.

Well, 'invading and raping' applies more to Iraq now I think.

But back in the real world, it so happens that Iraq has a legitimate claim on Kuwait as it was actually a part of Iraq until carved up by the British who installed a fascist dictatorship.

In fact, at the time of Saddam's invasion the al-Sabah family dictatorship in Kuwait were possibly the worst human rights abusers on the planet with torture and political murder an almost daily occurrence.

Things have improved - marginally - ie, women were granted the vote in 2006 but torture continues to be endemic and Kuwait is now the world-leader in human trafficking.

Despite the lies and bleating of the brainwashed wingers, there is little doubt the Kuwait people would have been better off under Saddam - just like the Iraqi people now can say exactly the same.

Remember; the people denying this are the people who are supporting the bombing, chaos and murder inflicted on the Iraqi people....that tells you all you need to know about how much they care about the issue.

It's all just another political point to them....

You're equating our invasion of Iraq with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? That's fucking crazy.




Kuwait was a sovereign state. Funny how that only matters when it's convenient.


Whatever. Thats a crock of shit. Prove it. And even if it was, it doesn't mean Saddam could invade.


I'm sorry...what does that have to do with anything?


WHAT? Better off under Saddam? There is no case for that in either country. Especially Kuwait.
It's all just another political point to them....[/QUOTE]


I have no idea what that means. I've not heard anyone else claim that Saddam invading Kuwait was a good thing.

No...I am saying his was legitimate, yours is not. And you have killed more people, tortured more people and raped more people.


Hmm


Yes, like when the US wants to invade one. Iraq or Iran spring to mind.

It really is your duty to inform yourself if you want any credibility but anyway:

1710 is the official date on which the state of Kuwait became recognised. At the time, it was still under the Ottoman Empire, making borders incredibly subjective. Indeed, Middle Eastern borders were still subjective well into the latter half (or even quarter) of the 20th Century.

When the British eventually let their Arabian Gulf Emirates claim independence as the United Arab Emirates in 1971, a man spent months riding around the desert on a camel, asking every Bedouin tribe he came across which Emir they swore allegiance to. This is how the UAE borders were drawn up, and it's how Dubai comes to claim its mountain enclave of Hatta.

Surprisingly, given recent events, it would seem that the British had finally learned something from history by 1971.

The border between Iraq and Kuwait had been arbitrarily drawn in 1923, based on the notion that "nobody lives there anyway". Post Sykes-Picot and World War I British goals for the area were not particularly concerned with such trivialities as borders between the Mandate states and how this would affect their future under the self-determination they had promised these states. Britain was far more concerned with the oil in Iran, the likelihood of oil in Iraq and Kuwait, and how to get it all back to Britain.

Linky


Let's get this straight - hey, I'm getting Deja Vu - you know nothing at all about this, you have to ask to have it explained yet you still call it a 'crock of shit'. Hmm....odd...

At random: From Amnesty International quoting US Government research:


Further abuses fully documented in the report.


It shows that the fascists in control then are still in control now and all thanks to their western allies. Just like the Sauds really.


How many Iraqis do you actually know?

I have just got to know an Iraqi Christian doctor. He hated Saddam. But he had a good practice in Baghdad. His wife was a surgeon. His daughters were lawyers. They had three houses - one a luxury villa by the sea.

Now they have nothing...some bombed out property, maybe bulldozed, who knows? And somewhere the graves of family members killed since the 'liberation', and of course they can't visit the graves because they can never go back.

So now they live in a one room flat, his wife makes houmous and muhammara and he sells it to people like me from a pokey little stall in the market.

Maybe when I know him better I'll invite him around for coffee and a nargile and we can fire up my Powerbook so you can tell him yourself how much better off he is.


I never said it was a good thing. I said that Iraq has a legitimate claim on Kuwait and life under Saddam was not the hell you claim it was.

Guess what? Life under Hitler wasn't that bad either... you seem to have a need to believe that just because someone has been designated 'evil' then life under their rule must be hell.

It doesn't work that way.

Of course it sometimes does work the other way; people designated as 'good' or 'allies' (ie Sauds and Al-Sabahs) could very well create a hell on earth for their citizens...

.................

His was completely illegitimate. Ours was done with good intentions, but clearly the main reason for going to war turned out not too exist. That reason was supported by all of the world's major intelligence agencies.



Uh, thanks for history lesson, ass. I understand the history and don't need you to post it. None of it...NONE of it makes Saddam Hussein's invasion legit or "good." I mean really....I need to do a reality check here. Christ, I'm really talking to someone that believes Saddam was entitled to Kuwait and that their people would have been better off under him. Just need to let that sink in for a moment, because I don't think I've ever heard it before.




Of course, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about at all.


Now hold on. You focused on KUWAIT. Short term, I will grant you Iraq was far more stable. But it was also ruled by a brutal dictator. Your doctor friend might have been better off, but the people who had their tongues cut out and appendages put through plastic shredders, they may not have been.


Iraq had no legit claim, not according to oh, the United Nations. And life under Saddam, yeah...I bet it was a picnic.


I'm sure there were positive aspects to living under Hitler and Saddam. But that doesn't change the fact that both were brutal dictators, now does it? It doesn't mean they should be in power. And I've never claimed that I love the Saudis either. Clearly we've been in bed with them for oil, which I support ending ASAP, not that it'll happen.

The problem is here you're making a number of assumptions and then trying argue on them. Of course, many are false. I don't think Saudi Arabia is "good." I don't claim there were zero positive aspects of life under Saddam. I am aware of the way Iraq was carved up by the Brits. None of changes the here and now. None of it changes the brutality of Saddam and his defiance of the entire world.

I'm gonna finally call you out on this.

Exactly what intelligence agencies are you talking about here? Or are you talking out of your butt?

CIA... ok.

Who else? Name one. Italy? Give me a break.

British intelligence... said there was "no justification" for war. The evidence for WMD was "sporadic and patchy". But you make it out to sound like MI6 was in 100% agreement with Bush. They were not.

How many intelligence agencies refuted the forged Niger documents?

The fact is that you are still "repeating the lie". You're playing the good Rovian disciple.

There was no "agreement" among "all of the world's major intelligence agencies".

I'd ask you to stop lying, but I don't think you are lying. I think you honestly believe what you're saying is true. However, you're ignorantly repeating someone else's lie, and because that lie supports your position, you're not even willing to take the slightest look at the veracity of your statement.

It turned out to not exist because it had been lied about - that's what makes it illegitimate.

Intelligence Agency line is wrong. Please stop repeating it.


Please do not resort to insult. Thank you. It demeans you and your theories.

I don't need an apology but you might adjust your behaviour for the common good.


Iraq - not Saddam but the country of Iraq - had and still does have a legitimate claim on Kuwait because the area now called Kuwait was once part of the area now called Iraq.

This is exactly the sort of thing 90% of wars and territorial disputes have always been about - in fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard you support exactly the same argument re Israel. And even if not, that is the argument Israel uses: that Palestinian land was once Israeli land and that justifies fighting and occupying it.

So it is with Iraq and Kuwait.


But it does: your argument is that Saddam's people are better off because a fascist dictator has been removed.

Therefore you are using a yardstick of degrees of 'fascist dictatorness' and as evidence of this you cite Kuwait.

I am pointing out that by your own yardstick the people of Kuwait were suffering from a worse dictator, therefore, even if both were 'utterly evil' if one is worse than the other than it still qualifies as 'better off' to be toiling under the lesser.

I would be better off living under Hitler's control than Ghengis Khan's for example. You really need to rid yourself of the reductionist mentality that makes you think Hitler would be 'good'.

Either that or stop making silly comparisons.


And here we have it. Your whole 'Saddam is evil' myopia is almost on the level of an implant. It is based on just such propaganda as you have just shown.

The problem is that this is all lies too.

The plastic shredder story is now proved to be false.


They can't even cite where it came from - the article above claims it was from a prisoner at Abu Ghraib (real reliable source there) while this article claims it was from an Iraqi woman.

By the way, why don't we just do the stats to find out how bad things were? It's quite simple.

From the above first linked article:

Saddam was a cruel and ruthless tyrant who murdered many thousands of his own people (at least 17,000 according to Amnesty; 290,000 according to Human Rights Watch)

Let's take the median figure: 130,000 murders in 24 years.

I put it to you that if you want to compare him with other dictators to find out how bad he was - and if you do not then please provide your reasons why he is so special even if he is not as bad as them (or is it that the worse ones are somehow 'ok'?) - you will find he is nowhere near the top of the league.

Btw, I notice you always cite Kuwait as one of Saddam's crimes but never Iran which he also invaded. Without any legitimacy at all.

I wonder why this is?

Perhaps we can discuss the analogy in depth when you are supporting the Iraqification of Iran after the next US blood-letting begins and we can compare the deaths there.


Well, you could have picnics for sure. Unlike in Saudi and Kuwait.

But let's look at some comparisons if you like. We can choose Saudi and Kuwait again because we are already in the area but also these two States have Western approval - and are widely regarded as 'good' and 'friends' so let's see what we see.

Saddam's Iraq: gasp! Women were allowed to drive!!!!
Saudi: er...that would be a couple of hundred lashes in public.... Kuwait, well, no-one ever tried it.

Saddam's Iraq: women could work! They even had great jobs - my friend I told you about, his wife was a surgeon. That's how they got to own several luxurious properties - one even in here name!!!!!!!
Saudi and Kuwait: women can't own property. But it's ok - they are not allowed outside without a male family member.

Saddam's Iraq: no burkas
Saudi and Kuwait: burkas

Saddam's Iraq: Diverse society - Jews and Christians living together
Saudi and Kuwait: Jews thrown out - Christians persecuted and tortured

Saddam's Iraq: bars, restaurants, clubs
Saudi and Kuwait: err....no, public beheading for drinking instead.

And on and on and on.....

Still, you can do your picknicking in Saudi if you like.

I wonder if you have ever been to a country which is under dictatorship? Do you really know what it is like?

I lived in Damascus for a while under the old man Asad. Yes, people lived in fear, yes, people were tortured and murdered and yes, everyone wanted 'freedom' but you know what? They managed to live, love and do business while waiting for it...

I really don't think you should be claiming that they would be better off living in a bombed out shell with no electricity, no water, dead family members and no hope for the future. I really don't.


No, it doesn't


Nor does it mean that:

a) the US should be the ones to 'fix it'
b) that it should be fixed in the way you have 'fixed' Iraq


If you knew what you were talking about you would claim the Saudis are far, far worse than Saddam ever was. In fact, if (big if) they ever come with in the US cross-hairs and the propaganda ratchets up that is exactly what you will be claiming.

But as much as I despise the Saudi regime and want to see it removed, I would never in a million years support a US action to do it.

It's not the fact that they do these things. it's the manner of the doing...they are like a malfunctioning Terminator drone with the Brain Chip fried and the phaser gun stuck on 11......


No, the problem is that the arguments you have marshalled in support of your contention do not hold water.

You simply can produce no justifying evidence for your position - and this is hardly surprising as it is based solely on emotion and not logic.

You remind me in many ways of those rumoured Japanese troops still fighting WW2 somewhere in a jungle 50 years after the war ended.

The government that sent them there has forgotten all about them and the world has changed irrevocably but there they are...still fighting for the 'Fatherland', still repeating the propaganda, still 'doing their duty'.....

And everyone else in the real world has moved on....

Oh stop. EVERY major intel agency in the world believed Saddam had weapons. The Israelis. The French. The British. The Russians. The Germans. And, the US. They all knew Saddam had weapons, or thought they knew.

Yes, there were forged documents. Yes, there was disagreement on certain items. And yes, many nations disagreed with actually going to war. But there was universal agreement that Saddam had WMD.

Ok. First ownage...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

Want more?

You only scream "every one" without knowing the truth about it because that's the Bushco lie you swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Did you see the intelligence reports? Did YOU? So how did you hear what they supposedly said? Oh yeah... Bush said so.

Meanwhile, wouldn't you say the international intelligence agency IN CHARGE of determining whether Saddam had WMD might have known better? Please remind me... what did THEY say? And were they not one of the "major intel agencies" about WMD at the time?

So you scream "EVERY major intel agency in the world believed Saddam had weapons," but I've already pointed out two who did not.

Oh... and weren't there intelligence memos to the president himself that said there were no WMD? I guess they were not from one of the "major intel agencies".

Apparently, your definition of "major intel agencies" excludes anyone who disagreed at the time. Convenient.

Russia, you say?

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-11-2002-28019.asp


So... are you a liar, or were you mistaken? Which is it?

Just in case you feel like attacking the source, here's CNN with the same quote. Seems like Putin actually said this, at the time when you're claiming Russia believed Saddam had WMD. Clearly you're either a liar, or you were mistaken or misinformed.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../13/le.00.html

If you want me to keep going I can find plenty of reports of France and Germany being out of the loop as well. Want me to do it?

Or are you just going to keep lying? After seeing the evidence I've presented, then it's clear that if you keep saying it now, it could no longer be a mistake. It would now be a lie. Are you a liar? Are you?

Whatever tonton. There's no talking to you. You'll just keep finding cherry picked quotes that don't tell the whole story, just like the Putin quote. You'll continue to ignore the motivations behind such statements by Russia, France et al. These are countries that had significant business dealing with Iraq. In addition, Russia certainly did not want the US to expand its presence in the region and pick off one of Russia's allies. You're completely ignoring the geopolitical component of any statements you find. I find that just a tad bit ironic in light of the fact that everything Bush does is motivated my politics according to you. Moreover, you utterly ignore Israel, which has one of the most advanced intelligence operations the planet. I suppose they don't count, those fucking Zionists.

Shazzam!

Remember: anyone giving a contrary view on WMD is because they are a biased interested party.

Israel toeing the US line is because they are utterly objective, neutral and balanced.

I think Israel has a *little* more at stake than the US does... getting it right is a matter of survival.

Well, depends on what you call 'getting it right' - some might say that equates to committing genocide on the Palestinians.

Morally they seem to have been 'getting it wrong' for their whole history and they are still there so maybe it doesn't matter much...

"Genocide" - mmkay. Nothing more to try to work out here. Moving along. Moving along.

Oops, you're right - Palestinians don't exist so genocide is not correct. My mistake.

I'd say there are plenty of bloody hands to go around.

Oh yeah... we can ALWAYS trust the Russians to tell the truth. These are KGB-communists we are talking about.

"In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State." -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Those "fucking Zionists" as you (jokingly?) refer to how you define anyone who levels even the slightest criticism of Israel... seem to be able to do anything in the world with impunity. To equate the Zionist fringe with ordinary Jews is like associating extreme Islamist Caliphates with Mr. ordinary Mohammed down the street ....

And Mossad?? a fat fucking lot of no-good they were on 9/11.

Can you interpret this? "We were here to document the event". Guilty, guilty, fucking 100% guilty. At the very least, accessory before and after the fact. No dispute..;. unless someone can prove conclusively that the above footage is a fake, or some sick joke.

Here they are, 5 Mossad guys, admitting prior knowledge of 9/11, on an Israeli TV talk show, and even being there to film the attack, knowing full well that the US government, being loaded with NeoCons, will never take action against either them, or their employer, Osama bin Lad... oops... the Israeli government, and the US/UK/western mainstream media will toe that line, by default.

Call me an anti-Semite, if namecalling is your thing. Lets see a rebuttal.

I guess its coming up to "that time of year again".

Despite the mockery and derision SDW persevered with tweaking his patent Feline Fox News Amplification system....

The shape of the end is critical. Currently the sphere is working best. But the new model with have a triangle....inside sphere. Stay tuned.

Facts are facts. No tinfoil required. A confession is as bad as it gets, inadvertent as it was.

Strange that the likes of SDW cannot face, and refuse to acknowledge reality when it doesn't conform to their mainstream-derived blinkered world. There is the mechanism by which some of the world's worst deeds go unpunished and uninvestigated.

SDW, if someone was caught videotaping the Oklahoma City bombings as they happened, or conducting an interview with the Columbine School shooters in which they described their plans, for example, would the FBI/US Government look the other way? Not one chance in a quadrillion years, and you damned well know it.

But here we have Israelis, caught flatfooted in complicity re. the 9/11 attacks, at the very least... and you would prefer to ignore the FACT that these people knew beforehand, and then just brush it off. Perhaps your philosophy is, because the Jewish people suffered so much during the Holocaust and have ridden high on worldwide public sympathy in the decades following WW2, you feel that Israel is justified in getting away with whatever the fuck it can, with impunity, regardless of whether their intelligence agency had a part to play (or more) in attacks on our own nation.

Shame on you SDW. There are two words for people with your attitude, or similar:
a) Appeaser, and (b) Traitor.

Can we add to those ranks those folks who want to give Prez Tom, Hugo, and the like a place at the table? And also those who like trashing to troops in the field? Appeasers? Traitors? *coughharryreidcough*