Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 94
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Fact remains that the Brits stand by their claim therefor Bush has always been and still is correct.
  • Reply 42 of 94
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    4 posts in a row, scott? You crack me up.



    Just clearing out the reply back log.
  • Reply 43 of 94
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Fact remains that the Brits stand by their claim therefor Bush has always been and still is correct.



    For how long? Blair et all is increasingly under scrutiny, and I'll wager it won't be long now until we hear that infamous Brit phrase: 'America can bugger off!'.



    Wanna play?
  • Reply 44 of 94
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Let's look at the statement:



    The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.



    Not only did Iraq not recently seek out uranium, but it was the american embassy in rome that originally obtained the documents and handed them to the CIA, so the brits 'learned' it from the bush admin. Whether or not there was other info is irrelevent, since even the official white house line is that external evidence is "not detailed or specific enough for us to be certain that attempts were in fact made."



    As such, the statement bush made is not at all "100% correct" as you so wrongly claim.
  • Reply 45 of 94
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    giant:



    Got a link to the Rome>US paper trail? I'd like to see where that's coming from.



    Thanks.
  • Reply 46 of 94
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 709

    giant:



    Got a link to the Rome>US paper trail? I'd like to see where that's coming from.



    Thanks.




    sure



    Quote:

    In July 2003, it was revealed that it had been the Americans, not the British or Italians as originally reported, who first obtained the forged Niger documents. According to this version of events, a reporter for the Italian current affairs weekly Panorama, brought the documents to the U.S. embassy in Rome in October 2002. The journalist, Elisabetta Burba, had gone to the US embassy to look for assistance in verifying the documents after her own research had raised doubts about the documents? authenticity. [ Washington Post, 7/20/03; Associated Press, 7/20/03] She said the large quantity of uranium to be purchased by Iraq seemed unrealistic, especially since the document lacked details on how the uranium was to be delivered. [Associated Press, 7/20/03] Unable to confirm the documents? authenticity, the Panorama decided against running a story on the documents. [Associated Press, 7/20/03; Reuters, 7/19/03; Washington Post, 7/20/03] After receiving the documents, the ?embassy promptly informed the CIA station chief in Rome that it had the documents and, on Oct. 19, gave copies to intelligence officials?. [Washington Post, 7/18/03] A source told Reuters that the documents were shared ?with all the relevant agencies at post [in Rome] and they were then shared again when they got back to Washington.? [Reuters, 7/17/03]



    Links here
  • Reply 47 of 94
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 709

    For how long? Blair et all is increasingly under scrutiny, and I'll wager it won't be long now until we hear that infamous Brit phrase: 'America can bugger off!'.



    At least Blair *is* under scrutiny.



    Infamous Brit phrase?



    However, I have heard the sentiments that that phrase expresses quite often during my recent travels in "old" Europe.



    - T.I.



    [edited for grammar]
  • Reply 48 of 94
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Um? THEY WERE FOUND! Here's one news link I found. Not an impressive one. After finding them we may not think they are that impressive but we don't know what they are before we see them. I don't remember them being shown to Blix.



    HOHOHOHAHAHAHA!



    Call that a 'drone'?



    Clear and present danger!!!???111!!!!



    That is a model plane powered by a car battery. It is incapable of delivering ANYTHING other then a nasty buzzing noise for -- oh -- a good few minutes.



    Not me saying that, that was the weapons inspectors who found it.
  • Reply 49 of 94
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Let's look at the statement:



    The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.






    That statement is still correct.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Not only did Iraq not recently seek out uranium



    You don't know that. The Brits get their information from a third party that wont allow the Brits to reveal the source.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    [B], but it was the american embassy in rome that originally obtained the documents and handed them to the CIA, so the brits 'learned' it from the bush admin.



    No. You don't know where the Brits learned it. You don't know who the third party is. You don't know where they get their info. They tell us it comes from several different sources.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    [B]Whether or not there was other info is irrelevent, since even the official white house line is that external evidence is "not detailed or specific enough for us to be certain that attempts were in fact made."



    As such, the statement bush made is not at all "100% correct" as you so wrongly claim.



    Bush's statement is still 100% correct. What you don't know can fill this thread.
  • Reply 50 of 94
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Um? THEY WERE FOUND! Here's one news link I found. Not an impressive one. After finding them we may not think they are that impressive but we don't know what they are before we see them. I don't remember them being shown to Blix.



    Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the text from the article to which Scott links. It's about drones. Look out for this sentence:



    Instead, these analysts believed the drones posed no threat to Iraq's neighbors or the United States, officials in Washington and scientists involved in the weapons hunt in Iraq told The Associated Press.



    (It's just beside the picture of the model aeroplane that is "only capable of carrying a camera at most.)



    Quote:

    Iraqi Drones



    By DAFNA LINZER and JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writers



    - Huddled over a fleet of abandoned Iraqi drones, U.S. weapons experts in Baghdad came to one conclusion: Despite the Bush administration's public assertions, these unmanned aerial vehicles weren't designed to dispense biological or chemical weapons.



    The evidence gathered this summer matched the dissenting views of Air Force intelligence analysts who argued in a national intelligence assessment of Iraq before the war that the remotely piloted planes were unarmed reconnaissance drones.



    In building its case for war, senior Bush administration officials had said Iraq's drones were intended to deliver unconventional weapons. Secretary of State Colin Powell even raised the alarming prospect that the pilotless aircraft could sneak into the United States to carry out poisonous attacks on American cities.



    The administration based its view on a Central Intelligence Agency finding that Iraq had renewed development of sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles _ UAVs _ capable of such attacks. The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency also supported this conclusion.



    While the hunt for suspected weapons of mass destruction _ and the means to deliver them _ continues, intelligence and defense officials said the CIA and DIA stand by their prewar assertions about Iraqi drone capabilities, some of which Powell highlighted in his Feb. 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council.



    But the Air Force, which controls most of the American military's UAV fleet, didn't agree with that assessment from the beginning. And analysts at the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said the Air Force view was widely accepted within their ranks as well.



    Instead, these analysts believed the drones posed no threat to Iraq's neighbors or the United States, officials in Washington and scientists involved in the weapons hunt in Iraq told The Associated Press.



    The official Air Force intelligence dissent is noted in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons programs, parts of which were declassified last month as the Bush administration tried to defend its case for war.



    "We didn't see there was a very large chance they (UAVs) would be used to attack the continental United States," Bob Boyd, director of the Air Force Intelligence Analysis Agency, said in an AP interview. "We didn't see them as a big threat to the homeland."



    Boyd also said there was little evidence to associate Iraq's UAVs with the country's suspected biological weapons program. Facilities weren't in the same location and the programs didn't use the same people.



    Instead, the Air Force believed Iraq's UAV programs were for reconnaissance, as are most American UAVs. Intelligence on the drones suggested they were not large enough to carry much more than a camera and a video recorder, Boyd said.



    Postwar evidence uncovered in July in Iraq supports those assessments, according to two U.S. government scientists assigned to the weapons hunt.



    "We just looked at the UAVs and said, 'There's nothing here. There's no room to put anything in here,"' one of the scientists said.



    The wingspan on drones that Iraqis showed journalists in March measured 24.5 feet and the aircraft were built like large, white model airplanes.



  • Reply 51 of 94
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the text from the article to which Scott links. It's about drones. Look out for this sentence:



    Instead, these analysts believed the drones posed no threat to Iraq's neighbors or the United States, officials in Washington and scientists involved in the weapons hunt in Iraq told The Associated Press.



    (It's just beside the picture of the model aeroplane that is "only capable of carrying a camera at most.)




    Yes we may know all that AFTER THEY ARE FOUND. AFTER THEY ARE FOUND AFTER THEY ARE FOUND we can look at them and have a better idea what they do but we don't know that until AFTER THEY ARE FOUND. Duh!
  • Reply 52 of 94
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Yes we may know all that AFTER THEY ARE FOUND. AFTER THEY ARE FOUND AFTER THEY ARE FOUND we can look at them and have a better idea what they do but we don't know that until AFTER THEY ARE FOUND. Duh!



    Try for one second to imagine all the human suffering, destruction and despair that took place before these plywood-planes were found. Was it worth it? When anybody with half a brain could have told the Moron in charge that Iraq was not exactly on the bleeding cutting edge of aviation technology?



    In fact, hindsight not withstanding, the Bush administrations case for war was so weak on hard evidence it's nothing short of a miracle they managed to pull it off. But then again, telling lies to an audience whom equals critical questioning with treason, makes stealing candy from a sleeping baby look like martial art.



    Scott, take a good look in your crystal ball. What do you see happening in early january 2004? Yes that's right. Reality sinking in big time across America. The situation in Iraq might have stabilized a little, but troops are still dying. The cost of keeping them there are still 4 billion dollars a month, the US is literally bleeding money. You have just left 2003 with a whopping half a trillion dollar in deficit and the new year looks even worse. Unemployment are rising, war-profiteering still rampant among the Bush cronies, ever more lies told about the reason for war, the rest of the world keeps giving you a cold shoulder and the future does not require shades.



    Welcome Scott, to the mother of all hangovers - caused by the single biggest ****-up in American history. Cheers...
  • Reply 53 of 94
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tyrihans

    Try for one second to imagine all the human suffering, destruction and despair that took place before these plywood-planes were found.



    You mean under Hussein's rule, before the war, yes?
  • Reply 54 of 94
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    You mean under Hussein's rule, before the war, yes?



    Yea. That's the other major part that people like to forget. How many mass graves do we have to see uncovered in Iraq before the anti-american/bush crowd realize that yes in fact Hussein was a really bad guy. Anti-american/bush crowd can't be bother with the pain and suffering caused by Saddam or the UN.



    As always we know a lot more after the fact. In due time we may find out exactly what happened to all the WMD. God nows Blix never would have found out.
  • Reply 55 of 94
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    You mean under Hussein's rule, before the war, yes?



    No. Try Shock and Awe. You know, the brilliant military campaign fought by the worlds only superpower against a third world dump equipped with no hope, causing mayhem and some 30 000 deaths.
  • Reply 56 of 94
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tyrihans

    No. Try Shock and Awe. You know, the brilliant military campaign fought by the worlds only superpower against a third world dump equipped with no hope, causing mayhem and some 30 000 deaths.



    How many did Sadam kill? How much pain and suffering? How many will live becuase he's gone from power? Also, where did you get that "30,000" number from? Anti-american "human rights" groups?
  • Reply 57 of 94
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    How many mass graves do we have to see uncovered in Iraq before the anti-american/bush crowd realize that yes in fact Hussein was a really bad guy.



    Scott, that's almost to easy.



    Answer: None, we knew...



    But try answer this instead; How stupid would it be to blow up another country to prove to the world that you was wrong all along. What's there to win. A trophy for being the most incompetent president in US history?
  • Reply 58 of 94
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    As always we know a lot more after the fact. In due time we may find out exactly what happened to all the WMD. God nows Blix never would have found out.







    You crack me up. What evidence do you have that Saddam was an 'immenent threat?'



    Oh, and you know that even the pentagon's current inspection team headed by Kay (who was given the boot from UNSCOM for, as he himself admitted, working for US intel) doesn't think there was any WMD, don't you?



    Man you are lost. Thanks for the giggle.
  • Reply 59 of 94
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    ...where did you get that "30,000" number from? Anti-american "human rights" groups?



    That number is an total estimate, including military deaths. (sorry, no link)
  • Reply 60 of 94
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    You should probably also note this:

    Quote:

    As evidence, officials say former Iraqi operatives have confirmed since the war that Hussein's regime sent "double agents" disguised as defectors to the West to plant fabricated intelligence. In other cases, Baghdad apparently tricked legitimate defectors into funneling phony tips about weapons production and storage sites.



    "They were shown bits of information and led to believe there was an active weapons program, only to be turned loose to make their way to Western intelligence sources," said the senior intelligence official. "Then, because they believe it, they pass polygraph tests ... and the planted information becomes true to the West, even if it was all made up to deceive us."





    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines



    I bet you never thought that YOU were actually the sucker to Saddam's games.
Sign In or Register to comment.