posted on November 2, 2003 12:52:28 PM new
So far, I've heard that there ARE womd in Iraq and there are 12 suspected sites where these weapons are held/hidden. We're talking nuclear weapons. A spokesperson for Bush's side, said it will take 18 months to get to all of these sites. Not 17 months or 2 years, but 18 months.
I'm unable to find anything that helps me to understand ANY of the above statements. Do any of you have links I can read?
posted on November 2, 2003 01:33:35 PM new Help A Dork To Understand...
There are NO weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq. There are NO nuclear weapons in Iraq.. Yesterday, it was reported that there is not even evidence of a PROGRAM for nuclear weapons. It was all a BIG LIE told by the Bush administration who really are DORKS.
David Kay has already returned with evidence of NOTHING to get more funds to continue his search and when he returns again nobody will believe or even read his report.
If anyone can find links, we should alert CNN and MSNBC.
Helen
But hope springs eternal...Barbara Bush said..."There's a lot of sand in that country."
posted on November 2, 2003 02:16:54 PM new
It's very simple. No admissions will be made until after the '04 elections have concluded. There will only be denials to any statements made by the current administrations opponents until after November '04. Hence the 18 month "estimate".
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on November 2, 2003 03:13:48 PM newAs opposed to the less obvious lying demo crooks?
For those in still in denial, Saddam's WMD went to Syria...
Mark Alexander
One year ago, this column first reported that Allied Forces would be unlikely to discover Saddam's WMD stores in Iraq -- that the UN Security Council's foot-dragging had provided Saddam with plenty of time to export his biological and nuclear WMD. Back then, I wrote, "There is a substantial body of intelligence supporting our position that Iraq shipped some or all of its biological and nuclear WMD stores to Syria and Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley." In December, a senior-level intelligence source confirmed again that much of Iraq's WMD had, in fact, been moved to and through Syria.
This week, there was, for the first time, official public confirmation of our report. (In case you missed it as the Leftmedia's lead story, don't fret; we missed it too.) Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, now director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, told reporters that U.S. surveillance satellites captured images of vehicle traffic dispersing WMD materiel to urban locations in Iraq and moving large quantities into Syria as well.
"Those below the senior leadership saw what was coming, and I think they went to extraordinary lengths to [dispose, destroy and disperse] the evidence," said Gen. Clapper. "By the time that we got to a lot of these facilities...there wasn't that much there to look at. There was clearly an effort to disperse, bury and conceal certain equipment prior to inspections." Gen. Clapper added that there is "no question" that people and WMD materiel were moved by truck convoys into Syria.
So why wait until now to release this information? First, as we noted last year, the extent and accuracy of this information is a valuable intelligence asset, and the CIA, DIA and NSA are responsive only to U.S. national-security interests. Finding and destroying these WMD stores has everything to do with the likelihood that what we don't find now will visit our shores in a most terrible way later. Undoubtedly General Clapper's remarks were thoroughly vetted for their national security implications as we endeavor to contain Saddam's WMD and make clear that any effort to move them will confirm their current location.
Secondly, because some Americans and their Leftmedia opinion-shapers have very short attention spans, recent claims by Ted Kennedy et al. that President George Bush "misled" the nation regarding the "imminent threat" posed by Iraqi WMD, have undermined some domestic resolve. It is critical that our national resolve remain high and that Americans understand how important it is to keep the frontlines of our war with Jihadistan on their turf, not ours.
And third, because this merely confirms what many Americans not blinded by political ambition, already knew: that Saddam's most deadly WMD are still out there, still capable of inflicting catastrophic devastation in one or more major U.S. urban centers of an al-Qa'ida sleeper cell's choosing, and still capable of wreaking havoc on the economic recovery now underway.
Quote of the week...
"I want to tell you something about this war against terror we are fighting in Iraq and around the world. The foreign terrorists, the Ba'ath Party sympathizers, the Islamic extremists who wantonly kill Americans and innocent people from many nations, have no idea what they are up against. ... When we say we are going to win this global war on terrorism, we mean exactly that. We don't mean a moral victory, or victory in some abstract sense. The reality of more than 3,000 dead in New York, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon does not allow for such nuances." --Gen. John M. Keane, Army vice chief of staff, at his retirement ceremony earlier this month
On cross-examination...
"When it comes to whether or not we are going to wage this war against terror in places like Kabul or Baghdad or be more likely to have it waged in places like Boston or Kansas, the American people understand the front line has become Iraq. ... We saw it again over the weekend, but that's where it needs to be. We need to take this fight to them and we need to support our troops in that effort." --RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie
In a draft memo to the Republican congressional leadership, Mr. Gillespie added: "Last week a significant minority, including leading Democrats, moved to the left of Syria and France by opposing funding for troops and reconstruction in Iraq. ... When it comes to winning the war against terror, the president's critics are adopting a policy that will make us more vulnerable in a dangerous world. ... Specifically, they now reject the policy of pre-emptive self-defense and would return us to a policy of reacting to terrorism in its aftermath."
posted on November 2, 2003 03:33:28 PM new
#*!@ makes the flowers grow. The above article can sustain a garden or two.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on November 2, 2003 03:46:02 PM new #*!@ makes the flowers grow. The above article can sustain a garden or two.
But not in the concentration that you liperals are shoveling
Helen as to your assumption concerning the release of info wntil after Bush wins the next election.....see the following
Nov. 2, 2003, 5:26PM
White House OKs handing over intelligence Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The White House reversed itself and promised the Senate Intelligence Committee access to all materials requested for its inquiry into prewar intelligence on Iraq, the committee chairman said today.
A White House spokesman remained noncommittal, promising "a spirit of cooperation" but no specifics. Spokesman Trent Duffy reiterated administration doubts about the committee's jurisdiction over the White House.
The CIA and the State Department already turned over large quantities of documents ahead of the committee's deadline last Friday and more material is coming, said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.
White House acquiescence, on behalf of the National Security Council, came to committee staff members late Friday along with notification from the Pentagon that it also would cooperate, Roberts said on CNN's "Late Edition."
The committee's top Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, said he wants "to see the documentation before ... I'm satisfied. I want to know that we really have it in hand."
Roberts, who was in Kansas, spoke just after Rockefeller, in Washington, had complained that the White House and Defense Department were "being very resistant."
Rockefeller had just finished saying, "We have to have those documents. We're going to get those documents, one way or another," when Roberts was asked if he concurred.
"Well, that's yesterday's story," the chairman said.
Roberts said he had not had the chance to call Rockefeller over the weekend to report the latest development: the White House's agreement "in a spirit of cooperation" to the committee's demands.
Duffy, with President Bush in Crawford, Texas, repeated that phrase in a conference call with reporters but offered no concrete promises. He would not confirm Roberts' assertion that the White House has agreed to turn over the documents the committee seeks.
"We've had productive conversations about ways we can work with and assist the committee," Duffy said. "While the committee's jurisdiction does not cover the White House, we want to be helpful and we will continue to talk to and work with the committee in a spirit of cooperation."
After the deadline passed Friday, both senators accused the White House of ignoring the committee's demand for documents and access to officials for interviews it needed in its work.
The committee is examining the accuracy of intelligence about deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons programs and purported contacts with terrorist groups. That intelligence served as Bush's main arguments for the U.S.-led war.
"It is certainly good news that there is a spirit of cooperation with the White House," Roberts said. "The challenging news is, however, that we have to fold this new information into all of the work that we have done."
He said the committee would like to expedite its final report, "but the most important thing to do is to get an accurate and complete picture." A top White House official had promised every document requested would be surrendered, he said.
On Friday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan promised to cooperate with the committee even though he said it lacked jurisdiction to ask for it.
Rockefeller took issue with that, saying the committee's job involves not only "rigorous oversight of the collection and analysis of intelligence, but also the use of intelligence, and that includes all of the U.S. government. That includes policy-making, defense and national security."
The Bush administration also is in a battle of wills with an independent commission studying circumstances of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The commission, which has a May 27, 2004, deadline to complete its report, has threatened to issue subpoenas unless the requested documents are provided quickly.
You should read your articles before posting. That one concerns the reluctance of the White House to release information about the intelligence that they don't have and about 9/11.
The Bush administration also is in a battle of wills with an independent commission studying circumstances of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The commission, which has a May 27, 2004, deadline to complete its report, has threatened to issue subpoenas unless the requested documents are provided quickly.
posted on November 2, 2003 04:50:38 PM new
And the key phrase in all that verbage:
"a spirit of cooperation" but no specifics...
which means what they want to provide, when they wish to provide it.
More neo-con double speak.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on November 2, 2003 06:18:58 PM new
Exactly, however now they can try to rally support to go to Syria. When the WOMD's aren't there they'll head to Iran.
Small hint: I heard a rumor there are a number of them in Pyang Yang (pardon the spelling). There are only a few troops guarding them (millions that is).
Question: How long is this administration willing to perpetrate this war?
Answer: As long as it is profitable.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on November 2, 2003 06:42:50 PM new
Profit?
Now, now...don't you know that we are there to free the Iraqi people? And to get rid of an evil man. We want to build schools and make their life merry. Don't you know that, Dave?
posted on November 3, 2003 06:12:54 AM new
It will be on to Syria or Noth Korea just before the elections.
The voters would support Satan himself on the platform with hooves and a pitchfork if he was the sitting president in war time. It's an automatic win.
posted on November 3, 2003 06:23:16 AM newROFLMHO gravid....very descriptive.
[Although I tend to think it will be a close election. - But given we have another year, there are still many IFs that can come into play. - ie: IF the economy continues on it's upward swing, IF we find success and have been able to reduce the number of US troops as the Iraqi's start to defend their own country, etc.]
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 3, 2003 06:24 AM ]
posted on November 3, 2003 12:02:58 PM new
Why can't any conservatives help me out? Please help me to understand - why 18 months? Why, if the U.S. knows where the womd are located, don't they go there and check? OK, they've checked 2 places and came up empty handed, but the other 10 places haven't even been checked out yet. The remaining locations might have the womd that Bush is talking about, so what's the hold up?
posted on November 3, 2003 01:06:47 PM new
Some bureaucrat prob. calculated the number of suspected sites, the number of experts available and how much they've searched already and came up with a cute number or the press.
Who cares anyway? They've already traced hundreds of shipments funnelled through different countries and eventually ending up in Iraq, containing contraband. And whether the posters here theorize it was all destined for baby milk plants is immaterial. And whether it is sitting in downtown Baghdad, buried in the sand, or mailed to Syria is also immaterial. And whether Hussein wrote the last check supporting ANY of these groups 8/25/2001 or moved the last training base 8/26/2001 is also immaterial.
posted on November 3, 2003 01:15:46 PM new
Miscalculation is not an answer to the question. Contraband is not weapons of mass destruction of a type ready to fire in 45 minutes.
I'll restate KD's question.
Why can't any conservatives help me out? Please help me to understand - why 18 months? Why, if the U.S. knows where the womd are located, don't they go there and check? OK, they've checked 2 places and came up empty handed, but the other 10 places haven't even been checked out yet. The remaining locations might have the womd that Bush is talking about, so what's the hold up?
posted on November 3, 2003 01:31:37 PM new
kraftdinner
Have you considered the thought that those same weapons could have been returned to Iraq just as easily IF we had not entered Iraq & ousted Saddam
Dave, make it three times, just twice wouldn't get it out of you house.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on November 3, 2003 01:39:15 PM new
Again, it doesn't matter.
I suppose you think they pushed the control rods into the test reactor and closed the garage door and left. I wonder where the garage is....
Well we could always start digging until we found the cylinders of poison gas. If we don't find them the Kurds can come back to life.
It doesn't matter because we know what everything that is found was intended for and used in, but left-wing spin is always that the diodes are for a new kind of blender, etc.
OJ's buddy may have tossed the knife but Nicole still had her throat slit.
posted on November 3, 2003 01:45:14 PM new
So far, we've uncovered a staggering amount of confusion. That's understandable, based on the amount of false information disseminated by the pres and the press.
KD's Question...
Why can't any conservatives help me out? Please help me to understand - why 18 months? Why, if the U.S. knows where the womd are located, don't they go there and check? OK, they've checked 2 places and came up empty handed, but the other 10 places haven't even been checked out yet. The remaining locations might have the womd that Bush is talking about, so what's the hold up?
posted on November 3, 2003 01:58:46 PM new
Nice to see you desquirrel! Your analogy doesn't make sense to me. You think it's OK to go to war against another country based on false pretenses? You don't mind spending your hard earned money to continue this war KNOWING the President didn't know what he was talking about?
Bear - If Iraq had ANY type of womd, wouldn't an attack - an invasion, be the best excuse to use them?
posted on November 3, 2003 02:11:29 PM new
No Krafty, I'm saying I don't need proof which is easily disposed of, after the fact. If we have the intellligence of what went where, have corraboration from scientists who escaped, and the UN resolutions banning his acquiring the contraband, I don't need a picture of Hussein posing in front of his first tactical missle.
It is a question of gullibility. If an American fishing boat had spotted the Japanese fleet in 1941 and they turned around and said they were just out for exercises, most of the group here would go "Phew, that was close." I'd hit them with everything we had.
posted on November 3, 2003 02:21:06 PM new
OK, so if there really aren't any hidden womd, then why is the U.S. still in Iraq fighting? Why, if the Bush admin. KNOWS there aren't any womd in these 10 locations, don't they say so? Why say it will take 18 months to check them out for womd if they already know there aren't any?
Wolfowitz plays coy when asked about his allegiance to Israel, by foreign correspondents. But, in 1998, at an AIPAC dinner at the Waldorf Astoria,
He Said:
"Israel is the land of lands. It is sacred land. It is land blessed by God, and we would all be remiss, if we did not devote our remaining days to see it become what it once was."
Some more cause for you to be anti-Zionism.
By Jack Bernstein, an American Jew
who was able to convey the truth about Israel before the Mossad murdered him
http://www.rense.com/general31/lifeof.htm
"German Americans cannot be citizens of both the U.S. and Germany. Italian Americans cannot be citizens of both the U.S. and Italy. Egyptian Americans cannot be citizens of both the U.S. and Egypt ... BUT, a Jewish American can be a citizen of both Israel and the U.S. THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF POWER THE ZIONIST JEWS HAVE OVER THE U.S. Government."
Producer reveals the politics of Fox
“A veteran television producer has alleged that Fox News executives issue a daily memorandum to staff to bend the US cable network's reporting into conformity with management's political views.
US Media_Sugar-coating U.S. motives in Iraq
“When Genseric, king of the Vandals, invaded northern Africa in 428 A.D., he probably didn't declare that his intention was to plunder and pillage. It's no accident that the name of his people has ended up, some 16 centuries later, as an enduring word in our vocabulary, synonymous with thuggery and hooliganism.”
It's interesting to note that some well-connected U.S. corporations are getting rich due to the occupation of Iraq.
And this one, a bit hard to swallow today BUT;
…Fantasy or fact??? 03.Nov.2003
New US Attack About to Happen
“At this rate some 288 warplanes would have passed over Scotland in three days.”
"No logic has yet been presented that an attack on Iraq is necessary for western interests or western security. There is no sign that international terrorism is at all influenced by Saddam Hussein or connected either financially or in terms of human beings. The reasons why the United States feels impelled to invade Iraq have got very little to do with American citizens and has a great deal more to do with the interests of Israel, which is much more threatened by Iraq, and which has much more reason to want an attack on Iraq."
