Topic awaiting preservation: Tut, tut, tut..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3426703.stm
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=123&art_id=qw1074929943217B262&set_id=1



[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 01-26-2004).]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3428383.stm

[edit]
The accusations by Mr Kay came in an interview published in Britain's Sunday Telegraph newspaper.

Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief

quote:

---

David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

---

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

[This message has been edited by UnknownComic (edited 01-26-2004).]

I had posted this in the Taking Liberties thread earlier 5 minutes after this story broke. I'm glad we opened up this thread because it is more on topic.

Kay Asks Why U.S. Thought Iraq Had WMD

But I do find this guy Kay to be credible. I think he really was looking objectively to see if WMD were to be found in Iraq. It does look like there weren't many there. I personally will always believe there are some remants of material from when the programs were in full operation but there were clearly no stockpiles sitting in the desert.

The article makes it clear that Kay is very concerned about why our intelligence thought they were there. I want to know that too but I think I already know. It is no secret that our intelligence agencies have had some very bad years all through C*****n's dynasty and actually starting before him spanning administrations of both parties. One of the worst things that happened was to believe our electronic surveillance abilties could replace human intelligence, i.e. spies.


. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

It is no secret that our intelligence agencies have had some very bad years all through C*****n's dynasty and actually starting before him spanning administrations of both parties.

---

Clintion actually had one of the best track records with counter terrorism and diplomacy. He increased the amount of preventative intelligence work being done, foiled many terrorist actions, and maintained a low level of panic in the general populace at the time. He had set plans in motion to arrest Osama Bin Ladin and disolve al Quida during his term in office (which were nixed immediately after Bush took office).

The sad thing about this is that they've been saying that they wanted an excuse to declare war on Syria since before they invaded Iraq. This looks like quite a set up they've started, although not surprising.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

Bugs:

quote:

---

It does look like there weren't many there. I personally will always believe there are some remnants of material from when the programs were in full operation but there were clearly no stockpiles sitting in the desert.

---

Hmm.. interesting. 'weren't many?' I understood that there weren't any. Anyway do I detect ( respectfully of course ) a slight shift in your confidence Bugs? ..and instead of hard facts we are now resorting to 'belief' or should I say 'hope' And is the US saying that everything was so perfectly and efficiently despatched and hidden in Syria just an excuse to put another country on their hit list? I mean this guy is about to get invaded and he hides all his useful weapons and hides in a hole? This guy who got snitched on by some someone close.. so why aren't 100's coming forth with info about this apparent exodus of weapons and the location so large that it was picked up on satellite photos.. That sounds like more US Admin constructed madness... (reminds me of the so-called 9/11 chief hijackers passport being found amongst the scorched and crumbled debris of two colossal buildings and two airliner jets.. conveniently with just the edges singed after having been subjected to a 2000 degree furnace?... My 5 year old nephew could write a better script then that.)

Well, they have not found anything.. and they are not supposed to be randomly searching.. they are supposed to know where they are.. they have all that reliable intelligence and satellite imaging..data. and files and files and dossiers.. and spinners... and liars..

I think they are hidden on Bush's ranch.. but I don't have enough qualifications, letters after my name or friends in high places to make you all swallow it.



[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 01-27-2004).]

I wonder if the word about these late declaration have spread in the american medias.

Wasn't it Mr Powell who nagged the UN inspectors 1year ago with his brilliant intelligence services and satellite photos of WMD stockpiles ? I thought the USA knew where to search when they attacked IRAQ. The Bush administration is more and more scary. Will Mr. BUSH suddenly discover that SYRIA is a serious threat to the US citizens, just before the elections, and needs a good kick ?

X, I believe we have to admit a failure in our intelligence. That "we" is not limited to the US.

Iraq did possess chemical and biological weapons at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. We know that. The issue is what happened from that point on. I believe our intelligence did not have a clear picture. I think that is obvious now.

I did believe the reports prior to the war that these weapons would be found. I have already stated in posts shortly after the war that I also believed, though the government never claimed, that we knew exactly where some were and we were going to get in there and get them as soon as we invaded. Clearly I was wrong to believe that. Our intelligence community owes an apology to the president for such inaccurate information.

Please reference my criteria for taking down Hussein before you assume that this problem nullifies the war. I know there are those who would not have gone to war had they known what we know now. If there are enough of those people who feel strongly about this, it will be reflected in November's election. I suspect it will not weigh heavily with the American public, however.

When I say I will always believe they are there, I am quite serious about that. You don't have a full fledged program producing such weaponry and then erase all traces of it in just a few years. I am very interested to find out whether any of these weapons did, in fact, get exported or just what did happen to them. That's the real mystery right now. Also, did Hussein know he didn't have them? Were his generals making him think they still existed? Or did Hussein want his neighbors to continue to think he had them even though he had switched to more potent conventional weaponry like longer range missiles? I think the truth will trickle out over the next several years.

Take, for example, that we never actually knew if the Russians and Chinese were active in Vietnam. I mean we were pretty sure but never had hard proof. But now we know they most certainly were. But look how long it's been since the end of that war.

. . : slicePuzzle

C*****n was a bad thing to the intelligence community, as 'human' intelligence, (AKA Spies) was greatly reduced. CNN and the liberal media would like you to think otherwise, cause he is such the hero and there is so much to love.

Let's dig in the archives, shall we?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/21/103232.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/9/23/201354
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/10/1/101519
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/9/19/95530
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/16/151505.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/11/232727.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/9/13/91253
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/13/215052.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/12/21/95535


And many more

Why are people so blind when it comes to this guy.



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 01-27-2004).]

So ram, you have any sources of "information" that are not run by the republican party? I mean, I'm sure they would love to give C*****n a fair an unbiased portreyal and all...

From the horses mouth, as it were:
http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/firstln/c*****n.html

Increasing technology concerns in intellegence:
http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2000/0221/fcw-cover-02-21-00.asp

"Record budget request" for domestic security funding:
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,34164,00.html

He wanted more warplanes? Sounds like an um, increase to me:
http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_17.html

You're right Bugimus, I'm sure they had WMD too. We did know that for sure because America furnished and funded Saddam during the Regan and then Bush Sr. administrators.


[This message has been edited by MindBender (edited 01-27-2004).]

MindBender,

My statement did not blame Willie alone for the breakdown of our intelligence services. You know that I was no fan of his, but I am not interested in getting into a purely partisan pissing match at this time. Sure, sometimes that is fun but I was trying to make a larger point of what actually happened.

I'm glad to hear you acknowledge that Iraq did possess WMDs. Everyone (UN, US, UK, many other foreign intelligence services, and quite a few ex-Kurds and Iranians) knew he did after the first war. Now I ask you, what do you think happened to them? Blix knew they were there and wanted Hussein to either give them up or prove they were destroyed or transferred. What do you think happened?

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

Why are people so blind when it comes to this guy.

---

That's a good question Ram. As Mindbender said, the big republican 'slam-fest' of c*****n is pretty silly, and the unfettered partisan bias simply ridiculous.

I'm not gonna say he was a hero or anything, but he was a skilled diplomat and far more on top of anti-terrorism measures than the republicans want to give him credit for.

quote:

---

You know that I was no fan of his, but I am not interested in getting into a purely partisan pissing match at this time. Sure, sometimes that is fun but I was trying to make a larger point of what actually happened.

---

I wasn't trying to subvert your thread Bugimus, I was commenting on the myopic nature of the post I directly referred to and supporting my earlier position about the US intellegence efforts.

quote:

---

I'm glad to hear you acknowledge that Iraq did possess WMDs. Everyone (UN, US, UK, many other foreign intelligence services, and quite a few ex-Kurds and Iranians) knew he did after the first war.

---

Hard to be glad about war, no matter the aspect.

quote:

---

Now I ask you, what do you think happened to them? Blix knew they were there and wanted Hussein to either give them up or prove they were destroyed or transferred. What do you think happened?

---

Well, I think 99% of this is media fluff, spin control, and b.s. I wouldn't be surprised if those weapons were still in Iraq. I would neither be surprised if America weren't still involved in their weapons program covertly. It wouldn't make any sense to move them out of the country... if they knew they were losing the war, they would have used them against the US. So it seems to me that there are more factors invovled in the sway of these politics than the media or the politicians would like to admit or would ever want the public to know. America is known for giving money, training, and weapons to anyone and everyone and then declaring war on them when they become inconvenient. The middle east is so factioned, that they very well could be setting themselves up into another "Iran Contra" situation and trying not to get caught. The Israelies and palastinians are happily going about slaughtering with America's blessing and funding right now. Doing all the things that we condemned Huessain for. It's convenient for America right now so it's "okay".

The problem is not what happened to any weapons in Iraq... the problem is that we keep butting in where we don't belong. We keep setting up innocent people for slaughter to line our pockets. The only difference here is that not only are the people of the middle east suffering from this, but the people in America are suffereing because of it too. Not that one mitigates the other, simply pointing out the severity of the issue.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

MB

quote:

---

So ram, you have any sources of "information" that are not run by the republican party? I mean, I'm sure they would love to give C*****n a fair an unbiased portreyal and all...

---

Of course not. Most of the liberal media did nothing but play Clint0n up for 8 years. Since most of you seem to be more to the left, I thought it prudent in my argument to post links from the right. Where or what the truth is, who the hell knows anymore, lol. Somewhere in between I would guess.

I never said I believed everything in the stories I posted, just that they are there, and there is usually a little bit of truth to everything. If you were a judge, would you not want to hear both sides of the story in making your judgment, no matter how different they were? Did you even read any of those, or just see that they talked about something you didn't like and shut them out?

quote:

---

WASHINGTON ? Conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly said Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The anchor of his own show on Fox News said he was sorry he gave the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's weapons program poised an imminent threat, the main reason cited for going to war.

"I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this," O'Reilly said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."

"What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?" asked O'Reilly, who had promised rival ABC last year he would publicly apologize if weapons were not found.

---

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20040210-0550-campaign-bush-oreilly.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

YES!!!! O'Reilly finally admitted that he was wrong about something!!!

*happy dance*

Yep, saw that when he did it.

He's an independent thinker and a stand-up guy. What would make you think he wouldn't? I think it's his style that gets on people's nerves so much. But his style cuts through the normal filibustering you get on other interview programs.

. . : slicePuzzle

What exactly does "filibuster" mean?

To engage in a filibuster, of course

quote:

---

Main Entry: fil·i·bus·ter
Pronunciation: 'fi-l&-"b&s-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Spanish filibustero, literally, freebooter
1 : an irregular military adventurer; specifically : an American engaged in fomenting insurrections in Latin America in the mid-19th century
2 [filibuster] a : the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly b : an instance of this practice

Main Entry: filibuster
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -tered; fil·i·bus·ter·ing /-t(&-)ri[ng]/
intransitive senses
1 : to carry out insurrectionist activities in a foreign country
2 : to engage in a filibuster
transitive senses : to subject to a filibuster

---

Skaarj, what I meant in the context in which I used the word is to describe how guests, particularly lawyers and politicians, will not answer the questions being asked by the interviewers but instead give lengthy responses in an attempt to run out the time. There are a good deal of talk show programs that allow the guests to avoid answering the questions and it drives me crazy because I want to hear the answers but the hosts aren't tough enough to insist. That's one of the things I love about O'Reilly, he gets right in their faces and he doesn't care if they like him because he's going to grill them for information. I don't always agree with him but I love his aggressive style. If you like the easy going style, watch Larry King. He's the king of softball interviewing

. . : slicePuzzle

I personally don't know either of the people you're talking about.

They are both American cable television talk show hosts.

Bill O'Reilly

Larry King

. . : slicePuzzle

for those of you who want to get a good laught at Bill O'Reilly click here

I dunno about you, but i got a good laugh at the guy who wrote that webpage. *shakes his head*


[antique sigs are us]