More on the WMDs fiasco

[hcap]

So did any of youse guys find the WMDs in Syria?? Oh come on now it's been months since the "document dump"

From Juan Cole..
"Remember how Senator Rick Santorum and Congressman Curt Weldon insisted that documents from Iraq be posted so that rightwing bloggers could comb through them and demonstrate that Saddam had WMD and ties to al-Qaeda after all? Well, the documents showed the opposite, including a frantic APB on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when they thought he might have entered Iraq. But worse, some of the documents might have been useful to anyone who really did want to make a nuclear weapon. They've been pulled back down."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/03/AR2006110300019.html

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said yesterday that it shut down a public Web site after complaints from U.N. weapons inspectors that the site included sensitive details about constructing nuclear and chemical weapons. The documents were collected in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion but predate the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Intelligence officials said the documents do not indicate that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when President Bush ordered U.S. troops to take over the country and depose Saddam Hussein.

[hcap]

So luv_
True_
Grando_
Where is them pesky WMDs?_
Maybe all youse guys should turn around and look where da sun don't shine
_

Pete Hoekstra's call to unleash the blogosphere last spring...

" Three years after the war in Iraq began, there is so much information about prewar Iraq that people have yet to see. The Iraqi Survey Group provided some answers, but it left open as many questions.

Sitting deep within a warehouse in Qatar are millions of documents that may shed some light on the issue.

Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte recently delivered meaningful news when he agreed to initiate a process that would declassify the 48,000 boxes of documents and hundreds of hours of taped conversations with Saddam Hussein and his key advisers.

Documents that I have personally reviewed reveal notes about Kuwaiti prisoners of war used as human shields in 2003 and missiles and chemical and biological weapons buried 40 feet below ground. They are not definitive. However, they are enough to raise eyebrows.

I can only speculate on exactly what the rest of the nearly 2 million documents will contain -- perhaps very little new information but potentially a very great amount. The American public should have access to it now.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has indicated that he will post the information on the Internet so the public, the press and academics can read, study and understand it.

The approach carries with it risks, but such risks are minimal. It will enable us to better understand information such as Saddam's links to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and violence against the Iraqi people.


Such material requires the entrepreneurial spirit of academia and others to help us to better understand it. It needs to be posted online so we can unleash the power of the World Wide Web and shine a spotlight on it.

The proposed approach will be a transparent process rather than one mired in secrecy. It will allow us to leverage the Internet to enable a mass examination as opposed to limiting it to a few exclusive elites. What would have once taken years and decades may now be done in real time.

We now only have a pixilated snapshot of Saddam Hussein's regime prior to the war. As more of the information is posted online, we will begin to bring into focus the more complete picture of prewar Iraq that has thus far eluded us.

[Lefty]

So luv_
True_
Grando_
Where is them pesky WMDs?_
Maybe all youse guys should turn around and look where da sun don't shine
_

Pete Hoekstra's call to unleash the blogosphere last spring...

" Three years after the war in Iraq began, there is so much information about prewar Iraq that people have yet to see. The Iraqi Survey Group provided some answers, but it left open as many questions.

Sitting deep within a warehouse in Qatar are millions of documents that may shed some light on the issue.

Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte recently delivered meaningful news when he agreed to initiate a process that would declassify the 48,000 boxes of documents and hundreds of hours of taped conversations with Saddam Hussein and his key advisers.

Documents that I have personally reviewed reveal notes about Kuwaiti prisoners of war used as human shields in 2003 and missiles and chemical and biological weapons buried 40 feet below ground. They are not definitive. However, they are enough to raise eyebrows.

I can only speculate on exactly what the rest of the nearly 2 million documents will contain -- perhaps very little new information but potentially a very great amount. The American public should have access to it now.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has indicated that he will post the information on the Internet so the public, the press and academics can read, study and understand it.

The approach carries with it risks, but such risks are minimal. It will enable us to better understand information such as Saddam's links to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and violence against the Iraqi people.


Such material requires the entrepreneurial spirit of academia and others to help us to better understand it. It needs to be posted online so we can unleash the power of the World Wide Web and shine a spotlight on it.

The proposed approach will be a transparent process rather than one mired in secrecy. It will allow us to leverage the Internet to enable a mass examination as opposed to limiting it to a few exclusive elites. What would have once taken years and decades may now be done in real time.

We now only have a pixilated snapshot of Saddam Hussein's regime prior to the war. As more of the information is posted online, we will begin to bring into focus the more complete picture of prewar Iraq that has thus far eluded us.
hcap, ever hear the term, moot?
Well, the WMD thingy is MOOT
Are you still handicapping last years races?
YAWN

[delayjf]

It's well documented that Libya had stock piles of biological weapons and was working on a nuclear program as well. Wonder where they came from. :confused:

[ljb]

hcap, ever hear the term, moot?
Well, the WMD thingy is MOOT
Are you still handicapping last years races?
YAWN
Lefty,
And all along youse guys were telling us we had to invade Iraq because of the WMD thingy.
Or was it some other "moot" thingy we invaded for? Oil is not moot. :D
Are you still spouting last years talking points ?

[ljb]

It's well documented that Libya had stock piles of biological weapons and was working on a nuclear program as well. Wonder where they came from. :confused:
My guess would be, Pakistan.

[delayjf]

I agree that's a possibility, or from possibly another source. Anyway, better safe than sorry, on to Iran.

LJB

Do you have any proof the US is conficating Iragi oil ? - not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Secretariat]

Hcap,

Speaking of WMD's, our old friend Chalabi is at it again....On UNBELEIVABLE ARTICLE TOMORROW. And we paid this guy millions of taxpayer money!!!

"'NYT' Sunday Preview: Ahmad Chalabi Says, 'The Real Culprit is Wolfowitz'
By E&P Staff

Published: November 03, 2006 9:40 AM ET

NEW YORK So, Ahmad Chalabi, what went wrong in Iraq in the war you helped to sell? “The Americans sold us out,” he tells longtime Baghdad reporter Dexter Filkins in a lengthy cover story in this coming Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, reviewed by E&P.

Chalabi was the Iraqi exile who worked -- via everyone from Paul Wolfowitz to Judith Miller -- to convince America to topple Saddam in 2003 (not that many in the administration needed much convincing).

Now, in an interview in his London home, Chalabi, betraying what Filkins calls “a touch of bitterness,” declares, “The real culprit in all this is Wolfowitz,” the former assistant secretary of defense, whom he still considers a friend. “They chickened out. The Pentagon guys chickened out…The Americans screwed it up.”

But that’s not because they did too little but, rather, too much. Chalabi thinks the U.S. should have exited quickly and turned things over to Iraqis, such as himself and Moktada al-Sadr. “It was a puppet show!" he says referring to the occupation. “The worst of all worlds. We were in charge, and we had no power.”

He adds: “America betrays its friends. It sets them up and betrays them. I’d rather be America’s enemy.”

The massive article is titled "Where Plan 'A' Left Ahmad Chalabi." It ranges from the present day in London – where Chalabi still carries himself “like a monarch” despite the utter rejection by Iraqi voters earlier this year – to Filkins’ travels with him in 2005, including a visit to Iran.

One of the fascinating anecdotes revolves around the May 20,2004 raid by Iraqi and American forces on Chalabi’s Baghdad compound, after the U.S. accused him of giving secrets to the Iranians. “Look, I think they tried to kill him,” Richard Perle, the Pentagon adviser and close Chalabi friend, tells Filkins. “I think the raid on his house was intended to result in violence….It is a miracle that it didn’t result in a massive shootout.”

Filkins returns later to speculation that it was at the behest of the Iranians that Chalabi got the U.S. into the war. Perle refutes this.

What about the WMD propaganda? Chalabi counters views that he was the catalyst, saying that it was Bush officials who “came to us and asked, ‘Can you help us find something on Saddam?’”

He also claims that he warned the Bush people that various Iraqi informants were unreliable, only to hear the Americans say, referring to the source, “This guy is the mother lode.” Chalabi, of all people asks, “Can you believe that on such a basis the United States would go to war?

Chalabi has nothing to say about his leaks to Judith Miller of The New York Times, but Filkins does recall her famous email from 2003 when she boasted that Chalabi had “provided most of the front-apge exclusives on WMD to our paper.”

David Kay, the weapons inspector, weighs in on Wolfowitz: “He was a true believer. He thought he had the evidence. That came from the defectors. They came from Chalabi.”

Filkins concludes: “The gamble failed, a nation imploded and Chalabi never ascended to the throne he so coveted. But in an odd turn of fortune, the throne no longer had anything to offer.”

[Secretariat]

hcap, ever hear the term, moot?
Well, the WMD thingy is MOOT
Are you still handicapping last years races?
YAWN

Lefty,

It's not moot to 3000_ soldiers who lost their lives there and 20000 wounded, and the untold Iraqi civlians killed for Bush's Folly.

So YAWN if you want, and call it moot if you like, but think of those familes who lost loved ones who beleived these bogus claims when you YAWN, and read the Chalabi article to see how the guy informing us about WMD's see's it.

[Tom]

I understand why the terrorists support the dems - tgey have so much in common.
Try wolrdnetdaily - interviews with known terrorists supporting dems - not like NY Times,. these guys are identified, no unnmaed sources.
Sec, Hcap, Ljb, Osama Obama.......the new DNC,

[Secretariat]

I understand why the terrorists support the dems - tgey have so much in common.
Try wolrdnetdaily - interviews with known terrorists supporting dems - not like NY Times,. these guys are identified, no unnmaed sources.
Sec, Hcap, Ljb, Osama Obama.......the new DNC,

Yeah, Tom right. Worldnet is a "Real" source, not like that rag the NY Times.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Lefty]

Lefty,
And all along youse guys were telling us we had to invade Iraq because of the WMD thingy.
Or was it some other "moot" thingy we invaded for? Oil is not moot. :D
Are you still spouting last years talking points ?
lbj, I just knew i'd have to explain this to you. I'm saying it doesn't matter why we went; the fact is WE ARE THERE. Arguing why we went doesn't win the friggin war. This is one war we mustn't vacate. If we do, then I will worry about my kids, grandchildren and great grandchildren. You libs need to realize that to continue your political rant is counter productive. WE MUST WIN, and we all need to pull together to attain this goal.

[Lefty]

Lefty,

It's not moot to 3000_ soldiers who lost their lives there and 20000 wounded, and the untold Iraqi civlians killed for Bush's Folly.

So YAWN if you want, and call it moot if you like, but think of those familes who lost loved ones who beleived these bogus claims when you YAWN, and read the Chalabi article to see how the guy informing us about WMD's see's it.
Those soldiers gave their lives for freedom, ours and the Iraquis and to continue arguing why we're there is counter productive to them and the war. They fear we will vacate this war and all will be for naught. We must win, and guys like you that want to continue with your anti-Bush b.s. are not helping. No wonder they fear as do i, that libs are more about politics and less about solidarity in the face of a proven and dedicated enemy.

[Secretariat]

We must win, and guys like you that want to continue with your anti-Bush b.s. are not helping. No wonder they fear as do i, that libs are more about politics and less about solidarity in the face of a proven and dedicated enemy.

Lefty,

Define what will constitute winning in Iraq.

Then define the acceptable cost we will accept in Iraq. How many deaths and how many wounded and how much more money?

This is not a football game.

[Lefty]

Lefty,

Define what will constitute winning in Iraq.

Then define the acceptable cost we will accept in Iraq. How many deaths and how many wounded and how much more money?

This is not a football game.
That's right, it's not a football game. The world hangs in the balance. WE cannot be discouraged by a cowardly media like we were in Vietnam. We can't be beat militarily, but we can quit and we shouldn't.
Your q is kinda like saying how high is up.
How many times do you hafta hear it or read it...? We cannot leave until the Govt of Iraq can protect itself. We cannot leave Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran. Their control of Iraq and the oil of Iraq is every bit the threat that Hitler was.

[Lefty]

sec, let me ask you the same q you asked me. What constitutes winnung to you? Your q leads me to blve you don't think we can win. Is that true?

[Secretariat]

sec, let me ask you the same q you asked me. What constitutes winnung to you? Your q leads me to blve you don't think we can win. Is that true?

Lefty,

This is what you wrote:

"We cannot leave until the Govt of Iraq can protect itself. We cannot leave Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran. Their control of Iraq and the oil of Iraq is every bit the threat that Hitler was."

Please tell me you're kidding. Hitler had a massive and powerful army with real potential for the development of nuclear WMD's. He had taken over France, and allied with Italy controlled all of Europe except Britain and he was bombing Britain on a regular basis. Iraq could not even take Kuwait. Iraq is paper tiger, please do not compare to the Third Reich. And now we're there to protect their oil?

Now, to get serious. You are basically say that "whatever the cost" - financially, or wounded, or killed, we cannot leave Iraq until the job is done which by your worlds is "until the Govt. of Iraq can protect itself. You have no idea when that will be so you cannot estimate the costs right? Ok.

You asked my costs. OK, out within six months. Tell the IRaqis you've had plenty of time and were withdrawing in a phased withdrawal to get the guy who was reponsbile for the bombing on our soil on 911. Head to Afghanistan and finish the job that should have been done six years ago until the diversion. Work with Pakistan as much as possible, but inform them we ARE going in to get Bin Laden and Zawahari and Omar. Eradicate the poppy crop that was supposed to be done in 2001 and is now blooming.

The costs? Significant. But at least we'd be going after the man in charge. The Iraq war is like invading Serbia to get at Hitler in Berlin. Let's make 911 really mean something, and if guys are going to die, make it for 911 rather than...well whatever GW says we're doing there this week.

[hcap]

Sec, these guys are pathetic.

Chalabi? OMG, another rat deserting the ship. I heard richard perle was also disavowing. My guess is subpena power of the democratic house is making -as THEY say-"FOLKS" nervous.

What always amazes me is how after everything THEY, our wonderful leaders told us is now wrong, the sheep on this board still kiss ass. Lefty is an outstanding example.

It also appears bush refused to accept the reports of David Kay and Charles Duelfer. Publicly, he had no case but evidently he really is floating in neocon lala land...

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/

"The push to throw these documents to the dogs was part of a larger effort to counter waning support for the war. Back in March, Stephen Hayes, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, was one of the most vocal cheerleaders for the documents' release. He recounted how the president was intent on releasing the documents, even over Negroponte's protests. He described a February 16th conference call between the president, the vice-president, Indiana Republican Mike Pence, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, and U.S. Ambassador to IRaq Zalmay Khalilzad (via telephone).

The conference call began with Pence commenting on all the favorable news coverage the release of certain pre-Saddam audio tapes had garned ("Mr. President, the war had its best night on the network news since the war ended.") Hayes then described how the president wanted more pre-war information released:

[President Bush] turned to Hadley and asked for an update. Hadley explained that John Negroponte, Bush's Director of National Intelligence, "owns the documents" and that DNI lawyers were deciding how they might be handled.

Bush extended his arms in exasperation and worried aloud that people who see the documents in 10 years will wonder why they weren't released sooner. "If I knew then what I know now," Bush said in the voice of a war skeptic, "I would have been more supportive of the war."

Bush told Hadley to expedite the release of the Iraq documents. "This stuff ought to be out. Put this stuff out." The president would reiterate this point before the meeting adjourned. And as the briefing ended, he approached Pence, poked a finger in the congressman's chest, and thanked him for raising the issue. When Pence began to restate his view that the documents should be released, Bush put his hand up, as if to say, "I hear you. It will be taken care of."

Pathetic.

[hcap]

Ok, I found perle in all his glory. Did I mention pathetic??

Vanity Fair...

"Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad. I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war. I was in favor of bringing down Saddam. Nobody said, 'Go design the campaign to do that.' I had no responsibility for that."

To our 3 new neocons. Yes you know who you are. How can you explain the vast exodus of bushy former big timers?? Not to mention guys like W Buckley. etc. etc.

[hcap]

More from Vanity Fair

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612?currentPage=2

"Kenneth Adelman, a lifelong neocon activist and Pentagon insider who served on the Defense Policy Board until 2005, wrote a famous op-ed article in The Washington Post in February 2002, arguing: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Now he says, "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

[ljb]

lbj, I just knew i'd have to explain this to you. I'm saying it doesn't matter why we went; the fact is WE ARE THERE. Arguing why we went doesn't win the friggin war. This is one war we mustn't vacate. If we do, then I will worry about my kids, grandchildren and great grandchildren. You libs need to realize that to continue your political rant is counter productive. WE MUST WIN, and we all need to pull together to attain this goal.
Lefty,
It does matter why we went. We went based on lies from this administration and that matters. We have not fought this war properly. If we must win this war, the first thing we have to do is stop fighting a "politically correct" war.
As i said more then once here. The reason for invading Iraq is false and the actions following the invasion have been botched. As this thread shows, the perpetrators of these actions are now jumping ship. They can finally see reality ,how about joining them ?

[Tom]

Yeah, Tom right. Worldnet is a "Real" source, not like that rag the NY Times.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


They identified thier sources.....you going to dispute them?
NYtimes could be making it up - and we KNOW that NY Times has a history of prinitting made up stuff, correct?

So :lol::lol:out yer arse.

[Lefty]

sec, not kidding. Hitler wanted world domination. These Islamic fanatics want world domination. If they rule Iraq and with the added oil they can challenge us big time with more attacks on America and also economically. You better wake up and realize it, and especially your party leaders bewtter wake up and realize it.

lbj, not false just go bk and read and quit the b.s. Clinton said saddam had WMD's, Kerry said if we didn't blve it, not to vote fot him, Saddam had enriched urainium, and you still think Ariana Huffington is the expert in this war, yada yada yada.

[Secretariat]

Ok, I found perle in all his glory. Did I mention pathetic??

Vanity Fair...

"Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad. I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war. I was in favor of bringing down Saddam. Nobody said, 'Go design the campaign to do that.' I had no responsibility for that."

To our 3 new neocons. Yes you know who you are. How can you explain the vast exodus of bushy former big timers?? Not to mention guys like W Buckley. etc. etc.

To see this quote of Perle....whew....it's just so damn frustrating. And now we've got Lefty comparing the Iraqi insurgency to the Third Reich and honestly beleiving it. Obviously, he hasn't thought to look at the amount of deaths that occurred due to the Third Reich in WW 2. All he'd have to do is ask a WW 2 veteran who fought at the Bulge or on Normandy. We're running a frigging police action in Iraq at present with an iraqi government that doesn't have the guts to tell Sadr what to do, and doesn't have the abiltiy to command their armies.

To see Perle say this...and read Chalabi's comments are like rats deserting the ship.

[Tom]

Gee, Sec, maybe WWII would not have as bad had they stood up and stopped hitler early on.

[ljb]

lbj, not false just go bk and read and quit the b.s. Clinton said saddam had WMD's, Kerry said if we didn't blve it, not to vote fot him, Saddam had enriched urainium, and you still think Ariana Huffington is the expert in this war, yada yada yada.
I don't really give a rats ass what you think Clinton did or said. Clinton did not invade Iraq! I am concerned with the current administration and their illegal activities. This includes lying us into an ivasion of Iraq.

[JustRalph]

I don't really give a rats ass what you think Clinton did or said. Clinton did not invade Iraq! I am concerned with the current administration and their illegal activities. This includes lying us into an ivasion of Iraq.

He didn't lie. He said the same shit that Clinton and 8 other countries said. It was bad intel, they bought off on Saddam's boasting and all the other shit. The fact that we probably have the worse intelligence gathering in the world might have something to do with it. If you want to know why, look up Torricelli and what he did to the CIA. He incentivised operatives making things up etc. We can't buy any decent intel. Therefore, we get what we don't pay for..........which is crap.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't really give a rats ass what you think Clinton did or said. Clinton did not invade Iraq!

One of many mistakes made during his administration.

[JustRalph]

One of many mistakes made during his administration.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

He did invade Monica a few times...........he gets kudo's for that. You know, screwing the Teenage Staff..........I wonder where I have heard that before? Didn't we recently have a some kind of news story about that? :lol:

[Lefty]

sec, try to expand your mind and wrap it around 2 concepts:
1. Maybe there wouldn't have been so many deaths if Hitler had been taken on much earlier.
2. Iran and Al Qaeda have the potential to do as much damage as Hitler if they are not stopped in Iraq. The terrorists want everyone to conver to Islam or they will kill us all. They have said as much.

lbj, you don't make much sense when you discount Clinton and lay it all on GW. Hey, just like Ariana!

[46zilzal]

One of many mistakes made during his administration.
amazingly stupid thing to do then AND now

[Lefty]

amazingly stupid thing to do then AND now
Are yo agreeing 46, that Clinton did a stupid thing by not invading Iraq? Since you responded to PA looks like you do. Heh, heh...

[Tom]

Lying US into Iraq?
Uh, you aint US, you is THEM.