PDA

View Full Version : National Intelligence Estimate: Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003



Pages : [1] 2

Sertes
12-04-2007, 12:48 PM
The Director of National Intelligence just released an Estimate report (NIE) pertaining the nuclear weapons program in Iran. The office coordinates all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, and its findings now replace the previous (2005) claims.
Two the main findings:

1) NIE judge with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program and that the halt lasted at least several years. NIE is also moderately confident that the nuclear weapons program had not restarted as of mid 2007, and that the halt was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.

2) NIE judge the earliest possible date Iran could be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, and even that is very unlikely. Iran could be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (Bureau of Intelligence and Research judges that it would be unlikely before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.)

You can read the original here:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf?loc=interstitialskip

retiredman
12-04-2007, 01:02 PM
well...that would mean that the Bush administration has been bullshitting us!

now THAT'S a shocker!:lol:

Hagbard Celine
12-04-2007, 01:04 PM
In other words, we need to be talking to Tehran instead of diplomatically snubbing them.

retiredman
12-04-2007, 01:07 PM
In other words, we need to be talking to Tehran instead of diplomatically snubbing them.

we need to be ready and willing to do that to EVERY nation on the planet.

Hagbard Celine
12-04-2007, 01:07 PM
we need to be ready and willing to do that to EVERY nation on the planet.

No-sh*t. Tell that to Dubya.

Mr. P
12-04-2007, 01:09 PM
Link not working for me...

Sertes
12-04-2007, 01:15 PM
Link not working for me...

try this alternative link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/nie-report-iran.html (click on the link HERE in the page)

Nukeman
12-04-2007, 01:48 PM
But, But, Wait how can you halt something you never started in the first place. I thought Tehran said they NEVER had or intended to have a nuclear weapons program.

How is possible to stop something you never supposedly started in the first place???? Just a question.......:coffee:

Monkeybone
12-04-2007, 01:53 PM
maybe they stopped it cus they are finished already! and no they are just enriching to make them stronger...or....or...or....someone else is doing it for them! so then technically it's not them...or...or....they will just buy them straight out from other countries so that way they don't have to waste money on research! :tinfoil:

Gaffer
12-04-2007, 02:17 PM
This is the same agency that said saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Now they are saying iran isn't doing what they thought they were doing. Why do I get the feeling someone is playing politics here. Nothing to see here folks, move along, it's only swamp gas.

Nothing has changed. iran is still the largest supporter of terror organizations in the world. They are still building weapons systems to deliver nuclear war heads. They want to control the ME and establish their caliphate. They are still imprisoning and executing thousands. But just like social security it's nothing to worry about right now. Maybe a few years down the road.

avatar4321
12-04-2007, 02:22 PM
You guys have it all wrong. This means Bush was right. His policies in invading Iraq back in 2003 have convinced Libya to quit their program and now Iran has postponed their program.

President Bush's aggressive pressure policies have been effective.

However, do keep in mind that the report says this is a temporary stopping to the Iranian program. My guess is they will restart it in 2009.

Hagbard Celine
12-04-2007, 02:26 PM
This is the same agency that said saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Now they are saying iran isn't doing what they thought they were doing. Why do I get the feeling someone is playing politics here. Nothing to see here folks, move along, it's only swamp gas.

Nothing has changed. iran is still the largest supporter of terror organizations in the world. They are still building weapons systems to deliver nuclear war heads. They want to control the ME and establish their caliphate. They are still imprisoning and executing thousands. But just like social security it's nothing to worry about right now. Maybe a few years down the road.

Actually, it's our Saudi "brothers" who are the biggest supporters of terrorist organizations.

retiredman
12-04-2007, 02:38 PM
This is the same agency that said saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Now they are saying iran isn't doing what they thought they were doing. Why do I get the feeling someone is playing politics here. Nothing to see here folks, move along, it's only swamp gas.

Nothing has changed. iran is still the largest supporter of terror organizations in the world. They are still building weapons systems to deliver nuclear war heads. They want to control the ME and establish their caliphate. They are still imprisoning and executing thousands. But just like social security it's nothing to worry about right now. Maybe a few years down the road.


this is not "an agency". The NIE is the consensus of all of our country's intelligence gathering organizations.... and, by the way, they ALL work for Bush.

and I don't think that there is any literature to suggest that persian shiites are interested in re-establishing the caliphate, in any case. That is a wahabbist pipedream.

Sertes
12-04-2007, 03:00 PM
But, But, Wait how can you halt something you never started in the first place. I thought Tehran said they NEVER had or intended to have a nuclear weapons program.

How is possible to stop something you never supposedly started in the first place???? Just a question.......:coffee:

Yep, the NIE tell us they STOPPED it in 2003 and it was still stopped in mid 2007 and there's no way it can produce weapon grade uranium until late 2009 even if they resume the program.
Sure, it stopped an ongoing program and so Iran is no virgin, to the same extent it's no nuclear power threatning neighbors as the current administration claims it to be.

Mr. P
12-04-2007, 03:15 PM
well...that would mean that the Bush administration has been bullshitting us!

now THAT'S a shocker!:lol:

Ahhhh well...no. Nice try, pfftttt not.


President Bush was told in August or September that "new information" with Iran's nuclear program could be coming out but the president was only informed last Wednesday that the nuclear weapons program in Iran was halted in 2003.

Hagbard Celine
12-04-2007, 03:25 PM
Ahhhh well...no. Nice try, pfftttt not.

Okay, so...nobody in his administration or in the intelligence community thought it'd be prudent to let him in on this little tidbit sooner?

Mr. P
12-04-2007, 03:30 PM
Okay, so...nobody in his administration or in the intelligence community thought it'd be prudent to let him in on this little tidbit sooner?

Looks that way.

gabosaurus
12-04-2007, 03:54 PM
Just the Bushies lying to us AGAIN. Not a big deal.

Hagbard Celine
12-04-2007, 03:58 PM
Looks that way.

In other words, the Bush administration is inept. Got it :thumb:

April15
12-04-2007, 04:24 PM
In other words, the Bush administration is inept. Got it :thumb:No man! Just like he alters other intelligence this was withheld until now as war fever is waning.

avatar4321
12-04-2007, 06:11 PM
Okay, so...nobody in his administration or in the intelligence community thought it'd be prudent to let him in on this little tidbit sooner?

i doubt they had it verified much sooner.

avatar4321
12-04-2007, 06:13 PM
Just the Bushies lying to us AGAIN. Not a big deal.

seriously, do you know what lying means?

Can you deal with the fact that Bush's aggressive policies have indeed stopped Iran's nuclear program?

If Bush was lying about anything, dont you think he would have hid the report? it doesnt take a rocket sciencist to conclude that.

Seriously, you guys are the chief conspiracy nuts.

retiredman
12-04-2007, 08:37 PM
Ahhhh well...no. Nice try, pfftttt not.

Do you honestly think that if he had asked the DCI if his schtick to the American people about Iran and WWIII was on the level that he wouldn't have been told otherwise?????

retiredman
12-04-2007, 08:39 PM
seriously, do you know what lying means?

Can you deal with the fact that Bush's aggressive policies have indeed stopped Iran's nuclear program?

If Bush was lying about anything, dont you think he would have hid the report? it doesnt take a rocket sciencist to conclude that.

Seriously, you guys are the chief conspiracy nuts.

if by "aggressive policies" you mean invading Iraq, I think that is just an attempt to spitshine a turd.

I think that you, nor I now who all was involved in the diplomatic efforts that causes Iran to rethink its nuclear weapons aspirations.

Mr. P
12-04-2007, 08:48 PM
Do you honestly think that if he had asked the DCI if his schtick to the American people about Iran and WWIII was on the level that he wouldn't have been told otherwise?????

Donno what he was or would have been told...NOR do YOU.

retiredman
12-04-2007, 08:59 PM
Donno what he was or would have been told...NOR do YOU.


I never said I did...I only point out that the President CAN ask questions of the DCI any time he wants.

He doesn't have to wait until the NIE is printed and published to find that stuff out along with everyone else.

Yurt
12-05-2007, 01:19 AM
The Iranian government has admitted they are maintaining a nuclear enrichment program. IAEA reports confirm Iran continues to work on perfecting centrifuge technology that could be used to create highly enriched uranium that could eventually be used in a nuclear weapons program.


They halted, but yet admit they are continue the program of enriching, no wait, "perfecting" the technology that could be used to build nuclear weapons.

You libs need to comprehend what is being said and stop listening to the mouthpieces at your favorite lib watering hole....MSM.

avatar4321
12-05-2007, 01:24 AM
if by "aggressive policies" you mean invading Iraq, I think that is just an attempt to spitshine a turd.

I think that you, nor I now who all was involved in the diplomatic efforts that causes Iran to rethink its nuclear weapons aspirations.

Let's see:

We invaded Iraq in 2003 and were more aggressive with the international pressure on Iran to discontinue their nuclear program.

They discontinued the program in 2003.

i can't imagine why they might have stopped the program.

avatar4321
12-05-2007, 01:25 AM
The Iranian government has admitted they are maintaining a nuclear enrichment program. IAEA reports confirm Iran continues to work on perfecting centrifuge technology that could be used to create highly enriched uranium that could eventually be used in a nuclear weapons program.


They halted, but yet admit they are continue the program of enriching, no wait, "perfecting" the technology that could be used to build nuclear weapons.

You libs need to comprehend what is being said and stop listening to the mouthpieces at your favorite lib watering hole....MSM.

And why do you think they halted it? I think its obvious. They are waiting till Bush is out of office and hoping we elect someone who wont be as aggressive in stopping them.

Yurt
12-05-2007, 01:41 AM
And why do you think they halted it? I think its obvious. They are waiting till Bush is out of office and hoping we elect someone who wont be as aggressive in stopping them.

I don't really believe they "halted" anything. The part I bolded above was from the article. They say halt with one side of their mouth and yet admit they continue to perfect the technology required to build nuclear weapons. This "halting" thing is show only. For all I know, they outwardly stopped pursuing the "weapon" in 2003 because they could not get the technology right to enrich the weapon. I believe they just bragged about a new missile capable of going to Isreal and US interests in the ME.

If they in fact did "halt", I am not sure it was directly because of Bush. Unless Bush was playing some hardball behind the scenes, I don't really recall him publically calling for Iran to halt in 2003.

Sertes
12-05-2007, 02:50 AM
And why do you think they halted it? I think its obvious. They are waiting till Bush is out of office and hoping we elect someone who wont be as aggressive in stopping them.

Question is, would you support the decision to bomb Iran today at midday given that all 16 Intelligence Agencies confirm they stopped their WEAPON nuclear program and IAEA confirmed the peaceful nature of Iranian nuclear program?

Gaffer
12-05-2007, 10:06 AM
Question is, would you support the decision to bomb Iran today at midday given that all 16 Intelligence Agencies confirm they stopped their WEAPON nuclear program and IAEA confirmed the peaceful nature of Iranian nuclear program?

I would bomb iran immediately. But I'm not in charge. Lets see? The same intelligence agencies said saddam had WMD's. He apparently didn't. They also said the iraqi's would welcome the US with open arms. They apparently didn't. Now we are suppose to accept that iran had a change of heart about building nuclear weapons. Yeahsureright.

The IAEA has not confirmed iran is only involved in a peaceful nuke program, they haven't even had access to most of the facilities. And I wouldn't trust anything they have to say anyway. They represent the un and they are headed by a muslim. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could collectively throw them.

retiredman
12-05-2007, 10:14 AM
And why do you think they halted it? I think its obvious. They are waiting till Bush is out of office and hoping we elect someone who wont be as aggressive in stopping them.

please tell me how the fuck you KNOW what the Iranian government is or is not waiting for?

Hagbard Celine
12-05-2007, 10:16 AM
I would bomb iran immediately. But I'm not in charge. Lets see? The same intelligence agencies said saddam had WMD's. He apparently didn't. They also said the iraqi's would welcome the US with open arms. They apparently didn't. Now we are suppose to accept that iran had a change of heart about building nuclear weapons. Yeahsureright.

The IAEA has not confirmed iran is only involved in a peaceful nuke program, they haven't even had access to most of the facilities. And I wouldn't trust anything they have to say anyway. They represent the un and they are headed by a muslim. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could collectively throw them.

No. The intelligence said Saddam most likely did not have weapons and the quip about Iraqis' open arms was a bs political maneuver by Cheney, who knew exactly what would happen between the Shi'a/Sunni rivalry if Saddam was taken out. The Bush Administration built their case for war almost solely on the testimony of codename "curveball" who was known to be unreliable within the intelligence community.
I'm glad you're not in charge. Bombing the country with the most powerful military in the Middle East would be a f*cking disaster. Even worse than what Iraq is now.

jimnyc
12-05-2007, 10:21 AM
Let me see if I have this straight:

Intelligence agencies assess Iraq. Assessment turns out to be wrong. It's all Bush's fault. Years of talk about how incompetent the agencies are, and that we went to war on failed intelligence.

Intelligence agencies assess Iran. Their assessment goes against Bush's statements. Agencies are now great know-it-all's and again Bush is wrong.

You guys crack me up!

Hagbard Celine
12-05-2007, 10:25 AM
Let me see if I have this straight:

Intelligence agencies assess Iraq. Assessment turns out to be wrong. It's all Bush's fault. Years of talk about how incompetent the agencies are, and that we went to war on failed intelligence.

Intelligence agencies assess Iran. Their assessment goes against Bush's statements. Agencies are now great know-it-all's and again Bush is wrong.

You guys crack me up!

Bush acted almost solely on Curveball's testimony in building his case for war. A man who was a known liar. It's fact. I don't know what else to tell you. Sorry to shatter your illusions :dunno:

jimnyc
12-05-2007, 10:30 AM
Bush acted almost solely on Curveball's testimony in building his case for war. A man who was a known liar. It's fact. I don't know what else to tell you. Sorry to shatter your illusions :dunno:

I have no illusions. I believe the latest assessment. I just find it funny that some choose to judge these assessments based on how it makes our president look. I can produce tons of documentation from these agencies, and democrats, giving testimony on Saddam and Iraq. Every last bit of it is used to make Bush look bad, condemn these agencies and use it in any way possible to bash Bush. But the minute they release something that goes against what the Bush administration has stated, people jump for joy, and not because it's good news that Iran might not be building nukes, but rather because it goes against this administration.

retiredman
12-05-2007, 11:16 AM
I have no illusions. I believe the latest assessment. I just find it funny that some choose to judge these assessments based on how it makes our president look. I can produce tons of documentation from these agencies, and democrats, giving testimony on Saddam and Iraq. Every last bit of it is used to make Bush look bad, condemn these agencies and use it in any way possible to bash Bush. But the minute they release something that goes against what the Bush administration has stated, people jump for joy, and not because it's good news that Iran might not be building nukes, but rather because it goes against this administration.


in my case, I jump for joy for both reasons:laugh2:

Sir Evil
12-05-2007, 12:50 PM
Let me see if I have this straight:

Intelligence agencies assess Iraq. Assessment turns out to be wrong. It's all Bush's fault. Years of talk about how incompetent the agencies are, and that we went to war on failed intelligence.

Intelligence agencies assess Iran. Their assessment goes against Bush's statements. Agencies are now great know-it-all's and again Bush is wrong.

You guys crack me up!

Yes. that would be correct. People like homofrommaine use this type of info anyway possible to make their so called unbiased opinions.:rolleyes:

Once Bush is out of office, and years later when Iran develops a nuke these same idiots will still be calling it the fault of the Bush admin.

Put a brain in a shithead, and you get all kinds of good stuff like that.

glockmail
12-05-2007, 01:20 PM
please tell me how the fuck you KNOW what the Iranian government is or is not waiting for? Because we know the lessons of history. The Iranians pulled all kinds of shit during the Carter Administration, and backed off immeadiately with Reagan.

Sertes
12-05-2007, 01:20 PM
Yes. that would be correct. People like homofrommaine use this type of info anyway possible to make their so called unbiased opinions.:rolleyes:

Once Bush is out of office, and years later when Iran develops a nuke these same idiots will still be calling it the fault of the Bush admin.

Put a brain in a shithead, and you get all kinds of good stuff like that.

You talk about bias???

If someone is responsable only of his term, how do you value GWB and Clinton regarding 9/11?

Because you cannot have it both ways, Bush supporter.

glockmail
12-05-2007, 01:21 PM
Let me see if I have this straight:

Intelligence agencies assess Iraq. Assessment turns out to be wrong. It's all Bush's fault. Years of talk about how incompetent the agencies are, and that we went to war on failed intelligence.

Intelligence agencies assess Iran. Their assessment goes against Bush's statements. Agencies are now great know-it-all's and again Bush is wrong.

You guys crack me up!

Exactly right. :pee:

retiredman
12-05-2007, 01:29 PM
Because we know the lessons of history. The Iranians pulled all kinds of shit during the Carter Administration, and backed off immeadiately with Reagan.


so that is how you KNOW? LOL

Do you also play last week's winning lottery numbers because you KNOW they're winners?

glockmail
12-05-2007, 01:33 PM
so that is how you KNOW? LOL

Do you also play last week's winning lottery numbers because you KNOW they're winners? Equating mathematical statistics with Liberal vs Conservative foreign policy? I must say you are reaching very low into the barrel with this argument. Be careful when you bend over that one of your family members is not present.

retiredman
12-05-2007, 01:37 PM
Equating mathematical statistics with Liberal vs Conservative foreign policy? I must say you are reaching very low into the barrel with this argument. Be careful when you bend over that one of your family members is not present.


attacking my family members?

how droll.

My point was: for you to suggest that being aware of Iran's actions a quarter of a century allows you to KNOW not only "what" they are doing today and tomorrow, but "why" is ridiculous.

kinda like you.

glockmail
12-05-2007, 01:40 PM
attacking my family members?

how droll.

My point was: for you to suggest that being aware of Iran's actions a quarter of a century allows you to KNOW not only "what" they are doing today and tomorrow, but "why" is ridiculous.

kinda like you. Me? Stoop as low as you and attack your family? Kindly point out where this was done.

Your point is nonsense. Liberal foreign policy today is the same as it was 25 years ago. We also have the same players in Iran so the results would be expected to be the same.

MtnBiker
12-05-2007, 01:44 PM
Me? Stoop as low as you and attack your family? Kindly point out where this was done.



You did suggest he be careful when bending over if a family member was present.

Really, I know you all can do better.

glockmail
12-05-2007, 01:47 PM
You did suggest he be careful when bending over if a family member was present.

Really, I know you all can do better.

I was suggesting that the family member would be offended by the inevitable "plumber's bum". ;)

retiredman
12-05-2007, 03:33 PM
Your point is nonsense. Liberal foreign policy today is the same as it was 25 years ago. We also have the same players in Iran so the results would be expected to be the same.

expectations often do not mesh with realizations

retiredman
12-05-2007, 03:35 PM
I was suggesting that the family member would be offended by the inevitable "plumber's bum". ;)

and the suggestion I made on USMB that got your panties in a bunch was only that you had spanked your child. really ;)

we both obviously misinterpreted the other's comments, I guess!

glockmail
12-05-2007, 05:20 PM
expectations often do not mesh with realizations More often than not, they do. :lame2:

glockmail
12-05-2007, 05:21 PM
and the suggestion I made on USMB that got your panties in a bunch was only that you had spanked your child. really ;)

we both obviously misinterpreted the other's comments, I guess!

Perhaps you should clarify what you said to me earlier at USMB. This time be real clear; hold nothing back. BE A MAN! :finger3:

Sir Evil
12-05-2007, 05:47 PM
You talk about bias???

If someone is responsable only of his term, how do you value GWB and Clinton regarding 9/11?

Because you cannot have it both ways, Bush supporter.

First make an effort at a sensible post penis breath!

Because of my response I am automatically a Bush supporter? See, even a dumb greasy whop like yourself who does'nt even reside in this country has a biased opinion, hell you are pretty sure Bush is personally responsible for 911.

Now take yourself a shower, gets some of that stench of your head, go back and read what I posted, and then try once again to equate something of a reply you dumb fuckin' troll.

Gaffer
12-05-2007, 06:28 PM
No. The intelligence said Saddam most likely did not have weapons and the quip about Iraqis' open arms was a bs political maneuver by Cheney, who knew exactly what would happen between the Shi'a/Sunni rivalry if Saddam was taken out. The Bush Administration built their case for war almost solely on the testimony of codename "curveball" who was known to be unreliable within the intelligence community.
I'm glad you're not in charge. Bombing the country with the most powerful military in the Middle East would be a f*cking disaster. Even worse than what Iraq is now.

You twisting things again. The intelligence stated at the time that saddam DID have WMD's and it was one of the things Bush made his decision on. Now you want to turn it around and say they said something else. As to what Bush based his decisions on you can only speculate. Your not Bush and you weren't there.

why is a war with anyone always going to be a disaster to liberals. The first gulf war was suppose to be a disaster as saddam had the 4th largest army in the world. Afghanistan was suppose to be a disaster as the country was impossible to conquor and hold. Taking out saddam was going to be a disaster because he was so tough and still had a large army. Now its iran with the most powerful military in the ME. Three carrier groups and four combat divisions would bring iran to its knees in three weeks.

retiredman
12-05-2007, 06:33 PM
Perhaps you should clarify what you said to me earlier at USMB. This time be real clear; hold nothing back. BE A MAN! :finger3:

I think I said something about after a day on the slopes your son would say, "oooh daddy, stop that hurts" Spanking can be painful, I am sure you realize. You do seem like a "spare the rod spoil the child" sort of guy, you know.

And now that I understand the plumber's butt connotation of YOUR comment, that means we're all square!:laugh2:

Kathianne
12-05-2007, 06:35 PM
Why not take a look at what the report actually says? At the site you can find a link to the report. It seems to me that if the argument against the administration is that it is 'warmongering' then those arguing against it should be able to say realistically what is and isn't a danger. :

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4723


...In the end even this newly leaked NIE notes Iran is not really dropping its dreams of the atomic bomb:


The estimate does say that Iran’s ultimate goal is still to develop the capability to produce nuclear weapon.



The new report concludes that if Iran were to end the freeze of its weapons program, it would still be at least two years before Tehran would have enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. But it says it is still “very unlikely” Iran could produce enough of the material by then.

Instead, the N.I.E. concludes it is more likely Iran could have a bomb by the early part to the middle of the next decade. The report states that the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this goal before 2013, “because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.”

Well, this is good news if true. Sadly it is intelligence and therefore fraught with potential errors. The question is whether this situation can be verified by independent inspectors! That will be the real test. I hope Iran has come to its senses. And my guess is there may be a lot of classified aspects of this we will not know for decades to come. It seems awfully convenient that we get a big “never mind” as Iran is working to get out from under all that international pressure!

For those interested here is the actual report (well caveated). H/T Kevin Drum.

Major Addendum - Must Read!: There is a reason people outside of government should realize that they cannot simply glance at a government report and pretend to grasp it. Government jargon is as complex and nuanced as that in any scientific field. It takes years to truly master. So why am I not surprised all the amateurs are misreading the report? Here is what is said about the three levels of confidence in the reported findings:


High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A “high confidence” judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.

• Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.

• Low confidence generally means that the information’s credibility and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or that we have significant concerns or problems with the sources.

Read these VERY CAREFULLY to understand the conclusions. They basically fall into (1) Highly probably but small chance it could be wrong; (2) Who the hell knows, its possible and some hints are there; and (3) Not likely. With only three levels this is all you get. So anything in the Medium Confidence category is really a guess.

Now look at the report’s conclusions and it has two flavors. First is whether Iran stepped down from developing nuclear weapons in 2003 (after we invaded Iraq [hint, hint]):


We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program;



• We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.

• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years.

OK, we spooked them by taking out Saddam so damn fast they stood back for a while from building their bombs. But are they STILL suspended in their activities (given Ahmedinejad’s and the UN’s IAEA’s recent statements this is an important question!). Apparently we do not know!


We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

The NIE is quite clear. We know they stopped, we have no intel on whether they are still stopped or not. The reporting that Iran has stopped as of now is not accurate. Here is the scary part - Iran is still processing fuel! They don’t NEED to process fuel for Nuclear Energy. Russia has offered to SELL THEM fuel if they return the spent fuel so it cannot be used to make weapons. Note this when reading this next finding:


C. We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating them.

And there are more indicators Iran has simply decided to proceed with technology that is dual use - civilian and military - as a way to hide their intentions. Note that the NIE concludes with confidence Iran wants nuclear weapons. And one way to proceed is to do so under the cover of dual use programs:


D. Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.

The fact is this is not the slam-dunk assessment it is reported to be. The centrifuges are the key. With Russia’s offer on the table to provide civil energy ready fuel the centrifuges are not needed for Iran’s civil energy needs. But the NIE is confident this unnecessary effort is continuing? Why is it continuing? Folks, they just don’t know for sure and that is the bottom line. They know it was stopped in 2003, but they don’t know if it has been restarted under dual use cover.

Posted by AJStrata on Monday, December 3rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm.


Lots more here (http://counterterrorismblog.org/) for those truly curious about what is going on with Iran.

glockmail
12-05-2007, 06:51 PM
I think I said something about after a day on the slopes your son would say, "oooh daddy, stop that hurts" Spanking can be painful, I am sure you realize. ....

I knew that you weren't man enough to admit what you inferred.:pee:

bullypulpit
12-05-2007, 10:29 PM
What's not be discussed so much is, "What did Bush know...?" and "When did he know it?".

Steven Hadley has gone on record stating that Bush was briefed on this NIE as early as August...Yet Chimpy and Unca' Dick kept right on ramping up the bellicose rhetoric towards Iran. Hadley's statement flatly contradicts Bush's claim that he was only briefed on the NIE on Wednesday. So either Bush or Hadley are lying. My money's on Bush.

Yurt
12-05-2007, 11:10 PM
Why not take a look at what the report actually says? At the site you can find a link to the report. It seems to me that if the argument against the administration is that it is 'warmongering' then those arguing against it should be able to say realistically what is and isn't a danger. :

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4723



Lots more here (http://counterterrorismblog.org/) for those truly curious about what is going on with Iran.

Exactly Kathianne. People are not carefully reading what is actually being said, their blinders are on and the wool is over the blinders. From Sertes article and my post earlier:



The Iranian government has admitted they are maintaining a nuclear enrichment program. IAEA reports confirm Iran continues to work on perfecting centrifuge technology that could be used to create highly enriched uranium that could eventually be used in a nuclear weapons program.

Matches perfectly with your indept look at the report:


The NIE is quite clear. We know they stopped, we have no intel on whether they are still stopped or not. The reporting that Iran has stopped as of now is not accurate. Here is the scary part - Iran is still processing fuel! They don’t NEED to process fuel for Nuclear Energy. Russia has offered to SELL THEM fuel if they return the spent fuel so it cannot be used to make weapons. Note this when reading this next finding:

Which is then bolstered further by this line of the report:


Note that the NIE concludes with confidence Iran wants nuclear weapons. And one way to proceed is to do so under the cover of dual use programs:


I don't think they have halted anything. Smoke and mirrors and more muslim truthiness...

Sertes
12-06-2007, 03:06 AM
First make an effort at a sensible post penis breath!

Because of my response I am automatically a Bush supporter? See, even a dumb greasy whop like yourself who does'nt even reside in this country has a biased opinion, hell you are pretty sure Bush is personally responsible for 911.

Now take yourself a shower, gets some of that stench of your head, go back and read what I posted, and then try once again to equate something of a reply you dumb fuckin' troll.

No please, answer me:

You wrote:

Once Bush is out of office, and years later when Iran develops a nuke these same idiots will still be calling it the fault of the Bush admin.

Just like some people told 9/11 was Clinton fault.
Both are wrong, of course.

So, I was just wondering if you believe Bush was responsable for 9/11 failed intervention, or you just defend Bush no matter what

Sir Evil
12-06-2007, 08:11 AM
Just like some people told 9/11 was Clinton fault.
Both are wrong, of course.

So, I was just wondering if you believe Bush was responsable for 9/11 failed intervention, or you just defend Bush no matter what

Read the post you imbecile, my post was in reference to those who blame the Bush administration regardless of the situtation, this is not a conspiracy thread although it's obviousy that you feel Bush created the whole 911 scenario.

Now, sit back, remove the foil from your head, and take this in.

The intelligence that was found faulty on Iraq, but now expected to be perfect on Iran is good for those who can use that argument against the Bush administration.

Can you get the idea there? So when the Bush admin uses this intelligence it's the fact that he himself doctored the reports, when intelligence that comes out on Iran does'nt seem to be what the administration was saying it is somehow now a gaurantee to be correct. So who is it that defends who at all costs, who is it that is biased here? wake up dickwad!!

retiredman
12-06-2007, 10:15 AM
I knew that you weren't man enough to admit what you inferred.:pee:

like your "plumber's butt "inference""?:lol:

pussy

glockmail
12-06-2007, 10:40 AM
like your "plumber's butt "inference""?:lol:

pussy

I learned a long time ago that when dealing with a liar, lie. :fu:

Hagbard Celine
12-06-2007, 10:54 AM
You twisting things again. The intelligence stated at the time that saddam DID have WMD's and it was one of the things Bush made his decision on. Now you want to turn it around and say they said something else. As to what Bush based his decisions on you can only speculate. Your not Bush and you weren't there.

why is a war with anyone always going to be a disaster to liberals. The first gulf war was suppose to be a disaster as saddam had the 4th largest army in the world. Afghanistan was suppose to be a disaster as the country was impossible to conquor and hold. Taking out saddam was going to be a disaster because he was so tough and still had a large army. Now its iran with the most powerful military in the ME. Three carrier groups and four combat divisions would bring iran to its knees in three weeks.

The Iraq war IS a disaster. Or have you not been paying attention to the news for the last five years? Iraq is in a state of civil war. There are death squads roaming the streets performing ethnic cleansing. Over 3000 US troops are dead. WTF are you talking about? You're delusional if you think it's all rosebuds over there dude.
And I'm not twisting things. The "intelligence" the Bush administration acted upon was the testimony of a former Iraqi chemical engineer known as "Curveball." This guy was known to be unreliable by multiple intel agencies around the world, including ours. The intel that Bush and Congress got came with a warning label. But he took a chance and acted on it and now here we are. F*cked. And toying with an Iran war too. When you throw in the fact that we have perhaps the most inept Secretary of State in history bumbling around over there, it's enough to make a guy schitzophrenic. I want to throw up my hands and say f*ck it sometimes, but I'll still be there on election day to cast my stupid, ineffective vote and play my part in the charade that "we the people" still actually have a voice in any of this sh*t.

retiredman
12-06-2007, 11:02 AM
I learned a long time ago that when dealing with a liar, lie. :fu:


so, when you make inferences about my family, that is perfectly OK, but if I do, I am somehow less than manly?

what color is the sky in your world?

you're too loony to be believed!

glockmail
12-06-2007, 11:07 AM
The Iraq war IS a disaster. Or have you not been paying attention to the news for the last five years? Iraq is in a state of civil war. There are death squads roaming the streets performing ethnic cleansing. Over 3000 US troops are dead. WTF are you talking about? You're delusional if you think it's all rosebuds over there dude.
And I'm not twisting things. The "intelligence" the Bush administration acted upon was the testimony of a former Iraqi chemical engineer known as "Curveball." This guy was known to be unreliable by multiple intel agencies around the world, including ours. The intel that Bush and Congress got came with a warning label. But he took a chance and acted on it and now here we are. F*cked. And toying with an Iran war too. When you throw in the fact that we have perhaps the most inept Secretary of State in history bumbling around over there, it's enough to make a guy schitzophrenic. I want to throw up my hands and say f*ck it sometimes, but I'll still be there on election day to cast my stupid, ineffective vote and play my part in the charade that "we the people" still actually have a voice in any of this sh*t. Bullshit. If we let Saddam fester over there, we'd eventually have lost 30,000, 300,000, or 3,000,000 Americans. we owe a debt of gratitude for the soldies who paid the price of our freedom not to have to deal with that in the future.

Things have turned around in Iraq. Even the NYT has accepted that. We'll eventually have a permanent presence there, and an ally, to help keep the lid on the bad guys throughout the middle east. Just like we did in Europe, and in Japan.

The future will prove that liberals, as usual, were wrong and GWB was right.

glockmail
12-06-2007, 11:14 AM
so, when you make inferences about my family, that is perfectly OK, but if I do, I am somehow less than manly?

what color is the sky in your world?

you're too loony to be believed!

You lost several political arguments with me, so you resorted to personal insults. When that didn't faze me you made sexual innuendos about my young son. That got my attention. Now you and your entire family are free for me to ridicule in any way, down to the level that you have stooped.

You opened the door.

I have given you several opportunities to admit your guilt, repent and ask forgiveness. If you do the door will then be closed. You have proven many times that you are not man enough to do this.

Hagbard Celine
12-06-2007, 11:16 AM
Bullshit. If we let Saddam fester over there, we'd eventually have lost 30,000, 300,000, or 3,000,000 Americans. we owe a debt of gratitude for the soldies who paid the price of our freedom not to have to deal with that in the future.

Things have turned around in Iraq. Even the NYT has accepted that. We'll eventually have a permanent presence there, and an ally, to help keep the lid on the bad guys throughout the middle east. Just like we did in Europe, and in Japan.

The future will prove that liberals, as usual, were wrong and GWB was right.

What? That's horsesh*t. Saddam was not a threat to us. He had no hand in 9/11. He didn't even have any weapons. He was old and probably would have died within the next ten years. You're right about us having a permanent presence over there--NOW, but that was nevere the plan--atleast that's what they told us. Originally, Cheney said this war would be over in six weeks. Then it turned into months, then years. Now estimates are indefinite. If these guys had run a business the way they've run this war, it'd be bankrupted by now. Oh wait, Bush did run a few businesses into the ground before he was president. It's surprising nobody saw this coming. OH WAIT.
History is going to show that GWB was inept, unqualified and dangerous.

retiredman
12-06-2007, 11:21 AM
When republicans continue to press this Iraq will be our ally in the middle east line, I wonder what they are smoking. Anyone who thinks that the shiite majority in Iraq is going to do anything other than align itself with the shiites to the east, is silly....

family, clan, tribe, sect.

Israeli supporting Christians from halfway around the world don't fall into that heirarchy of loyalty.

glockmail
12-06-2007, 11:26 AM
What? That's horsesh*t. Saddam was not a threat to us. He had no hand in 9/11. He didn't even have any weapons. He was old and probably would have died within the next ten years. You're right about us having a permanent presence over there--NOW, but that was nevere the plan--atleast that's what they told us. Originally, Cheney said this war would be over in six weeks. Then it turned into months, then years. Now estimates are indefinite. If these guys had run a business the way they've run this war, it'd be bankrupted by now. Oh wait, Bush did run a few businesses into the ground before he was president. It's surprising nobody saw this coming. OH WAIT.
History is going to show that GWB was inept, unqualified and dangerous.

Bullshit. Saddam tried to assasinate Bush 41. He had weapons (sent them to Syria, and if you don't realize that you're a fool). He also was supporting terrorists in his country.

Saddam was the biggests, baddest of the mid-east chumps. He also had the loudest mouth, and ran it often. When you're the big guy being harrassed by a half-dozen gang members, you grab the biggest one by the throat and beat the shit out of him, hoping the others will then run scared. It's a simple tactic that works more often than not, and in this case appears to ahve worked yet again.

You didn't realize that we'd have a permanent presence? No one told you that? Imagine that. If you'd paid attention in history, 20th century American history, you'd see that is what we do. We go over there, break their stuff, kill their leaders, then build back their country and show them how to be civilized. It wasn't a surprise to me and shouldn't be for anyone with an IQ over 90.

glockmail
12-06-2007, 11:27 AM
When republicans continue to press this Iraq will be our ally in the middle east line, I wonder what they are smoking. Anyone who thinks that the shiite majority in Iraq is going to do anything other than align itself with the shiites to the east, is silly....

family, clan, tribe, sect.

Israeli supporting Christians from halfway around the world don't fall into that heirarchy of loyalty.


We've been through this argument before, shithead. You lost last time what makes you think this time will be any different?

retiredman
12-06-2007, 11:31 AM
We've been through this argument before, shithead. You lost last time what makes you think this time will be any different?

I have never lost an argument to you...the only place you win them is deep inside your own deluded mind.

family, clan, tribe, sect.

where do anglo saxon, israeli supporting Christians fall in that heiracrchy?

glockmail
12-06-2007, 11:33 AM
I have never lost an argument to you...the only place you win them is deep inside your own deluded mind.

family, clan, tribe, sect.

where do anglo saxon, israeli supporting Christians fall in that heiracrchy?
You've lost them many times, douchebag. That's why you resorted to insulting me with sexual innuendos about my young son.
:finger3:

retiredman
12-06-2007, 11:36 AM
You've lost them many times, douchebag. That's why you resorted to insulting me with sexual innuendos about my young son.
:finger3:

Sexual innuendoes? I was just talking about spanking (Mr. Plumber's Butt).... and the reason I tossed that reference in was not because I was losing, but just to piss you off...see how well it worked? now, quit dodging and answer the question:

family, clan, tribe, sect.

where do anglo-saxon, israeli supporting Christians fall in that heiracrchy of loyalty?

Hagbard Celine
12-06-2007, 11:37 AM
Bullshit. Saddam tried to assasinate Bush 41. He had weapons (sent them to Syria, and if you don't realize that you're a fool). He also was supporting terrorists in his country.

Saddam was the biggests, baddest of the mid-east chumps. He also had the loudest mouth, and ran it often. When you're the big guy being harrassed by a half-dozen gang members, you grab the biggest one by the throat and beat the shit out of him, hoping the others will then run scared. It's a simple tactic that works more often than not, and in this case appears to ahve worked yet again.

You didn't realize that we'd have a permanent presence? No one told you that? Imagine that. If you'd paid attention in history, 20th century American history, you'd see that is what we do. We go over there, break their stuff, kill their leaders, then build back their country and show them how to be civilized. It wasn't a surprise to me and shouldn't be for anyone with an IQ over 90.

No way. This war was billed as Gulf War part deux. It was never about imperialism. Atleast publicly. When they sold this turd to the American public, they said we'd be in and out. That was before they disbanded the Iraqi military, forgot to make a plan for post invasion security and put our boys to work policing the day-to-day business in Baghdad.

retiredman
12-06-2007, 11:45 AM
Bullshit. Saddam tried to assasinate Bush 41. He had weapons (sent them to Syria, and if you don't realize that you're a fool). He also was supporting terrorists in his country.

Saddam was the biggests, baddest of the mid-east chumps. He also had the loudest mouth, and ran it often. When you're the big guy being harrassed by a half-dozen gang members, you grab the biggest one by the throat and beat the shit out of him, hoping the others will then run scared. It's a simple tactic that works more often than not, and in this case appears to ahve worked yet again.

1. AH yes...the old "spirited the WMD's off to Syria line.... debunked by American intelligence community years ago.... not surprising that glock the hack would keep hawking it.

2. Odd, isn't it, that months BEFORE 9/11, Bush's own secretary of state admitted that Saddam was pretty much a paper tiger and incapable of projecting force outside his own borders. Colin Powell didn't think Saddam was so big and bad then!

glockmail
12-06-2007, 11:50 AM
Sexual innuendoes? I was just talking about spanking (Mr. Plumber's Butt).... and the reason I tossed that reference in was not because I was losing, but just to piss you off...see how well it worked? now, quit dodging and answer the question:

family, clan, tribe, sect.

where do anglo-saxon, israeli supporting Christians fall in that heiracrchy of loyalty?

You ain't fooling anybody. Most peolpe here are smart enough to realize, and have experienced, that you insult people when you have been beat. In my case I didn't take the bait, then beat you so bad you had to stoop even lower.

After you admit what you did, man-up and repent, then perhaps we can have meaningful pollitical discussions. Until then you can just, as you so elloquently put it, "fuck off and pound sand".:finger3:

glockmail
12-06-2007, 11:54 AM
No way. This war was billed as Gulf War part deux. It was never about imperialism. Atleast publicly. When they sold this turd to the American public, they said we'd be in and out. That was before they disbanded the Iraqi military, forgot to make a plan for post invasion security and put our boys to work policing the day-to-day business in Baghdad. WOW. You realy didn't pay attention in US History 101. Imperialism? Or was the text book "The People's History of the United States"? If so I blame your teacher or prof.

I don't recalll anyone saying that we'd be "in and out". Only that the main war would be short. In fact, it was much shorter than predicted.

glockmail
12-06-2007, 12:02 PM
1. AH yes...the old "spirited the WMD's off to Syria line.... debunked by American intelligence community years ago.... not surprising that glock the hack would keep hawking it.

2. Odd, isn't it, that months BEFORE 9/11, Bush's own secretary of state admitted that Saddam was pretty much a paper tiger and incapable of projecting force outside his own borders. Colin Powell didn't think Saddam was so big and bad then!

1. BULLSHIT. More reports with maybe/ maybe not CYA language.
2. Sounds like something The Big Guy would say just before he punched The Bad Guy in the nose.

retiredman
12-06-2007, 12:48 PM
You ain't fooling anybody. Most peolpe here are smart enough to realize, and have experienced, that you insult people when you have been beat. In my case I didn't take the bait, then beat you so bad you had to stoop even lower.

After you admit what you did, man-up and repent, then perhaps we can have meaningful pollitical discussions. Until then you can just, as you so elloquently put it, "fuck off and pound sand".:finger3:


man up and admit that your plumber's butt inference was bullshit.

I'll wait:pee:

glockmail
12-06-2007, 12:53 PM
man up and admit that your plumber's butt inference was bullshit.

I'll wait:pee:

You took the first punch below the belt, so you have thoe obligation to go first. I have been waiting nearly a year.:pee:

retiredman
12-06-2007, 12:54 PM
1. BULLSHIT. More reports with maybe/ maybe not CYA language.
2. Sounds like something The Big Guy would say just before he punched The Bad Guy in the nose.

1. Official reports that state there is no credible evidence that WMD's were, in fact, moved to syria, yet you state it as if it were fact! LOL

2. nice dodge. Long BEFORE 9/11, Colin Powell clearly and unambiguously stated that Saddam was not a threat to us OR his neighbors...so your portrayal of Saddam as the biggest baddest guy in the middle east is bullshit, and you know it.

retiredman
12-06-2007, 12:56 PM
You took the first punch below the belt, so you have thoe obligation to go first. I have been waiting nearly a year.:pee:

I have no obligation to do anything. Your complaining about something that you, yourself have done to me pretty much makes your indignation somewhat moot, doesn't it? :lol:

glockmail
12-06-2007, 12:57 PM
1. Official reports that state there is no credible evidence that WMD's were, in fact, moved to syria, yet you state it as if it were fact! LOL

2. nice dodge. Long BEFORE 9/11, Colin Powell clearly and unambiguously stated that Saddam was not a threat to us OR his neighbors...so your portrayal of Saddam as the biggest baddest guy in the middle east is bullshit, and you know it.

1. Can't argue without a link.
2. Does not discount the point that you responded to at all.

glockmail
12-06-2007, 01:00 PM
[1]I have no obligation to do anything. [2]Your complaining about something that you, yourself have done to me pretty much makes your indignation somewhat moot, doesn't it? :lol: 1. You can take my offer and shove it up your ass if that's what you like.
2. Post 63.

retiredman
12-06-2007, 01:03 PM
1. Can't argue without a link.
2. Does not discount the point that you responded to at all.

1. the Iraq Study Group's findings have been posted often. I won't glog up bandwidth by doing so yet again.

2. of course it does. You claimed he was the biggest baddest guy in the middle east at the time. that is clearly bullshit. Powell called him a paper tiger unable to project power outside his own borders...hardly a big badass.

retiredman
12-06-2007, 01:05 PM
1. You can take my offer and shove it up your ass if that's what you like.
2. Post 63.


what "offer" is that?

glockmail
12-06-2007, 01:10 PM
1. the Iraq Study Group's findings have been posted often. I won't glog up bandwidth by doing so yet again.

2. of course it does. You claimed he was the biggest baddest guy in the middle east at the time. that is clearly bullshit. Powell called him a paper tiger unable to project power outside his own borders...hardly a big badass.

1. Piss poor excuse, lazy. Meanwhile you clog the internet with the rest of your bloviating.
2. Again, post 63 is not discounted. Its a common tactic to tell someone that they are useless as tits on a bull, just before slamming them.

glockmail
12-06-2007, 01:11 PM
what "offer" is that? Post 67. :pee:

retiredman
12-06-2007, 01:15 PM
odd...that "offer" doesn't seem to mention any concurrent repentance on your part.

seems sort of "one way" to me.

I am certainly not interested in any deals such as that!

retiredman
12-06-2007, 01:17 PM
1. Piss poor excuse, lazy. Meanwhile you clog the internet with the rest of your bloviating.
2. Again, post 63 is not discounted. Its a common tactic to tell someone that they are useless as tits on a bull, just before slamming them.

1. do you mean to tell me you haven't seen the ISG report posted numerous times?

2. so are you suggesting that team Bush WAS, in fact, working from the PNAC playbook from day one of their administration and was planning to start a war with Iraq long before 9/11 ever happened?

glockmail
12-06-2007, 01:20 PM
odd...that "offer" doesn't seem to mention any concurrent repentance on your part.

seems sort of "one way" to me.

I am certainly not interested in any deals such as that!
I'm not going to argue about what "close the door" means, with a dim-a-wit as you. Instead I'll be more explicit.

1. You publically, here and now, acknowledge what you said and what you meant by it.
2. You graciously apologize, promise never to do it again, and ask for my forgiveness.

After 1 and 2 happens, I will do the same.

glockmail
12-06-2007, 01:23 PM
1. do you mean to tell me you haven't seen the ISG report posted numerous times?

2. so are you suggesting that team Bush WAS, in fact, working from the PNAC playbook from day one of their administration and was planning to start a war with Iraq long before 9/11 ever happened?

1. If it was, it wouldn't be difficult for you to find.
2. Not quite. Every taunt doen't end up with a punch.

retiredman
12-06-2007, 01:26 PM
I'm not going to argue about what "close the door" means, with a dim-a-wit as you. Instead I'll be more explicit.

1. You publically, here and now, acknowledge what you said and what you meant by it.
2. You graciously apologize, promise never to do it again, and ask for my forgiveness.

After 1 and 2 happens, I will do the same.

On USMB, I inferred that you had sexually abused your own son. That was inappropriate of me. I will not do it again. I hope you will forgive my indiscretion.

glockmail
12-06-2007, 04:18 PM
On USMB, I inferred that you had sexually abused your own son. That was inappropriate of me. I will not do it again. I hope you will forgive my indiscretion.

Lookie here, it took nearly a year, but maineman finally admitted what he did!

I, glockmail, graciously accept your apology and offer my own:

Here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=163926&postcount=44) I was inferring that one of your family members would sexually abuse you. I will not do it again. I hope you will forgive my indiscretion.

Kathianne
12-06-2007, 06:56 PM
Lookie here, it took nearly a year, but maineman finally admitted what he did!

I, glockmail, graciously accept your apology and offer my own:

Here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=163926&postcount=44) I was inferring that one of your family members would sexually abuse you. I will not do it again. I hope you will forgive my indiscretion.

If this holds, for both of you, I will be so happy! I'll :dance:

manu1959
12-06-2007, 07:24 PM
If this holds, for both of you, I will be so happy! I'll :dance:

maybe we should send them to the middle east to negotiate peace....

bullypulpit
12-06-2007, 07:33 PM
Great! Now, can we get back on topic?

What did Bush know? When did he know it?

Both National Security Adviser, Steven Hadley, and Lying Sack of Cute, Dana Perrino, have gone on record as saying Bush was briefed on these NIE findings as early as August.

Reports state that the report, and its conclusions was ready to go to press nearly a year ago, but Darth Cheney delayed its release until this particularly inconvenient, at least to the administration, conclusion was removed.

So the time-line for administration knowledge of the report's conclusion is a little as four months, up to a year. All the while the Bush administration continued its increasingly bellicose rhetoric against Iran, culminating in Bush's WW III comments of October 17th.

Whatever credibility the Administration might have had left with the international community regarding Iran is now gone...Burned away like the fog before the rising sun. After the debacle that is Iraq and now the Bush administration's causus belli being shown to be less than credible (I'm being generous), any attempt by the Administration to fan the flames of fear regarding Iran will be ignored...Much like the boy who cried "Wolf!"

jimnyc
12-06-2007, 07:40 PM
That was inappropriate of me. I will not do it again. I hope you will forgive my indiscretion.


I, glockmail, graciously accept your apology and offer my own:

I will not do it again. I hope you will forgive my indiscretion.

Good job, guys! It's easy to fight one another but not as easy to offer apologies. Kudos! :clap:

Said1
12-06-2007, 07:41 PM
Lookie here, it took nearly a year, but maineman finally admitted what he did!

I, glockmail, graciously accept your apology and offer my own:

Here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=163926&postcount=44) I was inferring that one of your family members would sexually abuse you. I will not do it again. I hope you will forgive my indiscretion.

What, no hug?




Sorry, Bully!

Kathianne
12-06-2007, 07:42 PM
What, no hug?




Sorry, Bully!

Let's not push it, they're both Alpha males. ;)

Yurt
12-06-2007, 09:18 PM
As was pointed out in post 59, that Iran has halted is BS and thus this thread's presumption is BS

:)

bullypulpit
12-07-2007, 05:38 AM
As was pointed out in post 59, that Iran has halted is BS and thus this thread's presumption is BS

:)

Left out of that particular blog was this:

<blockquote>"The IAEA says the uranium being produced is only fuel grade (enriched to 4%)..." - <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2212071,00.html>Guardian unlimited</a></blockquote>

And, there's this from the IAEA:

<blockquote>"IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei received with great interest the new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate about Iran´s nuclear program which concludes that there has been no on-going nuclear weapons program in Iran since the fall of 2003. He notes in particular that the Estimate tallies with the Agency´s consistent statements over the last few years that, although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the Agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran." - <a href=http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200722.html>IAEA Press Release, 12/04/07</a></blockquote>

The rhetoric of the Bush administration shifted subtly since at least August from certainty that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program to claims that Iran was seeking the "knowledge" needed to build nuclear weapons. From this alone it is patently obvious that the administration was trying to get ahead of the damage the release of the NIE was going to do to their continued aggressive stance towards Iran.

The ongoing ass-covering by the Bush administration on this issue shows quite clearly that the emperor has no clothes. It would seem, from the point of view shared by you and your fellow travelers, that public nudity is now in vogue.

For a complete timeline of IAEA activities in Iran you can go <a href=http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/iran_timeline4.shtml>HERE</a>

Psychoblues
12-07-2007, 06:06 AM
16 national defense intelligence agencies say you are full of shit, yurt.



As was pointed out in post 59, that Iran has halted is BS and thus this thread's presumption is BS

:)

Please share with us your more educated observations, OK?

bullypulpit
12-07-2007, 08:58 AM
16 national defense intelligence agencies say you are full of shit, yurt.




Please share with us your more educated observations, OK?

And the neo-con looneys like Norman Podhoretz and John Bolton are claiming the NIE was deliberately skewed by those 16 intelligence agencies to undermine the President. Basically, they are accusing the US intelligence services of subborning treason. What UTTER bullshit.

Sir Evil
12-07-2007, 10:58 AM
And the neo-con looneys like Norman Podhoretz and John Bolton are claiming the NIE was deliberately skewed by those 16 intelligence agencies to undermine the President. Basically, they are accusing the US intelligence services of subborning treason. What UTTER bullshit.

Funny how the leftist loonies across the aisle were doing the same exact thing about the intelligence on Iraq. Amazing how things fit ones argument. :rolleyes:

bullypulpit
12-07-2007, 02:45 PM
Funny how the leftist loonies across the aisle were doing the same exact thing about the intelligence on Iraq. Amazing how things fit ones argument. :rolleyes:

Turns out they were right, but it wasn't the intelligence services. It was the BUsh administration "...fixing the intelligence around the policy...". :rolleyes:

Sir Evil
12-07-2007, 03:14 PM
Turns out they were right, but it wasn't the intelligence services. It was the BUsh administration "...fixing the intelligence around the policy...". :rolleyes:

According to who Bullybullshit? I take it you have concrete evidence of this or is this just the leftist loonies assumption hard at work again? Seriously, if there was good unrefutable evidence of this would there not have been something done about it other than insipid idiots such as yourself jumping up and down like grade school kids everytime you hear something out there that can be useful to take a shot at the administration? I've read the rumors before myself yet have'nt found the smoking gun about the smoking gun.....

bullypulpit
12-07-2007, 03:44 PM
According to who Bullybullshit? I take it you have concrete evidence of this or is this just the leftist loonies assumption hard at work again? Seriously, if there was good unrefutable evidence of this would there not have been something done about it other than insipid idiots such as yourself jumping up and down like grade school kids everytime you hear something out there that can be useful to take a shot at the administration? I've read the rumors before myself yet have'nt found the smoking gun about the smoking gun.....

My...my...You are testy. The truth hurts, doesn't it. As for proof, the Downing Street Memos provide it. I'll provide more later, as I'm at work now.

Sir Evil
12-07-2007, 03:48 PM
My...my...You are testy. The truth hurts, doesn't it. As for proof, the Downing Street Memos provide it. I'll provide more later, as I'm at work now.

:laugh2:
The downing street memos? Outfuckingstadning sir, there we have all that is needed to proceed with impeachment. Oh, have those impeachment proceeding started yet with all the solid evidence?

Yurt
12-07-2007, 07:53 PM
16 national defense intelligence agencies say you are full of shit, yurt.




Please share with us your more educated observations, OK?

I did, go read post 59, I even said that. Its real easy, even for you. :)

Sertes
12-08-2007, 05:32 AM
I did, go read post 59, I even said that. Its real easy, even for you. :)

I read the original, and the real findings of NIE are highlighted in post 1.

Did you read the original, or you base your assumption on a random website that pinpoints some selected phrases to push its own agenda while dismissing the true findings of NIE?

The original is linked in post 1.

Kathianne
12-08-2007, 05:51 AM
I read the original, and the real findings of NIE are highlighted in post 1.

Did you read the original, or you base your assumption on a random website that pinpoints some selected phrases to push its own agenda while dismissing the true findings of NIE?

The original is linked in post 1.

Your 'highlights' are no different than what you are referring to as 'random website'. The highlights of those posts were also quoting other direct graphs from the original NIE report.

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 07:39 AM
Did you read the original, or you base your assumption on a random website that pinpoints some selected phrases to push its own agenda while dismissing the true findings of NIE?


:laugh2::laugh2:

Kind of like those websites where you find your so called solid 911 info? imbecile!.........

Sertes
12-08-2007, 05:05 PM
:laugh2::laugh2:

Kind of like those websites where you find your so called solid 911 info? imbecile!.........

You can call names, but you cannot address the facts, so please, don't carry here discussion you fled from (where was Dick Cheney at 9:30??)

Sertes
12-08-2007, 05:10 PM
Your 'highlights' are no different than what you are referring to as 'random website'. The highlights of those posts were also quoting other direct graphs from the original NIE report.

Sure, but I'm here to discuss, I read the original and reported their conclusions.
The random websites has read it througly, reported selected phrases, and built an opposite version from it.

If you read the original you'll see who's right and who's wrong. Maybe it's me, but you must quote the original, not a random website.

Then maybe you'll want to google for the IAEA study original and read it. Or just read their conclusions. You'll see that we really didn't needed NIE, we knew it all a couple of months ago, from IAEA. But now we have the confirmation.

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 05:11 PM
You can call names, but you cannot address the facts. That is enough.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Alright then, get around to those facts, and we will address them. Facts that is, not speculation from some conspiracy websites you dumb fucking cannoli....

Sertes
12-08-2007, 05:16 PM
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Alright then, get around to those facts, and we will address them. Facts that is, not speculation from some conspiracy websites you dumb fucking cannoli....

??

I linked the ORIGINAL NIE and reported their CONCLUSIONS.

What are you talking about, exactly?

Kathianne
12-08-2007, 05:22 PM
Sure, but I'm here to discuss, I read the original and reported their conclusions.
The random websites has read it througly, reported selected phrases, and built an opposite version from it.

If you read the original you'll see who's right and who's wrong. Maybe it's me, but you must quote the original, not a random website.

Then maybe you'll want to google for the IAEA study original and read it. Or just read their conclusions. You'll see that we really didn't needed NIE, we knew it all a couple of months ago, from IAEA. But now we have the confirmation.

No, you reported 2 of the conclusions, which fit how you wished the report to be. Doubtless, that is also what the writers of the report, (not necessarily the agencies that data gathered), also wanted to highlight. What you failed to mention, but I brought forward were some caveats you wanted those who wouldn't read to skip.

Yes, I read the report, I've posted on it before regarding the 'notices' given as far as 'confidence levels' being ignored. BTW, you might wish to check the word, 'random.' I wasn't using 'random' websites.

You're also misquoting what the IAEA has said, but you knew that.

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 05:22 PM
??

I linked the ORIGINAL NIE and reported their CONCLUSIONS.

What are you talking about, exactly?

:slap:

You quoted what I said when I mentioned your hard 911 facts in equation to you calling out someone else on pushing a agenda without facts. So I quote, you quote, I quote again but now you are lost.

parli inglese molto? :D

Kathianne
12-08-2007, 05:26 PM
Sure, but I'm here to discuss, I read the original and reported their conclusions.
The random websites has read it througly, reported selected phrases, and built an opposite version from it.

If you read the original you'll see who's right and who's wrong. Maybe it's me, but you must quote the original, not a random website.

Then maybe you'll want to google for the IAEA study original and read it. Or just read their conclusions. You'll see that we really didn't needed NIE, we knew it all a couple of months ago, from IAEA. But now we have the confirmation.

Having read through this idiotic post again, the quotes within the posts, you 'know' where it's indented! Were quotes from that report. Also note, there was the direct to the site, which I believe was bolded.

Sertes
12-08-2007, 05:29 PM
No, you reported 2 of the conclusions, which fit how you wished the report to be. Doubtless, that is also what the writers of the report, (not necessarily the agencies that data gathered), also wanted to highlight. What you failed to mention, but I brought forward were some caveats you wanted those who wouldn't read to skip.

Yes, I read the report, I've posted on it before regarding the 'notices' given as far as 'confidence levels' being ignored. BTW, you might wish to check the word, 'random.' I wasn't using 'random' websites.

You're also misquoting what the IAEA has said, but you knew that.

No.
1) IAEA confirmed the peaceful nature of Iranian nuclear program
2) NIE confirmed Iranian nuclear weapon stopped in 2003, it was still stopped at last known intel (mid 2007) and that even if they restarted it after mid 2007 they would have not enough material for a weapon until late 2009 (more reasonably until 2013, Bureou of Research tell us).

Facts, Kathianne.

Sertes
12-08-2007, 05:32 PM
:slap:

You quoted what I said when I mentioned your hard 911 facts in equation to you calling out someone else on pushing a agenda without facts. So I quote, you quote, I quote again but now you are lost.

parli inglese molto? :D

And you keep addressing the messenger rather than the message in a desperate attempt of denial. You fled from 9/11 discussion when asked like everyone else where was Dick Cheney at 9:30, and you'll flee from this discussion too, faced by NIE and IAEA conclusions.

Se preferisci parliamo italiano, così (magari) qualcosa la capisci.

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 05:36 PM
No.
1) IAEA confirmed the peaceful nature of Iranian nuclear program
2) NIE confirmed Iranian nuclear weapon stopped in 2003, it was still stopped at last known intel (mid 2007) and that even if they restarted it after mid 2007 they would have not enough material for a weapon until late 2009 (more reasonably until 2013, Bureou of Research tell us).

Facts, Kathianne.

Holy cannoli! Iran confirmed peaceful at what? You fucking morons are making conclusions on intel from 2003. Let us know now that Iran is enriching uranium what intel will give the future as to what they do with it, can ya do that oh mighty cannoli? I mean if you have some sort of documents that prove that those Iranians have no other ambitions with the uranium please provide that for us. Hey, if you feel safe knowing they are now in the process of enriching uranium, and think they are a trustworthy bunch when their leader speaks of the obliteration of other countries that great, you greasy whops are closer to them anyway. Go away American hater.....

Kathianne
12-08-2007, 05:37 PM
No.
1) IAEA confirmed the peaceful nature of Iranian nuclear program
2) NIE confirmed Iranian nuclear weapon stopped in 2003, it was still stopped at last known intel (mid 2007) and that even if they restarted it after mid 2007 they would have not enough material for a weapon until late 2009 (more reasonably until 2013, Bureou of Research tell us).

Facts, Kathianne.

That is so much bullshit. The 'peaceful' stuff is in reaction to the NIE report, which is being spun just as you are now. Here is what was reported prior to the report, from Mohamed ElBaradei. If the August report was 'final' then why the hell would he say the following, less than 2 weeks ago?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7106796.stm


UN uncertainty over nuclear Iran
Iran's track record of hiding nuclear activities means the UN cannot be sure about what Iran is doing now, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog has said.

Mohamed ElBaradei was speaking as the IAEA's governing board met in Vienna.

Last week, he said Iran had been more open about its past, but still enriched uranium in defiance of the UN.

Western countries are seeking further sanctions fearing Iran's programme is not peaceful. Iran says it co-operates and there is no need for sanctions.

'Especially crucial'

Mr ElBaradei told the meeting the IAEA was "unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.

...

The US and its European allies who are permanent members of the UN Security Council - France and Britain - fear Tehran is enriching uranium in order to build nuclear weapons, and are pushing for a third round of UN sanctions.

Russia and China, the other two permanent members of the Security Council, are reluctant to pursue sanctions, saying further negotiations are needed....

Sertes
12-08-2007, 05:38 PM
Having read through this idiotic post again, the quotes within the posts, you 'know' where it's indented! Were quotes from that report. Also note, there was the direct to the site, which I believe was bolded.

Yes, propaganda is the art of telling selected truths (not all of them, not the main ones) to make people reach the desired conclusion

You wrote that Iran has still centrifuges: true, they're needed to enrich nuclear fuel for civil use

You wrote that they didn't needed that, as Russia offered to sell them nuclear fuel. Sure, Iran wants energy independence. If they wanted to buy fuel they could buy back all the oil they export and that they cannot refine.

You reported a lot of easy thinking, but it appears you didn't do it by yourself, you simply followed the propaganda trail.

Then now you're faced with the real conclusions of NIE report and cannot get around them.

Kathianne
12-08-2007, 05:42 PM
Yes, propaganda is the art of telling selected truths (not all of them, not the main ones) to make people reach the desired conclusion

You wrote that Iran has still centrifuges: true, they're needed to enrich nuclear fuel for civil use

You wrote that they didn't needed that, as Russia offered to sell them nuclear fuel. Sure, Iran wants energy independence. If they wanted to buy fuel they could buy back all the oil they export and that they cannot refine.

You reported a lot of easy thinking, but it appears you didn't do it by yourself, you simply followed the propaganda trail.

Then now you're faced with the real conclusions of NIE report and cannot get around them.
I'm not Jimnyc, I don't have his patience for crap. I took me a bit to remember the 9/11 crap, thanks SE. You have an agenda you want to sell, by all means, go for it. I enjoy actual debate, you however are not an honest broker.

Sertes
12-08-2007, 05:44 PM
That is so much bullshit. The 'peaceful' stuff is in reaction to the NIE report, which is being spun just as you are now. Here is what was reported prior to the report, from Mohamed ElBaradei. If the August report was 'final' then why the hell would he say the following, less than 2 weeks ago?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7106796.stm

While you keep pushing biased news I go to the originals again: IAEA website!



Statement by IAEA Director General on New U.S. Intelligence Estimate on Iran

4 December 2007 | IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei received with great interest the new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate about Iran´s nuclear program which concludes that there has been no on-going nuclear weapons program in Iran since the fall of 2003. He notes in particular that the Estimate tallies with the Agency´s consistent statements over the last few years that, although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the Agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran.

Links: http://www.iaea.org/
Click the second blue bold link FROM THEIR HOMEPAGE and you'll come here:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200722.html


Sorry for the harsh wakeup.

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 05:45 PM
That is so much bullshit. [/url]

Expecting more from a 911 wingnut theorist?

Sertes
12-08-2007, 05:48 PM
Expecting more from a 911 wingnut theorist?

I'm also a muslim communist black gay hairy mafious italian!

Still, NIE talks for itself. Can you debate the topic at hand? If you want to discuss 9/11, let's go on the appropriate forum, I still wait for you to return.

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 05:58 PM
I'm also a muslim communist black gay hairy mafious italian!

Still, NIE talks for itself. Can you debate the topic at hand? If you want to discuss 9/11, let's go on the appropriate forum, I still wait for you to return.

I kind of already had that figured out, wasn't too hard consider most of italy are direct descendents of africans anyway, and the whole anti-american attitude gave away the muslim thing long ago. The conspiracy part has to be chalked up to being a pure crack pot, or crack pipe that you hit too often.

So what exactly is the NIE telling you?

bullypulpit
12-08-2007, 06:56 PM
:laugh2:
The downing street memos? Outfuckingstadning sir, there we have all that is needed to proceed with impeachment. Oh, have those impeachment proceeding started yet with all the solid evidence?

Let's start with this...



<blockquote>Weapons of Mass Destruction. The weapons have still not been found. Nader emphasized, “Until the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was our government’s anti-communist ally in the Middle East. We also used him to keep Iran at bay. In so doing, in the 1980s under Reagan and the first Bush, corporations were licensed by the Department of Commerce to export the materials for chemical and biological weapons that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney later accused him of having.” Those weapons were destroyed after the Gulf War. President Bush’s favorite chief weapons inspector, David Kay, after returning from Iraq and leading a large team of inspectors and spending nearly half a billion dollars told the president “We were wrong.” See: David Kay testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee, 2004-01-28.

<a href=http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/23/60-minutes-cia-official-reveals-bush-cheney-rice-were-personally-told-iraq-had-no-wmd-in-fall-2002/>Tyler Drumheller</a>, the former chief of the CIA’s Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq’s foreign minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program.

Iraq Ties to Al Qaeda. The White House made this claim even though the CIA and FBI repeatedly told the Administration that there was no tie between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. They were mortal enemies — one secular, the other fundamentalist.

Saddam Hussein was a Threat to the United States. In fact, Saddam was a tottering dictator, with an antiquated, fractured army of low morale and with Kurdish enemies in Northern Iraq and Shiite adversaries in the South of Iraq. He did not even control the air space over most of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was a Threat to his Neighbors. In fact, Iraq was surrounded by countries with far superior military forces. Turkey, Iran and Israel were all capable of obliterating any aggressive move by the Iraqi dictator.

The Liberation of the Iraqi People. There are brutal dictators throughout the world, many supported over the years by Washington, whose people need “liberation” from their leaders. This is not a persuasive argument since for Iraq, it’s about oil. In fact, the occupation of Iraq by the United States is a magnet for increasing violence, anarchy and insurrection. - <a href=http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqlies.html#FALSEHOODS>Chimpy's WMD "mis-statements"</a></blockquote>

All linked and referenced for your easy verification from multiple souces

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 07:09 PM
Let's start with this...



<blockquote>Weapons of Mass Destruction.


Ahh fuck, the whole "WMD" thing again? When are you people going to attack anything other than that? I think the Bush admin. has already stated that the intelligence was faulty regarding the WMD's yet you bafoons think you have a smoking gun of your own that is actually leading somewhere.

Listen Bully, take your whole mindprod.com argument to a lawyer at once, you have the administration dead in the water now, I see nothin less than impeachment now. :rolleyes:


So this is the definitive proof of the "fixing of the intelligence" ? Get a grip junior, all the facts that you and your cohorts have created over the years, and this administration is still here, going to be till' the end as well. Good news though, soon you will be able to create new facts as to why it's still the Bush admins. fault for all future problems.....

bullypulpit
12-08-2007, 07:32 PM
Ahh fuck, the whole "WMD" thing again? When are you people going to attack anything other than that? I think the Bush admin. has already stated that the intelligence was faulty regarding the WMD's yet you bafoons think you have a smoking gun of your own that is actually leading somewhere.

Listen Bully, take your whole mindprod.com argument to a lawyer at once, you have the administration dead in the water now, I see nothin less than impeachment now. :rolleyes:


So this is the definitive proof of the "fixing of the intelligence" ? Get a grip junior, all the facts that you and your cohorts have created over the years, and this administration is still here, going to be till' the end as well. Good news though, soon you will be able to create new facts as to why it's still the Bush admins. fault for all future problems.....

Just like y'all keep blaimg Goat-Boy and the Peanut Farmer for our current straights...Right?

The faulty intel came, not from any of the intelligence agencies, but from the office Paul Wolfowitz set up at the Pentagon. The carreer intelligence analysts knew the intel was shady, but the Bush administration didn't want to hear that. The only difference between the NIE on Iran and the one on Iraq before the war is that the real report went public before Bush, Cheney and the rest of the merry band could launch another illegal and unjustified war, this time against Iran.

The facts are there, and there's nothing to spin or fabricate. They lied. Get over it.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 07:34 PM
I, for one, am perfectly OK with Dubya being the poster child for GOP ineptitude and corruption right up until the next election. I don't want him going anywhere. And just like Dubya did in 2000 when he ran against Clinton and not Gore by talking about bringing decency back to the oval office, the democrats can - and to some extent certainly should - run against Bush instead of your candidate by talking about bringing honesty and intelligence back to the oval office. The people may have voted for him because he was the kind of guy that they would like to have a beer with, but they now clearly realize that he really is numb as a pounded thumb and in way over his head in terms of the intellectual challenges that face the CinC.

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 07:40 PM
I, for one, am perfectly OK with Dubya being the poster child for GOP ineptitude and corruption right up until the next election. I don't want him going anywhere. And just like Dubya did in 2000 when he ran against Clinton and not Gore by talking about bringing decency back to the oval office, the democrats can - and to some extent certainly should - run against Bush instead of your candidate by talking about bringing honesty and intelligence back to the oval office. The people may have voted for him because he was the kind of guy that they would like to have a beer with, but they now clearly realize that he really is numb as a pounded thumb and in way over his head in terms of the intellectual challenges that face the CinC.

I see a real opportunity for third party then I cause I don't see an intellectual in either batch.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 07:41 PM
one does not need to be a rocket scientist to be a MAJOR upgrade!

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 07:43 PM
Just like y'all keep blaimg Goat-Boy and the Peanut Farmer for our current straights...Right?
Not my style weezer, I really have'nt much to say either way about them, nor have I. Well maybe in reference to some liberal hogwash but not of true opinion.


The faulty intel came, not from any of the intelligence agencies, but from the office Paul Wolfowitz set up at the Pentagon. The carreer intelligence analysts knew the intel was shady, but the Bush administration didn't want to hear that. The only difference between the NIE on Iran and the one on Iraq before the war is that the real report went public before Bush, Cheney and the rest of the merry band could launch another illegal and unjustified war, this time against Iran.

The facts are there, and there's nothing to spin or fabricate. They lied. Get over it.

Yeah could be but again if factual there would probably be a whole lot more made about, and hell maybe even a little better source for you to quote. Fact is that the whole WMD intelligence was far from needed to invade Iraq, hang your hat on it as much as you would like but bottom line it was not needed.

Furthermore if Bush and cohorts were able to fool the world with Iraq, why not hop too it as soon as Iran was a problem, and head off the NIE report?

Well call it what you like Bully but the resolutions were not fulfilled by Iraq, and just because other countries turned a blind eye to the reality of it you feel that we should of as well, very admirable of you. Had those other countries had the kahunas to enforce the resolutions they passed would it even make a difference? Probably not being Bush said there were WMD's. :rolleyes:

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 07:45 PM
I, for one, am perfectly OK with Dubya being the poster child for GOP ineptitude and corruption right up until the next election.

And you should be, I mean we all know that the dems are a mere image of perfection. Yeah, have a nice cup of shut the fuck up while you are at it.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 07:46 PM
Not my style weezer, I really have'nt much to say either way about them, nor have I. Well maybe in reference to some liberal hogwash but not of true opinion.


Yeah could be but again if factual there would probably be a whole lot more made about, and hell maybe even a little better source for you to quote. Fact is that the whole WMD intelligence was far from needed to invade Iraq, hang your hat on it as much as you would like but bottom line it was not needed.

Furthermore if Bush and cohorts were able to fool the world with Iraq, why not hop too it as soon as Iran was a problem, and head off the NIE report?

Well call it what you like Bully but the resolutions were not fulfilled by Iraq, and just because other countries turned a blind eye to the reality of it you feel that we should of as well, very admirable of you. Had those other countries had the kahunas to enforce the resolutions they passed would it even make a difference? Probably not being Bush said there were WMD's. :rolleyes:

the rest of the sundry invasion rationales were meaningless if the American people had not been convinced that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 and had the weaponry to do us even further harm.

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 07:48 PM
one does not need to be a rocket scientist to be a MAJOR upgrade!

no worries there --LMAO I'll settle for someone with more common sense than a third grader. :laugh2:

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 07:52 PM
the rest of the sundry invasion rationales were meaningless if the American people had not been convinced that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 and had the weaponry to do us even further harm.

Meaningless? yeah I guess so, and is indeed why your UN is the irrelevant body it is today. You are exactly the kind that makes such statements, and exactly the kind that have'nt the backbone to enforce them. Tell me, what were the purposes of the resolutions then? Just kind of buying time in hopes of actualy diplomacy taking place while the rest of the crooked world were lining there pockets as well?

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:00 PM
Meaningless? yeah I guess so, and is indeed why your UN is the irrelevant body it is today. You are exactly the kind that makes such statements, and exactly the kind that have'nt the backbone to enforce them. Tell me, what were the purposes of the resolutions then? Just kind of buying time in hopes of actualy diplomacy taking place while the rest of the crooked world were lining there pockets as well?

they were meaningless in terms of garnering the public support necessary for such an unprompted unilateral commencement of a war. Without WMD's and without the believed 9/11 connection, America would not have allowed Bush to start the war in Iraq, IMHO.

And if violating UN sanctions were grounds for America starting wars, we should have gone to war against Israel decades ago

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:07 PM
they were meaningless in terms of garnering the public support necessary for such an unprompted unilateral commencement of a war. Without WMD's and without the believed 9/11 connection, America would not have allowed Bush to start the war in Iraq, IMHO.



America DIDN'T "allow" any war to start. It was a collaboration by the executive and legislative branches of our government.

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 08:09 PM
they were meaningless in terms of garnering the public support necessary for such an unprompted unilateral commencement of a war. Without WMD's and without the believed 9/11 connection, America would not have allowed Bush to start the war in Iraq, IMHO.

And if violating UN sanctions were grounds for America starting wars, we should have gone to war against Israel decades ago

That a pile of dookie! Again had the other leaders fulfilled their parts in the resolutions they passed there would of been no reason for unilateral action.

So first we were wrong with unilateral action but then you say America would not of allowed it, who's calling the shots in your world? Are we calling the shots ourselves or are we seeking world support first?

Get over it, no matter how much you cry about it the war happened, as much as your self righteous opinions say otherwise not a damn thing is going to change at the moment. WMD's may of been the last call to rid the world of Bush but keep crying that river as it didn't, and wont work.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:11 PM
America DIDN'T "allow" any war to start. It was a collaboration by the executive and legislative branches of our government.


do you honestly think, that if Americans had been vehemently opposed to Bush's plan to go to war against Iraq, that right before the congressional elections, congress would have voted to authorize his use of force to do so?

really?

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:13 PM
That a pile of dookie! Again had the other leaders fulfilled their parts in the resolutions they passed there would of been no reason for unilateral action.

So first we were wrong with unilateral action but then you say America would not of allowed it, who's calling the shots in your world? Are we calling the shots ourselves or are we seeking world support first?

Get over it, no matter how much you cry about it the war happened, as much as your self righteous opinions say otherwise not a damn thing is going to change at the moment. WMD's may of been the last call to rid the world of Bush but keep crying that river as it didn't, and wont work.

I said nothing about world support. I am merely pointing out that, without Americans believing that Saddam had a role in 9/11 and weaponry capable of doing us even further harm, America would not have supported the president's plan to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:15 PM
do you honestly think, that if Americans had been vehemently opposed to Bush's plan to go to war against Iraq, that right before the congressional elections, congress would have voted to authorize his use of force to do so?

really?

It's irrelevant--they weren't vehemently opposed to it.

trobinett
12-08-2007, 08:16 PM
I said nothing about world support. I am merely pointing out that, without Americans believing that Saddam had a role in 9/11 and weaponry capable of doing us even further harm, America would not have supported the president's plan to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.

Yea, yea, I know, that's your story, and your sticking to it, how fucking wonderful............:cool:

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:16 PM
I said nothing about world support. I am merely pointing out that, without Americans believing that Saddam had a role in 9/11 and weaponry capable of doing us even further harm, America would not have supported the president's plan to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.

pure conjecture and it's too late anyway. Get over it.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:18 PM
It's irrelevant--they weren't vehemently opposed to it.


I suggest that if there were no insinuations and resultant beliefs that Saddam had a role in 9/11 or had WMD's that could further hurt our nation, that they would have been.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:19 PM
pure conjecture and it's too late anyway. Get over it.

get over it? so now you are telling me what I can and cannot post on an internet message board? who the fuck died and appointed you hall monitor?:fu:

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:20 PM
I suggest that if there were no insinuations and resultant beliefs that Saddam had a role in 9/11 or had WMD's that could further hurt our nation, that they would have been.

I suggest that politicians were too worried about keeping their jobs than doing what was right in their minds.

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 08:20 PM
I said nothing about world support. I am merely pointing out that, without Americans believing that Saddam had a role in 9/11 and weaponry capable of doing us even further harm, America would not have supported the president's plan to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.

Nonsense! Most of the free world knew that Iraq would never come into compliance with the resolutions, I mean I know you think diplomacy was truly working 13 years later and all but others believed it had failed long ago.

So essentially you know without the "fixed" intelligence it's a war that would of never happened? And again the need for such trickery? this is the oil cause, the payback for daddy Bush, the need to capture Saddam, kill him, and then rub it in the worlds face that he had nothing better to do? God the need for such arguments get sickening after awhile.

Fact is the removal of Saddam was inevitable, thing is it took place during the Bush administration so there is a huge need to call everything about it wrong.

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:23 PM
get over it? so now you are telling me what I can and cannot post on an internet message board? who the fuck died and appointed you hall monitor?:fu:

The phrase "get over it" is in no way an encouragement for you to stop posting.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:25 PM
Nonsense! Most of the free world knew that Iraq would never come into compliance with the resolutions, I mean I know you think diplomacy was truly working 13 years later and all but others believed it had failed long ago.

So essentially you know without the "fixed" intelligence it's a war that would of never happened? And again the need for such trickery? this is the oil cause, the payback for daddy Bush, the need to capture Saddam, kill him, and then rub it in the worlds face that he had nothing better to do? God the need for such arguments get sickening after awhile.

Fact is the removal of Saddam was inevitable, thing is it took place during the Bush administration so there is a huge need to call everything about it wrong.
one would think, that if the 9/11 connection and the WMD issue were NOT a big deal to the American people, that, even after it became clear that Saddam had not arsenal of WMD's and that he clearly had nothing to do with 9/11, that American support for the war would have remained as high as it was when congress voted on the use of force resolution, eh?

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:27 PM
I suggest that politicians were too worried about keeping their jobs than doing what was right in their minds.

no doubt. and the public opinion polls showed led many democrats to vote for the resolution - mere weeks before the midterm - in order to keep their seats. They are all on my shit list.

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:30 PM
no doubt. and the public opinion polls showed led many democrats to vote for the resolution - mere weeks before the midterm - in order to keep their seats. They are all on my shit list.

Well direct your anger appropriately then or someone might accuse you of blindly focusing all the blame for this war on one person.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:33 PM
Well direct your anger appropriately then or someone might accuse you of blindly focusing all the blame for this war on one person.

accuse me of whatever the fuck you want to.

Karl Rove was brilliant in the way he painted democrats into a corner and made the vote about patriotism. If TeamBush had led American instead of misleading America, we wouldn't be in this mess, IMHO.

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 08:35 PM
one would think, that if the 9/11 connection and the WMD issue were NOT a big deal to the American people, that, even after it became clear that Saddam had not arsenal of WMD's and that he clearly had nothing to do with 9/11, that American support for the war would have remained as high as it was when congress voted on the use of force resolution, eh?

Ok dingaling, So now you acknowledge congress agreed on the use of force, and yeah I know, they were all in Bush's pocket but who are we "fixing" intel for, our own people, the rest of the world, both? So again, you know for a fact how it would of panned out without the "fixed" intel? I mean so far we need world support, but then we needs congressional approval without "fixed" intel, and ultimately we need the approval of one manfrommaine.

Damn you drive a hard bargain, I think the next president elect better seek the maine approval before doing anything unilaterally, anything that does'nt win congressional approval, and of course garner worldly support so we all come out looking good.:rolleyes:

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:36 PM
accuse me of whatever the fuck you want to.

Karl Rove was brilliant in the way he painted democrats into a corner and made the vote about patriotism. If TeamBush had led American instead of misleading America, we wouldn't be in this mess, IMHO.

And you claim Bush and his buddies aint got no smarts. LOL :laugh2:

retiredman
12-08-2007, 09:22 PM
And you claim Bush and his buddies aint got no smarts. LOL :laugh2:

I have never claimed that Team Bush was made up of less than intelligent folks. I have claimed that, in my opinion, Goerge Bush is an incurious, dullard who is not very smart. I have claimed that, in my opinion, his admistration is characterized by arrogance and, when it comes to the nuances of the Islamic world, seemingly willful ignorance.... as if understanding the region was really not all that important for them to press their neocon agenda... as if they thought that all of the islamic world was really made up of inferior brown skinned raghead and understanding them was a waste of time.

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 09:37 PM
I have never claimed that Team Bush was made up of less than intelligent folks. I have claimed that, in my opinion, Goerge Bush is an incurious, dullard who is not very smart. I have claimed that, in my opinion, his admistration is characterized by arrogance and, when it comes to the nuances of the Islamic world, seemingly willful ignorance.... as if understanding the region was really not all that important for them to press their neocon agenda... as if they thought that all of the islamic world was really made up of inferior brown skinned raghead and understanding them was a waste of time.

He ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer. He just happened to be president when 9/11 was inflicted on America. He was fortunate to have some minds around him that tricked the shit out of the democrats. You know--the ones who were so ready to screw him to the wall after poor BJ Bill got taken to task ? Damn--that sure "blew up" in their faces, didn't it?

retiredman
12-08-2007, 09:59 PM
He ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer. He just happened to be president when 9/11 was inflicted on America. He was fortunate to have some minds around him that tricked the shit out of the democrats. You know--the ones who were so ready to screw him to the wall after poor BJ Bill got taken to task ? Damn--that sure "blew up" in their faces, didn't it?


that doesn't change the fact that their arrogant and seemingly willful ignorance of the Islamic world has significantly degraded our standing in the middle east and therefore decreased our security.

Dilloduck
12-09-2007, 12:19 AM
that doesn't change the fact that their arrogant and seemingly willful ignorance of the Islamic world has significantly degraded our standing in the middle east and therefore decreased our security.

oh ya---the Islamic world really loved us before George came along :laugh2:

Austin.Texas
12-09-2007, 07:25 AM
from Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0454599720071206?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0);
President George W. Bush was told in August that Iran may have suspended its nuclear weapons program, the White House said on Wednesday, a day after Bush said he was not given a full report on the issue.

A new intelligence estimate released on Monday said Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, raising questions about whether the president was aware of that when he increased his rhetoric against Tehran.

Bush for months has called Iran a threat and in October raised the specter of World War Three if it acquired a nuclear weapon.

Some Democrats seized on this week's intelligence report to suggest Bush took an aggressive stance against Iran even though he knew that U.S. intelligence had a different picture of the threat posed by Tehran.

During a news conference on Tuesday, Bush said he was informed of the intelligence report last week, but said U.S. intelligence chief Mike McConnell told him in August there was new information on Iran.

"He didn't tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze," Bush said.

On Wednesday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said McConnell told Bush in August that Iran may have suspended its nuclear weapons program and that the new information might cause the intelligence community to change its assessment on Iran.

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 08:09 AM
On Wednesday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said McConnell told Bush in August that Iran may have suspended its nuclear weapons program and that the new information might cause the intelligence community to change its assessment on Iran.

Wow, Iran "may" have suspended it's program! Damn I feel all warm & fuzzy inside now. I mean the same Iran that has been filtering funds to terrorists, sending weapons into Iraq, and Afghanistan to kill American soldiers. Well they are just a good bunch over there, we need to trust them when they say they are enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, You know, when the president of that country talks of wiping other nations off the map, we know he's just joshing. :rolleyes:

Austin.Texas
12-09-2007, 08:53 AM
"White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said McConnell told Bush in August that Iran may have suspended its nuclear weapons program and that the new information might cause the intelligence community to change its assessment on Iran."

" During a news conference on Tuesday, Bush said he was informed of the intelligence report last week"

Choices:
1) Dana was wrong
2) Dana was lying
3) Bush was mistaken
4) Bush was lying

After evaluating the motives and taking into account the long history of lies from Bush, I will go with Number 4 as the most likely...

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 08:57 AM
After evaluating the motives and taking into account the long history of lies from Bush, I will go with Number 4 as the most likely...

How very nice for you, now perhaps try posting something a little less repetitive. Perhaps evaluate some of your own thoughts, and add them to go along with the cut & paste crap.

bullypulpit
12-09-2007, 09:21 AM
Nonsense! Most of the free world knew that Iraq would never come into compliance with the resolutions, I mean I know you think diplomacy was truly working 13 years later and all but others believed it had failed long ago.

So essentially you know without the "fixed" intelligence it's a war that would of never happened? And again the need for such trickery? this is the oil cause, the payback for daddy Bush, the need to capture Saddam, kill him, and then rub it in the worlds face that he had nothing better to do? God the need for such arguments get sickening after awhile.

Fact is the removal of Saddam was inevitable, thing is it took place during the Bush administration so there is a huge need to call everything about it wrong.

What...? You find it inconceivable that we would be taken to war for such specious motives? Read your history. Nations have, many times, gone to war for far less. And yes, Saddam's removal was inevitable. His own subjects would have gotten around to it without our intervention.

As for Saddam's threat, I'll provide you the official assessment as stated by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell and, then NSA, Condoleeza Rice:

<blockquote>Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that <i><b>Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East</b></i>.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "<b>He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.</b>"

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that <b>Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box"</b>.

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. <b>"Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."</b> - <a href=http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=229>ITV</a></blockquote>

Saddam Hussein was no threat to anyone outside his own borders. He was not linked to 9/11 until Bush and Cheney made that unsubstantiated assertion, in other words lied about it. Had they been willing to listen to what was being said by the intelligence community instead of only what they wanted to hear in order to justify their invasion of Iraq to America and the world...Had the real intelligence been made available to Congress and the American people, it's possible we never would have gone into Iraq. But that's been a moot point since the first ordnance fell in Baghdad.

The Bush administration stove-piped their own, cherry-picked intel, which they had been warned was dubious, at best, and led this nation into an unprovoked war of aggression against a nation which posed NO IMMINENT THREAT to the US or any other nation. This in violation of most US treaty obligations since the end of WW II.

We should be grateful that this NIE came to light when it did. In doing so, it has derailed, for the time being at least, any plans by the Bush administration for another ill-starred exercise in military adventurism, this time, in Iran. The right-wing and neo-con critics of this NIE are, in essence, asserting that the 16 intelligence agencies which contributed to the report have done nothing short of suborning treason by attempting to mislead and/or discredit the President and his administration with this report. It should be noted that these same actors, as part of the Bush administration and its support structure, were wrong about Saddam and his WMD's...They were wrong about any link between Saddam and 9/11 ,and they wwere disastrously wrong about the aftermath of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Their credibility is, shall we say, lacking at best.

Your intransigence on this matter nearly defies comprehension. Perhaps the acceptance of the fact that this President and his administration lied the country in to war and occupation would cause such a cognitive dissonance that your pointy, little head would just explode. Can't think of any reason beyond that

Kathianne
12-09-2007, 09:28 AM
What...? You find it inconceivable that we would be taken to war for such specious motives? Read your history. Nations have, many times, gone to war for far less. And yes, Saddam's removal was inevitable. His own subjects would have gotten around to it without our intervention.

As for Saddam's threat, I'll provide you the official assessment as stated by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell and, then NSA, Condoleeza Rice:

<blockquote>Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that <i><b>Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East</b></i>.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "<b>He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.</b>"

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that <b>Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box"</b>.

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. <b>"Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."</b> - <a href=http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=229>ITV</a></blockquote>

Assuming your source is correct and I'm not going to check stuff from an article from 2003, since both Powell and Rice said these quotes prior to 9/11, indeed not long after the administration came to power, it undercuts the argument made by some that this administration entered office just dying to get Saddam?

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 09:30 AM
What...? You find it inconceivable that we would be taken to war for such specious motives? Read your history. Nations have, many times, gone to war for far less. And yes, Saddam's removal was inevitable. His own subjects would have gotten around to it without our intervention.

No shit Sherlock, my point precisely, and yet you bufoons have been crying "fixed" intel, "fixed" elections, just about anything you can becase a republican admin. is in place.

Well as long as his own subjects were getting around to it I guess we should of held of another 13 years or so to see how it all played out. :rolleyes:



As for Saddam's threat, I'll provide you the official assessment as stated by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell and, then NSA, Condoleeza Rice:

<blockquote>Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that <i><b>Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East</b></i>.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "<b>He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.</b>"

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that <b>Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box"</b>.

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. <b>"Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."</b> - <a href=http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=229>ITV</a></blockquote>

Wow, great stuff, only it's about 7 years old, and really boring like the majority of this argument. It's only been discussed since the inception of the war yet all this crying has got you what? Zilch fruity ass, it has got you a big fat zero!

Again find the definitive proof of the "fixed" intel, and take that along with the "fixed" elections, and write a book. There are plenty other bone heads babbling the same shit the past few years, and another certainly could'nt hurt.

Austin.Texas
12-09-2007, 09:44 AM
evil sez :"How very nice for you, now perhaps try posting something a little less repetitive. Perhaps evaluate some of your own thoughts, and add them to go along with the cut & paste crap."


I was just thinking that the usual response from evil people did not include logic or facts, but turned out to be ad hominum attacks.
I was right.

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 09:51 AM
evil sez :"How very nice for you, now perhaps try posting something a little less repetitive. Perhaps evaluate some of your own thoughts, and add them to go along with the cut & paste crap."


I was just thinking that the usual response from evil people did not include logic or facts, but turned out to be ad hominum attacks.
I was right.

What a pure act of brilliance! Bet that felt really good to publicly pat your own back.

Oh, and as long as you are going to remain repetitive at least use those words right, it would be: ad hominem... Geez, you could of copy and pasted that from any political board out there...

bullypulpit
12-09-2007, 09:53 AM
No shit Sherlock, my point precisely, and yet you bufoons have been crying "fixed" intel, "fixed" elections, just about anything you can becase a republican admin. is in place.

Well as long as his own subjects were getting around to it I guess we should of held of another 13 years or so to see how it all played out. :rolleyes:



Wow, great stuff, only it's about 7 years old, and really boring like the majority of this argument. It's only been discussed since the inception of the war yet all this crying has got you what? Zilch fruity ass, it has got you a big fat zero!

Again find the definitive proof of the "fixed" intel, and take that along with the "fixed" elections, and write a book. There are plenty other bone heads babbling the same shit the past few years, and another certainly could'nt hurt.

Try to refute it rather than simply resorting to childish name calling. And, as George Santayana pointed out, "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it..." We ignore the history of the events leading up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq at our peril.

Austin.Texas
12-09-2007, 09:54 AM
Assuming your source is correct and I'm not going to check stuff from an article from 2003, since both Powell and Rice said these quotes prior to 9/11, indeed not long after the administration came to power, it undercuts the argument made by some that this administration entered office just dying to get Saddam?

The persons who were, in fact, dying to get Saddam, were the members of the administration who were signatories to the PNAC documents, i.e.: Cheny, Rummy, Wolfowitz, etc.
Powell and Rice were not signatories.

bullypulpit
12-09-2007, 09:55 AM
Assuming your source is correct and I'm not going to check stuff from an article from 2003, since both Powell and Rice said these quotes prior to 9/11, indeed not long after the administration came to power, it undercuts the argument made by some that this administration entered office just dying to get Saddam?

9/11 simply helped provide the pretext for the invasion of Iraq. The desire was there before 9/11.

Kathianne
12-09-2007, 09:55 AM
The persons who were, in fact, dying to get Saddam, were the members of the administration who were signatories to the PNAC documents, i.e.: Cheny, Rummy, Wolfowitz, etc.
Powell and Rice were not signatories.


:link:, thanks.

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 09:56 AM
Try to refute it rather than simply resorting to childish name calling. And, as George Santayana pointed out, "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it..." We ignore the events leading up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq at our peril.

Refute what? your seven year old facts that are relatively meaningless? Yes we did indeed ignore events leading up the invasion of Iraq, in fact it was ignored for around 13 years.

Again Bully, all these hard core facts of deception lead to exactly what?

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 09:58 AM
9/11 simply helped provide the pretext for the invasion of Iraq. The desire was there before 9/11.

:lame2::lame2::lame2:

But then again what has changed over the years? 911 was the pretext to our new found oil supply, right? :rolleyes:

Kathianne
12-09-2007, 10:01 AM
9/11 simply helped provide the pretext for the invasion of Iraq. The desire was there before 9/11.

Right, left over from Clinton et al:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wLrjGq-V700&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wLrjGq-V700&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 10:04 AM
Right, left over from Clinton et al:



Yeah kind of like the post you just made about waterboarding, it's amazing how fast those dems forget, or at least can selectively forget.

Austin.Texas
12-09-2007, 10:16 AM
:link:, thanks.



January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.
-cut-

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
-cut-

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm


Dick Cheney's signiture does not appear on this letter, but he was a member of PNAC, who sent the letter.

Kathianne
12-09-2007, 10:20 AM
Ok, no Cheney. Must be the reason for the above video and all Clintonista's. See #181.

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 10:21 AM
January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.
-cut-

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
-cut-

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm


Dick Cheney's signiture does not appear on this letter, but he was a member of PNAC, who sent the letter.

Wow, thats awesome! Too bad Clinton himself would soon endorse the same opinion on Iraq. Such boring trite always come full circle. :rolleyes:

Austin.Texas
12-09-2007, 10:31 AM
Ok, no Cheney. Must be the reason for the above video and all Clintonista's. See #181.


Cheney's participation in PNAC is a matter of record:

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

PNAC Statement of Principles

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

-cut-


Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 10:33 AM
Cheney's participation in PNAC is a matter of record:


Well now this is even more impressive but your point is exactly what? Was it Cheney that somehow convinced the many dems of the same opinion?

Austin.Texas
12-09-2007, 10:34 AM
Ok, no Cheney. Must be the reason for the above video and all Clintonista's. See #181.

As for "Clintonista's", or Clintons, non of them were in the White House when the decision to invade Iraq was made. I don't see the relevance.

Kathianne
12-09-2007, 10:36 AM
Cheney's participation in PNAC is a matter of record:

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

PNAC Statement of Principles

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

-cut-


Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Yeah, but he didn't sign was all I meantt. Doesn't change a thing about what Clinton et al said.

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 10:39 AM
As for "Clintonista's", or Clintons, non of them were in the White House when the decision to invade Iraq was made. I don't see the relevance.

Of course you would'nt see the relevance, that would in turn show what a hypocrite you are as Clinton did indeed have very similar opinions about Iraq.

jimnyc
12-09-2007, 10:45 AM
A few tidbits from the president addressing the nation. People speak of lies and deceit, but I just don't see any of it.


Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.


Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.


Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.


I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.


The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.


And so we had to act and act now.


Let me explain why.


First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.


They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.


The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.


The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.


Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.


Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.


And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Austin.Texas
12-09-2007, 10:54 AM
Thank you for reminding us of all those lies.

Kathianne
12-09-2007, 10:56 AM
As for "Clintonista's", or Clintons, non of them were in the White House when the decision to invade Iraq was made. I don't see the relevance.

You choose not to see the relevance, which is a different situation altogether. ;)

jimnyc
12-09-2007, 11:01 AM
Thank you for reminding us of all those lies.

Allow me to also remind you that this was an address by President Bill Clinton on December 16, 1998!

Funny how the truth about Saddam and Iraq turns into lies when you think it's Bush stating it.

Austin.Texas
12-09-2007, 11:02 AM
You choose not to see the relevance, which is a different situation altogether. ;)


No Clintons were in the White House when the Iraq invasion was decided upon. Their opinions and ideology were not taken into account. That makes them irrelevant to this administrations actions. Doesn't it?

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 11:02 AM
Thank you for reminding us of all those lies.

Dumb bastard, so fucking stubborn to see the truth that you are condemning one of your own for what he had said about Iraq!

:lol::laugh2::lol::laugh2:

Kathianne
12-09-2007, 11:04 AM
Thank you for reminding us of all those lies.

All which lies?


...He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.


The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.


This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.


And so we had to act and act now...


First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.




Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

I don't think you are implying it's a lie that we dropped lots of air power...

The last quote was not a 'lie', it was overly optimistic and the problems with it are very belatedly being addressed now.

Kathianne
12-09-2007, 11:07 AM
No Clintons were in the White House when the Iraq invasion was decided upon. Their opinions and ideology were not taken into account. That makes them irrelevant to this administrations actions. Doesn't it?

Wrong, the working policy on Iraq had been redefined after Gulf War and strengthened under Clinton. It was the policy followed up to the invasion. Funny, you seem to have enough information at hand, so you are just playing dumb?

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 11:07 AM
All which lies?








I don't think you are implying it's a lie that we dropped lots of air power...

The last quote was not a 'lie', it was overly optimistic and the problems with it are very belatedly being addressed now.

And it was a speech by Bill Clinton! :laugh:

Yes, thanks for reminding us......

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 11:12 AM
Thank you for reminding us of all those lies.

What happened Tex, kind of at a loss of words now that has been brought to your attention that it was a Clinton speech? :laugh:

Kathianne
12-09-2007, 11:16 AM
And it was a speech by Bill Clinton! :laugh:

Yes, thanks for reminding us......

Yeah, I should have picked up on the missing 'shock and awe'. ;)

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 11:18 AM
Yeah, I should have picked up on the missing 'shock and awe'. ;)

Well there was a bit of "Shock and Awe' for Tex, gotta love it when they stick their feet in their mouths. :laugh:

Austin.Texas
12-09-2007, 11:43 AM
A few tidbits from the president addressing the nation. People speak of lies and deceit, but I just don't see any of it.

There have been many times I thought "What the hell is he thinking?" regarding Clinton, and many times I have thought "Why is he lying?" regarding W.

So the question arises: Does the fact that Clinton said something or other mean that Bush wasn't lying when he said something similar? Of course not. So why is it we are discussing someone else's opinion instead of dealiing with the current administration's prevarications.

Really, there is no excuse for not knowing the truth of this administration's lies about Iraq, and the motives for lying. Pat Buchanan laid it all out in black and white in an article in the American Conservative magazine many months before Bush attacked Iraq.

Kathianne
12-09-2007, 11:49 AM
There have been many times I thought "What the hell is he thinking?" regarding Clinton, and many times I have thought "Why is he lying?" regarding W.

So the question arises: Does the fact that Clinton said something or other mean that Bush wasn't lying when he said something similar? Of course not. So why is it we are discussing someone else's opinion instead of dealiing with the current administration's prevarications.

Really, there is no excuse for not knowing the truth of this administration's lies about Iraq, and the motives for lying. Pat Buchanan laid it all out in black and white in an article in the American Conservative magazine many months before Bush attacked Iraq.

Actually the response I used for Clinton's speech would apply to what Bush was saying too. So, Clinton was lying? Bush followed those lies, based on the same and additional information Clinton had? Or they both did what they read as the best at their moment in time?

jimnyc
12-09-2007, 11:55 AM
There have been many times I thought "What the hell is he thinking?" regarding Clinton, and many times I have thought "Why is he lying?" regarding W.

So the question arises: Does the fact that Clinton said something or other mean that Bush wasn't lying when he said something similar? Of course not. So why is it we are discussing someone else's opinion instead of dealiing with the current administration's prevarications.

Really, there is no excuse for not knowing the truth of this administration's lies about Iraq, and the motives for lying. Pat Buchanan laid it all out in black and white in an article in the American Conservative magazine many months before Bush attacked Iraq.

Plain and simple, our country and it's leaders knew about Saddam and his ambitions for many years now, and not until Bush stood his ground did all of it suddenly turn to lies. They both knew the same thing, the truth, and reported as much to the nation. You accuse this president of lying, but the fact is that neither president lied about Iraq, their ambitions and what they were informed by intel agencies. Look at what BOTH democrats and republicans alike reported and told our nation since 1998, and you'll find one thing in common, that they both believe that action was necessary and that Saddam wanted to gain and/or use WMD.

retiredman
12-09-2007, 12:08 PM
Plain and simple, our country and it's leaders knew about Saddam and his ambitions for many years now, and not until Bush stood his ground did all of it suddenly turn to lies. They both knew the same thing, the truth, and reported as much to the nation. You accuse this president of lying, but the fact is that neither president lied about Iraq, their ambitions and what they were informed by intel agencies. Look at what BOTH democrats and republicans alike reported and told our nation since 1998, and you'll find one thing in common, that they both believe that action was necessary and that Saddam wanted to gain and/or use WMD.

funny....Bush's secretary of state, in February of 2001, clearly stated that Saddam was NOT a threat to his neighbors or to us. Was HE lying?

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm

jimnyc
12-09-2007, 12:13 PM
funny....Bush's secretary of state, in February of 2001, clearly stated that Saddam was NOT a threat to his neighbors or to us. Was HE lying?

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm

Why is it that you guys immediately jump to "lies" when you see different outcomes and different stances? Is it not possible that they just didn't fully agree, or that opinions formulate and stances change throughout when intel is constantly coming? I'm sure not everyone agreed with Clinton's assessment in '98, does that make them liars?

Kathianne
12-09-2007, 12:23 PM
Why is it that you guys immediately jump to "lies" when you see different outcomes and different stances? Is it not possible that they just didn't fully agree, or that opinions formulate and stances change throughout when intel is constantly coming? I'm sure not everyone agreed with Clinton's assessment in '98, does that make them liars?

Well MM made me do what I told Bully I wouldn't. Going back and looking at the ITV Pilger 'claims' regarding Powell and Rice, well he never did come out with his 'proof'.

As for MM, he tends to stick with good sources, which of course the SOS site is. ;)

I'll bold the part I believe he's referring to and include what proceeded it, since it puts what he says at the end, in context. There is more above what I've posted, anyone interested can go look. Mind you this is about 1 month after Bush took office:


...

QUESTION: (summarized) There are reports in the Arabic newspapers today that you are proposing to take a harder line on Israel and (inaudible) with respect to Iraq. Can you confirm that?

SECRETARY POWELL: I've made no such suggestion.

QUESTION: Are you linking the two situations in any way?

SECRETARY POWELL: The whole region is looked at as a whole but I have not offered or suggested any kind of direct quid pro quo.

QUESTION: We know that Israel suggested establishing a strategic alliance with the Clinton administration. Is this idea still on the table and what are the possibilities of making a similar alliance with Egypt? Maybe you could just focus on the elements of the relations right now.

SECRETARY POWELL: The Foreign Minister and I have talked about things we might do in the future in order to strengthen the relationship at every level-trade, economics, security assistance, military aid-and we look forward to continuing the discussion. The exact form that it will take I think will be discussed by the two presidents when we get together in April.

QUESTION: (summarized) Will the United States veto the lifting of sanctions on Iraq in the U.N.?

SECRETARY POWELL: I can't give an answer to a question like that without knowing what a specific resolution might look like. It would be presumptuous of me to do so. Such a decision is based on what the resolution turns out to be.

QUESTION: (summarized) Minister Moussa, how big a threat is Iraq right now? It seems that the Secretary is trying to have it both ways. Either the country has been diminished by ten years of sanctions or it's still threat that we have to worry about.

FOREIGN MINISTER MOUSSA: For us, I don't see that threat, but if you ask the Gulf regions and countries of that area they will they would continue to feel that and they say it publicly. The question is not rhetorical. The question is not to have some headlines. It's a very serious situation. We will continue to deal with that situation in a way that ensures stability and justice. Therefore, we will have a lot to say after the round of talks ...

SECRETARY POWELL: May I just add a p.s. that if I was a Kuwaiti and I heard leaders in Baghdad claiming that Kuwait is still a part of Iraq and it's going to be included in the flag and the seal, if I knew they were continuing to try to find weapons of mass destruction, I would have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States or at others. Yes, I think we should...he has to be contained until he realizes the errors of his ways.

[end]

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 12:40 PM
funny....Bush's secretary of state, in February of 2001, clearly stated that Saddam was NOT a threat to his neighbors or to us. Was HE lying?

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm

Even more funny when you idiots say he is a liar in one point but a trustworthy source in another. Thing is that until you wake up and realize that all politicians are liars whether right or left, you will always be walking about with that wet ass thinking you know it all.

So when Clinton claimed the same things was he also lying? Has so much changed in the time of the office exchange of leaders that Bush had to be lying? Nope, you are just one of the many idiots who just can't stand the fact that a republican admin. has held office for the past 8 years.

All this solid proof of lies, and yet he is still in office. Well keep telling yourself the same stuff you have been the past 8 years, and before you know it things may change, at election time that is. :laugh2:

bullypulpit
12-09-2007, 04:08 PM
Right, left over from Clinton et al:



Is that the best you can do, dear lady...? Dredge up discredited crap from the Clinton administration?

The UN inspectors searched Iraq including those sights which the US had indicated as being, or had been, used for the production of WMD's. They continued their inspections up until just before Bush warned them to get out because bombs were going to start falling. The UN inspectors found nothing, even at the sites named by the US indicating that there had been ANY activity, including the clean-up of any such activity.

Neither David Kay nor Charles Duelfer found any evidence of active WMD programs prior to the invasion of Iraq. And there's this from a 2002 article by Scott Ritter:

<blockquote>Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections.

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence. - <a href=http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views02/0721-02.htm>Scott Ritter, 07/20/2002</a></blockquote>

A pattern by the Bush administration which continues to this very day...Speculation absent any demonstrable facts to justify their actions.

Kathianne
12-09-2007, 05:11 PM
Is that the best you can do, dear lady...? Dredge up discredited crap from the Clinton administration?

The UN inspectors searched Iraq including those sights which the US had indicated as being, or had been, used for the production of WMD's. They continued their inspections up until just before Bush warned them to get out because bombs were going to start falling. The UN inspectors found nothing, even at the sites named by the US indicating that there had been ANY activity, including the clean-up of any such activity.

Neither David Kay nor Charles Duelfer found any evidence of active WMD programs prior to the invasion of Iraq. And there's this from a 2002 article by Scott Ritter:

<blockquote>Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections.

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence. - <a href=http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views02/0721-02.htm>Scott Ritter, 07/20/2002</a></blockquote>

A pattern by the Bush administration which continues to this very day...Speculation absent any demonstrable facts to justify their actions.

Yes Bully, you put up very old stuff, I put up old stuff, some of it less than a year before 9/11. So yes, it was relevant.

As for arguing about WMD and such, if memory serves, and it does, we did a rather heated debate over the course of more than a year. I doubt either of us wish to repeat. I know I don't.

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 05:11 PM
Is that the best you can do, dear lady...? Dredge up discredited crap from the Clinton administration?

The UN inspectors searched Iraq including those sights which the US had indicated as being, or had been, used for the production of WMD's. They continued their inspections up until just before Bush warned them to get out because bombs were going to start falling. The UN inspectors found nothing, even at the sites named by the US indicating that there had been ANY activity, including the clean-up of any such activity.

Neither David Kay nor Charles Duelfer found any evidence of active WMD programs prior to the invasion of Iraq. And there's this from a 2002 article by Scott Ritter:

<blockquote>Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections.

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence. - <a href=http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views02/0721-02.htm>Scott Ritter, 07/20/2002</a></blockquote>

A pattern by the Bush administration which continues to this very day...Speculation absent any demonstrable facts to justify their actions.

And is the best you can do Bullybullshit? Of course Iraq should of been trusted to divulge everything as they have done in the past, right? :rolleyes:
Still there were remain question on VX, and Anthrax but they are harmless so let it slip through the cracks because Saddam & company were just a good ruling bunch over there.

Again action was inevitable, perhaps you find it unjustifiable but there are also many who find Clinton's lack of action unjustifiable especially when it comes on the taking a pass on Osama Bin Laden, the one man that most of you retards think would somehow end the entire war on terrorism. Of course many see things differently but I would take action before not taking action, and seeing where the chips will fall. The laid back approach of assuming diplomacy works with tyrant leaders, terrorism, or for much of the middle east peace is a mere pipe dream.

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 05:13 PM
As for arguing about WMD and such, if memory serves, and it does, we did a rather heated debate over the course of more than a year. I doubt either of us wish to repeat. I know I don't.

Of course they wish to repeat it, in fact if you noticed it's the biggest topic when it come to anything to do with the middle east. They hold dear the fact that no wmd's were found as they would have very little if anything to ramble on about. It's called beating the dead horse, they do it well.

glockmail
12-09-2007, 06:59 PM
Good job, guys! It's easy to fight one another but not as easy to offer apologies. Kudos! :clap:


What, no hug?




Sorry, Bully!


Let's not push it, they're both Alpha males. ;)


Don't expect us to be taking long hot showers together, either. :pee:

retiredman
12-09-2007, 09:46 PM
Why is it that you guys immediately jump to "lies" when you see different outcomes and different stances? Is it not possible that they just didn't fully agree, or that opinions formulate and stances change throughout when intel is constantly coming? I'm sure not everyone agreed with Clinton's assessment in '98, does that make them liars?
the only LIE I have ever said that Team Bush told was their assertion that there was "absolute certainty" about Iraq's WMD's. Clinton NEVER said there was absolute certainty about anything concerning Iraq. It was Team Bush's assertions that there was absolutely NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of dangerous weapons of mass destruction that was the LIE...and, when coupled with their subtle, yet obvious insinuations of Saddam's complicity with 9/11, those lies produced the popular support necessary for Bush to cram his use of force authorization bill down Congress's throat weeks before the midterm elections.

If Bush had been truthful and admitted to the American people that the intelligence supporting his assertions of Saddam's WMD arsenal was dated, and single sourced and laden with caveats and qualifiers...if he had said, "Saddam MAY have some WMD's but we are not really sure", America would not have been supportive of the war...and if he and his minions had not been given speeches to read that connected 9/11 with Saddam and WMD's and Al Qaeda over and over again, the rationale that we needed to invade Iraq today because Saddam had violated UN sanctions - when the perpetrators of 9/11 were still on the loose in Pakistan, would have seemed a pretty flimsy reason to shift our focus away from the folks who attacked us and onto a guy who have violated some UN resolutions.

Dilloduck
12-09-2007, 09:58 PM
If Bush had been truthful and admitted to the American people that the intelligence supporting his assertions of Saddam's WMD arsenal was dated, and single sourced and laden with caveats and qualifiers...if he had said, "Saddam MAY have some WMD's but we are not really sure", America would not have been supportive of the war...and if he and his minions had not been given speeches to read that connected 9/11 with Saddam and WMD's and Al Qaeda over and over again, the rationale that we needed to invade Iraq today because Saddam had violated UN sanctions - when the perpetrators of 9/11 were still on the loose in Pakistan, would have seemed a pretty flimsy reason to shift our focus away from the folks who attacked us and onto a guy who have violated some UN resolutions.

Pure speculation--cramming it down Congresses throat !!! :laugh2:

retiredman
12-09-2007, 10:08 PM
Pure speculation--cramming it down Congresses throat !!! :laugh2:


there is little question that the war was a primary issue on the minds of voters as the midterms approached. One only needs to look at the successful campaign against Max Cleland to understand the power and effectiveness of the Team Bush approach.

And, admittedly, there is no way to definitively prove my speculation....but calling it "pure speculation" does not diminish its viability.

and clearly...there was no need to cram it down any republican's throat..they were nearly unanimous in their support. A majority of congressional Democrats - even in the face of Team Bush's onslaught - still had the courage to vote against it, and I am most proud of those that did.

Sir Evil
12-10-2007, 11:11 AM
If Bush had been truthful and admitted to the American people that the intelligence supporting his assertions of Saddam's WMD arsenal was dated, and single sourced and laden with caveats and qualifiers...if he had said, "Saddam MAY have some WMD's but we are not really sure", America would not have been supportive of the war...and if he and his minions had not been given speeches to read that connected 9/11 with Saddam and WMD's and Al Qaeda over and over again, the rationale that we needed to invade Iraq today because Saddam had violated UN sanctions - when the perpetrators of 9/11 were still on the loose in Pakistan, would have seemed a pretty flimsy reason to shift our focus away from the folks who attacked us and onto a guy who have violated some UN resolutions.

:laugh2: perpertrators of 911?
Like many other morons of your ilk the whole need to catch the ghosts of 911 seems so important as if it would bring the end of terrorism. Those involved with 911 also died on 911. Osama is still at large but again Afghanistan was also invaded for that very reason. So it's ok to invade a country over some terrorist living in a cave somewhere but invading a country that did indeed harbor terrorist camps, had a tyrant of a leader, and would of certainly been all for damaging the US anyway possible was wrong? That just more flawed logic from the moron camp. Somehow the capture of OBL will suddenly make terrorism go away? I think not! I do however recall the speeches of going after terrorism where ever it may be, and it seems at the time there was much support for it. Now with votes playing there part you classless bunch of idiots turned anything imaginable into a major problem all so it can be said that there is a need to have the democrats lead things as if they are all that, and a bag of chips too. :rolleyes:

retiredman
12-10-2007, 11:31 AM
people who do not understand the difference between arab nationalist terrorism and extreme wahabbist terrorism and the different intensities of threats those two present to America ought not to be placed in charge of defending this country. period.

Sir Evil
12-10-2007, 11:35 AM
people who do not understand the difference between arab nationalist terrorism and extreme wahabbist terrorism and the different intensities of threats those two present to America ought not to be placed in charge of defending this country. period.

Oh boy, here comes the hegemony crap again. People who don't understand that terrorism regardless of it's kind is no good. I dunno, you have some sort of a list of good deeds by some particular terrorist association? :rolleyes:

retiredman
12-10-2007, 11:41 AM
I understand a great deal about terrorism. I understand that, while all terrorist groups employ a tactic that is anathema to America's stated values, all terrorist groups do NOT present an equally ominous threat to OUR country.

Obviously, some folks do not share that understanding. Like I said...folks like that ought not to be placed in charge of defending America's interests.


p.s. and the fact that some would think that "hegemony" had anything to do with the discussion concerning the differences between wahabbist extremism and arab nationalism is further proof that they are in way over their heads. Maybe the sports forum would be more appropriate?

Sir Evil
12-10-2007, 11:46 AM
I understand a great deal about terrorism. I understand that, while all terrorist groups employ a tactic that is anathema to America's stated values, all terrorist groups do NOT present an equally ominous threat to OUR country.

Obviously, some folks do not share that understanding. Like I said...folks like that ought not to be placed in charge of defending America's interests.

Again, can you please point out any good values of terrorism? Trying to draw a comparison on the types of terrorism is much like the comparison you are attempting to draw draw between the right and the left. I mean it's obvious at this point that you are a hell of a lot smarter than any advisers of the Bush admin. but are you smarter than those advisers of your self proclaimed side?
Just curious because you seem to be certain that somehow the democrats have a better understanding of terrorism.

Sir Evil
12-10-2007, 11:49 AM
p.s. and the fact that some would think that "hegemony" had anything to do with the discussion concerning the differences between wahabbist extremism and arab nationalism is further proof that they are in way over their heads. Maybe the sports forum would be more appropriate?

:laugh:

A small afterthought?

Everytime the subject of the different tribal kinds of Iraq come up you throw that word out there for good measures as if it somehow makes your argument sound better. Go ahead, and search the word out, see how many use it bobo. :rolleyes:

retiredman
12-10-2007, 11:50 AM
again...the sports forum might very well be a better spot for some. No one has EVER suggested that there are ANY "good values of terrorism". Do you propose that we send a marine division to Sri Lanka to engage the Tamil Tigers in battle? THEY are "terrorists". If not, why not?

retiredman
12-10-2007, 11:52 AM
:laugh:

A small afterthought?

Everytime the subject of the different tribal kinds of Iraq come up you throw that word out there for good measures as if it somehow makes your argument sound better. Go ahead, and search the word out, see how many use it bobo. :rolleyes:


that is incorrect....but I wouldn't expect you to "get it" really. The ONLY time I bring up any country's desires for hegemony is when Iran is being discussed.

Again.... not only do you not understand what I am talking about, you seemingly don't even understand what YOU are talking about!

and if you think that I must feel compelled to dumb down my vocabulary to suit the needs of troglodytes, think again.

manu1959
12-10-2007, 11:55 AM
again...the sports forum might very well be a better spot for some. No one has EVER suggested that there are ANY "good values of terrorism". Do you propose that we send a marine division to Sri Lanka to engage the Tamil Tigers in battle? THEY are "terrorists". If not, why not?

why is this the foundation argument for left concerning terrorisim when a republican is in office?......yall didn't invade every terrorist country when clinton went into somalia....hell ya pulled out of rawanda and let hundreds of thousands die.....

Sir Evil
12-10-2007, 11:55 AM
again...the sports forum might very well be a better spot for some. No one has EVER suggested that there are ANY "good values of terrorism". Do you propose that we send a marine division to Sri Lanka to engage the Tamil Tigers in battle? THEY are "terrorists". If not, why not?

You are the one trying to trivialize Iraq, and everything about it. You are the one trying to say different kinds of terrorism exists out there making some more important than the others.

Now should we send a division to Sri Lanka? I dunno fucknuts, have they been a problem that past 13 years or so, are there resolution that they are not abiding by?

I know that they put a little retard juice in the water supply up there in maine but for crying out loud make some fucking sense once in awhile.
:rolleyes:

Sir Evil
12-10-2007, 11:56 AM
why is this the foundation argument for left concerning terrorisim when a republican is in office?......yall didn't invade every terrorist country when clinton went into somalia....hell ya pulled out of rawanda and let hundreds of thousands die.....

Yeah but those lefties have such a better understanding of terrorism. :rolleyes:

retiredman
12-10-2007, 12:24 PM
why is this the foundation argument for left concerning terrorisim when a republican is in office?......yall didn't invade every terrorist country when clinton went into somalia

who went into Somalia?

retiredman
12-10-2007, 12:30 PM
You are the one trying to trivialize Iraq, and everything about it. You are the one trying to say different kinds of terrorism exists out there making some more important than the others.

Now should we send a division to Sri Lanka? I dunno fucknuts, have they been a problem that past 13 years or so, are there resolution that they are not abiding by?

I know that they put a little retard juice in the water supply up there in maine but for crying out loud make some fucking sense once in awhile.
:rolleyes:

there are different breeds of terrorists...who may share tactics, but have completely different objectives.

And the Tamil Tigers have been a problem for a long time. The US designated them a terrorist organization thirty years ago.

And what does the violation of UN resolutions have to do with terrorist organizations?

DO try to stay on topic...you hop around like a jackrabbit on cocaine.

Sir Evil
12-10-2007, 01:09 PM
there are different breeds of terrorists...who may share tactics, but have completely different objectives.

And the Tamil Tigers have been a problem for a long time. The US designated them a terrorist organization thirty years ago.

And what does the violation of UN resolutions have to do with terrorist organizations?

DO try to stay on topic...you hop around like a jackrabbit on cocaine.

Yeah I can understand how resolutions have nothing to do with a threat concerning intelligence. Of course you idiots lay everything on the intelligence report that was "fixed" while totally ignoring the resolution that have gone unresolved. It has much to do with it so DO see the wizard for a brain.

Now go ahead and tell us once again how the terrorists of Iraq had harmless objectives. Oh thats right, they were never there to begin with, right?
Yeah ok, have another glass of retard juice....:rolleyes:

retiredman
12-10-2007, 02:28 PM
Yeah I can understand how resolutions have nothing to do with a threat concerning intelligence. Of course you idiots lay everything on the intelligence report that was "fixed" while totally ignoring the resolution that have gone unresolved. It has much to do with it so DO see the wizard for a brain.

Now go ahead and tell us once again how the terrorists of Iraq had harmless objectives. Oh thats right, they were never there to begin with, right?
Yeah ok, have another glass of retard juice....:rolleyes:

do you have any iudea how many nations have violated UNSC resolutions? Do you think that is really an acceptable rationale to invade, conquer and occupy a country especially when we need to be focusing on eliminating the enemies that attacked US?

The terrorists who trained in Iraq did not, of course, have "harmless objectives". Neither do the terrorists in Peru or Sri Lanka or Le Pays Basque for that matter. The difference between all of those groups of terrorists and Al Qaeda is: their less than harmless objectives did not and do not involve attacking the United States.

You have a really sort of adolescent swagger to your words - as if you know what the fuck you are talking about - and given the fact that you don't, it appears all the more foolish.

Sir Evil
12-10-2007, 03:59 PM
do you have any iudea how many nations have violated UNSC resolutions? Do you think that is really an acceptable rationale to invade, conquer and occupy a country especially when we need to be focusing on eliminating the enemies that attacked US?

Again retard, who was the enemy that attacked us, what is happening in Afghansitan? To turn a blind eye on a country that has been in violation of resolutions for as long as Iraq just to go after one objective is just plain naive. Is there not al qaida terrorists of some form in Iraq?



The terrorists who trained in Iraq did not, of course, have "harmless objectives". Neither do the terrorists in Peru or Sri Lanka or Le Pays Basque for that matter. The difference between all of those groups of terrorists and Al Qaeda is: their less than harmless objectives did not and do not involve attacking the United States.

And I am sure you are right about that but you still can't trivialize Iraq. Saddam hated everything about the united states, Saddam was known at one time or another to have the capability of using WMD's, Saddam was never coming into compliance with any resolution as he was easy avoiding any issues from the empty enforcers of those resolutions. Understand, sooner or later Iraq was going to have be dealt with, and it's nobody's fault that your beloved UN couldn't make things work.



You have a really sort of adolescent swagger to your words - as if you know what the fuck you are talking about - and given the fact that you don't, it appears all the more foolish.

:laugh2:
Alrighty dipshit, I'm not the one over here trying to say that I know what terrorist group has what objective, I'm not the one bringing up the need to go after the perpertrators of 911 that have long since died, and I am not the trying to make Iraq sound as though they were a good old bunch just minding their business.

So now not only do you have the facts on what terrorist orginization are planning world wide, you also have facts that have no clue what I am talking about. Gotta love that upper echelon mentality you idiots in maine have. :rolleyes:

It's called an opinion little spineless man, I too have one. I know you think you have a better one but that is what makes you... well just you, unfortunate but just you. I suppose now opinions are facts just as you made polls to be facts, right? If and when you get off that high horse you may realize all this but I assume that will probably never happen for old guy like yourself.

bullypulpit
12-10-2007, 04:36 PM
there are different breeds of terrorists...who may share tactics, but have completely different objectives.

And the Tamil Tigers have been a problem for a long time. The US designated them a terrorist organization thirty years ago.

And what does the violation of UN resolutions have to do with terrorist organizations?

DO try to stay on topic...you hop around like a jackrabbit on cocaine.

More likely it's crystal meth. Probably cooks it in his basement which would explain his lack of focus and occasional lapses into incoherence.

Sir Evil
12-10-2007, 04:42 PM
More likely it's crystal meth. Probably cooks it in his basement which would explain his lack of focus and occasional lapses into incoherence.

:laugh2:

Not too bad Bully! However my lack of focus still tells me that your are yet to come up with the proof that you said you had on all the "fixed" documents by the Bush admin.

Now I can certainly understand the daily grind of changing those bedpans probably has you a bit on edge at times but incoherent, focus, and things of such is much more needed on your part with the silly shit you always try to prove but fall miserably short of. :D

bullypulpit
12-10-2007, 07:10 PM
Here's some more reading for ya Evil:

<center><a href=http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/scheer> Bush's Lies About Iraq</a></center>

And as for listening to the White House and the likes of Newt Gingrich, John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz bitch about intelligence being used to fix a policy is like listening to John Wayne Gacy complain about men who get their kicks from raping and killing teen-age boys. They need to save their phony outrage for the remaining hard-core retards who are still credulous enough to believe their bullshit.

As for the NIE itself, it's not an opinion piece. The White House its remaining neo-con supporters are all in a lather because the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, INR, and DOE are unanimous in their conclusion that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

The Bush administration and its fellow travelers, such as yourself Sir Evil, are all pissed off because the well oiled propaganda machine that was cranked up to convince Americans that the only course was war with Iran just had a monkey wrench thrown into it. During the run up to the war with Iraq, had the objections of the intelligence community received a similar airing to this most recent NIE, the Bush administration could not have sold America on invading Iraq.

The analysis presented in the NIE in no way infringes on Bush's authority to pursue any misguided, crack-pot, dangerous course of action he wants to pursue. It simply robs him of the ability to rely on his own half-baked, misinformed, feckless personal beliefs. He and the rest of his administration can no longer say that Iran is building nukes. The intelligence community gave the President its best judgment on the matter. The real question now is whether or not Chinpy McPresident and Unca' Dick will stop indulging their Iranian fantasy.

manu1959
12-10-2007, 07:16 PM
who went into Somalia?

so big bill didn't send the us army to kidnap a somali war lord.....

how about his 4 1/2 year occupation of haiti..........

Sir Evil
12-10-2007, 07:21 PM
Here's some more reading for ya Evil:

<center><a href=http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/scheer> Bush's Lies About Iraq</a></center>


All stuff I have ready before Bully but still I wonder with all the hard facts why the man still resides in the office.

Let me put things in Perspective for you Bully sir, the last how many years you have been carrying on with the same old rants about bad old bush and the administration team, you are not alone as there are many others as well. Bottom line though is that either you have been wrong about everything or the guy managed to "fix" everything. I mean he "fixed" the election against Gore, He "fixed" the election against Kerry, he has "fixed" intel reports to bring us to war cause there was nothing better to do, and damn he even "fixed" the imagination of every dem to cross these forums. Houdini ain't got nothing on this master magician Bush!

Seriously, it has been fun doing this all these years, I know inside you must of died when Bush was re-elected while we sat back, and said "told you so"
Let it go Bully, if all this stuff of facts that you have hear come to light, and Bush gets impeached I will kiss your ass on Broadway. lol, but we know that wont happen because Bush would "fix" his own impeachment proceeding. :laugh2::laugh2:

bullypulpit
12-10-2007, 07:36 PM
All stuff I have ready before Bully but still I wonder with all the hard facts why the man still resides in the office.

Let me put things in Perspective for you Bully sir, the last how many years you have been carrying on with the same old rants about bad old bush and the administration team, you are not alone as there are many others as well. Bottom line though is that either you have been wrong about everything or the guy managed to "fix" everything. I mean he "fixed" the election against Gore, He "fixed" the election against Kerry, he has "fixed" intel reports to bring us to war cause there was nothing better to do, and damn he even "fixed" the imagination of every dem to cross these forums. Houdini ain't got nothing on this master magician Bush!

Seriously, it has been fun doing this all these years, I know inside you must of died when Bush was re-elected while we sat back, and said "told you so"
Let it go Bully, if all this stuff of facts that you have hear come to light, and Bush gets impeached I will kiss your ass on Broadway. lol, but we know that wont happen because Bush would "fix" his own impeachment proceeding. :laugh2::laugh2:

The Democrats are to big a bunch pf cowards to bring Articles of Impeachment against Bush. And the Republicans in Congress just keep on kissing his ass. Just because he and his whole crooked administration will never be held accountable for their crimes doesn't mean they shouldn't be. It's just like the rest of the American justice system...Money talks and shit walks. You, and your fellow travelers, turn a blind eye to it in a grand act of moral bankruptcy.

As for your posts, they contain little more than poorly wrought sarcasm. They are devoid of any substance, beyond the parroting of the White House spin. The assertions you make are just as empty as you cannot provide anything to support them. Just for a change, why don't you try sticking to the topic instead of tap dancing around the issues. Try addressing the issue of the NIE in post <a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=166480&postcount=236>#236</a>, why doncha? After all, that IS the subject of the thread. Or are the fumes from the meth lab getting to you?

retiredman
12-10-2007, 07:36 PM
"Again retard, who was the enemy that attacked us, what is happening in Afghansitan? To turn a blind eye on a country that has been in violation of resolutions for as long as Iraq just to go after one objective is just plain naive. Is there not al qaida terrorists of some form in Iraq?"

Itell you what....you quit calling me a retard, and I'll quit calling you a fucking braindead moron who gets laughed off every other board and can only hang here because your smarter, more successful brother has pity on you...OK? We were attacked! The ONLY reason there is ANY AQ terrorists in Iraq is because it is the easiest place on the planet for an arab to spill American blood.

"And I am sure you are right about that but you still can't trivialize Iraq. Saddam hated everything about the united states, Saddam was known at one time or another to have the capability of using WMD's, Saddam was never coming into compliance with any resolution as he was easy avoiding any issues from the empty enforcers of those resolutions. Understand, sooner or later Iraq was going to have be dealt with, and it's nobody's fault that your beloved UN couldn't make things work."

again.... we had an enemy.... an enemy that had attacked us.... we leave a relative handful of military forces to try and cope with our REAL enemy while we invest a trillion dollars and 31K dead and wounded Americans on a guy who was in violation of some UN resolutions, but who had not participated in the attacks against us and was as much of an enemy of the guys who did as we were? When you consider the potential threat posed by islamic extremism, for us to put Iraq at the absolute top of our "to-do" list is negligent in the extreme.

"Alrighty dipshit, I'm not the one over here trying to say that I know what terrorist group has what objective, I'm not the one bringing up the need to go after the perpertrators of 911 that have long since died, and I am not the trying to make Iraq sound as though they were a good old bunch just minding their business."

Well...as a matter of fact, I know quite well what the objectives are of the arab nationalist organizations that trained in Iraq...and those objectives have ZERO to do with the United States. And are you suggesting that, since all 19 hijackers died on 9/11 that means, from your perspective, that the "perpetrators of 9/11" are no longer our concern? If so, why worry about OBL at all? Why did we even bother to go looking for HIM in Afghanistan when all the perpetrators had already died? Why didn't we just invade Iraq on 9/12/01? And I have NEVER suggesting that Iraq was a good old bunch just minding their business....you should back shit like that up or eat your words. I only suggest that Iraq is a sidetrack and a damned expensive one and five years after 9/11, within a few hundred miles of where they were holed up when 19 of their minions struck us, the leaders of islamic extremism were able to hold an outdoor televised graduation ceremony for 300 new graduates of suicide bomber school.... while we had 150K troops in Iraq. Nice move.

"So now not only do you have the facts on what terrorist orginization are planning world wide, you also have facts that I have no clue what I am talking about."

I never said I knew what terrorist organizations were planning worldwide. I said that I knew what their objectives were. And you DON'T have a clue what you are talking about.... you mix up your arguments routinely.

"It's called an opinion little spineless man, I too have one. I know you think you have a better one but that is what makes you... well just you, unfortunate but just you. I suppose now opinions are facts just as you made polls to be facts, right? If and when you get off that high horse you may realize all this but I assume that will probably never happen for old guy like yourself."

Of course you are entitled to your opinions... I would never suggest otherwise. And I have never suggested that opinions were facts, nor have I ever suggested that polls were facts. It is a fact that polls exist, and it is a fact that they have results, and those results have margins of error... that is a fact and not an opinion. And regarding my opinions... I do not attempt to pass myself off as the world's greatest authority on all topics. I WILL suggest that I know a shitload more about Islam and the middle east that you do, and that makes my opinion more informed, if nothing else.

retiredman
12-10-2007, 07:38 PM
so big bill didn't send the us army to kidnap a somali war lord.....


you asking me or telling me? I asked you...WHO sent our troops into Somalia?

Get back to me when you find out.

edit: I'll give you a hint: our troops arrived in Somalia on December 9th, 1992. That should be enough information for you to arrive at the answer.

Sir Evil
12-10-2007, 11:55 PM
Itell you what....you quit calling me a retard, and I'll quit calling you a fucking braindead moron who gets laughed off every other board and can only hang here because your smarter, more successful brother has pity on you...OK? We were attacked! The ONLY reason there is ANY AQ terrorists in Iraq is because it is the easiest place on the planet for an arab to spill American blood.

:laugh2::laugh2:

Laughed off? If you are referring to the dweliing where you and the turtle dove come from well then call it what you want but considering you & her were about the brightest ones there really ain't saying a whole lot. And still sticking your nose up my brothers ass I see. Thing is he is your only saving grace here, the rest of the administration team here wanted you gone because of your typical scumbag talk that takes over everytime you hear something you don't like. Ultimately I left that board out of respect for the board owner there. Yeah while I was offering you an opportunity to come gets some respect, you were offering to buy lunch. :laugh2: So typical...




I WILL suggest that I know a shitload more about Islam and the middle east that you do, and that makes my opinion more informed, if nothing else.

Yeah you are probably right about that however I know enough to know what my opinion is, I know enough to know that I can hang with the likes of retards like yourself who merely suggest otherwise on the war, terrorism, and any other bashing you do because a beloved democrat is not running the show.

Like I said to Bully, you guys have been whining about the same shit for years, and it has got you where? You badass dems are taking the keys you said in the past, but what have they done since? When your heroes take office I sure hope they make the worldly changes you act as though they are capable of. Bottom line is that the war happened, whether you think Iraq was worthless or not really doesn't matter now does it? Whether you think this or that terrorist group has what objective is really kind of meaningless. And the biggest bottom line is that it's been a pleasure watching you wads cry all day the past eaight years over the every move of the administration. :D

manu1959
12-11-2007, 12:07 AM
you asking me or telling me? I asked you...WHO sent our troops into Somalia?

Get back to me when you find out.

edit: I'll give you a hint: our troops arrived in Somalia on December 9th, 1992. That should be enough information for you to arrive at the answer.

who sent them into combat without armor or air cover?

who surrendered to adid?

passed right over the 4 1/2 year occupation of haiti?

retiredman
12-11-2007, 08:10 AM
who sent them into combat without armor or air cover?

who surrendered to adid?

passed right over the 4 1/2 year occupation of haiti?

you ask a lot of questions without ever answering any.

I'll answer yours when you get off your ass and answer mine first. how's that?:laugh2:

Sir Evil
12-11-2007, 09:47 AM
As for your posts, they contain little more than poorly wrought sarcasm. They are devoid of any substance, beyond the parroting of the White House spin. The assertions you make are just as empty as you cannot provide anything to support them. Just for a change, why don't you try sticking to the topic instead of tap dancing around the issues. Try addressing the issue of the NIE in post <a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=166480&postcount=236>#236</a>, why doncha? After all, that IS the subject of the thread. Or are the fumes from the meth lab getting to you?

Sarcasm, substance, and the same end will result Bully. There is no difference in how one replies to what you have to say as you have been posting the same junk since you have been here. Your blind hatred will have you see things only one way.

Now how is it that I am tap dancing around the issue? What you posted, and what you have linked to are two different things. What exactly am I asserting other than you can't prove these lies, all you can provide is opinion? You have your excuse well covered:


"The Democrats are to big a bunch pf cowards to bring Articles of Impeachment against Bush."

"And the Republicans in Congress just keep on kissing his ass. Just because he and his whole crooked administration will never be held accountable for their crimes doesn't mean they shouldn't be."

So if the crimes you are insinuating need to be accounted for but the dems are pussies, and the republican ass kissers what are you ranting on forever about? I mean you put out as if all these major crimes are going to just disappear because everyone is afraid of big bad bush. It just gets old after awhile Bully. :rolleyes:

bullypulpit
12-12-2007, 05:07 AM
Sarcasm, substance, and the same end will result Bully. There is no difference in how one replies to what you have to say as you have been posting the same junk since you have been here. Your blind hatred will have you see things only one way.

Now how is it that I am tap dancing around the issue? What you posted, and what you have linked to are two different things. What exactly am I asserting other than you can't prove these lies, all you can provide is opinion? You have your excuse well covered:


So if the crimes you are insinuating need to be accounted for but the dems are pussies, and the republican ass kissers what are you ranting on forever about? I mean you put out as if all these major crimes are going to just disappear because everyone is afraid of big bad bush. It just gets old after awhile Bully. :rolleyes:

Let me refresh your memory then.

<blockquote>And as for listening to the White House and the likes of Newt Gingrich, John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz bitch about intelligence being used to fix a policy is like listening to John Wayne Gacy complain about men who get their kicks from raping and killing teen-age boys. They need to save their phony outrage for the remaining hard-core retards who are still credulous enough to believe their bullshit.

As for the NIE itself, it's not an opinion piece. The White House its remaining neo-con supporters are all in a lather because the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, INR, and DOE are unanimous in their conclusion that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

The Bush administration and its fellow travelers, such as yourself Sir Evil, are all pissed off because the well oiled propaganda machine that was cranked up to convince Americans that the only course was war with Iran just had a monkey wrench thrown into it. During the run up to the war with Iraq, had the objections of the intelligence community received a similar airing to this most recent NIE, the Bush administration could not have sold America on invading Iraq.

The analysis presented in the NIE in no way infringes on Bush's authority to pursue any misguided, crack-pot, dangerous course of action he wants to pursue. It simply robs him of the ability to rely on his own half-baked, misinformed, feckless personal beliefs. He and the rest of his administration can no longer say that Iran is building nukes. The intelligence community gave the President its best judgment on the matter. The real question now is whether or not Chimpy McPresident and Unca' Dick will stop indulging their Iranian fantasy.</blockquote>

Are you going to debate the issues? Or are you simply going to waste more bandwidth with the puerile, insipid insults which you mistakenly characterize as rational argument? My money is on the latter. Dismissed.

nevadamedic
12-12-2007, 05:08 AM
Or so they say, Iran can't be trusted, we need to take them out!:salute:

red states rule
12-12-2007, 05:32 AM
you ask a lot of questions without ever answering any.

I'll answer yours when you get off your ass and answer mine first. how's that?:laugh2:

Please guys stop hitting MM with facts - he can't deal with them.

red states rule
12-12-2007, 05:34 AM
Let me refresh your memory then.

<blockquote>And as for listening to the White House and the likes of Newt Gingrich, John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz bitch about intelligence being used to fix a policy is like listening to John Wayne Gacy complain about men who get their kicks from raping and killing teen-age boys. They need to save their phony outrage for the remaining hard-core retards who are still credulous enough to believe their bullshit.

As for the NIE itself, it's not an opinion piece. The White House its remaining neo-con supporters are all in a lather because the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, INR, and DOE are unanimous in their conclusion that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

The Bush administration and its fellow travelers, such as yourself Sir Evil, are all pissed off because the well oiled propaganda machine that was cranked up to convince Americans that the only course was war with Iran just had a monkey wrench thrown into it. During the run up to the war with Iraq, had the objections of the intelligence community received a similar airing to this most recent NIE, the Bush administration could not have sold America on invading Iraq.

The analysis presented in the NIE in no way infringes on Bush's authority to pursue any misguided, crack-pot, dangerous course of action he wants to pursue. It simply robs him of the ability to rely on his own half-baked, misinformed, feckless personal beliefs. He and the rest of his administration can no longer say that Iran is building nukes. The intelligence community gave the President its best judgment on the matter. The real question now is whether or not Chimpy McPresident and Unca' Dick will stop indulging their Iranian fantasy.</blockquote>

Are you going to debate the issues? Or are you simply going to waste more bandwidth with the puerile, insipid insults which you mistakenly characterize as rational argument? My money is on the latter. Dismissed.

How quickly libs side with little Adolph when the intel fits their predetermined views

Only a lib would actually believe this modern day Hitler ceased his deisre for nukes all on his own

bullypulpit
12-12-2007, 05:41 AM
How quickly libs side with little Adolph when the intel fits their predetermined views

Only a lib would actually believe this modern day Hitler ceased his deisre for nukes all on his own

WTF are you babbling about? Take your meds and go back to bed.