quote:

ORIGINAL: Ninebelowzero

But when I saw Gen Powell before the UN he was specific about chemical & bio weapons. Eventhat snake oil salesman Blair never mentioned nukes.

Question: What do you make of the statement made by the Iraqi government yesterday that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction and is not developing any?

Rumsfeld: They are lying. Next.

Question: When you say that Iraq is lying. That story mentioned having weapons—

Rumsfeld: Sometimes I understate for emphasis....

Question: It was a two part thing, that were not developing and that they did not have any. Were they lying about one, or both?

Rumsfeld: No. They have them and they continue to develop them and they have weaponized chemical weapons, we know that. They've had an active program to develop nuclear weapons. It's also clear that they are actively developing biological weapons. I don't know what other kinds of weapons would fall under the rubric of weapons of mass destruction, but if there are more, I suspect they're working on them as well, even though I don't happen to know what they are. It is just false, not true, inaccurate and typical.


"British intelligence has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." –President Bush, 2003 State of the Union Address (Source)



Feith Defends Rice's Pre-War 'Mushroom Cloud' Claim On Iraq: It ...


On CNN on Sept. 8, 2002, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice infamously warned — incorrectly — that Saddam Hussein may be close to producing a nuclear weapon. When asked how “close” Saddam was to “developing a nuclear capacity,” Rice replied:

RICE: The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

As a push for action against Iraq, she added, “How long are we going to wait to deal with what is clearly a gathering threat against the United States, against our allies and against his own region?”

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

You are assuming that he did not invade over WMD...I think he and the American people did believe he was harboring them and supporting terrorists and ignoring some UN resolutions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife


Were you in a coma for ten years?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shortly before the Iraq invasion: [emphasis added]

Rumsfeld's Memoir
"We know where they [the WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.".........

Question: What do you make of the statement made by the Iraqi government yesterday that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction and is not developing any?

Rumsfeld: They are lying. Next.

Question: When you say that Iraq is lying. That story mentioned having weapons—

Rumsfeld: Sometimes I understate for emphasis....

Question: It was a two part thing, that were not developing and that they did not have any. Were they lying about one, or both?

Rumsfeld: No. They have them and they continue to develop them and they have weaponized chemical weapons, we know that. They've had an active program to develop nuclear weapons. It's also clear that they are actively developing biological weapons. I don't know what other kinds of weapons would fall under the rubric of weapons of mass destruction, but if there are more, I suspect they're working on them as well, even though I don't happen to know what they are. It is just false, not true, inaccurate and typical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Were you in a coma for ten years?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shortly before the Iraq invasion: [emphasis added]

Rumsfeld's Memoir
"We know where they [the WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.".........

Question: What do you make of the statement made by the Iraqi government yesterday that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction and is not developing any?

Rumsfeld: They are lying. Next.

Question: When you say that Iraq is lying. That story mentioned having weapons—

Rumsfeld: Sometimes I understate for emphasis....

Question: It was a two part thing, that were not developing and that they did not have any. Were they lying about one, or both?

Rumsfeld: No. They have them and they continue to develop them and they have weaponized chemical weapons, we know that. They've had an active program to develop nuclear weapons. It's also clear that they are actively developing biological weapons. I don't know what other kinds of weapons would fall under the rubric of weapons of mass destruction, but if there are more, I suspect they're working on them as well, even though I don't happen to know what they are. It is just false, not true, inaccurate and typical.

Were you in a coma when you posted this? Thats from a Rumsfeld interview AFTER the invasion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

So after the invasion..."They [still] had them they [still] continued to develop them and to weaponize chemical weapons."

After the invasion "they are actively developing biological weapons. "...if there are more, I suspect they're working on them as well..."

Was this like 5 minutes after the invasion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirRah

In reality we did not go into Iraq because of WMD's, nor did we go in for Bushes daddy.  The reality is when Israel invaded Yassir Arafat's compound they found multiple documents signed by Sadam paying Palestinian suicide bomber families $5000.  In some parts of the world that is a lot of money.  Essentially this represented an attack on Israel  by a foreign power (Iraq).  This triggered the mutual defense treaty between Israel and the United States.  Due to Islamic sensitivities, the US did not want Israel and the US to attack Iraq.  The US would have had the Muslim world up in arms against the US.  This is also why the US refused Israels offer for assistance.  WMDs was the mechanism used to bring the battle to fruition and disguise the actual reasoning behind the march to war.  Research into the Israeli raid on the compound and the news reports of the documents found and you will find it very neatly matches the gear up for the war. Since they did not wish to bring the whole of the Muslim world into the conflict, WMD's were the excuse used to bring the nation to war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

You are assuming that he did not invade over WMD...I think he and the American people did believe he was harboring them and supporting terrorists and ignoring some UN resolutions.

Which American people were those?

As I recall there was widespread opposition and questioning of the Bush administration's motives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirRah

In reality we did not go into Iraq because of WMD's, nor did we go in for Bushes daddy.  The reality is when Israel invaded Yassir Arafat's compound they found multiple documents signed by Sadam paying Palestinian suicide bomber families $5000.  In some parts of the world that is a lot of money.  Essentially this represented an attack on Israel  by a foreign power (Iraq).  This triggered the mutual defense treaty between Israel and the United States.  Due to Islamic sensitivities, the US did not want Israel and the US to attack Iraq.  The US would have had the Muslim world up in arms against the US.  This is also why the US refused Israels offer for assistance.  WMDs was the mechanism used to bring the battle to fruition and disguise the actual reasoning behind the march to war.  Research into the Israeli raid on the compound and the news reports of the documents found and you will find it very neatly matches the gear up for the war. Since they did not wish to bring the whole of the Muslim world into the conflict, WMD's were the excuse used to bring the nation to war.

Interesting theory on the optics of it, but I dont think they were necessary. Saddam's support for terrorists was already well known, and the focus on terrorists, not Islam in general, was well laid out in the aftermath of 9/11.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle



But NOT the terrorists responsible for 9/11, which was, of course the reasoning behind the AUMF.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle



But NOT the terrorists responsible for 9/11, which was, of course the reasoning behind the AUMF.

No, it wasnt. The known links to Al Qaeda were part of the reasoning, but not the specific terrorists responsible for 9/11.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle



But NOT the terrorists responsible for 9/11, which was, of course the reasoning behind the AUMF.

No, it wasnt. The known links to Al Qaeda were part of the reasoning, but not the specific terrorists responsible for 9/11.

really?
kets see the validation of all those "known links" documentation or are we operating off of news reels discussing the opinions of news reporters not facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle



But NOT the terrorists responsible for 9/11, which was, of course the reasoning behind the AUMF.

No, it wasnt. The known links to Al Qaeda were part of the reasoning, but not the specific terrorists responsible for 9/11.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife


Were you in a coma for ten years?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shortly before the Iraq invasion: [emphasis added]

Rumsfeld's Memoir
"We know where they [the WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.".........

Question: What do you make of the statement made by the Iraqi government yesterday that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction and is not developing any?

Rumsfeld: They are lying. Next.

Question: When you say that Iraq is lying. That story mentioned having weapons—

Rumsfeld: Sometimes I understate for emphasis....

Question: It was a two part thing, that were not developing and that they did not have any. Were they lying about one, or both?

Rumsfeld: No. They have them and they continue to develop them and they have weaponized chemical weapons, we know that. They've had an active program to develop nuclear weapons. It's also clear that they are actively developing biological weapons. I don't know what other kinds of weapons would fall under the rubric of weapons of mass destruction, but if there are more, I suspect they're working on them as well, even though I don't happen to know what they are. It is just false, not true, inaccurate and typical.

Were you in a coma when you posted this? Thats from a Rumsfeld interview AFTER the invasion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: submittous

Neither had anything to do with terror, security or national interest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: submittous

Neither had anything to do with terror, security or national interest.

I have to disagree with this part. The invasion of Afghanistan had a whole lot to do with finding Bin Laden, who up to that point, had not only gone un-admonished for his stranglehold on freedom in the country but who was supplied and trained by the US (at least the CIA) to fight the Soviet Union when they were there.

Once he was "positively" identified as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, invading Afghanistan became palatable because Al Qaeda was the de facto government in Afghanistan.

Mind you; I'm not saying whether we should or shouldn't have invaded. I'm saying that Bin laden claimed credit for the attacks and we KNEW he was in Afghanistan so, it was a little bit about 9/11.





Peace and comfort,



Michael