Breaking news: Powell endorses Obama

[Frame57]

WMD's? Well, there is only two ways to go with it. Either the administartion lied or their Intel was flawed. Back in the 80's we got dispatched to check out an alleged Soviet boomer being off the coast of Maine. SOSUS reported it and it turned out to be friggin NR-1. Intel can be flawed. But, I also believe in holding people accountable for flawed info. It is serious business

[August]

If you're going to play the blame game then start with Saddam himself:

http://able2know.org/topic/110876-1

Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture.

Saddam expected only a limited aerial attack by the United States and thought he could remain in control, the FBI special agent, George Piro, told CBS's 60 Minutes program in an interview to be broadcast Sunday.

"He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions" said Piro. "He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack."

"He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack" Piro said.

In 2003, a close aide of Saddam's told The Associated Press that Saddam did not expect a U.S. invasion and deliberately kept the world guessing about his weapons program, although he already had gotten rid of it.

Saddam publicly denied having unconventional weapons before the U.S. invasion, but prevented U.N. inspectors from working in the country from 1998 until 2002 and when they finally returned in November 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating.

Piro, a Lebanese-American who speaks Arabic, debriefed Saddam after he was found in an underground hideout near his home city north of Baghdad in December 2003, nine months after the U.S. invasion.

Piro said Saddam also said that he wanted to keep up the illusion that he had the program in part because he thought it would deter a likely Iranian invasion.

For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq, Piro told Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes.

Piro added that Saddam had the intention of restarting an Iraqi weapons program at the time, and had engineers available for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

[August]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Blaming him for what exactly, thinking that the US admnistration was smarter than it actually was ? Great mistake indeed.

No, his mistake was calculating that the US would launch another impotent Clintonian missile attack, ie do nothing.

[August]

Interesting.

Powell is actually going against his son in this:

http://www.thehill.com/leading-the-n...008-10-20.html

[Kapt Z]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

I have yet to see any evidence to show that the Bush Administration knowingly lied about WMD's. Are you implying that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and then Secretary of State Powell lied to the American people and indeed lied to the world in presenting what you term as a "fake show" to the United Nations Security Council?

I would imply that, yes.

The strange thing was at the time my 'conservative' Republican friends were even more into the conspiracy theories than I was. They were all convinced that the Bush administration wanted the war and was willing to do anything necessary to see that it happened. They thought it was obvious that the 'diplomacy' was all a sham.

I liked Colin Powell and I really wish he had resigned instead of going before the UN.

[August]

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

I would imply that, yes.

The strange thing was at the time my 'conservative' Republican friends were even more into the conspiracy theories than I was. They were all convinced that the Bush administration wanted the war and was willing to do anything necessary to see that it happened. They thought it was obvious that the 'diplomacy' was all a sham.

I liked Colin Powell and I really wish he had resigned instead of going before the UN.

So you imply without any proof other than the feelings of your fellow conspiracy theorists? Kinda flimsy no?

[Skybird]

The point is that back then the CIA and other intel services clearly got the order that they had to create and construct the evidence needed to give the impression of a political causes that was wanted - even if reality was not in line with this. Repeatedly, members of the intel services had revealed that, and they also complained about that that their later realistic assessements obviously never had reached the president - or he had not read them, instead kept on talking silly nonsens that showed that he had no clue of what he was talking about. Even a late general assessement of needed corrections that was worked out by 15 intelligence offices together - he apparently never read: "not even the first page were we summarized it", as one member of the gremium complained about with resignation. the names behind this conspiracy against the nation probably are not just Bush himself, who probably was just too stupid to see what was happening, or did see it but did not care, but Cheney and Rumsfeld (also in the team: Rice), who ran the show in Bush's place, and for that got card balanche from Bush. Here is were Bush's real catastrophic failure lies. Like all moralists, he is in his way plain stupid, but not by nature "evil". He is just an incompetent dilletant for whom being presidient simply is completely too much from A to Z, and who messd this job up like he has messed up ever yother job and business project that he ever put his hands on - they all ended in desasters from which his uber-daddy had to save him and for which other people had to pay the bill.

[Kapt Z]

Originally Posted by August

So you imply without any proof other than the feelings of your fellow conspiracy theorists? Kinda flimsy no?

No, I implied because that's what I believe. I was just shocked to hear my friends share my feelings. We have been disagreeing on politics since the 7th grade. I think there is more than ample evidence, but I think Skybird's last post pretty much covered it. Deception or incompitence take your pick.

[August]

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

No, I implied because that's what I believe. I was just shocked to hear my friends share my feelings. We have been disagreeing on politics since the 7th grade. I think there is more than ample evidence, but I think Skybird's last post pretty much covered it. Deception or incompitence take your pick.

Skybirds post is just monday morning quarterbacking. Nobody could say in 2002 that Saddam didn't have the weapons he claimed he had, or that he didn't have the expertise and resources to make more of them including nukes given a little time, nor was the Bush administration the first to think he had them either though it's tough to find a Democrat these days who remembers what they were saying in the 1990s.

Besides, in spite of what the revisionists will tell you WMDs were never the only reason for taking him out. It should have been done in 1991, and for that I blame Bush Sr. But whatever, Saddam was a dangerous, violent and cruel tyrant with access to a lot of petrodollars and a strong desire for revenge. It'd be stupid to leave him in power. I'd think all the oil for food scandles would show you that. I firmly believe that had we not invaded Iraq we'd have had another 9-11 by now and he'd have had a hand in it.

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by August

I firmly believe that had we not invaded Iraq we'd have had another 9-11 by now and he'd have had a hand in it.

My belief as well. The danger of a Saddam circumventing UN sanctions far outweighed an academic debate at the time of whether their was conclusive proof he had or was developing WMD. He had to be taken out period.

The problem and sad thing was with phase 2 after he was toppled as Powell referred to. That is where current debate should be, inspecting one's navel on phase 2 so that the same mistakes are not made again should one have to take out another regime to secure world stability. I have a problem using the word 'peace' as for me, that is an illusive concept. It is like watching a dog try and catch its tail. It ain't going to happen.

You guys should go start a new religion the ways you talk about "belief".

I rather go by this:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blument...9/06/bush_wmd/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm

[Tchocky]

It's not obvious to me how the oil-for-food scandal translates to a 9/11-type attack, especially when there is no extant evidence for anything like this.