Antiwar Reporting Helps U.S. Enemies

[jimpeel]

And then there's THIS, of course.

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

[more]

 

[jimpeel]

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

ABOUT FACTCHECK.ORG

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
July 26, 2004
Updated: August 23, 2004

Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

Summary

The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

• A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
  
• A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
  
• Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
  
• Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

[more]

 

[spike]

I agree minkey. The protesters should be shot as traitors.

The supporters are the ones that need to be shot.

 

[spike]

Ah, yes, the ol' "Bush lied. People died." bullshit again.

I don't remember using that quote. However Iraq was certainly no threat, lies connecting Al qaida and Iraq were made hundreds of times, and it certainly is wasting massive amounts of tax dollars.

 

[Gonz]

The supporters are the ones that need to be shot.

You could be so much more interesting if you'd actually think of something to say instead of changing the subject & reposting. YOu do that all the time & it's rather boring & childish.

lies connecting Al qaida and Iraq were made hundreds of times,

 

[jimpeel]

The supporters are the ones that need to be shot.

So you believe that all of the Iraqis who support the efforts of the U.S. in this war should be taken out to the soccer field and shot? You sound like Saddam reincarnated.

 

[spike]

You could be so much more interesting if you'd actually think of something to say instead of changing the subject & reposting. YOu do that all the time & it's rather boring & childish.

You were acting so mature and setting such a good example and just SOOOOO fucking interesting suggesting the illegal and unconstitutional shooting of protesters. You do dumbass shit like that all the time and it's pathetic.

Bush personally made them 28 times.

 

[jimpeel]

I don't remember using that quote. However Iraq was certainly no threat, lies connecting Al qaida and Iraq were made hundreds of times, and it certainly is wasting massive amounts of tax dollars.

You didn't, and its not a quote, its a mantra.

You obviously believe that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place and, by extension, that you believe that Saddam should still be in power. LACKING THAT, though, do you still believe that without the WMD as true justification we shouldn't have gone in there? Conversely, are we to believe that you would be content with this war had vast stockpiles of WMD been found in Iraq? Your entire argument seems to hinge on the presence of WMD and nothing else; because that is the premise upon which the mantra of the anti-war crowd hinges.

Here's a multi-part question that I would truly like to see an answer:

Do you believe that the people of Iraq are in any way deserving of liberty and freedom; that the UN was eventually going to free them; and that any of the resolutions hoisted by the UN were ever going to be enforced; and, if so, which one -- #18; #225; #578 -- which one?

 

[jimpeel]

Bush personally made them 28 times.

lies connecting Al qaida and Iraq were made hundreds of times

28 down, 172 to go; and you can then justify using the word "hundreds".

 

[2minkey]

I agree minkey. The protesters should be shot as traitors.

you're right. opening your mouth and voicing dissent should be punishable by death.

thanks, stalin.

you seem to love the constitutional guarantee of free speech so long as it does not interfere with your love of authoritarianism, or simply conflict with your opinion. go ahead, post "in wartime, historically...."

bullshit.

you should apply for a job in the chinese government. they probably need some loyal truck drivers these days. then you could rat people out, and see your ultracop fantasies unfold before your eyes...

 

[spike]

You didn't, and its not a quote, its a mantra.

Either way, it's not mine. Is your mantra "Bush has always been truthful, nobofy died"? That's dumb.

You obviously believe that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place and, by extension, that you believe that Saddam should still be in power.

You obviouslt believe we should have removed Saddam from power and by extension should remove all people we consider bad from power the world over.

do you still believe that without the WMD as true justification we shouldn't have gone in there? Conversely, are we to believe that you would be content with this war had vast stockpiles of WMD been found in Iraq?

I would imagine if Iraq was really a credible threat, or if the war had cost anywhere close to what we were told, or if it had lasted anywhere close to what what we were told, or if the way they handled it hadn't been completely bungled, or if there was a real connection to Al Qaida, or if Iraq was really a major center of terrorism, or any number of other things then I imagine a lot more people would be behind it.

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the presence of WMD and nothing else; because that is the premise upon which the mantra of the anti-war crowd hinges.

Considering that vast number of reasons I've talked about on this forum that would be a pretty silly statement to make.

Do you believe that the people of Iraq are in any way deserving of liberty and freedom;

Sure, they still don't have that though. Do you believe the people of Iraq are more deserving than other countries that were worse off?

and that any of the resolutions hoisted by the UN were ever going to be enforced; and, if so, which one -- #18; #225; #578 -- which one?

Do you believe it's a US duty to enforce all UN resolutions without the UN? I imagine you want to invade Isael next or would have liked to invade them first since they have more resolutions against them than Iraq did. There is some pretty good evidence they have WMDs too.

I suppose after that you want us to invade Turkey, Morocco, Armenia, Indonesia, etc for countless years.

 

[jimpeel]

Al Sadr admits he failed

Click HERE to view the video of the interview with Dan Senor on Al Sadr's admission of his failure to change Iraq. The surge worked and is working.

 

[jimpeel]

Either way, it's not mine. Is your mantra "Bush has always been truthful, nobofy died"? That's dumb.

The fact is that you keep making the statement that the war was based on lies that Bush told. That is not true. Bush did not lie.

The Butler Report agrees with me. The Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence agrees with me. The British government agrees with me. Factcheck.org agrees with me.

In the meantime, you have the likes of the Huffington post, Democratic Undrground, and Daily Kos as your guiding lights.

Do you believe it's a US duty to enforce all UN resolutions without the UN? I imagine you want to invade Isael next or would have liked to invade them first since they have more resolutions against them than Iraq did. There is some pretty good evidence they have WMDs too.

Israel isn't shooting at our aircraft which patrol a UN sanctioned no-fly zone. They never have. There is no no-fly zone partitioning Israel.

Saddam continued to shoot at our planes which were on UN sanctioned missions. He used 22 billion dollars of Oil For Food money to continue his military materiel buildup.

As for Israel having nukes, they are not likely to use them while the Islamists would be falling all over themselves in the rush to see who gets to push the holy red button while screaming "Allahu Akbar!".

 

[spike]

The fact is that you keep making the statement that the war was based on lies that Bush told. That is not true. Bush did not lie.

Really? Everything he told us was the truth? Really Jim?

The Butler Report agrees with me. The Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence agrees with me. The British government agrees with me. Factcheck.org agrees with me.

I would like to see quotes from these reports that say something along the lines of "everything Bush told us was true". Go ahead.

In the meantime, you have the likes of the Huffington post, Democratic Undrground, and Daily Kos as your guiding lights.

Why do you feel the need to make things up like this? I don't read any of those.

Israel isn't shooting at our aircraft which patrol a UN sanctioned no-fly zone. They never have. There is no no-fly zone partitioning Israel.

Yes, the resolutions against Israel are for other things.

As for Israel having nukes, they are not likely to use them while the Islamists would be falling all over themselves in the rush to see who gets to push the holy red button while screaming "Allahu Akbar!".

I would like to see some documentation backing up that statement.

Hey Jim, which of these statements is a lie:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

 

[jimpeel]

Why do you feel the need to make things up like this? I don't read any of those.

Didn't say you did. Apparently you don't need to because you spew the same venom as they do. Maybe they are reading you.

Hey Jim, which of these statements is a lie:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Priorities change.

 

[spike]

Didn't say you did.

Pretty hard for them to be my "guiding lights" if I don't read them.

Apparently you don't need to because you spew the same venom as they do.

Ah, and you spew the same venom as WND, Free Republic, and News Max.

Priorities change.

They do, especially when there's money involved. Too bad bin Laden or terrorists hasn't ever really been the priority. The "we will not rest" statement was just a lie.

 

[jimpeel]

Pretty hard for them to be my "guiding lights" if I don't read them.

Fact: You may not read them.

Fact: You spew exactly the same crap that they do.

What a coinkidink.

Ah, and you spew the same venom as WND, Free Republic, and News Max.

I have the guts to admit that some of what I post comes from those sources although I am not an avid reader of those sites.

I also have the guts to say that we hold the same values in many areas.

They do, especially when there's money involved. Too bad bin Laden or terrorists hasn't ever really been the priority. The "we will not rest" statement was just a lie.

Your statement HERE was:"... wasting massive amounts of tax payer monies in a farce based on lies that are trashing this country."

The war, which everyone here knows you were speaking of when you said "a farce based on lies", did not start over the two quotes you posted. It was of no consequence whatsoever whether we were after Bin Laden or not. Your bringing those quotes up was mere diversion from the real issue.

The "lies" that you and the rest of the anti-war crowd accuse Bush of using to start the war, or "farce" as you put it, were the "lies" about the yellow cake uranium and the weapons of mass destruction.

I showed you HERE and HERE and HERE that you and your anti-war cronies are wrong about Bush lying about those things. You guys have always stated that the war was started over lies told by Bush; and the lies he supposedly told were about the yellow cake uranium and the weapons of mass destruction. To cover your ass, you bring up the search or non-search for Bin Laden as how Bush lied. However, neither statement has been used by your crowd as having anything to do with the start of the "farce".

 

[BeardofPants]

Oh blah blah. Why don't you two get a room already?

 

[spike]

Fact: You may not read them.

Fact: You spew exactly the same crap that they do.

What a coinkidink.

You spew the same crap as the sites I mentioned.

I have the guts to admit that some of what I post comes from those sources although I am not an avid reader of those sites.

I also have the guts to say that we hold the same values in many areas.

Why does that take so much guts for you?

The "lies" that you and the rest of the anti-war crowd accuse Bush of using to start the war, or "farce" as you put it, were the "lies" about the yellow cake uranium and the weapons of mass destruction.

What an improvement that would be if the only time he lied was about Iraq being a threat with their WMDs.

"documents which formed the basis for [the White House's assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic."
Mohammed El Baradei, Director, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), March 2003

The White House has since apologized for making that claim.

President Bush and his vice president conceded yesterday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction

Are you calling them liars?

http://www.public-action.com/911/no-wmd-sdut/index.html

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Oh blah blah. Why don't you two get a room already?

"And now it's time for OTC's favorite game show...

My Search Engine Is Better Than YOUR Search Engine!!"