More "no WMD" news

I guess this thread is based on "news-headlines" rendering it fairly biased.

I watched the testimony on C-SPAN, there was full intent on it, his people too believed he had them, he made everyone think he had them. He also intended on opening shop again ASAFP.

The threat was there, it was a matter of time.
 
chcr said:
Cat, it's a matter of public record that they took 70 million of the money earmarked (and approved by congress) to pursue terrorists in Afghanistan and used it to start the Iraq war.

Yep that money was "shifted", but it was replaced with in a week. :confused:
All the moneys (amounts) that were/are alotted for Afghanistan are "still" there, or will be within days if anymore such transfers take place.
As far as operations, the way they handle it, the money transfers made/make no
difference. It's all a paper game there.
 
chcr said:
Cat, it's a matter of public record that they took 70 million of the money earmarked (and approved by congress) to pursue terrorists in Afghanistan and used it to start the Iraq war.


In this case the Iraqi war is costing us less than planned because we've only spent $120 billion of the 200+ earmarked ;)
 
All of you screaming NO WEAPONS NO WEAPONS...

where are the scrams of indignation over this?
Oct 7, 1:34 AM (ET) By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The Central Intelligence Agency has published hundreds of names of people, firms, political parties and government officials Saddam Hussein purportedly tried to buy off to get U.N. sanctions lifted.

At the same time, Saddam and his government managed to amass some $11 billion through shadowy deals to circumvent the sanctions, first imposed in 1990 and lifted after the U.S.-led invasion a year ago, said the report, released on Wednesday.

The report was part of a 1,200-page survey for the CIA by Charles Duelfer, a former U.N. weapons inspector, who concluded Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons or a nuclear arms program before the U.S. invasion last year.

It was published on the CIA's Website: www.cia.gov.

The former government's scheme included making deals with firms in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen to acquire prohibited items, the report said.

The published lists show how much oil individuals, political parties or firms from more than 40 countries purportedly were allocated and the names of the companies contract to lift oil on their behalf.

The list cited names from France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, which supervised the program.

Accusations again emerged against Benon Sevan, head of the now-defunct U.N. oil-for-food humanitarian program that handled $67 billion. He is listed as a U.N. official, called Mr. Sifan, and has vigorously denied the allegations.

The United Nations has said it had turned over all documents to an investigatory commission headed by Paul Volcker, the former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman.

13 SECRET FILES

Others on the lengthy list include Russian ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky and his Russian Liberal Democrat Party, Charles Pasqua, a former French interior minister, Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri, the son of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and the Peoples Liberation Front of Palestine.

The lists, parts of which had been published previously, were compiled from 13 secret files maintained by former Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan and the former oil minister, Amir Rashid.

But there was no independent verification. "We name those individuals and entities here in the interest of candor, clarity and thoroughness," the report said, adding that it did not "investigate or judge those non-Iraqi individuals."

Several U.S. firms were on the list but their names were not released because of privacy laws.

Iraq was under a sweeping U.N. trade embargo beginning August 1990 after it invaded Kuwait. The sanctions were lifted after the U.S. invasion.

At the end of 1996, the United Nations and Iraq began the oil-for-food program that allowed Baghdad to buy civilian goods and sell oil to pay for them under U.N. monitoring. But since 1990, Iraq, openly shipped oil by truck to Jordan and Turkey, with the United States and others turning a blind eye.

The report said oil deals with various governments generated over $7.5 billion for Saddam from the early 1990s until the start of the 2003 war.

Iraq earned an additional $3 billion from kickbacks or surcharges on oil, smuggling and other schemes, the report said.


Oil companies were forced to pay surcharges, which by late 2000 amounted to 25 to 50 cents per barrel, industry sources said at the time. Britain and the United States eventually stopped the practice by insisting U.N. oil prices be set retroactively to cut the surcharge.

U.S. oil companies purchased Iraqi crude from middlemen rather from Baghdad. But by early 2003, the United States was consuming 67 percent of Iraqi crude, by far the largest buyer.

It's been over a year that this has been known & still it's ignored in favor of We Hate Bush.
 
Isn't that what happens everywhere everytime when big business meets gov't? You had delusions that this kinda shit wasn't going on?
 
Y'know. I have to wonder. How many of you actually read more than the title, and first few lines. That report reads pretty damning of Hussein to me.
 
Professur said:
Y'know. I have to wonder. How many of you actually read more than the title, and first few lines. That report reads pretty damning of Hussein to me.

Absolutely. He's a madman and he was a tyrant. I just think US national security should have been the administration's first concern, and I don't think it was (or is).
 
you still think it was for oil Chic? I think there is some concern for national safety although as said it is not without an agenda of some kind
 
Professur said:
Y'know. I have to wonder. How many of you actually read more than the title, and first few lines. That report reads pretty damning of Hussein to me.
Y'know. I would've been cooler with the whole thing...if they wanted to do it so damned badly...they had enough truth to start a process and have it seen through. They shouldn't have lied.

Big business? These are UN member states & Iraq.
errr...these are mainly individuals and businesses FROM UN member states and Iraq

The Central Intelligence Agency has published hundreds of names of people, firms, political parties and government officials
government's scheme included making deals with firms in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen to acquire prohibited items
The published lists show how much oil individuals, political parties or firms from more than 40 countries purportedly were allocated and the names of the companies contract to lift oil on their behalf.

The list cited names from France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, which supervised the program.
Others on the lengthy list include Russian ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky and his Russian Liberal Democrat Party, Charles Pasqua, a former French interior minister, Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri, the son of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and the Peoples Liberation Front of Palestine.
some of the above could pass as nations depending on the stature of the party involved at the time
Several U.S. firms were on the list but their
But since 1990, Iraq, openly shipped oil by truck to Jordan and Turkey, with the United States and others turning a blind eye.

The report said oil deals with various governments generated over $7.5 billion for Saddam from the early 1990s until the start of the 2003 war.
so yeah. I'm seeing more reference to individuals/non government politicalies and business than to government here.
 
The report of the Iraq Survey Group should put an end to a saga which will go down as one of the great failures in the history of intelligence.



_40148508_saddam203.jpg
Saddam was a potential not an immediate threat, says the ISG report



The group concluded it was unlikely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

It also concluded that he probably meant to make chemical weapons again one day, if sanctions had been lifted.

"The emphasis is on capability and intention not on immediate threat," said one British official familiar with the report.

While the technical assessment is over, barring some unexpected discovery, the political argument is not.

Opponents of the war will quite simply feel vindicated. For them it was an open and shut case which has now been finally shut. Iraq had no weapons and the inspections would have revealed this if they had been allowed to continue. The assessment that Saddam Hussein was a potential threat provides an escape clause for proponents of the war, even though it was not the basis on which the decision to attack was taken. The basis for war was that he was an imminent, not a potential threat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720520.stm

Interesting 'details' from the report.
 
catocom said:
I personally don't think Our leader is evil, and I'm really still not convinced
that Iraq actually did quit there program in '91. :confused:
They may have just scaled it back and hid it better...?
Because something wasn't found (in mass quantity) doesn't mean it isn't/wasn't there.

I'm somewhat of a conspiracy theorist on our gov, but even more so of other countries. :devious:
I really don't know what the intel is 'really', and what they just don't want to release.
I also don't know what our real capabilities are for searching for stuff under the sand there.
:D
 
uh-huh

In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat

January 29, 2004
Download: DOC, PDF, RTF


The Bush Administration is now saying it never told the public that Iraq was an "imminent" threat, and therefore it should be absolved for overstating the case for war and misleading the American people about Iraq's WMD. Just this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase "imminent threat" – while also using the synonymous phrases "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction" – all just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq was "contained" and "threatens not the United States." While Iraq was certainly a dangerous country, the Administration's efforts to claim it never hyped the threat in the lead-up to war is belied by its statements.

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02



semantics are fun, huh? Urgent is even more frightening than imminent I'd say. To me, Urgent is right fucking now, where imminent is in a short while.
 
Stand down, Leslie ;)...

1. As far as I'm concerned, the President did not lie. He may have acted on misleading information, but that doesn't make him a liar. When both houses of Congress voted to go to war, they had the exact same information as the President, and they drew the same conclusions.

2. Only Congress can declare war...

The President of the US is getting heat over this, but what about Congress? Two four-year terms does not even scratch the surface of the multi-term runs of a congressman/woman. Tp keep it short, the President does not run the US...Congress does.
 
Leslie said:
uh-huh

semantics are fun, huh? Urgent is even more frightening than imminent I'd say. To me, Urgent is right fucking now, where imminent is in a short while.

Nuh-ugh. Not once did GW say that Iraq/saddam was/is an IMMINENT THREAT.

As far as urgent vs imminent...you are 180° off.
 
Gonz said:
Nuh-ugh. Not once did GW say that Iraq/saddam was/is an IMMINENT THREAT.

As far as urgent vs imminent...you are 180° off.

No, but others in his administration did. The implication was clear and playing semantic games fails to change it. The problem with grasping at straws is that everyone can see you're grasping at straws.
 
Since the beginning, people have tried to say he said something he never did. They have accused him, not his administration. Semantics are important in historical reference.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Stand down, Leslie ;)...

1. As far as I'm concerned, the President did not lie. He may have acted on misleading information, but that doesn't make him a liar. When both houses of Congress voted to go to war, they had the exact same information as the President, and they drew the same conclusions.

2. Only Congress can declare war...

The President of the US is getting heat over this, but what about Congress? Two four-year terms does not even scratch the surface of the multi-term runs of a congressman/woman. Tp keep it short, the President does not run the US...Congress does.
It ain't me saying the 'capital p' president here. Throughout this thread, I've said THEY. Administrations. Government(s). Whomever is to blame, it's reprehensible. Stoopid Bush, he wanted to be the bossman, he got it. Now he gets (in rose coloured world anyway) to take responsibility for what his administration did. As I assume will Blair.

But having said that...everything that's been said has been so very carefully worded and scripted that I truly cannot for the life of me believe that 'they' (this they would include your ever-honest LOL President) believed in what they were saying.
 
Back
Top