Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
George Bush did, after the house and congress voted.



What spin did I write? Unlike you, I try to post facts. I don't post conspiracy theories. I don't post constantly trying to rip on any one politician. I don't blame any one person for the countries faults. What spin have I laid down here?

Feel free to make foolish posts though, wouldn't want you to have withdrawals.

The Congress authorized the right to use force IF REQUIRED. The house and congress did not vote to invade Iraq. They gave Bush a trust which he violated.


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
The Congress authorized the right to use force IF REQUIRED. The house and congress did not vote to invade Iraq. They gave Bush a trust which he violated.


-Bam

They voted to authorize war with Iraq if Saddam failed to voluntarily abide by the UN resolutions, which he didn't. Democrats and Republicans alike gave the authority to use force if Saddam failed to comply.

Are you saying the Dems are stupid enough to authorize war, but didn't think Bush would give the go ahead if Saddam failed to abide by the resolutions? Help me understand this. Are you absolving the Dems of any responsibility here?

 

[Annie]

This may turn into something or nothing, I think most of us are hoping for the former: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...1&subContrassID=8&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Last Update: 10/01/2004 16:26

Danish troops test Iraq shells for chemicals

By Reuters



BAGHDAD - Danish troops have found suspicious mortar shells in southern Iraq and plan to test them to see if they could be chemical weapons, military officials said on Saturday.




A Danish official in the city of Basra said troops had uncovered 36 120mm mortars on Friday and had asked British specialists to analyze them.

"The first inspections have shown that the mortars contain some liquid," he said. "We don't now what sort of liquid or the age of the mortars."

He said soldiers had cleared the area where the weapons were found.

There are several hundred Danish soldiers working with a British-led multinational force responsible for security in southern Iraq.

The U.S. administration had cited the threat of illicit weapons of mass destruction as a principle reason for launching war on Iraq in March of last year. But no such weapons have been found so far.

The United States earlier this month pulled out a 400-member military team specializing in the disposal of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq in what the New York Times said was "a sign that administration might have lowered its sights" and viewed it as less likely that such weapons would be found.

But the White House played down the move, saying that the group focused on hunting weapons was remaining in Iraq.

 

[Annie]

More on this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&e=2&u=/nm/20040110/ts_nm/iraq_chemicals_dc_4

Possible Iraqi Blister Gas Weapons Found
23 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!



BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Danish troops have found dozens of mortar rounds buried in Iraq (news - web sites) which initial chemical weapons tests show could contain blister gas, the Danish army said on Saturday.
The tests were taken after Danish troops found 36 120mm mortar rounds on Friday in southern Iraq. The Danish army said the rounds had been buried for at least 10 years.


"All the instruments showed indications of the same type of chemical compound, namely blister gas," the Danish Army Operational Command said on its Web site.


"However, this will not be confirmed until the final tests are available," it said in a statement. Results of the final tests are likely to be ready in about two days.


Blister gas, an illegal weapon which ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) said he had destroyed, was extensively used against the Iranians during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.


Although it can kill if it enters the lungs, it is used mainly to weaken infantry by making the skin break out in excruciatingly painful blisters.


Four different types of instrument were used on three of the mortar rounds, the army said in its statement, adding that 100 more rounds could be buried at the site.


After Danish troops found the suspicious mortar shells they asked British specialists to analyze them, a Danish official had said earlier. "The first inspections have shown that the mortars contain some liquid," he said.


In Baghdad, the U.S. military said the mortar rounds had been found buried 45 miles south of Al-Amara, north of Basra.


"Most were wrapped in plastic bags, and some were leaking," Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told a news conference, adding that it was likely the weapons were left over from the Iran-Iraq war.


ILLICIT WEAPONS


The Danish army statement said local Iraqis had confirmed that the 36 mortar shells had been buried for at least 10 years at the site 12 miles north of Qurnah.


There are several hundred Danish soldiers working with a British-led multinational force responsible for security in southern Iraq.


The U.S. administration had cited the threat of illicit weapons of mass destruction as a principle reason for launching war on Iraq in March last year. But no such weapons were found.


The United States earlier this month pulled out from Iraq a 400-member military team specializing in the disposal of weapons of mass destruction, in what the New York Times said was "a sign that administration might have lowered its sights" and viewed it as less likely that such weapons would be found.


But the White House played down the move, saying that the group focused on hunting weapons was remaining in Iraq

 

[Johnney]

see, the metal detectors finally worked

 

[NightTrain]

I know the intel was fraudulent about the Nigerian uranium purchases. It doesn't matter who forged it, Bush used it in a speech to whip up support for the war.

Bad intel happens frequently, it's the nature of the business. The Brits got suckered by an Italian looking to make a quick buck. We believed it initially, although there were doubts raised.

It was a mistake to use it, the Administration admitted they made the mistake. What would make you Libs happy here? Would you like to line up the CIA section responsible for handling this and shoot them all in the back of the head for their mistake?

Would that make you happy? Get over it.

Cheney's certitude bewildered Zinni. As chief of the Central Command, Zinni had been immersed in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. He was all too familiar with the intelligence analysts' doubts about Iraq's programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' "

So, in other words, Zinni had doubts about WMDs in Iraq.

We know that Saddam did have & use them after the end of Desert Storm. That's why the No-Fly Zones were implemented.

So, I can only assume that Zinni is speaking of the period between 1992 and 2003.

Don't you find it puzzling that Zinni was the only one not convinced? Our intelligence said he had them, along with every other nation on the UNSC. If everyone, including Zinni, was looking at the same reports & intercepts, how could it be possible that Zinni could draw a conclusion completely different than everyone else involved? I think it's rather unlikely - IF he had all the information that the President did!

I can provide links to a person who had access to all the intel regarding Saddam and who never saw the proof that Bush acted on.

Where, exactly, does it say that Zinni knew everything that Bush did? Was Zinni secretly part of Dubya's staff?

Do you think it's likely that Zinni has political ambitions? Hmmm?

I got my data for the Iraq invasion being criminal here:

Emm... Commondreams? And an article by Agence France Presse, no less! LOL

You're wrong. It wasn't a violation of International Law.

That little comedy in Belgium can convict away, it's not internationally recognized and therefore completely useless. It's a politically driven body and there are no safeguards. That's why the USA won't be a signatory to it.

The Belgians make some mighty fine waffles, perhaps they should stick with what they know.

I am going to hold you to your nation-building pose now NT. You have to support spending US tax dollars and losing US lives to make every nation in the world free from tyrants. Congratulations!

Be prepared to be called out repeatedly for your view.

Great! Looking forward to it.

Perhaps you'd do better with your research by not quoting sites like Commondreams... their entire agenda is rabidly leftist and they freely admit it. Check out their founder / editor

http://www.commondreams.org/editor.htm

And a small exerpt under 'About Us' (btw - for people that don't know, 'Progressive' = 'Liberal' :

'Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization working to bring progressive Americans together to promote progressive visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for internet activism.'

 

[bamthin]

NT,

You said

"Don't you find it puzzling that Zinni was the only one not convinced? Our intelligence said he had them, along with every other nation on the UNSC. If everyone, including Zinni, was looking at the same reports & intercepts, how could it be possible that Zinni could draw a conclusion completely different than everyone else involved? I think it's rather unlikely - IF he had all the information that the President did!"


So, I proved that a well qualified person did not agree with the intel and this is all you have? Why don't you show me all the ironclad intel you are stating our intelligence had. I am waiting. Please provide links. Thanks. I would also like the to see the intel from every other nation on the UNSC, especially the ones who did not agree to invade. Thanks again.



-Bam

 

[Annie]

Bam if I read you right, you disregard UN, Nato, Israel, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, EU, US intel, all in favor of Zinni?

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Bam if I read you right, you disregard UN, Nato, Israel, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, EU, US intel, all in favor of Zinni?

Show me the intel and then let's discuss it. I want to see the intelligence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Saddam an Iraq were imminent threats to the US and that they had a viable WMD program that was a threat to US security. That's all I have really ever asked for.

So, as I asked NT, show me this intel that you are so convinced exists. Show me the links to Bin Laden as well. After all, it is that organization that we are after. Right?

-Bam

 

[NightTrain]

Bam - this is the third time that I've had to point out to you that you're missing the point.

Slow down and absorb what you're reading. If you're going to go looking for a scrap this is going to bite you in your ass.

I thought it was self evident, but I'll spell it out for you. Your hero, Zinni, either wasn't in the loop entirely on the intel or wasn't bright enough to put it together. Maybe he thought Saddam really was a swell guy & was getting a bum rap. I don't know.

From all I've read, he's a bright man. So that leaves me to conclude that he didn't know what was going on. Everyone privy to the whole picture said Saddam had them.

Can you dig it?

As far as your other statements... LOL I don't have access to Top Secret Intelligence documents, and if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't be sharing them on the internet.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
Show me the intel and then let's discuss it. I want to see the intelligence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Saddam an Iraq were imminent threats to the US and that they had a viable WMD program that was a threat to US security. That's all I have really ever asked for.

You are correct, the burden of proof was to be supplied by the accusers. These documents will not be released to the general public for security reasons. The UNSC members all shared their intel with one another. Those countries then shared the information with all interested parties that had clearance. Those parties consisted of republicans and democrats alike.

In the US, the 'proof' was shared as requested. As a result, both the house and senate voted to give Bush the authority to go after Iraq.

WE gave them that authority. They were convinced with what they saw and acted appropriately.

 

[bamthin]

Have YOU seen this evidence? And also, I think the authority was given to use whatever means are required to disarm Saddam. I don't think the congressional authority ordered Bush to evict the UN inspectors and invade. War supporters seem to always beleive that Congress declared war on Iraq. That is just untrue.

Going after Iraq doesn't have to entail occupying it.


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Have YOU seen this evidence?

I don't need to. I trust the people we put into office as well as the many other intel agencies around the world. That's whay we put these people in those positions.

And also, I think the authority was given to use whatever means are required to disarm Saddam. I don't think the congressional authority ordered Bush to evict the UN inspectors and invade. War supporters seem to always beleive that Congress declared war on Iraq. That is just untrue.

What do you think "use whatever means are required" entails?

Going after Iraq doesn't have to entail occupying it.

Sure. They should have just rang Saddam's doorbell and threw some eggs at his palace, then reutrned to the US so no liberals can bitch.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I don't need to. I trust the people we put into office as well as the many other intel agencies around the world. That's whay we put these people in those positions.



What do you think "use whatever means are required" entails?



Sure. They should have just rang Saddam's doorbell and threw some eggs at his palace, then reutrned to the US so no liberals can bitch.

I think the betrayal of that trust is the crux of the issue.

I think that prudent use of diplomacy and any other means other than one that would cause the death of thousands of innocents and hundreds of US servicepeople is what I TRUST our leaders to do. The mobilization alone of the US military would have probably been enough to apply sufficient pressure on Saddam. I guess we will never know now.


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
The mobilization alone of the US military would have probably been enough to apply sufficient pressure on Saddam. I guess we will never know now.


-Bam

The US military has been mobilized in the Iraq/Middle East region since the first Gulf War.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by bamthin
Show me the intel and then let's discuss it. I want to see the intelligence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Saddam an Iraq were imminent threats to the US and that they had a viable WMD program that was a threat to US security. That's all I have really ever asked for.

So, as I asked NT, show me this intel that you are so convinced exists. Show me the links to Bin Laden as well. After all, it is that organization that we are after. Right?

-Bam

Hello? Intel is not supposed to be interpreted as being beyond a Shadow of a Doubt. It is there to help assess whether or not there is a reasonable threat to our national security.

We do not even have the standard of a Shadow of a Doubt in criminal cases involving U.S. citizens. The germaine phrase is beyong a Reasonable Doubt - meaning how would a reasonable person interpret the information. Given your bias, I cannot believe you have the judgement of a reasonable person on this matter.

In December, I went to a cocktail party fundraiser for Senator Feinstein, held the Monday after Saddam's capture was announced. She is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. She commented that 77 Senators voted for the war based upon compelling intel that Saddam had the capability to produce chemical weapons. The biggest concern was that he also had relationships with terrorist that could smuggle these chemical weapons into the U.S.

That's enough for me, as a Reasonable Person.