Iraqi Officer Identifies Himself as Source of 45-Minute Claim on Saddam's Arms

[5stringJeff]

Hold on... just did a Google search.

So what exactly makes you think that the Weekly Standard has a direct line to the White House?

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

pnac was a group that said lets get democracy to the middle east. that was a few years ago. their are nor are they the only ones who said it but still everyone who is againest bush says this was the plan all along. different people even take it futher saying pnac "allowed" or even planned 9-11 to make it easier to go after iraq. even though all the people who are supposedly involved in it were already in previous admins and held similiar or higher office or they served on the nsc iraq was the plan all along and they basically planed it in secret and they made up stuff to support it. even though clinton and the rest of the world said saddam had wmd,connection to terrorist etc etc these guys were the ones behind it all. regime change? even though the clintonistas were going on and on about it passing laws about it saying that is the ultimate goal of us policy pnac did it all.

 

[DKSuddeth]

pnac was a group that said lets get democracy to the middle east.

PNAC is a group that is trying to make the case , and rally american support for, american global leadership using the principles outlined in this link

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

The reason they are getting the bashing and reputation they have is they are equating american military strength with promoting american interests and morality through threat of economic or military intervention, hence the 'pax americana' label.

 

[5stringJeff]

Hmmm... while I support a strong defense, I don't buy into the argument that America has the morality market cornered. The whole reason for America's military is to defend the nation, not to establish America as the world's policeman, not even to export democracy.

However, I don't think that, outside of the GWOT, Bush is willing to use military force to promote American interests.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by Lefty Wilbury
pnac was a group that said lets get democracy to the middle east. that was a few years ago. their are nor are they the only ones who said it but still everyone who is againest bush says this was the plan all along.

Because it was the plan in 98. They are also one of the few "think tanks" who beleive you can deliver democracy via laser-guided bomb. As far as the 9-11 conspiracy goes I tend to agree with you on that one. All the proponents can do is point to a lack of evidence. I'm hoping if we ever manage to bring these guys (OBL, Zachari, etc.)to public trial all that can be put to rest.
9-11 offered the oppurtunity for the PNAC ideology to move to the front of the administrations pack. In a way, it neutralized Collin Powells position and created a landscape that favored the existing beleifs of the Vice President, Sec. Def., etc... If 9-11 never happened the last few years would have been vastly different.

even though clinton and the rest of the world said saddam had wmd,connection to terrorist etc etc these guys were the ones behind it all.

Clinton didn't invade Iraq. They had a plan, containment. It was relatively cheap, didn't cost much in lives. Some say it was deteriorating, but the counter-argument would be shored it up.

even though the clintonistas were going on and on about it passing laws about it saying that is the ultimate goal of us policy pnac did it all.

But at what cost? We've allways had the ability to whup Iraq, but the cost was always considered higher than the value of what would be gained. Better to let the Iraqis do it, or if neccessary just keep him in a box until he dies of old age. Bush circumvented this with the story about Iraq attacking the US with WMDs' or building a nuclear missile to hit Tel Aviv. Now the cost became acceptable and we acted. It is impertive we demonstrate our claims now that we control the country, and so far we've failed.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by dijetlo
Because it was the plan in 98. They are also one of the few "think tanks" who beleive you can deliver democracy via laser-guided bomb. As far as the 9-11 conspiracy goes I tend to agree with you on that one. All the proponents can do is point to a lack of evidence. I'm hoping if we ever manage to bring these guys (OBL, Zachari, etc.)to public trial all that can be put to rest.
9-11 offered the oppurtunity for the PNAC ideology to move to the front of the administrations pack. In a way, it neutralized Collin Powells position and created a landscape that favored the existing beleifs of the Vice President, Sec. Def., etc... If 9-11 never happened the last few years would have been vastly different.

if 9-11 never happend we wouldn't have hit iraq i'll agree with you on that but after 9-11 we started to lok at things and places a whole lot differently. saddam hated us and everyone knew it. he was paying and in some cases arming terrorists and the chance of him doing the same with al queda was a chance bush wasen't going to take.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Clinton didn't invade Iraq. They had a plan, containment. It was relatively cheap, didn't cost much in lives. Some say it was deteriorating, but the counter-argument would be shored it up.

he bombed the hell out of it. sanctions were failing and saddam was getting out of his little box we put him in. even when we tried to get "smart sanctions" in place the world for the most part wanted them removed.

Originally posted by dijetlo
But at what cost? We've allways had the ability to whup Iraq, but the cost was always considered higher than the value of what would be gained. Better to let the Iraqis do it, or if neccessary just keep him in a box until he dies of old age. Bush circumvented this with the story about Iraq attacking the US with WMDs' or building a nuclear missile to hit Tel Aviv. Now the cost became acceptable and we acted. It is impertive we demonstrate our claims now that we control the country, and so far we've failed.

saddam always had wmd and showed he would used it. like i said it was amatter of time before he sliped someone something. maybe he didn't pass it off to obl sooner because he thought he was a small time terrorist but after 9-11 he showed what he can do. the world will be much better in 10 now that saddam is gone.

 

[jimnyc]

Its' called bait and switch. To invade Iraq we created a doctrine. When we apply the doctrine to the situation we find in Iraq, we find it doesn't apply and we now invaded for humanitarian reasons. It makes us look silly, doesn't it?

No, it makes you look silly, the humanitarian issues have been involved since 1991 and have been included in just about every speech and part of the vote to invade.

Jimmy, I'm going to spare you my normal diatribe when someone with whom I am debating politics stops to point out a spelling error. The difference between the 2 words is an "n", so you obviously knew what I was saying to you. I only object when I can't discern a posters meaning from his words. Spelling doesn't count in political debate, when it does come up, the complainer is trying to use it to butress a weak position

I couldn't help myself when you did it twice within seconds AND had my quoted text right in front of you! Not to mention, I had in fact refuted your argument in the very same paragraph - so absolutely nothing was avoided. I guess you paid as much attention to my words as you did in reading the resolutions that were signed 12 years ago.

I'll respond to the rest of your conspiracy theories if they ever make it to fact.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
dijetlo,
Any links or sources on the fact of PNAC's existence?

I thought you'd never ask...
Front Page
Letter to Clinton in 98.
excerpt from statement of principles

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Excerpt from letter to Bush 9/20/91 (9 days after 9/11)

But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq...A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.

They are real enough. I don't have an index of relevant documents but it only took a couple of minutes of reading to find the prior information. I suggest you take a look at what these guys beleive, since if you read the names on the bottom of the pre-2002 election documents, you'll find the names of the most senior administration and defense officials. Agree with them or not, this is definitely not the agenda GWB set out before the public in '00. It appears to be the one he's following though.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
No, it makes you look silly, the humanitarian issues have been involved since 1991 and have been included in just about every speech and part of the vote to invade.

The humanitarian argument is not new, your right, but it has never been reason enough to invade Iraq. To make the value seem greater than the cost, they concocted a WMD threat. Now they can't prove it exists.

I couldn't help myself when you did it twice within seconds AND had my quoted text right in front of you! Not to mention, I had in fact refuted your argument in the very same paragraph - so absolutely nothing was avoided. I guess you paid as much attention to my words as you did in reading the resolutions that were signed 12 years ago.

I countered your refutation. as far as the rest, mia culpa, all is forgiven

I'll respond to the rest of your conspiracy theories if they ever make it to fact.

Admit it, the Mr. T rant is not only funny, it has the added bonus of probably being true. The PNAC links are in the prior post.Look around the site.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally Posted By Lefty Wilbury

"Local commanders were told that they could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam. "We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon," he said.

The only reason that these weapons were not used, said Col al-Dabbagh, was because the bulk of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam. "The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he said."

Another very good reason has been brought to light lately concerning the fact that Saddam did not use the WMD card during the coalition forces.

According to Col al-Dabbagh the weapons could only be used on the personal orders of Saddam.

This fact may be very true as the United States may have killed or disabled Saddam that first night when he was turned in and a massive missle strike against his location was made on all our TV sets.

Saddam may not have been able to give any orders as to this day, no evidence of Saddam being seen on TV with a dated newspaper in his hands or any other proof that he lives. Just some tapes that are known to have existed for a long time before the war against Iraq.

Maybe...

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by Lefty Wilbury
how about an attempt to kill a president? that enough for you? or how about paying homide bombers that have killed americans? or how about harbouring terrorist like abu nidal and Abdul Rahman Yasin that have killed americans. how about issuing iraqi diplomatic passports to carlos the jackel?

Whatever threat you attach to these things, they were not used by the administration to validate its' actions and with the exception of the alleged plot in '92 to kill 41, are not unique to Iraq. The assasination theory has been public knowledge for some time and has never been used as a pretext for the invasion (until now).

no the un isn't any authority on any treaty. it was signed with us no one else.

No, it wasn't. It was signed by Schwarzzkopf as theater commander of UN forces. The US never delcared war on Iraq. I provided the links last time this was brought up so at this point I'd suggest you find a copy of the document and look at the signatures.

iraqs own weapons paper turned over to the un stated they still had wmd.

Ten years ago, they did. When Iraq ejected the inspectors in '98 they claimed one of them was a CIA officer. This turned out to be true. They apparently continued the destruction program because some brightboy in the palace realized it was a moot point. They could rebuild the chem program in a couple of weeks with existing industrial capacity. The nuke program was not possible with the sanctions in place so it had been abandoned earlier.

really you have pnac info to back up your claims? where is it? did any pnac defectors provide any info? how about any seized pnac documents? how about satilite photos of pnac at work?

Read the prior links to their website, pay special attention to the men who signed the documents.

we've got all that stuff on iraq but thats not enough for you.

What have you got? Did they kill rebels and political prisoners? Did they give WMDs to terrorists? Which of those statements is demonstrably true and which applies to the doctrine of pre-emption?

all they have is some internet rumour or leftist website crap to go on. oh wait all you probably have is some letter telling clinton to take out iraq right?thats good enough for you but an interview done by a newspaper with someone isn't good enough. yep thats it people.

No, no, no lefty, I use PNACs own site and the Whitehouse.gov to prove this argument. I take it you accept those sites as not being "left wing propaganda sites". As you get to know me better Lefty, you'll realize that I am very careful about my sources, since I'm accused of whinning (sic) about the sloppy use of information on the right.

yet when someone provides stuff on saddam from creditable sources weather its interviews, intercepts or documents it's not real. their all fakes and the "corperate media" is covering everything up

I've never made the "Media Plot" argument. Media is driven by interest and part of the problem is that in the interests of sensationalism they print stuff that they normaly wouldn't. During watergate, the Washington Post had a policy of not printing an anonymous source without independant verification. You other post on the OBL meeting was a good example of careful vetting.I respond to the posters and what they post. Rumors abound, sometimes I feel like pointing out that the "news" your reading constitutes little more the a rumor.

you had the kay report showing the found boutcholism in iraq but thats not enough

I can find botulism in my refrigerator, he didn't have to go to Iraq to find that...

how about saddams own son in laws coming to the west years ago saying saddam still had and was still working on wmd? that not enough?

You obviously trust the Husseins more than most.

you had iraq intel documents talking about a meeting with obl but thats not enough.

No you don't, you have a guy telling another guy this story. No names equals no credibility. Could it be true? Yeah. Is it true? No evidence, nothing but an anonymous conversation and a document nobody can look at. Thats pretty low on the credibility meter, don't you think?

that north korea deal,which was even mention in the kay update report in sept still not enough.

Kaye had nothing substantiative either, only the same rumour your hearing here. I do beleive that there could be an Hussein/Kim connection, but it hasn't been proven. I can assure you I don't live off of BS and internet rumor, and I don't disregard something simply because I don't agree with it, but balanced against all the conspiracy theories floating around is the lack of any solid, impartial evidence.

Syria is cooperrating with us and the war on terror in general.

I'm glad you think that because I don't want to have to argue against an invasion of Syria.

bahrain,qutar saudi arabia,kuwait

The monarchies of the middle east support us? All the nations you mentioned are affected by our trade policies. In the halls of power, that gets a lot more attention than on the streets of NY.
As far as who said what, remember Iraq had WMDs' up to 98 as far as we can tell. Anybody who made those statements up until then was probably right. In 2000 Colin Powell and Rice stated they didn't have WMDs' so you have to look at the statements in the context of the events that were occuring. On balance the whole thing is suspiscious, to say the least. A Senate investigation is in progress and the Dems may try to get a special prosecutor to investigate the politicization of the Intelligence on Iraq (as per the memo that was hacked off a dem staffers system...) just in time for their nominee to pick up that flag and run with it.
Oughta time, gotta go make the donuts. enjoying the debate but three against one is a lot of typing.....

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Dijetlo

Unfounded:
Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless.

Not yet established.

PNAC is real, I've linked you to the documents, the signatures on the documents actually do belong to R. Cheny, D. Rumsfeld, etc. etc., but your defence is it is not "established". You wont find it on Fox, that's true, but the facts are available for anyone to peruse.

Your links to purported documents actually signed by R. Cheney, D. Rumsfield, etc would be the equivalent of Richard Nixon's taping and keeping records of his attempts at the cover-up of the Whitewater Hotel robbery. An exposure which forced this US President from office. Certainly such documents for which you claim to have found links to would force George W. Bush and his administration out on it's collective ear.

If I understand you correctly, Bush, et.al. are smart enough to attempt world domination as per your leftist PNAC site but also dumb enough to document such a plot with their own signatures.

I must have missed your links to such actual documents and would appreciate reposting those links to such signed documents for my perusal.

Signature forgeries on documents of that magnitude would certainly have been published on every mainstream news media in the United States and the entire world of leftist nations media. The United States administration would be denounced not only by the American public but the world itself.

Forgive me for not believing in such nonsense until verified by reputable sources. Sources like GW Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield being confronted with such fantastic documents.

 

[DKSuddeth]

ajwps

do you really think that having that kind of leftist set of documents, complete with domain name and a rather well thought out plan for all regions of the world, signed by the names of some of our white house administration as well as defense policy members would STILL be sitting there on the WWW plain as day? If it was in any way false it would have been YANKED off the web so damn fast that the server would STILL be spinning.

The reason it still sits there is that its real. Its never been denied by any of the signatores and the reason there isn't a fuss about it is that its a policy outline by defense board members. To them, and alot of others, it is completely sane and worthy of pursuit.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by dijetlo
Whatever threat you attach to these things, they were not used by the administration to validate its' actions and with the exception of the alleged plot in '92 to kill 41, are not unique to Iraq. The assasination theory has been public knowledge for some time and has never been used as a pretext for the invasion (until now).

saddams connection to terrorists were one of the reasons for taking him out.

Originally posted by dijetlo
No, it wasn't. It was signed by Schwarzzkopf as theater commander of UN forces. The US never delcared war on Iraq. I provided the links last time this was brought up so at this point I'd suggest you find a copy of the document and look at the signatures.

no. we nor was anyone else under a un banner in gulf war 1. we were at the top and in charge everyone else joined OUR coalition to get saddam out of kuwait. WE had un authorization to remove him. every other country join US in doing. NOT the un. the un by its own charter can't attack anyone. it can authorize member states to remove someone but can't do it itself. which is why no country involved in it were under the "blue helmets" everyone was under their own banner and command but all countires turned the command of all forces over to us not the un.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Ten years ago, they did. When Iraq ejected the inspectors in '98 they claimed one of them was a CIA officer. This turned out to be true. They apparently continued the destruction program because some brightboy in the palace realized it was a moot point. They could rebuild the chem program in a couple of weeks with existing industrial capacity. The nuke program was not possible with the sanctions in place so it had been abandoned earlier.

they still had them and they even said it themselves with their own weapons declaration.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Read the prior links to their website, pay special attention to the men who signed the documents.

1. none of these documents say anything about taking out iraq over wmd. nothign says any thing of the sorts

2. you in another thread were dismissing documents that had sigs on them that actaully related to the topic of terrorism and obl. changing your tune on what counts as proof?

Originally posted by dijetlo

What have you got? Did they kill rebels and political prisoners? Did they give WMDs to terrorists? Which of those statements is demonstrably true and which applies to the doctrine of pre-emption?

first of all iraq has nothing to do with pre emption. nothing. we've had a low conflict war with them since the violated the ceasefire. secondly look at how this thread started: FIRST hand acoounts of what saddam was up to. you have tah on any pnac stuff? anyone from pnac come out and say this was the plan? no you don't. you've dismissed a first hand account which is something you can't even provide.

Originally posted by dijetlo
No, no, no lefty, I use PNACs own site and the Whitehouse.gov to prove this argument. I take it you accept those sites as not being "left wing propaganda sites". As you get to know me better Lefty, you'll realize that I am very careful about my sources, since I'm accused of whinning (sic) about the sloppy use of information on the right.

but wait you've dismissed stuff already saying the feds are just putting people out there now. you can't have it both ways. this is how things should be document to prove beyond a resonable doubt on something. a transcript of an interview with 93 wtc bombing suspect Abdul Rahman Yasin.

Abdul Rahman Yasin: a transcript of an interview he did last year IN baghdad with cbs
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/02/60minutes/main510847.shtml

now there can't be any doubts saddam was harboring terrorist as far as him being in custody the iraqis said for years they didn't know where he was in hteir country.

Originally posted by dijetlo
I've never made the "Media Plot" argument. Media is driven by interest and part of the problem is that in the interests of sensationalism they print stuff that they normaly wouldn't. During watergate, the Washington Post had a policy of not printing an anonymous source without independant verification. You other post on the OBL meeting was a good example of careful vetting.I respond to the posters and what they post. Rumors abound, sometimes I feel like pointing out that the "news" your reading constitutes little more the a rumor.

it can't be a rumour if someone involved with it comes out and states it as fact. that's like watching a barry bonds interview and he says he hit 73 home runs then you saying no he didn't. and i was doing a little fishing based on past experience to see where you stand on the pnac/media question.

Originally posted by dijetlo
I can find botulism in my refrigerator, he didn't have to go to Iraq to find that...

really your a former iraqi weapons scientist with vials of botulism in your fridge? again here was a case where the scientist turned them over to us stating what they weer and what their purpose was.

Originally posted by dijetlo

You obviously trust the Husseins more than most.

well he was married into the family and the guy had balls because he even went back to iraq where he was later killed. now i don't know about you but i don't think saddam would have given two shits if he was lying about everything now would he?

Originally posted by dijetlo
No you don't, you have a guy telling another guy this story. No names equals no credibility. Could it be true? Yeah. Is it true? No evidence, nothing but an anonymous conversation and a document nobody can look at. Thats pretty low on the credibility meter, don't you think?

the guy has a name. hell you can even watch keith olberman show on msnbc and see a pic of the guy hold up papers on what he's talking about. so the guy has a name and a face.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Kaye had nothing substantiative either, only the same rumour your hearing here. I do beleive that there could be an Hussein/Kim connection, but it hasn't been proven. I can assure you I don't live off of BS and internet rumor, and I don't disregard something simply because I don't agree with it, but balanced against all the conspiracy theories floating around is the lack of any solid, impartial evidence.

he had the documents in question. even in his testimony in front of the intel committes covered it. even the briefing they held in the hallways with reporters they covered it. it's not a new story.

Originally posted by dijetlo
I'm glad you think that because I don't want to have to argue against an invasion of Syria.

they just turned over bombing suspects to turkey and are now reopening talks over the golan heights AND they started to remove some of their troops from lebanon as we requested them to do.

Originally posted by dijetlo
[BThe monarchies of the middle east support us? All the nations you mentioned are affected by our trade policies. In the halls of power, that gets a lot more attention than on the streets of NY.
As far as who said what, remember Iraq had WMDs' up to 98 as far as we can tell. Anybody who made those statements up until then was probably right. In 2000 Colin Powell and Rice stated they didn't have WMDs' so you have to look at the statements in the context of the events that were occuring. On balance the whole thing is suspiscious, to say the least. A Senate investigation is in progress and the Dems may try to get a special prosecutor to investigate the politicization of the Intelligence on Iraq (as per the memo that was hacked off a dem staffers system...) just in time for their nominee to pick up that flag and run with it.
Oughta time, gotta go make the donuts. enjoying the debate but three against one is a lot of typing..... [/B]

iraq wouldn't just ditch their wmd. they just wouldn't they figured for the longest time as long as they had them they were safe. as far as the intel goes the other thread about the guy who wrote the reports and his follow up cover all the intel questions.

 

[Mustafa]

Orginally posted by DKSuddeth

"If it was in any way false it would have been YANKED off the web so damn fast that the server would STILL be spinning."

DK do you have any idea of how many forged government documents classified or unclassified are posted on the internet at any time? Again I ask WHY world and US media haven't already published those verified signed documents promoting world domination?

Am I mistaken that an elected US President has the right and duty to make national and international policy decisions to protect this country from foreign invaders as laid out in the US Constitution?


"The reason it still sits there is that its real. Its never been denied by any of the signatores and the reason there isn't a fuss about it is that its a policy outline by defense board members. To them, and alot of others, it is completely sane and worthy of pursuit."

The questions raised by early pre-Bush administration's plans for Iraq has brought forth statements from groups like PNAC which cries world domination from a loony bunch of US presidental gangsters.

http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html

Project for the New American Century is a neo-conservative think-tank that promotes an ideology of total U.S. world domination through the use of force. The group embraces and disseminates an ideology of faith in force, U.S. supremacy, and rejection of the rule of law in international affairs. The group's core ideas are expressed in a September 2000 report produced for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. The report has been compared to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf and has been called a "blueprint for U.S. world domination."

PNAC topped the list of Project Censored's Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2002-2003. The Project Censored story is entitled The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance.

By the way, where are those document sites with verified signatures attached? I have looked through PNAC and can only find excerps without any signatures.

 

[DKSuddeth]

DK do you have any idea of how many forged government documents classified or unclassified are posted on the internet at any time? Again I ask WHY world and US media haven't already published those verified signed documents promoting world domination?

I'm sure that theres more than you or I could count in a month.

As for WHY the media hasn't touched on it, your guess is as good as mine. My issue would be that if this is false then why wouldn't any of these people listed at the bottom of the statement of principles (Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz) have spoken out against this organization in any way? I know that if I were listed on a project falsely and without my knowledge I'd be taking it to court for libel.

Am I mistaken that an elected US President has the right and duty to make national and international policy decisions to protect this country from foreign invaders as laid out in the US Constitution?

Where, in any of my post, did I mention the president not having the duty to make policy OR being a part of this organization? The only Bush on there is Jeb.

By the way, where are those document sites with verified signatures attached? I have looked through PNAC and can only find excerps without any signatures.

In case it hasn't been posted before, heres the entire site. Not excerpts or copies on other sites.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

 

[dijetlo]

Hey lefty, I short shrifted your prior post, I just wanted to apologize. Your article containing Iraqi Intell docs demonstrated an attempt was made to contact Bin Laden by the Mukbharat (Iraqi Intelligence Service) probably the Saudi Arabia section chief. I discount the hotel information because it doesn't directly tie into the first doc, and I said as much. What I'd really like to see from that exchange is the intelligence officers report, where who said what and what the hell OBL wanted to say to Hussein is revealed. I just wanted to back you up on that one, that isn't rumor, it has the advantage of evidence supporting the charge. It may lead to the validation of your accusations.

Originally posted by Lefty Wilbury
saddams connection to terrorists were one of the reasons for taking him out.

That sentence can be applied to every government in the ME.

we were at the top and in charge everyone else joined OUR coalition to get saddam out of kuwait.

Sorry Lefty, but we've already had this debate. I posted a link the the surrender document. Hussein surrendered to the UN.

they still had them and they even said it themselves with their own weapons declaration.

Not after 98, as far an anybody can prove. The claim he admitted Iraq had WMDs' comes from '93, I think.

1. none of these documents say anything about taking out iraq over wmd. nothign says any thing of the sorts

No, those documents are about taking over the planet by any means necessary. WMDs' were the excuse chosen in Iraq by the administration.

2. you in another thread were dismissing documents that had sigs on them that actaully related to the topic of terrorism and obl. changing your tune on what counts as proof?

If you're reffering to your iraqi intelligence docs that I mention at the top of the post, re-read my posts in that thread. I never said the documents weren't valid or that they Iraqi Intell cheif wasn't doing what he claimed to be doing in the document. I only pointed out that it does not rise to the level of an agreement or alliance between the two, the documents only dealt with setting up a meeting to hear what OBL wanted to say to Iraq.

first of all iraq has nothing to do with pre emption. nothing.

Lefty, in October 2002, in a speech in Cincinatti, he laid out the case for pre-emption in some detail. Go to whitehouse.gov and look at it. Come back and we'll talk some more.

look at how this thread started: FIRST hand acoounts of what saddam was up to.

That can't be backed up by the RPGs' he claims he was issued. Come on, he had the weapons in his possesion at the end of the war, what did he do with them? Why didn't he hang on to one of them to prove his claim? With all the first hand accounts that turned out to be fabrication in the Iraqi fiasco, why take this guys word?

anyone from pnac come out and say this was the plan? no you don't. you've dismissed a first hand account which is something you can't even provide.

I have the documents the individuals signed in the PNAC argument, that trumps a "first hand account". No one has denied signing the documents, and they are all aware of the organizations existance. That constitutes a fact.
If you had a document, even something as simple as a reciept that the unit recieved "500 modified RPGs'" (one would exist, by the way if this story were true) It would add a lot of weight to your argument (I'd tend to beleive the Iraqi AD commander at that point).

but wait you've dismissed stuff already saying the feds are just putting people out there now.

If you reveal classified information, Lefty, you can be imprisoned for a long, long time. Keep that in mind when people start to tell you about classified stuff. People who handle it do not, generaly, leak it. Those that do go to prison for a long, long, time. I spent 12 years in army intel(A/AR). I know from whence I speak.
When someone gives you a "tidbit" of classified information, it isn't coming from someone who is concerned with dying of old age in Levenworth. It's coming from someone who is protected from investigation.
You know how you can tell? Are any of these leaks being investigated? Any arrests?
Keep this in mind when you read about an "anonymous" administration official telling a reporter something.

a transcript of an interview with 93 wtc bombing suspect Abdul Rahman Yasin.

Under house arrest in Iraq. Hussein wouldn't extradite him to the US but then again the US was trying to kill Hussein.

now there can't be any doubts saddam was harboring terrorist as far as him being in custody the iraqis said for years they didn't know where he was in hteir country.

One thing you can say for Hussein, he loved to rattle our cage.

it can't be a rumour if someone involved with it comes out and states it as fact.

That would make it an allegation, not a fact. To prove a fact you need evidence. Here is where we part ways. I allways require evidence before I beleive someones word.

and i was doing a little fishing based on past experience to see where you stand on the pnac/media question.

What did you catch?

really your a former iraqi weapons scientist with vials of botulism in your fridge? again here was a case where the scientist turned them over to us stating what they weer and what their purpose was.

Botulism is not botulinum. Botulinum is the first step in weaponization of botulism.

well he was married into the family and the guy had balls because he even went back to iraq where he was later killed. now i don't know about you but i don't think saddam would have given two shits if he was lying about everything now would he?

He came here because we had a hard-on for ousting his Father-In-Law. He had an axe to grind as well. Unfortunately for him, he was born to stupid to live.

the guy has a name. hell you can even watch keith olberman show on msnbc and see a pic of the guy hold up papers on what he's talking about. so the guy has a name and a face.

What he doesn't have is a shred of evidence to back up his claim. He doesn't even have an instruction book for the "RPG'o'Death". It would have been soooooo easy to snag a shred of evidence, he's the boss, remember? Did he bother to hang on to one of these things? The reciept? A shipping box? Is he bullshit?
I didn't see the Oberman peice, what did the papers say?

he had the documents in question. even in his testimony in front of the intel committes covered it. even the briefing they held in the hallways with reporters they covered it. it's not a new story.

You're a bright guy, Lefty, but probably very busy. Unfortunately, I'm busy too. Find the documents your reffering to, the Kay report is in the public record and available on the internet.

they just turned over bombing suspects to turkey and are now reopening talks over the golan heights AND they started to remove some of their troops from lebanon as we requested them to do.

OK

iraq wouldn't just ditch their wmd. they just wouldn't they figured for the longest time as long as they had them they were safe.

Not from us. Against us they are mostly useless. He wasn't worried about Iran, he was worried about the US and the UN.

as far as the intel goes the other thread about the guy who wrote the reports and his follow up cover all the intel questions.

Got a link?

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by dijetlo
That sentence can be applied to every government in the ME.

your woking with obl!

Originally posted by dijetlo
Sorry Lefty, but we've already had this debate. I posted a link the the surrender document. Hussein surrendered to the UN.

Not after 98, as far an anybody can prove. The claim he admitted Iraq had WMDs' comes from '93, I think.

yep from 93 and everything still points they had them. all they ever had to do was point to the stop where they dumped them and said we dumped them there.

Originally posted by dijetlo
No, those documents are about taking over the planet by any means necessary. WMDs' were the excuse chosen in Iraq by the administration.


Lefty, in October 2002, in a speech in Cincinatti, he laid out the case for pre-emption in some detail. Go to whitehouse.gov and look at it. Come back and we'll talk some more.

i don't consider iraq pre emption. others might i don't considering we've acted militarly againest them dozens of times before. i call those earlier acts war.

Originally posted by dijetlo
That can't be backed up by the RPGs' he claims he was issued. Come on, he had the weapons in his possesion at the end of the war, what did he do with them? Why didn't he hang on to one of them to prove his claim? With all the first hand accounts that turned out to be fabrication in the Iraqi fiasco, why take this guys word?

the thing is about wmd in iraq is all the reports that were coming out of iraq in the early days from iraqi pow saying that as we went forward fedyeen people were coming to iraq army units and taking the wmd and moving them north to baghdad where they were going to be used because tey didn't trust the army officers to use them. so as far as we know someone could have went to the armory where the stored and moved them.

Originally posted by dijetlo
I have the documents the individuals signed in the PNAC argument, that trumps a "first hand account". No one has denied signing the documents, and they are all aware of the organizations existance. That constitutes a fact.
If you had a document, even something as simple as a reciept that the unit recieved "500 modified RPGs'" (one would exist, by the way if this story were true) It would add a lot of weight to your argument (I'd tend to beleive the Iraqi AD commander at that point).

when i see a person from pnac come forward saying they were involved and this was their plan then we'll talk. i've seen things on the internet here that said david lee roth was the one who is actually behind the zapruder film in dallas.

Originally posted by dijetlo
If you reveal classified information, Lefty, you can be imprisoned for a long, long time. Keep that in mind when people start to tell you about classified stuff. People who handle it do not, generaly, leak it. Those that do go to prison for a long, long, time. I spent 12 years in army intel(A/AR). I know from whence I speak.
When someone gives you a "tidbit" of classified information, it isn't coming from someone who is concerned with dying of old age in Levenworth. It's coming from someone who is protected from investigation.
You know how you can tell? Are any of these leaks being investigated? Any arrests?
Keep this in mind when you read about an "anonymous" administration official telling a reporter something.

your only breaking the law if you get caught. leaks are very common now a days and hackers have ways of getting all sorts of information without getting caught.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Under house arrest in Iraq. Hussein wouldn't extradite him to the US but then again the US was trying to kill Hussein.

he's only under house then/ even clinton went on and on about him walking the streets of baghdad and the iraqs kept saying he wasen't there. after 9-11 they mystically found him. kind of like they found abu nidal after he commited suicide after shoting himself 5 times in the head.

Originally posted by dijetlo

That would make it an allegation, not a fact. To prove a fact you need evidence. Here is where we part ways. I allways require evidence before I beleive someones word.

i don't consider documents on the internet to be evidence because they can be forged very easly.

Originally posted by dijetlo

Botulism is not botulinum. Botulinum is the first step in weaponization of botulism.

it was botulinum. i consider them one in the same. here's a pic of what they found:

Originally posted by dijetlo
He came here because we had a hard-on for ousting his Father-In-Law. He had an axe to grind as well. Unfortunately for him, he was born to stupid to live.

What he doesn't have is a shred of evidence to back up his claim. He doesn't even have an instruction book for the "RPG'o'Death". It would have been soooooo easy to snag a shred of evidence, he's the boss, remember? Did he bother to hang on to one of these things? The reciept? A shipping box? Is he bullshit?
I didn't see the Oberman peice, what did the papers say?

the olberman show only put up a pic of the guy and talk about it for literally a sec. i'll have to get back to you on it with a transcriptof somethign after a few days.

Originally posted by dijetlo
You're a bright guy, Lefty, but probably very busy. Unfortunately, I'm busy too. Find the documents your reffering to, the Kay report is in the public record and available on the internet.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/index.html


Text of David Kay's unclassified statement

Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.


Documents found by ISG describe a high level dialogue between Iraq and North Korea that began in December 1999 and included an October 2000 meeting in Baghdad.

These documents indicate Iraqi interest in the transfer of technology for surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 1300km (probably No Dong) and land-to-sea missiles with a range of 300km. The document quotes the North Koreans as understanding the limitations imposed by the UN, but being prepared "to cooperate with Iraq on the items it specified".

Originally posted by dijetlo
Not from us. Against us they are mostly useless. He wasn't worried about Iran, he was worried about the US and the UN.

saddams a nut and an unpredictable one at that.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Got a link?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=13026#post13026

it's my last post in it where the guy talks about myths and facts.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally quoted by DKSuddeth

"As for WHY the media hasn't touched on it, your guess is as good as mine. My issue would be that if this is false then why wouldn't any of these people listed at the bottom of the statement of principles have spoken out against this organization in any way? I know that if I were listed on a project falsely and without my knowledge I'd be taking it to court for libel."

A very interesting read of the Statement of Principles at the Project For the New American Century. It is not a long or wordy statement of principle but seems to clearly lay out something very different from PNAC's slant that it represents an attempt at 'world domination.' As I understand the mission of this statement of principle, the necessity for the last superpower to maintain and propagate freedom around the world rather than allow the US to become a target for those people and countries that see a weak or wavering America and find a purpose to attack our shores and friends around the world.

The bottom of the statement lays out the clear goals and aims of this administration:

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

I really don't see one signature below the statement of principle, but just a list of names that may or may not have signed this morally imperative statement. If you can find anything that suggests world domination in this document, I would appreciate your pointing it out. I would find no one who would not be proud to sign their name below the statement including every American citizen.

---Am I mistaken that an elected US President has the right and duty to make national and international policy decisions to protect this country from foreign invaders as laid out in the US Constitution?

Where, in any of my post, did I mention the president not having the duty to make policy OR being a part of this organization? The only Bush on there is Jeb.

You didn't put Mr. Bush's name on this list but the PNAC site intimated that it was both he and his administration.

PNAC: Invading Iraq not a new idea for Bush clique.

....An obscure, ominous-sounding right-wing policy group called Project for the New American Century, or PNAC - affiliated with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld's top deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Bush's brother Jeb - even urged then-President Clinton to invade Iraq back in January 1998.

"We urge you to... enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world," stated the letter to Clinton, signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others. "That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power."

www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

There is a direct implication that Bush wanted to start a war against Saddam and Iraq before Bush took office.

It just may be that Bush recognized that Saddam's Iraq posed the greatest threat to America because of the obfucation by Saddam in preventing an unfettered UN search with his denial of any Iraq WMDs.

The Clinton administration certainly took no initiative during his administration in his Constitutional duty to prevent possible attacks by foreign invaders. Now Bush is being bashed for taking decisive actions in the behalf of the US.

I believe that everyone should read that statement of principles more carefully and find the actual meaning behind it. The last aim seems to summerize the statement of principle best.

we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Thanks for the site link.....

 

[Naked Liberal]

I would very much like to believe this report, but I have one problem with it. The source is the british Telegraph and I have found the british press to be unreliable. This is the same press that reported a few weeks ago that the US was handing over our own military to be overseen by International authorities. Now since we know that's bogus, I find myself a little leary about this.