Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tarl Cabot
And check the date on this article: 2003-05-05.
I guess that means the airplane in the picture didn't really exist.
Neither the meaningless detour to Vietnam or the attempt to change the subject to the attacks (again) had anything to do with his statement.
|
SOB did not include the following, which appeared on the same page
(on the right side.....) that he copied and pasted into the last quote box in his post (above). It is a PBS Frontline editors note, dated one year after 2003-05-05:
Quote:
.[Editors Note, June 2004: A year after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. It should also be noted that he and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein.]
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html</a>
|
What is "meaningless", is not the reference I offered to compare Colin Powell's
credibility concerning My Lai, to that of journalist Seymour Hersh.........
and it is not, "my attempt".....as you called it, "to change the subject to
the attacks (again)".
No, Tarl Cabot, what is "meaningless" is the reasoning that the Bushco and
their supporters have advanced to justify 10,000+ American military casualties, to date in their Iraq folly, including <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailynews/010/nation/A_daily_look_at_U_S_military_d:.shtml">1355 dead</a>.
Meaningless "Bushshit", such as this quote from the "war prezzdent":
Quote:
"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-02-bush-iraq-troops_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-02-bush-iraq-troops_x.htm</a>
|
More than 1000 additional U.S. troops have died in Iraq since Bush invited
the opposition, which the links I included in my last post clearly demonstrate
are primarily Iraqis, "to bring them on".
Is it "misleading" to point out, as I did in a preceding post, that Powell said
this:
Quote:
That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq,
<a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm">http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm</a>
|
Then this......
Quote:
For more than 20 years, by word and by deed, Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows: intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way. For Saddam Hussein, possession of the world's most deadly weapons is the ultimate trump card, the one he must hold to fulfill his ambition.
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations, and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and a place and in a manner of his choosing, at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?
<a href="http://www.un.int/usa/03clp0205.htm">http://www.un.int/usa/03clp0205.htm</a>
|
Finally, in Sept. 2004, Powell stated the following:
Quote:
.....................SEC'Y POWELL: I have no indication that there was a direct connection between the terrorists who perpetrated these crimes against us on the 11th of September, 2001, and the Iraqi regime. We know that there had been connections and there had been exchanges between al-Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime and those have been pursued and looked at, but I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime and what happened on 9/11.........................
MR. RUSSERT: If you knew today that Saddam did not have those weapons of mass destruction, would you still advocate an invasion?
SEC'Y POWELL: I would have to look at the total picture and we'd have to sit down and talk about his intention to have such weapons, the capability that was inherent. The only thing we have not found are actual stockpiles. We have found dual-use facilities. We know that he was keeping the intellectual base intact. We know that he had the intention. All of that is there.
What we didn't get right so far, and we'll wait to see what Mr. Dulfer finally does report, the actual existing stockpiles. That doesn't mean stockpiles could not have been produced out of the capability he had in a short period of time if nobody was watching and there were no constraints. The president chose not to take that risk and we all supported him in that judgment. Would it have been a different analysis that we went through and conclusion that we came to if we knew at that time that intention and capability but no active stockpiles? I don't know. We're going to have to--I can't replay that scene. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5981265/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5981265/</a>
|
Powell and the Bushco do not seem to know what the fuck they are saying
or doing. How many dead Americans and Iraqis will it take until newsprint
fills up with pieces like this, <a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/10614345.htm?1c">Iraq It's beginning to look like Vietnam </a> and we haul our misdirected military resources out of Iraq ?