he lied...AGAIN!! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

mrbuck12000 · 01-25-2004, 07:17 PM

this is from the state of the Union Address Jan 20, 2004:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=4012231&p1=0

"Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We are seeking all the facts -- already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."

this is From CNN yesterday jan 24, 2004:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...kay/index.html

"(CNN) -- Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.

He said U.S. intelligence services owe President Bush an explanation for having concluded that Iraq had.

"My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons," he said on National Public Radio's "Weekend Edition." "I don't think they exist.""

Let me guess the intelligence between tuesday when 36,000,000 people tuned in...when people were paying attention has changed to this weekend when they let us know....when no one is paying attention...on a saturday....when all eyes are on a college basketball game or on Mars.....that this is all changed. How niave is the american public???????

When is the lying going to stop? When is this administration going to fess up and say that 500 americans should not have died?

I am sick and tired of the lies. Aren't you?

Mr b

Ustwo · 01-25-2004, 07:21 PM

If you read it again, you will find out that the two statements are not contradictory at all.

Kay did not find weapons stockpiles.
Kay did find weapons programs and prohibited materials.

FoolThemAll · 01-25-2004, 07:28 PM

Something else Kay said. Seems that perhaps his other words were distorted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 25/01/2004)

David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

Dr Kay's comments will intensify pressure on President Bashar Assad to clarify the extent of his co-operation with Saddam's regime and details of Syria's WMD programme. Mr Assad has said that Syria was entitled to defend itself by acquiring its own biological and chemical weapons arsenal.

Syria was one of Iraq's main allies in the run-up to the war and hundreds of Iraqi officials - including members of Saddam's family - were given refuge in Damascus after the collapse of the Iraqi dictator's regime. Many of the foreign fighters responsible for conducting terrorist attacks against the coalition are believed to have entered Iraq through Syria.

A Syrian official last night said: "These allegations have been raised many times in the past by Israeli officials, which proves that they are false."

Gotta love that last sentence.

Ustwo · 01-25-2004, 07:35 PM

Since the missing anthrax would fit in the back of a single truck, its hardely surprising .

nanofever · 01-25-2004, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
If you read it again, you will find out that the two statements are not contradictory at all.

Kay did not find weapons stockpiles.
Kay did find weapons programs and prohibited materials.

Don't you mean WMD program related activities ?

I love vague phrases without definitions...

Seaver · 01-25-2004, 08:06 PM

I've personally seen videos from Iraq on their WMD factories that the UN had found between the wars.

We KNOW there were ones that we never knew of. Even Clinton flat out said that Iraq had WMDs or would have them within half a decade.

Iraq is a very very large country, and with the mass deserts it's not that difficult to bury them, hell those WMD shells we found Saddam didnt even know where they were, they were hidden during the Iran/Iraq war, then the paperwork was lost until US went through some really old paperwork.

If Saddam didnt even know the status of all his WMDs, how are we supposed to know exactly where they were hidden? Give it time, if none existed we knew for a fact they had the capabilities to make them (France sold the equipment in the late 80s).

nanofever · 01-25-2004, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
I've personally seen videos from Iraq on their WMD factories that the UN had found between the wars.

We KNOW there were ones that we never knew of. Even Clinton flat out said that Iraq had WMDs or would have them within half a decade.

Iraq is a very very large country, and with the mass deserts it's not that difficult to bury them, hell those WMD shells we found Saddam didnt even know where they were, they were hidden during the Iran/Iraq war, then the paperwork was lost until US went through some really old paperwork.

If Saddam didnt even know the status of all his WMDs, how are we supposed to know exactly where they were hidden? Give it time, if none existed we knew for a fact they had the capabilities to make them (France sold the equipment in the late 80s).

1. What Clinton did or didn't do has nothing to do with Bush. Clinton launched lots of missles at WMD sites, guess he had pretty good intel then because we can't find any WMD now.

2. Iraq is a large country, whaaa, guess Bush should have though of that before kicking UN inspectors out. The burying under sand argument is BS since we can find hidden things in sand dunes (planes ect) through fractal geometry.

3. The shells that were found had no WMD in them, it was phospherous- smoke morters.

4. The US sold Iraq the Biological weapon starter strains, our hands are far from clean on that issue.

Ustwo · 01-25-2004, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
1. What Clinton did or didn't do has nothing to do with Bush. Clinton launched lots of missles at WMD sites, guess he had pretty good intel then because we can't find any WMD now.

So are you willing to say that when Clinton said he had WMD's it was true and then a missile attack destroyed them all? Be careful here.

Quote:

2. Iraq is a large country, whaaa, guess Bush should have though of that before kicking UN inspectors out. The burying under sand argument is BS since we can find hidden things in sand dunes (planes ect) through fractal geometry.

Iraq was interfering with those inspectors. They did not have unfettered access. I'm sure you can recall this.

Quote:

3. The shells that were found had no WMD in them, it was phospherous- smoke morters.

This appears to be true.

Quote:

4. The US sold Iraq the Biological weapon starter strains, our hands are far from clean on that issue.

So what? While everyone in the west was to blame to some degree and France the most (nuclear plant), the US and UK stopped dealing with Saddam and have been baby sitting him for the last 12 years. If anything. if we were so dirty in this, then we SHOULD have gone in and fixed the problem we caused.

Seaver · 01-25-2004, 09:06 PM

Quote:

2. Iraq is a large country, whaaa, guess Bush should have though of that before kicking UN inspectors out. The burying under sand argument is BS since we can find hidden things in sand dunes (planes ect) through fractal geometry.

I live in Texas where they need to find things underground efficiently (oil searching), the best way to find things underground is resonance.

The problem? they have a VERY limited range. You suggest doing that through the entire desert? My point was they know when our satelites go over (radar can track this easy), they'll have a 12 hour period usually in which they drive the truck for 12 hours into the middle of no where and bury it (satellites dont take pictures in the middle of no where).

Quote:

1. What Clinton did or didn't do has nothing to do with Bush. Clinton launched lots of missles at WMD sites, guess he had pretty good intel then because we can't find any WMD now.

I think Ustwo covered this well.

Quote:

4. The US sold Iraq the Biological weapon starter strains, our hands are far from clean on that issue.

Yep, this has been covered enough. In choosing the lesser of two evils no one stays clean unfortunately.

bermuDa · 01-26-2004, 08:38 AM

the biggest war is fought at home, and it's fought with semantics...

John Ashcroft said that we haven't found any WMDs in Iraq and we probably never will, but that doesn't mean the invasion of Iraq was unjustified... I agree that Saddam had to be removed from power, but Bush was looking for any excuse to do it. Maybe we should be a little more careful about who we put in power in the first place...

tdoc · 01-26-2004, 11:28 AM

nonofever and seaver

how does one find things in sand. Is it acoustic, radio or what? Do they look for nonrandom features?

sounds fascinating

mb99usa · 01-26-2004, 12:11 PM

I think what should concern everyone is that this is a battle of wording. We should expect clear explanations from our leaders, especially when it involves military action. In this case we still do not know the true extent of Iraq's WMD situation and probably never will but many American and allied lives were lost.

I also agree with Bermuda's statement that this war was going to happen regardless of the reason.

nanofever · 01-26-2004, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tdoc
nonofever and seaver

how does one find things in sand. Is it acoustic, radio or what? Do they look for nonrandom features?

sounds fascinating

I could swear the military used fractral geometry to see what sand dune patterns were natural and which had been altered. They used this technology to destroy planes in the sand during the Gulf War. I wish I could find a link but I can't seem to find one.

Lebell · 01-26-2004, 02:52 PM

I read an article in this morning's paper on Kay.

His take is that everyone was fooled and if anyone owes anyone an appology, it's the American intelligence community who owes an appology to the president.

His words, not mine.

mrbuck12000 · 01-26-2004, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mb99usa
I think what should concern everyone is that this is a battle of wording. We should expect clear explanations from our leaders, especially when it involves military action. In this case we still do not know the true extent of Iraq's WMD situation and probably never will but many American and allied lives were lost.

EXACTLY the point i am trying to get across here, WHY do they have to play the games, munipulate the pubic???
WHY

mr b

Ustwo · 01-26-2004, 07:30 PM

You seemed to start out having a hard time telling what a lie was and what words meant. This isn't meant to be a flame, but your point was he LIED, now you are changing your point. Was your first point a lie and now this is your real point? I'm sure you can see the parallel, as you are doing what you accuse Bush of doing.

You made a point which was shot down, and now you claim your original point was a different point which is less damning.

mrbuck12000 · 01-26-2004, 08:32 PM

My point is to educate people that this administration is lying to the american public about why we are really in a war a war that has cost us 500 american lives.
Why did george bush tell the american public one thing and then they say something completely different 5 days later?
WHY WHY WHY???

mr b

Seaver · 01-26-2004, 10:00 PM

Quote:

how does one find things in sand. Is it acoustic, radio or what? Do they look for nonrandom features?

There's a number of different ways, each one good for different things. The best is acustic resonance, what that is is simply you lay out a set-strength net of previously graphed explosives and blow them up, then they "listen" at different points. Every layer of sand/limestone/iron ore/etc. resonates differently, and with the timing you can have a very good "picture" of whats under there. This is very limited and very time consuming, thus are only used when they can limit the search area to a few hundred yards. This is mostly used by oil companies after they narrowed down a spot that may look like it contains oil (limestone dome), and they "shock" the ground to see if there's really oil down there, saving millions in drilling fees.

Fractal geometry I'm not 100% on, there's 2 main ways to do this over large areas. One is using a "Boom" on the back of a large aircraft (looks like a really long antennae out the rear), the aircraft flies very low while the boom guages magnetic fields, this works to about 100yds to each side of the aircraft. Designed in the 60s this is one of the best ways for aircraft to search for subs in the sea, over land it's more hit-or-miss, if it's over desert sands you can tell if there would be a truck buried there, but if they buried it somewhere in a craggy desert where there are more rocks chances of telling the difference between an iron ore or a truck would be very little. Added to this the Aircraft has to fly so low it would be extreamly dangerous to do this over mountains.

The other way you guage the "look" of the desert sands, just like in the dust bowl sand tends to form on the leeway side of buried or exposed objects. This is very hit-or-miss simply because the desert sands are extreamly fluid and change not only daily but hourly. A point of this is the Sphinx, it was almost completely buried by desert sands just 200 years ago, now the sands have moved on.

For a third is radar, but the technology of being able to look through sand is extreamly classified. We simply dont know how well this works, even if we dont have a program on it the government never denied experiments with it. I guess sometimes pretending you have the technology is almost as effective as actually having it as long as it makes "them" think twice.

yellowgowild · 01-26-2004, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mrbuck12000
My point is to educate people that this administration is lying to the american public about why we are really in a war a war that has cost us 500 american lives.
Why did george bush tell the american public one thing and then they say something completely different 5 days later?
WHY WHY WHY???

mr b

Americans probably don't care that much because we EXPECT politicians to lie to us all the time. We only seem to care when things affect us personally. I know I'm making a sweeping statement about the American temperament, but that's what American do.... we generalize.

Paq · 01-27-2004, 02:26 AM

ya know
i was also thinking...again, it's a bad thing, i know

but seriously.

There is a major difference between having a weapon and having plans for building a weapon. One of my friends from way back when happened to be a physics prodigy and used to design nuclear weapons in his notepad, when he got older, he sold some of these designs to MIT and i think Princeton, for use in the fusion project they have going on. Under the current administration's thinking, his plans could be reason enough to justify blowing his country to smithereens and removing him from power. I mean, it's one thing to sell a war based on the fact that someone has a weapon, if he built a nuclear bomb in his basement, yeah, i'd want someone to step in, but the fact is, he didn't, but under the current train of thought, having plans for something is just as bad as having something.

heck, i don't know about any of you, but my kitchen has enough stuff to make a ton of toxic gases and explosives. Anyone with a simple highschool/college physics book can probably construct a pretty healthy bomb or at least a couple of nerve gasses. Heck, if nothing else, mix dawn and ammonia in a bottle and throw it at someone, .

The point of this rant is just that its' pretty scary at how quickly something goes from "He has WMD's" to "he has plans of WMD related programs" Heck, the greed of his scientists may have been keeping the world safe from terrorism by keeping the money while developing nothing.

Now, i can freely admit that the CIA and the intelligence community were mistaken, but i really really really really really wish the current admin would just come out and say, "Hey, we were wrong, they didn't have them, but we took saddam out bc he's a bad man"
Heck, even i can respect that. The bay of pigs fiasco and subsequent admission of an error by JFK proves that americans are willing to forgive a president who admits a screwup.. It's not like people are going to run to the streets and protest to have us leave Iraq now. at least, not moreso than are already out there.
I would hope most people would understand that leaving the country as it is now would be a prelude to WWIII in a fairly short (less than 20 yrs) amount of time.

Anyway, sorry for rambling and not making as much sense, but it's 5:25 am and i haven't been to bed yet.

Seaver · 01-27-2004, 09:42 AM

Quote:

i really really really really really wish the current admin would just come out and say, "Hey, we were wrong, they didn't have them, but we took saddam out bc he's a bad man"

Couldnt agree with you more. Everyone in the intel community told Bush they had or were developing WMDs, maybe he exadurated this a bit, but he was going on "solid" proof.

Just admit that he was wronge and move on. In the military a big thing is we dont apologize for mistakes, we just make sure we dont make them again. Things happen, learn, and move on.

SLM3 · 01-27-2004, 09:46 AM

People are arguing over how hard it is to find things in a big country like Iraq, but if I'm not mistaken, weren't we told that the US already knew where these weapons were? Didn't Rummy say US Intelligence already had a fix on locations containing WMD? Didn't Powell have a whole bunch of pretty pictures to show the world? We were told that the US knew where to go so how come we're talking about WMD buried underground where it's so difficult to find them? If they could be launched in 40 mins, how hidden could they be?

SLM3

smooth · 01-27-2004, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
People are arguing over how hard it is to find things in a big country like Iraq, but if I'm not mistaken, weren't we told that the US already knew where these weapons were? Didn't Rummy say US Intelligence already had a fix on locations containing WMD? Didn't Powell have a whole bunch of pretty pictures to show the world? We were told that the US knew where to go so how come we're talking about WMD buried underground where it's so difficult to find them? If they could be launched in 40 mins, how hidden could they be?

SLM3

What? What are you doing back on this board making sense?

Sparhawk · 01-27-2004, 02:19 PM

Kinda makes you yearn for the days of Harry Truman: The buck stops here. Bush would gain MAJOR points if he stood up like a man and said "the intelligence might be dodgy, but the responsibility lies with me, and I was wrong to have used that as a reason to go to war."

No one in DC takes responsibility for anything anymore, so I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Paq · 01-27-2004, 07:04 PM

Exactly, Truman. I mean, people are always gushing about how gung ho and how ballsy bush is, but DAMN, if he'd just say, "Fine, i did it...it's my responsibility" and then moved on....

very aggravating

and then today, he commended the intelligence gathering communities for doing such a wonderful job. Hell, i'd be chewing on someone's ass for days over this..

fnaqzna · 01-27-2004, 08:37 PM

Quote:

His take is that everyone was fooled and if anyone owes anyone an appology, it's the American intelligence community who owes an appology to the president.

One of the first lessons in leadership is that you cannot delegate responsibility.

The buck stops at the oval office.

Lebell · 01-27-2004, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fnaqzna
One of the first lessons in leadership is that you cannot delegate responsibility.

The buck stops at the oval office.

As I said, those are his words, not mine.

I found the article on MSNBC if you would like to read it yourself.

fnaqzna · 01-27-2004, 09:05 PM

I'm with ya... edited the post so the quote isn't attributed to you.

Jizzosh · 01-28-2004, 02:24 PM

Quote:

People always think they know what truth is, like it was toilet paper and they've got a supply of it in their closet.

But what you learn as you get older is that there is no truth, There's only bullsh*t. Layers of it. One layer of bullsh*t on top of another.

And what you do in life is pick the layer of bullsh*t you prefer, and that's your bullsh*t.

From the movie "Hero" (adapted)

I thought this quote might be enjoyed by the group in light of this topic...

illesturban · 01-28-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mrbuck12000
My point is to educate people that this administration is lying to the american public about why we are really in a war a war that has cost us 500 american lives.
Why did george bush tell the american public one thing and then they say something completely different 5 days later?
WHY WHY WHY???

mr b

yeah what sucks is that there are too many americans willing to believe every little thing this man has to say. I mean, he cheated his damn way into the white house for crying out loud; he measled his way into yale on a sorry SAT score, and the list goes on. If he can't even get into the oval office legitimately, how the hell can we expect him to tell us the truth!?

The fact that there have been HUNDREDS of american lives taken yet NO WMD's found pisses me off, as it should most people. The american people have been trained to remain in a state of fear and so when the president comes on tv and exclaims "we're going to get Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction," people want to believe it to take away some of that fear.

Not to mention they instate things like the Patriot Act to be able to control us even more...

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-28-2004, 03:24 PM

You people just don't get it, nor want to because you are blinded by your hatred for Bush.

WMD's were a credible threat. If you would be willing to remove your head from your nether-regions you would be able to notice how Saddam was in MATERIAL BREACH of 1441, not to mention his long list of non-compliance. Every major intelligence agency in the WORLD had information stating Saddam had the WMD's, The U.N. itself suspected it. To many holes in Saddam's declarations of programs. Not mention that he had programs still running the whole time.

Also for the love of Jesus would you people please stop your fucking belly aching over "How Bush Stole the White House~!~!~!!!!!". He won it fair and square and how the constitution intended it. Furthermore it has been argued on these forums so much there is no sense in trying to resusitate the dead horse, it's something you have to live with... Fucking deal with it and vote in 04'.

illesturban · 01-28-2004, 03:42 PM

^OK in order to avoid pointless debate with you, I'm going to ask with shock...what makes you think the U.N. suspected Iraq of having WMD's!? If they did, then why did they not support the war?

nanofever · 01-28-2004, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
You people just don't get it, nor want to because you are blinded by your hatred for Bush.

WMD's were a credible threat. If you would be willing to remove your head from your nether-regions you would be able to notice how Saddam was in MATERIAL BREACH of 1441, not to mention his long list of non-compliance. Every major intelligence agency in the WORLD had information stating Saddam had the WMD's, The U.N. itself suspected it. To many holes in Saddam's declarations of programs. Not mention that he had programs still running the whole time.

Also for the love of Jesus would you people please stop your fucking belly aching over "How Bush Stole the White House~!~!~!!!!!". He won it fair and square and how the constitution intended it. Furthermore it has been argued on these forums so much there is no sense in trying to resusitate the dead horse, it's something you have to live with... Fucking deal with it and vote in 04'.

*BS detector implodes* Okay time for some non-spin and please leave the Ad homs at home because they aren't valid tactics and if you want to pointout someone has their head up their arse atleast try to prove that instead of using a blanket statement.

No matter how hard you wish it was true, 1441 had NOTHING to do with WMD being in Iraq it involved Iraq not complying with inspections. If Saddam was in material breech of 1441, which is rather subjective since it isn't a binary yes/no decision, then the UN should have done something about it, not the US. Saddam didn't have WMD, deal with it, an intelligency agency can say "Bush actually chimp in man-suit" but no matter how likely that statement it is worthless without evidence.

Quote:

He won it fair and square and how the constitution intended it.

Since when did the constitution give judicial review to the Supreme Court, who decided the 2000 election in Bush's favor ? If anything, that election was the exact opposite of what the constitution intended since the election was decided by a non-elected olgarchy.

yellowgowild · 01-28-2004, 05:47 PM

I'm sick of people complaining about the people dying in Iraq. The soldiers knew what the risks were when they signed up. People have forgotten how we have always had to pay for liberty in blood when diplomacy has failed.

Tomservo · 01-28-2004, 06:00 PM

What diplomacy has failed?

"Hey Saddam, even though we allied ourselves with you, supplied you with weapons, and gave you the go-ahead to invade Kuwait... we're gonna have to go ahead and humiliate you in war, then destroy your bridges and factories and steal 60% of your oil reserves for a decade... and then expect you to let us do it again."

That's diplomacy? Saddam is a prick, sure, and he shouldn't have been in control of any populace, definitely. The WMD's aren't there. Diplomacy (or theft) worked, and Saddam didn't have the resources to destroy the world. Suddenly, that makes us the diplomats? Have you followed any of our history with Iraq?

The first words out of my mouth when Bush was given the presidential "win"- "Great. We're going to war." Anyone who thinks Iraq was about diplomacy needs to go take a tour of a Boeing facility. Bushes 1 and 2 were under the gun to produce a profitable war with few casualties, and they did. Billions of dollars have been made with the wars, and taken from the Iraqi oil fields, and defense contractors are cleaning up.

Diplomacy. Heh. Threats, I'd buy. Coercion, sure. Diplomacy, no.

tdoc · 01-30-2004, 12:57 PM

Seaver- thanks for the reply, just what I was looking for.
Nanofever-I bet you don't work for the georgia dept of education.

01-25-2004, 07:17 PM	#1 (permalink)
mrbuck12000 Psycho Location: wisCONsin	he lied...AGAIN!! this is from the state of the Union Address Jan 20, 2004: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=4012231&p1=0 "Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We are seeking all the facts -- already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day." this is From CNN yesterday jan 24, 2004: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...kay/index.html "(CNN) -- Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March. He said U.S. intelligence services owe President Bush an explanation for having concluded that Iraq had. "My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons," he said on National Public Radio's "Weekend Edition." "I don't think they exist."" Let me guess the intelligence between tuesday when 36,000,000 people tuned in...when people were paying attention has changed to this weekend when they let us know....when no one is paying attention...on a saturday....when all eyes are on a college basketball game or on Mars.....that this is all changed. How niave is the american public??????? When is the lying going to stop? When is this administration going to fess up and say that 500 americans should not have died? I am sick and tired of the lies. Aren't you? Mr b __________________ "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002

01-25-2004, 07:21 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	If you read it again, you will find out that the two statements are not contradictory at all. Kay did not find weapons stockpiles. Kay did find weapons programs and prohibited materials. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-25-2004, 07:28 PM	#3 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Something else Kay said. Seems that perhaps his other words were distorted. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief By Con Coughlin (Filed: 25/01/2004) David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria. In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam. "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." Dr Kay's comments will intensify pressure on President Bashar Assad to clarify the extent of his co-operation with Saddam's regime and details of Syria's WMD programme. Mr Assad has said that Syria was entitled to defend itself by acquiring its own biological and chemical weapons arsenal. Syria was one of Iraq's main allies in the run-up to the war and hundreds of Iraqi officials - including members of Saddam's family - were given refuge in Damascus after the collapse of the Iraqi dictator's regime. Many of the foreign fighters responsible for conducting terrorist attacks against the coalition are believed to have entered Iraq through Syria. A Syrian official last night said: "These allegations have been raised many times in the past by Israeli officials, which proves that they are false." Gotta love that last sentence. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

01-25-2004, 07:35 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Since the missing anthrax would fit in the back of a single truck, its hardely surprising . __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-25-2004, 08:06 PM	#6 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I've personally seen videos from Iraq on their WMD factories that the UN had found between the wars. We KNOW there were ones that we never knew of. Even Clinton flat out said that Iraq had WMDs or would have them within half a decade. Iraq is a very very large country, and with the mass deserts it's not that difficult to bury them, hell those WMD shells we found Saddam didnt even know where they were, they were hidden during the Iran/Iraq war, then the paperwork was lost until US went through some really old paperwork. If Saddam didnt even know the status of all his WMDs, how are we supposed to know exactly where they were hidden? Give it time, if none existed we knew for a fact they had the capabilities to make them (France sold the equipment in the late 80s). __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

01-26-2004, 08:38 AM	#10 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	the biggest war is fought at home, and it's fought with semantics... John Ashcroft said that we haven't found any WMDs in Iraq and we probably never will, but that doesn't mean the invasion of Iraq was unjustified... I agree that Saddam had to be removed from power, but Bush was looking for any excuse to do it. Maybe we should be a little more careful about who we put in power in the first place... __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

01-26-2004, 11:28 AM	#11 (permalink)
tdoc Tilted	nonofever and seaver how does one find things in sand. Is it acoustic, radio or what? Do they look for nonrandom features? sounds fascinating

01-26-2004, 12:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
mb99usa Keep on rolling. It only hurts for a little while. Location: wherever I am	I think what should concern everyone is that this is a battle of wording. We should expect clear explanations from our leaders, especially when it involves military action. In this case we still do not know the true extent of Iraq's WMD situation and probably never will but many American and allied lives were lost. I also agree with Bermuda's statement that this war was going to happen regardless of the reason. __________________ So, what's your point? It's not an attitude, it's a way of life.

01-26-2004, 02:52 PM	#14 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I read an article in this morning's paper on Kay. His take is that everyone was fooled and if anyone owes anyone an appology, it's the American intelligence community who owes an appology to the president. His words, not mine. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-26-2004, 07:30 PM	#16 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	You seemed to start out having a hard time telling what a lie was and what words meant. This isn't meant to be a flame, but your point was he LIED, now you are changing your point. Was your first point a lie and now this is your real point? I'm sure you can see the parallel, as you are doing what you accuse Bush of doing. You made a point which was shot down, and now you claim your original point was a different point which is less damning. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-26-2004, 08:32 PM	#17 (permalink)
mrbuck12000 Psycho Location: wisCONsin	My point is to educate people that this administration is lying to the american public about why we are really in a war a war that has cost us 500 american lives. Why did george bush tell the american public one thing and then they say something completely different 5 days later? WHY WHY WHY??? mr b __________________ "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002

01-27-2004, 02:26 AM	#20 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	ya know i was also thinking...again, it's a bad thing, i know but seriously. There is a major difference between having a weapon and having plans for building a weapon. One of my friends from way back when happened to be a physics prodigy and used to design nuclear weapons in his notepad, when he got older, he sold some of these designs to MIT and i think Princeton, for use in the fusion project they have going on. Under the current administration's thinking, his plans could be reason enough to justify blowing his country to smithereens and removing him from power. I mean, it's one thing to sell a war based on the fact that someone has a weapon, if he built a nuclear bomb in his basement, yeah, i'd want someone to step in, but the fact is, he didn't, but under the current train of thought, having plans for something is just as bad as having something. heck, i don't know about any of you, but my kitchen has enough stuff to make a ton of toxic gases and explosives. Anyone with a simple highschool/college physics book can probably construct a pretty healthy bomb or at least a couple of nerve gasses. Heck, if nothing else, mix dawn and ammonia in a bottle and throw it at someone, . The point of this rant is just that its' pretty scary at how quickly something goes from "He has WMD's" to "he has plans of WMD related programs" Heck, the greed of his scientists may have been keeping the world safe from terrorism by keeping the money while developing nothing. Now, i can freely admit that the CIA and the intelligence community were mistaken, but i really really really really really wish the current admin would just come out and say, "Hey, we were wrong, they didn't have them, but we took saddam out bc he's a bad man" Heck, even i can respect that. The bay of pigs fiasco and subsequent admission of an error by JFK proves that americans are willing to forgive a president who admits a screwup.. It's not like people are going to run to the streets and protest to have us leave Iraq now. at least, not moreso than are already out there. I would hope most people would understand that leaving the country as it is now would be a prelude to WWIII in a fairly short (less than 20 yrs) amount of time. Anyway, sorry for rambling and not making as much sense, but it's 5:25 am and i haven't been to bed yet. __________________ Live. Chris

01-27-2004, 09:46 AM	#22 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	People are arguing over how hard it is to find things in a big country like Iraq, but if I'm not mistaken, weren't we told that the US already knew where these weapons were? Didn't Rummy say US Intelligence already had a fix on locations containing WMD? Didn't Powell have a whole bunch of pretty pictures to show the world? We were told that the US knew where to go so how come we're talking about WMD buried underground where it's so difficult to find them? If they could be launched in 40 mins, how hidden could they be? SLM3

01-27-2004, 02:19 PM	#24 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	Kinda makes you yearn for the days of Harry Truman: The buck stops here. Bush would gain MAJOR points if he stood up like a man and said "the intelligence might be dodgy, but the responsibility lies with me, and I was wrong to have used that as a reason to go to war." No one in DC takes responsibility for anything anymore, so I'm not exactly holding my breath. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

01-27-2004, 07:04 PM	#25 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	Exactly, Truman. I mean, people are always gushing about how gung ho and how ballsy bush is, but DAMN, if he'd just say, "Fine, i did it...it's my responsibility" and then moved on.... very aggravating and then today, he commended the intelligence gathering communities for doing such a wonderful job. Hell, i'd be chewing on someone's ass for days over this.. __________________ Live. Chris

01-27-2004, 09:05 PM	#28 (permalink)
fnaqzna Meat Popsicle Location: Left Coast	I'm with ya... edited the post so the quote isn't attributed to you.

01-28-2004, 03:24 PM	#31 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	You people just don't get it, nor want to because you are blinded by your hatred for Bush. WMD's were a credible threat. If you would be willing to remove your head from your nether-regions you would be able to notice how Saddam was in MATERIAL BREACH of 1441, not to mention his long list of non-compliance. Every major intelligence agency in the WORLD had information stating Saddam had the WMD's, The U.N. itself suspected it. To many holes in Saddam's declarations of programs. Not mention that he had programs still running the whole time. Also for the love of Jesus would you people please stop your fucking belly aching over "How Bush Stole the White House~!~!~!!!!!". He won it fair and square and how the constitution intended it. Furthermore it has been argued on these forums so much there is no sense in trying to resusitate the dead horse, it's something you have to live with... Fucking deal with it and vote in 04'. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-28-2004, 03:42 PM	#32 (permalink)
illesturban Psycho Location: Lubbock, TX	^OK in order to avoid pointless debate with you, I'm going to ask with shock...what makes you think the U.N. suspected Iraq of having WMD's!? If they did, then why did they not support the war?

01-28-2004, 05:47 PM	#34 (permalink)
yellowgowild Psycho Location: Tampa	I'm sick of people complaining about the people dying in Iraq. The soldiers knew what the risks were when they signed up. People have forgotten how we have always had to pay for liberty in blood when diplomacy has failed.

01-28-2004, 06:00 PM	#35 (permalink)
Tomservo Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	What diplomacy has failed? "Hey Saddam, even though we allied ourselves with you, supplied you with weapons, and gave you the go-ahead to invade Kuwait... we're gonna have to go ahead and humiliate you in war, then destroy your bridges and factories and steal 60% of your oil reserves for a decade... and then expect you to let us do it again." That's diplomacy? Saddam is a prick, sure, and he shouldn't have been in control of any populace, definitely. The WMD's aren't there. Diplomacy (or theft) worked, and Saddam didn't have the resources to destroy the world. Suddenly, that makes us the diplomats? Have you followed any of our history with Iraq? The first words out of my mouth when Bush was given the presidential "win"- "Great. We're going to war." Anyone who thinks Iraq was about diplomacy needs to go take a tour of a Boeing facility. Bushes 1 and 2 were under the gun to produce a profitable war with few casualties, and they did. Billions of dollars have been made with the wars, and taken from the Iraqi oil fields, and defense contractors are cleaning up. Diplomacy. Heh. Threats, I'd buy. Coercion, sure. Diplomacy, no.

01-30-2004, 12:57 PM	#36 (permalink)
tdoc Tilted	Seaver- thanks for the reply, just what I was looking for. Nanofever-I bet you don't work for the georgia dept of education.