Cheney Calls Pelosi Plan a Disaster »
Posted by: bobo-in-texas 1 year, 3 months ago376 Comments Report this Story
Of course... The vice president didn't mention that Syria, Al Qaeda and Iran are impressed with the Pelosi Plan.
Read Full Story at gatewaypundit.blogspot.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 376
-
0%
ETproductions1 year, 3 months ago
Cheney's record on Iraq. 1500 extremely definitive statements. Accuracy rate. 0% right. 100% wrong. SO we should now jump off a cliff and destroy our army because this obvious idiot has yet another pronouncement from on high. Sorry. Not buying it at all.
Reply-
0%
shyanbelle1 year, 3 months ago
LMAO@ This comment. Have you failed to read into any thing before you comment. The plan would be disasterous, your far fetched wet dream of 1500 statements and 0 accuracy is just that a wet dream. You just made it real obvious your another blame the Bush admin for every thing, even when truth comes out, you say stupid crap.
FACT 9 Arab countries in the region are asking the USA to stay. The only ones saying leave just happen to be Syria, Iran, Al Qaeda, and the democrats... geez that don't sound a little bit odd to you? When countries there who know a hell a lot more then you do vote to stay, that says enough sparkey. Wise up for a change and open that closed mind of yours. Not every thing is a lie just because you don't agree with some things. That just makes you a stupid person, ignorant to any truth because you have resentment. Which makes you a moron. That really who you want to be?
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
bigG1 year, 3 months ago
Please note that this person has been around here since about March 8, 2007. Wonder what the moniker was before.
Reply -
0%
shyanbelle1 year, 3 months ago
Well considering you people call truth BS, yes, I spew a lot of it. One day you will to. Well, when you finally start using that thing inside your noggin!
Reply
-
-
-
69%
gdseric1 year, 3 months ago
You would have to be a moron yourself not to understand the comments above.
Reply
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.59 Replies
-
100%
shyanbelle1 year, 3 months ago
neocon LMAO! Here we go with the neocon crap. LMAO @ you morons stats. Where do you get this? Your delusional head.
Since there are so many, why don't you compile a list of them for us all to go through and point out all the ones that don't fit.
LMAO even harder and me not posting "any truth". Because we have 2 different truths obviously. Your truth it actually all lies and made up crap you've been reading on these stupid sites for so long you now believe its really true.
Then you speak like a true idiot and attempt to completely ignore the fact the arab countries in the region aside from Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda are the only ones saying leave, then you people. So its already REAL clear who's side your on, when your wise enough to realize the same thing, you can join us real Americans. Not those who are making stuff up online constantly because they are to stupid to realize a fact when its right infront of their face.
Compare you & Dicks known comments, you lie more
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.6 Replies
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
INJEST:
"Um this may be news to you, but a poll Right Track/Wrong Track is not a statement of Cheney."
Then, hopefully these numbers will suffice:
http://www.pollingreport.com/C.htm
PollingReport measures Cheney's job approval rating at 25% as of April 23, 2007. 68% of the public disapproved of his job performance.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/in...
Harris Poll measures Cheney's job approval rating at 25% as of May 4, 2007. 68% rated him negatively.
Cheney's job approval rating has been measured as low as 18%, which was recorded by CBS in the aftermath of his shotgun blast to his elderly friend's face.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opini...
In fact, as this graph shows, as bad as Bush's job approval ratings are, Cheney's always appears to be lower.
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2007/04...
Reply-
0%
FSU92grad1 year, 3 months ago
Funny, Truman's numbers were in the tanker too, lower than Bush's at 23% back in 1951, but yet Newsweek recently reported him being in the top 10 of greatest presidents and leaders this country had ever seen...
Hmmmmmmm...I wonder, ybdogsfekkdhfoeiieure, if your "poll" numbers are full of crap...kind of like you ?
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
FSUDropout:
"Funny, Truman's numbers were in the tanker too, lower than Bush's at 23% back in 1951...Hmmmmmmm...I wonder, ybdogsfekkdhfoeiieure, if your "poll" numbers are full of crap...kind of like you ?"
Funny, you're comparing Truman to Bush? Let's see:
Truman ended a war; Bush started two.
Truman's motto was "the buck stops here"; Bush's m.o. is "blame a political sacrificial lamb" (i.e. Libby, Powell, Abu Ghraib, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, the CIA, etc.)
I wonder, FSUDropout, if YOU are the one full of crap.
P.S. You can probably ask LIBSSUCK what my screen name means, as he is the only one who constantly brings it up in his posts. As I said before, my name only has 8 letters; yours has 9. It's not that confusing. Learn to count.
Reply-
-
77%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
How obtuse can you be?
Nobody disputes the legitimacy of the war in Afghanistan. There is broad bipartisan and international support for that conflict. However, your comments conveniently ignore Iraq--which intelligence reports show had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. There is no reason for us to be there.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt10...
SHYANBELLE:
"Surely this can't be safe"
Of course, if you feel so strongly about this issue, then I suggest you log off, enlist, grab a rifle, and ask for front line duty. Or are you nothing more than a chickenhawk who has no qualms gambling with other people's lives but is too cowardly to put your money where your mouth is? How do you feel encouraging others to fight for you from the comfort of your computer? If YOU want the U.S. to stay in Iraq, then YOU FIGHT.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
0%
shyanbelle1 year, 3 months ago
also, maybe you should listen to your own advice outside your stupid comments like "70% of americans are against this" when not a single poll ever has taken 70% of the american publics opinion... so yeah.. ahahahah when your bright enough to realize little bits of info like that, you can join those with a brain who don't SEARCH for reasons to hate, ignore facts because it doesn't suit the agenda, and then turn around and accuse others of having blinders on when you haven't posted a fact in, well, i haven't ever seen one... ahahaha..
I come on here to point out how dumb you people are in your thinking. I love the messages I get laughing with me. Its hilarious you people are really this dumb to me.
LMAO! @ me getting slapped down.. again back to the world of delusion. When delusion that suits agendas surpasses facts provided.. Yah... your still the one the majority is laughing at. My posts have more positives then you.. LMAO! SO keep dreaming bud. More delusion.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 3 months ago
The photo looks more intelligent than the comments. An infant would have had their mouth washed with some for that kind of language.
Reply
-
-
100%
wallyone1 year, 3 months ago
shyanbelle.. you have very negative responses to your diatribe.. you are either a blind follower of this disaster of an administration or you have just wondered out of the bush after 6 years of being lost.. wake up for goodness sake.. what redeaming qualities do either the incompetent bush or the pompous cheney have that you would continue to defend these idiots like you have.. i really don't think you know a thing about what is going on..
Reply
-
-
0%
injest1 year, 3 months ago
Dickyboy has made well over 1500 definitive statements and his batting average to date is 0.00 percent at being right! I have yet to see you post any "truth"
Can't name any of them can you?
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
Reply-
-
75%
injest1 year, 3 months ago
Redstatelib,
apparently you need a history lesson to get up to speed.
In 1998 the UN and their inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. That was 1998, no inspectors from the UN or anywhere else was were allowed back into Iraq till 2003, 5 years. Where you aware of that? We along with the UK flew 10,000 sorties and fired some 300 cruise missiles at Iraq and then left. I do not know why we did not follow through with removing Saddam in 1998 as per our "Iraq liberation act", If you do please let us know. The fact is we didn't and the Iraq problem was passed on to the next admin. My guess is they expected it to be a Gore admin, not a Bush admin. I am not saying he intended to pass the buck to the Republicans.
What did the inspectors verify in 2003 â;;03, nothing and no one expected they would, like Al Gore
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Reply-
0%
injest1 year, 3 months ago
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Sen. Hillary Clinton said (You do know who Hillary Clinton is right?) 09/24/2003
"The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and "the behavior" of his regime "pointed to a continuing effort" to produce WMD, she added.
The senator said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD.
Reply-
0%
injest1 year, 3 months ago
"The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"
--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98
"As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago."
--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02
"Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998."
--AP, 9/7/02
"If he has secret weapons, he's had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them."
--Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02
The bottom line whether you like it or not Saddam's actions in 1998 sealed his fate and ours we were going to war to get ride of him. If you can't see that your blined
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
INJEST:
"I do not know why we did not follow through with removing Saddam in 1998 as per our "Iraq liberation act", If you do please let us know."
The Iraq Liberation Act did NOT authorize the use of military force. The Iraq Liberation Act focused on giving non-military aid to pro-democracy subversives within Iraq. For example, it funds the broadcasting of pro-democracy propaganda by Iraq subversives, gives aid to Iraqi refugees fleeing Saddam's regime, and funds training of subversives.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc....
INJEST:
"The fact is we didn't and the Iraq problem was passed on to the next admin."
You mean from Bush 1 to Clinton, or from Clinton to Bush 2. Iraq was NOT a problem until Bush 2 decided to make it a problem. BOTH Bush 1 and Clinton agreed on a policy of containment, which intelligence reports now show were EFFECTIVE.
Reply -
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
As far as all your quotes are concerned, you're going to trust politicians who were briefed by Douglas Feith?
"In the case of Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda, intelligence was exaggerated to support Administration policy aims primarily by the Feith policy office, which was determined to find a strong connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, rather than by the IC, which was consistently dubious of such a connection...The non-IC or "alternative" intelligence analysis conducted by the DOD neatly fit the Administration's desire to build a strong case for an invasion of Iraq to overthrow the Saddam regime, particularly given the fact that the usual source of intelligence analysis, the IC, was skeptical about the existence of a close or cooperative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting...
Why not trust UNMOVIC and the CIA, who failed to find any physical evidence of an active WMD program?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
56%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
INJEST:
"Iraq is not nearly disarmed.."
INJEST is either blind or willfully ignoring my posts. The CBW Ritter discussed in INJEST's quote were dated pre-1991 and had completely degraded within 3-5 years. These were NOT the weapons we were looking for.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/...
"Iraq is not a sponsor of the kind of terror perpetrated against the United States on September 11 and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamental extremism that characterizes those who attacked the United States on that horrible day," Ritter said...In his address Sunday, Ritter denied that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction..."Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, had been certified as being disarmed to a 90 [percent] to 95 percent level," he said...Ritter said that the Bush administration was "using weapons inspections as an excuse" to go to war with Iraq.
Reply-
0%
bigG1 year, 3 months ago
doggy,
Bush himself has admitted there were no WMD's. "Bad intelligence" as he put it. Case closed. Don't bother responding to the numbskulls like "injest". I suspect if you gave him an enema, his remains could be buried in a match box.
Reply-
75%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix
"I begin by recalling that inspections as a part of a disarmament process in Iraq started in 1991, immediately after the Gulf War. They went on for eight years until December 1998, when inspectors were withdrawn. Thereafter, for nearly four years there were no inspections. They were resumed only at the end of November last year...Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly...Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance â;; not even today â;; of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace".
As we know, the twin operation 'declare and verify', which was prescribed in resolution 687 (1991), too often turned into a game of hide and seek"
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
Cont.
"In 12/1999 after one year without inspections in Iraq resolution 1284 (1999) was adopted by the Council with 4 abstentions. Supplementing the basic resolutions of 1991 and following years, it provided Iraq with a somewhat less ambitious approach: in return for cooperation in all respects for a specified period of time, including progress in the resolution of key remaining disarmament tasks, it opened the possibility, not for the lifting, but the suspension of sanctions.
For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by UNMOVIC. It was only after appeals by the Secretary-General and Arab States and pressure by the United States and other Member States, that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions.
1441(2002)was adopted on 11/8 last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active."
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
Cont,
"Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can"... The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared."
Reply-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
Uhhh. There were WMDs and every nation on Earth knew it. 1441 was passed unanimously by the Security council. UNANIMOUSLY. The question is during the 2 year lead up to the Liberation from the tyrant dictator Saddam where did they go? They were there, Iraq even admitted as much to the UN in their final 12,000 page declaration.
Reply-
50%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
CAPECORALM:
"There were WMDs and every nation on Earth knew it."
No. Every nation on earth presumed it, but had no physical evidence to corroborate these presumptions. A careful reading of de-classified intelligence reports shows that the IC carefully made mention of the large uncertainties regarding intelligence on Iraq.
CAPECORALM:
"1441 was passed unanimously by the Security council. UNANIMOUSLY."
Have you read Resolution 1441? It is NOT a war resolution. On the contrary, it calls for inspections to continue. In fact, it is Resolution 1441 (along with the UN Charter) that Bush violated when he cut inspections short and invaded prematurely, unilaterally, and preemptively. Russia, France, and China only agreed to sign 1441 on the guaranteed condition that 1441 would send the matter of Iraq back to the Security Council for "further deliberations" in the event that Iraq refused to comply. Bush broke this promise when he attacked Iraq preemptively.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
" The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg."
Reply-
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
Didn't you notice all the uncertainties in this report?
EXAMPLE #1
"In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
i.e. UNMOVIC doesn't even know if weapons Saddam claimed to possess even existed. If they didn't exist (and they didn't), that would explain why Saddam couldn't provide evidence that they were destroyed in 1991. Bottom line: Blix needed more time for their inspections, but Bush and Blair invaded prematurely.
EXAMPLE #2:
"The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. THIS COULD BE THE CASE."
UNCERTAINTY EXAMPLE #3
"These reports do not contend that WMDs remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out"--Hans Blix
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
CAPECORALM:
"Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix"
FROM YOUR OWN LINK:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.
"These reports do not contend that WMDs remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out"--Hans Blix, January 27, 2003
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
Yes a great help..."We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable."
What about show us the VX, Anthrax, and mustard gas you declared and show us were (The Location for soil testing) it was destroyed?" then "Oh it is over there. it is destroyed. Yes we had it but not anymore" Oh Saddam we now believe you. Yes the 8 years of deception and run around and $Billions in bribes and corruption of the UN... Fogetaboutit"
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
CAPECORALM:
"What about show us the the VX, Anthrax, and mustard gas"
This was ALREADY addressed. Here it is AGAIN for those who didn't understand the first time it was posted.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
"With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within 5 years...The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within 3 years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections. In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."--Scott Ritter 2002
Reply-
25%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
Yet Scott Ritters replacement "Hans Blix" Stated otherwise didn't he? He CLEARLY stated there were unresolved issues and unaccounted for Chemical, Biological, and possibly nuclear weapons and or proscribed programs that Saddam admitted to having yet could not verify the destruction of? It is all in the UN library for anybody who cares to read it.
Reply-
67%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
CAPECORALM:
"He CLEARLY stated there were unresolved issues and unaccounted for Chemical, Biological, and possibly nuclear weapons and or proscribed programs"
Blix made it VERY CLEAR (in my previous posts) that there was too much uncertainty and that UNMOVIC could neither corroborate nor deny the existence of an active WMD program. That is why BLIX (along with Annan) ASKED FOR MORE TIME. But Bush and Blair did not wait. Instead, they cut the inspections short to start military strikes.
"that Saddam admitted to having yet could not verify the destruction of?"
It has ALREADY been detailed by the CIA that Saddam needed to lie about having WMDs in order to keep Iran as well as subversives in Iraq at bay. But the CIA, Pentagon, FBI, and UNMOVIC never fully believed anything Saddam claimed. They instead preferred to have physical evidence of an active WMD program, but there was NONE.
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps76748/iraq_s...
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=...
"Security Council hears repeated calls for more time for UN inspections in Iraq"
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/27/...
"U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has just come out and asked the Security Council to give weapons inspectors in Iraq more time...The U.S., of course, didn't think inspectors should be granted that much time. They are pushing for a quicker, more definitive decision on Iraq's level of cooperation."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0623-10...
" "Three-and-a-half months for new inspections was a rather short time before calling it a day and especially when we now see the U.S. government is saying that, 'look, you have to have a little patience, you know these things take time.' All right," Blix told his audience of foreign policy analysts, business leaders, academics and journalists."--Hanx Blix
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006...
"'Chemical Ali' was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD, but claims many within the ruling circle always believed they did...According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about having WMD during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD, but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary. Saddam went on to explain that if Iraq made such a declaration, it would not only show Israel that Iraq did not have WMD, but might actually encourage the Israelis to attack."
Reply-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
Well having said that I suggest you review the TOTAL history. The world body of intelligence reported for many, many years that there were Chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons that could be passed onto Islamic Extremist groups to be used worldwide. The Butler Report stands by the nuclear weapons story. All other intel agencies state that the indication was strong that Saddam retained these capabilities and that he had used them before and would likely use them again. Perhaps even through Proxy groups. That was the common knowledge base.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
CAPECORALM:
"there were Chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons"
WRONG. While some shared this presumption, the intelligence community (particularly the CIA and UNMOVIC) produced reports mentioning significant uncertainties and unknowns. Scott Ritter himself claimed that Iraq had been 90-95% disarmed, that he could find no evidence of an active nuclear program, and that CBW produced pre-1991 would have degraded 3-5 years after production.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
Hanx Blix likewise stated that there were many items still unaccounted for, but that "These reports do not contend that WMDs remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility."
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
The CIA comparison between pre-war and post-war intelligence showed no physical evidence of an active WMD program.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt10...
I suggest you take your own advice and consider the "total history."
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
"By late 2002, Saddam finally tilted towards pursuing policies designed to persuade the international community that Iraq was cooperating with UNSCOM and that it was free of WMD...As 2002 drew to a close, the regime took active measures to counter the Coalition's assertion that WMD still remained in Iraq. Saddam was insistent that 'in order not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war,' Iraq would give full access to UN Inspectors."
"Saddam became convinced that because there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq, the Americans or Israelis were not beyond planting fake evidence."
"Saddam avoided taking actions in the year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. that would appear obstructionist or threatening. In late 2002, he told a group of officers that Iraq would provide UN inspectors with the access they needed, thus denying President George W. Bush and the Americans any excuse for starting a new conflict."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/repor...
The Iraq Study Group also found no evidence that Iraq had an active WMD program post-1991. They found that UN sanctions, inspections, and no-fly zones were effective in containing Saddam.
"The ISG found that Iraq ended its nuclear program in 1991 and that Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressivel declined after that date. The ISG found no evidence that Saddam Hussein attempted to restart the nuclear program. The intellectual capital (needed to restart a WMD program in the event UN sanctions were lifted) had decayed since the end of the nuclear program in 1991, and there was no evidence that scientists were engaged in renewed weapons work. A CIA nuclear retrospective said that Saddam 'probably harbored some intent to acquire nuclear weapons, but there were credible claims...to suggest he abandoned such pursuits."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt10...
"Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear weapons program"; "Iraq's acquisition of high-strength aluminum tubes was not intended for an Iraq nuclear program, but were likely intended for a conventional rocket program" which Iraq was allowed to possess; "Iraq pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are high dubious"; "Iraq no longer had a large scale biological weapons production capability after 1996" and there was "no direct evidence that Iraq maintained stocks of biological weapons or possessed bulk biological agents after 1996"; "Iraq never possessed, or developed, mobile facilities for producing biological agents"; "Iraq was not expanding its chemical industry to support chemical weapons production"; and "Iraq did not possess missiles which exceeded UN range limits."
Reply -
-
-
-
94%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
I suggest that you do not have a firm enough grasp of "history." It is YOU who have fallen victim to the sensationalism of news programs like Fox. It is YOU who fail to see the significant uncertainties depicted by intelligence reports from the CIA, Pentagon, and UNMOVIC. It is YOU who continues to be an apologist for a failed administration, simply reiterating talking points from Fox News and neocon blogs.
It's time for YOU to get your facts straight. Iraq did NOT have an active WMD program, and not a single intelligence report claimed to have produced irrefutable, physical evidence of the existence of such an alleged program.
Reply -
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
CAPECORALM, you fit the neocon pattern of denial even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
JUST LIKE RUMSFELD:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcri...
RUMSFELD: We know where they [WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1109-11...
Rumsfeld also has backtracked on his earlier assertions that American troops knew where the forbidden weapons were hidden.
RUMSFELD: "I said, 'We know they're in that area," Rumsfeld said. "I should have said, 'I believe we're in that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and that was our best judgment..."I said, 'We know they're in that area," Rumsfeld said. "I should have said, 'I believe we're in that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and that was our best judgment."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
JUST LIKE RUMSFELD & CHENEY:
"There is no question but that we would be welcomed."
CHENEY: "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
RUMSFELD:
"Never said that [we would be welcomed with open arms by Iraqis]. Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said."
----------...
JUST LIKE BUSH 2:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.asp...
BUSH: The United States "will stay the course" in Iraq, President Bush said...A free Iraq will mean a peaceful world. And it's very important for us to stay the course, and we will stay the course."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/22/bush-stay-t...
BUSH: Well, hey, listen, we've never been "stay the course," George.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
"we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within 5 years...The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within 3 years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections. In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence."
--Scott Ritter, 2002
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
--Hans Blix 1/2003
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.
As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999.
Reply-
100%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems...In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.
Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.
Hans Blix Jan 17, 2003
Reply-
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago
CAPECORALM:
"These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems."
I don't know how many times I have to say this or how difficult this is to comprehend, but I'll say it one more time. Saddam had to deliberately lie about possessing large quantities of WMDs in order to hold onto power and prevent his overthrow by the Iranians and by subversives within Iraq.
In EVERY single one of your quotes, Hanx Blix mentions this discrepancy between what Iraq claims to possess and what UNMOVIC has discovered on the ground. But in the same breath, Blix makes known the uncertainty of whether Iraq still possessed WMDs it claims to possess, is hiding these WMDs, or whether Iraq possessed the WMDs it claimed to possess at all. That is why Blix wanted more time to investigate, but his investigations were cut short by Bush's preemptive invasion. It turns out Blix's suspicions, that Iraq did not possess WMDs it boasted it possessed, were correct.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Dionys1 year, 3 months ago
Do you think Al-Quaeda asks us to leave because they think we will listen to them? Or do they have a 3rd grade education and understand that their asking us to leave will have the exact opposite effect on George Bush and his cronies.
If we leave in the right way, Al Quaeda will have nothing to fight against. Al Quaeda will, according to many intelligence reports, collapse.
Hmm.
Reply-
-
-
0%
bigG1 year, 3 months ago
Not if we closed the borders Einstein. I live in Texas and they haven't done SH*T yet. They ain't gonna swim here and the Admin has known it all along. The classical Conservative stance is to protect the homeland, and the NATIONAL GUARD is in Iraq. (the operative words there are NATIONAL GUARD for the mentally challenged)
Seen any movement from yellow to orange or red lately?
Didn't think so.
Reply-
67%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
I live in Florida and they do risk life and limb to swim here and be here. From places like Cuba where health care is king according to MM.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.5 Replies
-
0%
injest1 year, 3 months ago
Okay, not Cheney, how bout US Grand jury in 1998.
06 November 1998
TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development.
Seems clear to me that this indictment states UBL and Saddam would work together.
Uhmm next!
Reply-
-
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 3 months ago
This entire string of history fighting about WMDs is irrelevant. Bush has executed incompetently. I accept that the terms of Saddam's surrender gave us authority to search. It didn't give us authority to depose him, though that was probably also a good thing. What is at issue is that Bush has performed incompetently as a CIC. Let's forget all the distorted data...let's accept he had just cause...he has still executed totally incompetently. Any CEO in the US who performed his duties so poorly would already be removed by the board.
Reply-
-
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 3 months ago
In a military operations order there are two sections that are filled out before you begin to execute, paragraphs that you are supposed to have contingency plans for before you begin the operation. One is the Enemy Most Likely Course of Action. The other is the Enemy Most Dangerous Course of Action. Every thing the enemy is doing was not only forseen, it was predicted. Bush didn't make them do it but he was responsible for having viable contingency plans to address both of these options...the most likely and the most dangerous. Thus far, the enemy is only using the most likely course of action...we haven't seen the most dangerous yet. The commanding officer is responsible for everything his people do or fail to do. You don't normally strike me as an appologist...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ABANOCLA1 year, 3 months ago
I would suspect you didn't believe intelligence reports before, what makes them gospel now?
Reply
-
-
0%
jeffery11 year, 3 months ago
The Bush administration is to blame for everything that has happened in Iraq. The only way to make anything good happen is to remove everyone from this administration from all decision making about Iraq. They have been 100% wrong.
Pelosi's plan is a far better starting point than anything any in the administration have come up with. But their plan is all about securing oil deals for friends and providing military muscle to keep them in force and Pelosi's plan does not account for that.
Reply
-
-
