N.Korea Has Bought Complete Nuclear Bomb - Report

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, WMDs are the justification that was given for the invasion.

They were one of many justifications.

No, they weren't. They were the ONLY reason. That's from the mouth of Colin Powell to the Senate and also from the mouth of Paul Wolfowitz.

Link? Quote? Something? Anything?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, WMDs are the justification that was given for the invasion.

They were one of many justifications.

No, they weren't. They were the ONLY reason. That's from the mouth of Colin Powell to the Senate and also from the mouth of Paul Wolfowitz.

Link? Quote? Something? Anything?

They've been posted up here MANY times.

Now, how about answering the question.

What opportunity was found in Iraq, given the fact that WMDs were the sole justification for the invasion?

 

[conehead433]

North Korea doesn't have any oil or any other natural resources of any value to Bush & company. Not likely we would bother to ever invade. Besides who would invade a country on the ridiculous notion of ridding that country of it's WMDs. Preposterous!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, WMDs are the justification that was given for the invasion.

They were one of many justifications.

No, they weren't. They were the ONLY reason. That's from the mouth of Colin Powell to the Senate and also from the mouth of Paul Wolfowitz.

You forgot FoxNews. They are the Bush administrations key to information.

Oddly enough:


Powell's full testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 9/26/2002:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/gover...c-afternoon-092602.htm

SEN. PAUL SARBANES (D-MD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. : (Aside.) Thank you, Senator (Rockefeller ?). (Laughter.)

Mr. Secretary, I'm looking at pages 2 and 3 of your statement. Is the United States prepared to go to war against Iraq if it engages in illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program that's been established by the U.N.?

SEC. POWELL: The principal concern that we have are weapons of mass destruction, and the principal focus of the U.N. resolutions are weapons of mass destructions (sic), and that's what the inspection regime was trying to uncover and destroy. At the same time, however, Iraq is in violation of many other provisions, and --

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) -- I'm looking at -- I'm looking at your statement, and you say, "What Iraq must do to repair this breach."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: And I'm trying to section this out. You list five things. The first, of course, is the removal of all weapons of mass destruction, but I want to go to the others. Are we prepared to go to war --

SEN. BIDEN: (Aside.) We still have a vote at 3:45.

SEN. SARBANES: -- to make sure they comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? You got it listed here.

SEC. POWELL: I got it listed as one of a number of issues that they are in material breach of. I don't think I linked going to war to any of them or any combination of them.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say "What they must do."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: So they must do that or otherwise, we're prepared to move against them?

SEC. POWELL: That's -- I don't think I said that, Senator.

SEN. SARBANES: Okay, but what about --

SEC. POWELL: I'm saying -- I'm identifying, if I may -- I'm identifying the specific U.N. resolutions that they're in violation of, and under U.N. resolutions, they are supposed to comply with those resolutions. They have the force of international law.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say, "If these demands on Iraq sound like regime change, then so be it." Will we go -- will we take military action or go to war in order to make them release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown? Would we do that?

SEC. POWELL: I think the operating clause in that that is of the greatest concern is the one having to do with weapons of mass destruction. It is unlikely that any of the others individually would lead to that kind of consequence.

SEN. SARBANES: So if you just -- I mean, if they did that, that would -- that's the one towards which war is directed.

SEC. POWELL: I think what we have to do -- no, I don't want to make that connection, Senator. I think what we have to do is look at their total response to these resolutions.

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) --

SEC. POWELL: And the resolution of greatest concern, the issue of greatest concern are the weapons of mass destruction. Which is why in 1998, both the United States Congress and the previous administration made that the policy of the United States government.

SEN. SARBANES: Why are you listing all these things? If the mass -- if the weapons is the thing, shouldn't we -- do you want authority to use military force again Iraq from the Congress in order to make them comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? Do you want that authority?

SEC. POWELL: The principal reason for the authority is for the president to do what he needs to do to focus on the principal offense that he has been presenting to the nation, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The rest of those elements --

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

Excerpts from the Press Gaggle by Ari Fleischer September 26, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/info...q/excerpts_sept26.html

QUESTION: Yes, let me come back to the al Qaeda connection. So, Condi is saying that these contacts go back more than a decade; that they are continual, they are ongoing; they're involved in Baghdad, they're involved in chemical and biological weapons training. But still no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

WMDs only 'bureaucratic reason' for war: Wolfowitz
http://www.smh.com.au/articles.../29/1053801479971.html

The US decision to stress the threat posed by Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction above all others was taken for "bureaucratic" reasons to justify the war, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in remarks released today.

Wolfowitz, seen as one of the most hawkish figures in the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, said President Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons was merely one of several reasons behind the decision to go to war.

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in Vanity Fair magazine's July issue.

However, just two months later, Wolfowitz was already singing a different tune (flip-flopping along with Bush)
Wolfowitz 'Not Concerned' About WMDs
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92566,00.html <---- FOX News...whaddya know!

Finding the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (search) that President Bush cited as his main justification for going to war is now a secondary issue, says Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (search).

In an interview Monday night aboard an Air Force jet en route to Washington following a five-day tour of Iraq, Wolfowitz said the task of settling the weapons question is in the hands of U.S. intelligence agencies.

"I'm not concerned about weapons of mass destruction," Wolfowitz told a group of reporters traveling with him. "I'm concerned about getting Iraq on its feet. I didn't come (to Iraq) on a search for weapons of mass destruction." 😕

He also asserted that Iraqis themselves have little concern about the weapons issue.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur
What opportunity was found in Iraq, given the fact that WMDs were the sole justification for the invasion?

You haven't shown many anything to proove that WMDs were the sold justification. However, even if that were the case, it wouldn't change the number one factor for our window of opportunity: Saddam's innability to comply with the UN resolutions.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
What opportunity was found in Iraq, given the fact that WMDs were the sole justification for the invasion?

You haven't shown many anything to proove that WMDs were the sold justification. However, even if that were the case, it wouldn't change the number one factor for our window of opportunity: Saddam's innability to comply with the UN resolutions.

See my post above yours since you're too lazy to find the proof.

And, Saddam was complying. Inspectors were back in Iraq and had unprecedented access to any site requested.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: robertcloud
It hardly matters. We don't even have the military might to North Korea and they know this. Unfortunately, our army and economy is bogged down in Iraq so we will have to concede to whatever NK demands.

Are you kidding? We don't need massive military personnel to slap North Korea around, especially if they use a nuclear weapon or attack South Korea, Japan, or anyone else.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
What opportunity was found in Iraq, given the fact that WMDs were the sole justification for the invasion?

You haven't shown many anything to proove that WMDs were the sold justification. However, even if that were the case, it wouldn't change the number one factor for our window of opportunity: Saddam's innability to comply with the UN resolutions.

See my post above yours since you're too lazy to find the proof.

And, Saddam was complying. Inspectors were back in Iraq and had unprecedented access to any site requested.

Lazy? Did you even read the sources you posted above? Notice the words such as "primary" and "merely one of several reasons"? I don't see "sole" or "only" there.

Saddam was not complying. That has been confirmed so many times, to say otherwise is complete ignorance.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
What opportunity was found in Iraq, given the fact that WMDs were the sole justification for the invasion?

You haven't shown many anything to proove that WMDs were the sold justification. However, even if that were the case, it wouldn't change the number one factor for our window of opportunity: Saddam's innability to comply with the UN resolutions.

See my post above yours since you're too lazy to find the proof.

And, Saddam was complying. Inspectors were back in Iraq and had unprecedented access to any site requested.

Lazy? Did you even read the sources you posted above? Notice the words such as "primary"? I don't see "sole" or "only" there.

Saddam was not complying. That has been confirmed so many times, to say otherwise is complete ignorance.

Say what??

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

They knew they couldn't get anyone to buy into their BS if they didn't sell it on the basis of WMDs.

And, yes, Saddam was complying. He was behind in the paperwork but that's about it. Go read the Blix report.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Link? Quote? Something? Anything?

Hey Dannyboy, do yourself a favor and Google these two phrases.

[*]"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."

[*]"The country swims on a sea of oil."

Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that the revelation you are about to experience will have no effect at all on you?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur
Say what??

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

They knew they couldn't get anyone to buy into their BS if they didn't sell it on the basis of WMDs.

And, yes, Saddam was complying. He was behind in the paperwork but that's about it. Go read the Blix report.

Once again, perhaps you should read your own sources. Notice the parts you left out? "The principal reason for the authority..." Once again, find me a source that says "ony" in it, if you can.

I have read the Blix report, and I've even met the guy. You could argue that Saddam's inability to comply didn't warrant a war, but you can't argue that he complied because that has been proven completely false.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Link? Quote? Something? Anything?

Hey Dannyboy, do yourself a favor and Google these two phrases.

[*]"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."

[*]"The country swims on a sea of oil."

Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that the revelation you are about to experience will have no effect at all on you?

Wow. Looks like both you and Conjur are illiterate tonight. "the core reason"... nope, doesn't say the only reason. I never said WMDs weren't the primary reason, I said they weren't the only reason. Plus, itl ooks like your comment from Wolfowitz on oil is yet another justification. Nice try.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Once again, perhaps you should read your own sources. Notice the parts you left out? "The principal reason for the authority..." Once again, find me a source that says "ony" in it, if you can.

I have read the Blix report, and I've even met the guy. You could argue that Saddam's inability to comply didn't warrant a war, but you can't argue that he complied because that has been proven completely false.

Once again you jump into semantics.

Let's see here:


Step 1

SEC. POWELL: The principal concern that we have are weapons of mass destruction, and the principal focus of the U.N. resolutions are weapons of mass destructions (sic), and that's what the inspection regime was trying to uncover and destroy. At the same time, however, Iraq is in violation of many other provisions, and --



Step 2

SEN. SARBANES: And I'm trying to section this out. You list five things. The first, of course, is the removal of all weapons of mass destruction, but I want to go to the others. Are we prepared to go to war --

SEN. BIDEN: (Aside.) We still have a vote at 3:45.

SEN. SARBANES: -- to make sure they comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? You got it listed here.

SEC. POWELL: I got it listed as one of a number of issues that they are in material breach of. I don't think I linked going to war to any of them or any combination of them.


Step 3

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.



Ergo, WMDs are the sole reason as that was the only reason linked to the authority to go to war.

 

[Gaard]

Those were good quotes, conjur. Unfortunately, they, like everything they're shown, will have zero effect on them.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, WMDs are the justification that was given for the invasion.

They were one of many justifications.

No, Mr. Revisionist, WMD was the reason. Remember Powell's little demonstration in front of the UN?
C'mon. You know ya do. Member? Can ya say, "big trouble" hm, cen ya? 😉
Actually though, if the little bastard uses this it'd be the end of the Korean Peninsula. We don't need to and probably would not respond conventionally. I'm sure he realizes that. He's probably going to try and use it as a deterrent.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Hopefully its not true and that US intelligence is wrong again.

U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon said after a visit to the North this month that its second-ranked leader had told his delegation that it possessed nuclear weapons.

Just like the early "admission" about flaunting Clinton-era agreements. The North Koreans apparently read out of the same playbook as NeoCons . . . you don't need "intelligence" when your opposition loves to shove it in your face.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Those were good quotes, conjur. Unfortunately, they, like everything they're shown, will have zero effect on them.

Hell, that is a good thing, Gaard. I have no desire to be influenced by the pussification factor that has infected so many of you Liberals up here. 😛

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, WMDs are the justification that was given for the invasion.

They were one of many justifications.

Bullsh_t DAN!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
What opportunity was found in Iraq, given the fact that WMDs were the sole justification for the invasion?

You haven't shown many anything to proove that WMDs were the sold justification. However, even if that were the case, it wouldn't change the number one factor for our window of opportunity: Saddam's innability to comply with the UN resolutions.

And that wasn't worth a dogs ass much less 1,400+ troops and $300,000,000,000 and counting. The rest of the country is waking up to that fact also, WASN'T worth fighting. You guys are in the spin of the month on the Iraq war club....*Blah*

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, WMDs are the justification that was given for the invasion.

They were one of many justifications.

Bullsh_t DAN!

Are we going to replay the whole damn election ever day?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, WMDs are the justification that was given for the invasion.

They were one of many justifications.

Bullsh_t DAN!

Are we going to replay the whole damn election ever day?

As long as we're in Iraq and the @sshole in DC put us there, then yes. Any other questions?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, WMDs are the justification that was given for the invasion.

They were one of many justifications.

Bullsh_t DAN!

Are we going to replay the whole damn election ever day?

As long as we're in Iraq and the @sshole in DC put us there, then yes. Any other questions?

Yes. Regarding the failure to remove the @sshole in DC from his elected office; Do you consider that failure your own, or is someone else to blame for it?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, WMDs are the justification that was given for the invasion.

They were one of many justifications.

Bullsh_t DAN!

Are we going to replay the whole damn election ever day?

As long as we're in Iraq and the @sshole in DC put us there, then yes. Any other questions?

Yes. Regarding the failure to remove the @sshole in DC from his elected office; Do you consider that failure your own, or is someone else to blame for it?

Why would the failure be mine? I can't vote for other people. What the hell difference does his winning the election make? So I'm supposed to suck it up and be happy and cheery and not say a thing about anyone who wins the elections? eh? Sorry, NO.

It was all a big deception to get into Iraq, and now nations like Syria, North Korea, Iran along with groups like Al Qaeda are massing against the US.

Hell, even Blair hopes the Iraq election provides an Exit strategy from Iraq.

I voted. Doesn't matter who I voted for...I can bitch, write letters to Congress, stage peaceful protests and vote again for whoever I wish. Any more questions?


Not suprising those countries are trying to obtain Nukes. They know the US military would tear them up and also know that Nukes are a great equalizer. Nobody wants a nuclear war of any kind.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: kage69
With allies like Pakistan...

Originally posted by: illustri

Originally posted by: kage69
With allies like Pakistan...

this needs a [tag]followup[/tag]

Who needs Dick Cheney.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Wow. Looks like both you and Conjur are illiterate tonight. "the core reason"... nope, doesn't say the only reason. I never said WMDs weren't the primary reason, I said they weren't the only reason. Plus, itl ooks like your comment from Wolfowitz on oil is yet another justification. Nice try.

What were the other reasons then? Please list them.

Of course the War in Iraq was sold on the basis of WMDs -- they (whether real or not) were the key to a "self-defense" rationale. Meaning, we attacked Iraq out of self-defense.

But anyway back to the original point, are you suggesting that we attacked Iraq and not North Korea because attacking Iraq was easier?