The Evidence Against Iraq Was Evaporating . . .

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
EDITED TITLE - The world Comunity (UN) had seen the evidence as falsified.

Almost all of the Information about Iraq was found to be false.

MSNBC Atricle

But they held on to the information and used it anyway, and presented it as fact.
Pure manipulation for a personal vendetta by a power mad Administration.

There will be a lot more coming out over the next few days, watch the fixing of the blame.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Additional information from the Washington Post:

Bush Faced Dwindling Data on Iraq Nuclear Bid
by Walter Pincus - July 16, 2003

Text:

In recent days, as the Bush administration has defended its assertion in the president's State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium, officials have said it was only one bit of intelligence that indicated former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program.

But a review of speeches and reports, plus interviews with present and former administration officials and intelligence analysts, suggests that between Oct. 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and Jan. 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq.

By Jan. 28, in fact, the intelligence report concerning Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa -- although now almost entirely disproved -- was the only publicly unchallenged element of the administration's case that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. That may explain why the administration strived to keep the information in the speech and attribute it to the British, even though the CIA had challenged it earlier.

For example, in his Oct. 7 speech, Bush said that "satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites." He also cited Hussein's "numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists" as further evidence that the program was being reconstituted, along with Iraq's attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes "needed" for centrifuges used to enrich uranium.
But on Jan. 27 -- the day before the State of the Union address -- the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported to the U.N. Security Council that two months of inspections in Iraq had found that no prohibited nuclear activities had taken place at former Iraqi nuclear sites. As for Iraqi nuclear scientists, Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council, U.N. inspectors had "useful" interviews with some of them, though not in private. And preliminary analysis, he said, suggested that the aluminum tubes, "unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges."

The next night, Bush delivered his speech, including the now-controversial 16-word sentence, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Of his October examples, only the aluminum tubes charge remained in January, but that allegation had a subtle caveat -- he described the tubes as merely "suitable" for nuclear weapons production. Without the statement on uranium, the allegation concerning aluminum tubes would have been the only nuclear-related action ascribed to Hussein since the early 1990s.

And the tubes had already been questioned not only by IAEA, but also by analysts in U.S. and British intelligence agencies.
The idea that Iraq was acquiring tubes for a nuclear program became public in September, shortly after the Bush administration began a campaign to marshal public, congressional and U.N. support for authority to attack Iraq if it did not disarm.

On Aug. 26, Vice President Cheney, the official most publicly vocal about Iraq as a nuclear threat, began the campaign when he told a Veterans of Foreign Wars audience: "Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon we cannot gauge."

On Sept. 8, the New York Times disclosed that intelligence showed that Iraq had "embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb" by trying to purchase "specially designed aluminum tubes" that unidentified administration sources believed were for centrifuges to enrich uranium.

The story referred to Bush "hardliners" who argued that action should be taken because if they waited for proof that Hussein had a nuclear weapon, "the first sign of a smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud."
That day, Bush national security adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN's "Late Edition" and confirmed the Times story. She said the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." She also said, "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons, but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Cheney also confirmed the Times story that day, on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying that "we don't have all the evidence," but enough of a picture "that tells us that he [Hussein] is in fact actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons."
What neither Rice nor Cheney said at the time was that Baghdad's first attempts to purchase the aluminum tubes, more than a year earlier, had by Sept. 8 led to a fairly open disagreement in the U.S. intelligence community on whether the tubes were for centrifuges or for artillery rockets in Iraq's military program.

Analysts from the State and Energy departments said the tubes were too long and too thick for centrifuges; CIA and Pentagon analysts said they could be cut down and reamed out. Their debate was continuing as the agencies were putting together the still-classified national intelligence estimate on Hussein's weapons program.

In July, the United States had intercepted one shipment and obtained a tube; it was coated with a protective chemical that would have had to be removed if it were to be put to a nuclear purpose.

The intelligence estimate, completed in mid-September, reflected the different views, but the final judgment said that "most" analysts leaned toward the view that the tubes had a nuclear purpose. When the British dossier on Iraq's weapons program was published on Sept. 24, it referred to the tubes, but noted that "there is no definitive intelligence that it is destined for a nuclear program."
In his State of the Union address, Bush did not indicate any disagreement over the use of the tubes. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, however, outlined the arguments involved when he spoke eight days later before the Security Council, where inspectors already had challenged the U.S. position on them.

On March 7, ElBaradei gave his final report to the Security Council before his inspectors were removed from Iraq on March 18. His conclusion was that "the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq." He also said the documents that gave rise to the allegation that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium were forged.

On March 16, Cheney appeared again on "Meet the Press" and reiterated his views of the previous August about Hussein's nuclear program. "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." The war began three days later.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,730
5,165
126
I hope we're all very clear that our war of aggression on Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with any imminent threat. We attacked Iraq because a few psychotic individuals of neocon persuasion have seized the reigns of power in the US. They are pursuing a dream of a New American Century as published by PNAC. These madmen knew the people of the US would never follow them in their Religious Dream. These people are the distillation of the psychosis of cold war fear. The means justify the ends. Get it:

THE MEANS JUSTIFY THE ENDS

THOSE OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THEM SUPPORT EVIL INCARNATE

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well... OK. But, how can we find out who 'them' are? Is there a list of all these Neocon debbles that we can get so we make sure they are not our choice for next election?
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hope we're all very clear that our war of aggression on Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with any imminent threat. We attacked Iraq because a few psychotic individuals of neocon persuasion have seized the reigns of power in the US. They are pursuing a dream of a New American Century as published by PNAC. These madmen knew the people of the US would never follow them in their Religious Dream. These people are the distillation of the psychosis of cold war fear. The means justify the ends. Get it:

THE MEANS JUSTIFY THE ENDS

THOSE OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THEM SUPPORT EVIL INCARNATE
Sounds good. Now the dictators of the world think twice before threatening our interests.

I support them (along with a majority of americans, if you believe the polls). What are you going to do about it?

 

reitz

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
3,878
2
76
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well... OK. But, how can we find out who 'them' are? Is there a list of all these Neocon debbles that we can get so we make sure they are not our choice for next election?
You can start with the signatories to PNAC's Statemend of Principles:
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,730
5,165
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hope we're all very clear that our war of aggression on Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with any imminent threat. We attacked Iraq because a few psychotic individuals of neocon persuasion have seized the reigns of power in the US. They are pursuing a dream of a New American Century as published by PNAC. These madmen knew the people of the US would never follow them in their Religious Dream. These people are the distillation of the psychosis of cold war fear. The means justify the ends. Get it:

THE MEANS JUSTIFY THE ENDS

THOSE OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THEM SUPPORT EVIL INCARNATE
Sounds good. Now the dictators of the world think twice before threatening our interests.

I support them (along with a majority of americans, if you believe the polls). What are you going to do about it?
I simply want to show you why you do for the sake of love. You support the evil that is rotting our world. It's all about what you can see and then the choices you make. You pick fear over faith. It's always up to you. You seem to think my life depends on what you do or that your stupidity is some threat to me. I'm thinking more of the generations unborn and the world you're making for them. But I understand all about your pride. I know the chasm into which you stare.

 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Bush wanted the Iraq war for his political salvation. Now he got it, and it will be his political undoing.
The dems don't have to convict Bush of lying, all they gotta do is raise enough doubts to make Iraq a political wash, and the economy will take care of Bush.
It will be a repeat of 1992. I just hope Wesley Clark runs against Bush, and totally neuters him on the national security issue.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: ELP
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: ELP
^ So you support the lies?

Your words, not mine.
Easy way not to answer the question, huh?
When someone makes a presumption/assumption/judgement, it is best to not answer it using their words. So yes it was easy.

If ELP had said "do you support the current administration's position", I would have said yes.

Why should I answer an inflammatory question? Can you prove they lied? In a court of law? Beyond a reasonable doubt? If so, I suggest ELP get to work cause he'll be a rich man on the lecture circuit afterwards.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hope we're all very clear that our war of aggression on Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with any imminent threat. We attacked Iraq because a few psychotic individuals of neocon persuasion have seized the reigns of power in the US. They are pursuing a dream of a New American Century as published by PNAC. These madmen knew the people of the US would never follow them in their Religious Dream. These people are the distillation of the psychosis of cold war fear. The means justify the ends. Get it:

THE MEANS JUSTIFY THE ENDS

THOSE OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THEM SUPPORT EVIL INCARNATE
Sounds good. Now the dictators of the world think twice before threatening our interests.

I support them (along with a majority of americans, if you believe the polls). What are you going to do about it?
I simply want to show you why you do for the sake of love. You support the evil that is rotting our world. It's all about what you can see and then the choices you make. You pick fear over faith. It's always up to you. You seem to think my life depends on what you do or that your stupidity is some threat to me. I'm thinking more of the generations unborn and the world you're making for them. But I understand all about your pride. I know the chasm into which you stare.
So in otherwords, you are willing to talk about it, feel firmly about it enough that I'm (and anyone else who supports them) is evil incarnate, but unwiling to do anything about it but yammer on and on in some pseudo-psycho-babble on some internet message board.

Because if I felt the same way about you (you were evil incarnate), I'd have to do something about it.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hope we're all very clear that our war of aggression on Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with any imminent threat. We attacked Iraq because a few psychotic individuals of neocon persuasion have seized the reigns of power in the US. They are pursuing a dream of a New American Century as published by PNAC. These madmen knew the people of the US would never follow them in their Religious Dream. These people are the distillation of the psychosis of cold war fear. The means justify the ends. Get it:

THE MEANS JUSTIFY THE ENDS

THOSE OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THEM SUPPORT EVIL INCARNATE
Sounds good. Now the dictators of the world think twice before threatening our interests.

I support them (along with a majority of americans, if you believe the polls). What are you going to do about it?
I simply want to show you why you do for the sake of love. You support the evil that is rotting our world. It's all about what you can see and then the choices you make. You pick fear over faith. It's always up to you. You seem to think my life depends on what you do or that your stupidity is some threat to me. I'm thinking more of the generations unborn and the world you're making for them. But I understand all about your pride. I know the chasm into which you stare.
So in otherwords, you are willing to talk about it, feel firmly about it enough that I'm (and anyone else who supports them) is evil incarnate, but unwiling to do anything about it but yammer on and on in some pseudo-psycho-babble on some internet message board.

Because if I felt the same way about you (you were evil incarnate), I'd have to do something about it.
But Moonbeam isn't evil incarnte. Bush and Co. are. What are you going to do about them? Other than offer them your support and believe all their lies?

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hope we're all very clear that our war of aggression on Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with any imminent threat. We attacked Iraq because a few psychotic individuals of neocon persuasion have seized the reigns of power in the US. They are pursuing a dream of a New American Century as published by PNAC. These madmen knew the people of the US would never follow them in their Religious Dream. These people are the distillation of the psychosis of cold war fear. The means justify the ends. Get it:

THE MEANS JUSTIFY THE ENDS

THOSE OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THEM SUPPORT EVIL INCARNATE
Sounds good. Now the dictators of the world think twice before threatening our interests.

I support them (along with a majority of americans, if you believe the polls). What are you going to do about it?
I simply want to show you why you do for the sake of love. You support the evil that is rotting our world. It's all about what you can see and then the choices you make. You pick fear over faith. It's always up to you. You seem to think my life depends on what you do or that your stupidity is some threat to me. I'm thinking more of the generations unborn and the world you're making for them. But I understand all about your pride. I know the chasm into which you stare.
So in otherwords, you are willing to talk about it, feel firmly about it enough that I'm (and anyone else who supports them) is evil incarnate, but unwiling to do anything about it but yammer on and on in some pseudo-psycho-babble on some internet message board.

Because if I felt the same way about you (you were evil incarnate), I'd have to do something about it.
But Moonbeam isn't evil incarnte. Bush and Co. are. What are you going to do about them? Other than offer them your support and believe all their lies?
I am going to support the current administration and it's policy on terrorism and the war in Iraq, yes. I'll vote for them again, unless a better candidate comes along (I still wish McCain had won).

What are YOU going to do about them, since you believe they are evil incarnate?

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,730
5,165
126
Because if I felt the same way about you (you were evil incarnate), I'd have to do something about it.
-----------------------------------------------
Resist not evil my friend because you become what you fear. The lover has to swallow the world. For him doing is crucifixion. You understand nothing so your upside-down-ness comes out when you speak.
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hope we're all very clear that our war of aggression on Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with any imminent threat. We attacked Iraq because a few psychotic individuals of neocon persuasion have seized the reigns of power in the US. They are pursuing a dream of a New American Century as published by PNAC. These madmen knew the people of the US would never follow them in their Religious Dream. These people are the distillation of the psychosis of cold war fear. The means justify the ends. Get it:

THE MEANS JUSTIFY THE ENDS

THOSE OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THEM SUPPORT EVIL INCARNATE
Sounds good. Now the dictators of the world think twice before threatening our interests.

I support them (along with a majority of americans, if you believe the polls). What are you going to do about it?
This is what I was referring to. So you agree Bush had to make the people feel threatened for them to agree to go to war? Even if it was a lie. The intel was known to be faulty. That is certain. It was said so by the very same people (Brits) that gave it to him, knowing it was weak. If this ever does make it to court will be certain for sure... if it makes it to court.

Lets also remember, Bush is know longer preaching about WMDs, its now a "weapons program." That is a significant difference when pertaining to a cause for war.

;)
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: ELP
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hope we're all very clear that our war of aggression on Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with any imminent threat. We attacked Iraq because a few psychotic individuals of neocon persuasion have seized the reigns of power in the US. They are pursuing a dream of a New American Century as published by PNAC. These madmen knew the people of the US would never follow them in their Religious Dream. These people are the distillation of the psychosis of cold war fear. The means justify the ends. Get it:

THE MEANS JUSTIFY THE ENDS

THOSE OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THEM SUPPORT EVIL INCARNATE
Sounds good. Now the dictators of the world think twice before threatening our interests.

I support them (along with a majority of americans, if you believe the polls). What are you going to do about it?
This is what I was referring to. So you agree Bush had to make the people feel threatened for them to agree to go to war? Even if it was a lie. The intel was known to be faulty. That is certain. It was said so by the very same people (Brits) that gave it to him, knowing it was weak. If this ever does make it to court will be certain for sure... if it makes it to court.

Lets also remember, Bush is know longer preaching about WMDs, its now a "weapons program." That is a significant difference when pertaining to a cause for war.

;)
who is rewriting history now eh ;)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hope we're all very clear that our war of aggression on Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with any imminent threat. We attacked Iraq because a few psychotic individuals of neocon persuasion have seized the reigns of power in the US. They are pursuing a dream of a New American Century as published by PNAC. These madmen knew the people of the US would never follow them in their Religious Dream. These people are the distillation of the psychosis of cold war fear. The means justify the ends. Get it:

THE MEANS JUSTIFY THE ENDS

THOSE OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THEM SUPPORT EVIL INCARNATE
Sounds good. Now the dictators of the world think twice before threatening our interests.

I support them (along with a majority of americans, if you believe the polls). What are you going to do about it?
I simply want to show you why you do for the sake of love. You support the evil that is rotting our world. It's all about what you can see and then the choices you make. You pick fear over faith. It's always up to you. You seem to think my life depends on what you do or that your stupidity is some threat to me. I'm thinking more of the generations unborn and the world you're making for them. But I understand all about your pride. I know the chasm into which you stare.
So in otherwords, you are willing to talk about it, feel firmly about it enough that I'm (and anyone else who supports them) is evil incarnate, but unwiling to do anything about it but yammer on and on in some pseudo-psycho-babble on some internet message board.

Because if I felt the same way about you (you were evil incarnate), I'd have to do something about it.
But Moonbeam isn't evil incarnte. Bush and Co. are. What are you going to do about them? Other than offer them your support and believe all their lies?
I am going to support the current administration and it's policy on terrorism and the war in Iraq, yes. I'll vote for them again, unless a better candidate comes along (I still wish McCain had won).

What are YOU going to do about them, since you believe they are evil incarnate?
I'm gonna vote for anyone but them.

When you reach for an illusion and touch it beware.. When you reach for truth and miss it beware.. When you are aware you will have touched truth and seen through the illusion...
 

SebastianK

Member
Mar 26, 2003
32
0
0
Bush apologists usually duck by not answering, directly, the questions that question his/her defiant support for Bush.

Hmm.. Sounds like GWB. :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY