Yet another Bush war exaggeration debunked...

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Of course, I expect that some will just explain this away. What's really surprising is that, even with all of the crap involved with this war (forged documents, fabricated evidence, falsehoods, lack of any of the WMDs discovered, disregarded evidence, etc, etc), some around here refuse to ask any questions...or at least raise an eyebrow. It's all DEFEND, DEFEND, DEFEND.

Actually by looking at this forum - it's all about attack attack attack (attack Bush that is)

And not there may not be a defense of this piece of intel. I guess the AirForce got it right and the CIA and DIA didn't.

CkG

When you're defensive and wrong the truth always feels like an attack.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Of course, I expect that some will just explain this away. What's really surprising is that, even with all of the crap involved with this war (forged documents, fabricated evidence, falsehoods, lack of any of the WMDs discovered, disregarded evidence, etc, etc), some around here refuse to ask any questions...or at least raise an eyebrow. It's all DEFEND, DEFEND, DEFEND.

Actually by looking at this forum - it's all about attack attack attack (attack Bush that is)

And not there may not be a defense of this piece of intel. I guess the AirForce got it right and the CIA and DIA didn't.

CkG

When you're defensive and wrong the truth always feels like an attack.

When you are right and the attackers still blather on, it is still an attack.

Blather away moonie.

 

[Bigdude]

I read the entire article, no smoking gun, that Bush lied!

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: povertystruck
A couple of years from now Iraq will not be the top issue, people will stop asking questions.

You're probably right. Unless answers are provided, I hope you're wrong though. Of course, there will always be those who turn a blind eye towards anything questionable regarding this war and have no desire to ask any questions.

There will be those who quibble about this and that quote while some are willing to look at the large picture and accept that Saddam's removal was necessary.

Try to see the big picture.

and whatever you do, please do not look at the justifications used by the administration before the war. Please, for your own good, accept the shifting rational and moving of the goalposts. We did it to liberate the Iraqi people. All that talk about UN resolutions and WMDs and "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" are just little, insignificant details.

No, they are important. Saddam had weapons programs in 1998. The UN inspection team before they left the country was quite sure of that.
Now unless you believe that Saddam found Jebus and got rid of them all, can you tell the world where they went?

\

We're not the ones who started a war on the false claim they were there. Why don't you, or Bush, tells US where they are?

 

[phillyTIM]

Of course we've been telling you guys that Bush is a liar and fraud all along! HELLO!!!!!

You should be mad as hell that he's taking us billions of dollars in the economic hole, and hundreds of dead american corpses over his fraud and lies. 'Bout the only thing we can do to hit bush where it hurts is to vote against that M#THERF#CKER in Election '04.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: povertystruck
A couple of years from now Iraq will not be the top issue, people will stop asking questions.

You're probably right. Unless answers are provided, I hope you're wrong though. Of course, there will always be those who turn a blind eye towards anything questionable regarding this war and have no desire to ask any questions.

There will be those who quibble about this and that quote while some are willing to look at the large picture and accept that Saddam's removal was necessary.

Try to see the big picture.

and whatever you do, please do not look at the justifications used by the administration before the war. Please, for your own good, accept the shifting rational and moving of the goalposts. We did it to liberate the Iraqi people. All that talk about UN resolutions and WMDs and "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" are just little, insignificant details.

Have you forgotten about the Joint resolution? How about the address to the nation the day the attack started? Yeh, he never mentioned anything but actual WMDs

nothing about the people, the resolutions, the programs...nope- none at all.

If you and Freegeeks wish to dwell on one aspect - so be it, but I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket....if you know what I mean

CkG

and the fact still remains that the Bush administration and Tony Blair only talked about WMD for justification of the Iraqi war. Now you are blaiming us that we want some prove of the WMD ??? What kind of logic is that.

Huh? Are you really that ignorant? I guess so.

CkG

What a Bushsh!t answer. You have been outed. You don't have any defence for this and you know it.

Where are all the horrors we were told the Bush administration KNEW were in Iraq?????

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
My God, all Weasel Bush's claims are disintegrating into thin air; the same thin air that fills his skull.

One good thing about all this: it builds anti-Bush ammunition for the '04 race. All these lies and false claims that have done NOTHING but bring home dead military troop corpses. Sickening what Bush has done and caused.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Of course, I expect that some will just explain this away. What's really surprising is that, even with all of the crap involved with this war (forged documents, fabricated evidence, falsehoods, lack of any of the WMDs discovered, disregarded evidence, etc, etc), some around here refuse to ask any questions...or at least raise an eyebrow. It's all DEFEND, DEFEND, DEFEND.

Actually by looking at this forum - it's all about attack attack attack (attack Bush that is)

And not there may not be a defense of this piece of intel. I guess the AirForce got it right and the CIA and DIA didn't.

CkG

When you're defensive and wrong the truth always feels like an attack.

When you are right and the attackers still blather on, it is still an attack.

Blather away moonie.

Our attack is valid. Bush lied. His attack was invalid. Based on lies. Therefore your support for and defence of Bush is based on lies as well.

Bushsh!t.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Lucky
well this sucks. this was actually one of the more important pieces of intel that convinced me to support the war.

That's OK Lucky. You still have time to come over to the right side. Bush fooled many people with his lies. What's important now is you realize Bush lied. And do everything you can to make sure he is removed from office for his lies.

You can earn extra points by helping convince those who are still in the clutches of Bush's lies to come over to the truth.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Of course, I expect that some will just explain this away. What's really surprising is that, even with all of the crap involved with this war (forged documents, fabricated evidence, falsehoods, lack of any of the WMDs discovered, disregarded evidence, etc, etc), some around here refuse to ask any questions...or at least raise an eyebrow. It's all DEFEND, DEFEND, DEFEND.

Actually by looking at this forum - it's all about attack attack attack (attack Bush that is)

And not there may not be a defense of this piece of intel. I guess the AirForce got it right and the CIA and DIA didn't.

CkG

When you're defensive and wrong the truth always feels like an attack.

When you are right and the attackers still blather on, it is still an attack.

Blather away moonie.

Hehe, there was no immediate threat. There will never be an immediate threat. It was a fabrication and a lie. An immediate threat is a disaster that was just about to happen. We would have encountered such a disaster one day inot the war. It wasn't there. There is nothing that can now substitute for it being there. There was no immediate threat, Bush wanted to attack Iraq. When he did that he started working for the devil. A Beast walks upon our Land

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Of course, I expect that some will just explain this away. What's really surprising is that, even with all of the crap involved with this war (forged documents, fabricated evidence, falsehoods, lack of any of the WMDs discovered, disregarded evidence, etc, etc), some around here refuse to ask any questions...or at least raise an eyebrow. It's all DEFEND, DEFEND, DEFEND.

Actually by looking at this forum - it's all about attack attack attack (attack Bush that is)

And not there may not be a defense of this piece of intel. I guess the AirForce got it right and the CIA and DIA didn't.

CkG

When you're defensive and wrong the truth always feels like an attack.

When you are right and the attackers still blather on, it is still an attack.

Blather away moonie.

Hehe, there was no immediate threat. There will never be an immediate threat. It was a fabrication and a lie. An immediate threat is a disaster that was just about to happen. We would have encountered such a disaster one day inot the war. It wasn't there. There is nothing that can now substitute for it being there. There was no immediate threat, Bush wanted to attack Iraq. When he did that he started working for the devil. A Beast walks upon our Land

Moonie

I have it on good information Bush has a "666" birth mark buried under his hair.

His barber told me.

Hey etech, CkG

Q. How do you get George Bush's eyes to sparkle?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
A. Shine a flashlight in his ear.

 

[AEB]

You guys who think bush is such a liar are way off base. in the article posted above this was in it

"The administration based its view on a Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) finding that Iraq had renewed development of sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles ? UAVs ? capable of such attacks. The Pentagon (news - web sites)'s Defense Intelligence Agency also supported this conclusion. "

Bush never actually claimed that he saw the drones being used to carry stuff. Bad intel does not equal bush lying.

 

[SebastianK]

I have to grin at the apologists. The defiance is so unbecoming. Unable to admit and see the truth for what it is but spin their own make-believe.

Saddam gone? Not really. His republican guard just didn't disappeared like fairies into the night.

Iraqi people are free? Iffy. not great.


Can Iraq develop its own govt. without external ahem influence? doesn't look like it - as promised by Rumsfeld.

the Process to invasion? Shady as Kissinger.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Makes me wonder if there is any pre-war "intel" (and I use that term loosely) that will be proven in Iraq?

Wait a minute, they were able to accurately get troops to Iraq and invade Iraq. Some of the Pre-War Intel was spot on!

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: AEB
You guys who think bush is such a liar are way off base. in the article posted above this was in it

"The administration based its view on a Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) finding that Iraq had renewed development of sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles ? UAVs ? capable of such attacks. The Pentagon (news - web sites)'s Defense Intelligence Agency also supported this conclusion. "

Bush never actually claimed that he saw the drones being used to carry stuff. Bad intel does not equal bush lying.

I think you might have missed THESE paragraphs. They are in the article too.


"The evidence gathered this summer matched the dissenting views of Air Force intelligence analysts who argued in a national intelligence assessment of Iraq before the war that the remotely piloted planes were unarmed reconnaissance drones.


In building its case for war, senior Bush administration officials had said Iraq's drones were intended to deliver unconventional weapons. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) even raised the alarming prospect that the pilotless aircraft could sneak into the United States to carry out poisonous attacks on American cities.

But the Air Force, which controls most of the American military's UAV fleet, didn't agree with that assessment from the beginning. And analysts at the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said the Air Force view was widely accepted within their ranks as well.


Instead, these analysts believed the drones posed no threat to Iraq's neighbors or the United States, officials in Washington and scientists involved in the weapons hunt in Iraq told The Associated Press.


The official Air Force intelligence dissent is noted in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons programs, parts of which were declassified last month as the Bush administration tried to defend its case for war.


"We didn't see there was a very large chance they (UAVs) would be used to attack the continental United States," Bob Boyd, director of the Air Force Intelligence Analysis Agency, said in an AP interview. "We didn't see them as a big threat to the homeland."


Boyd also said there was little evidence to associate Iraq's UAVs with the country's suspected biological weapons program. Facilities weren't in the same location and the programs didn't use the same people.


Instead, the Air Force believed Iraq's UAV programs were for reconnaissance, as are most American UAVs. Intelligence on the drones suggested they were not large enough to carry much more than a camera and a video recorder, Boyd said.


Postwar evidence uncovered in July in Iraq supports those assessments, according to two U.S. government scientists assigned to the weapons hunt.


"We just looked at the UAVs and said, 'There's nothing here. There's no room to put anything in here,"' one of the scientists said."

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Makes me wonder if there is any pre-war "intel" (and I use that term loosely) that will be proven in Iraq?

Wait a minute, they were able to accurately get troops to Iraq and invade Iraq. Some of the Pre-War Intel was spot on!

What? The intel was "spot on" because someone in the Bush administration could read a map? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[sandorski]

The War was about Liberation and Garbage Pickup. Garbage Pickup has been acheived, there is more work to do for Liberation though.

 

[AEB]

BOBDN 2v1 wins! no seriously tho bush had lots of people telling him different things granted. and he made the discision to invade based on iraq's history as well as intell. They had many wepons violations and even clinton thought they were a justified military target. If one weighs ALL the intellegence and reports i say the war was justified.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: AEB
BOBDN 2v1 wins! no seriously tho bush had lots of people telling him different things granted. and he made the discision to invade based on iraq's history as well as intell. They had many wepons violations and even clinton thought they were a justified military target. If one weighs ALL the intellegence and reports i say the war was justified.

If you weigh all of the statements that Bush made as an excuse to invade Iraq and then consider the CIA director TOLD THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO OMIT THE NUCLEAR LIE, and according to this article THE AIR FORCE TOLD THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION NOT TO USE THE MILITARY DRONE LIE then you must conclude Bush lied knowlingly to lead our nation to war. And now we are in an unbelievable quagmire (or UQ as we say) which Bush can't get himself out of.

Had the lying weasel just waited for a few months the UN inspectors could have completed their job and the UN would have made a determination on the course of action to follow.

Not some imitation cowboy.

 

[CaptnKirk]

The War was about Liberation and Garbage Pickup. Garbage Pickup has been acheived, there is more work to do for Liberation though.

WMD Waste Managment Department - I knew it was there somewhere, just missed the acronym<B>

</B>

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The War was about Liberation and Garbage Pickup. Garbage Pickup has been acheived, there is more work to do for Liberation though.

WMD Waste Managment Department - I knew it was there somewhere, just missed the acronym<B>

</B>

lol, yes I did...doh!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I think MB already answered that question: Clinton so scared the crap out of him in '99 that he destroyed all of his WMDs But more importantly, the laundry list of accusations made by the U.S. prior to invading Iraq are surely being whittled down to virtually nothing. The only thing remaining that can be clung to, is that Saddam was bad and we got rid of Saddam. Smiles everyone, smiles.

I thought they were all blown up like Bowfinger tries to say Clinton did.

Meh, what do I know - I'm just an "apologist"

CkG

Cad, you're on a roll this weekend. I know you're incapable of refuting what I actually say. That doesn't give you the right to put words in my mouth -- again -- just so you have something you can attack more easily. On second thought, perhaps I'm being too harsh. Maybe it's a reading comprehension problem. It must be tough to read through those Bush-colored glasses.

In any case, what I have reported is Scott Ritter's analysis: their inspection and destruction efforts coupled with the 1998 attacks destroyed between 90% and 95% of all of Iraq's remaing WMD capabilities. He also said much of the rest was too unstable to have lasted five years. In conclusion, Ritter said that based on his expertise, he doubted Iraq had substantial remaining WMD capabilities. He did not say "none" -- nor did I.

The "none" comes in when we look at how many WMDs we've actually found in Iraq. All together now, NONE!!!

 

[phillyTIM]

Yeah we're still waiting on those WMD's.... not some "WMD program" that the Bush Regime has changed to.

WE want to see those damn nuclear payloads that were immenent threats until March. Where The F### are they?

Wherever they are, they've killed hundreds of american military soldiers; we really need to find some concrete WMD's to justify their deaths.

All we've got so far from Bush is more terrorism and dead american soldiers. how pathetic.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I think MB already answered that question: Clinton so scared the crap out of him in '99 that he destroyed all of his WMDs But more importantly, the laundry list of accusations made by the U.S. prior to invading Iraq are surely being whittled down to virtually nothing. The only thing remaining that can be clung to, is that Saddam was bad and we got rid of Saddam. Smiles everyone, smiles.

I thought they were all blown up like Bowfinger tries to say Clinton did.

Meh, what do I know - I'm just an "apologist"

CkG

Cad, you're on a roll this weekend. I know you're incapable of refuting what I actually say. That doesn't give you the right to put words in my mouth -- again -- just so you have something you can attack more easily. On second thought, perhaps I'm being too harsh. Maybe it's a reading comprehension problem. It must be tough to read through those Bush-colored glasses.

In any case, what I have reported is Scott Ritter's analysis: their inspection and destruction efforts coupled with the 1998 attacks destroyed between 90% and 95% of all of Iraq's remaing WMD capabilities. He also said much of the rest was too unstable to have lasted five years. In conclusion, Ritter said that based on his expertise, he doubted Iraq had substantial remaining WMD capabilities. He did not say "none" -- nor did I.

The "none" comes in when we look at how many WMDs we've actually found in Iraq. All together now, NONE!!!

Ritter also said that the programs could have been quickly reconstituted and would be if inspectors were not put back in the country. This was in Aug. of 98 and before Desert Fox which was in Dec. 98. Since no inspector had been in Iraq since Dec. 98 and when Ritter made his "Iraq has no WMD" proclamation how exactly did he know that? Of course Ritter was saying all this just as his book was coming out. What a coincidence.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The War was about Liberation and Garbage Pickup. Garbage Pickup has been acheived, there is more work to do for Liberation though.

WMD Waste Managment Department - I knew it was there somewhere, just missed the acronym<B>

</B>

Eureka! That's it! This whole "WMD == Weapons of Mass Destruction" is just a big misunderstanding, probably Clinton's fault.

That means Bush-lite isn't the world's policeman, he's its garbage man. It all makes sense now.