jza10304 Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154574,00.html"]www.foxnews.com[/url] [quote]Iraq WMD Inspectors End Search, Find Nothing Tuesday, April 26, 2005 WASHINGTON  Wrapping up his investigation into Saddam Hussein's purported arsenal, the CIA's top weapons hunter in Iraq said his search for weapons of mass destruction "has been exhausted" without finding any. Nor did he find any evidence that such weapons were shipped officially from Iraq to Syria to be hidden before the U.S. invasion, but he couldn't rule out some unofficial transfer of limited WMD-related materials. He closed his effort with words of caution about potential future threats and careful assessment of this and other unanswered questions. The Bush administration justified its 2003 invasion of Iraq as necessary to eliminate Hussein's purported stockpile of WMD. "As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible," wrote Charles Duelfer (search), head of the Iraq Survey Group (search), in an addendum to the report he issued last fall. "After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted." In 92 pages posted online Monday evening, Duelfer provided a final look at an investigation that, at its peak, occupied more than 1,000 military and civilian translators, weapons specialists and other experts. His latest addenda conclude a roughly 1,500-page report released last fall. Among warnings sprinkled throughout the new documents, one concludes that Saddam's programs created a pool of weapons experts, many of whom will be seeking work. While most will probably turn to the "benign civil sector," the danger remains that "hostile foreign governments, terrorists or insurgents may seek Iraqi expertise." "Because a single individual can advance certain WMD activities, it remains an important concern," one addendum said. Another addendum noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons  most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before 1991. In an insurgent's hands, "the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives," the addendum said. And still another said the survey group found some potential nuclear-related equipment was "missing from heavily damaged and looted sites." Yet, because of deteriorating security in Iraq, the survey group was unable to determine what happened to the equipment, which also had alternate civilian uses. "Some of it probably has been sold for its scrap value. Other pieces might have been disassembled" and converted into motors or condensers, an addendum said. "Still others could have been taken intact to preserve their function." Leaving the door to the investigation open just a crack, a U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said a small team still operates under the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq, although the survey group officially disbanded earlier this month. Those staying on continue to examine documents and follow up any reports of weapons of mass destruction. In a statement accompanying the final installment, Duelfer said any surprise discovery would be most likely in the biological weapons area because facilities and other clues would be comparatively small. Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn't able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation halted its work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to Syria. The questioning of Iraqis did not produce any information to support the transfer possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."[/quote] I know, I know. Get over it. I just can't seem to turn away from people dying and getting maimed. I guess it's the sadist in me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [quote name='jza10304' date='May 11 2005, 12:17 PM'][url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154574,00.html"]www.foxnews.com[/url] I know, I know. Get over it. I just can't seem to turn away from people dying and getting maimed. I guess it's the sadist in me. [right][post="90976"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] We've known there were no WMDs for weeks/months ... bad intellegence, that we, Russia, and England ALL had. That doesnt change the fact that we are there and need to finish the job, otherwise it will be in vain and leaving Iraq without finishing a rebuild of the country will just give them even more of a reason to hate us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalBacker Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Guess Saddam should have complied with the resolutions, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 the scariest part of this story, is we would have known if they had the wmd's... when they USED them on us... the fact is that everyone thought they had them, they did have them at one point (ask the kurds and iranians), and saddam wanted us to think he had them to avoid conflict... he didn't realized that clinton wasn't president anymore and bush had balls... i wonder if the iraqis care if he had the wmd's? to them saddam was a serial killer w/ all the power... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [quote]Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (PL 105-338) October 31, 1998 An Act To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress makes the following findings: (1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities. (2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds. (3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today. (4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat. (5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement. (6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait. (7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait. (8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government. (9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs. (10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM. (11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'. (12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes. SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ. It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ. (a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance: (1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq. (B ) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph. (2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations. (B ) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000. (B ) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime. © RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE- No assistance under this section shall be provided to any group within an organization designated in accordance with section 5 which group is, at the time the assistance is to be provided, engaged in military cooperation with the Saddam Hussein regime. (d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- The President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 at least 15 days in advance of each obligation of assistance under this section in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A. (e) REIMBURSEMENT RELATING TO MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (1) IN GENERAL- Defense articles, defense services, and military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2) shall be made available without reimbursement to the Department of Defense except to the extent that funds are appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2). (2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation, fund, or account for the value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of defense articles, defense services, or military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2). (f) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS (1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are authorized to remain available until expended. (2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are in addition to amounts otherwise available for the purposes described in this section. (g) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- Activities under this section (including activities of the nature described in subsection (B )) may be undertaken notwithstanding any other provision of law. SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION. (a) INITIAL DESIGNATION- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection © as eligible to receive assistance under section 4. (B ) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS- At any time subsequent to the initial designation pursuant to subsection (a), the President may designate one or more additional Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection © as eligible to receive assistance under section 4. © CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that-- (1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and (2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. (d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- At least 15 days in advance of designating an Iraqi democratic opposition organization pursuant to this section, the President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of his proposed designation in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A. SEC. 6. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR IRAQ. Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law. SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME. It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime. SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.[/quote] Could someone tell me who the President was in '98 I forget?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jza10304 Posted May 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 I guess the first pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation and toppling of another country's regime (at least openly), while threats such as Iran and North Korea loomed and seemed to be bigger, doesn't matter because the Iraqi people are free. Our military is spread too thin and the rest of the world knows it, and is now stuck in a tough situation that won't end for a while, but.....we showed him who had balls!!!! Don't fuck with us or we'll show you what's up!!!! (Stands up and thumps chest like a gorilla). There is much more at stake than a pissing contest. I just mention that in passing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [quote name='jza10304' date='May 11 2005, 11:46 AM']I guess the first pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation and toppling of another country's regime (at least openly), while threats such as Iran and North Korea loomed and seemed to be bigger, doesn't matter because the Iraqi people are free. Our military is spread too thin and the rest of the world knows it, and is now stuck in a tough situation that won't end for a while, but.....we showed him who had balls!!!! Don't fuck with us or we'll show you what's up!!!! (Stands up and thumps chest like a gorilla). There is much more at stake than a pissing contest. I just mention that in passing. [right][post="90983"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] our military is winning a war in historic fashion... compare the casualties of this war to anyother war in US history... they are microscopic... not to mention the benefits since the iraqi war... did you see the response in Georgia (former solviet union)? they were estatic to see George W Bush... why? b/c he stood up for them... i say he had balls, b/c he did what he felt was right, knowing he would be dealing w/ people like you that would have been opposed to stopping hitler in the 40's... some people never agree w/ war... the threats of iran and North Korea are there, but we have resources to stop them, besides military action... we had 17 resolutions and 10 years of saddam flipping us off... we were out of deplomacy actions, b/c our country has threatened for some long, and did nothing to back it up... i don't say this to "pound my chest" i'm saying that a threat is only a threat, if there is a chance you will do something about it... you don't find it ironic that monarchies are falling all acrossed the world, only after the iraqi war? they are falling b/c of pressure... REAL pressure... where would we be right now w/ out dubya? saddam would be in power, afghanistan would be the taliban/al queda hideout still, both countries (the 10's of millions of people) wouldn't be discussing their gov't's futures... they would be living in fear still... not to mention the other countries like palestine, lebanen, georgia fates would be much different... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='May 11 2005, 01:16 PM']our military is winning a war in historic fashion... compare the casualties of this war to anyother war in US history... they are microscopic... not to mention the benefits since the iraqi war... did you see the response in Georgia (former solviet union)? they were estatic to see George W Bush... why? b/c he stood up for them... i say he had balls, b/c he did what he felt was right, knowing he would be dealing w/ people like you that would have been opposed to stopping hitler in the 40's... some people never agree w/ war... the threats of iran and North Korea are there, but we have resources to stop them, besides military action... we had 17 resolutions and 10 years of saddam flipping us off... we were out of deplomacy actions, b/c our country has threatened for some long, and did nothing to back it up... i don't say this to "pound my chest" i'm saying that a threat is only a threat, if there is a chance you will do something about it... you don't find it ironic that monarchies are falling all acrossed the world, only after the iraqi war? they are falling b/c of pressure... REAL pressure... where would we be right now w/ out dubya? saddam would be in power, afghanistan would be the taliban/al queda hideout still, both countries (the 10's of millions of people) wouldn't be discussing their gov't's futures... they would be living in fear still... not to mention the other countries like palestine, lebanen, georgia fates would be much different... [right][post="90998"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] but it doesnt matter because a republican did it... thats a simple truth libs look at if it where clinton they would be hearlding a new area of peace and he is such a great leader yada yada yada just cause its a bush and he is part of the majority....... ohh well.. guess its time for the libs to start digging out there conspery theries again..... and once again THEY DID HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION YOU FUCKING TURD....... i am so sick of having to explain this over and over again.. Does anyone remember the HUGE FUCKING SCANDLE THE DEMS TRIED TO PIN ON BUSH BEFORE THE election about 350 tons of explosives IE A FUCKING WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION that was "Lost" but where found to be shipped out of the fucking country....... this is realy making me mad so these things where realy just kids play toys huh??????????????????????????????? sry for the rant but this is the 6'th time someone has tried to claim there where no WMD.. if that story doesnt validate if for you what would ur party claimed BUSH LOSES WMD << The headlines before the election but they proved they were MOVED OUT BEFORE WE TOOK OVER That section of the country.... but no no wmd found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 See here for further details of WMD in iraq and quite lying to yourself [url="http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?showtopic=3824&hl=weapon"]http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?show...=3824&hl=weapon[/url] [url="http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?showtopic=439&hl=weapon"]http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?show...c=439&hl=weapon[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jza10304 Posted May 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 11 2005, 12:29 PM'][b]but it doesnt matter because a republican did it... thats a simple truth libs look at if it where clinton they would be hearlding a new area of peace and he is such a great leader yada yada yada just cause its a bush and he is part of the majority[/b]....... ohh well.. guess its time for the libs to start digging out there conspery theries again.....[/quote] Pot calling the kettle black. I do feel bad for Bush and the way he inherited a huge mess from Clinton. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [quote][b]THEY DID HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION YOU FUCKING TURD[/b]....... i am so sick of having to explain this over and over again.. Does anyone remember the HUGE FUCKING SCANDLE THE DEMS TRIED TO PIN ON BUSH BEFORE THE election about 350 tons of explosives IE A FUCKING WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION that was "Lost" but where found to be shipped out of the fucking country....... this is realy making me mad so these things where realy just kids play toys huh??????????????????????????????? sry for the rant but this is the 6'th time someone has tried to claim there where no WMD.. if that story doesnt validate if for you what would ur party claimed BUSH LOSES WMD << The headlines before the election but they proved they were MOVED OUT BEFORE WE TOOK OVER That section of the country.... but no no wmd found. [right][post="91002"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] No need for name calling. If there were weapons, why couldn't we find them? There isn't even evidence that they were moved to Syria. It all points to the fact that they were destroyed during the 90's. Supposed "bad intelligence" that was the basis to gain support for the war. What are you proving, that Kerry had a terrible campaign strategy? I'm not a democrat (definitely not a Republican), so don't lump me in with them. I even found that article in the "fair and balanced" foxnews website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalBacker Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 11 2005, 12:29 PM']but it doesnt matter because a republican did it... thats a simple truth libs look at if it where clinton they would be hearlding a new area of peace and he is such a great leader yada yada yada just cause its a bush and he is part of the majority....... ohh well.. guess its time for the libs to start digging out there conspery theries again..... [right][post="91002"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Sadly, that's the truth. Unfortunately, both sides are guilty of this, but the Democrats are much worse than Republicans when it comes to opposing everything the opposition does. I like to post this link occasionally just to bring the people who are so opposed to us going into Iraq back down to earth. They seemed to be all for it when Clinton was in office. And this was before 9/11. I know, I know....Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11, but that event had to change the way we deal with threats. Read this link, and some of the related links on the page. [url="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html"]http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 jza, what would you be saying if Bush assumed that Saddam (the great guy he was ) got rid of them himself? Both republicans and democrats alike would be united... united against bush... at least now, he has his base on his side, b/c HE DID WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO... there is no evidence that the weapons went to syria, but there is none that it didn't either.. my question is should we assume saddam destroyed those weapons himself? if not, where are they? if we should assume that saddam did the right thing, why was he saying that he had the weapons before the war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 wow backer... i had to reread this to make sure clinton said all of this... maybe he wasn't a total shmuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalBacker Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='May 11 2005, 01:00 PM']wow backer... i had to reread this to make sure clinton said all of this... maybe he wasn't a total shmuck [right][post="91014"][/post][/right][/quote] Between the time he made that speech, and the time we attacked, Saddam continued to ignore the resolutions. He even claimed victory against us. He did everything he could to make it appear that he still had all those weapons and there was nothing we could do about it. All of the reasons Clinton gave for why he should be removed from power were strengthened. Add to that 9/11, and we were looking like inneffective pussies who weren't willing to back up our threats. Now all of a sudden, Bush is just a war mongerer trying to get revenge for daddy. I guarantee you if a Democrat had done the same things Bush did, 95% of the people who are bashing Bush would be supporting the Democrat. Does anyone doubt that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [quote name='jza10304' date='May 11 2005, 01:45 PM']Pot calling the kettle black. I do feel bad for Bush and the way he inherited a huge mess from Clinton. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] No need for name calling. If there were weapons, why couldn't we find them? There isn't even evidence that they were moved to Syria. It all points to the fact that they were destroyed during the 90's. Supposed "bad intelligence" that was the basis to gain support for the war. What are you proving, that Kerry had a terrible campaign strategy? I'm not a democrat (definitely not a Republican), so don't lump me in with them. I even found that article in the "fair and balanced" foxnews website. [right][post="91009"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] sry for the name calling but i was pretty angy at the time.............. Then why did the run the article to begin with???? why did they show pictures of the WMP then suddenly they were gone???????????? that doesnt make any sense at all man. They were there. We have evidence they were there. Then when we took over they wernt there. SO that means they were moved. In one of the articles it showed satalite pictures of trucks driving away from the facility which was assumed to be when they moved them??? They did have wmd...... ur point isnt valid man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 11 2005, 02:59 PM']sry for the name calling but i was pretty angy at the time.............. Then why did the run the article to begin with???? why did they show pictures of the WMP then suddenly they were gone???????????? that doesnt make any sense at all man. They were there. We have evidence they were there. Then when we took over they wernt there. SO that means they were moved. In one of the articles it showed satalite pictures of trucks driving away from the facility which was assumed to be when they moved them??? They did have wmd...... ur point isnt valid man [right][post="91027"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Wasnt there a portion of them found again? I could have sworn there was a article in the paper, burried in the paper mind you, that said they had found a portion of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 11 2005, 03:04 PM']Wasnt there a portion of them found again? I could have sworn there was a article in the paper, burried in the paper mind you, that said they had found a portion of them. [right][post="91028"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] never saw it but u know we could have found them all and they still wouldnt publish it in the news paper i get. so its possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 One only has to look to programs like this to know how screwed up things were/are in the intelligence community.... (I worked with the people at SAIC who work with the FBI on this project too; let me tell you I think they used to ride the short bus to school.) [url="http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/fbi.computers/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/fbi.computers/index.html[/url] So don’t tell me its "supposed" bad intelligence. The sad thing is this kind of thing is rapid in the government. Until we redo the way the government spends money (IE: You have to spend what you have this year or you don’t get it next year) you will have major waste that could go to fixing real problems. I can’t tell you the countless number of contracts that I’ve been on that the people in the government don’t have a clue and are arrogant about it has to be their way and the contract fails because of it, in turn failing the people. Politics and ego are the statuesque around every facet of this government, its not always as bad as the article above but it can be and its more common than people who aren’t on the inside of this realize. So much so that anyone who has spent any real time working on a government contract that isn’t a good one knows how much of a joke it is, hell even the good ones sometimes things are done that are stupid because they HAVE to spend the money. I mean no disrespect to anyone here but you don’t see this everyday like I do, most of you are very naive to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jza10304 Posted May 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 11 2005, 11:26 AM']We've known there were no WMDs for weeks/months ... [b]bad intellegence[/b], that we, Russia, and England ALL had. That doesnt change the fact that we are there and need to finish the job, otherwise it will be in vain and leaving Iraq without finishing a rebuild of the country will just give them even more of a reason to hate us. [right][post="90979"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] [quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 11 2005, 02:22 PM']So don’t tell me its "supposed" [b]bad intelligence[/b]. The sad thing is this kind of thing is rapid in the government. Until we redo the way the government spends money (IE: You have to spend what you have this year or you don’t get it next year) you will have major waste that could go to fixing real problems.[/quote] I was just referring to the excuse the administration has been giving. The C.I.A. and the intelligence community took the fall, instead of the people who manipulated such evidence to get support for their cause. Richard Clark wrote about al of that when he left the administration, they were looking for any reason to go after Saddam. The Saudi's can keep people oppressed as long as they help us out with our oil shortage (but Syria and Iran need to democratize). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Sorry I took what you said as to mean you didnt believe that there was bad intellegence. The CIA and Intellegence community should have taken the fall, they provided the "evidence" on which the decisions were made, and again it wasnt just our intellegence it was Russia and England as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [img]http://fredsmith.us/mirror/funny/bush_strategery.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [i][b]"Intelligence ........ " [/b][/i] [img]http://lightlytoasted.net/archives/bush.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [i](for the record I also hated Kerry..... and realize that in this sorry 2 party system we the people are left lubed up, bent over, and sodomized.)[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 <wistful> Old salt sits back and wishes that people were interested in the pursuit of truth, instead of winning their side of the argument. </wistful> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BadassBengal Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 The US sticks their noses into too many issues. And people wonder why other countries would bring themselves so low as to do a 9-11 style attack on us. Cause we're constantly all up in their shit, changing around their government into a democracy and such(who says that a democracy is the best system? we're not the fucking world leaders, we can't force other people to follow our way. We start up new wars when we haven't even finished the last one. It seems as though people forget that Osama Bin Laden still hasn't been found. The mastermind behind the 9-11 tragedy still hasn't been found, but we're parading around some Iraqi deserts claiming some absurd victory. Fuck that. Victory is for when those people are avenged. Seems as though we're too busy searching for invisible weapons and crackpot leaders to do so. I think that the US should once again become an isolationist country. Yes, take part in trades and that sort of thing with others, but just stay out of their wars, and their petty little race/religion arguments. We need to stop thinking that we have the power to divide up their derritories and such and basically fuck up the way they live. And... yea. My rant is [b]OVER[/b]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.