No end in sight

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Why do people still think that inspections should have been given time to work even after we found out that Hussein was deliberately making it look like he had WMD to help keep Iran from feeling frisky?

78898[/snapback]

Really? Then why did GW and Co. still feel it nescessary to lie to get us into this war?

[Bryan]

[/quote=Bryan]Why do people still think that inspections should have been given time to work even after we found out that Hussein was deliberately making it look like he had WMD to help keep Iran from feeling frisky?

Really?

Is that any way to answer the question?

You doubt that Hussein was putting on a show for his neighbors, or what?

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-48...am-Hussein.html

Then why did GW and Co. still feel it nescessary to lie to get us into this war?

79651[/snapback]

What was the lie, IYO? Or the biggest and most obvious one, if the list is too long to get into at the present.

[Guest Guest]

Really? Then why did GW and Co. still feel it nescessary to lie to get us into this war?

79651[/snapback]

Obviously, Bush supporters prefer a "frisky" lie over darn near anything else.

Makes it easier to live with the fact that they can't run our government without borrowing money from a Communist country that poisons our kids and pets, cozy up to dictators, pour money into rebuilding other people's countries while leaving one of our own cities underwater, and harbor such a hatred for the majority of Americans as represented by Congress.

The truth is that these guys *are* the Communist-loving, liberal, money-burning, America-loathing loons they claim to defend against.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Obviously, Bush supporters prefer a "frisky" lie over darn near anything else.

Makes it easier to live with the fact that they can't run our government without borrowing money from a Communist country that poisons our kids and pets, cozy up to dictators, pour money into rebuilding other people's countries while leaving one of our own cities underwater, and harbor such a hatred for the majority of Americans as represented by Congress.

The truth is that these guys *are* the Communist-loving, liberal, money-burning, America-loathing loons they claim to defend against.

79863[/snapback]

You're calling Bush a "liberal" ?? I'm guessing you just arrived on the planet ??

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Is that any way to answer the question?

You doubt that Hussein was putting on a show for his neighbors, or what?

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-48...am-Hussein.html

What was the lie, IYO?  Or the biggest and most obvious one, if the list is too long to get into at the present.

79858[/snapback]

Bryan,

I am not gonna play your stupid little game of semantics. You know what I'm talking about as does most everyone else. If you want to continue to defend this treasonous little piece of shit, be my guest. A man is judged by the company he keeps. I for one am looking forward to our new president and It can't happen too soon.

[Guest Guest]

You're calling Bush a "liberal" ??  I'm guessing you just arrived on the planet ??

80263[/snapback]

If you don't think fighting and building a country for people who don't fight and build for themselves isn't the hugest social program the US has got running right now, I'd like to hear your definition of liberal. And you're borrowing money from Red China while appeasing an unstable nuclear dictatorship to do it.

If a real conservative were in office, he wouldn't have been afraid to send in three times the number of troops we initially sent in. We'd be getting a gallon of gas for less than a dollar like we did a few years ago, and we'd be growing OUR economy, not China's. This was spelled out by our generals and the architects of the war like Wolfowitz. No wonder those guys left! (Those who weren't forced out by Bush anyway.)

Bushbots don't realize they are dictator-appeasing, flaming socialist liberals, which is why people are leaving the GOP in droves. What's worse is that they aren't even liberals for the benefit of Americans! Sure, let's give money to China and pay a premium for oil so Dubai can build its own Manhattan from scratch to attract defecting American companies like Halliburton. Yeah, you guys sooooo diehard American. Give me a break.

If you're the "2smart" example here, aliens must be smarter.

[Guest Paul]

If you don't think fighting and building a country for people who don't fight and build for themselves isn't the hugest social program the US has got running right now, I'd like to hear your definition of liberal.  And you're borrowing money from Red China while appeasing an unstable nuclear dictatorship to do it.

If a real conservative were in office, he wouldn't have been afraid to send in three times the number of troops we initially sent in.  We'd be getting a gallon of gas for less than a dollar like we did a few years ago, and we'd be growing OUR economy, not China's.  This was spelled out by our generals and the architects of the war like Wolfowitz.  No wonder those guys left!  (Those who weren't forced out by Bush anyway.)

Bushbots don't realize they are dictator-appeasing, flaming socialist liberals, which is why people are leaving the GOP in droves.  What's worse is that they aren't even liberals for the benefit of Americans!  Sure, let's give money to China and pay a premium for oil so Dubai can build its own Manhattan from scratch to attract defecting American companies like Halliburton.  Yeah, you guys sooooo diehard American.  Give me a break.

If you're the "2smart" example here, aliens must be smarter.

80620[/snapback]

I'm glad you're sick of Bush, but don't saddle us with him. He's a neocon through and through. Politically, he's your problem.

[Bryan]

Bryan,

    I am not gonna play your stupid little game of semantics.

You could name the supposed lie, Keith, without engaging in a semantic game (I hope).

Perhaps you realize that you've been playing a semantic game all along (calling it a "lie" when Bush repeats the information provided to him by U.S. and foreign intelligence and that intelligence turns out apparently incorrect) and you don't want it exposed again.

I could understand that.

You know what I'm talking about as does most everyone else.

Was I right?

[Bryan]

Update for Keith:

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/...494_page4.shtml

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Update for Keith:

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/...494_page4.shtml

So what if Saddam wanted to keep up his charade for Iran. We were lied to. I know it and you know it yet you refuse to acknowledge it. I won't regurgitate everything that we now know to be true but I will say one more time...sign up, ship out or shut up.

[Guest Radagast]

Update for Keith:

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/...494_page4.shtml

Pelley repeated the lie again. Saddam had said over and over again that he had no WMD's. There was no secret. He kept saying he didn't have them but the folks in Washington making the decisions thought he did. Many in the intel community knew he didn't have them. BuchCo chose to believe what they wanted to believe.

[Bryan]

Pelley repeated the lie again.

What lie did Pelley supposedly repeat?

Saddam had said over and over again that he had no WMD's. There was no secret.

Saddam was saying that they didn't have WMD's even when they did, Radagast.

He kept saying he didn't have them but the folks in Washington making the decisions thought he did.

Should Clinton have nixed the bombing he ordered based on Hussein's assurances?

Many in the intel community knew he didn't have them.

I doubt it, but you're welcome to provide names and quotations.

BuchCo chose to believe what they wanted to believe.

Coincidentally, they believed the consensus view presented in the National Intelligence Estimate and backed up by the assurances of the CIA director originally appointed by President Clinton.

Are you sure you're open to considering the evidence fairly?

[Bryan]

So what if Saddam wanted to keep up his charade for Iran.

How does Saddam keep up his charade for Iran while assuring the West that he has no WMD, Keith?

Magic?

We were lied to.

... but you cant be bothered to name the supposed lie. It's just your job to make the accusation repeatedly without backing it up with so much as a URL. You should be lucky enough to receive the treatment you give, one day.

I know it and you know it yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

I would acknowledge it if I saw a convincing case for it. You can't be bothered, of course ...

I won't regurgitate everything that we now know to be true but I will say one more time...sign up, ship out or shut up.

I don't see how you can say that to me when you won't even put up or shut up.

[Guest Radagast]

What lie did Pelley supposedly repeat?

By his question, he is saying that Saddam was hiding WMDs which we now know was false.

Saddam was saying that they didn't have WMD's even when they did, Radagast.

Whatever WMDs he had were destroyed before we invaded

Should Clinton have nixed the bombing he ordered based on Hussein's assurances?

The bombing was in response to Saddam throwing out the weapons inspectors. It was aimed at known antiaircraft sites, weapons depots and other infrastructure.

Clinton is also partly to blame for the myth that WMDs existed in Iraq. By allowing the Republicans to stage the impeachment circus, he had weakend himself to the point where he couldn't tell the neocons to go to hell. Since you're so fond of quoting rightwing stuff, here's some of mine.

http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew09292007.html

I doubt it, but you're welcome to provide names and quotations.

http://whitehouser.com/war/cia-confirms-bush-wmd-lie/

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/CIA_Warned...MD_In_Iraq.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0424-03.htm

Coincidentally, they believed the consensus view presented in the National Intelligence Estimate and backed up by the assurances of the CIA director originally appointed by President Clinton.

Clinton, however, never would have committed us to an invasion and occupation

Are you sure you're open to considering the evidence fairly?

Yeah, I am.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

How does Saddam keep up his charade for Iran while assuring the West that he has no WMD, Keith?

Magic?

... but you cant be bothered to name the supposed lie. It's just your job to make the accusation repeatedly without backing it up with so much as a URL. You should be lucky enough to receive the treatment you give, one day.

I would acknowledge it if I saw a convincing case for it. You can't be bothered, of course ...

I don't see how you can say that to me when you won't even put up or shut up.

All right Bryan you little f**king prick I'll say it one more time! Nigerian Yellow cake uranium and the aluminum tubes they touted as part of the process equipment. They outright lied about them, it was no mistake as thier intelligence people literally begged them not to use the info because there was absolutely no proof. That was thier smoking gun. It was not a mistake .... IT WAS A LIE! Let's not forget about outing a CIA operative and those who died as a direct result of it. How much more do you need, asshole?

[Guest 2smart4u]

All right Bryan you little f**king prick I'll say it one more time! Nigerian Yellow cake uranium and the aluminum tubes they touted as part of the process equipment. They outright lied about them, it was no mistake as thier intelligence people literally begged them not to use the info because there was absolutely no proof. That was thier smoking gun. It was not a mistake .... IT WAS A LIE! Let's not forget about outing a CIA operative and those who died as a direct result of it. How much more do you need, asshole?

Sounds like you got your panties in a bind, little girl.

[Guest Truth Squad]

All right Bryan you little f**king prick I'll say it one more time! Nigerian Yellow cake uranium and the aluminum tubes they touted as part of the process equipment. They outright lied about them, it was no mistake as thier intelligence people literally begged them not to use the info because there was absolutely no proof. That was thier smoking gun. It was not a mistake .... IT WAS A LIE! Let's not forget about outing a CIA operative and those who died as a direct result of it. How much more do you need, asshole?

Keith, don't rile yourself. Bryan loves that kind of attention. We know he's a boob.

[Bryan]

All right Bryan you little f**king prick I'll say it one more time! Nigerian Yellow cake uranium and the aluminum tubes they touted as part of the process equipment.

You lose.

1) Bush referred to Africa, not to Niger, and the U.K. continues to stand behind the intelligence on which Bush's statement was based.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030128-19.html

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

2) Joe Wilson's trip to Niger, contrary to his op-ed accounts, produced indications that Iraq had made overtures that a Nigerian official understood as an offer to trade for uranium (Niger has like three exports, two of which Iraq doesn't need).

http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1089562369.shtml

http://www.slate.com/id/2140058/

http://www.slate.com/id/2146475/

3) In Bush's SOTU speech the aluminum tubes were called "suitable for nuclear weapons production" (the sentence after the yellowcake) and they were, albeit not the most suitable.

The debate over the tubes started in 2001 during a US-led operation to stop an export of aluminum tubes to Iraq from China. The CIA became convinced that the tubes could be for an Iraqi nuclear program. (page 1)

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/ir...ubes12-5-03.pdf

The latter article is critical of Bush (often on erroneous grounds), but it does make clear that the greater part of the U.S. intelligence community not only believed the tubes suitable for centrifuges but also believed that the tubes were specifically intended for use in centrifuges.

As an added note, the "60 Minutes" story I linked also mentions Hussein's intention to pursue all of his WMD programs (including nuclear) as soon as sanctions were lifted.

The argument that Bush suppressed contrary information is amazingly common considering how stupid it is. Intelligence services most often operate on theories that have evidence pointing both ways (sometimes because counterintelligence efforts aim to cause exactly that type of confusion. It would literally be stupid to try to describe all or even some of the pros and cons of each finding of the intelligence community. As it was, Bush made a very modest claim in the SOTU speech in calling the tubes suitable for uranium enrichment (rather than claiming that they were specifically obtained for the purpose of enriching uranium, which was the popular view within the CIA).

I believe that's your cue to senselessly whine about semantics and return to your lying about Bush.

They outright lied about them, it was no mistake as thier intelligence people literally begged them not to use the info because there was absolutely no proof.

I'd love to see the citation for that claim.

That was thier smoking gun. It was not a mistake .... IT WAS A LIE! Let's not forget about outing a CIA operative and those who died as a direct result of it. How much more do you need, asshole?

Something that isn't a bunch of baloney from a frothing-at-the-mouth Bush-hater, along with that citation (please).

Joe Wilson should have considered the consequences of going public with his CIA mission to Niger with his hit piece on Bush. People were bound to wonder how a former ambassador got that gig, so if Armitage hadn't leaked Plame's CIA identity somebody else probably would have. And I'm unaware of any operatives who died as a result of Plame's cover slipping. I figure you probably made that up along with most of the rest.

http://www.topix.com/news/privacy/2007/07/...n-cia-leak-case

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

You lose.

1) Bush referred to Africa, not to Niger, and the U.K. continues to stand behind the intelligence on which Bush's statement was based.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030128-19.html

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

2) Joe Wilson's trip to Niger, contrary to his op-ed accounts, produced indications that Iraq had made overtures that a Nigerian official understood as an offer to trade for uranium (Niger has like three exports, two of which Iraq doesn't need).

http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1089562369.shtml

http://www.slate.com/id/2140058/

http://www.slate.com/id/2146475/

3) In Bush's SOTU speech the aluminum tubes were called "suitable for nuclear weapons production" (the sentence after the yellowcake) and they were, albeit not the most suitable.

The debate over the tubes started in 2001 during a US-led operation to stop an export of aluminum tubes to Iraq from China. The CIA became convinced that the tubes could be for an Iraqi nuclear program. (page 1)

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/ir...ubes12-5-03.pdf

The latter article is critical of Bush (often on erroneous grounds), but it does make clear that the greater part of the U.S. intelligence community not only believed the tubes suitable for centrifuges but also believed that the tubes were specifically intended for use in centrifuges.

As an added note, the "60 Minutes" story I linked also mentions Hussein's intention to pursue all of his WMD programs (including nuclear) as soon as sanctions were lifted.

The argument that Bush suppressed contrary information is amazingly common considering how stupid it is. Intelligence services most often operate on theories that have evidence pointing both ways (sometimes because counterintelligence efforts aim to cause exactly that type of confusion. It would literally be stupid to try to describe all or even some of the pros and cons of each finding of the intelligence community. As it was, Bush made a very modest claim in the SOTU speech in calling the tubes suitable for uranium enrichment (rather than claiming that they were specifically obtained for the purpose of enriching uranium, which was the popular view within the CIA).

I believe that's your cue to senselessly whine about semantics and return to your lying about Bush.

I'd love to see the citation for that claim.

Something that isn't a bunch of baloney from a frothing-at-the-mouth Bush-hater, along with that citation (please).

Joe Wilson should have considered the consequences of going public with his CIA mission to Niger with his hit piece on Bush. People were bound to wonder how a former ambassador got that gig, so if Armitage hadn't leaked Plame's CIA identity somebody else probably would have. And I'm unaware of any operatives who died as a result of Plame's cover slipping. I figure you probably made that up along with most of the rest.

http://www.topix.com/news/privacy/2007/07/...n-cia-leak-case

Joe Wilson was sent because he had been an ambassador to that area and knew the players. If Armitage hadn't leaked someone else would have? Well in that case it's ok then. Valerie Plame stated publicly (I saw her the Bill maher show) that she knows that lives ( I don't know how many ) had been lost because of the leak not to mention how many other operatives were compromised because of it. The intel communites may very well had valid suspicions but they did not have proof. Certainly not enough to justify a full scale invasion whicj is why they pleades with Bush not to use the info as a case for war. Saddam would have sought WMD once sanctions were lifted. Fine. Keep the sanctions in force (i.e. let the wepaons insepctors do thier jobs) Nothing you have said has been a valid reason for this war of choice. How many dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are there now Bryan? How many more children will grow up with good reason to hate the US and potentially strike out against us? Don't get me started on the money.

Your cavalier attitude about this sickens me. The good news is that the military has drastically dropped thier standards so there still may be a chance for you yet to go and do your part. I know a recruiter, may I have him call you?

[Guest Guest]

Joe Wilson was sent because he had been an ambassador to that area and knew the players. If Armitage hadn't leaked someone else would have? Well in that case it's ok then. Valerie Plame stated publicly (I saw her the Bill maher show) that she knows that lives ( I don't know how many ) had been lost because of the leak not to mention how many other operatives were compromised because of it. The intel communites may very well had valid suspicions but they did not have proof. Certainly not enough to justify a full scale invasion whicj is why they pleades with Bush not to use the info as a case for war. Saddam would have sought WMD once sanctions were lifted. Fine. Keep the sanctions in force (i.e. let the wepaons insepctors do thier jobs) Nothing you have said has been a valid reason for this war of choice. How many dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are there now Bryan? How many more children will grow up with good reason to hate the US and potentially strike out against us? Don't get me started on the money.

Your cavalier attitude about this sickens me. The good news is that the military has drastically dropped thier standards so there still may be a chance for you yet to go and do your part. I know a recruiter, may I have him call you?

You're the poster boy for the Loony Lefties.

[Guest Huh?]

What's most important is not wasting human life for nothing.

As excited as Strifey was with your quote, I need clarification.

I am sure you misspoke - but if it is the MOST important that human life is not wasted "for nothing", then for what "something" would wasting human life be acceptable?

[Bryan]

Joe Wilson was sent because he had been an ambassador to that area and knew the players.

Plus he's seen every James Bond movie and stayed at the Holiday Inn Express.

Wilson was ambassador to Iraq. He served differently in Africa. Yes, he knew a few key players in Niger, but as you'd have seen from the links, he lied about what he found in Africa. In any case, there were bound to be questions about how he got the gig, so his spin-filled op-ed placed Plame at risk. Does that make it his fault? Only slightly. But on the other hand, no good evidence surfaced that indicated a purposeful leak on the part of the administration (see Fitzgerald investigation: Millions spent, one indictment for perjury).

If Armitage hadn't leaked someone else would have? Well in that case it's ok then.

The point is that Wilson brought attention to both of them by going political with his lying op-ed. It was journalists poking around in the back story who discovered Plame's name and employer. That's what journalists do.

Valerie Plame stated publicly (I saw her the Bill maher show) that she knows that lives ( I don't know how many ) had been lost because of the leak not to mention how many other operatives were compromised because of it.

Really? What evidence did she use to back up her claim?

Not a word about it in this one. Is this the show you talked about? Seems like claiming a few deaths would help sell the book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7vlE0s83_s

This clip goes from the beginning (the first one is missing maybe 30 seconds of the appearance):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxz5Q_Hxcrk...feature=related

Are you quite certain that your recollection is accurate?

The intel communites may very well had valid suspicions but they did not have proof. Certainly not enough to justify a full scale invasion whicj is why they pleades with Bush not to use the info as a case for war.

Ah, yes. "Slam dunk" as we all know is Intelligence Communitese for "Don't go to war on the basis of this intelligence!" And when Tenet was sitting behind Colin Powell he wasn't there for support, he was actually signaling Powell to shut up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...0-2004Jun3.html

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1763037.jpg...A5397277B4DC33E

Saddam would have sought WMD once sanctions were lifted. Fine. Keep the sanctions in force (i.e. let the wepaons insepctors do thier jobs).

You don't get it, do you? It was Hussein who wouldn't let the inspectors do their jobs.

# "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided.

# "Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if immediate, active and unconditional cooperation with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/bfeb/20_blix.html

Nothing you have said has been a valid reason for this war of choice.

Nothing you have said provides any kind of reasonable evidence that Bush lied. You do remember the topic, don't you?

How many dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are there now Bryan? How many more children will grow up with good reason to hate the US and potentially strike out against us? Don't get me started on the money.

Your cavalier attitude about this sickens me. The good news is that the military has drastically dropped thier standards so there still may be a chance for you yet to go and do your part. I know a recruiter, may I have him call you?

No, apparently you don't remember the topic. You're pulling your typical avoidance techniques again.

You're a sad figure, Keith.

[Bryan]

What lie did Pelley supposedly repeat?

By his question, he is saying that Saddam was hiding WMDs which we now know was false.

Uh, Radagast, read it again.

Pelley was referring to Saddam's secret that he had destroyed the WMDs. Pelley is asking Piro why Hussein didn't just come clean by making it look like he didn't have WMDs--that kind of thing. Here's some wider context for you:

"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/...494_page4.shtml

Saddam was saying that they didn't have WMD's even when they did, Radagast.

Whatever WMDs he had were destroyed before we invaded

Way to deal with the point, there, buddy.

Should Clinton have nixed the bombing he ordered based on Hussein's assurances?

The bombing was in response to Saddam throwing out the weapons inspectors.

I thought that everyone knew by now that Hussein didn't throw out the inspectors? The UN withdrew the inspectors because Hussein wasn't giving them complete access and Clinton was going to bomb a few weapons sites as a result.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/...494_page4.shtml

Hint: "FAIR" doesn't stand for "Far-right Anti-Iraq Reporting."

Don't tell me: You're part of the "reality-based community, right?

It was aimed at known antiaircraft sites, weapons depots and other infrastructure.

It was aimed at Saddam's WMD programs--the ones you say he didn't have.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html

That guy has just got to be the greatest president ever, don't you agree?

I do like the way you polished history a little bit on Bill's behalf--omitting the WMD aspect of the attacks. Very thoughtful of you. Very objective.

Clinton is also partly to blame for the myth that WMDs existed in Iraq. By allowing the Republicans to stage the impeachment circus, he had weakend himself to the point where he couldn't tell the neocons to go to hell. Since you're so fond of quoting rightwing stuff, here's some of mine.

http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew09292007.html

Here's the surrounding context of one of the key quotations in that opinion piece.

46. The accumulated effect of the work that has been accomplished over six years since the ceasefire went into effect, between Iraq and the Coalition, is such that not much is unknown about Iraq's retained proscribed weapons capabilities.

47. However, what is still not accounted for cannot be neglected. Even a limited inventory of long-range missiles would be a source of deep concern if those missiles were fitted with warheads filled with the most deadly of chemical nerve agents, VX. If one single missile warhead were filled with the biological warfare agent, Anthrax, many millions of lethal doses could be spread in an attack on any city in the region. With that in mind, the Special Commission has undertaken extraordinary efforts to bring to a satisfactory conclusion the full accounting of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, in order to be able to make sure that all the proscribed items have been disposed of.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s1997-301.htm

Do you like the way the author amputated the "but"?

I doubt it, but you're welcome to provide names and quotations.

http://whitehouser.com/war/cia-confirms-bush-wmd-lie/

You pay attention to a blogger who expects you to believe that Tenet briefed Bush to the effect that there were no WMDs in Iraq and then sat with Colin Powell at the UN to provide moral support for Powell's unambiguous claims to the contrary?

Are you certain you're able to consider contrary evidence? That one should be entirely obvious.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/CIA_Warned...MD_In_Iraq.html

According to the Post's account, therefore, Drumheller's account of Sabri's testimony was wildly off the mark. Saddam may not have had an "active nuclear program" or biological weapons, but he did have nuclear "ambitions" and research on biological weapons was "underway." Importantly, Saddam had sent chemical weapons to "loyal tribes."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...12/690coaxy.asp

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0424-03.htm

Same Drumheller tale. Doesn't appear to hold up very well.

Coincidentally, they believed the consensus view presented in the National Intelligence Estimate and backed up by the assurances of the CIA director originally appointed by President Clinton.

Clinton, however, never would have committed us to an invasion and occupation

How do you think he planned to accomplish the policy he signed regarding Iraq, then?

(regime change)

We have consistently maintained that the Iraqi regime can only have sanctions lifted when it has met its obligations to the international community. Saddam's actions over the past decade make clear that his regime will not comply with its obligations under the UN Security Council resolutions designed to rid Iraq of WMD and their delivery systems. Because of that and because the Iraqi people will never be free under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, we actively support those who seek to bring a new democratic government to power in Baghdad. We recognize that this may be a slow and difficult process, but we believe it is the only solution to the problem of Saddam's regime

http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/publish/peace...ry/me0111a.html

Are you sure you're open to considering the evidence fairly?

Yeah, I am.

Well, you're probably more certain than ever now.

Interesting how Clinton has reversed himself on supporting those who help bring democracy to Iraq, isn't it? I guess he never wanted it to be us. Let somebody else take the risk.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Plus he's seen every James Bond movie and stayed at the Holiday Inn Express.

Wilson was ambassador to Iraq. He served differently in Africa. Yes, he knew a few key players in Niger, but as you'd have seen from the links, he lied about what he found in Africa. In any case, there were bound to be questions about how he got the gig, so his spin-filled op-ed placed Plame at risk. Does that make it his fault? Only slightly. But on the other hand, no good evidence surfaced that indicated a purposeful leak on the part of the administration (see Fitzgerald investigation: Millions spent, one indictment for perjury).

The point is that Wilson brought attention to both of them by going political with his lying op-ed. It was journalists poking around in the back story who discovered Plame's name and employer. That's what journalists do.

Really? What evidence did she use to back up her claim?

Not a word about it in this one. Is this the show you talked about? Seems like claiming a few deaths would help sell the book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7vlE0s83_s

This clip goes from the beginning (the first one is missing maybe 30 seconds of the appearance):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxz5Q_Hxcrk...feature=related

Are you quite certain that your recollection is accurate?

Ah, yes. "Slam dunk" as we all know is Intelligence Communitese for "Don't go to war on the basis of this intelligence!" And when Tenet was sitting behind Colin Powell he wasn't there for support, he was actually signaling Powell to shut up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...0-2004Jun3.html

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1763037.jpg...A5397277B4DC33E

You don't get it, do you? It was Hussein who wouldn't let the inspectors do their jobs.

# "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided.

# "Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if immediate, active and unconditional cooperation with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/bfeb/20_blix.html

Nothing you have said provides any kind of reasonable evidence that Bush lied. You do remember the topic, don't you?

No, apparently you don't remember the topic. You're pulling your typical avoidance techniques again.

You're a sad figure, Keith.

Ok Bryan,

We are at an impasse. I don't believe all the bullshit about Iraq. I think it was wrong and illegal. As is your right you believe the bullshit and think we are totally justified. Fine. I can live with that. Will you just answer one simple qustion for me. May I have my recruiter friend give you a call? They would be happy to have you.

[Guest a proud american]

By his question, he is saying that Saddam was hiding WMDs which we now know was false.

Uh, Radagast, read it again.

Pelley was referring to Saddam's secret that he had destroyed the WMDs. Pelley is asking Piro why Hussein didn't just come clean by making it look like he didn't have WMDs--that kind of thing. Here's some wider context for you:

"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/...494_page4.shtml

Bryan, I don't know where you get your information from although I see that some of the sights you reference are from the right wing blogs.

But if you're truly interested here is the chain of events. The decision to send someone to Niger came as a result of a question VP Cheney asked at a briefing.

He didn't ask the CIA to send anyone, they made that decision on their own. Since Valerie Plame worked in the counter nuclear proliferation section of the CIA (a covert section), her supervisor asked her if her husband would be willing to go to Niger and investigate the British Claim (now proven to be false) that Sadaam was attempting to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. At no time did she ever bring his name up in conversation prior to his being selected.

Since he had been an ambassador and was familiar with the region he volunteered to go. When he returned he made it perfectly clear that no one in Iraq had asked for or made arrangements to purchase this from Niger. He did however, reference some sort of conex containers that he had seen while there. This information was turned over to the Navy for investigation but nrver followed through on.

The whole matter would have been over had it not been for the famous State of the Union Address. It wasn't too long after that when he wrote his article.

When Cheney read his op-ed is where the problem began. NO one in the White House ever asked, requested or approved sending Wilson. Again, he was sent because the VP asked a question. What happened after that is as with anyone who disagrees with this administration they set out to destroy Wilsons credibility, but in the course of this, outed his wife. You can read the whole story by reading the United States v I. Lewis Libby. The book is the actual trial using the transcripts of the people involved and are not altered. They are the actual transcripts. And you will clearly see why Libby was found guilty.

Now with regards to the aluminum tubes. Sadaams son was in charge of purchasing the tubes to be made into convential rockets, not nuclear ones. The problem was that when Sadaam asked for something, the Government always purchased more than was needed because he had been known to kill people for not providing what he wanted so better to have to much than not enough. The problem was, the Iraqi scientists could not get the fuel mixture correct because his son purchased the wrong sized tubes. ( he was paid a bribe to buy them). Of course all of this should have been known to Colin Powell before he gave his speech to the Un but by that time the decision to invade had already been made. NOw as far as knowing how many people suffered as a result of her outing, we don't know. But I would suspect there were several. I hope that you will read the book I mentioned. You will lear more from that one book than any blog.

Whatever WMDs he had were destroyed before we invaded

Way to deal with the point, there, buddy.

The bombing was in response to Saddam throwing out the weapons inspectors.

I thought that everyone knew by now that Hussein didn't throw out the inspectors? The UN withdrew the inspectors because Hussein wasn't giving them complete access and Clinton was going to bomb a few weapons sites as a result.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/...494_page4.shtml

Hint: "FAIR" doesn't stand for "Far-right Anti-Iraq Reporting."

Don't tell me: You're part of the "reality-based community, right?

It was aimed at known antiaircraft sites, weapons depots and other infrastructure.

It was aimed at Saddam's WMD programs--the ones you say he didn't have.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html

That guy has just got to be the greatest president ever, don't you agree?

I do like the way you polished history a little bit on Bill's behalf--omitting the WMD aspect of the attacks. Very thoughtful of you. Very objective.

Clinton is also partly to blame for the myth that WMDs existed in Iraq. By allowing the Republicans to stage the impeachment circus, he had weakend himself to the point where he couldn't tell the neocons to go to hell. Since you're so fond of quoting rightwing stuff, here's some of mine.

http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew09292007.html

Here's the surrounding context of one of the key quotations in that opinion piece.

46. The accumulated effect of the work that has been accomplished over six years since the ceasefire went into effect, between Iraq and the Coalition, is such that not much is unknown about Iraq's retained proscribed weapons capabilities.

47. However, what is still not accounted for cannot be neglected. Even a limited inventory of long-range missiles would be a source of deep concern if those missiles were fitted with warheads filled with the most deadly of chemical nerve agents, VX. If one single missile warhead were filled with the biological warfare agent, Anthrax, many millions of lethal doses could be spread in an attack on any city in the region. With that in mind, the Special Commission has undertaken extraordinary efforts to bring to a satisfactory conclusion the full accounting of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, in order to be able to make sure that all the proscribed items have been disposed of.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s1997-301.htm

Do you like the way the author amputated the "but"?

http://whitehouser.com/war/cia-confirms-bush-wmd-lie/

You pay attention to a blogger who expects you to believe that Tenet briefed Bush to the effect that there were no WMDs in Iraq and then sat with Colin Powell at the UN to provide moral support for Powell's unambiguous claims to the contrary?

Are you certain you're able to consider contrary evidence? That one should be entirely obvious.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/CIA_Warned...MD_In_Iraq.html

According to the Post's account, therefore, Drumheller's account of Sabri's testimony was wildly off the mark. Saddam may not have had an "active nuclear program" or biological weapons, but he did have nuclear "ambitions" and research on biological weapons was "underway." Importantly, Saddam had sent chemical weapons to "loyal tribes."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...12/690coaxy.asp

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0424-03.htm

Same Drumheller tale. Doesn't appear to hold up very well.

Clinton, however, never would have committed us to an invasion and occupation

How do you think he planned to accomplish the policy he signed regarding Iraq, then?

(regime change)

We have consistently maintained that the Iraqi regime can only have sanctions lifted when it has met its obligations to the international community. Saddam's actions over the past decade make clear that his regime will not comply with its obligations under the UN Security Council resolutions designed to rid Iraq of WMD and their delivery systems. Because of that and because the Iraqi people will never be free under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, we actively support those who seek to bring a new democratic government to power in Baghdad. We recognize that this may be a slow and difficult process, but we believe it is the only solution to the problem of Saddam's regime

http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/publish/peace...ry/me0111a.html

Yeah, I am.

Well, you're probably more certain than ever now.

Interesting how Clinton has reversed himself on supporting those who help bring democracy to Iraq, isn't it? I guess he never wanted it to be us. Let somebody else take the risk.