Scathing Iraq WMD Report

[Lebjwb]

A published report says the Bush administration ignored substantial evidence to the contrary when it claimed before the war that Iraq had imported material for a nuclear weapons program.








http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/iraq/main643989.shtml

 

[mikeymars]

Someone with a "Kerry/Edwards" label in their signature posts a link to CBS "news" (the most neutral source of "information" on earth) and thinks people are actually going to bother to read it?

 

[castlegazer]

Ignore mickeymars. This is a significant story, although a fairly well known fact. Thanks for posting.

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by mikeymars
Someone with a "Kerry/Edwards" label in their signature posts a link to CBS "news" and thinks people are going to actually bother to read it?

Hey, I'm a Bush supporter too. I don't feel this story represents "well known fact" (especially considering the source is CBS), but your response was a bit uncalled for, don't you think?

 

[mikeymars]

Originally posted by castlegazer
This is a significant story, although a fairly well known fact. Thanks for posting.

 

[mikeymars]

Originally posted by WDWHound
Hey, I'm a Bush supporter too. I don't feel this story represents "well known fact" (especially considering the source is CBS), but your response was a bit uncalled for, don't you think?

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by Lebjwb
A published report says the Bush administration ignored substantial evidence to the contrary when it claimed before the war that Iraq had imported material for a nuclear weapons program.[/url]

I wouldn't doubt this. I've heard it for a while and even heard that a day or so after 9/11, Bush mentioned Iraq.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Lebjwb
A published report says the Bush administration ignored substantial evidence to the contrary when it claimed before the war that Iraq had imported material for a nuclear weapons program.








http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/iraq/main643989.shtml

So, when CBS can get us to buy forged documents, the dredge up old stories.

Still doesn't explain why the UK, France, Germany, Russia, Eqypt, Jordan, and THE UN all thought Saddam had WMD>

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by dmadman43
THE UN all thought Saddam had WMD>

Exactly the opposite:

Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by Lebjwb
A published report says the Bush administration ignored substantial evidence to the contrary when it claimed before the war that Iraq had imported material for a nuclear weapons program.








http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/iraq/main643989.shtml

Since the report is published, why not just post the report itself?

Richard

 

[damo]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Still doesn't explain why the UK, France, Germany, Russia, Eqypt, Jordan, and THE UN all thought Saddam had WMD>

Some leaked documents suggest the contrary. Can you spell puppets?

http://camweb.org/bbs/politics/index.cgi?read=54550
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/30/nirq30.xml

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Exactly the opposite:



http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

Then why did they bother sending in inspectors to look for weapons they never thought existed?

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Exactly the opposite:



http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

Actually, UN inspectors did not voice an opinion on whether Saddam had WMD or not. Prior to the war, UN inspectors said that Saddam's regime remained uncooperative and engaged in large scale efforts to deceive inspectors and so they had a great deal of difficulty assessing the state of Saddam's WMD programs.

So, while they did not claim Saddam had WMD, neither did they claim Iraq was free of WMD. Basically what they said was that he hadn't accounted for massive amounts of biological and chemical agents that he acknowledged having after the first war.

 

[mikeymars]

 

[WDWHound]

Wow Milkeymars! You can post JPG links. However...

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by damo
Can you spell puppets?[/url]

UN

The first story had this gem;

Bush was bent on launching the war, the documents said, because he wanted to complete the "unfinished business" of his father, who stopped short of ousting Saddam in the 1991 Gulf War.

I can't seriously give it any more credibility that a National Enquirer story.

The second included this;

The Tory leader's attack was made 24 hours after Mr Blair accepted intelligence information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which the Government used to justify the war had been wrong. Mr Blair said he could "apologise" for that, but refused to say sorry for the conflict itself. The charge that a Prime Minister has lied is one of the most serious that can be laid at a senior politician's door. If Mr Howard could demonstrate conclusively to the Commons that Mr Blair had been untruthful, he would almost certainly have to resign.

However, two independent inquiries by Lord Hutton and Lord Butler have cleared Mr Blair of deliberately giving untrue information to Parliament and the public.

It still seems the UK thought Saddam had WMD. The fact that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong doesn't change the fact that most thought it correct at the time.

Richard

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by damo
Some leaked documents suggest the contrary. Can you spell puppets?

http://camweb.org/bbs/politics/index.cgi?read=54550
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/30/nirq30.xml

I respectfully sumbit you merely read the headlines to those stories.

From the Telegraph article:

However, two independent inquiries by Lord Hutton and Lord Butler have cleared Mr Blair of deliberately giving untrue information to Parliament and the public.

So, are you contenting that President Mubarak and King Abdullah were lying to General Tommy Franks? If so, this looks like the biggest conspriracy in the history of the world. And how could a dunce like Bush get ALL those people to go along with the ruse. How foolish you all must feel getting duped by a dope.

 

[Lebjwb]

Originally posted by mikeymars
Someone with a "Kerry/Edwards" label in their signature posts a link to CBS "news" (the most neutral source of "information" on earth) and thinks people are actually going to bother to read it?

Guess you're not too bright.....Let's look at the article for one itty bitty second....oh yes it's from the New York Times and not CBS.

I love it when I see folks like you on ther other side of the debate...it assures me that Kerry is the next President...... now go back under your rock.

 

[damo]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I respectfully sumbit you merely read the headlines to those stories.

From the Telegraph article:



So, are you contenting that President Mubarak and King Abdullah were lying to General Tommy Franks? If so, this looks like the biggest conspriracy in the history of the world. And how could a dunce like Bush get ALL those people to go along with the ruse. How foolish you all must feel getting duped by a dope.

Perhaps, if you had read the rest of the article, you would have read this line.
"But fresh questions about Mr Blair's account of when Britain began planning for war were raised yesterday by a leaked document published by the London Evening Standard newspaper."

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by damo
Perhaps, if you had read the rest of the article, you would have read this line.
"But fresh questions about Mr Blair's account of when Britain began planning for war were raised yesterday by a leaked document published by the London Evening Standard newspaper."

Gee! What a shock. Blair could see the writing on the wall as well. How stupid of him to get the planning in place in case negotiations broke down, or someone had to finally call the UN's bluff. Man! That guy deserves to be booted for poor planning alone!