Iraqi WMD's update.

[speyfly]

Just thought I would share some of the latest info with the ifish group. Enjoy! Click Here

Save Our Spooks
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


On Day 71 of the Hunt for Iraqi W.M.D., yesterday, once again nothing turned up.

Maybe we'll do better on Day 72. But we might have better luck searching for something just as alarming: the growing evidence that the administration grossly manipulated intelligence about those weapons of mass destruction in the runup to the Iraq war.

A column earlier this month on this issue drew a torrent of covert communications from indignant spooks who say that administration officials leaned on them to exaggerate the Iraqi threat and deceive the public.

"The American people were manipulated," bluntly declares one person from the Defense Intelligence Agency who says he was privy to all the intelligence there on Iraq. These people are coming forward because they are fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world — that such work should be nonpolitical — and are disgusted at efforts to turn them into propagandists.

"The Al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.," notes Greg Thielmann, who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department, the last four in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things."

The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that they have formed a group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, that wrote to President Bush this month to protest what it called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions."

"While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes," the letter said, "never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war."

Ray McGovern, a retired C.I.A. analyst who briefed President Bush's father in the White House in the 1980's, said that people in the agency were now "totally demoralized." He says, and others back him up, that the Pentagon took dubious accounts from 魩gr鳠close to Ahmad Chalabi and gave these tales credibility they did not deserve.

Intelligence analysts often speak of "humint" for human intelligence (spies) and "sigint" for signals intelligence (wiretaps). They refer contemptuously to recent work as "rumint," or rumor intelligence.

"I've never heard this level of alarm before," said Larry Johnson, who used to work in the C.I.A. and State Department. "It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt."

Some say that top Pentagon officials cast about for the most sensational nuggets about Iraq and used them to bludgeon Colin Powell and seduce President Bush. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, has been generally liked and respected within the agency ranks, but in the last year, particularly in the intelligence directorate, people say that he has kowtowed to Donald Rumsfeld and compromised the integrity of his own organization.

"We never felt that there was any leadership in the C.I.A. to qualify or put into context the information available," one veteran said. "Rather there was a tendency to feed the most alarming tidbits to the president. Often it's the most ill-considered information that goes to the president.

"So instead of giving the president the most considered, carefully examined information available, basically you give him the garbage. And then in a few days when it's clear that maybe it wasn't right, well then, you feed him some more hot garbage."

The C.I.A. is now examining its own record, and that's welcome. But the atmosphere within the intelligence community is so poisonous, and the stakes are so high — for the credibility of America's word and the soundness of information on which we base American foreign policy — that an outside examination is essential.

Congress must provide greater oversight, and President Bush should invite Brent Scowcroft, the head of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a man trusted by all sides, to lead an inquiry and, in a public report, suggest steps to restore integrity to America's intelligence agencies.

[STGRule]

Thanks, Spey. I have mulled over the idea of posting about the lack of WMD being found. A lot of stuff was written a few months ago about our need to take them out because of 9/11 (even though there was no connection) and the WMD that were hanging over our heads. The idea of stomping the "terrorists" to show who is the boss was brought up. And finally the added advantage of fewer people being added to the mass graves every day.

Last week homeland security issued another orange alert. The same level as before our war. So the "less terrorist action" idea is moot.
Still no WMD.
Still no ringleaders of 9/11 in custody.
Saddam is no longer in the immediate picture. That could also have been accomplished by a special ops team and saved a few mothers and fathers the ultimate grief.
The only good thing is the people who are alive today because Saddam is "gone".
So what did we end up with? Some of our very finest came home in boxes. As far I can tell that and the fact that nobody has been screaming about our economy being in the toilet for a few months now is the sum total of our "war on terrorism".
I really do wish something that resembled the reasons given for our involvement had been true. I would feel a lot better about it now.

[Straydog]

The lack of outrage at the actions abroad and lack of action at home is heart breaking and scarey.

Our citizenry seems to have disengaged itself from the reality that we are being lied to and duped.

The lack of concern by our own citizens scares me much more than the threat of terrorists.

[Jennie@ifish]

STG... do you have reply regret yet? :smile:

I told Bill from the very beginning that Sadam may be evil, but, one thing he's not, is stupid. No way would they have WMD's if they knew the US was using it as a tool for war.

They may very well HAVE had them, but who would be stupid enough to not clean up after themselves, if they knew we were counting on it?

He's probably sitting somewhere giggling, saying, "It worked! Look what fools they appear to be!"

It's too bad. :depressed: We do look rather foolish, I'd say.

I'm going to get it for this, aren't I?

I'm not a peace waving hippy, but I am a bit discouraged by our actions.

Iraq looks to me like a big mess, and I'm so far not very proud of it yet. I hope it changes.

If you are proud of it, help me understand why. I don't want to get blasted, but.. man... where does it end?

Jen

[STGRule]

Jennie: No, no reply reget. War regret, yes. It is very possible that he did have some nasty stuff to use. We even had inspectors looking to make sure they were gone before we moved in. The only evidence found was of old storage, not production. We were duped, and I am sad. :depressed:

[The Fishing Geek]

Intelligence-massaging? No WMD? No real connection between 9/11 and Iraq? Whodathunkit?

[SLEDDER]

There is so much you folks don't know about this particular event in history. I can see how opinions such as yours can be in existance, due to the little information the Bush administration is allowing to be put in front of the public. WMD have been found, not in the quantities that they have expected. If you had a small peek at the tunnel system in Iraq, such as the look I had, you would not be surprised about the lack of WMD findings. If you think a gopher knew how to build tunnels, you should go see what Iraq has. :shocked:

[Thumper]

There is an incredible naivete here --- and I am not aiming this at any one person! :grin:

WMD were clearly documented to be present in large amounts (tons) by the U.N. at the end of Gulf War I. Saddam's government would never thereafter disclose to inspectors what was done to those weapons, other than to say that they were "destroyed". The Hussein government would never cooperate one iota with the inspectors, would never reply to U.N. demands for details. Hence more than a dozen violations of U.N. mandates and resolutions.

Saddam then tossed the inspectors out, again without recourse, and totally refused to talk about the presence of WMD thereafter.

Twelve years then went by with Iraq thumbing its nose at the U.N. Finally the Bush administration had the guts to act on its intelligence AND the fact that WMD were clearly documented after Gulf War I.

Saddam had over a dozen years to cooperate. He had over a dozen years to hide the WMD he would not discuss. A dozen years! In a country with the land mass the size of California. And you are surprised that we have not found them in significant quantities in 72 days? Hell, I could have hidden them with a sharp stick in 12 years!

Saddam could have, at any time in that 12 years, simply documented the destruction of those weapons. He had over a dozen years to engage cooperatively with the U.N. in resolving this issue. And you blame the U.S.???

The weapons were there. No one of fair mind disputes that. They were documented in detail, not by the U.S. but by the U.N. Those weapons were either destroyed clandestinely by Saddam, or hidden (inside or outside) of the country. If they are in the country we will find them.

Saddam committed suicide for his regime by taking on George Bush and his administration, who unlike prior administrations, actually have some guts. Hopefully other countries are watching.

[ 06-01-2003, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[Straydog]

He also had twelve years to use them. If he were the threat we were told he was to substantiate Bush's war, why didn't he use them in those twelve years? What made him more likely to use them this year?

If he commited suicide, why isn't he dead?

If we have to keep reading about how the war is over and what a victory we enjoyed, why do we also still have to read about our soldiers being killed almost daily?

Naive? Yes.

The question is though, who is it that is really naive, those supporting this ongoing, expensive war or those opposing it?

[ 06-01-2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Straydog:
If he commited suicide, why isn't he dead?

Naive? Yes.

The question is though, who is it that is really naive, those supporting this ongoing, expensive war or those opposing it?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">He is dead...Soddam's rotting corpse is lying under tons of concrete rubble beneath either the building that was hit with cruise missiles on Day 1 of the exercise or the house in the suburbs with the underground bunker that was hit with 4 bunkerbusters on the last days of the main conflict in Baghdad.

You may be naive if you don't understand that we have prevented an unknown but likely significant number of terrorist attacks since 9/11/01 by our government's actions...including taking out the Iraqi regime. He may not have your support but over 2/3 of Americans approve of Bush and "his war". There isn't a "no action" alternative for us...we can't go back to simpler times by just wishing the terrorists would go away.

The war against terrorism is a long way from being over...Iran next? :whazzup:

[Straydog]

Double post........... sorry. How did that happen????

[ 06-01-2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Straydog]

"He is dead...Soddam's rotting corpse is lying under tons of concrete rubble beneath either the building that was hit with cruise missiles on Day 1 of the exercise or the house in the suburbs with the underground bunker that was hit with 4 bunkerbusters on the last days of the main conflict in Baghdad."

You say that so absolutley. I guess you have intelligence information the rest of world is being denied. Or, maybe your desire for it to be so has made you a bit zealous?

Naive? Yes. But the question remains, who is naive, those supporting this ongoing expensive war, or those opposing it.

[ 06-01-2003, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

OK, forget the word "naive". Let me just say what my old dad use to tell me: "Son, they just don't know what they don't know."

So, Straydog, where do you suppose the tons of biological and chemical weapons that were catalogued by the U.N. in 1992 went? Poof? Vanished?

[The Fishing Geek]

It's my understanding that they don't have much of a shelf life, that they would be useless after this long.

[Straydog]

Maybe they destroyed them.

Word it any way you like, the question STILL remains, who dosen't know what they know?

We have had one poster tell us difinatively that Suddam is dead and his corps is rotting beneath the rubble.

Again, who dosen't know what they know? Who is naive? Who is gullable?

There are many ways to put it but the question does not change.

However, none of us have the means to find the truth either, at this point in time. Perhaps that is what really distresses us all. Not really knowing...........

[ 06-01-2003, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[1pump]

I don't think we'll ever know the whole story behind Iraq's WMD. Or at least not in the near future. The war was a crock of s--- anyway. The military did an excellent job, mainly because the administration stayed out of the way and let them do it.
We only know 3 things for sure- 1)The Baath Party is no longer in power; 2) The war killed a lot of people, and Americans are still dying over there at the rate of one a day; 3)So far this misadventure has cost us over $100 billion and that figure is only going to grow over time.

I can't wait for the next election so I can personally stick a thorn in GW's side. He won't notice, but I might feel better.

Anyway, enough of this drivel. I'm going fishing.

Geek, regarding the shelf life of chemical weapons, drive up to Umatilla sometime and take a peek. The incinerator they're building isn't there because the weapons are safe. Chemical weapons after a period of time become unstable, making them just as dangerous to their users as to their targets. Useless, yes, but still dangerous. :depressed:

[Jennie@ifish]

Thumper, I sure hope I am naive, in this case!

But... I have a question.

You sound like you KNOW all the facts. How can anyone be so sure? That, in itself causes me to doubt. It kind of bugs me when people feel the need to put others down in order to push their point or opinion. It immediately makes me question their stance. Why is that?

I don't understand how you are so sure of anything, when so much information is indeed hidden from the public.

All we do here on LIG is discuss opinions, and as far as I can tell, that's all we have. We have no facts yet, right?

My opinion is easily changed with facts and proof... I'll just watch and wait.
:smile:

Jen

[ 06-01-2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Jennie@ifish:
But... I have a question.

You sound like you KNOW all the facts. How can anyone be so sure? That, in itself causes me to doubt. It kind of bugs me when people feel the need to put others down in order to push their point or opinion. We have no facts yet, right?
Jen

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No, we don't have all the facts, but look again at the conclusions that some reached above.

STG says: "We were duped, and I am sad."

Straydog states: "Our citizenry seems to have disengaged itself from the reality that we are being lied to and duped."

You state: "No way would they have WMD's if they knew the US was using it as a tool for war."

The Geek states: "...Intelligence-massaging"

Jennie, those sound like conclusions to me. But you don't find conclusions like that to be a problem? You are only offended by mine, which are a bit more conservative.

We truly don't have all the facts, but we do have some of them. I believe that I only cited facts that are pretty widely known.

I use the term "naive" above, which I don't mean to be a put-down. I am sorry if others interpret it that way. Webster's primary (first) meaning defines it as "lacking worldly experience and understanding". I think that many who indict the Bush administration are exactly that --- lacking in worldly experience. I was around long enough in the defense industry to have obtained some of that wordly experience. That makes me older than many here, and perhaps not so naive.

But in any case, you are right. We will find out in time.

[Straydog]

Seems there are more doubting Thomas's out there......... Senate probe of US Intelligence/WMD's in Iraq

[Jennie@ifish]

Maybe, Thumper, you are right.

I certainly don't feel like I'm stuck on one opinion, but I'll reread it, to see if what you say is true.

I really hope that I am wrong, and that I am being closed minded, because I love the United States of America, and that is why I care so much.

I think we all have that in common.

You know, on The Memorial Day service at church, I planned a medley of patriotic songs and hymns. It was the only part of the service that was about patriotism! I played America The Beatiful, in a kind of George Winston Style, and ended up with a very bold Battle Hymn of the Republic. I could barely get through it, because tears blocked the view of my fingers. :depressed: I couldn't believe that the whole rest of the service, there was nothing to do with America!!!

Anyway... My frustration lies not in who is right, or who is wrong, but in not knowing the truth. Something that I think we will never know.

Did we do what was right? Who knows? Would I have done it, had I been in our President's shoes? Who for gosh sakes knows? We simply don't know all of the facts, therefore, I am ready to listen to both sides, and take them into consideration.

However, I will never be happy about losing lives, (no matter who) or destroying historical property and things that will never be able to be replaced. That, to me, is a crime in itself.

I love the United States with a passion, and I hope with all of my heart that we did the right thing.

[ 06-01-2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[Jennie@ifish]

I have a question.

Why do we get to have weapons of mass destruction? Like the chemical depot that we were supposed to destroy a long time ago?

I am not being sassy or anything.. I sincerely want to know.

Jen

[Tilla]

OK, I'll wait a while longer before really drawing any further conclusions. Just hope thinks improve a bit more for my 401k's sake.

[The Fishing Geek]

Originally posted by Thumper:

The war killed about 100 Americans, true. Among about 250,000 American service personnel. That made it about 25 times safer than living in Portland.[/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Jack, I love it when numbers like that get used. Where did you get your statistics? My statistics from Multnomah County (can't find city-only numbers) paint a much different story. Using only accidental and homicidal deaths in 2002, I come up with a death rate of about 4 people per 1000 population. Assuming nobody else dies in Iraq between now and the end of the year (riiiight) the rate in Iraq would be 6 per 1000. Now, this doesn't take into consideration the specific age groups involved (I'm sure that the accidental death rate would go down in the Multnomah County numbers if we took the aged out of the mix), but if we did I'd bet that we could take at least 1 per 1000 off of that number. Figure in the final death toll in Iraq and I'll bet that it'd show to be three times as dangerous in Iraq than in Multnomah County, but that's solely speculation. Betcha my numbers are closer, though.

Now, if we'd like to talk about the financial benefits of war, then let's also recall that a large percentage of the folks who went overseas to fight this war were reservists, many of which took a large paycut from who is traditionally the primary wage-earner. Combat pay stinks, and I don't think that anyone here will argue against that.

Kinda funny that you mentioned USIA. While there is a river running through that country, I don't recall that there was a charge of inflatables going across the desert in any of those news feeds.

[Straydog]

Our company learned that soldiers and sailors sent overseas don't buy much Sporting Goods equipment. Our Olympic Pennisula salesman learned it more clearly than some of us.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by The Fishing Geek:
Now, if we'd like to talk about the financial benefits of war, then let's also recall that a large percentage of the folks who went overseas to fight this war were reservists, many of which took a large paycut from who is traditionally the primary wage-earner. Combat pay stinks, and I don't think that anyone here will argue against that.

Kinda funny that you mentioned USIA. While there is a river running through that country, I don't recall that there was a charge of inflatables going across the desert in any of those news feeds.[/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually, most employers make up the difference between combat pay and the regular pay of their reservist employees. At least the good ones do.

And you really ought to learn more about USIA. They are a major supplier of materiel to the military, and it has nothing to do with inflatables. They are typical of the industries that benefitted as the result of the war effort.

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by GutshotApe:
He is dead...Soddam's rotting corpse is lying under tons of concrete rubble beneath either the building that was hit with cruise missiles on Day 1 of the exercise or the house in the suburbs with the underground bunker that was hit with 4 bunkerbusters on the last days of the main conflict in Baghdad.

You may be naive if you don't understand that we have prevented an unknown but likely significant number of terrorist attacks since 9/11/01 by our government's actions...including taking out the Iraqi regime. He may not have your support but over 2/3 of Americans approve of Bush and "his war". There isn't a "no action" alternative for us...we can't go back to simpler times by just wishing the terrorists would go away.

The war against terrorism is a long way from being over...Iran next? :whazzup:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Dead in a bunker? Not according to Associated Press as of this morning, which reported that no human remains were found in extensive searches of these sites.

Preventing terrorist attacks? Like the ones in Morocco and Saudi Arabia this past week? Yup, sounds like we struck a fatal blow to Al Qeada, indeed.

Seems to me that Iraq is turning out to be pretty much what I predicted. An expensive morrass, that has no relation to our risks from terrorism. New prediction - a year from today, newspapers will be taking the president to task for the occupation, which has caused 3 times as many American deaths as the invasion.

Oh, and let's not lose sight of that little thing where the Pentagon completely stage managed the so called rescue of PFC Jessica Lynch, including refusing the key to the hospital so the troops could be filmed blowing the doors open, and then pushing stories of her non-existant bullet wounds from the battle of her capture.

I support our boys and girls over there. Their leaders, on the other hand, concern me deeply. The blindness and zealotry of their followers in the citizenry makes me fear for the future of our nation. Can Krystalnacht be far in the future?

Naivete, GSA is a thing of innocence. We have lost that. Now, we all have a probelm of determining the right course of action from the facts available to us. The administration has demontrated, through at least three significant data points available to the common man, that they are obscuring the data in this area. Those data points are, just to be clear, are:

1) The administration had hard evidence that airline hi-*******s were planned, about a month before 9/11, and did not effectively act. I'll give them a partial pass on this one, as none of us knew how the rules were changing. However, they have covered this up for almost two years!

2) We, the citizenry, were led to believe that there was a clear and immediate danger from Iraq in the area of weapons of mass destruction. We have yet to find any evidence of immediate threat, and at best marginal evidence of any threat. I, frankly am amazed at this - I fully expected our soldiers to get gassed. But we don't even find any defensive prohibited weapons, let alone offensive weapons such as biologicals.

3) The Jessica Lynch affair shows that the administration is willing to grossly misrepresent events in order to bolster public opinion.

Now, Ape calls those of us who raise an eyebrow, 'naive'. I'm gonna put the question back on you, GSA and Thumper. Let's say you had an employee that you caught fibbing to you. Do you believe the next thing that the employee says, or do you start getting very cautious about evaluating all the facts?

You're asking us to believe our employee. The president. Whose team has apparently been caught misprepresenting the facts. Several times.

Who, I ask, is being naive?

[Jennie@ifish]

HOW DARE YOU SAY HI J A C K E R S on my site!!!!



I'll get right on that... :smile:

Jen

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:
Who, I ask, is being naive?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">SH - As you know, it is impossible to prove a negative. How many terrorist attacks have been prevented since 9/11? Not all of 'em, for sure...but I am confident we have pre-empted a lot more terror incidents than have occurred. Al Quaida is on the ropes...we have hurt them badly. Iraq, while not quite wrapped up yet , is no longer a direct threat and no longer a supporter of terrorist groups.

Our intelligence sources are not omnipresent nor are they infallible. I do believe the mobile labs found indicate some WMD capability. There will be more. But it is a very safe bet that Bush and others at the top are privy to a lot more info than you or I see or hear about...and, naive or not, I think in the long run history will bear out that Bush is leading us in the right direction...for the right reasons and our military is doing what needs to be done to ensure our country's survival. Perfect job so far? No way. But what would you do? Wait for another 3,000 or 30,000 casualties? :whazzup:

[STGRule]

GSA: "What ifs” are not valid arguments. We can play that game until the cows come home and it won't help the discussion one iota.

The only measure we have as a nation is results. Blind loyalty is foolish in ALL cases. I don't care who is the president. It is a political office with a political agenda. That's all. There is nothing naive about questioning motivation in a political arena. It just makes good sense. How comfortable you are with the politics is a personal decision. Those that choose more proof are only one end of the spectrum and as such just add to the balance of all opinions. And we know all about opinions, just like terminal end of the alimentary canal, we all have one.

[ 06-01-2003, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[Born to be Wild]

Saddam is no longer in the immediate picture. That could also have been accomplished by a special ops team and saved a few mothers and fathers the ultimate grief.
The only good thing is the people who are alive today because Saddam is "gone".
So what did we end up with? Some of our very finest came home in boxes.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Saddam taken out by a special ops team? Accomplished? Not even his own people knew where he was from one minute to the next! We tried special ops code named “cruise missiles”. Maybe it worked, maybe it didn’t.

Well STGRule, the sacrifice was great and I don’t mean to belittle that, but there are a lot of appreciative folks in Iraq and throughout the world that are glad and better off that the butcher of Bagdad is dead or at least not free to roam and kill anymore.

You reminded me of the era when we thought the same thing about Hitler; ignore him and maybe he will go away.

Jennie,

Here or in hell, I don’t think Saddam is giggling.

Straydog,

Why do we still have to read about our police officers being killed on a dailey basis in the US? Are you insinuating it doesn’t matter if they were being murdered on a regular basis, well, because they are only Iraqi’s, not Americans?

I don't think we'll ever know the whole story behind Iraq's WMD. Or at least not in the near future.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">1 Pump,

I think we will know the truth, but give it some time. There were Iraqi deserters that informed us of some of the goings on. Were they all liars?

Why do we get to have weapons of mass destruction? Like the chemical depot that we were supposed to destroy a long time ago?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Jennie,

WMD’s in the hands of the US has no doubt prevented wars and harm against Americans. We don’t have a history of using them with the exception of Japan. On the other hand, Saddam has proven he will and has used them with no remorse. Look at all the terrorist these days Jen and there methodology. WMD’s in there hands is a very dangerous and unstable circumstance.

Our company learned that soldiers and sailors sent overseas don't buy much Sporting Goods equipment. Our Olympic Pennisula salesman learned it more clearly than some of us.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Oh Geez Straydog, I can’t believe you posted that! Get the sales out of your…

GSA: "What ifs” are not valid arguments. We can play that game until the cows come home and it won't help the discussion one iota.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yea STGRule, what if we would have taken the Japanese a little more seriously prior to Pearl? What if?

I said several months ago on ifish, I would be shocked if we didn’t find WMD’s in Iraq. I hope we do just to satisfy a lot of you. I hope and pray, if Saddam did indeed have them, they didn’t make it out of the country to Syria or Iran or elsewhere. But if we never do, I feel there was a tremendous amount of life saved in Iraq and elsewhere by our actions.

My opinion is easily changed with facts and proof... I'll just watch and wait.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Good Idea Jen! Let’s not quarterback this situation. It aint over, till it’s over.

Dan

[ 06-02-2003, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[Thumper]

Originally posted by 1pump:

We only know 3 things for sure- 1)The Baath Party is no longer in power; 2) The war killed a lot of people, and Americans are still dying over there at the rate of one a day; 3)So far this misadventure has cost us over $100 billion and that figure is only going to grow over time. :depressed:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Indeed, the bad guys (Baath Party) are pretty much gone. Yippee!

The war killed about 100 Americans, true. Among about 250,000 American service personnel. That made it about 25 times safer than living in Portland. That doesn't minimize the pain of each of those deaths, but keep the number in perspective. We will never know the number of Iraqis killed, and that is indeed sad.

Actually there is relatively little extra cost to such wars. Money doesn't just get burned up you know. Ask Capt. Kujo if the war was an economic drain on his little St. Helens company. And ask his 40 employees who got jobs turning out that materiel. Ask the airlines who leased out their most expensive planes for overseas ferrying. Ask the defense industry and their hundreds of thousands employees. And ask all the other employers and employees in America who benefit from the $100 billion. Money just gets re-circulated. And much of it comes right back to all Americans, whether through employment or through their 401Ks.

It's really all just a matter of perspective.

And Geek, those Umatilla weapons were mainly loaded in the 1950s and 1960s. Nixon stopped the whole CBW offensive program in the early 1970s when we managed to kill those 10,000 sheep just outside of Salt Lake City. Interesting story there. The chemical WMD therefore last a long, long time. The biological agents require deep freezing (liquid nitrogen temps) or lyophilization (freeze-drying). Then they too last a long time. Especially the soil-derived agents (anthrax and others). A long, long time.

[ 06-01-2003, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[Jennie@ifish]

I thought we supplied Iraq at one time with wmds?

What did we give them? Why do we give other countries that power, if it is true?

Jen

[Straydog]

DepoeBayDan,

We read about our police officers being killed everyday because our war on crime is no more over than the war in Iraq. Good analogy to make my case.

You totally missed my point about sales. I will give you a pass given the time of day. Thumper was praising the economic benefit of the war in Iraq. I was presenting a counter argument pointing out an economic down side of sending our kids to war in Iraq. Get sales out of my what, Dan? :whazzup:
Unfortunatley, I CAN believe you wrote that.......

JEN,

Yes, when it was economicly beneficial to us we sold Iraq WMD's.

[ 06-02-2003, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[SLEDDER]

LETS GO FISHING AND QUITE ######## ABOUT SOMETHING WE CAN'T CONTROL. :grin:

[Straydog]

I like the "let's go fishing" thing but have to work today. :depressed:

I have to disagree that we can not control these things. No, we can not control what is happening today or tomorrow but we can and must control what happens in the future. We can control that at the ballot box and these sorts of issues will help us decide which box we mark come the next election.

Head in sand is not an option for me.

[ 06-02-2003, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Born to be Wild]

Geez, I’m going to stay out of this political forum. Enjoyed it much more when I stayed out!

I thought we supplied Iraq at one time with wmds?

What did we give them? Why do we give other countries that power, if it is true?

Jen

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Jen,

I believe we did in the past and were supplying the worst of the two evils (Iran and Iraq). Most of us feel we have made some past mistakes in foreign policy. On the other hand, we have made some good foreign policy decisions. We even helped out Osama once upon a time. If we had known the future and repercussions, I doubt that would have ever happened.

Fish biologist once thought removing trees from streams was the right thing to do. Sometimes we learn from our mistakes. You can’t look back and knock everyone because they have made mistakes in the past.

Thumper was praising the economic benefit of blowing people away in Iraq.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Straydogie,

Thumper was not praising folks for the economic benefit of blowing people away in Iraq. He was simply pointing out that some folks are under the impression that our military cost is not just money spent and lost. The fact is as he probably pointed out is the money goes to creating jobs and paying some folks bills as sad as the reality is. But if you are against military spending and think we should not have a military or help other nations out, that’s another argument.

Dan

[Straydog]

Originally posted by DepoeBayDan:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Straydogie,

Thumper was not praising folks for the economic benefit of blowing people away in Iraq..... The fact is as he probably pointed out is the money goes to creating jobs and paying some folks bills as sad as the reality is.
Dan [/QUOTE]

One of your better "double speak" posts, Dan. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Born to be Wild]

Unfortunately, head in sand was an option for some when the Japanese attacked Pearl or when Al Queida attacked the US.

Enough said, go fishing.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by DepoeBayDan:
Unfortunately, head in sand was an option for some when the Japanese attacked Pearl or when Al Queida attacked the US.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">"You can’t look back and knock everyone because they have made mistakes in the past."

Boy, keeping up with you is a challenge!!

[ 06-02-2003, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by STGRule:
GSA: "What ifs” are not valid arguments. We can play that game until the cows come home and it won't help the discussion one iota.

The only measure we have as a nation is results. Blind loyalty is foolish in ALL cases.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If you don't believe that many terrorist incidents have been prevented since 9/11, by our actions, then you're not getting the same news accounts that I do...and you give "the benefit of the doubt" too freely, IMO.

Yup...blind loyalty is not desirable. But, neither is blind skepticism & opposition.

Naive or not, I still think the US government is on OUR side...

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by GutshotApe:
[QBSH - As you know, it is impossible to prove a negative. How many terrorist attacks have been prevented since 9/11? Not all of 'em, for sure...but I am confident we have pre-empted a lot more terror incidents than have occurred. Al Quaida is on the ropes...we have hurt them badly. Iraq, while not quite wrapped up yet , is no longer a direct threat and no longer a supporter of terrorist groups.

Our intelligence sources are not omnipresent nor are they infallible. I do believe the mobile labs found indicate some WMD capability. There will be more. But it is a very safe bet that Bush and others at the top are privy to a lot more info than you or I see or hear about...... Wait for another 3,000 or 30,000 casualties? [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">GSA, you're quite correct, it's impossible to prove a negative. So it will be impossible for me to prove what the evidence currently strongly suggests, that Iraq had nothing to do with the past terrorist attacks, and that Iraq had no WMD's. If I'm on a jury, judging Hussein, he's guilty of a lot of things, but we couldn't convict on aiding terrorists or building WMD's.

You say that we will find those weapons. Well, we've been there for a couple of months. Supposedly we had hard satellite evidence of these weapons, and knowledge of their location. Supposedly, they would be used on us. Supposedly, supposedly, supposedly...

Your assertion that this war has prevented terrorist attacks makes about as much sense as my Tasmanian Tiger charm. There haven't been any tigers in my neighborhood lately, so it must work. The war didn't prevent the two attacks that recently occured. The entire country was placed on heightened alerts recently. If the war was supposed to improved our security, why are we still at risk? No Al Qeuada operatives have been arrested in Iraq. No Al Queada resources have been found in Iraq. So how can you assert that this war had any effect on reducing our risk from terrorists? The claim is unsupported by fact.

I am quite sure that Bush and his team know more than we do. That is not in question. The issue is twofold: are he and his team making good decisions based on that information, and are they being ethical and forthright with the American people about the information and the choices that they have.

Recent behavior by the Bush administration seems to indicate a strong tendency to manipulate the truth, stage manage reality, and even outright lie, if that is what it takes to advance the agenda. I don't doubt decent intentions behind the agenda, but I object to the moral looseness by the supposedly moral team in promoting the agenda.

You are right, intelligence is fallible. However, there are abundant quotes and reports from the intelligence comunity noting that the Bush administration was only interested in the reports that supported their opinions. That is not a failing of intelligence, or well, maybe it is.

The Bush Administration either had their facts wrong, or has grossly mispresented the facts to us. Neither possibility makes me real happy.

[GutshotApe]

SH - You may be right...those damned politicians can't be trusted.

I'm reading Robert Caro's "The Years of Lyndon Johnson...Means of Ascent". Boy! Talk about a dishonest, scheming, conniving, ends-justify-the-means ******* that guy was! Of course, he was a Democrat.....but, I repeat myself....

Side note: Bush's jet landing on the carrier has been criticized due to extra cost, etc. Ain't got nothing on LBJ. Immediately prior to Thanksgiving in 1968 LBJ kept the entire mobile southern Calif fleet (about 30 ships) offshore for 2 days as a backdrop for practice Marine amphibious landings he viewed at Camp Pendleton...he was in a big helicopter with 4 or 5 other big helicopters in formation so the bad guys wouldn't know which one to shoot down. We had to don our dress blues and stand at attention, manning the rails, as the formation of helicopters flew by 1000' up and 25 miles at sea. Then, we had to stay out offshore so when LBJ got aboard Air Force One at North Island he could fly out over the ocean and see all the ships. Screwed up a lot of sailor's Thanksgiving plans...including mine. When LBJ's big jet finally flew off, you should have seen the "drag race" as all the cruisers, destroyers, and aircraft carriers tried to enter San DIego Bay at once!

[Straydog]

GSA,

And what party was Nixon affiliated with?

Thanks for the documentation that it is naive to believe everything our Government says and does is for the benefit of the masses. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Straydog:
GSA,

And what party was Nixon affiliated with?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nixon was a Republican... (and I didn't vote for him...being young & stupid, I voted for Humphrey and then McGovern...I've since regained my senses )

Tell me again the party with which you claim affiliation... Yeah, yeah, I know...you say you're a Republican...I laugh everytime you say it. Can't blame you...I wouldn't want to admit being a Democrat, either.

Yup, SD, human nature being what it is, sometimes our leaders stretch the truth or actually tell whoppers! Big surprise? Only if you're naive.

What's your solution? Dump Bush, put Gore in? So, tell me, who are you picking as the Dem [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] candidate to run against Bush? :whazzup:

[Silver Hilton]

Yeah, I don't think it is particularly noteworthy that the Bushies play loose with the truth. They all do. And that is why we have to be cautious.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by GutshotApe:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Originally posted by Straydog:
GSA,

And what party was Nixon affiliated with?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nixon was a Republican... (and I didn't vote for him...being young & stupid, I voted for Humphrey and then McGovern...I've since regained my senses )

Tell me again the party with which you claim affiliation... Yeah, yeah, I know...you say you're a Republican...I laugh everytime you say it. Can't blame you...I wouldn't want to admit being a Democrat, either.

Yup, SD, human nature being what it is, sometimes our leaders stretch the truth or actually tell whoppers! Big surprise? Only if you're naive.

What's your solution? Dump Bush, put Gore in? So, tell me, who are you picking as the Dem [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] candidate to run against Bush? :whazzup: </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Twas you that tried to make this a partisan issue, not I. I look at the person and in doing so am now embarassed that I voted for Bush although I do not believe Gore would have been any better. (sorry to burst your bubble.......)

I am not making any commitment on a candidate, whether it be the Republican party I belong to (yuck it up!) or the Democrats. It is much too early to choose as there just may be an honest Republican appear on the scene although I doubt it and the D's don't seem to have plan for much of anything at this time.

By the way, did you laugh at McCall and accuse him of being a closet Dem, too?

[ 06-02-2003, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[happybrew]

I'm with you Straydog. I voted for Bush, can't see how Gore would have been any better, but now I'm hoping someone better comes along. The funny thing is, I voted for Bush primarily because I'm pro-life and I believe in a strong national defense. So a bunch of people got killed (Yes, the Iraqis are people, imagine that!), and we showed how we have a strong national offense! :depressed: I don't doubt that Iraq had WMD's. I do doubt that they really posed a threat to us. Given that we have uncovered scant evidence, clearly they weren't deployed in such a way as to mount an imminent threat, even if they have oodles stored somewhere in tunnels. And if they weren't an imminent threat, then the very shaky justification (if you can call it that) for the war evaporates.

happybrew

[sinker]

Oh, and let's not lose sight of that little thing where the Pentagon completely stage managed the so called rescue of PFC Jessica Lynch

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It has now come out that this was fabricated by a British tabloid. One tabloid ran the story and the others just ran with it.
Same as the Marine that had his helmet shot 3 times. Some reporter seen his helmet and assumed what caused it and his imagination got the best of him. Meanwhile every news agency in the country was running stories on him.

It is also being reported that the CIA watched Iraq move WMD to Syria just before the war. They've now under constant watch and Syria has been warned not to move them or else.

I could care less if they find WMD. The only benefit would be shutting the Bush haters up. Isn't the world a better place with out that person in power??

I'm sick and tired of hearing about the Cheney/Halliburton relationship.
Cheney has NO ties to Halliburton any more.
Halliburton is the one company in the world that can undertake a project this large.
Going back in history many contracts have been awarded without a bid process. Bid process's are very time consuming. Do you think the Iraqi people would want us there doing nothing while all of our lawyers fought the bids through court to make sure the winner wasn't somehow connected??

sinker,

Please don't try and work around the bad word filter. Stricty against the AUP.

-TFG

[ 06-02-2003, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: The Fishing Geek ]

[Hoosier Daddy]

I gotta say this. OK, we haven't found WMD's, or at least not much of them, depending on what you believe. Either way, if the Bush administration was blatantly lying about the whole thing, don't you think some would have "mysteriously" turned up? I mean, if they were going to doctor stuff, why not go all the way? I guess I take it as a fairly good sign that they haven't found any yet. This doesn't mean I don't believe they all spun the hell out of all the excuses for going into Iraq. I do think they did that, I don't like it, and I don't think it was necessary. I just gotta think that the lack of WMD's in this case is evidence of SOME level of honesty in handling the situation, if they'd found it too easily or too soon, I would have been more suspicious.

As for Gore, I didn't like him, but I think he might have gone after Sadaam as well. Definitely would have been different spin on the operations though. As much as I didn't want him as President, I think he would have handled 9/11 and subsequent operations pretty well, being ex-military. He wouldn't have done things the way Bush has, but I don't think the list of actions taken would have been all that different, just the reasoning supplied for them.....

I dunno, my two cents is all...

[sinker]

I think he would have handled 9/11 and subsequent operations pretty well, being ex-military.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You're talking about the man that has done a complete 180 degree turn in his political views.

If you look back to his early political days and see which way he voted on stuff he didn't look so bad. But somewhere along the line the Democratic party got a hold of him and we have what we have now.

This is the same man that once was against the anti-gunners.

This is the same man that takes his "fleet" of large SUVS to Detroit to tell the big 3 that they need to design more effiecent engines because it's "their" fault the ozone layer is getting so bad.

Same man also comes to WA state to head to Mt Rainier. Starts pushing for tour buses instead of cars because the pollution is to bad in our Nat'l Parks. But if you look in the background of his pics there you can once again see a "fleet" of large SUV's.

Same man is Mr Environment and yet has leased out his "farm" in TN to a strip mining company that has literally killed the river that runs past. He's Mr Enviroment when it comes to telling you what to do but he has no problem killing off several miles of river if he can turn a profit on it.

Well I better quit ripping into him. Since he invented the internet he probly has spy software watching for people griping about him.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Sinker, those are all the reasons I don't like him :smile: .

[Stratocaster]

Oh, and let's not lose sight of that little thing where the Pentagon completely stage managed the so called rescue of PFC Jessica Lynch, including refusing the key to the hospital so the troops could be filmed blowing the doors open, and then pushing stories of her non-existant bullet wounds from the battle of her capture.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If you believe the Iraqi doctors story, another doctor stated the Baath party soldiers were there six hours earlier in the basement, using it as a command center. Lets remember there was a war raging in that city and for special forces to go in any other way would be ridiculous. Also you take nothing to chance in a situation like that, regardless of what the intel says, always assume the worst. As far as her injuries, how do you suppose she was injured so badly? Bullet wounds or not.And where is it confirmed she has no bullet wounds? As far as WMD, im waiting to make my decision on if or when they find any.

[sinker]

The only person to say she didn't have bullet wounds was her father and that was right after he found out about her being rescued.
He seemed like he had a screw loose to begin with. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img] :grin:

[Silver Hilton]

The Jessica Lynch story has been carried by network news, several of the cable channels, and the wire services. I haven't seen anything that refutes the stories. I just did a google, looking for such, and haven't found it. So, the news seems to indicate stage management is an accurate description. I'm not making this stuff up, it's just what is on the news.

BTW, the so called 'tabloid' that broke the story was the BBC, one of the more respeted news organizations in the world. Hardly the National Enquirer.

[Silver Hilton]

Here's a british link, read and make up your own mind. Click this.

[Stratocaster]

Where would they get actors in Iraq during a war? :grin: Some people are too paranoid, hey a littles ok but geez. It seems to me that perhaps the media went overboard, more so than the pentagon. Which to me sums up the war coverage as a whole. Reporting things way before confirmation and they even dropped the word "allegedly" as the war progressed. Heck maybe it was even staged in a hollywood studio, the ultimate wag the dog.

[ 06-02-2003, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Straydog:
Thumper was praising the economic benefit of blowing people away in Iraq.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Straydog --- Why do you do that? I did not praise the economic benefit of blowing people away in Iraq. By making such statements you trivialize yourself. Sad.

[Straydog]

Thumper,

I am sorry.

I should have said you were praising the economic benefits of the war.

[Chrome Bumper]

Visited an Iraqi prison today.

Like most public buildings it had been thoroughly looted and burned by it residents, whom Suddam had set free.

By itself by a distance in a corner of the inner prison wall stands death row. It consists of 8 dark cells, 8 feet by 10 feet and the gallows room. Some prisons allowed 4 square feet per prisoner. Of all the equipment only the gallow remained intact. A very effienct affair. A concrete room, smoke damaged. 30 feet long, 25 wide with a 13 foot ceiling. The windows are blocked with concrete block, excluding almost all light.

In the front of the room is located a concrete stage as wide as the room and 12 feet deep. A concrete ramp on the right side of the room leads up to the stage. On the left side of the room stairs decend to a room below the stage, with an additional pit in the floor, for added heigth.

The ramp and the stage have a rail, handy in case the condemned struggle, the stairs to the pit do not. Near the back of the stage is a red pedestal with a roughly farbricated red lever. Just in front of that is a pair of red and now open doors. A pull of the lever releases the doors

In the ceiling above the doors, which is in easy reach due to the stage, is a loop of heavy rebar hanging down from the concrete ceiling on which to attach a noose. There is no phone for the governor.

Didn't see any actors, haven't seen any blanks. Our security carries a round that look like a .305.

I am here to help build a better Iraq, one free of tyranny and terrorist. I will do what I can and leave. The children here are a good bunch. They knew hard times and will appreciate good.

[Thumper]

Thank you Chrome Bumper for all that you are doing. Sometimes we forget the realities of why we are there.