| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"John Doe" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2004 08:53:56 AM |
| Object: |
Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies? |
On March 22, 2003 in a CBS News video interview,
Hans Blix spoke:
"We were never stopped. We could go in anywhere whether presidential
sites or military sites, and we got in very quickly as well."
If Donald Rumsfeld and our CIA knew that Saddam Hussein possessed so-
called weapons of mass destruction and knew where they were, what
prevented giving those coordinates to Hans Blix and telling him to go
look?
Has anyone heard an explanation for that?
--
I reposted under a different subject line because I really want to
know the answer to this question. Apparently no one has a clue, or no
one cares.
.
|
|
| User: "Ken Cornelius" |
|
| Title: Re: Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies? |
18 Dec 2004 10:53:18 AM |
|
|
"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote in message
news:Xns95C35A88B626Fwisdomfolly@151.164.30.42...
On March 22, 2003 in a CBS News video interview,
Hans Blix spoke:
"We were never stopped. We could go in anywhere whether presidential
sites or military sites, and we got in very quickly as well."
If Donald Rumsfeld and our CIA knew that Saddam Hussein possessed so-
called weapons of mass destruction and knew where they were, what
prevented giving those coordinates to Hans Blix and telling him to go
look?
Has anyone heard an explanation for that?
The obvious explanation is that they couldn't possibly have given
coordinates to something that didn't exist.
It is interesting that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" seems to
occur rarely before the year 2000. At least I spent a half hour googling it
and was unable to find a single reference to it written before then. It
seems to be just the sort of semantic boogie man that would be manufactured
for the purpose of creating mindless terror. Its sudden appearance just at
the time George W. Bush was looking for an excuse to attack Iraq was surely
convenient. "Secret Weapon" had evidently been overused.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies? |
18 Dec 2004 11:40:35 AM |
|
|
"Ken Cornelius" <ke8732co@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IMWdna2NG67i_VncRVn-2g@comcast.com...
It is interesting that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" seems to occur
rarely before the year 2000. At least I spent a half hour googling it and was
unable to find a single reference to it written before then. It seems to be
just the sort of semantic boogie man that would be manufactured for the
purpose of creating mindless terror. Its sudden appearance just at the time
George W. Bush was looking for an excuse to attack Iraq was surely convenient.
"Secret Weapon" had evidently been overused.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom
line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want
to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since
1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat
posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has
made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Cornelius" |
|
| Title: Re: Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies? |
18 Dec 2004 04:29:48 PM |
|
|
I stand corrected. Sorry, I just didn't run across any of these.
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:mVZwd.12119$Z27.11689@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Ken Cornelius" <ke8732co@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IMWdna2NG67i_VncRVn-2g@comcast.com...
It is interesting that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" seems to
occur rarely before the year 2000. At least I spent a half hour googling
it and was unable to find a single reference to it written before then.
It seems to be just the sort of semantic boogie man that would be
manufactured for the purpose of creating mindless terror. Its sudden
appearance just at the time George W. Bush was looking for an excuse to
attack Iraq was surely convenient. "Secret Weapon" had evidently been
overused.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Doe" |
|
| Title: Re: Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies? |
18 Dec 2004 01:31:02 PM |
|
|
If Republicans and Democrats knew that Saddam Hussein possessed so-
called weapons of mass destruction and knew where they were, what
prevented giving those coordinates to Hans Blix and telling him to go
look? Has anyone even heard an explanation for that?
On March 22, 2003 in a CBS News video interview,
Hans Blix spoke:
"We were never stopped. We could go in anywhere whether presidential
sites or military sites, and we got in very quickly as well."
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ken Cornelius" <ke8732co@comcast.net> wrote
It is interesting that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction"
seems to occur rarely before the year 2000. At least I spent a
half hour googling it and was unable to find a single reference
to it written before then. It seems to be just the sort of
semantic boogie man that would be manufactured for the purpose of
creating mindless terror. Its sudden appearance just at the time
George W. Bush was looking for an excuse to attack Iraq was
surely convenient. "Secret Weapon" had evidently been overused.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions
(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect
Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's
refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter
to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Cornelius" |
|
| Title: Re: Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies? |
19 Dec 2004 01:36:40 PM |
|
|
Sorry, Bob, I posted a message last night which for some reason did not
appear. Evidently I was wrong about Georgie inventing the weapons of mass
destruction terminology. Blame it on my lack of research skills. Still, I
think that he was looking for a suitable boogie man and it served the
purpose nicely.
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:mVZwd.12119$Z27.11689@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Ken Cornelius" <ke8732co@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IMWdna2NG67i_VncRVn-2g@comcast.com...
It is interesting that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" seems to
occur rarely before the year 2000. At least I spent a half hour googling
it and was unable to find a single reference to it written before then.
It seems to be just the sort of semantic boogie man that would be
manufactured for the purpose of creating mindless terror. Its sudden
appearance just at the time George W. Bush was looking for an excuse to
attack Iraq was surely convenient. "Secret Weapon" had evidently been
overused.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies? |
19 Dec 2004 01:41:13 PM |
|
|
"Ken Cornelius" <ke8732co@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Sfedne_XhuTURVjcRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
Sorry, Bob, I posted a message last night which for some reason did not
appear. Evidently I was wrong about Georgie inventing the weapons of mass
destruction terminology. Blame it on my lack of research skills. Still, I
think that he was looking for a suitable boogie man and it served the purpose
nicely.
I saw your message. I think Bush received
some bad intelligence. The 9/11 attack put
us in a preemptive mode, which to me is
a good idea. Iraq was perceived to be a
danger, so the invasion by the coalition
was a wise move, in my opinion. All this
Monday morning quarterbacking hurts
our efforts in Iraq. I hope we have learned
that appeasing evil does not work.
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:mVZwd.12119$Z27.11689@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Ken Cornelius" <ke8732co@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IMWdna2NG67i_VncRVn-2g@comcast.com...
It is interesting that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" seems to
occur rarely before the year 2000. At least I spent a half hour googling it
and was unable to find a single reference to it written before then. It
seems to be just the sort of semantic boogie man that would be manufactured
for the purpose of creating mindless terror. Its sudden appearance just at
the time George W. Bush was looking for an excuse to attack Iraq was surely
convenient. "Secret Weapon" had evidently been overused.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our
bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the
threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
.
|
|
|
| User: "disseminator" |
|
| Title: Re: Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies? |
19 Dec 2004 04:25:07 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in
news:rOkxd.44$L75.23@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
"Ken Cornelius" <ke8732co@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Sfedne_XhuTURVjcRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
Sorry, Bob, I posted a message last night which for some reason did
not appear. Evidently I was wrong about Georgie inventing the
weapons of mass destruction terminology. Blame it on my lack of
research skills. Still, I think that he was looking for a suitable
boogie man and it served the purpose nicely.
I saw your message. I think Bush received
some bad intelligence. The 9/11 attack put
us in a preemptive mode, which to me is
a good idea. Iraq was perceived to be a
danger, so the invasion by the coalition
was a wise move, in my opinion. All this
Monday morning quarterbacking hurts
our efforts in Iraq. I hope we have learned
that appeasing evil does not work.
Bush filtered the intel to fit his purposes and
Feith's, now defunct, Pentagon OSP spread Chalibi's
lies as well as a few of their own through propaganda
mouthpeices such as "The Weekly Standard" and VP Cheney.
The idea the Bush was duped is a copout from the few
Republicans who did not support the war but still
maintain support for the party.
The failures of the Iraq War are not to be blamed
on anyone BUT Iraq War hawks....and Bush heads that
list.
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:mVZwd.12119$Z27.11689@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Ken Cornelius" <ke8732co@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IMWdna2NG67i_VncRVn-2g@comcast.com...
It is interesting that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction"
seems to occur rarely before the year 2000. At least I spent a
half hour googling it and was unable to find a single reference to
it written before then. It seems to be just the sort of semantic
boogie man that would be manufactured for the purpose of creating
mindless terror. Its sudden appearance just at the time George W.
Bush was looking for an excuse to attack Iraq was surely
convenient. "Secret Weapon" had evidently been overused.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions
(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi
sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal
to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
That about sums it up....the percieved threat of any
aspiring Mideast nuclear power is to Israel and that is what
the Iraq War is about first and foremost....a political task.
BTW
The original poster was quite wrong when he said
that nobody cares about WMD lies.
What is really the case is that Israel's supporters
(predominately Christian) are willing to lie and lie
again on behalf of their real country.
--
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.amconmag.com/
http://www.counterpunch.org/
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Doe" |
|
| Title: Re: Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies? |
19 Dec 2004 06:00:14 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
I saw your message. I think Bush received some bad intelligence.
Followed by bad judgment.
If Republicans and Democrats knew that Saddam Hussein possessed so-
called weapons of mass destruction and knew where they were, what
prevented giving those coordinates to Hans Blix and telling him to
go look? Has anyone even heard an explanation for that?
On March 22, 2003 in a CBS News video interview,
Hans Blix spoke:
"We were never stopped. We could go in anywhere whether presidential
sites or military sites, and we got in very quickly as well."
The 9/11 attack put
us in a preemptive mode, which to me is
a good idea. Iraq was perceived to be a
danger, so the invasion by the coalition
was a wise move, in my opinion. All this
Monday morning quarterbacking hurts
our efforts in Iraq. I hope we have learned
that appeasing evil does not work.
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:mVZwd.12119$Z27.11689@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Ken Cornelius" <ke8732co@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IMWdna2NG67i_VncRVn-2g@comcast.com...
It is interesting that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction"
seems to
occur rarely before the year 2000. At least I spent a half hour
googling it
and was unable to find a single reference to it written before
then. It
seems to be just the sort of semantic boogie man that would be
manufactured
for the purpose of creating mindless terror. Its sudden
appearance just at
the time George W. Bush was looking for an excuse to attack Iraq
was surely
convenient. "Secret Weapon" had evidently been overused.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the
capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our
bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has
ten times
since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent
with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the
threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction
programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies? |
18 Dec 2004 10:40:41 AM |
|
|
John Doe wrote:
On March 22, 2003 in a CBS News video interview,
Hans Blix spoke:
"We were never stopped. We could go in anywhere whether presidential
sites or military sites, and we got in very quickly as well."
If Donald Rumsfeld and our CIA knew that Saddam Hussein possessed so-
called weapons of mass destruction and knew where they were, what
prevented giving those coordinates to Hans Blix and telling him to go
look?
Has anyone heard an explanation for that?
<crickets>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies? |
18 Dec 2004 04:21:05 PM |
|
|
The WMD fiasco really kept folk's minds off the money the UN bigshots while
they were shovelling into their money bunkers out of the Oil For Food scam.
Today, someone said when Tarik Aziz talks, that a lot of heads are going to
roll. This idiot wants them to stand trial in an international court of some
kind. Well, there ain't any international court that could ever punish
these crooks in the next 20 years or so, so the best solution to anyone
caught in the Oil For Food money scam is just simply killing them off, one
by one, in as entertaining a way as possible.
That will be the only justice required for these crooks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Doe" |
|
| Title: Re: Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies? |
18 Dec 2004 08:08:08 PM |
|
|
What does that have to do with the subject?
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:
Path: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trnddc07.POSTED!5cae9ae7!not-for-mail
From: "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa
References: <Xns95C35A88B626Fwisdomfolly@151.164.30.42>
Subject: Re: Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies?
Lines: 13
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <l32xd.696$2X6.125@trnddc07>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 22:21:05 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.205.10.239
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: trnddc07 1103408465 151.205.10.239 (Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:21:05 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:21:05 EST
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.politics.usa:608687
The WMD fiasco really kept folk's minds off the money the UN bigshots while
they were shovelling into their money bunkers out of the Oil For Food scam.
Today, someone said when Tarik Aziz talks, that a lot of heads are going to
roll. This idiot wants them to stand trial in an international court of some
kind. Well, there ain't any international court that could ever punish
these crooks in the next 20 years or so, so the best solution to anyone
caught in the Oil For Food money scam is just simply killing them off, one
by one, in as entertaining a way as possible.
That will be the only justice required for these crooks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Claims about WMD in Iraq were blatant lies? |
18 Dec 2004 08:44:31 PM |
|
|
John Doe wrote:
What does that have to do with the subject?
Absolutely nothing. It's just the usual rightard attempt to misdirect
the convo to something *they* feel is making them look good.
The idea that any amount of corruption which involved mere money can be
morally equivalent to the death & destruction we have brought on Iraq in
pursuing blatant lies is sickening...
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:
The WMD fiasco really kept folk's minds off the money the UN bigshots while
they were shovelling into their money bunkers out of the Oil For Food scam.
Today, someone said when Tarik Aziz talks, that a lot of heads are going to
roll. This idiot wants them to stand trial in an international court of some
kind. Well, there ain't any international court that could ever punish
these crooks in the next 20 years or so, so the best solution to anyone
caught in the Oil For Food money scam is just simply killing them off, one
by one, in as entertaining a way as possible.
That will be the only justice required for these crooks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
