| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Steven Douglas" |
| Date: |
14 Oct 2004 11:18:23 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message news:<OO2dnQjG64SzgvDcRVn-vQ@locallink.net>...
The main thrust of the invasion, the rationale behind it, was gaining
control of the WMD and to stop it from being shared across the Middle East
and the world. It was a huge lie.
According to Bob Woodward's book, CIA director George Tenet (who was
appointed by President Clinton) told President Bush the WMD
intelligence was a slam dunk. At the time, John Kerry told the world
Saddam Hussein was a threat. At the time, John Edwards told the world
Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. Suppose President Bush had not
acted on the intelligence ... suppose the intelligence had been
correct and Bush failed to act on the intelligence. And suppose the
intelligence had been correct, Bush failed to act on the intelligence,
and WMD WERE shared across the Middle East and the world. Would you
have called Bush an idiot (or worse) for failing to act on the
intelligence? Would you have asked how Bush could have ignored the
Clinton appointed CIA director who TOLD him the intelligence was a
slam dunk?
.
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
15 Oct 2004 06:18:34 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2b35e99.0410142018.15631540@posting.google.com...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:<OO2dnQjG64SzgvDcRVn-vQ@locallink.net>...
The main thrust of the invasion, the rationale behind it, was gaining
control of the WMD and to stop it from being shared across the Middle
East
and the world. It was a huge lie.
According to Bob Woodward's book, CIA director George Tenet (who was
appointed by President Clinton) told President Bush the WMD
intelligence was a slam dunk. At the time, John Kerry told the world
Saddam Hussein was a threat. At the time, John Edwards told the world
Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. Suppose President Bush had not
acted on the intelligence ... suppose the intelligence had been
correct and Bush failed to act on the intelligence. And suppose the
intelligence had been correct, Bush failed to act on the intelligence,
and WMD WERE shared across the Middle East and the world. Would you
have called Bush an idiot (or worse) for failing to act on the
intelligence? Would you have asked how Bush could have ignored the
Clinton appointed CIA director who TOLD him the intelligence was a
slam dunk?
Well for starters I think the president should have told us that his State
of the Union yellowcake information was deemed spurious by the CIA months
earlier. He should have told us that the CIA refused to let him use their
approval on that information. That's the reason for quoting British
Intelligence on the subject. Colin Powell was smarter on this issue.
Someone should have told us that the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at
the State Department said there were no WMD in Iraq well in advance of the
invasion. At least we would have known that not ALL intelligence agencies
in the world had signed off on the Iraq hoax.
Someone should have told us that the "aluminum tube" story had originated
with a low level CIA analyst and that the highly skilled experts at the
Department of Energy were coming out of their shoes trying to debunk the
information that Iraq was buying parts for enrichment centrifuges.
But all this information didn't fit the desired pattern, the scare program.
He should have told us the whole truth. He was sending our kids into
battle.
All this will continue to come out as the election draws nearer. I said it
months ago when it was clear that Bush's out was going to be to blame the
CIA that the CIA wouldn't in the long run stand still for it. The insider
information is continuing to come out.
They protected the oil wells. They didn't bother with securing the known
nuclear facilities in Iraq, Steve. Let that sink in for a minute.
They went there to get Saddam's WMD programs under control and to prevent
proliferation. Now the equipment is showing up in other countries. How
afraid of Saddam's WMD programs do you really think they were? It was the
oil they were after.
It's all BS, Steve. Don't invest your heart and passion in it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
16 Oct 2004 08:44:42 AM |
|
|
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message news:<geidnVt26ZFrxu3cRVn-3A@locallink.net>...
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2b35e99.0410142018.15631540@posting.google.com...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:<OO2dnQjG64SzgvDcRVn-vQ@locallink.net>...
The main thrust of the invasion, the rationale behind it, was gaining
control of the WMD and to stop it from being shared across the Middle
East
and the world. It was a huge lie.
According to Bob Woodward's book, CIA director George Tenet (who was
appointed by President Clinton) told President Bush the WMD
intelligence was a slam dunk. At the time, John Kerry told the world
Saddam Hussein was a threat. At the time, John Edwards told the world
Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. Suppose President Bush had not
acted on the intelligence ... suppose the intelligence had been
correct and Bush failed to act on the intelligence. And suppose the
intelligence had been correct, Bush failed to act on the intelligence,
and WMD WERE shared across the Middle East and the world. Would you
have called Bush an idiot (or worse) for failing to act on the
intelligence? Would you have asked how Bush could have ignored the
Clinton appointed CIA director who TOLD him the intelligence was a
slam dunk?
Well for starters I think the president should have told us that his State
of the Union yellowcake information was deemed spurious by the CIA months
earlier. He should have told us that the CIA refused to let him use their
approval on that information. That's the reason for quoting British
Intelligence on the subject. Colin Powell was smarter on this issue.
And the British stood by their information, and there is some
indication they were correct. Or do you just believe the CIA is
*always* right?
Someone should have told us that the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at
the State Department said there were no WMD in Iraq well in advance of the
invasion. At least we would have known that not ALL intelligence agencies
in the world had signed off on the Iraq hoax.
I remember hearing doubts raised before the invasion -- but the
consensus of major intelligence agencies around the world (including
France, Germany and Russia) was that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD.
Someone should have told us that the "aluminum tube" story had originated
with a low level CIA analyst and that the highly skilled experts at the
Department of Energy were coming out of their shoes trying to debunk the
information that Iraq was buying parts for enrichment centrifuges.
Then it seems they should have done a better job of coming out of
their shoes. It's not that difficult to get a reporter to listen to
disent -- reporters love that stuff. Just look at the story of the
military unit that refused an order -- the CBS Evening News with Dan
Rather led of the newscast with that story Friday night.
But all this information didn't fit the desired pattern, the scare program.
He should have told us the whole truth. He was sending our kids into
battle.
All this will continue to come out as the election draws nearer. I said it
months ago when it was clear that Bush's out was going to be to blame the
CIA that the CIA wouldn't in the long run stand still for it. The insider
information is continuing to come out.
They protected the oil wells. They didn't bother with securing the known
nuclear facilities in Iraq, Steve. Let that sink in for a minute.
Yes, I know mistakes were made. Their number one concern was the oil
wells being set on fire (Saddam Hussein had already shown that was his
tactic). But mistakes are made in every war. There were many needless
US deaths on Omaha Beach during D-Day. And the Battle of the Bulge was
a complete surprise after the allies thought they were on a roll. If
CNN and today's New York Times had been there to cover it, they'd have
told us that war was a hopeless mess.
They went there to get Saddam's WMD programs under control and to prevent
proliferation. Now the equipment is showing up in other countries. How
afraid of Saddam's WMD programs do you really think they were? It was the
oil they were after.
So you think the only reason for the war was to *steal* the oil? It
would have been much easier to just lift the sanctions and pay for the
oil. As it is, we will still pay the new government of Iraq for the
oil.
It's all BS, Steve. Don't invest your heart and passion in it.
I don't think I have as much as you have. I'm ready to accept the
results of the upcoming election -- and no matter the outcome, it will
not affect my personal happiness. Can you say that?
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
16 Oct 2004 11:40:05 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2b35e99.0410160544.3dca0e0d@posting.google.com...
And the British stood by their information, and there is some
indication they were correct.
No they didn't, not entirely. Check your facts.
Or do you just believe the CIA is
*always* right?
No, I dont. Neither do I think that they and every other intelligence
agency in the world could be so completly wrong.
Someone should have told us that the Bureau of Intelligence and Research
at
the State Department said there were no WMD in Iraq well in advance of
the
invasion. At least we would have known that not ALL intelligence
agencies
in the world had signed off on the Iraq hoax.
I remember hearing doubts raised before the invasion -- but the
consensus of major intelligence agencies around the world (including
France, Germany and Russia) was that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD.
And there was mighty dissention within the American Government, a near "holy
war", over the interpretation of the evidence. Little if any of this
counter interpretation or a "holy war" was made public. The Bush
Administration consistently chose the most incendiary interpretations.
Now, some may say this is a good thing, a wise thing. That we're much safer
because of it. But lets wonder how wise it may be 25 years down the line.
25 years is the amount of time it took Muslim fundamentalists to throw out a
Dulles empowered Shah in Iran. This after the mighty CIA aided in
overthrowing another democratically elected government. 25 years after that
the world is concerned about Iranian nuclear devices in the hands of Muslim
fundamentalists. I'm thinking the timeframe for tragedy may be shrinking.
Whodathunkit.
Someone should have told us that the "aluminum tube" story had
originated
with a low level CIA analyst and that the highly skilled experts at the
Department of Energy were coming out of their shoes trying to debunk the
information that Iraq was buying parts for enrichment centrifuges.
Then it seems they should have done a better job of coming out of
their shoes. It's not that difficult to get a reporter to listen to
disent -- reporters love that stuff. Just look at the story of the
military unit that refused an order -- the CBS Evening News with Dan
Rather led of the newscast with that story Friday night.
Re: Woods' response. Seems that conservatives have a pattern of
"misunderstanding" law, intelligence and CIA employees. Re: Ambassador
Wilson's wife.
But all this information didn't fit the desired pattern, the scare
program.
He should have told us the whole truth. He was sending our kids into
battle.
All this will continue to come out as the election draws nearer. I said
it
months ago when it was clear that Bush's out was going to be to blame
the
CIA that the CIA wouldn't in the long run stand still for it. The
insider
information is continuing to come out.
They protected the oil wells. They didn't bother with securing the
known
nuclear facilities in Iraq, Steve. Let that sink in for a minute.
Yes, I know mistakes were made. Their number one concern was the oil
wells being set on fire (Saddam Hussein had already shown that was his
tactic). But mistakes are made in every war. There were many needless
US deaths on Omaha Beach during D-Day. And the Battle of the Bulge was
a complete surprise after the allies thought they were on a roll. If
CNN and today's New York Times had been there to cover it, they'd have
told us that war was a hopeless mess.
I don't think we'll be talking much, Steve. It's tough to talk when you
remember why you lack respect for someone.
This is a consistent ploy you use. This shrug off, sweep under the rug
maneuver. Of course mistakes are made in war, of course the CIA was wrong
in overthrowing President Arbenz in Guatemala, of course you aren't as far
along in your faith as you might or should be. Of course, of
course................ of course.
We invaded Iraq to secure our safety. To keep nuclear weapons and other WMD
out of the hands of terrorists. This is why 1,000 Americans have died
there. It's why 11,000 more have been wounded. It's why between 15 and
30,000 Iraqis have died. And the nuclear stuff is vanishing and is turning
up in other countries.
Of course WMD weren't the primary concern. Of course the invasion was
poorly planned. Of course there weren't enough troops sent to do the job
right. Of course post invasion administration was bad. Of course we're
risking horror upon horror years down the road.
Well at least now you agree with me that Bush's #1 concern was the health of
the oil wells. Well, of course.
Take care...............
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
17 Oct 2004 07:59:17 PM |
|
|
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message news:<fZCdnf2t8PRGZezcRVn-og@locallink.net>...
I don't think we'll be talking much, Steve. It's tough to talk when you
remember why you lack respect for someone.
How obvious is it that you and I have entirely different world views?
I accept that fact, while you'd like to change my mind to fit your
view. It's not going to happen. We are on opposite sides of the
political spectrum, but I believe I'm much nearer the center than you
are.
This is a consistent ploy you use. This shrug off, sweep under the rug
maneuver.
No, I'm just not wringing my hands to the extent you are -- which must
appear to you as a "shrug off." It's not a "shrug off." I'm not happy
about mistakes that have been made in Iraq, but don't expect me to
wring my hands to the same extent as you. I'm far more optimistic
about Iraq than you are. And my optimism will continue whether it's
President Bush or President Kerry.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
17 Oct 2004 12:02:38 AM |
|
|
Simply for clarity. It's been fifty years since Prime Minister Mohammad
Mossadegh was ousted from his position in Iraq. 25 years after that the
Shah was ousted. 25 years after that Mr. Bush declares that Iran will never
have a nuclear weapon.
Now, some may say this is a good thing, a wise thing. That we're much
safer
because of it. But lets wonder how wise it may be 25 years down the line.
25 years is the amount of time it took Muslim fundamentalists to throw out
a
Dulles empowered Shah in Iran. This after the mighty CIA aided in
overthrowing another democratically elected government. 25 years after
that
the world is concerned about Iranian nuclear devices in the hands of
Muslim
fundamentalists. I'm thinking the timeframe for tragedy may be shrinking.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
17 Oct 2004 12:05:45 AM |
|
|
Bwahahahaha, I should have been in bed long ago. The newest correction is
in the second sentence below. :-)
Simply for clarity. It's been fifty years since Prime Minister Mohammad
Mossadegh was ousted from his position in IRAN. 25 years after that the
Shah was ousted. 25 years after that Mr. Bush declares that Iran will
never
have a nuclear weapon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
16 Oct 2004 11:04:25 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2b35e99.0410160544.3dca0e0d@posting.google.com...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:<geidnVt26ZFrxu3cRVn-3A@locallink.net>...
It's all BS, Steve. Don't invest your heart and passion in it.
I don't think I have as much as you have.
I think your bias steers your judgment toward wishful thinking.
I'm ready to accept the
results of the upcoming election -- and no matter the outcome, it will
not affect my personal happiness. Can you say that?
I think your bias steers your judgment toward wishful thinking. You're too
aggressive with these things, Steve.
There's only one source of my happiness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
17 Oct 2004 03:39:55 PM |
|
|
Bliss is ignorance. J. F. Lemke.
LOL
J.
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2b35e99.0410160544.3dca0e0d@posting.google.com...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:<geidnVt26ZFrxu3cRVn-3A@locallink.net>...
It's all BS, Steve. Don't invest your heart and passion in it.
I don't think I have as much as you have.
I think your bias steers your judgment toward wishful thinking.
I'm ready to accept the
results of the upcoming election -- and no matter the outcome, it will
not affect my personal happiness. Can you say that?
I think your bias steers your judgment toward wishful thinking. You're too
aggressive with these things, Steve.
There's only one source of my happiness.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
17 Oct 2004 08:01:57 PM |
|
|
In article <-8OdnZJ_y6bjbezcRVn-qA@locallink.net>...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2b35e99.0410160544.3dca0e0d@posting.google.com...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:<geidnVt26ZFrxu3cRVn-3A@locallink.net>...
It's all BS, Steve. Don't invest your heart and passion in it.
I don't think I have as much as you have.
I think your bias steers your judgment toward wishful thinking.
And it appears to me that you are investing your heart and passion in
the outcome of this election.
I'm ready to accept the
results of the upcoming election -- and no matter the outcome, it will
not affect my personal happiness. Can you say that?
I think your bias steers your judgment toward wishful thinking. You're too
aggressive with these things, Steve.
Not nearly to the extent you are, especially lately. If the electorate
decides it's time for a new President, I'm fully prepared to accept
that. I like our constitution.
There's only one source of my happiness.
I thank God every single day that I was born in freedom. I value my
freedom, and I am truly thankful for it -- especially when I consider
some of the alternatives this world has produced.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
16 Oct 2004 09:00:18 AM |
|
|
In article <a2b35e99.0410160544.3dca0e0d@posting.google.com>, (Steven Douglas) wrote:
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:<geidnVt26ZFrxu3cRVn-3A@locallink.net>...
"Steven Douglas" < > wrote in message
news:a2b35e99.0410142018.15631540@posting.google.com...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:<OO2dnQjG64SzgvDcRVn-vQ@locallink.net>...
The main thrust of the invasion, the rationale behind it, was gaining
control of the WMD and to stop it from being shared across the Middle
East
and the world. It was a huge lie.
According to Bob Woodward's book, CIA director George Tenet (who was
appointed by President Clinton) told President Bush the WMD
intelligence was a slam dunk. At the time, John Kerry told the world
Saddam Hussein was a threat. At the time, John Edwards told the world
Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. Suppose President Bush had not
acted on the intelligence ... suppose the intelligence had been
correct and Bush failed to act on the intelligence. And suppose the
intelligence had been correct, Bush failed to act on the intelligence,
and WMD WERE shared across the Middle East and the world. Would you
have called Bush an idiot (or worse) for failing to act on the
intelligence? Would you have asked how Bush could have ignored the
Clinton appointed CIA director who TOLD him the intelligence was a
slam dunk?
Well for starters I think the president should have told us that his State
of the Union yellowcake information was deemed spurious by the CIA months
earlier. He should have told us that the CIA refused to let him use their
approval on that information. That's the reason for quoting British
Intelligence on the subject. Colin Powell was smarter on this issue.
And the British stood by their information, and there is some
indication they were correct. Or do you just believe the CIA is
*always* right?
Someone should have told us that the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at
the State Department said there were no WMD in Iraq well in advance of the
invasion. At least we would have known that not ALL intelligence agencies
in the world had signed off on the Iraq hoax.
I remember hearing doubts raised before the invasion -- but the
consensus of major intelligence agencies around the world (including
France, Germany and Russia) was that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD.
Someone should have told us that the "aluminum tube" story had originated
with a low level CIA analyst and that the highly skilled experts at the
Department of Energy were coming out of their shoes trying to debunk the
information that Iraq was buying parts for enrichment centrifuges.
Then it seems they should have done a better job of coming out of
their shoes. It's not that difficult to get a reporter to listen to
disent -- reporters love that stuff. Just look at the story of the
military unit that refused an order -- the CBS Evening News with Dan
Rather led of the newscast with that story Friday night.
*cough*
Well, for one thing, they were all reported, and discussed here in apn. I'm not
really sure why you'd expect CIA staff members to divulge classified information
en masse to the media, though. You are aware that it's illegal for anyone to do
that, even if it's in the best interest of the country, are you not?
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
16 Oct 2004 02:08:39 PM |
|
|
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2b35e99.0410142018.15631540@posting.google.com...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:<OO2dnQjG64SzgvDcRVn-vQ@locallink.net>...
The main thrust of the invasion, the rationale behind it, was gaining
control of the WMD and to stop it from being shared across the Middle
East
and the world. It was a huge lie.
According to Bob Woodward's book, CIA director George Tenet (who was
appointed by President Clinton) told President Bush the WMD
intelligence was a slam dunk. At the time, John Kerry told the world
Saddam Hussein was a threat. At the time, John Edwards told the world
Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. Suppose President Bush had not
acted on the intelligence ... suppose the intelligence had been
correct and Bush failed to act on the intelligence. And suppose the
intelligence had been correct, Bush failed to act on the intelligence,
and WMD WERE shared across the Middle East and the world. Would you
have called Bush an idiot (or worse) for failing to act on the
intelligence? Would you have asked how Bush could have ignored the
Clinton appointed CIA director who TOLD him the intelligence was a
slam dunk?
Well for starters I think the president should have told us that his State
of the Union yellowcake information was deemed spurious by the CIA months
earlier. He should have told us that the CIA refused to let him use their
approval on that information. That's the reason for quoting British
Intelligence on the subject. Colin Powell was smarter on this issue.
http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol2.pdf
In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the
Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters related to an offer to
sell yellowcake to Iraq. The document reveals that a Ugandan businessman
approached the Iraqis with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the
Congo.
I think that they will eventually find that the British intelligence was
right on on this one (they still stand by their assessment) but it is
not in the latest report. Tons of other documents remain to be assessed.
Someone should have told us that the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at
the State Department said there were no WMD in Iraq well in advance of the
invasion. At least we would have known that not ALL intelligence agencies
in the world had signed off on the Iraq hoax.
Bah, "someone", yeah right, means nothing. The senior intelligence
officers of all nations thought otherwise.
Someone should have told us that the "aluminum tube" story had originated
with a low level CIA analyst and that the highly skilled experts at the
Department of Energy were coming out of their shoes trying to debunk the
information that Iraq was buying parts for enrichment centrifuges.
Again, this was not consistent with what most express in the field
believed.
But all this information didn't fit the desired pattern, the scare program.
*****.
He should have told us the whole truth. He was sending our kids into
battle.
First they went because of the UN resolution breach, second, they went
because it was the only way to find out.
All this will continue to come out as the election draws nearer. I said it
months ago when it was clear that Bush's out was going to be to blame the
CIA that the CIA wouldn't in the long run stand still for it. The insider
information is continuing to come out.
You are a LIAR, this is a LIE. All you say is *****.
They protected the oil wells. They didn't bother with securing the known
nuclear facilities in Iraq, Steve. Let that sink in for a minute.
Bah, they made sure the wells wouldn't go in flame like they did the
first Gulf War.
They went there to get Saddam's WMD programs under control and to prevent
proliferation. Now the equipment is showing up in other countries. How
afraid of Saddam's WMD programs do you really think they were? It was the
oil they were after.
Maybe Saddam sent it himself. It is under investigation.
It's all BS, Steve. Don't invest your heart and passion in it.
YOUR crusade IS all BS. Steve should see that you are a lying *****
who hates the US administration.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
16 Oct 2004 10:34:44 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:Xkecd.11488$_u6.606@edtnps89...
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2b35e99.0410142018.15631540@posting.google.com...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:<OO2dnQjG64SzgvDcRVn-vQ@locallink.net>...
The main thrust of the invasion, the rationale behind it, was gaining
control of the WMD and to stop it from being shared across the Middle
East
and the world. It was a huge lie.
According to Bob Woodward's book, CIA director George Tenet (who was
appointed by President Clinton) told President Bush the WMD
intelligence was a slam dunk. At the time, John Kerry told the world
Saddam Hussein was a threat. At the time, John Edwards told the world
Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. Suppose President Bush had not
acted on the intelligence ... suppose the intelligence had been
correct and Bush failed to act on the intelligence. And suppose the
intelligence had been correct, Bush failed to act on the intelligence,
and WMD WERE shared across the Middle East and the world. Would you
have called Bush an idiot (or worse) for failing to act on the
intelligence? Would you have asked how Bush could have ignored the
Clinton appointed CIA director who TOLD him the intelligence was a
slam dunk?
Well for starters I think the president should have told us that his
State
of the Union yellowcake information was deemed spurious by the CIA
months
earlier. He should have told us that the CIA refused to let him use
their
approval on that information. That's the reason for quoting British
Intelligence on the subject. Colin Powell was smarter on this issue.
http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol2.pdf
In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the
Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters related to an offer to
sell yellowcake to Iraq. The document reveals that a Ugandan businessman
approached the Iraqis with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the
Congo.
Well, it's a given that Saddam had plans to start up his nuke program after
the sanctions were lifted. Fat chance of the sanctions being lifted tho.
What other countries would you like to invade because they have contingency
plans that are impossible to carry out?
The Duelfer document you quote from states that Saddam had chosen not to
pursue WMD and that his programs were in decline.
Didn't we once discuss the fact that the British had repudiated part of
their yellowcake claims after admitting their evidence was based on forged
documents? Then Blair claimed they had more yellowcake evidence but he
wouldn't release his source or the evidence.
Didn't you say that was their right and privilege not to divulge their
evidence? That we needed to trust the intelligence experts and the
conclusions they arrive at? They know better than we and we have to trust
them?
I think that they will eventually find that the British intelligence was
right on on this one (they still stand by their assessment) but it is
not in the latest report. Tons of other documents remain to be assessed.
Yeah, Jean, just like you've been saying they'll be finding the WMD before
long. In the sand was it? You're not much of a prophet are you? Want to
quote something out of the Duelfer report about that?
Someone should have told us that the Bureau of Intelligence and Research
at
the State Department said there were no WMD in Iraq well in advance of
the
invasion. At least we would have known that not ALL intelligence
agencies
in the world had signed off on the Iraq hoax.
Bah, "someone", yeah right, means nothing.
No, Jean, "someone" is the president. He was clearly not telling the whole
story as he was preparing to send our children to bleed and die in Iraq.
Not you or your children, Jean, ours.
The senior intelligence
officers of all nations thought otherwise.
While the Bush administration rejected the opinions of highly skilled and
trained experts and then avoided sharing those details with the public.
Someone should have told us that the "aluminum tube" story had
originated
with a low level CIA analyst and that the highly skilled experts at the
Department of Energy were coming out of their shoes trying to debunk the
information that Iraq was buying parts for enrichment centrifuges.
Again, this was not consistent with what most express in the field
believed.
Well, you're ignorant of the facts. Highly placed, highly skilled nuclear
engineers in the Department of Energy, and others, made it clear that those
tubes were not suited for the purposes the Bush administration was trumping
them up to be. It didn't fit the administration's purposes to share all the
information with the public.
But all this information didn't fit the desired pattern, the scare
program.
*****.
Ah, your eloquence is coming to the surface again.
He should have told us the whole truth. He was sending our kids into
battle.
First they went because of the UN resolution breach, second,
No, Jean. That's a tiny, tiny blanket you're trying to hide a big lie
behind. Now, I'll go over this again with you.
1st, Saddam may have been in violation. But the security council "owns" the
resolution. The security council did not authorise the invasion. As you
know, highly placed UN officials have said the invasion is illegal.
I'm sure they quake at your objections to their judgments.
2nd, America, the Congress, we the people would never have supported the
invasion on Mr. Bush's interpretation of international law. NOBODY here is
willing to go and fight just to enforce a UN resolution. You may have
trouble seeing this thru your smoke in Canada, but that's just the way it
is. Bush NEVER would have been able to garner public support for the
invasion simply on the grounds that Saddam was in violation of UN
resolutions. That's why Saddam HAD to have the weapons and the ability to
deliver them. Get it yet?
they went
because it was the only way to find out.
Well you're obviously delusional. I don't know if it's drug induced or if
you're too blind intellectually to see the facts.
Had the inspectors been allowed to finish their job they would discovered
there were no WMD. They were discovering that before they left. Don't you
think it would have been less embarrassing to the Bush administration if
Shrub would have been a little more patient? Less of a cowboy?
Ah, but how can patience secure oil for future Western generations?
All this will continue to come out as the election draws nearer. I said
it
months ago when it was clear that Bush's out was going to be to blame
the
CIA that the CIA wouldn't in the long run stand still for it. The
insider
information is continuing to come out.
You are a LIAR, this is a LIE. All you say is *****.
Well, do you want me to pull up the post where I said that CIA operatives
and officials would eventually be coming out and telling the truth?
Or do you want me to repost the articles where these officials are quoted?
Really, Jean, you need to do more reading.
They protected the oil wells. They didn't bother with securing the
known
nuclear facilities in Iraq, Steve. Let that sink in for a minute.
Bah, they made sure the wells wouldn't go in flame like they did the
first Gulf War.
Yup, while they apparently completely, and incompetantly ignored the nuclear
equipment that they had invaded the country to secure, you blind, truth
spinning dumb *****.
Maybe this is part of a brilliant neocon ploy, Jean. Maybe with Iraqi
nuclear technology in other Arab countries it'll give the Bushites an excuse
to invade other Arab countries.
I'm sure you'll soon forget the source of (name a country's) nuclear
production facilities and fall right into line with all the other propaganda
swilling junior spin doctors.
They went there to get Saddam's WMD programs under control and to
prevent
proliferation. Now the equipment is showing up in other countries. How
afraid of Saddam's WMD programs do you really think they were? It was
the
oil they were after.
Maybe Saddam sent it himself. It is under investigation.
You need to read more, Jean. You'll look far less foolish.
It's all BS, Steve. Don't invest your heart and passion in it.
YOUR crusade IS all BS. Steve should see that you are a lying *****
who hates the US administration.
J.
Well, you keep right on posting, Jean. You're a real credit to your people.
I don't suspect I'll have to interpret much. I'll just post the facts as
they're released and we'll watch the ice you're standing on get thinner and
thinner. The water should be getting pretty cold in Canada about now, even
more so by the time of the election. Bundle up, buddy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
17 Oct 2004 03:24:42 PM |
|
|
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:Xkecd.11488$_u6.606@edtnps89...
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2b35e99.0410142018.15631540@posting.google.com...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:<OO2dnQjG64SzgvDcRVn-vQ@locallink.net>...
The main thrust of the invasion, the rationale behind it, was gaining
control of the WMD and to stop it from being shared across the Middle
East
and the world. It was a huge lie.
According to Bob Woodward's book, CIA director George Tenet (who was
appointed by President Clinton) told President Bush the WMD
intelligence was a slam dunk. At the time, John Kerry told the world
Saddam Hussein was a threat. At the time, John Edwards told the world
Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. Suppose President Bush had not
acted on the intelligence ... suppose the intelligence had been
correct and Bush failed to act on the intelligence. And suppose the
intelligence had been correct, Bush failed to act on the intelligence,
and WMD WERE shared across the Middle East and the world. Would you
have called Bush an idiot (or worse) for failing to act on the
intelligence? Would you have asked how Bush could have ignored the
Clinton appointed CIA director who TOLD him the intelligence was a
slam dunk?
Well for starters I think the president should have told us that his
State
of the Union yellowcake information was deemed spurious by the CIA
months
earlier. He should have told us that the CIA refused to let him use
their
approval on that information. That's the reason for quoting British
Intelligence on the subject. Colin Powell was smarter on this issue.
http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol2.pdf
In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the
Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters related to an offer to
sell yellowcake to Iraq. The document reveals that a Ugandan businessman
approached the Iraqis with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the
Congo.
Well, it's a given that Saddam had plans to start up his nuke program after
the sanctions were lifted. Fat chance of the sanctions being lifted tho.
No fat chance at all. Had his scheme worked, he would have. It was not a
matter of if but a matter of when.
What other countries would you like to invade because they have contingency
plans that are impossible to carry out?
Only Iraq had this looming over its head from the UN.
The Duelfer document you quote from states that Saddam had chosen not to
pursue WMD and that his programs were in decline.
In decline would still be in breach... Until the UN would leave.
Didn't we once discuss the fact that the British had repudiated part of
their yellowcake claims after admitting their evidence was based on forged
documents? Then Blair claimed they had more yellowcake evidence but he
wouldn't release his source or the evidence.
There were other documents, exactly.
Didn't you say that was their right and privilege not to divulge their
evidence? That we needed to trust the intelligence experts and the
conclusions they arrive at? They know better than we and we have to trust
them?
Bah, declassified documents are public domain, classified documents are
not. I guess it is because they won't jeopardize their sources since
they would stop being reliable.
I think that they will eventually find that the British intelligence was
right on on this one (they still stand by their assessment) but it is
not in the latest report. Tons of other documents remain to be assessed.
Yeah, Jean, just like you've been saying they'll be finding the WMD before
long. In the sand was it? You're not much of a prophet are you? Want to
quote something out of the Duelfer report about that?
I haven'T talked about the Duelfer report. I didN't look into it if
there was that. Besides quoting Blair about the Butler report, I quoted
an interview from Hard Talk:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/3737112.stm
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be transcripts of this on BBC.
I guess you have to listen to it all:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/04/hardtalk/mates14oct.ram
But (British MP) Michael Mates specifically says that there are huge
things that are known to have been buried in the sand, like the 30 or so
MIGs squadron, well there are as many of another type of Russian
fighters they know are buried in the sand as well, but they can't find
them if no one tells them.
Of course someone knows about it, those who killed troops and probably
some scientists, but as I said why would they talk and then be at the
mercy of the Iraqi courts and the enemies of the regime when they can
shut up and be safe. The US made an error by not retaining that part of
the Iraqi sovereignty allowing them to override it to make deals to find
the missing and other WMDs. I have said it from the start.
Someone should have told us that the Bureau of Intelligence and Research
at
the State Department said there were no WMD in Iraq well in advance of
the
invasion. At least we would have known that not ALL intelligence
agencies
in the world had signed off on the Iraq hoax.
Bah, "someone", yeah right, means nothing.
No, Jean, "someone" is the president. He was clearly not telling the whole
story as he was preparing to send our children to bleed and die in Iraq.
Not you or your children, Jean, ours.
Lie. He said all he was told and you know it. you keep perpetuating this
lie and it is a shameful attempt to subvert the legitimate leadership of
the US.
The senior intelligence
officers of all nations thought otherwise.
While the Bush administration rejected the opinions of highly skilled and
trained experts and then avoided sharing those details with the public.
***** lie. They took the top experts opinion, you are a ***** liar.
Someone should have told us that the "aluminum tube" story had
originated
with a low level CIA analyst and that the highly skilled experts at the
Department of Energy were coming out of their shoes trying to debunk the
information that Iraq was buying parts for enrichment centrifuges.
Again, this was not consistent with what most express in the field
believed.
Well, you're ignorant of the facts. Highly placed, highly skilled nuclear
engineers in the Department of Energy, and others, made it clear that those
tubes were not suited for the purposes the Bush administration was trumping
them up to be. It didn't fit the administration's purposes to share all the
information with the public.
AGAIN you lie over and over.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/july_dec2002.htm
Nuclear. More than ten years of sanctions and the loss of much of
Iraq's physical nuclear infrastructure under IAEA oversight have not
diminished Saddam's interest in acquiring or developing nuclear weapons.
Iraq's efforts to procure tens of thousands of proscribed
high-strength aluminum tubes were of significant concern. All
intelligence experts agreed that Iraq remained intent on acquiring
nuclear weapons and that these tubes, if modified, could be used in a
centrifuge enrichment program.
This is what the prez knew.
You keep lying over and over again because they found out that the
deception of Saddam after the fact were, in some case, hiding mere other
illegal intended use. But in the case of nuclear there were lots of
other stuff recognized by the Duelfer report, magnets for instance.
Anyway, this is what the US knew at the time and ALL intelligence
experts agreed.
So you lie about the commander in chief whether because you are a little
weasel who kiss the ***** of the enemies of America, or because you want
to make up ***** to fraudulent tilt the result of an election.
Either way you are garbage.
But all this information didn't fit the desired pattern, the scare
program.
*****.
Ah, your eloquence is coming to the surface again.
*****.
He should have told us the whole truth. He was sending our kids into
battle.
First they went because of the UN resolution breach, second,
No, Jean. That's a tiny, tiny blanket you're trying to hide a big lie
behind. Now, I'll go over this again with you.
1st, Saddam may have been in violation. But the security council "owns" the
resolution. The security council did not authorise the invasion. As you
know, highly placed UN officials have said the invasion is illegal.
No, you don't get it.
The Security council voted unanimously to give a last chance to Saddam
or suffer the serious consequences many times repeated (which ware the
lifting of the cease fire). they owned the resolution until they signed
it. Once it was signed it was out of their hand.
It was up to Saddam only to live up to the challenge. And he didN't as
you admit here. There was no choice but implement the serious
consequences he had looming over his head for 123 years and were not
implemented just because there are wallowers in the SC.
But a last chance resolution was putting the credibility of the UN in
the balance.
These wallowers, to whom the Secretary genera l kisses the ***** now, and
we know why, the same reason he won't release the missing documents of
the oil for food program, are the utter shame of the world.
I'm sure they quake at your objections to their judgments.
They can kiss my ***** 1000000000000000000 times. I ***** on them.
2nd, America, the Congress, we the people would never have supported the
invasion on Mr. Bush's interpretation of international law. NOBODY here is
willing to go and fight just to enforce a UN resolution. You may have
trouble seeing this thru your smoke in Canada, but that's just the way it
is. Bush NEVER would have been able to garner public support for the
invasion simply on the grounds that Saddam was in violation of UN
resolutions. That's why Saddam HAD to have the weapons and the ability to
deliver them. Get it yet?
***** again. They signed to authorize war if the UN resolution were
breached, not if there were WMDs which the Intelligence agencies all
thought there were.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
determine that: 1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) (... US security) [nor]
"(B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq"
they went
because it was the only way to find out.
Well you're obviously delusional. I don't know if it's drug induced or if
you're too blind intellectually to see the facts.
So you are a fucker who lies about others like the other weasels when
they are debunked. All because I talked about some joints in 1967 you
make up ***** even if I have said over and over that I don't take drugs
right now and that this 35 years ago, you are like the pieces of *****
here you keep making up lies?
There is no delusion. YOU are delusional to think the LIES form your
propaganda sites, whether anti-US or anti-republican, whichever weasel
you are, are not debunked to the bone by facts which I show you.
Top accuse me of anything is just the weasels way of showing they are
pieces of *****.
YOU are the one too blind to see the FACTS. Are YOU a drug user? Respond
to the question.
Had the inspectors been allowed to finish their job they would discovered
there were no WMD. They were discovering that before they left. Don't you
think it would have been less embarrassing to the Bush administration if
Shrub would have been a little more patient? Less of a cowboy?
Kay himself is clear about that:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/07/asb.01.html
KAY: Aaron, I think under the conditions that Saddam imposed, the
inspections would have not had a definitive outcome. Remember, Hans Blix
in December of -- right before the war reported Iraq had not made a
clear determination to disarm. Iraq still was standing in the way of
inspections right up to the time of the war. Inspections could have
continued for another six months. I'm afraid we would still lack a
definitive conclusion as to what the status of Saddam's weapons program
was. We certainly wouldn't understand it as we do today.
Ah, but how can patience secure oil for future Western generations?
Bah, I wish there was a way to that. But nope. Iraqi oil is the Iraqis,
and OPEP is the one who decides about prices.
Nah, the betrayal of the weasels is all based on lies, PURE LIES.
All this will continue to come out as the election draws nearer. I said
it
months ago when it was clear that Bush's out was going to be to blame
the
CIA that the CIA wouldn't in the long run stand still for it. The
insider
information is continuing to come out.
You are a LIAR, this is a LIE. All you say is *****.
Well, do you want me to pull up the post where I said that CIA operatives
and officials would eventually be coming out and telling the truth?
Not a post where you make up lies and quote a propaganda ***** site, the
link to the CIA.GOV site, YES. Prove you are not a fucking weasel for
once. I am sure you can't.
Or do you want me to repost the articles where these officials are quoted?
Not a fucking article, the link to the CIA.GOV site, YES. Prove you are
not a fucking weasel for once. I am sure you can't.
Be a man, look for the truth FOR ONCE in your miserable weasel's life.
Really, Jean, you need to do more reading.
Nah, the quantity of reading means nothing. It is the quality. You can
read all the marxist crap in the world and you would not get anything
relevant to real life.
Read the source, not the made up *****.
They protected the oil wells. They didn't bother with securing the
known
nuclear facilities in Iraq, Steve. Let that sink in for a minute.
Bah, they made sure the wells wouldn't go in flame like they did the
first Gulf War.
Yup, while they apparently completely, and incompetantly ignored the nuclear
equipment that they had invaded the country to secure, you blind, truth
spinning dumb *****.
Funny this is another example of weasels spinning the truth in the FACTS.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6487469
Iraq's Science and Technology Minister Rashad Omar said everything at
the nuclear sites belonging to his ministry was accounted for and that
there had been no recent disappearances.
He said nothing had gone missing since a looting spree after the
U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, which the United States and Britain
said was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
Maybe this is part of a brilliant neocon ploy, Jean. Maybe with Iraqi
nuclear technology in other Arab countries it'll give the Bushites an excuse
to invade other Arab countries.
Well, they don't, need excuses, since Iran is making a bomb and Syria
likely got most if not all the WMDs of Saddam.
Like with Saddam. all they have to prove is that they are behind
terrorism. It was easy with Saddam, with a resolution guaranteeing the
lifting of the cease fire, he went ahead and paid for homicide pieces of
***** bombers. All the lack of WMD in the world wouldn't have changed
his final breach of the UN resolution.
The SC couldn't do anything, if they would have signed something else,
requested an amendment, then maybe, but they didn't.
Now that they insist on making the UN irrelevant by not recognizing
their signature, yes, maybe the US won't wait for the irrelevant UN to
have a say. The weasels have made this organism worthless and the
sanction of their turpitude by the Secretary general has put the last
nail in the coffin.
I'm sure you'll soon forget the source of (name a country's) nuclear
production facilities and fall right into line with all the other propaganda
swilling junior spin doctors.
Propaganda (and lies) is YOUR domain. Not mine.
They went there to get Saddam's WMD programs under control and to
prevent
proliferation. Now the equipment is showing up in other countries. How
afraid of Saddam's WMD programs do you really think they were? It was
the
oil they were after.
Maybe Saddam sent it himself. It is under investigation.
You need to read more, Jean. You'll look far less foolish.
Yes about that I did, and as posted above, nothing is missing.
Thank you very much.
It's all BS, Steve. Don't invest your heart and passion in it.
YOUR crusade IS all BS. Steve should see that you are a lying *****
who hates the US administration.
J.
Well, you keep right on posting, Jean. You're a real credit to your people.
I don't suspect I'll have to interpret much. I'll just post the facts as
they're released and we'll watch the ice you're standing on get thinner and
thinner. The water should be getting pretty cold in Canada about now, even
more so by the time of the election. Bundle up, buddy.
Well, it would be a first.
But I won't hold my breath. All you have posted for so long has always
been pure crap. It would take a miracle to change that IMO.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
15 Oct 2004 05:48:00 PM |
|
|
In article <a2b35e99.0410142018.15631540@posting.google.com>, (Steven Douglas) wrote:
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:<OO2dnQjG64SzgvDcRVn-vQ@locallink.net>...
The main thrust of the invasion, the rationale behind it, was gaining
control of the WMD and to stop it from being shared across the Middle East
and the world. It was a huge lie.
According to Bob Woodward's book, CIA director George Tenet (who was
appointed by President Clinton) told President Bush the WMD
intelligence was a slam dunk. At the time, John Kerry told the world
Saddam Hussein was a threat. At the time, John Edwards told the world
Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. Suppose President Bush had not
acted on the intelligence ... suppose the intelligence had been
correct and Bush failed to act on the intelligence. And suppose the
intelligence had been correct, Bush failed to act on the intelligence,
and WMD WERE shared across the Middle East and the world. Would you
have called Bush an idiot (or worse) for failing to act on the
intelligence? Would you have asked how Bush could have ignored the
Clinton appointed CIA director who TOLD him the intelligence was a
slam dunk?
We are dealing with an administration who lashes out at those who don't tell him
what he wants to hear, so Bush got, and is getting, both what he wanted and what
he deserves.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
16 Oct 2004 08:43:02 AM |
|
|
(Woodswun) wrote in message news:<AsYbd.11558$l07.11408@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
In article <a2b35e99.0410142018.15631540@posting.google.com>,
dsteven@flashmail.com (Steven Douglas) wrote:
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:<OO2dnQjG64SzgvDcRVn-vQ@locallink.net>...
The main thrust of the invasion, the rationale behind it, was gaining
control of the WMD and to stop it from being shared across the Middle East
and the world. It was a huge lie.
According to Bob Woodward's book, CIA director George Tenet (who was
appointed by President Clinton) told President Bush the WMD
intelligence was a slam dunk. At the time, John Kerry told the world
Saddam Hussein was a threat. At the time, John Edwards told the world
Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. Suppose President Bush had not
acted on the intelligence ... suppose the intelligence had been
correct and Bush failed to act on the intelligence. And suppose the
intelligence had been correct, Bush failed to act on the intelligence,
and WMD WERE shared across the Middle East and the world. Would you
have called Bush an idiot (or worse) for failing to act on the
intelligence? Would you have asked how Bush could have ignored the
Clinton appointed CIA director who TOLD him the intelligence was a
slam dunk?
We are dealing with an administration who lashes out at those who don't tell him
what he wants to hear, so Bush got, and is getting, both what he wanted and what
he deserves.
I see, so you're saying George Tenet has no backbone. He was afraid
Bush would "lash out" at him if he didn't tell him what he wanted to
hear. Was he afraid of losing his job?????????????????
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
