The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the Winter of
'03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD and had no
connection to Al Qaeda. Who are these incredibly well informed, perceptive
and honest people?
Yes, I'll have more French fries, thank-you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010500438.html?referrer=emailarticle
On Iraq, Chirac suggested the problems there today justified France's strong
opposition to the invasion in 2003.
"As France foresaw and feared, the war in Iraq caused upheavals whose
effects have not yet finished unraveling," he said.
"The venture exacerbated the divisions between (Iraqi) communities and
undermined the very integrity of Iraq," he said. "It weakened the stability
of the region, where every country is now worried about its security and
independence. It gave terrorism new terrain for expansion."
.
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
10 Jan 2007 08:02:44 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
my point is that Chirac's government (despite John
Lemke's original post in this thread) did NOT believe
Saddam no longer possessed WMD. In fact, Chirac
himself said there were various indications that would
lead them to believe Saddam WAS continuing his
WMD programs.
Going by your own citation, we know you are lying.
You're not mistaken, you're not confused, you are
intentionally lying.
No, I'm not lying; you are confused.
Your cite, the Chirac quote:
"Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that,
over the past four years, in the absence of international
inspectors, this country has continued armament
programs."
Well, the fact is that, MONTH BEFORE THE WAR, those
international inspectors were no longer absent. Back in
September of 2002 Saddam agreed to let them back in.
Wrong. You're just factually incorrect, which makes the remainder of
your argument suspect.
Once returned, Chirac -- in fact, the entire world -- had
every reason to believe that Iraq had NO WMDs.
Wrong again. After a failed negotiation process with Saddam, the UN
Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 in November, 2002.
The only reason Saddam agreed to allow the inspectors to return was the
tough wording of 1441. But he never intended to cooperate, and here is
the documentation for that:
On January 31, 2003, Hans Blix reported that the Iraqis were not
cooperating when he said they "have not been taking the questions
seriously."
CNN -- "Blix sees no new Iraqi cooperation"
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said
Thursday he has so far seen no evidence of a promised increase in Iraqi
cooperation and that he is still considering Baghdad's offer to return
for further discussions on disarmament.
[...]
Blix told the council Monday that Iraq has not fully accounted for its
stocks of chemical and biological weapons and has not fully accepted
its obligation to disarm under U.N. Resolution 1441. [end excerpt]
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/30/sprj.irq.wrap/
Rather than join the call for Saddam Hussein to cooperate, antiwar
activists around the world instead blamed President Bush and labeled
him a warmonger. And so, another 3 weeks after Hans Blix said Iraq was
uncooperative, we read this:
"BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 19 -- President Saddam Hussein's government,
apparently emboldened by antiwar sentiment at the U.N. Security
Council and in worldwide street protests, has not followed through on
its promises of increased cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors,
according to inspectors in Iraq."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32416-2003Feb19?language=printer
On March 7, Hans Blix addressed the Security Council. Knowing Iraq's
lack of cooperation was causing the threat of severe consequences to
draw ever more near, he attempted to paint a rosy picture of Iraq's
cooperation in the entirety of his address. But even he couldn't cover
for the blatant lack of cooperation completely, as selected quotes
point out:
"Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system,
should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its
proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come
to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It
was a disappointment that Iraq's declaration of the 7th of December
did not bring new documentary evidence."
"One can hardly avoid the impression that after a period of somewhat
reluctant cooperation, there's been an acceleration of initiatives
from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome. But the
value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question
marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet
clear.
"Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has
cooperated, 'immediately, unconditionally and actively,' with UNMOVIC,
as is required under Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441. The answers can
be seen from the factor descriptions that I have provided."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/
[Quoting CBS News] - Secretary of State Colin Powell urged members to
read Blix's 167-page report detailing a long list of unanswered
questions about Iraq's chemical, biological and missile programs over
the past 12 years, which Powell called "chilling" and "damning."
Portions of the document, obtained by CBS News, list questions about
the types and numbers of chemical and biological agents for which Iraq
has never accounted. It states that inspectors "cannot discount the
possibility that Iraq has developed mobile-production facilities or
that it has production equipment at other hidden sites."
It says Iraq has given no evidence that its stocks of VX nerve gas or
botulinum toxin were ever destroyed.
Britain and the United States proposed Friday giving Saddam Hussein an
ultimatum to comply with U.N. inspections by March 17 or face war.
[end quote]
http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2003/03/08/iraq/main543257.shtml
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
10 Jan 2007 09:15:07 AM |
|
|
[]==correction
Steven Douglas wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Well, the fact is that, MONTH[S] BEFORE THE WAR, those
international inspectors were no longer absent. Back in
September of 2002 Saddam agreed to let them back in.
Wrong. You're just factually incorrect, which makes the remainder of
your argument suspect.
Here you prove yourself a liar:
The only reason Saddam agreed to allow the inspectors to return
was the tough wording of 1441.
Okay, so you are wrong about that.
On January 31, 2003,
*Bzzzzt*
Let's count your intentional misrepresentations....
#1) You're taking an account from an American
news source from a time when we all know that
American news sources were filled with falsehoods.
#2) You're taking a four year old "source," and
intentionally ignoring all the information we have
learned since.
Bush administration positively identifies what it
means by "WMDs" before the war:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0313/p06s01-woiq.html
You're saying the French couldn't know, even
when clearly nobody was fooling the Canadians:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1047476537756_58/?hub=World
Even Colin Powell knew it was all *****:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article128203.html
That's why you have to cherry pick. Because,
the facts are against you.
You're a liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
10 Jan 2007 10:15:01 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
[]==correction
Steven Douglas wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Well, the fact is that, MONTH[S] BEFORE THE WAR, those
international inspectors were no longer absent. Back in
September of 2002 Saddam agreed to let them back in.
Wrong. You're just factually incorrect, which makes the remainder of
your argument suspect.
Here you prove yourself a liar:
Why don't you post some documentation that shows Saddam agreed to allow
the inspectors to return in September of 2002?
The only reason Saddam agreed to allow the inspectors to return
was the tough wording of 1441.
Okay, so you are wrong about that.
Okay, so you were wrong about Saddam agreeing to allow the inspectors
to return in September of 2002. He did not make that agreement until
AFTER Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously by the UN Security Council
in November 2002.
On January 31, 2003,
*Bzzzzt*
Let's count your intentional misrepresentations....
#1) You're taking an account from an American
news source from a time when we all know that
American news sources were filled with falsehoods.
I quoted Hans Blix from a transcript of one of his speeches before the
UN Security Council. The news sources I used also quoted Hans Blix.
Hans Blix said Iraq was not cooperating with the inspectors. I know
this is difficult for you to adjust to after all these years of
believing the leftist propaganda you're so emotionally invested in.
#2) You're taking a four year old "source," and
intentionally ignoring all the information we have
learned since.
What we have learned since has nothing to do with what was happening at
the time. At the time, Saddam was NOT cooperating with the inspectors.
Your weak comeback with some articles about that drone does not account
for all the items in Hans Blix's report (a report that is mentioned in
one of my news sources). You should read this and inform yourself for
the first time in all these years:
UNMOVIC Working document
6 March 2003
UNRESOLVED DISARMAMENT ISSUES
IRAQ'S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
6 March 2003
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/UNMOVIC%20UDI%20Working%20Document%206%20March%2003.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
07 Jan 2007 02:20:14 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Yes, I know. But then Saddam refused to
cooperate with the inspectors.
I'll let you in on something. Perhaps it will lend you
insight into people like me, help you to understand
where we're coming from, and why we keep clashing
with you. Who knows? Maybe you can even agree
with us on a lot of things, and incorporate that into
your comments...
Way back in 2002 we witnessed Bush take Iran,
erase the 'n' and replace it with a 'q' in order to
arrive at "Iraq."
Get it? Bush turned "Iran" into "Iraq."
Was Iraq trying to buy uranium from Nigeria?
No. But Iran was.
Actually, the British government stands by its claim that
Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger.
Last I heard that was debunked as a myth. You could perhaps
post a pre-2003 article to try to validate your claim (of
course,
the world learned in 2005 that the niger connection was
boloney).
Can you post documentation that proves that?
Provide evidence that something doesn't exist ?
You said the world learned in 2005 that the Niger connection was
baloney. What, exactly, did the world learn in 2005?
That the Niger connection was baloney.
Show me.
My not providing any evidence is the best evidence you'll find
that the yellow-cake connection didn't exist.
Just tell me what the world learned in 2005 that showed Saddam did
not *try* to purchase uranium from Niger?
The world learned in 2005 that Saddam did not *try* to purchase
uranium from Niger (sorry, you asked WHAT the world learned in
2005).
False.
As I recall, the 911 Commission report indicated there was no
Niger yellow cake purchase by Saddam in the works. You can
google that with '911 commission yellow cake'... you'll get
about 8000 articles for consumption.
Bush didn't say there was a yellow cake purchase. He said Saddam
*tried* to buy uranium. Now what did the world learn in 2005 that
debunks Bush's statement that British Intelligence learned Saddam
*tried* to buy uranium?
The evidence Bush used to support his 'yellow cake' claim, those
documents, were shown to be forgeries in 2005, by an independent
Italian investigation. You can google this if you need more.
False. British Intelligence stands by its claim that Saddam tried to
buy uranium from Niger. They reached that conclusion before the
forged
documents appeared.
You're wrong Stephen. After all this boloney occurred, those
documents were shown to be forgeries.
The forged documents referred to a *transaction* that did not take
place. But Bush did not claim a transaction had taken place. Read this:
WILSON (in his letter to the Intelligence Committee): "I never claimed
to have 'debunked' the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from
Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents
that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not
occur."
Once again Stephen, what you're saying is that since it has
not been proven to be false then it must be true. That's
back-assward thinking my friend. It's like saying that since I've
never seen a little green man from mars and cannot disprove his
existance then he MUST exist. Your logic is flawed. This is why
we've suggested you go back to school and take a few more logical
thinking classes. You have difficulty forming reasoned arguments.
No, that would be you, Randolph. I keep posting documentation to back
up my arguments, while all you do is spout leftist propaganda that you
heard somewhere -- and with that, you seem to be reluctant to back up
your arguments with any form of documentation. It is truly ironic that
you're critical of my logical thinking, when you just recently twisted
Jacques Chirac's words into a pretzel -- here is what he actually said:
[quoting Jacques Chirac] "Today, there are various indications that
lead us to believe that for almost the last four years, in the absence
of International arms Inspectors, this country (Iraq) has been engaged
in a program of armament."
Somehow, you have twisted his words so that you have him saying
something about a lack of evidence. How did your superior logical
thinking come to that conclusion? Even with your mention of the absence
of inspectors, all he is doing is amplifying the various indications
that led us to believe Iraq was continuing its WMD programs.
The only evidence Bush had for making his claim that Saddam 'tried'
to purchase yellow cake from Niger was a set of documents which
were later proven to be forgeries.
You're 100% factually wrong (as usual). That's just more of your
leftist propaganda. Frankly, I'm tired of the lies of the left, which
you keep spouting even after I have shown you to be wrong. But do you
care about logic? Of course not, because your intellect (along with
many of your fellow leftists) is based in emotion.
You fucking android!!! Product of A.I. !!! Why don't you come clean,
robot man, and admit your a fucking machine, devoid of emotion, not
programmed for human feelings??!! We already suspect it, anyway.
C'mon, tell us your date of manufacture and serial assembly number. I
dare you!!! Goddamnit!!! You androids want to get rid of us homo
sapien creatures because we are so emotional, so...inefficient....we
waste so much energy caring, loving, being compassionate, being
sympathetic and emphathetic, getting angry because of injustices and
cruelty, hating evil leaders, etc....We won't lay down easily and we
will fight your dispassionate silicon brains and cold titanium
asses!!!!
Your hatred for Bush
is your motivation, and the truth be damned. Please read the following
brief excerpts, and if you have a response to them, respond to them.
But don't come back with more of your weak platitudes -- they're
getting old and tired.
[quoting the Butler Report] It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi
officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had
intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit
was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes
almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was
credible.
[quoting the Butler Report] By extension, we conclude also that the
statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28
January 2003 that "The British Government has learned that Saddam
Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa" was well-founded.
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/
[quoting the Senate Intelligence Committee Report] He (a CIA analyst)
said he judged that the most important fact in [Joe Wilson's] report
was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had
traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed
the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided
some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_rpt/ssci_iraq.pdf
[quoting Joe Wilson in his letter to the Intelligence Committee] "I
never claimed to have 'debunked' the allegation that Iraq was seeking
uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in
the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred
and did not occur."
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/07/16/wilson_letter/index.html
[quoting Washington Post] It was Saddam Hussein's information minister,
Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as
"Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of
Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a
possible effort to buy uranium.
That's according to a new book Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador
who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that
Iraq had been trying to buy enriched "yellowcake" uranium. Wilson wrote
that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this
January, when he talked again with his Niger source. [end quoting]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54640-2004Apr29?language=printer
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 09:10:21 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
the world learned in 2005 that the niger connection was
boloney). In 2003 only Bush and company knew the
yellow-cake story was bunk.
Not exactly. The UN debunked it back in 2003, and they
had a lot of help from Wilson. In fact, the now famous
"outing" of his wife as a deep undercover CIA operative
in retaliation for Wilson spilling the beans occured in
July of 2003.
Bush & pals knew the story was bunk AT LEAST since
February of 2002, when Wilson originally reported back
on it.
But, let's face, it's unlikely that they didn't know it was
bunk even before that...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 09:22:44 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Perseid wrote:
the world learned in 2005 that the niger connection was
boloney). In 2003 only Bush and company knew the
yellow-cake story was bunk.
Not exactly. The UN debunked it back in 2003, and they
had a lot of help from Wilson. In fact, the now famous
"outing" of his wife as a deep undercover CIA operative
in retaliation for Wilson spilling the beans occured in
July of 2003.
Bush & pals knew the story was bunk AT LEAST since
February of 2002, when Wilson originally reported back
on it.
But, let's face, it's unlikely that they didn't know it was
bunk even before that...
But the 911 Commission didn't print their report until mid-2004,
and this was the first real non-partisan investigation into the
period leading up to the Iraq invasion. I'd say the masses didn't
get all the facts about the pre-invasion time frame until about
2005.
Joe Wilson knew the yellow cake thing was baloney back in 2003,
and the Bush people should have known then also (they are in the
intel business).
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 09:34:32 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
Joe Wilson knew the yellow cake thing was baloney back
in 2003,
2002. He made his report in February of 2002.
and the Bush people should have known then also
(they are in the intel business).
They most certainly did know. Which is why they
changed the January 2003 state of the union speech
to read "British Intelligence reports." That way they
could pretend that, technically, they weren't lying,
as the British intellegince really did report such a
thing... so it's not a lie to say that they reported it...
even if they all knew for a fact that the report was
bunk.
Heck, I could have sworn that Wilson's finding had
been leaked even before the war... thought I could
recall reading something withing weeks of the 2003
state of the union speech...
Guess what? I was recalling correctly. Go check
the google archives yourself. Even before the war,
the results of Wilson's investigation had been
leaked to the press, even if the source had yet to
be identified.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 07:55:57 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:19:42 -0500, John Lemke wrote:
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the Winter of
'03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD and had no
connection to Al Qaeda. Who are these incredibly well informed, perceptive
and honest people?
Yes, I'll have more French fries, thank-you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010500438.html?referrer=emailarticle
On Iraq, Chirac suggested the problems there today justified France's strong
opposition to the invasion in 2003.
"As France foresaw and feared, the war in Iraq caused upheavals whose
effects have not yet finished unraveling," he said.
"The venture exacerbated the divisions between (Iraqi) communities and
undermined the very integrity of Iraq," he said. "It weakened the stability
of the region, where every country is now worried about its security and
independence. It gave terrorism new terrain for expansion."
Geez, EVERYONE who was being called anti-American knew! That's why folks
were opposed to the war in the first place! Even Bush knew - he was told
of the risks.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
