Report: Saddam's Bunker is GONE! (cuz it never existed)

Dishonesty everywhere. I'm proud of our soldiers but I'm ashamed of the way the govt. handled the whole mess with lies, deceit and dishonesty.

Yes I'm glad Saddam is gone, but just wish it could have been done in a different way, and certainly with more honesty from the officials that are supposed to serve the people.

 

Wow, our intelligence reports continue to impress...or is that depress?

 

That's true. In order to protect us from the terrorists, the truth no longer matters. I don't know what I was thinking.

 

It doesn't matter, he's gone.

 

Oh Jesus, more conspiracy "They lied!" theories... This is clearly a case of bad intel and bad targeting. They would not have fired those missiles unless they genuinely thought that something worth expending several million dollars worth of military equipment on was there. It was a shoot from the hip effort that was the result of a hasty decision, that in hindsight was based on faulty information - such as happens on a *daily* (if not hourly) basis in warfare. But what do you guys do? "Bush lied!!!"...

I must say that I'm not surprised.

Rm95 has given the only sensible reply in this thread so far.

 

By 'sensible' you mean 'agrees with me', don't you?

Bad intel? Yeah..real bad...so bad that even afterwards they were calling it good intel, very good intel, and calling the target hit accomplished. Which is amazing....as it was never there.

 

Not being surprised that he lied, doesn't mean that it's ok. Like I said I'm glad Saddam is gone, but having a govt. be honest about it is a good thing.

What I thought was dishonest was not the initial bombing and the fact that there was no bunker there, but the way they trumped up the bunker's distruction afterwards.

I asked DaDakota in another thread, do think character should not be a factor in political campaigns? If one candidate is honest and another dishonest that honesty shouldn't be an issue?

 

Hey, at least we killed those diners in that restaurant in the last bombing aimed at Saddam. Can't have people eating dinner like that while we still have precision bombs to drop.

 

MacBeth:

It is the only statement here that has a factual basis and does not involve a conspiracy theory. Whether or not I agree with the statement is irrelevent; it is based on established fact. Saddam is gone from power.

Do you deny that "It doesn't matter, he's gone" is a factual statement?

Rumsfeld was right in terms of "we hit what we were aiming for, and it is logical to conclude that whatever was there was destroyed". Not his words, but that's what he was saying. What did he base that on? Almost certainly satellite intelligence with a possible ground component (Spec Ops on the ground observing the strikes). What would they have seen? They would have seen the missiles striking what they thought was a good target.

They were wrong about it being a good target. It happens all the time - all the time - in warfare. Intel is frequently faulty. Especially when it comes to suspected underground bunker sites. I know, because I have been trained to do what that Spec Ops guy does, that is to observe suspected targets (I am a Forward Observer, remember). They are not always what you think they are, and we are sometimes wrong about them.

FB:

See my explaination to MacBeth. That should sum it up. If you still don't understand or believe it, well... then you probably never will.

Sam Fisher:

Well, that was a useless (and pretty meaningless, to boot) statement if I've ever heard one. Thanks.

Gone from power? 100% certainty on that. Dead? I'd say 60/40. Does it matter if he is alive or dead if he is not in power? Not particularly.

Al Qaeda, while obviously still a threat, is for all intents and purposes broken and on the run - they ain't what they used to be. Newsweek has a good article on this this week if you care to read about it. But nice try denigrating our nation's efforts in the War on Terror over the past year and a half.

If there is a declaration (there hasn't been - all we've heard from Bush is "It's going to be a long, tough fight") and if it is false, then I would agree. I would also say that we've done an exceptionally good job so far in a war that may last for a couple of decades, and I don't think there's anything wrong with the administration pointing that out. Wouldn't you agree?

Woofer:

If Saddam is dead, then he was probably eating dinner there when he died. He has been noticeably absent from... everything since that day.

I would call that a worthwhile expenditure of ordnance.

Everyone:

The sooner you guys stop immediately assuming that a conspiracy theory will explain every situation that does not have an obvious, unarguable answer to it, the sooner you guys will truly understand what is going on. I see the same people repeatedly throwing out conspiracy theories for every damn little thing that happens (or doesn't happen), when there is usually another explanation that has a much higher probability of being accurate - and usually turns out to be. Stop watching Oliver Stone movies. They are fiction.

I for one have decided that from now on when I see someone repeatedly throwing out ridiculous conspiracy theories, I will add that person to my ignore list - unless I just find them too interesting or amusing to ignore (glynch, MacBeth). My ignore list has grown accordingly, though I'd rather not add anyone to it at all. I have just come to the realization that it is absolutely pointless to argue with someone who is stuck on fairy tales, and as I A) no longer have the patience for it, and B) it serves no purpose other than exasperating me, I have decided not to argue against obviously ridiculous theories anymore. This is not a threat or anything to anyone, just throwing it out there... I just have no use for bogus theories anymore.

 

You speak of conspiracy theories more often than anyone on the BBS boards. Btw- you have just about agreed/supported MacBeth point by point (save for a few put-downs).

It was bad intelligence that we overhyped end of discussion.

 

You mean intel isn't always 100% accurate? This is really earth shattering news. Clearly this changes EVERYTHING.

 

That would probably be because those who put them out there don't regard them as conspiracy theories.

How so? MacBeth is trying to put a slant on things, I'm just trying to explain it and put it into context. I wouldn't say it supports the slant at all.

I can buy into that. Pretty much what I'm saying, although I'm not sure it was "overhyped" (it's not like anyone ever said "yeah we got him", or "yeah, we're pretty damn sure he was in there"). They honestly thought they *might* have gotten him at the time... But that answer is much, much better than "Bush bad, he lied" or something along those lines. Cool.

 

It's only a matter of time before we find that bunker damnit! They've had 12 years to hide it.