With all due respect that is not correct. Intriguingly, the prime instigator of the investigation was Mr Rumsfeld who, disappointed by the lukewarm findings of the CIA, set up an intelligence unit inside his office to assess the Iraq threat. This body is known to have relied heavily on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress exile group, led by Ahmed Chalabi, long the preferred choice of the Pentagon and the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, to lead post-Saddam Iraq. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=410468
Yup. I don't blame George himself so much as Rummy, wolfy, et al. for this con job. I don't normally like Kristof's columns but today's is pretty informative on this point: Save Our Spooks By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF n Day 71 of the Hunt for Iraqi W.M.D., yesterday, once again nothing turned up. Maybe we'll do better on Day 72. But we might have better luck searching for something just as alarming: the growing evidence that the administration grossly manipulated intelligence about those weapons of mass destruction in the runup to the Iraq war. A column earlier this month on this issue drew a torrent of covert communications from indignant spooks who say that administration officials leaned on them to exaggerate the Iraqi threat and deceive the public. "The American people were manipulated," bluntly declares one person from the Defense Intelligence Agency who says he was privy to all the intelligence there on Iraq. These people are coming forward because they are fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world — that such work should be nonpolitical — and are disgusted at efforts to turn them into propagandists. "The Al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.," notes Greg Thielmann, who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department, the last four in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things." The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that they have formed a group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, that wrote to President Bush this month to protest what it called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions." "While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes," the letter said, "never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war." Ray McGovern, a retired C.I.A. analyst who briefed President Bush's father in the White House in the 1980's, said that people in the agency were now "totally demoralized." He says, and others back him up, that the Pentagon took dubious accounts from émigrés close to Ahmad Chalabi and gave these tales credibility they did not deserve. Intelligence analysts often speak of "humint" for human intelligence (spies) and "sigint" for signals intelligence (wiretaps). They refer contemptuously to recent work as "rumint," or rumor intelligence. "I've never heard this level of alarm before," said Larry Johnson, who used to work in the C.I.A. and State Department. "It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt." Some say that top Pentagon officials cast about for the most sensational nuggets about Iraq and used them to bludgeon Colin Powell and seduce President Bush. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, has been generally liked and respected within the agency ranks, but in the last year, particularly in the intelligence directorate, people say that he has kowtowed to Donald Rumsfeld and compromised the integrity of his own organization. "We never felt that there was any leadership in the C.I.A. to qualify or put into context the information available," one veteran said. "Rather there was a tendency to feed the most alarming tidbits to the president. Often it's the most ill-considered information that goes to the president. "So instead of giving the president the most considered, carefully examined information available, basically you give him the garbage. And then in a few days when it's clear that maybe it wasn't right, well then, you feed him some more hot garbage." The C.I.A. is now examining its own record, and that's welcome. But the atmosphere within the intelligence community is so poisonous, and the stakes are so high — for the credibility of America's word and the soundness of information on which we base American foreign policy — that an outside examination is essential. Congress must provide greater oversight, and President Bush should invite Brent Scowcroft, the head of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a man trusted by all sides, to lead an inquiry and, in a public report, suggest steps to restore integrity to America's intelligence agencies.
If ever the senate needed to launch one of its infamous "investigations" this would fit the bill. Obviously this will never happen though, which is just a disgrace.
I blame GWB. The buck stops at his desk. BTW, do you think GWB has spent a nonosecond thinking about the intel blunders?
Oh don't get me wrong, he deserves some of the blame for the reason that Rudy deserves some of the blame when Moochie puts on a dribbling exhibition in front of the scorers table when we're down by 1 in the 4th, but directly it's mooches fault.
AP Story Comments by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz add further questions about weapons of mass destruction. In an interview in the next issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Wolfowitz cites "bureaucratic reasons" for focusing on Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal. It is time to cut and run.
Months before war was launched, Blair produced what he said was intelligence that Saddam Hussein could launch biological or chemical weapons at short notice, in Iraq or at its neighbors. That became London's justification for joining Washington's war in the Gulf. But weeks after the conflict finished, no such weapons have been found. Widespread international cynicism about British and American motives for the war was stoked this week by a BBC report that an intelligence dossier had been altered, at the request of Blair's office, to make it "sexier" by adding that Iraq's weapons could be readied for use within 45 minutes. The UK government on Saturday denied a report that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his U.S. counterpart Colin Powell had serious doubts about the quality of intelligence they received on Iraq's weapons programmes. Blair Says Iraq Weapons Secrets Will Be Publicized By Mike Peacock ST PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) insisted on Sunday that Britain and the United States would unearth evidence of Iraq (news - web sites)'s "weapons of mass destruction" and make it public before long. In an interview with Britain's Sky Television at a Russia-European Union (news - web sites) summit, Blair said he had already seen plenty of information that his critics had not, but would in due course. "Over the coming weeks and months we will assemble this evidence and then we will give it to people," he said. "I have no doubt whatever that the evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction will be there." Months before war was launched, Blair produced what he said was intelligence that Saddam Hussein could launch biological or chemical weapons at short notice, in Iraq or at its neighbors. That became London's justification for joining Washington's war in the Gulf. But weeks after the conflict finished, no such weapons have been found. Widespread international cynicism about British and American motives for the war was stoked this week by a BBC report that an intelligence dossier had been altered, at the request of Blair's office, to make it "sexier" by adding that Iraq's weapons could be readied for use within 45 minutes. UNREPENTANT Blair publicly made that assertion as he argued Saddam had to be tackled. But he was unrepentant on Sunday. "Those people who are sitting there saying 'Oh it is all going to be proved to be a great big fib got out by the security services, there will be no weapons of mass destruction', just wait and have a little patience," he said. "I certainly do know some of the stuff that has already been accumulated...which is not yet public but what we are going to do is assemble that evidence and present it properly." Blair has recently raised fresh justifications for toppling Saddam, pointing to his oppressive regime and its documented atrocities. But his political opponents will continue to hound him over the original reason he gave for war. Blair took a big gamble backing a war which was heavily opposed by Britons before it started. Polls later turned in Blair's favor but the issue has the power to return and bite him. The controversy has been fueled by comments from the two top U.S. defense officials that the American decision to stress the threat of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons was taken for "bureaucratic" reasons, and that Iraq may have destroyed them before the war. The UK government on Saturday denied a report that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his U.S. counterpart Colin Powell (news - web sites) had serious doubts about the quality of intelligence they received on Iraq's weapons programmes. The Guardian, quoting a diplomatic source, said the pair had met shortly before a crucial U.N. Security Council meeting in February and both expressed their "deep concerns about the intelligence" they were getting on Iraq. A Foreign Office spokeswoman said the report was "untrue."
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Who Said What When CounterPunch Wire Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney August 26, 2002 Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush September 12, 2002 If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002 We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003 Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. George W. Bush January 28, 2003 We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell February 5, 2003 We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. George Bush February 8, 2003 So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not. Colin Powell March 8, 2003 Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George Bush March 17, 2003 Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003 There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003 I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003 One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003 We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad. Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003 Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty. Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003 I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found. Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003 We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George Bush April 24, 2003 There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003 We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. George Bush May 3, 2003 I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell May 4, 2003 I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003 I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush May 6, 2003 U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003 I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden. Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003 Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found. Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003 Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003 They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer. Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003 For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/5980924.htm Posted on Sun, Jun. 01, 2003 Troubling questions over Iraq war By JOHN WALCOTT Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - Some of President Bush's top advisers, who had hoped the war in Iraq would be the turning point in the battle against terrorism and the centerpiece of the president's re-election campaign, fear it is instead becoming a political, diplomatic and military mess. "The postwar period in Iraq is messy. We haven't found what we said we'd find there and there are unpleasant questions about assumptions we made and intelligence we had," said one senior official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. "If many more months go by and our troops are still there, the Iraqis are still fighting each other and us and we still haven't found any WMD (weapons of mass destruction), there will be hell to pay." The situation in Iraq could rebound quickly, especially if U.S. forces can restore electric power, water, health care and other services to the population, revive the nation's battered oil industry and unite the country's feuding Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis and tribesmen into some sort of civil authority. But for now, U.S. troops in Iraq are becoming the targets of anger and ambushes instead of being greeted as liberators, as some Pentagon officials had expected. Eleven Americans died this week from enemy action and accidents, and some of their civilian leaders now privately admit that the relatively small force that quickly overwhelmed the Iraqi military is too small to restore order in a nation the size of California. The U.S. attempt to hand the country over to an Iraqi civilian administration isn't faring much better, and Bush is expected to meet with L. Paul Bremer III, the top U.S. civilian in Iraq, in Qatar on Wednesday to discuss overhauling the American administration in Baghdad for the second time in a month. A top U.S. official on Friday said that Bremer's predecessor, retired Army Gen. Jay Garner, had failed, adding: "We lost a month because of Garner." A growing number of critics in Congress and some within the government now suspect that a third problem, potentially the most serious of all, helps to explain the unexpected military and political difficulties. Much of the administration's public rationale for the war, and much of its planning for both the war and its aftermath, these critics say, appears to have been based on fabricated or exaggerated intelligence that was fed to civilian officials in the Pentagon by Iraqi exiles who were eager for the United States to oust Saddam Hussein. The exiles' intelligence network, intelligence officials said, told Pentagon officials that, among other things, many Iraqi Shiites would welcome American troops as liberators, that some key Iraqi generals would surrender their entire units and that Saddam had sent a key operative to work with a small militant Islamic group, Ansar al Islam, that had ties to al-Qaida. Officials in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department all warned repeatedly that past experience with the exiles, led by Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, indicated that the intelligence they provided was unreliable at best. But Iraqi defectors produced by the INC and other intelligence supplied by the group got a ready hearing in two important places: a special intelligence group set up by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, and The New York Times. The INC, said U.S. intelligence officials, bypassed the skeptics in the CIA and DIA and fed the same information about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida to both places so Pentagon officials would confirm what the newspaper was hearing and the nation's most powerful newspaper would confirm what the Pentagon was hearing. An internal Times e-mail reported by The Washington Post said Chalabi "has provided most of the front-page exclusives on WMD to our paper" and added that a team of U.S. troops searching for chemical and biological weapons in Iraq was "using Chalabi's intell (intelligence) and document network for its own WMD work." Doubts about the administration's assertions that Saddam had hidden stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and established ties to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist organization have been growing almost daily since the war ended, as U.S. troops have failed to find either any weapons or any ties to terrorism. The senior Marine general in Iraq said Friday that extensive searches have failed to locate any of the chemical weapons that U.S. intelligence had warned the Iraqis might use. "It was a surprise to me then - it remains a surprise to me now - that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal areas," Lt. Gen. James Conway, the commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, told reporters at the Pentagon in a video teleconference. "Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there," Conway said. Bush, however, speaking to a Polish television network in advance of a visit to Poland on Friday and Saturday, insisted that: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. ... And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, we found them." CIA officials on Wednesday said U.S. troops in Iraq found two mobile laboratories that analysts concluded were intended to make biological weapons, but they said the labs contained no evidence that the Iraqis had actually produced such weapons. In an interview for the upcoming issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a leading proponent of the war in Iraq, cast some doubt on whether administration officials were convinced that Iraq had secret stocks of nerve gas and anthrax, or whether they merely seized on the issue as a way to muster public and political support for the war. "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz said, according to a text of the interview released by the Pentagon. Another senior official, who agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity, said that Wolfowitz's remark was accurate: CIA and State Department analysts, he said, sharply disputed the Pentagon's claim that Saddam had forged links to al-Qaida, but everyone agreed that Iraq probably had not destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons. However, the official said Wolfowitz's "choice of words, if it's being reported accurately, is probably one that Paul now regrets." Another top official, who also agreed to speak only without attribution because, he said, "talking out of school is frowned upon at the White House," said White House political director Karl Rove and other officials were displeased by the report of Wolfowitz's remarks because they feared it would undermine public support for the war. In Europe, the account of Wolfowitz's remarks revived suspicions that the administration had deliberately misled the world about Iraq just as Bush headed to Poland, Russia and an economic summit meeting in France. "The charge of deception is inescapable," said Germany's largest newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Woofer: Please stop posting these articles and focus on the real enemy, which is obviously France. Don't you read treeman's posts? Any article which demeans the war effort is nothing but a hopped up conspiracy theory and any one which supports the war is pure inarguable fact. You need to learn to respect that. And also, don't you read johnheath's posts? WMD's have been found like crazy like a hundred times. Even if those articles he posts keep getting disgraced and retracted, there are so many of them. I mean, some of them must be true. Plus, even in the article you posted, Bush said we've already found the WMD. It wasn't good enough for you when he said he knew for sure they had em and could attack us any minute and it's still not good enough for you when he says we already found em. Hell with basically every single news source in the world -- Bush says he's right. Anything to the contrary is a hippie liberal conspiracy theory. If you can't accept that, please admit you hate America and just move to another country. Am I right, fellas? Can I get an amen? treeman? johnheath? Jorgie_Porgie? Anyone? My flag's goin full blast. What about yours?
Batman Jones, I asked you once before to go back and reread my posts about WMD. In every case, I was reposting articles that were yet to be confirmed, and I noted that fact. Of course, from your posts, I have always known what a miserable A hole you are, but now I can also call you a liar.
Ummmm....are these the notations about your finds still being unconfirmed, jh? *"Timing, all evidence points to two points. 1. Iraq never stopped striving for the capability to produce and hide biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. 2. Iraq forged some kind of relationship with Al Queda in an effort to hurt the United States. Your hatred of Bush has clouded your common sense. Look past your bias and at least see this truth." *" The evidence is overwhelming that Iraq was not complying with UN mandates in regards to WMD, and the Al Queda connection is clear based on Czech intelligence and firsthand accounts of defectors. " *"Congressional Democrats wanted us to beg the UN for the right to defend ourselves against the Iraqi threat. Clearly, all evidence points to an active WMD program inside Iraq, and an UN inspections team compromised by spys. This is just more ammunition that will lead to an inescapable conclusion. The Democrats cannot be trusted to perform the most important governmental task- defending our nation. You libs can bark all you want about "no WMD found yet" but you will just look silly in the end." * "Wow, the story is unraveling. It looks like the anti-war crowd is going to be very embarrassed as tales of WMD and Al Queda become known." * " An Iraqi government scientist links Saddam to Al Queda and WMD, and the anti-war crowd doesn't want to discuss this topic. I am not surprised." *" Once again, our President and military are lying, and Saddam was telling the truth? You are like a broken record. I guess this doesn't matter. I could show you a picture of Osama with a suitcase nuke in downtown Baghdad, and you would find an excuse to dismiss the photo." *"Zoolander, you get an "A" for effort, and an "F" for fact checking. Your entire argument is invalid, especially after today's two blockbuster stories are proving the Bush team's initial assertions about Iraq to be correct." *"Common ground has been impossible to find in this debate because the lefties have refused to stipulate obvious facts. FACT- First hand accounts of scientists and the discovery of mobile bio-chem labs proves that the Iraqis had an active WMD program up to the time of our invasion. FACT- Recent papers prove that Iraq and Al Queda had a working relationship. FACT- Even the American political left agreed that nations who supported terrorists, especially Al Queda, were legitimate targets for our military. The arguments that the Left accepted for attacking Afghanistan are valid in the case of Iraq. FACT- Iraq, because of its support of Al Queda, active WMD programs, and willingness to kill civilians with WMD, was clearly a threat to the United States. We had a right to defend ourselves. When the lefties around here at least admit the obvious, then a real debate can ensue. Unless that occurs, then I suppose the subject is impossible to debate. Of course, I have agreed not to discuss this topic anymore, so I shall stay on the sidelines." *"Iraq had money, an active WMD program, and a relationship with Al Queda. You can't deny these facts." *"Iraq had both a relationship with Al Queda, and an active WMD program. This deadly combination was an immediate threat to the American people. These are not just claims, but verifiable facts." *"We found 11 bio/chem labs buried for retrieval at a later date. Iraqi scientists have told coalition forces that in the days leading up to the war, biological and chemical weapons material was destroyed. The stories are out there- go read them. " *"We will find WMD, including a nuclear program. The anti-war crowd has been completely humiliated, and totally discredited. The coming months will be full of "I told you so" for the American Left, and Syria better start reconsidering it's recent behavior." And there are dozens more where you clearly show that you weren't considering your finds "FACT." As much as I searched, I couldn't find a single article you posted where you mention them not being confirmed...A few examples of editorials you did include this one from the thread you started called How Iraq Conceals And Obtains Its Weapons Of Mass Destruction, you cited this proof of your objectivity and noting that it wasn't confirmed " Educate yourselves." And in the thread you entitled Marines Hold Nuclear Site, you did ask whether or not it was weapons grade plutonium...but followed it ip thus..."If this turns out to be weapons grade plutonium, will the anti-war folks (who called our President a liar in favor of French and Arab disinformation) come back and admit they were wrong? I doubt it. " Gotta admit, that one's a personal fave...unless I missed where you came back and admitted you were wrong. Right. Didn't think so. On April 7th you posted an article entitled Report: US Finds Missiles with Chemical Weapons...and the only commentary you offered was that you said this topic was so huge it deserved it's own thread. Nothing about confirmation/non-confirmation...and, again, no retraction when proven false. Seriously, john...I could post these all day. You repeatedly, almost annoyingly claimed things were FACTS, and aside from that one question of IF these prove to be weapons grade plutonium, I have yet to find one time where you in any way questioned the veracity of the reports you cited. Notice how often you use words like "fact"..."FACT"..."proven".."beyond doubt"...etc. I have mentioned before that you have a strange interpretation of what it and what is not factual. That's your prerogative, I suppose, but that you insist on calling others, including myself and now Batman "liars" every few posts is an interesting adjoinder. You repeatedly demanded "leftist" apologies in the face of your 'facts', but have yet to offer a single one when any and all of them proved false. You mocked, you rolled your eyes, you called people names and questioned their patriotism, objectivity, and intelligence. ANd whenever each of the reports you based these on would fall apart, you would ignore it, and offer another...complete with smug mockery, insults, and demands for apologies and admissions or error. In light of recent events, I had not excpected you to ever admit where you were wrong, but I at least thought that your recent silence on the whole WMD thing was as close as we'd get...now you're insulting people again... Please don't start again...
JH I can't believe you would make that comment. Did you not go back and check your own posts? Please explain to me (or better yet show us some evidence) who is really lying with their comments.
MacBeth, That was a great posts on JohnHeath's so called facts. In fact, watching the real experts on Face the Nation and Meet the Press yesterday morning and the only evidence mentioned were the two mobile labs that are still being investigated. It has already been proven that that what the president told the country about Saddam buying uranium from Africa during a State of the Union Address was info from a forged document. So the left doesn't have a credibility problem on this issue, its our President.
MacBeth, you are incapable of processing information due to your bias. The classic example was just yesterday, when you claimed that I would "indict the entire regime" of Saddam for the sexual molestation of an female American soldier, despite the fact that rape was used as an accepted tool of abuse by that same regime. I have to admit, that not only caused me complete astonishment, but a laugh too. Sometimes even moral relativism is so blatently ridiculous, reasonable people can only laugh. Point one was agreed upon by the UN Security council by a vote of 15-0. Hans Blix also confirmed that point. Point two was proven when the British found papers proving a working relationship with Al Queda. I don't even know why you mentioned my message to Timing actually. The Czech intelligence agents who conducted the surveillance stand by their story to this day. You can call them liars if you choose, but I choose to believe their stories. The search for WMD has really just started. Neither of us can make any determination at this point, except that the world knew that Saddam possessed mass quantities of WMD at one point, and he was unable unwilling to show that they were destroyed. The anti-war crowd should be embarrassed, because Iraqi support or involvement with terrorist organzations that have killed Americans is a PROVEN FACT. You cannot deny that Iraq sought a working relationship with Al Queda, or that Al Queda was being supported inside Iraq. I stand by this statement 100%. I see you still don't want to discuss this, or you would try to refute the scientist's claims. This describes you perfectly. You never did respond to this one if my memory serves me correctly. I liked that post, and I was 100% correct. That is all true. Iraqi scientists have confirmed these facts. Oh, I forgot, everybody who disagrees with you is lying. True again. I like this game, but I like my posts better. What a wonderful ride down memory lane. This post was in a response to a report that was later rescinded, because the buried labs were "dual use". I still believe that the labs were buried for a reason, but nobody will stand by the original charge. This story is still unraveling, and far from over. Syria did reconsider its behavior thankfully. I still believe that the anti-war crowd was completely discredited, and when we find WMD that was hidden by Saddam, it will only get worse. You couldn't find a single article where I mentioned that the story was not confirmed? Hold on there Zoolander, you are contradicting yourself now. "If this turns out to be weapons grade plutonium" means that the story was not confirmed. Nice reach, but you struck out. Yes, that story was incorrect, but I was not wrong for posting news. That story, as I remember, was proven incorrect by the same news source that reported the original story. Why should I post a retraction when the AP already retracted? Zoolander, I stand by 99% of what I write here, and when I am wrong, I say so. Batman Jones throws insults around here more than anybody, and his characterization that And also, don't you read johnheath's posts? WMD's have been found like crazy like a hundred times. Even if those articles he posts keep getting disgraced and retracted, there are so many of them. I mean, some of them must be true. is not only hyperbole, but a lie. I have ZERO respect for his opinion in these matters, and thankfully will never see another one of his posts. The thinking in your referenced post to me can only be described as bizarre. Just like your Iraqi rape comment, your logic is easily disproven and wayward. Have a good day.
