Iran accused over Washington terror plot

lpast · Oct 17, 2011

EagleAye said:
Wow. According to the rightwingnews.com article Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (and many others) supported an Iraq invasion because of WMDs. I wonder what the rebuttal to that is.

Heres some more truth....Bill Clinton Appointed George Tenet reported to bush there were DEFINETLY WMDS in Iraq....after the iraq war George Tenet wrote a book and did interviews and fully supported that Saddamn had WMDS...and thats what Bush based his decision on...that intelligence

Gill · Oct 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Faked evidence? More lied. He had no real evidence, and used things that were doubted, seriously doubted, which where I come from is a lie.

Really??? I guess just about every intelligence agency in every country in the world was wrong then.

Why don't you send them all an e-mail with your "coffee pap" logo on it to set them straight.

Boo Radley · Oct 17, 2011

Gill said:
Really??? I guess just about every intelligence agency in every country in the world was wrong then.

Why don't you send them all an e-mail with your "coffee pap" logo on it to set them straight.

Those groups expressed doubts. So, your statement is nonsensical. The poitn is they doubted Curveball, they knew al Libi was coearsed. They expressed many doubts. None of that was expressed by Bush. Many believe Saddam had a few left over wmds. But Bush's claim went beyond that. Bush said Saddam was growing and gathering, and few supported that view.

Boo Radley · Oct 17, 2011

mac said:
He had indications, just like Clinton did. And who seriously doubted them?

Many seriously doubted them. Many expressed those doubts before we invaded. The CIA doubted Curveball and pointed out al Libi was coearse and likley did not know what he claimed. These doubts were ignored by Bush, and he made the claims as iff they were not doubted.

mac · Oct 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Many seriously doubted them. Many expressed those doubts before we invaded. The CIA doubted Curveball and pointed out al Libi was coearse and likley did not know what he claimed. These doubts were ignored by Bush, and he made the claims as iff they were not doubted.

That's one, you said many. Who is many? And, certainly you can prove the CIA's doubts...with a primary source, right?

Gill · Oct 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Those groups expressed doubts. So, your statement is nonsensical. The poitn is they doubted Curveball, they knew al Libi was coearsed. They expressed many doubts. None of that was expressed by Bush. Many believe Saddam had a few left over wmds. But Bush's claim went beyond that. Bush said Saddam was growing and gathering, and few supported that view.

It's obvious you didn't pay much attention back then. The German, French, English, even the Russians said he undoubtedly had WMDs. Why do you think the UN voted sanctions against Iraq?? It was because they weren't being truthful to the inspectors.

Do I REALLY have to go back and list quotes from the intelligence agencies around the world, as well as 99% of all the Dems that were convinced???? Don't tell my that you think the entire evidence they had was ONLY from curveball???? Surely you are not that misinformed.

MKULTRABOY · Oct 17, 2011

mac said:
Is that your professional opinion?

Like covered in a national security decision-making class last week, that's anyone who knows anything's opinion at this point in time.

Boo Radley · Oct 17, 2011

Gill said:
It's obvious you didn't pay much attention back then. The German, French, English, even the Russians said he undoubtedly had WMDs. Why do you think the UN voted sanctions against Iraq?? It was because they weren't being truthful to the inspectors.

Do I REALLY have to go back and list quotes from the intelligence agencies around the world, as well as 99% of all the Dems that were convinced???? Don't tell my that you think the entire evidence they had was ONLY from curveball???? Surely you are not that misinformed.

No, they said he likely had left over wmds. No one doubted that. Though he had no way to store them. Few to none declared him a serious thread, and none said he was growing and gathering. Sanctions were covered in what we did know and had nothing to do with Bush's deceptions, other than he used it to help useful idiots think the two were related. Saddam was not growing. he was not gathering new weapons, and no intell showed he was.

And we've covered the out of context quotes of dems. If you need the snoops link, let me know. Also, we can look at not only the quotes from agenies that the administration used, but the doubts they didn't use.

Gill · Oct 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
No, they said he likely had left over wmds. No one doubted that. Though he had no way to store them. Few to none declared him a serious thread, and none said he was growing and gathering. Sanctions were covered in what we did know and had nothing to do with Bush's deceptions, other than he used it to help useful idiots think the two were related. Saddam was not growing. he was not gathering new weapons, and no intell showed he was.

And we've covered the out of context quotes of dems. If you need the snoops link, let me know. Also, we can look at not only the quotes from agenies that the administration used, but the doubts they didn't use.

Feel free to start a thread on the subject so I can thoroughly embarrass you.

"snoops" link??? You are truly confused.

Boo Radley · Oct 17, 2011

mac said:
That's one, you said many. Who is many? And, certainly you can prove the CIA's doubts...with a primary source, right?

There have many many links over the years. Frankly if you don't know about them, you are badly ill-informed. However, for you a couple:

A January 2003 CIA report raised doubts about a claim that al Qaeda sent operatives to Iraq to acquire chemical and biological weapons -- assertions that were repeated later by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.

CNN on Thursday obtained a CIA document that outlined the history of the claim, which originated in 2002 with a captured al Qaeda operative who recanted two years later.

The CIA report appears to support a recently declassified document that revealed the Defense Intelligence Agency thought in February 2002 that the source, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, was lying to interrogators.

Prewar CIA report doubted claim that al Qaeda sought WMD in Iraq - CNN

In particular, why did the CIA's then director George Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin believe the claim by Curveball, "and convey that to Powell even though the CIA's own European chief Tyler Drumheller had already raised serious doubts.

Curveball's admission 'raises questions about CIA' | World news | The Guardian

Prior to making these claims public, the administration ignored strong dissent in 2001 and 2002 from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) experts as well as from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), both of whom had vigorously contested these claims.

Leading To War :: a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/IraqAluminumTubes12-5-03.pdf

Boo Radley · Oct 17, 2011

Gill said:
Feel free to start a thread on the subject so I can thoroughly embarrass you.

"snoops" link??? You are truly confused.

Yes, I put in an extra "o." Snopes. Do you need the link. It's true the things were said, but the context is not provided and timeline matters. It is dishonest to use the outes as some use them.

I'm sure you'll proclaim yourself as having embarrassed, but the difference between self-procliamations and truth is often huge.

:coffeepap

Grant · Oct 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Many seriously doubted them. Many expressed those doubts before we invaded. The CIA doubted Curveball and pointed out al Libi was coearse and likley did not know what he claimed. These doubts were ignored by Bush, and he made the claims as iff they were not doubted.

Let's here these doubts. Perhaps you can post their statements supporting your remarks here.

Boo Radley · Oct 17, 2011

Grant said:
Let's here these doubts. Perhaps you can post their statements supporting your remarks here.

See links above. Really, this stuff is well documented. You guys should know this. :coffeepap

Grant · Oct 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
No, they said he likely had left over wmds. No one doubted that. Though he had no way to store them. Few to none declared him a serious thread, and none said he was growing and gathering. Sanctions were covered in what we did know and had nothing to do with Bush's deceptions, other than he used it to help useful idiots think the two were related. Saddam was not growing. he was not gathering new weapons, and no intell showed he was.

And we've covered the out of context quotes of dems. If you need the snoops link, let me know. Also, we can look at not only the quotes from agenies that the administration used, but the doubts they didn't use.

This is either historical revision or you have no idea what you're talking about, though it might be both.

Gill · Oct 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Yes, I put in an extra "o." Snopes. Do you need the link. It's true the things were said, but the context is not provided and timeline matters. It is dishonest to use the outes as some use them.

I'm sure you'll proclaim yourself as having embarrassed, but the difference between self-procliamations and truth is often huge.

:coffeepap

As usual, you posted a reply without bothering to even read what I wrote. It's no wonder you never address the actual content of anyone's post, but go off on some tangent that only you can comprehend.

I could care less about snopes even though it confirms my statements. I prefer reading actual letters and papers from foreign intelligence agencies written at the time.

Boo Radley · Oct 17, 2011

Gill said:
As usual, you posted a reply without bothering to even read what I wrote. It's no wonder you never address the actual content of anyone's post, but go off on some tangent that only you can comprehend.

I could care less about snopes even though it confirms my statements. I prefer reading actual letters and papers from foreign intelligence agencies written at the time.

What you're saying is that you don't care about the turht, you prefer to simply swollow misinformation. I got that long ago. I read your psot, and responded to it appropriately. That's more than you do.

Boo Radley · Oct 17, 2011

Grant said:
This is either historical revision or you have no idea what you're talking about, though it might be both.

Neither. It may seem that way if you looked only for information to confirm what you wanted to believe. But, I've given links, and any search would give you far more. All you have to is open the mind to see what is actually there.

EagleAye · Oct 17, 2011

Gill said:
As usual, you posted a reply without bothering to even read what I wrote. It's no wonder you never address the actual content of anyone's post, but go off on some tangent that only you can comprehend.

I could care less about snopes even though it confirms my statements. I prefer reading actual letters and papers from foreign intelligence agencies written at the time.

While reading the pdf regarding aluminum tubes (links from Boo Radley-thanks Boo for providing documentation), I found it interesting that one Iraqi scientist who insisted the tubes weren't for centrifuges was also the one who revealed hidden and banned nuclear items (page 1, third paragraph down). Okay, the tubes weren't for a nuclear program, but the banned items were!

It was also ascertained (in the pdf) that the tubes were intended for surface-to-surface missiles. By their very nature, these missiles are not defensive. And they could very easily contain biological or chemical warheads. This is conveniently not addressed.

Lastly, the CIA report expressed doubts that al-Queda attempted to obtain WMDs, but in no way supplies doubt that WMDs did not exist. This is an important distinction.

And then, I would like to know how these statements, which specifically mention WMDs and specifically provide a date frame, do not consider context or time:

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. 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." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

Boo Radley · Oct 17, 2011

EagleAye said:
While reading the pdf regarding aluminum tubes (links from Boo Radley-thanks Boo for providing documentation), I found it interesting that one Iraqi scientist who insisted the tubes weren't for centrifuges was also the one who revealed hidden and banned nuclear items (page 1, third paragraph down). Okay, the tubes weren't for a nuclear program, but the banned items were!

It was also ascertained (in the pdf) that the tubes were intended for surface-to-surface missiles. By their very nature, these missiles are not defensive. And they could very easily contain biological or chemical warheads. This is conveniently not addressed.

Lastly, the CIA report expressed doubts that al-Queda attempted to obtain WMDs, but in no way supplies doubt that WMDs did not exist. This is an important distinction.

And then, I would like to know how these statements, which specifically mention WMDs and specifically provide a date frame, do not consider context or time:

You should address me I think. You'll notice Franch did not believe Bush's claims matched the evidence, which is why they did not join us. Again, there was little doubt Saddam had left over wmds, but growing and gathering is an entirely different claim.

As for time and context, the list includes more than two statements. The purpose of the list is to show a lot of democrats supported Bush's position. Some of those comments come before Clintion's people bombed Iraq and his people declared the crisis over, for example. Some were in arguing against invasion, as Saddams threat did warrant such a drastic action. Context and time matters.

Gill · Oct 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
What you're saying is that you don't care about the turht, you prefer to simply swollow misinformation. I got that long ago. I read your psot, and responded to it appropriately. That's more than you do.

Your post makes absolutely no sense and certainly doesn't relate to anything I've said, but I'm getting used to that from you.

Gill · Oct 17, 2011

EagleAye said:
While reading the pdf regarding aluminum tubes (links from Boo Radley-thanks Boo for providing documentation), I found it interesting that one Iraqi scientist who insisted the tubes weren't for centrifuges was also the one who revealed hidden and banned nuclear items (page 1, third paragraph down). Okay, the tubes weren't for a nuclear program, but the banned items were!

It was also ascertained (in the pdf) that the tubes were intended for surface-to-surface missiles. By their very nature, these missiles are not defensive. And they could very easily contain biological or chemical warheads. This is conveniently not addressed.

Lastly, the CIA report expressed doubts that al-Queda attempted to obtain WMDs, but in no way supplies doubt that WMDs did not exist. This is an important distinction.

And then, I would like to know how these statements, which specifically mention WMDs and specifically provide a date frame, do not consider context or time:

Boo knows that every major country in the world thought Iraq had an ongoing weapons program, which is why multiple sanctions were imposed on them by the U.N. He prefers to be obtuse which is quite normal for him. You'll get used to it, or just ignore most of what he says like many do.

Gill · Oct 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
You should address me I think. You'll notice Franch did not believe Bush's claims matched the evidence, which is why they did not join us.

France and Germany opposed the war because they were the primary suppliers of military hardware to Iraq.

EagleAye · Oct 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
You should address me I think. You'll notice Franch did not believe Bush's claims matched the evidence, which is why they did not join us. Again, there was little doubt Saddam had left over wmds, but growing and gathering is an entirely different claim.

As for time and context, the list includes more than two statements. The purpose of the list is to show a lot of democrats supported Bush's position. Some of those comments come before Clintion's people bombed Iraq and his people declared the crisis over, for example. Some were in arguing against invasion, as Saddams threat did warrant such a drastic action. Context and time matters.

Yes - mostly directed to you, but I wanted to point out that some folks are reading the links. And seriously, thanks for the links. It helps for a better quality debate.

Please look again at the quotes. Notice that Jaques Chirac says, "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." This suggests he believed in a continuing arms program. NOT a halted program. Notice also that he says this in 2002, WELL AFTER "Clintion's people bombed Iraq."

Notice also that Al Gore's comment also happens in 2002, while Bush was gearing up to invade in 2003.

There are many comments there and MOST of them occur between 1998 and 2003, the time during which Inspectors were denied entry, and four long years during which nuclear, biological, and chemical production facilities could easily have been dismantled or converted.

If the police turn their backs to give a criminal the chance to throw away a smoking gun, they can hardly be surprised when they turn around and see the smoking gun is gone.

Antiderivative · Oct 17, 2011

EagleAye said:
If the police turn their backs to give a criminal the chance to throw away a smoking gun, they can hardly be surprised when they turn around and see the smoking gun is gone.

The problem with this analogy is that you are claiming that Iran is guilty of a crime for supposedly building a nuclear weapons program. However, simply having a smoking gun does not make you a criminal.

EagleAye · Oct 17, 2011

Antiderivative said:
The problem with this analogy is that you are claiming that Iran is guilty of a crime for supposedly building a nuclear weapons program. However, simply having a smoking gun does not make you a criminal.

Yes, but having chemical weapons and using them on the Kurds and Iranians, is very much like being a criminal with a smoking gun.