US removes uranium from Iraq

StormanNorman · #41 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 07:10 PM

Hi Amazed,

I was in the Gulf in 1999 and 2000 and rather close to the situation. I can tell you first hand that we did not know whether or not the Iraqis still had their programs. I went through my anthrax shots (fun!!). But, I can also tell you, we weren't that concerned about it. One thing we did know was that the Iraqis were weak conventionally....and only getting weaker. That was clear. Honestly, I would have guess that they had some chemical weapons programs.....not much, but something. And like I said before, I didn't care.

I agree with Back Atcha about your quotes. For the most part, they were just politicians acting like politicians....and that's it. Think about it, imagine you're John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, etc and you vote against the war....but, we invade Iraq in 2003 anyway in search for the WMD boogeyman...and we eventually find a Tide box full of anthrax...what do you think becomes of them and their presidential dreams? Gone...in the shitter. And no one would've listened to someone like me who would have logically asked....so what?

So, I blame those people as well. Now, I reserve most of the blame for Bush and Co. as they led the charge, but these guys are not high on my Christmas card list. However, I give kudos to those in Congress who voted against the war.

Back Atcha · #42 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazed

You're too funny. Another one of those that has no convictions and takes positions of convenience to suit their arguments. How many times have you said this politician is a liar, or that source can't be trusted?

I show in you in their own words what they actually said..and you blamme....yup there's logic in there somewhere. Do you actually think that you get to decide who has "convictions" and who doesn't? Sorry, no.

Now you post their quotes as some sort of proof of your position. POLITICIANS LIE TO SUIT THE AGENDA OF THE DAY. I would expect that even you would have realized that by now. I would also expect you to understand that NOTHING ANY POLITICIAN SAYS FOR THE CAMERAS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

I posted their own Words to how you that they indeed believed Saddam had the weapons... you do realize that there are some Hans Blix quotes in there too? What you expect has no effect on the truth of anyone else's words...My position is that indeed everyone believed he had them, their words show that that is true..and my contention hasn't changed or wavered in 6 years......

All it shows is that they wanted YOU to believe it. It says nothing about what they actually knew or believed. The intelligence reports that Clinton and Bush read DO! It shows that they LIED! It contradicts the evidence used by the senate committe to come to the same conclusion.

None of those quotes, not a single one of them means a damn thing in the face of ACTUALLY INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENTS FROM THE CIA, FBI, ICA, STATING QUITE CLEARLY THAT THERE WERE NO W M D!!!!!!!! THAT IRAQ WAS NOT A T H R E A T!!!!!!

DO... YOU... UNDERSTAND?

Why are you allowing your emotions to get the best of you? Their words echoed the Intelligence data of the time....you don't get to use hindsight in your evaluation of what has, or has not happened....do you understand?

No hindsight. All of europe was talking about how this intel being shoveled was BS. Leaks about the real intel were everywhere. (I was in europe during the run up to the invasion) These leaks prompted the largest anti war protest in the history of the world, which America never heard about... strange huh?

And if the REAL intel existed for five years prior to the invasion, it isn't any more hindsight than you are using. In fact, less so. The intel you claim was echoed was not the REAL intel, it was the cherry picked intel from sources the FBI, CIA and ICA determined AT THE TIME to be un reliable. The actual reports which are now becoming unclassified were REJECTED by BuCheney TWICE and finally had to have Cheney's oversight at the CIA to produce what Bush wanted. The ACTUAL intel was as I stated and can be found with a little time spent searching.

Or are you going to tell me that suddenly Kerry, Clinton, H Clinton, Kennedy, Rockefeller are viewed by you as honest folk? I guess the sticking point for you is that Bush must have been telling the truth so these POS must be too.

WAKE UP!!!!!!!

You are the one saying the entire Government lied, it is up to you to prove it, not me. I have no use for most Libs, I do however understand how Intelligence works....and clearly you do not.

LMAO.... If only you knew.... I have probably had more indepth conversations with generals and intel officers than any three people on this forum combined. And that's being conservative. Watch those assumptions...

You assume I support Bush, you wouldn't be the first ill-informed Lefty to assume things that aren't true...but in the end....you are juts one more Lib who debate anything without letting their emotions run amok.

I'm not a Lib. Guess you did a little assuming yourself there huh?

Start here... If I have time, I'll look up more for you since you are unable or unwilling to do so for yourself.

Try this one... CIA FOIA - Search Results
then type in "Iraq prewar" into the search field.

Amazed · #43 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 07:35 PM

Hi Amazed,

I was in the Gulf in 1999 and 2000 and rather close to the situation. I can tell you first hand that we did not know whether or not the Iraqis still had their programs. I went through my anthrax shots (fun!!). But, I can also tell you, we weren't that concerned about it. One thing we did know was that the Iraqis were weak conventionally....and only getting weaker. That was clear. Honestly, I would have guess that they had some chemical weapons programs.....not much, but something. And like I said before, I didn't care.

I salute your Service, mine took place in 70's......but anyone having the Courage to stand for what they believe has my admiration.

I agree with Back Atcha about your quotes. For the most part, they were just politicians acting like politicians....and that's it. Think about it, imagine you're John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, etc and you vote against the war....but, we invade Iraq in 2003 anyway in search for the WMD boogeyman...and we eventually find a Tide box full of anthrax...what do you think becomes of them and their presidential dreams? Gone...in the shitter. And no one would've listened to someone like me who would have logically asked....so what?

Here is the Kicker......

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Those are all before Bush. They had no idea Bush would be Elected, in fact it should have been Gore's hands down.....each of is free to believe, or disbelieve as we choose....but Nation's have due to rampant cynicism.

So, I blame those people as well. Now, I reserve most of the blame for Bush and Co. as they led the charge, but these guys are not high on my Christmas card list. However, I give kudos to those in Congress who voted against the war.

I respect your views, and I also respect your control of your emotions.

StormanNorman · #44 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 07:42 PM

Actually, I was never active service; I was a civilian that deployed with the military. Anyway, do you know what's interesting about all of your Clinton quotes.....look at the dates.....mainly February and December 1998. Do you remember what happened in those months? We had a big ramp up in February to strike Iraq (but didn't) and another one in December and actually did strike Iraq. Now, one has to justify doing this...especially during one's impeachment trial. How....FEAR, how else?

Clinton and Bush were very similar in their statements. And, of course, Clinton did not know GWB was to be the next president...nor did he care. He was concerned only about his own ass. However, Clinton was not fool hearted enough to invade Iraq. That is a big difference between them worth mentioning.

FedUpAmerican · #45 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 07:43 PM

Still fantasizing about Clinton STUPID?

Are you jealous that Monica got to suck his dick faggot???

Your moronic rants neglect to include the FACT that the uranium found was no where near weapons grade.

Next you STUPID fucks are going to find a couple of sling shots and a spear and say "LOOK! bUSH WAS RIGHT. WMD's.

More desperate ATTEMPTS at TRYING to salvage your floundering party of toe tappers.

toxic · #46 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 07:50 PM

Dear Amazed,

To read, you must do more than see the words. You have to put them in context and understand motives.

Quote:

...President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998...

was dealing with the Lewinsky scandel and trying to send the media off course. Perhaps that is when George W. Bush thought he could fabricate any lies without being caught.

In any case, WORDS are not WAR.

Politicians can rattle sabres all day and do no harm.

Bush and the Neo-Con chickenhawks crossed over that line needlessly.

This war is a waste of money and lives. It will be recorded that way in history. Those of you that remain Bush DEADENDERS will be recorded as the "fools" that followed him.

Amazed · #47 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 07:56 PM

LMAO.... If only you knew.... I have probably had more indepth conversations with generals and intel officers than any three people on this forum combined. And that's being conservative. Watch those assumptions...

You assume I support Bush, you wouldn't be the first ill-informed Lefty to assume things that aren't true...but in the end....you are juts one more Lib who debate anything without letting their emotions run amok.

I'm not a Lib. Guess you did a little assuming yourself there huh?

Like most, you are ignoring the Quotes from the 90's......get control of your emotions, it will give you more credibility. Again, hindsight is irrelevant Back...this is from your "Source"....it doesn't agree with you....

http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs_full.asp

This one spends 12 pages telling us that resources were thin, and that errors made were not unique in pressure situations where decisions need to be made.....

http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs.asp

This one doesn't help you either, it immediately goes into how Saddam would have reconstituted his Programs the moment he could...and then immediately blames Clinton for slashing the Intelligence capabilities.

You are free to evaluate any and all information as you wish, your evaluation however does not constitute reality..nor does it preclude anyone else's evaluation from having it's own merit.

Amazed · #48 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FedUpAmerican

Still fantasizing about Clinton STUPID?

Are you jealous that Monica got to suck his dick faggot???

Your moronic rants neglect to include the FACT that the uranium found was no where near weapons grade.

Next you STUPID fucks are going to find a couple of sling shots and a spear and say "LOOK! bUSH WAS RIGHT. WMD's.

More desperate ATTEMPTS at TRYING to salvage your floundering party of toe tappers.

Poor Dave, I've humiliated you from day one, and shown you to be a Coward...run along.

Amazed · #49 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toxic

Dear Amazed,

To read, you must do more than see the words. You have to put them in context and understand motives.

was dealing with the Lewinsky scandel and trying to send the media off course. Perhaps that is when George W. Bush thought he could fabricate any lies without being caught.

In any case, WORDS are not WAR.

Politicians can rattle sabres all day and do no harm.

Bush and the Neo-Con chickenhawks crossed over that line needlessly.

This war is a waste of money and lives. It will be recorded that way in history. Those of you that remain Bush DEADENDERS will be recorded as the "fools" that followed him.

While your opinion is duly noted, it means nothing. You have no ability to communicate in a coherent manner. You are free to blame Lewinsky, or whomever....doesn't change the Fact that ALL of our Leaders are on record as believing Saddam had them. Sorry. Facts are never convenient for the hate filled.

Amazed · #50 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Actually, I was never active service; I was a civilian that deployed with the military. Anyway, do you know what's interesting about all of your Clinton quotes.....look at the dates.....mainly February and December 1998. Do you remember what happened in those months? We had a big ramp up in February to strike Iraq (but didn't) and another one in December and actually did strike Iraq. Now, one has to justify doing this...especially during one's impeachment trial. How....FEAR, how else?

Clinton and Bush were very similar in their statements. And, of course, Clinton did not know GWB was to be the next president...nor did he care. He was concerned only about his own ass. However, Clinton was not fool hearted enough to invade Iraq. That is a big difference between them worth mentioning.

I am not denying any of that, I simply am not as cynical as most...I do indeed believe Politicians to be Liars and Morons....but, as a Student of History, and the Middle East, I know full well whet radical Islam is capable of. A good starting point for anyone would be the Muslim Brotherhood.