faust9 said:If you make a statement then you should back it up. This kind of answer OTOH makes it seem like you cannot find the proof yourself or that the proof itself never existed outside of newsmax and as such you lose all credibility. A lot of people here disagree; however, the adult conversations include proof from many sides of the disagreement and not just hollow statements of "Nanna Nanna you find it yourself!" types of responses.
SOS was looking for 'credible' sources, and those three are not credible. Brothersjudd simply reiterates Lowry's commentary at National Review, and it is only commentary. Abdullah said he 'believed' that Saddam had WMD, although he established his belief on 'reliable' intelligence sources.http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/4/05219.shtml
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/arc...redding_1.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/...0408170825.asp
Ritter, a conservative Republican, did a great interview on WAMC recently.Scott Ritter is the straight-talking former marine officer who the CIA wants to silence. After the 1991 Gulf War, Ritter helped lead the UN weapons inspections of Iraq and found himself at the center of a dangerous game between the Iraqi and US regimes.
As Ritter reveals in this explosive book, Washington was only interested in disarmament as a tool for its own agenda. Operating in a fog of espionage and counter-espionage, Ritter and his team were determined to find out the truth about Iraq’s WMD. The CIA were equally determined to stop them. The truth, as we now know, was that Iraq was playing a deadly game of double-bluff, and actually had no WMD. But to have revealed this would have derailed America’s drive for regime change.
Iraq Confidential charts the disillusionment of a staunch patriot who came to realize that his own government sought to undermine effective arms control in the Middle East. Ritter shows us a world of deceit and betrayal in which nothing is as it seems. A host of characters from Mossad, MI6 and the CIA pepper this powerful narrative, which contains revelations that will permanently affect the ongoing debates about Iraq.
Yes, I did miss that post Thanks, and sorry tide for the outburst about not supplying sources.Gokul43201 said:Did you miss post #23 ?
Copyright 2003 Times Publishing Company
St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
March 30, 2003 Sunday 0 South Pinellas Edition
SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. 12A
LENGTH: 905 words
HEADLINE: Coalition then and now
SERIES: WAR WITH IRAQ: Q & A
BODY:Many of the partner countries that were part of the 34-nation coalition that fought Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War are not participating in the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
1991 2003
Description of 2003 involvement
Yes Yes Afghanistan
Use of airspace and bases
No Yes Albania
Use of airspace, 70 troops for postwar peacekeeping, signed letter of support
No Yes Angola
Political support
Yes No Argentina
Yes Yes Australia
2,000 troops, 14 fighter jets, ships
No Yes Azerbaijan
Use of airspace
Yes No Bahrain
Yes No Bangladesh
No Yes Bulgaria
Use of airspace, use of bases for refuelling planes, use of Black Sea port; sending biological warfare specialists to Kuwait; signed letter of support
Yes No Canada
No Yes Colombia
Political support
No Yes Costa Rica
Political support
Yes Yes Czechoslovakia+
Use of airspace, team of biological and nuclear decontamination experts, signed letter of support
Yes Yes Denmark
Submarine, warship, medical team, signed letter of support
No Yes Dominican Rep.
Political support
Yes [b]No[/b] Egypt
No Yes El Salvador
...I think Hussein's logic comes down to the fact that UN inspectors finding evidence would confirm that he had weapons of mass destruction. The absence of evidence is a harder scenario - does he have none or is he just doing a good job of hiding them. In the absence of evidence either way, a few rumors can sometimes be enough to keep people guessing.Gokul43201 said:It gave me doubts as well. Perhaps he believed that the UN would save his neck at the end of the day...or, he was indeed attempting to get a covert message communicated to the US that he was willing to talk.
The bigger threat was Iran. He attributed his success (or at least the prevention of defeat) against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war to Iran's fear of Iraq using WMD on Iran's major cities.loseyourname said:I guess - I just figured that if I'm Saddam, I'd rather deal with internal rebellion than an invasion from the US. What do you want me to say? He fooled me.
You and me both!Tide said:I am skeptical of "both sides."
I believe that you believe that.Tide said:I am skeptical of "both sides."
After all the lies they've told you, after the dozen or so times they *have* made up evidence out of thin air, you still believe they don't do it...BobG said:it would be a far reach to believe any American president would just make up evidence out of thin air.
Dayle Record said:I think Cheney is resigning, because his wife stated that he definitely won't be running for president in 2008. That was a premature statement, most likely a slip of the tongue, that in my opinion indicated some inside knowledge.
Smurf said:After all the lies they've told you, after the dozen or so times they *have* made up evidence out of thin air, you still believe they don't do it...
I don't mean to insult you Bob, but I think that's willfull blindness.
I started following politics when Bush was elected. But regardless, I wasn't talking about him only, I was talking about the government in general. I doubt (but I havn't researched) that there's a single administration in my lifetime that hasn't made up evidence practically out of thin air.loseyourname said:How many times before the ultimatum to Saddam was issued had the Bush administration made up evidence out of thin air? He had only been in office scarcely a year at the time, and you were 14 years old! How closely could you possibly have been following world events back then?
loseyourname said:How many times before the ultimatum to Saddam was issued had the Bush administration made up evidence out of thin air? He had only been in office scarcely a year at the time, and you were 14 years old! How closely could you possibly have been following world events back then?
He could have had a paper route. It's hard to plop that many newspapers on people's doorsteps without absorbing at least a little of what's going on in the world. I still remember delivering the paper the morning after Haldeman, Erlichman, and Mitchell resigned. That's when I finally realized Nixon wasn't going to complete his term of office.loseyourname said:He had only been in office scarcely a year at the time, and you were 14 years old! How closely could you possibly have been following world events back then?
That's pretty cynical, but, then, you are an anarchist.Smurf said:I started following politics when Bush was elected. But regardless, I wasn't talking about him only, I was talking about the government in general. I doubt (but I havn't researched) that there's a single administration in my lifetime that hasn't made up evidence practically out of thin air.
He was deceitful before that--his entire life--including how he became Governor.faust9 said:Some event had to be the first. Iraq might have been the first time they fabricated evidence to justify an idea---welcome to the http://www.newamericancentury.org/".
So, if this wasnt their first deceit then what was might I ask? Why does his short time in office somehow make the deciet OK?
What do you mean? Are you suggesting maybe he didn't lie?BobG said:Without some good evidence to the contrary, I think you have to give the President the benefit of the doubt.
Who said the congress was innocent? Unless you think ignorance is an excuse. Then that might excuse ooh... 1/3 of them.In fact, when pushed to go one way or the other, most in the Senate (77-23) and most in the House (296-133) had to go ahead and trust that Bush and his staff knew what they were talking about. He's starting to find out how people react when they feel they've been made a fool of.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2128530/?nav=aisWho Is Scooter Libby?
The secretive Cheney aide at the heart of the CIA leak case.
By John Dickerson
Posted Friday, Oct. 21, 2005, at 3:57 PM PT
----------
Libby is a neocon's neocon. He studied political science at Yale under former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and began working with his former teacher under Cheney at the Defense Department during the George H.W. Bush administration, thinking about grand national security strategy in the post-Cold War era.
----------
If the State Department under Colin Powell hated Dick Cheney, it hated Scooter almost as much, viewing him accurately as a pre-eminent member of the cabal hellbent for war with Iraq. It was Libby who sat with Powell in the final session before Powell's U.N. speech, eyeing every detail to make sure that the Secretary of State didn't water down the case. When Libby talked privately to friends about his rivals at State during the Powell era, it often sounded like the head of one political party speaking about the other, ascribing the worst motives and rarely giving Powell's team the benefit of the doubt.