NEWS: Another Part Of US Justification For Invading Iraq Admitted False

You should read his entire report, as it shows Saddam did, indeed, make connections in his search for yellowcake.

Link please!

Then explain why Saddam would look elsewhere for what he already had at home, and why he would want yellowcake when Iraq had no way to enrich it?

Originally posted by zappafan1

".... social welfare and well-being" It's not governments job to provide the individual those things; at least not according to the Constitution or Bill of Rights. European social programs are akin to a form of Socialism and Marxism, at least in part, and it's bankrupting those countries. If that's what you call an "edge'" they can have it.

".....US isolationism" Yeah....... we should stop feeding 1/3rd of the world, and giving billions of dollars to countries in need. Is that the isolationism you speak of?

".... loads of nuclear weapons..." It worked!



[edit on 12-12-2005 by zappafan1]

hmmm... maybe you should look at the fiscal imbalance caused by US defence spending before judging what 'Marxist' social welfare schemes are 'bankrupting' Europe.. I think the UK economy and fiscal balance is doing ok... and I think that the state should prevent it's poor getting poorer and resorting to crime and gun related violence isnt somehow rabidly bolshevik... mmm ethics...

My isolationism comment was regarding pre-WW2.. read the thread...

If you have issue with spending tax dollars on the developing world (which I couldn't dircern one way or the other from the sarcasm of your post) how do you like the US money spent on decommissioning former Soviet nuclear weapons and ordinance? Did the Cold war really get won that way? Is Russia now a friendly massively armed nuclear power? Are we safer now without the strict Soviet control over fissile material? I don;t think the 20th centiry arms race did much for anyone... and the crisis in the Soviet system qwas largely eventual, irrespective of how many missiles they and the US had between them...

Also I think the amount of money that the US and Europe both give to the poorest countries is pittence compared to the amount they make from skewed trading relationships and food kept at an artificially low level through barriers and subsidies... so I don;t think anyone can wave a flag about on that one...

Sorry to go from point, but if someone wants to pick a day after the post, it at least deserves a riposte...

So I posed a few questions back on page two for those critical of GB and America for ivading Iraq. Maybe they got lost in the forest of posts; so I'm reposting the questions here:

Regardles of whether or not WMD has been or will be found; independent intelligence sources (including Germany and the UK) along with the CIA all believed Iraq had WMD and that [Saddam Hussein] therefore posed a threat.

Let's assume for a moment Bush decided not to invade Iraq and that Iraq subsequently provided radioactive or chemical material to Al Qaeida who in turn used them against Europe or the US.

Would you call for an immediate impeachment of Bush for being derelict in his duties to protect the US? How about Blair in his duties to protect the UK?

Do you perceive Islamofascim (extreme Islamic fundalmentalism) a threat?

If so; how would you, as a leader responsible for the protection of your nation and her people, respond to attacks made on your citizens by Islamofascists?

Let's assume for a moment Bush decided not to invade Iraq and that Iraq subsequently provided radioactive or chemical material to Al Qaeida who in turn used them against Europe or the US.

How silly.

Didn't you read the Dulfer report?

There were no radioactive, or chemical weapons in Iraq for them to give to AQ.

And there was no relationship between Iraq and AQ other than hostile.

Why would they give WMD to some of their worst enemies?

If you are going to come up with these ideas at least make them possible, and if you don't want to be outed as a Neo-Con don't use the word 'Islamofascist'.

We all know that Islam, and Fascism are not compatible, and the word is only used on AM Radio Neo-Con Propaganda.

Rush Sean and Laura are not reliable sources.

Originally posted by thermopolis
America has fought tyranny for over 200 years. A very proud history.

The ethics of the planet are in the toilet, at least America is still only on the seat. Placed there by presidents like Clinton and Carter.

Do you wish global terror to win this war? Is radical Islamic rule more "ethical" when it murders.

Oh, yeah, on the seat.

Who was Allende? Who was Pinochet?

The US illegally invaded Cambodia.

The US illegally bombed Cambodia.

The US fomented the coup against Salvador Allende, the democratically elected President of Chile, and gave full backing to his replacement, General Augusto Pinochet, who is desparately trying to avoid trial for human rights abuses including torture and murder.

The US illegally invaded Panama to oust Manuel Noriega.

The US supported the apartheid regime of South Africa.

The US continues to hold men without charge in Guantanamo Bay, four years after their "arrest" without charge in Afghanistan. These men are not US citizens, are held by US forces outside the US and are denied the right to a speedy and fair trial as is the right of US citizens.

The US supported the military dictatorship of Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire (the Congo).

The US supported the military dictatorship in the RoK and the political dictatorship in the RoC.

The US invented the concentration camp in Cuba (and I'm not referring to Camp X-ray).

The US ignored the Nazi invasion of Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Norway.

The US ignored the Japanese invasion of China.

The US ignored the German invasion of Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Russia...Hmm, seems you have a habit of doing that.

The US prevaricated and allowed the 100 days of genocide in Rwanda to happen.

The US is almost single-handedly responsible for the KR coming to power in Cambodia.

The US backed Lon Nol as President of Cambodia after he ousted the democratically-elected, but royal-born, Prince Sihanouk.

The US were responsible for the death of the Canadian ambassador to the USSR, John Watkins.

The US used Canadian armed-forces officers in a campaign to unseat PM John Deifenbaker and then had a go at his replacement, Pearson.

Originally posted by zappafan1

The Bill of Rights are those rights given to "the people" by the Creator.... not man.

The Creator gave us the right to peaceably assemble? The right to due process? The right to bear arms? Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? Freedom of speech and of the press? Really?

I'd love to see some attribution for this.

It is, indeed, a list of the only rights we are guaranteed.

Amendment IX-- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Hence, there is no "right" to live here. We can refuse anyone immigration.

But refusing someone immigration isn't at all what we're talking about here, is it? In response to your frighteningly anti-American assertion that anyone who doesn't like the way that our current government is being managed should move somewhere else, it was stated that WE, the citizens, even those who disagree with some portion of the current government's policies, have a right to continue living here. Nothing at all was said about "immigrants" until YOU brought it up in a final desperate bid to at least superficially give the appearance of salvaging your argument.

A well-reasoned difference of opinion is welcome, but most of what I read does not fall into that category.

Ah-- I see. Only "differences of opinion" that you deem to be acceptable are to be tolerated. Is this a power that you intend to share, or will you have sole authority to decide which opinions are to be tolerated and which are not? Are we to start calling you "Your Supreme Eminence" now, or would you rather we wait until you've actually imposed your dictatorship?

Originally posted by zappafan1

When the country is run by a dictator, who's opponents were imprisoned or shot, and the people are not free to believe what they want, then it is not a sovereign nation.

That's just flatly wrong. A "sovereign nation" is any self-governing, independent nation-- any nation whose government is not under the control of a separate, external government. It makes absolutely no difference what form that government takes-- so long as it is not under the direct control of another government, the nation it governs is a "sovereign nation."

Seriously-- look it up. There are definitions all over the web, and they all agree. You're wrong.

Originally posted by subz
So your answers to finding that the US justification for the invasion of Iraq was fabricated is some kind of contrived "the end justified the means"?

Why were these not the reasons given by the Bush administration as a basis for the invasion? If these other reasons were invasion worthy, which you seem to believe, then why all the lies? If they would lie about this, what else are they capable of lying about?

If the end justified the means would it too be ok if 9/11 really was a US fabrication? Same crap, different stink.

i just have to wonder subz why is it that you continue to try to blame the whole thing on the US alone when it has been proven time and time again, with you being present in other threads, that most of the whole world, which "their" intelligence agencies were proclaiming just like the US, was saying the same thing about Saddam's wmd and wmd programmes....

i am also fed up with the attemps by some people to put all the blame on the US...just like there are a number of people who blame the US for the SE Asian Tsunami...just like there is a group of people that blame everything, even the reason why butteflies are farting more than usual... on the US....

Oh, btw, I agree with what Betty Dawisha, an Iraqi voter, says about the US in Iraq....

“Anybody who doesn’t appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell”

Excerpted from.
ridgecrest.blogspot.com...


[edit on 14-12-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by subz
.............
He was a U.S Diplomat for crying out loud. They are usually Chief of Mission for the entire US spying activity in the country they work in. He had experience and contacts in both North Africa and Iraq. What more do you want?
...........

And of course you don't question his true intentions since he set out to investigate this case with his mind already made up as to this being a lie....and i also have to wonder exactly what country in the world would give direct evidence that they were doing illegal sales to another country?.....all this "diplomat" did for his investigation is ask the government in Niger to produce some paperwork, and that appears to be pretty much the extent of his investigation.....

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by subz
So your answers to finding that the US justification for the invasion of Iraq was fabricated is some kind of contrived "the end justified the means"?

Why were these not the reasons given by the Bush administration as a basis for the invasion? If these other reasons were invasion worthy, which you seem to believe, then why all the lies? If they would lie about this, what else are they capable of lying about?

If the end justified the means would it too be ok if 9/11 really was a US fabrication? Same crap, different stink.

i just have to wonder subz why is it that you continue to try to blame the whole thing on the US alone when it has been proven time and time again, with you being present in other threads, that most of the whole world, which "their" intelligence agencies were proclaiming just like the US, was saying the same thing about Saddam's wmd and wmd programmes....

I have voted Muaddib for the Way Above Top Secret award.

I believe the difference came when some countries wanted to wait until Saddam would satisfy the last resolution and open up for the inspectors. The US, among other countries, thought that Saddam, after defying all the past resolutions, would continue on this path of non-compliance.



[edit on 12/14/2005 by Mahree]

How odd. I find it increasingly strange that the America you all so much boast about, is now under threat by the said Patriot Act finally becoming permanent. Truly a bastion of Democracy.
Indeed Bush thought what he did was right to invade Iraq. Who am I to argue? I mean he had the highest authority figure giving him the thumbs up right? And indeed what of God? Believe in Him, yet carry a gun?

MacDonagh

Executive Privilege

I'll shamelessly jump into this impressive sea of facts, points and counterpoints with nothing more than an unsubstantiated statement of opinion.

As best I can tell, the real reasons for invading Iraq have never been publicly put forward.

I'm pretty sure there were several of them, and that they were and continue to be pretty damn good reasons. However, they are also the kinds of reasons that can't, by their very nature, be publicized.

There is plenty of public discussion about this and that -- and what I consider to be the canard of “weapons of mass destruction” seized upon as some sort of sacred cause to be rallied around.

Utter nonsense.

We don't invade countries because of “weapons of mass destruction”. We invade them because invasion satisfies critical strategic goals. Shutting down WMD programs may be one of them, but it's never the only reason, or even an important one compared to other goals.

I don't for a moment doubt that some of those strategic goals include lining the pockets of the military industrial complex and other major financial players, but anyone who thinks U.S. policy hasn't always been guided by a strong profit motive should probably spend more time studying U.S. history in greater detail.

It's always the same story: money and power.

And now it's not just about “American” companies, because increasingly these companies are becoming “multinationals”, with not so much as a feigned allegiance to any nation.

Only to profit, and this is the shining beacon which guides the international policies of all nations on earth.

The Next Move

In the case of Iraq, it's plenty of both, and in particular another play on the global chessboard.

The game being played is deadly serious, affects everyone whether they know it or not, and it's being played for keeps.

It's not pretty, but ultimately, the question facing the world is which 500-pound gorilla is going to sit in your living room.

The lucky ones get to choose, and most aren't so lucky.

Those who resent the role America has played need not worry, because the end of the Pax Americana is fast approaching. Then the world can compare the insufferability of American hegemony to its alternatives.

The price of peace is war. Always has been, always will be.

Those unwilling to pay the price will ultimately be taxed by their oppressors. There are many who now stand in arrears on this debt, and the tax man cometh soon.

It's not a particularly pleasant situation, but it's not a new one, either.

My advice is to look past the public dog and pony shows and search for clues to the real stories. They bear no resemblance to the fiction being fed to us via the mass media the Powers That Be own and control, and the people who really call the shots don't run for election or give press conferences.

Ironically, they don't need to do much to keep us in the dark. We seem to do a fine enough job of that on our own.

At least, that's my opinion. Make of it what you will.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
How silly.

Often, when a person has limited capacity for making logical points, he intead resorts to making belittling or condescending comments such as "how silly."

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Didn't you read the Dulfer report?

Not until now. Thanks for pointing it out.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
There were no radioactive, or chemical weapons in Iraq for them to give to AQ.

WRONG!! The Dulfer Report does not draw that conclusion.
One of the "Key findings" (from the Dulfer report):

"Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable:"

"Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the Iran-Iraq war—and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad."

Also from the report:

"The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts."

Again; this report does not conclude that Iraq had or didn't have WMD before the US invasion.

Read the "Scope Notes" of the report here. It describes the extremely difficult environment the investigators encountered in searching for evidence of Iraq's WMD programs.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
And there was no relationship between Iraq and AQ other than hostile.

Why would they give WMD to some of their worst enemies?

While they weren't drinking buddies; haven't you ever heard the expression "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Why don't you explain what Al Zarqawi was doing in Iraq receiving medical treatment long before the war?

Originally posted by ArchAngel
If you are going to come up with these ideas at least make them possible, and if you don't want to be outed as a Neo-Con don't use the word 'Islamofascist'.

If your going to argue my points why don't you at least provide some logical and lucid reasons why I'm wrong instead of simply spewing forth your opinions.

The word "Islamofascist" acurately describes the oppressive brand of Islam embraced by Usama bin Laden, The Talleban, Saudi Arabia (Wahhabi) and Al Zarqawi--as well as millions others.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
We all know that Islam, and Fascism are not compatible,

Who is "we?" You gotta mouse in your pocket? Typical extreme liberal alert: Attempting to speak for "all" when foisting his opinions. All you have to do is look toward Islamic nations (Saudi Arabia) to see their relationship.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
and the word is only used on AM Radio Neo-Con Propaganda.

Nope. It's been used by mainstream media as well. And ATS is not AM radio!

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Rush Sean and Laura are not reliable sources.

I never said they were and, in fact, rarely ever listen to them myself. Typical extreme liberal alert: Draws conclusions that others who disagree with him are "neocons" without any basis in fact.

Politically, I am deep-purple: Right down the middle as I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Let's assume for a moment Bush decided not to invade Iraq and that Iraq subsequently provided radioactive or chemical material to Al Qaeida who in turn used them against Europe or the US.

How silly.

Didn't you read the Dulfer report?
REPLY: Yes, in it's entirety.

There were no radioactive, or chemical weapons in Iraq for them to give to AQ.
REPLY:www.frontpagemag.com...
www.debka.com...

And there was no relationship between Iraq and AQ other than hostile.
REPLY:www.newsmax.com...
Also, Google for "mother of all connections" I'm not doing all your research for you.

Why would they give WMD to some of their worst enemies?
REPLY: have you ever heard "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

If you are going to come up with these ideas at least make them possible, and if you don't want to be outed as a Neo-Con don't use the word 'Islamofascist'.
REPLY: Using the term "neocon" is as acceptable as using Islamofascist.

We all know that Islam, and Fascism are not compatible, and the word is only used on AM Radio Neo-Con Propaganda.
REPLY: Anything is possible when talking about extremists. You can't always use dictionary definitions.

Rush Sean and Laura are not reliable sources.

REPLY:And Dan Blather is??? Please..... don't shoot the messenger for a dislike of the message. While I don't always agree with what those people say, they DO present information that is easily confirmed or found to be in error. However, I've found that those who disagree with what they say refuse to see if it is factual or not, in most cases.

Originally posted by Qoelet

Originally posted by zappafan1

".... social welfare and well-being" It's not governments job to provide the individual those things; at least not according to the Constitution or Bill of Rights. European social programs are akin to a form of Socialism and Marxism, at least in part, and it's bankrupting those countries. If that's what you call an "edge'" they can have it.

".....US isolationism" Yeah....... we should stop feeding 1/3rd of the world, and giving billions of dollars to countries in need. Is that the isolationism you speak of?

".... loads of nuclear weapons..." It worked!



[edit on 12-12-2005 by zappafan1]

hmmm... maybe you should look at the fiscal imbalance caused by US defence spending before judging what 'Marxist' social welfare schemes are 'bankrupting' Europe.. I think the UK economy and fiscal balance is doing ok... and I think that the state should prevent it's poor getting poorer and resorting to crime and gun related violence isnt somehow rabidly bolshevik... mmm ethics...

My isolationism comment was regarding pre-WW2.. read the thread...

If you have issue with spending tax dollars on the developing world (which I couldn't dircern one way or the other from the sarcasm of your post) how do you like the US money spent on decommissioning former Soviet nuclear weapons and ordinance? Did the Cold war really get won that way? Is Russia now a friendly massively armed nuclear power? Are we safer now without the strict Soviet control over fissile material? I don;t think the 20th centiry arms race did much for anyone... and the crisis in the Soviet system qwas largely eventual, irrespective of how many missiles they and the US had between them...

Also I think the amount of money that the US and Europe both give to the poorest countries is pittence compared to the amount they make from skewed trading relationships and food kept at an artificially low level through barriers and subsidies... so I don;t think anyone can wave a flag about on that one...

Sorry to go from point, but if someone wants to pick a day after the post, it at least deserves a riposte...

You did not address my post directly. But I will yours:
"...... fiscal imbalance caused by US defense (there's an S in defense)spending"
REPLY: There is no fiscal imbalance in America related to defense spending.

"...... the state should prevent it's poor getting poorer"
REPLY: That's called Socialist and Marxist... they never work as intended in their true form. There will always be the do's and the do nots; the will's and the will nots, and the haves and the have nots. That's humanity... get over it. THOSE are the ones that turn to crime.... while at the same time, usually, taking from the "nanny-state".
The "state" cannot lift someone out of poverty any more than I can go to the gym and work out for someone. It is the resposibility of the individual to do that for themselves, if they have the inclination to do so.

"...... the crisis in the Soviet system qwas largely eventual"
REPLY: Because Russia was Communist, and as such had no viable economy, the arms race broke them.

"...... the amount of money that the US and Europe both give to the poorest countries"
REPLY: Most all of the poor countries are that way because their peoples have no freedom or liberty. Wealth is ALWAYS created when an individual has the freedom to act on a resource and keep most of the profits. There's a very large difference between a hand up, and a handout.

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

Originally posted by zappafan1

When the country is run by a dictator, who's opponents were imprisoned or shot, and the people are not free to believe what they want, then it is not a sovereign nation.

That's just flatly wrong. A "sovereign nation" is any self-governing, independent nation-- any nation whose government is not under the control of a separate, external government. It makes absolutely no difference what form that government takes-- so long as it is not under the direct control of another government, the nation it governs is a "sovereign nation."

Seriously-- look it up. There are definitions all over the web, and they all agree. You're wrong.

You can't strictly use dictionary definitions when speaking of tyrants and dictators.

The Creator gave us the right to peaceably assemble? The right to due process? The right to bear arms? Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? Freedom of speech and of the press? Really?

I'd love to see some attribution for this.
REPLY: "God our Creator gives to each unalienable Rights
1. Life, Liberty, Happiness, property, safety, respect, privacy, etc".
From: www.geocities.com...

It was done that way by The Founders to keep our rights seperate from the laws of man, because; what man giveth, man can take away.




Amendment IX-- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
REPLY: There are all sorts of things people would like to consider a "right", but there are laws against most, whether justified or not. Either way, Amendment IX does not infer a right to live here.


"But refusing someone immigration isn't at all what we're talking about here, is it? In response to your frighteningly anti-American assertion that anyone who doesn't like the way that our current government is being managed should move somewhere else, it was stated that WE, the citizens, even those who disagree with some portion of the current government's policies, have a right to continue living here.
REPLY: By saying you have no "right" to live here, it implies the right to leave, which does not imply that you should; you extrapolated that yourself. But, again, there is no enumerated "right" to live here.

quote: A well-reasoned difference of opinion is welcome, but most of what I read does not fall into that category."

Ah-- I see. Only "differences of opinion" that you deem to be acceptable are to be tolerated.
REPLY: Tolerated? Acceptable? I said what I did referring to those who refuse to accept as fact, either actual "facts", or things that differ from their tightly-held beliefs. I'm open to many ideas and perspectives, on most all issues, but I look at both sides and amit when I find I was wrong.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by subz
.............

And of course you don't question his true intentions since he set out to investigate this case with his mind already made up as to this being a lie....and i also have to wonder exactly what country in the world would give direct evidence that they were doing illegal sales to another country?.....all this "diplomat" did for his investigation is ask the government in Niger to produce some paperwork, and that appears to be pretty much the extent of his investigation.....

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Muaddib]

Well.... he did sit around for a couple of days sipping mint julips. 8^)

"How odd. I find it increasingly strange that the America you all so much boast about, is now under threat by the said Patriot Act finally becoming permanent. Truly a bastion of Democracy."
REPLY: As you have not yet discovered, most every law in the Patriot Act has been in effect for at least ten years and, in a couple of cases, since the 30's.

"Indeed Bush thought what he did was right to invade Iraq. Who am I to argue? I mean he had the highest authority figure giving him the thumbs up right?" And indeed what of God? Believe in Him, yet carry a gun?"
REPLY: Yeah.... who is anyone to argue with your outlook? Just think... the rape rooms could still be open; and the childrens prisons and "stinging" rooms. Saddams two sons could still be putting people in vats of boiling oil; cutting off limbs of Olympic athletes if they did poorly........

"...... And indeed what of God? Believe in Him, yet carry a gun?" The Bible has many wars within it's pages, and there is a directive to root out evil. People in history used whatever weapons were available to them to fight wars, and I don't doubt for a minute that, had they had guns, they would have been used.

WRONG!! The Dulfer Report does not draw that conclusion.
One of the "Key findings" (from the Dulfer report):

"Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable:"

You really are not that bright are you.

'Saddam never abandoned intentions' is not the same as 'WMD were found'.

The only WMD that were found was a single Sarin shell that had been buried since the Iran-Iraq war.

The Iraqi STATE was not in possession of any WMD.

The Dulfer report did draw the conclusion that no WMD were found.

Try reading in context when replying.