Rumsfeld Cautious on Iraq Terror-Link Documents

Originally posted by edsinger

And you have NO idea how a civilian run military is run. The generals RUN the war. When a President micromanages it you get ....well LBJ in vietnam.

'Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark."'




Wow, the White House gang is starting to make LBJ look like Patton.

Let's see what the Australian Intelligence was saying about Saddam wmd...

Australia to Conduct Review of Intelligence Agencies


Australian Prime Minister John Howard announced plans today for an independent review of Australia�s intelligence assessments of Iraq�s prewar WMD capabilities (see GSN, June 18, 2003; Belinda Goldsmith, Reuters, March 1).

His decision followed a recommendation in a parliamentary committee report released today that found that Australia�s estimates may have been overstated, but the report largely cleared the government of exaggerating those estimates and said that Australian assessments were more accurate than U.S. and British ones, according to the Associated Press.

�The committee found that the presentation by the Australian government was more moderate and more measured than that of its alliance partners,� said committee chairman David Jull.
.................
The committee found that most Australian intelligence agencies had determined that Iraq possessed, at best, �small stocks� of weapons of mass destruction before the war. The Office of National Assessments, which advised Prime Minister John Howard, however, was more willing to use untested information to determine that it was �highly likely� that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, according to Reuters.

Excerpted from.
www.nti.org...

Originally posted by edsinger
THe logical reason is: Look at the world opinion against the US since they 'dont' have them. We are loosing even though we won...

That's not a logical reason at all: I sincerely doubt Saddam thought losing his position of power was worth giving the US a humiliating run.
Saddam will probably be executed, and his life has been a living hell since we invaded. Why should you find it logical to assume he gave up his power and probably his life just to fool us into invading his nation? If that is your idea of logic, I don't dare ask what kind of 'logical' decisions you make in your own life.

I will ask again, since I asked it earlier and recieved ZERO response: why, if we had satellite imagery of suspicious convoys moving into Syria, did we not intercept the convoys? And why did we invade Iraq telling the whole world we knew the weapons were there AFTER seeing what we suspected to be weapons being freighted into Syria?

U.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Let's see what the Australian Intelligence was saying about Saddam wmd...

Australia to Conduct Review of Intelligence Agencies
...

Yes and from the very same article:

The committee found that most Australian intelligence agencies had determined that Iraq possessed, at best, �small stocks� of weapons of mass destruction before the war. The Office of National Assessments, which advised Prime Minister John Howard, however, was more willing to use untested information to determine that it was �highly likely� that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, according to Reuters.

�Despite their caution, insofar as they thought there were any weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq, it is possible they overstated their case,� Jull said (Goldsmith, Reuters).

A willingness to to use untested information to determine that it was 'highly likely' that Iraq possessed WMD? There certainly was no certainty from Australian intelligence.

And this must be put side by side with the fact that John Howard and George W Bush are virtually bed-buddies, politically speaking. Australia has shown every sign of embracing letting itself be bought by US trade deals, to the extent that observers sometimes seriously refer to Australia as being a candidate for American statehood in the not-so-distant-future !

U.

Originally posted by upuaut

I will ask again, since I asked it earlier and recieved ZERO response: why, if we had satellite imagery of suspicious convoys moving into Syria, did we not intercept the convoys? And why did we invade Iraq telling the whole world we knew the weapons were there AFTER seeing what we suspected to be weapons being freighted into Syria?

I'll have to answer. The reason is, the 'data' is bull#. Everyone who saw Powell at the UN was asking the same thing: "If you have all the satintell right there and you're 100% sure of its existence, why not pull an Operation Fox 2?"

I really liked how Powell's 'terrorist training camp' was in Kurdistan under the protection of our no-fly zone for 12 years. ROFL good one, Colon.

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by upuaut

I will ask again, since I asked it earlier and recieved ZERO response: why, if we had satellite imagery of suspicious convoys moving into Syria, did we not intercept the convoys? And why did we invade Iraq telling the whole world we knew the weapons were there AFTER seeing what we suspected to be weapons being freighted into Syria?

I'll have to answer. The reason is, the 'data' is bull#. Everyone who saw Powell at the UN was asking the same thing: "If you have all the satintell right there and you're 100% sure of its existence, why not pull an Operation Fox 2?"

I really liked how Powell's 'terrorist training camp' was in Kurdistan under the protection of our no-fly zone for 12 years. ROFL good one, Colon.

I agree with you, and unless someone can even begin to argue otherwise, this seems to be the only logical conclusion to the facts we have at our disposal.

So far, you are the only one to address this.

U.

Originally posted by xpert11
The U.S. military continues to back its estimate that the former Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq transferred much of its weapons of mass destruction arsenal to neighboring Syria.

There is no logic to this claim. If Saddam had WMDs he would have hid them from from UN weapons and when the coalition attacked the countrie Saddam would have used the WMDS against the coalition forces.
Why cant people accept that Iraq was the biggest intelligence failure since Pearl Habour?

Flawed logic, as any use of WNDs would have sealed his fate of death, as well as opened him up to nuclear (thats right - I said it, NUCLEAR) reaction from the US. In GWI we told him we would go nuclear on him if he used WMDs - thats why he didn't use them the first time. I would suspect we made it clear that our position hadn't changed.

Most likely they are in Syria.

Originally posted by American Mad Man


Most likely they are in Syria.

You have proof of that or is it just a staging point for the next incursion?

edsinger,

Britian has all but said ' okay, there wasn't any weapons, bad intelligence'.

Its on the news almost every night, America seems like the ONLY country still trying to say the weapons were there...!

Here in the U.K Mr. Blair is taken so much heat over the fact the intelligence was wrong. Two very high govement officals here in the U.K quit during the war because they knew the information was flawed.

From an interview with LA Weekly :
So if, as you argue, they knew there weren't any of these WMD, then what exactly drove the neoconservatives to war?
KK: The neoconservatives pride themselves on having a global vision, a long-term strategic perspective. And there were three reasons why they felt the U.S. needed to topple Saddam, put in a friendly government and occupy Iraq. [...]
The last reason is the conversion, the switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000 -- selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program aren't very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro.
The U.S. dollar is in a sensitive period because we are a debtor nation now. Our currency is still popular, but it's not backed up like it used to be. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq's oil back to the dollar

en.wikipedia.org...:2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Dollar_and_the_Euro

HMMMMmmmmmmmmmm!

[edit on 5-10-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

Originally posted by edsinger
THe logical reason is: Look at the world opinion against the US since they 'dont' have them. We are loosing even though we won...


And as I stated, if saddam did not use them in 1991, he would not use them now.......you arguement that he had nothing to loose has no merit. He wants to say alive and he knew both he and his country would be glass. How do I know this? Well he had a gun when they found him, did he use it?

Global opinion was already against the war before it began so that points out the flaw in your argument.

Of course Saddam didnt want to die but I doubt he would have been the first to be affected by any WMD attack in what ever bunker he was holed in.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by xpert11


Flawed logic, as any use of WNDs would have sealed his fate of death, as well as opened him up to nuclear (thats right - I said it, NUCLEAR) reaction from the US. In GWI we told him we would go nuclear on him if he used WMDs - thats why he didn't use them the first time. I would suspect we made it clear that our position hadn't changed.

Most likely they are in Syria.

I dont think so mate there no way the USA would have used nukes in Iraq.
Why? Any use of Nuclear weapons would have put an end to US reconstruction plans. If nukes had been used in Iraq the USA would have been faced with a hostile population not just a minorty making hell for the rest of the population.

"They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and to the East, North, South, and Southwest somewhat."

-- Rummy

Ok and they weren't there. So now where? Syria. Uh-huh. More bad intelligence, anyone?

Given that the goading of Syria is being ramped up lately with the accusations from Washington on Iraqi WMD's and Israeli fighters probing Lebanese airspace almost weekly, something must be in the pipeline.

Rest assured though, Israel will do little, if any, fighting itself. It'll be another US/coalition of the bribed that sends troops in to die.

The trouble with telling us that credible evidence supports the allegation that Syria has the WMD's is that we cannot question it. Like all intel matters it comes with the understanding that they can't reveal much as it might harm their sources. We therefore have to take it on trust that we are being told the truth. When did a politician ever tell us the truth?
As for Israeli intel, I'd distrust that more than our own agencies, given Mossad's motto

Originally posted by taibunsuu


Ok and they weren't there. So now where? Syria. Uh-huh. More bad intelligence, anyone?

Its either faulty intelligence or a rumour spread by the Bush administration. My guess is that that Bush & his cronies would use any expiation to hide there naivety during there attempt to be re-elected.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
as well as opened him up to nuclear (thats right - I said it, NUCLEAR) ...

Excuse me, did you say nuclear?
I'm just asking so as to give you an opportunity to say it again since you seem to enjoy it so much.

I also am amused by watching bullies enthuse over their instruments of power.



U.

Personally, I doubt the use of bio or chemical weaponry against our troops would have triggered a nuclear response from us. Not that the despicable will to do so would be lacking, but it would have been a move against our own agenda.

Sorry, I no longer believe intellingence. Too many failures!
We live fake world. Everything is manipulated, you can't tell what's real and what's a simulation or a total lie.

Wether you folk but it or not doesnt mean squat to me, he had the weapons, they went SOMEWHERE. He didnt destroy them, no matter how much you want to believe it.

SO if you back off your liberal stance and look a minute.

He had em
he did NOT destroy all of them
Where are they?

1. Not in Iraq? Well at least not in the open anyway. Anyone who will bury a MiG25 in the sand can bury other things, plus lots of dessert over there m8

2. Convoys to Syria, hmm why not attack it? Well the answer is obvious isnt it? We hadnt started the war yet, WE WERE STILL WAITING ON THE UN to do something.

3. Why Syria? Bathist dictator with whom you have defense treaties....




Like I say, even if tey find them tommorow, you liberals will claim Bush planted them. It is a NO-WIN with the left.........

Originally posted by edsinger
he had the weapons

First let me say to the US goverment, I would change my story also.


To edsinger, Im sorry, but he didnt have a freakin tank. If he had weapons, he would have had no time to get rid of them.

The goverment HAS been watching him for some time. If he tried to get an squrt gun out of Iraq, the goverment would have knew.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by edsinger
he had the weapons

First let me say to the US goverment, I would change my story also.

To edsinger, Im sorry, but he didnt have a freakin tank. If he had weapons, he would have had no time to get rid of them.

The goverment HAS been watching him for some time. If he tried to get an squrt gun out of Iraq, the goverment would have knew.

Not a chance, you need to research things better, While we were wauting for the UN to acrually back up its threats, saddam had time, plus he had the Germans , French , and Russians telling him we wouldnt attack.....

Originally posted by edsinger

Not a chance, you need to research things better, While we were wauting for the UN to acrually back up its threats, saddam had time, plus he had the Germans , French , and Russians telling him we wouldnt attack.....

How should we research facts that you just make up on the spot?