"the worst scandal in American political history." - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-08-2003, 08:04 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:25 PM
paxetaurora
STING2
FizzingWhizzbees
80sU2isBest
verte76

Do any of you believe that the Bush Administration may be sitting on the WMD?

Giving the opposition enough rope to hang themselves.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 08:05 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:25 AM
paxetaurora,

The UN report in 1998 documents and proves Iraq had WMD then. Most of the above statements by the administration often taken out of contexts refer to the WMD listed in the UN report from 1998. Saddam had it and its incumbent upon Saddam to give it over or destroy it under the supervision of the UN. Saddam did not do this and it is unknown percisely what Saddam did with his WMD. You cannot fault Bush with what Saddam did with the WMD since 1998. Bush, unlike many others, has done everything he could to insure Saddam was disarmed of the WMD he had in 1998. How many other leaders can claim to have done as much as Bush to insure that Saddam was disarmed?

I really hope the democrats decide to make this an issue, because it will make winning the 2004 election for Bush much easier. Bush is weak on certain issues, but foreign policy is not one of them.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 08:06 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
paxetaurora
STING2
FizzingWhizzbees
80sU2isBest
verte76

Do any of you believe that the Bush Administration may be sitting on the WMD?

Giving the opposition enough rope to hang themselves.
Hehe!!!!!! Maybe until a Democrat for President attacks him on this?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 08:08 PM   #34
us3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 165
Local Time: 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
US3 Where have you been?

My fear is not that the administrationis lying. My fear is that the administration had it right, but that the WMD has been moved outside of Iraq. It is not farfetched at all to think this. There were reports before the war of ships that were sent out to sea that were being monitored.

I still think that Iraq was lying about what it had from the start. Why wouldn't Iraq lie? It is a natural deterrent against outside agression, and who is to say that Saddam did not think that the reason he survived Gulf I was because of the fact that the WMD deterred the Coalition from finishing the job.

lil bit more time these days and a windows2k problem finally fixed. i read the same info somewhere. For some reason the Debka site comes to mind as the source which can be quite unreliable. If you can point me to something more reliable, I would appreciate it. I also read somewhere WMD was sitting just inside Syria on a border town.

I found yet another interesting article, that might help w/ the "discussion".

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

an excerpt.

...The intelligence officer's account, parts of which could not be independently verified, gives ammunition to both sides of the controversy. He said that U.N. sanctions and inspections in the 1990s crippled Iraq's ability to build illegal weapons and that Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear programs were effectively eliminated in the mid-1990s.

But his description of an ongoing effort to prepare for illicit weapons production programs in the future suggests that Hussein would have remained a serious threat if U.S.-led forces had not ousted the dictator...
__________________
us3 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 08:13 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Three mystery ships are tracked over suspected 'weapons' cargo

By Michael Harrison (The Independent)
19 February 2003

Three giant cargo ships are being tracked by US and British intelligence on suspicion that they might be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Each with a deadweight of 35,000 to 40,000 tonnes, the ships have been sailing around the world's oceans for the past three months while maintaining radio silence in clear violation of international maritime law, say authoritative shipping industry sources.

The vessels left port in late November, just a few days after UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix began their search for the alleged Iraqi arsenal on their return to the country.

Uncovering such a deadly cargo on board would give George Bush and Tony Blair the much sought-after "smoking gun" needed to justify an attack on Saddam Hussein's regime, in the face of massive public opposition to war.

The ships were chartered by a shipping agent based in Egypt and are flying under the flags of three different countries.

The continued radio silence since they left port, in addition to the captains' failure to provide information on their cargoes or their destinations, is a clear breach of international maritime laws.

The vessels are thought to have spent much of their time in the deep waters of the Indian Ocean, berthing at sea when they need to collect supplies of fuel and food.

They have berthed in a handful of Arab countries, including Yemen.

American and British military forces are believed to be reluctant to stop and search the vessels for fear that any intervention might result in them being scuttled.

If they were carrying chemical and biological weapons, or fissile nuclear material, and they were to be sunk at sea, the environmental damage could be catastrophic.

Washington and London might also want to orchestrate any raids so that they can present the ships as "evidence" that President Saddam is engaged in "material breach" of UN resolutions.

This could provide the trigger for military strikes.

While security sources in London last night were unable to provide information on any surveillance operation, the movement of the three ships is the source of growing concern among maritime and intelligence experts.

A shipping industry source told The Independent: "If Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, then a very large part of its capability could be afloat on the high seas right now. These ships have maintained radio silence for long periods and, for a considerable time, they have been steaming around in ever-decreasing circles."

The ships are thought to have set sail from a country other than Iraq to avoid running the gauntlet of Western naval vessels patrolling the Gulf.

Defence experts believe that, if they are carrying weapons of mass destruction, these could have been smuggled out through Syria or Jordan.

Despite hundreds of searches by UN inspectors, no evidence has yet been found of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes.

A succession of "dossiers" presented by Downing Street has been criticised for providing inaccurate information, with the most recent one subject to ridicule because a student's 11-year-old doctoral thesis was being passed off as current intelligence.

There was a further setback for Washington and London when the accuracy of satellite photographs shown to the United Nations by Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, purporting to show Iraqi officials moving incriminating evidence from a suspected site, was questioned by Hans Blix.

Mr Blix said: "The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of an imminent inspection."

Attempts to link the Iraqi regime to al-Qa'ida and other Islamist groups have also been met with scepticism.

The UN says, though, that Iraq has failed to account for 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents from the war against Iran; to reveal the whereabouts of 6,500 missing chemical rockets; to produce evidence it has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax; and to account for 380 rocket engines smuggled into Iraq with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems.

Intelligence reports, and some Iraqi defectors, have maintained that incriminating material and documents relating to weapons of mass destruction have been buried in remote parts of the country and have also been hidden in a variety of locations including homes of officials and scientists, as well as mosques.

There have also been claims that chemical and biological products have been smuggled into Syria.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=379623
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 08:13 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:25 AM
Deep,

"Do any of you believe that the Bush Administration may be sitting on the WMD?"

"Giving the opposition enough rope to hang themselves."

I understand what your saying but the issue is to sensitive and important to sit on so I don't think so.

If I were a democrat and wanted win in 2004 against Bush, the best way to do it is to make Foreign Policy not an issue. The more cover time Foreign Policy( positive or negative) takes up in the campaign, the more it will benefit Bush.

The Democrats won in 1992 by debating domestic and economic issues, not Foreign Policy where the Republicans and Bush Sr. had clearly been very successful.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 08:17 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:25 PM
Re: Re: Rove is too smart,

Dread,

That is what I meant by the first response to this thread.

rope-a-dope



Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Karl Rove is very calculating. He has not let his guard down once. This Administrations every decision, move, statement is measured and evaluated in terms of broadening their base of likely voters.


Because they have said there are WMD emphatically, leads me to believe they may be there.



The mobile labs are in my opinion a one, on the old 1-10 scale. 10 being the bio weapons Saddam used to kill the Kurds and Shia in the 80s and 90s (irrefutable).

If there truly are some WMD in Iraq more damning, say in the 5-7 range why release it now. Ws poll numbers might go from 60 to 80-85. Then, if the economy remains stagnant the 2004 election becomes problematic.

I think they may be suckering in the Dems, much like Ali used the ropes in the middle rounds to tire out his opponents. Ali saved his best stuff to finish big, when his opponents had punched themselves out.

Karl Rove is no fool.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 08:21 PM   #38
us3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 165
Local Time: 04:25 PM
matt,

thx i'll read it.


Deep, I think you should get a gig w/ Ollie Stone. Your input will help make a fascinating movie BTW i'm think I'm getting a BOSE for fathers day so you'll be able to listen to Pacifica Radio topofline when you come for the Holidays.
__________________
us3 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 08:23 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by us3
matt,

thx i'll read it.

bert
Welcome
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 08:27 PM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Deep,



I understand what your saying but the issue is to sensitive and important to sit on so I don't think so.

If I were a democrat and wanted win in 2004 against Bush, the best way to do it is to make Foreign Policy not an issue. The more cover time Foreign Policy( positive or negative) takes up in the campaign, the more it will benefit Bush.

The Democrats won in 1992 by debating domestic and economic issues, not Foreign Policy where the Republicans and Bush Sr. had clearly been very successful.

There are parallels to 92.

The most important one is not to peak too soon.

With all this talk about WMD it keeps the focus on foreign policy.

Just like they wanted 2002 election to be about Saddam, 911, and not about corporate scandal, deficit spending, tax cuts.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 08:32 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Hehe!!!!!! Maybe until a Democrat for President attacks him on this?
2 or 3 already have.

Is he waiting for the others to have to follow suit so they do not look like they are losing momentum?

It would be classic Rove.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 08:35 PM   #42
us3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 165
Local Time: 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
But if my President told me that we were going to war because Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and we would find them, then it is in fact incumbent upon my President to find these weapons and tell me where they were found. It might not have been incumbent on Bush to demonstrate that there were WMDs, but since the alleged WMDs were used as justification for war, it is incumbent now.

I am a voter, a taxpayer, and a citizen. I am entitled to these answers. And I won't have any problem voting Bush out of office if I don't get them.

(I mean, I'd have voted him out anyway. But you get the point.)
heh! it's incumbent on the incumbent. oh yeah, but, he wasn't really elected, so...
__________________
us3 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 09:14 PM   #43
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 08:25 PM
It's not inconceivable that they're sitting on the WMD, I guess. They could be. And I do think the Democrats ought to be careful of this. They'd be better off sticking with the economy.

Sting: I understand what you're saying, but we did not go to war in 1998. We went in 2003. And I want to know that Iraq had, and planned to use, WMDs in 2003 *when we attacked*.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 09:20 PM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
paxetaurora
STING2
FizzingWhizzbees
80sU2isBest
verte76

Do any of you believe that the Bush Administration may be sitting on the WMD?

Giving the opposition enough rope to hang themselves.

I really don't know why he'd do this. It's to his advantage to keep foreign policy in the forefront, because he's so weak in domestic policy. But I don't know why he'd particularly want a controversy. I think he'd rather have high-fives. Gosh.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 10:28 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
If you think the Bush Administrations case for war is a "bag of shit", that must be your opinion of the UN inspectors and their work that documented Iraq's possession of the WMD to begin with.
Do me a favor, since you have invited me to not read your posts, please do not put words into my mouth or pretend to be able to read my mind. I will keep up my end of the deal.

Thanks.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com