Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Wmd Found! Wmd Found! Wmd, Aw Nuts!
Topic Started: Jun 22 2006, 05:15 AM (493 Views)
campingken
Member
Today I heard re-plays of Bush's pre invasion speeches. He said "active program and immediate danger to USA etc." Now they want to justify the war because 3 years ago we found shells that we sold Iraq under Bush the first to use on Iran.

Why do the Hannity's et al even bother? The Bush true believers think that his decisions are made by God and over 50% of the rest of us think that invading Iraq was a mistake.

Ken
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
Faith based foreign policy, works great lasts a long time.

Yeah right. :floorrollin:

What is unfortunate is that we did not find some true evidence of WMD within a decent interval to help restore our credibility as a nation.
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
PETER HOEKSTRA AND RICK SANTORUM respond to us ;)

Saddam's WMD: Why is out [sic] intelligence community holding back?
Quote:
 
On Wednesday, at our request, the director of national intelligence declassified six "key points" from a National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The summary was only a small snapshot of the entire report, but even so, it brings new information to the American people. "Since 2003," the summary states, "Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent," which remains "hazardous and potentially lethal." So there are WMDs in Iraq, and they could kill Americans there or all over the world.

This latest information should not be new. It should have been brought to public attention by officials in the intelligence community. Instead, it had to be pried out of them. Mr. Santorum wrote to John DeFreitas, commanding general, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, on April 12, asking to see the report. He wrote, "I am informed that there may well be many more stores of WMDs throughout Iraq," and added, "the people of Pennsylvania and Members of Congress would benefit from reviewing this report." He asked that the "NGIC work with the appropriate entities" to declassify as much of the information as possible.

The senator received no response. On June 5, he wrote again, this time to John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, "concerning captured Iraqi documents, data, media and maps from the regime of Saddam Hussein." He mentioned his disappointment that many captured Iraqi documents had been classified, and that he still had received no response from Gen. DeFreitas. Some 10 days later, still with no response, he shared his dismay with one of us, Pete Hoekstra, chairman of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence, who on June 15 wrote to Mr. Negroponte, urging him to declassify the NGIC analytic piece. Mr. Hoekstra was also dismayed because he had not been informed through normal intelligence channels of the existence of this report.

To compound matters, during a call-in briefing with journalists held at noon on June 21, intelligence officials misleadingly said that "on June 19, we received a second request; this time asking that we, in short order--48 hours--declassify the key points, which are sort of the equivalent to key judgments from something like a National Intelligence Estimate, from the assessment." The fault was their own; we had been requesting this information for nine weeks and they had not acted.

On Thursday, Mr. Negroponte's office arranged a press briefing by unnamed intelligence officials to downplay the significance of the report, calling it "not new news" even as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was reiterating the obvious importance of the information: "What has been announced is accurate, that there have been hundreds of canisters or weapons of various types found that either currently have sarin in them or had sarin in them, and sarin is dangerous. And it's dangerous to our forces. . . . They are weapons of mass destruction. They are harmful to human beings. And they have been found. . . . And they are still being found and discovered."

In fact, the public knows relatively little about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Indeed, we do not even know what is known or unknown. Charles Duelfer, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, stated that the ISG had fully evaluated less than 0.25% of the more than 10,000 weapons caches known to exist throughout Iraq. It follows that the American people should be brought up to date frequently on our state of knowledge of this important matter. That is why we asked that the entire document be declassified, minus the exact sources, methods and locations. It is also, in part, why we have fought for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of Saddam-era documents.

The president is the ultimate classifier and declassifier of information, but the entire matter has now been so politicized that, in practice, he is often paralyzed. If he were to order the declassification of a document pointing to the existence of WMDs in Iraq, he would be instantly accused of "cherry picking" and "politicizing intelligence." He may therefore not be inclined to act.

In practice, then, the intelligence community decides what the American public and its elected officials can know and when they will learn it. Sometimes those decisions are made by top officials, while on other occasions they are made by unnamed bureaucrats with friends in the media. People who leak the existence of sensitive intelligence programs like the terrorist surveillance program or financial tracking programs to either damage the administration or help al Qaeda, or perhaps both, are using the release or withholding of documents to advance their political desires, even as they accuse others of manipulating intelligence.

We believe that the decisions of when and what Americans can know about issues of national security should not be made by unelected, unnamed and unaccountable people.

Some officials in the intelligence community withheld the document we requested on WMDs, and somebody is resisting our request to declassify the entire document while briefing journalists in a tendentious manner. We will continue to ask for declassification of this document and the hundreds of thousands of other Saddam-produced documents, and we will also insist on periodic updates on discoveries in Iraq.

This is no small matter. It is not--as a few self-proclaimed experts have declared--a spat over ancient history. It involves life and death for American soldiers on the battlefield, and it involves the ability of the American people to evaluate the actions of their government, and thus to render an objective judgment. The people must have the whole picture, not just a shard of reality dished up by politicized intelligence officers.

Information is a potent weapon in the current war. Al Qaeda uses the Internet very effectively and uses the media as a terrorist tool. If the American public can be deceived by people who withhold basic information, we risk losing the war at home, even if we win it on the battlefield. The debate should focus on the basic question--what, exactly, we need to do to succeed both here and in Iraq. We are dismayed to have learned how many people in our own government are trying to distort that debate.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Quote:
 
Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent," which remains "hazardous and potentially lethal.


So the spin that the WMDs found are not really usable is incorrect. They can be used to kill people, and maybe terrorists have gotten some. Wonderful! ;)

I think the Bush Admin was saving this info for release after anti war progressives had delared "There are no WMDs in IRAQ" before they had all the info (a common mistake they make, IMHO), to be released just before the 2006 elections.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
bikemanb
Jun 23 2006, 06:47 AM
What is unfortunate is that we did not find some true evidence of WMD within a decent interval to help restore our credibility as a nation.

Why is a "decent" interval important?

We are so impatient. When no WMDs were found right away, the anti war crowd ran off yelling about it. Why do we listen to them? This report is proof that they jumped the gun. We need to learn to wait untill ALL the information is out before we start formulating opinions.

The press starts speculating, and we just automatically start accepting their spin without thinking. Bush's low poll numbers are evedence of this. The economy is good and the war is going well compared to previous wars. Most people don't care about increased federal spending so, why else are his poll numbers low? The media spun the war to look bad with incomplete information. People arn't thinking.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
campingken
Jun 22 2006, 05:47 PM
Why do the Hannity's et al even bother? The Bush true believers think that his decisions are made by God and over 50% of the rest of us think that invading Iraq was a mistake.

Because your characterisation of the situation is incorrect. They want people to stop just automatically accepting spin they see on the more progressive media and listen to another side.

Nobody that I know of thinks Bush's decisions are made by God. They think they are made by Bush. Where do you get this information? Can you provide a link?

50% of the people that think the war in Iraq is a mistake have formed an opinion before all the information is available.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
"50% of the people that think the war in Iraq is a mistake have formed an opinion before all the information is available."

And the other half took us to war on less.


"... to be released just before the 2006 elections"

Are we to trust people who politicize war like that?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
Jun 26 2006, 03:55 PM
"50% of the people that think the war in Iraq is a mistake have formed an opinion before all the information is available."

And the other half took us to war on less.



No, President Bush and the Congress took us to war.


Quote:
 
"... to be released just before the 2006 elections"

Are we to trust people who politicize war like that?


You think the Dems don't do stuff like that too? We only have 2 choices right now, the Dems and Reps, and they both save info to be released before an election, IMHO.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
You think I trust either party? :rolleyes: Vote Libertarian!
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
Jun 26 2006, 04:18 PM
You think I trust either party? :rolleyes: Vote Libertarian!

I shoulda known that! :floorrollin:
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
Since the United States has a couple of nuclear weapons for which we cannot account or identify their specific whereabouts and a great deal of nuclear material for which we cannot account as well as a great number of old mustard gas devices which have degraded, does that mean someone should invade our country? I hardly think so. That is why President Bush was so careful to use phrases such as "active program" and "immediate danger" in his speeches while many more in his administration used the phrase "imminent threat."

One might also ask just how many of those pre 1991 weapons were developed with technology provided by the United States in hopes they might be used against Iran.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
No doubt most of them came from here.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Colo_Crawdad
Jun 26 2006, 04:43 PM
Since the United States has a couple of nuclear weapons for which we cannot account or identify their specific whereabouts and a great deal of nuclear material for which we cannot account as well as a great number of old mustard gas devices which have degraded, does that mean someone should invade our country? I hardly think so.

Where did you get this information? Is it speculation? I would think if this was true, the military would be keeping this secret.

Quote:
 
That is why President Bush was so careful to use phrases such as "active program" and "immediate danger" in his speeches while many more in his administration used the phrase "imminent threat."
Just semantics. I think you are seeing more than is there.

Quote:
 
One might also ask just how many of those pre 1991 weapons were developed with technology provided by the United States in hopes they might be used against Iran.

Irrelivent. If this is true, they were given before Saddam's interest in terrorism. Do we know this is true, or is this just speculation?
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Saddam's interest in terrorism? Is that speculation. He was a tyrant, no doubt about it, but a global terrorist? Surely, you jest, er, just speculate.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
Jun 27 2006, 10:56 AM
Saddam's interest in terrorism? Is that speculation. He was a tyrant, no doubt about it, but a global terrorist? Surely, you jest, er, just speculate.

No speculation....Saddam Hussen paid the families of Palestinian Terrorists $25,000 for every terrorist killed in a suicide attack.

New information is forthcoming, but I won't speculate on that!
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply