FACT: CIA Faced ‘Significant Pressure’ on Iraq Intel
FACT: CIA Faced ‘Significant Pressure’ on Iraq Intel
Senior administration officials, including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, have suggested recently that U.S. intelligence analysts faced no pressure from administration officials to produce information that would support the case for war.
A White House document released Tuesday says the following:
Congressional And Independent Committees Have Repeatedly Found No Political Pressure To Change Intelligence.
This is false — the answer to whether there was political pressure was left to Phase II of the Senate investigation, which is currently being stonewalled by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS).
But we don’t have to wait for the Senate report to know that intelligence analysts were pressured by the White House. As Knight-Ridder points out:
In a July 2003 report, a CIA review panel found that agency analysts were subjected to “steady and heavy” requests from administration officials for evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaida, which created “significant pressure on the Intelligence Community to find evidence that supported a connection.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Congress didn’t have access to the President’s Daily Brief, a top-secret compendium of intelligence on the most pressing national security issues that was sent to the president every morning by former CIA Director George Tenet.
**AJ,
November 17th, 2005 at 11:01 amYa know, this Gannon Guy, Talon News, the P.DB in Question, sure has an Odd Smell….**
“Stay the course is not a strategy. It’s a sloganâ€
-Sen. Carl Levin
November 17th, 2005 at 11:05 amit oughta be clear by now that this administration, cheney in particular, is not going to suddenly develop an honest streak… they are going to stick to their lies no matter what… they’ve perfected this game over 5 years under the tutelage of the satanic master, karl… it’s worked perfectly well so why should they change now…?
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2005/11/reid-responds-to-uncle-dick.html
November 17th, 2005 at 11:11 am“The investigation is not yet complete, until it is we won’t know.”
“The MSM are biased”
“Clinton lied”
“You’re wrong, we’re right, we won the election after all”
Am I missing any of the usual suspects to try and detract from the real story here?
Z.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:14 amIt’s obvious to anyone with minimally 1/2 a brain cell that BushCo pushed the CIA to support the Administration’s Faith Based Policies toward Iraq.
Afterall, they (BushCo) had nothing. The CIA knew it, but did their best to uncover whatever was being asked for. In the end, the only thing the Bush Cabal had to hang their hats on was prayer. They fervently _believed_ (in faith) that Saddam had all the things they told us Saddam had.
It’s amazing how stark a difference there is between “opinion” (beliefs, faith) and the truth.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:19 amIn other news, the bridges to nowhere got the axe:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17spend.html?th&emc=th
I suggest everyone write that Alaskan congressman and tell him he can resign now.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:27 am#5…. Please add:
“Why do you hate the president?”
“Why do liberals / Democrates / any non-republician hate America/”
“Why do you love terrorists?”
“Why do liberals hate the military?”
“Why do you hate freedom?”
“Why do you love the French?”
“Why do you not want Iraq to have freedom?”
“Saddam is a bad guy, we are good guys”
“Do you want a mushroom cloud in your city?”
“We will not allow terrorists to destroy America”
“We are protecting American freedom”
“Be attacking the president you are attacking our soldiers protecting our freedom in Iraq.”
“We have to support the president during this time of war, these attacks are only helping the terrorists.”
I’m sure there will be plenty of really nasty responses as well….!
November 17th, 2005 at 11:27 amWhile Guckert initially was homebased in Philadelphia, he later moved his operations to Washington, D.C. In his comments, posted on his personal site, Guckert now speaks of all of the sophisticated and powerful men who are his clients and who are, he says often enough, impressed with his insight and intelligence. The nice thing about praising yourself is that you can lay it on so thick and in just the right places.
Once he got settled inside the Beltway, Guckert changed his name to Jeff Gannon and became involved in the DC gay scene. Washington is filled with gays, many of them important political leaders, lobbyists, congressmen and their aides, members of the media and high-level bureaucrats.
Guckert then began his move into the conservative, Republican gay circles and on January 25, 2002, he set up the domain “theconservativeguy.com†Guckert registered his new persona under the name of a non-existent ‘J. Daniels’ and gave the address of a mail drop in Delaware only a few blocks from his former duplex.
Dressing up in the clothing of an arch conservative, the new Jim Gannon paraded his views, and his body, in front of the Washington gay crowd to some effect. His list of clients in his early hustling days is well known and will be the subject of a later study but suffice it to say, he became their protégé and was pushed forward with avidity. Gannon then was groomed at the so-called ‘Leadership Institute’s School of Broadcast Journalism.’ The Leadership Institute, whose publicly stated mission is “to increase the number and effectiveness of conservative public policy leaders,†was started in 1979 by longtime Republican Party faithful, Morton C. Blackwell.
Rest of Article here;
November 17th, 2005 at 11:27 amhttp://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=3071
Also, Republicans will never admit they lied. Never. It doesn’t matter how obvious it becomes.
For them, you can say something you know is not true, and it’s still not a lie. Or maybe you just have to convince yourself first. It’s not a lie if you believe really really hard.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:29 amit’s well-known that when Bush & Co. were planning for the war in the days after 9/11, they demanded that a an Iraq-9/11 connection be found… whenever they got something to the contrary they told their staff to go back and look harder…
November 17th, 2005 at 11:32 amI hope President Cheney really goes on the offensive this time. He needs to call us traitors for standing up to him, and call for immediate detention, rendition, and moderate physical pressure on all who disagree. His assistant, Bush, can help though he may be busy clearing brush on his ranch.
Also, write to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), and demand he keep his word and resign from the Senate.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:34 amFACTS? You’re asking them to deal with FACTS? Come On!
November 17th, 2005 at 11:34 amFunny that I have heard no people here say they Hate, what u Mentioned, its just the Opposite SW BOB. We dont like Corrupt Politicians and Neo-Fascist Ideologues such as Cheney and Wolfowitz and their Brain Dead plan, a Gamble..
A BAD Gamble.
Its Bush and His Cronies whom wish to Circumvent the Constitution,SW Bob, Not the People Here. We want to Remove Corrupt Officials.
SO, are you saying screw the People and keep the Crooks SW Bob?
No wonder the Bushies dont wanna talk bout Gannon and ALL his Co-Horts
November 17th, 2005 at 11:35 amGannon
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=3071
The CIA should be disbanded and rebuilt from scratch. They have been actively working against our efforts in the Mid East and as far as I know haven’t done one thing right since the agency was first started.
It’s amazing to me to see the Filthy Left shilling for the CIA after all those years of outright contempt and hatred too. I guess that tells us that for sure the CIA has been compromised by Left Wing traitors. The CIA…the people who brought you the botched job on the Shaw of Iran, The Bay of Pigs, and couldn’t find the traitors in the US government leaking crucial weapons research data to the Russians and the Red Chinese. The same people who didn’t know the Soviet Union was going to fall and the same people who allowed Osamma to leave the scene of his crimes. Fire the lot of them and hang those who’ve betrayed us.
An Incomplete Investigation
Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore “Able Danger�
BY LOUIS FREEH
Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
It was interesting to hear from the 9/11 Commission again on Tuesday. This self-perpetuating and privately funded group of lobbyists and lawyers has recently opined on hurricanes, nuclear weapons, the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and even the New York subway system. Now it offers yet another “report card†on the progress of the FBI and CIA in the war against terrorism, along with its “back-seat†take and some further unsolicited narrative about how things ought to be on the “front lines.â€
Yet this is also a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself. Recent revelations from the military intelligence operation code-named “Able Danger†have cast light on a missed opportunity that could have potentially prevented 9/11. Specifically, Able Danger concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Mohamed Atta by name (and maybe photograph) as an al Qaeda agent operating in the U.S. Subsequently, military officers assigned to Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents, even though appointments had been made to do so. Why?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007559
November 17th, 2005 at 11:37 am#9
So correct! It is a pathological condition of lying. They have become so invested in bu$h and gop control of congress/courts, that NOTHING will alter their “reality”.
My concern is; how far will they go down the delusional path to ensure political dominance? How much damage will they do flailing about once they recognize that defeat is coming to them?
November 17th, 2005 at 11:38 amcynical – well yes & no. That program got the axe but ALL the money still goes to Alaska & they get to determine how it gets spent. They have said they are going to build the bridge. BTW – I read yesterday that, SURPRISE!, the mother or wife of Alaska’s govenor or Senator happens to own 33 acres on that island. Guess who’se investment skyrockets with a bridge?
Sorry, I can’t find the source now. I’ll look again later.
On thread – Duh!. Yea the CIA was pressured and good ole Medal of Freedom winner Tennant licked the best boots in the Executive branch. The CIA probably did give bushco pro & con info. We all know bushco only released the pro. Why is this a surprise to anyone?
November 17th, 2005 at 11:44 am#7, alow me to address your post…
“Why do you hate the president?â€
“Why do liberals / Democrates / any non-republician hate America/â€
“Why do you love terrorists?â€
Who has said anything about hatting terrorists? Just because we have the currage to say “Hey we made a mistake” does not mean that we love terrorists.
“Why do liberals hate the military?â€
Again, who has said that they hate the military? I was in the military, so are you saying that I am a traitor because I believe that the Iraq war was presented with false information or mis-leading information?
“Why do you hate freedom?â€
See previous comments
“Why do you love the French?â€
What has the French have to do with anything?
“Why do you not want Iraq to have freedom?â€
It’s not that we don’t, but why force our beliefs on a country? This war was not about freedom to begin with it was about WMD which was never found.
“Saddam is a bad guy, we are good guysâ€
Yeah, that’s why the people over there have been blowing up their own people on a daily basis. Did you ever see this kind of distruction when Saddam was in power?
“Do you want a mushroom cloud in your city?â€
And you think that this is going to make our country any safer? I feel more un-safe now then ever. All we did was shake up the hornets nest. We will be under more attacks now then ever before, as we all know our borders are no safer than they were 4 years ago.
“We will not allow terrorists to destroy Americaâ€
By going to war you have done just that. Look at the termoil this war is causing in economics and other important areas.
“We are protecting American freedomâ€
How? They are 6,000 miles across an ocean. How are our borders any safer with all the money going over their instead of increasing the protection on our borders?
“Be attacking the president you are attacking our soldiers protecting our freedom in Iraq.â€
Do you not believe in Free Speach, the very thing that our Constitution is founded on? So if the president tells everyone that they have to surrender all of their property to him, then we should just do that because he is the president?
“We have to support the president during this time of war, these attacks are only helping the terrorists.â€
No, this war is helping the terroists. This war is turning more muslims against America, and that is what is helping the terrorists. If we would have waited for several more months to obtain more information and try a little harder to prove our cause with the world, then perhaps we would be in a better situation. But no! Our leader had to rush things before the information came out that the situation was not so dire and there was no need to rush into war at that time.
Please bring something to the table other than this close minded nonsense.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:45 am#13 . . . My error…s/h been #4. . . please add these bush defender rationalizations to your list. . . . those of us who point out the obvious to the neo-defenders have come to expect anything but a reasonable and rational response.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:50 amIt’s finally happening, with Blair’s ass going down, everyone knows what this criminal administration has done.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:51 amRemoval of previous comments have renumbered comments thus causing confusion…
Southwest Bob was simply expanding a list of the sorts of comments we could expect to hear.
Instead I-R-I brought up Able Danger… A program that people claim after the fact had identified some people who may or may not have been Al Qaeda operatives. It has been pointed out that some of the people used different names at the time that it is claimed that Able danger identified them… But this is still a red-herring. The actual story is not that Able Danger was ignored or cancelled. The PDB about “UBL to strike at America” was also ignored… So IRI if you are going to respond try and keep it on topic…
Z.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:58 amScary to think if these clowns would have actually found WMDs we’d be knee deep into Lybia and Iran by now. Okay, I’m making it an official opinion:
God hid the WMDs to prevent the PNAC war machine. God loves peace! Glory to God!”
November 17th, 2005 at 12:00 pmWE DID FIND THE KILLING FIELDS (via Kevin Whited):
WMD not only reason (J.D. Crouch, 11/15/05, USA Today)
• Addressing Congress after 9/11, President Bush declared that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Iraq was a state sponsor of terror and openly supported suicide bombers.
• In 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously found Iraq in violation of 16 prior resolutions about disarming. Iraq repeatedly fired on U.S. and coalition planes patrolling the “No Fly Zones” that protected Iraqis from Saddam. The president acted only when it became clear that the U.N. would not pass another resolution or take action to enforce previous resolutions supported by the past three U.S. presidents.
• President Bush often cited Saddam’s murder of hundreds of thousands. Saddam used WMD against Iraq’s Kurds and invaded Kuwait.
In February 2003, before troops set foot in Iraq, the president stated: “A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions.”
Moreover, the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq — which 77 senators of both parties voted for — explicitly cited Saddam’s support for terrorism, his repeated violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, his brutality against his own people, and the promotion of democracy as justifications for the use of military force.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-15-oppose_x.htm
November 17th, 2005 at 12:12 pmGosh golly! No WMDs?! Can I believe anything I hear about Saddam? I swear to god they make all that crap up! Just look at the lying reporters! Gosh golly! I aint believin’ nothin’ I aint seen with my own eyeballs for now on!
November 17th, 2005 at 12:17 pmRepublican lies have been peeled off one at a time, yet the partisan retarded little children keep repeating them like hypnotized zombies. Wow those who still regurgitate the koolaid sure look stupid!
November 17th, 2005 at 12:25 pm#22
“Addressing Congress after 9/11, President Bush declared that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Iraq was a state sponsor of terror and openly supported suicide bombers.”
Actually, the people Saddam would make disappear in the middle of the night were Islamic extremists. Saddam ruled with an iron fist and didn’t want any of that crap coming form “his people. So, that is a lie.
“In 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously found Iraq in violation of 16 prior resolutions about disarming. Iraq repeatedly fired on U.S. and coalition planes patrolling the “No Fly Zones†that protected Iraqis from Saddam. The president acted only when it became clear that the U.N. would not pass another resolution or take action to enforce previous resolutions supported by the past three U.S. presidents.”
The UN did not back the US on going to war in Iraq. That is another lie.
“President Bush often cited Saddam’s murder of hundreds of thousands. Saddam used WMD against Iraq’s Kurds and invaded Kuwait.”
Saddam killed millions in his war against Iran. We gave him WMDs and chemical weapons. How come you guys don’t bring this up? Remember Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands? I do.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:27 pmSee folks, IRI has demonstrated that the UN agreed that we should invade Iraq. So stop pretending that most of the world opposed our invasion!
Also interesting to note that yes, brutal oppression of the Iraqi people was mentioned in the authorization for force (the one Bush said he needed to get inspectors back in — again, not a lie!). However, out of 23 whereas clauses, it was lumped in one and only one, combined with POW/MIA from Gulf War 1, and stolen Kuwaiti property. That’s where it was on the scale of importance. Whereas WMD appears in the majority of whereas clauses, and non-specific references to terrorism coming in second in frequency.
And to think, if Clinton had invaded Iraq at a cost of $300 billion, 2,000 dead and 12,000 wounded, and an insurgency which has been in its last throes for two years, Republicans would be signing his praises right now!
November 17th, 2005 at 12:30 pmI seem to recall a disagreement between Amnesty International and Donald Rumsfeld about whether Saddam was a bad guy. Guess who turned out to be right, and guess who flip-flopped?
Speaking of countries that harbor terrorists, we know for a fact that terrorist training camps have been operating in Pakistan (that’s where the London bombers were trained). But Bush says they are our allies.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:32 pmAnd to think, if Clinton had invaded Iraq at a cost of $300 billion, 2,000 dead and 12,000 wounded, and an insurgency which has been in its last throes for two years, Republicans would be signing his praises right now!
Comment by cyncial ex-hippie
Actually, 5000 dead Americans. Of course you don’t want to count the initial attack that started this ball rolling. But, that’s OK. It’s rolling now and will conitinue to roll….
Iran starts converting new uranium batch: diplomat
VIENNA (Reuters) – Iran has begun processing a new batch of uranium despite Western pressure on it to halt sensitive atomic work, possibly harming attempts to defuse a standoff over its nuclear aims, a diplomat said on Wednesday.
Iran had notified the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in late October that it intended to process a new batch of uranium at its Isfahan uranium conversion plant but did not start the work last week as originally planned.
“Conversion has resumed,” the diplomat, who is close to the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Reuters.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?id=2005111619320002367896&dt=20051116193200&w=RTR&coview=
November 17th, 2005 at 12:36 pm#24
After all is said and done I hope to God this ends “reporter quotes reporter” and “politician quotes himself” media. This is the real travesty. Bad guys are bad guys. Professional propagandists need to be called out and exposed. EVERDAY.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:39 pmThe issue for young people is that all the the World’s viable oil feilds have been discovered, and the capacity of the oil fields have been estimated. Our country’s main objective from now on is to secure the last of the World’s oil fields in order to maintain our status as having the “best way of life†and the most powerful military. Many speculate that our efforts to secure the last of the World’s oil supply will spread our military too thin, not having any real military here at home, and become vulnerable to invasion. It is thought the Chinese will invade and overpower us. Which could easily happen in your lifetime. My advice is for you to learn the Chinese language.
The ANWR has an estimated 300 million barrels of oil, we consume 9 million per day. So when that area is finally torn up, the supply would last 33.3 days.
I expect to be ignored, as this is too real, too scary, and has nothing to do with partisan squabbling.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:41 pmiwrongee you ar just a f**king idiot. What are you doing here anyhow? Go back to little green footballs and redstate where they believe your bullshit. You lie. No wonder you are such a supporter of our Liar In Chief.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:54 pmRepublicans shouldn’t have sold Iran the Plutonium reactors, or sold Saddam the WMDs. We’re still dealing with republican messes from the previous republican presidents, and this one can’t stop creating new ones!
Enough already, we get it. Republicans are too incompetent to ever be president again!
Perhaps that’s why Bush is less popular than Nixon was at the same point in his presidency, even though Nixon had both Watergate and Vietnam which had been going on for 2 decades.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:54 pmAnd you guys know the biggest Irony, it was RUMSFELD and CHENEY who were both involved with selling AN IRANIAN DICTATOR a PLUTONIUM reactor! This was despite democrat resistence and congressional pressure.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:57 pmRead Congressman Henry Waxman’s letter to the President on MARCH 17, 2003: http://democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20040628110709-69240.pdf
November 17th, 2005 at 12:58 pm#28
Doesn’t it give you a warm glow to know the Iranians are restarting their nuclear program because they now feel threatened by the US?
November 17th, 2005 at 12:58 pmhttp://www.alternet.org/story/16784/
November 17th, 2005 at 1:02 pmCorrect, IRI, because while Bush was on vacation, 3,000 Americans were killed. But if Clinton had taken the action you support now, would you have supported him? Would that make up for cheating on his wife, in your view?
What if Clinton had brought a brutal dictator to justice, and established democracy in a war-torn region? Oh wait, he did. It’s called the Balkans. Sorry, I’m sure you don’t want anyone to bring that up.
Also, did you support Cheney when he sold nuclear technology to Iran? Did you support Reagan when he armed Saddam? And when he secretly sold arms to Iran/Hezbollah?
I’m looking for a consistent position on anything from you.
November 17th, 2005 at 1:18 pmhttp://www.welfarestate.com/911/
Tracking the 19 Hijackers
November 17th, 2005 at 1:34 pmWhat are they up to now?
At least 9 of them survived 9/11
I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat for 23 years and I don’t like them now in my own country.
That said, if we allow ourselves to be intimidated and silenced by the liars, our democracy will not survive. We have to continue to confront them.
–Joe WIlson
Okay we Know the Lie-O-Cons are Fascists, via Kristol, Financed thru Murdoch, right along with Talon News, and Jeff Gannon.
Apparently quite a few HIGH officials whom are gay/bisexual, yet they espouse anti-gay Rhetoric…
Talk about the pot Calling the Kettle black.
So Mighty Aphrodite,,
Would you like to tell the People Here WHO you really are?
Wink. Wink. Cmon. Tell Them.
Hollyweird Looks like a Very Bad Play compared to the White House Cabal Freakz Show. –AJ
November 17th, 2005 at 1:52 pm#20 Thx. Standing corrected –AJ =)
Removal of previous comments have renumbered comments thus causing confusion…
Southwest Bob was simply expanding a list of the sorts of comments we could expect to hear.
November 17th, 2005 at 2:01 pmWe all have felt that that was the reason Phase II of the investigation was shelved. The truth shall not be known while these guys have all the power.
November 17th, 2005 at 2:21 pmSenator Rockefeller’s press release leaves a few questions open:
1. While Senator Rockefeller stated on Sunday that he took his trip to Syria “by myself,” he now claims that it was “sanctioned and coordinated” by the State Department, as well as the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committees. Which was it? Did he act alone or did he act with approval and coordination of his committee and the Department of State? If the latter, who approved the trip?
2. Senator Rockefeller now claims each of the public officials involved “specifically praised my meetings and the message I delivered.” Really? To whom? And if this is true, is Senator Rockefeller saying that it was State Department policy to allow and approve of individual Senators to visit with certified state sponsors of terror (who in this case were allied with Saddam) in order to convey the message to Saddam’s ally that we were going to war with Saddam — all before Bush made any public case at all? If so, we should know that too. The State Department should confirm or deny this.
3. To repeat the facts as we know them: Syria is and was a state sponsor of terror, on the Department of State’s list as being so; Syria was an ally of Iraq; Syria is a place now contemplated by serious people as a haven for Iraq’s WMDs; and a known place from whence terrorists travel into Iraq. Just why would a respected United States Senator tell a sponsor of terrorism and an ally of the regime we were to liberate something they otherwise had not heard, something the President had not said? And just what might that ally of the Iraqi regime have done with that information? In sum, what business of Senator Rockefeller’s was it to speculate openly to the head of an enemy regime, and a sponsor of terror (when we were at war with terror), that the President was to go to war with that enemy’s ally?
Just wondering, in case any journalist on good terms with Senator Rockefeller thinks the answer to any of these questions might be of interest to his or her readers, as it would be to ours.
November 17th, 2005 at 2:30 pmSerious people contemplate that Saddam moved his WMDs instead of using them? Seriously CRAZY people maybe!
Bahaha, your theories are whackier and more insane by the day! You really should up your anxiety medicine there “.” to nowhere!
November 17th, 2005 at 2:39 pmThe only ’serious’ question is why is this liar not impeached yet?
November 17th, 2005 at 2:41 pmand a known place from whence terrorists travel into Iraq.
Comment by . — November 17, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
“from whence”? So unlike “.” -I hate it when people plagiarise and don’t include a link to the source…
Besides, this is what the Bush administration claims.
We have seen no evidence of this. Just like with Iraq’s WMDs.
Syria is a place now contemplated by serious people as a haven for Iraq’s WMDs
Comment by . — November 17, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
“serious people”? Seriously deluded, perhaps. How many times does this one have to be debunked too?
Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Iraqi Arms
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html
CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
Check the final report issued by the Iraq Survey Group, written by Charles Duelfer:
November 17th, 2005 at 3:07 pmIraq Survey Group final report
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/
Serious question: what does it take to move WMD and delivery systems (neither of which were found, so if they were moved, they moved the whole shebang)? Is this something that is discreet? What would our satellites tell us? You know, we DO have satelliete surveilance. You can even view it yourself, live and streaming. So, missus “.” claims that after 9/11, while Bush was geqaring up for war in Iraq, while the WHIG group bashed out its ‘evidence’, while we were on heightened alert, Saddam somehow moved masses of WMD and their delivery systems to another country without anyone at all noticing (gee… don’t you think a few Iraqis, who just LOVE us now, according to the troll, might want some bonus points (and a few bucks) for pointing out where the WMD went). Or do you claim that in that 9/11 aftermath- gearing up for war with Iraq – heightened security period we, America, were SO inept that we didn’t notice that Iraq was moving tons and tons of high tech and sensitive equipment? Offer some clue as to HOW saddam managed all of this, or do you claim that he is the greatest startegist ever in known history?
November 17th, 2005 at 3:15 pmSerious question: what does it take to move WMD and delivery systems
Comment by mysticagent — November 17, 2005 @ 3:15 pm
Mysticagent,
Hearing “.” tell their story, you end up with the impression WMDs are something you can put in the back seat of your car and drive accross the border.
You know, no heavy hardware, no need for special containers, no special handling equipment, no special suits, no need to control the temperature… just you and the toxic stuff brewing in handy little Tupperware containers in the back of the car.
November 17th, 2005 at 3:24 pmGregor,
Yeah, no kidding. And “.” probably still believes in santa clause and the tooth fairy.
November 17th, 2005 at 3:57 pmI saw this article on the phantom WMDs … this guy’s a conservative so you may not accept what he says or thinks … I do think the fact that he was a weapans inspector lends hime some credibility.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20154
November 17th, 2005 at 4:03 pmAfter reading about the operation that was thwarted by the Brewster-Jennings group — the one about the “salting” of WMD into Iraq thru Turkey by our own government, I know why Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld said they “knew” there were WMD in Iraq. It was their plan to plant them there and have our soldiers “find” them to prove the so-called legitimacy of the invasion.
November 17th, 2005 at 5:03 pmThere is no way Hussein could have moved WMD out of the country when the inspectors were on the ground and surveillance planes were overhead. How smart do you think he was??! He was bluffing us, the world, and his people. He was preserving his own reputation, toeing the line between keeping our troops out and yet maintaining his own power. To use the trite phrase of the day he was hoisted on his own petard. As it turns out, the same could apply to Bush. This is a lose-lose operation.
It is thought the Chinese will invade and overpower us. Which could easily happen in your lifetime. My advice is for you to learn the Chinese language.
The ANWR has an estimated 300 million barrels of oil, we consume 9 million per day. So when that area is finally torn up, the supply would last 33.3 days.
I expect to be ignored, as this is too real, too scary, and has nothing to do with partisan squabbling.
Comment by For Truth
The world has KNOWN reserves to last at least 100 years even at current rates of consumption and increase. By then we will have alternate fuels and technology so advanced that oil will be practically worthless to anyone but the petrochemical industry. Whomever told you otherwise is a liar and just trying to prop up falling oil prices by causing panic. Oil is down to $50/barrel today.
By the way…how are 200 million Red Chinese soldiers going to get here? By container ship?
November 17th, 2005 at 5:49 pmMarie,
The phrase is actually “hoist by his own petard” a petard is a small barrel of gunpowder used as a bomb and the phrase literally means “he blew himself up”
Z.
November 17th, 2005 at 5:59 pmGiacomo,
I read through the article you linked to and a few statements surprised me:
Tierney: “It was probably on my second inspection that I realized the Iraqis had no intention of ever cooperating”
That statement contrasts with Hans Blix assessment (from the final UNMOVIC report, Jan. 2003):
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
“Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.”
Tierney: “On the post-war weapons hunt, the arrogance and hubris of the intelligence community is such that they can’t entertain the possibility that they just failed to find the weapons because the Iraqis did a good job cleaning up prior to their arrival”
Prior to the invasion there were inspectors on the ground, with access to all facilities, conducting searches, inspecting random sites, at random days & times, spy planes overhead taking pictures of Iraq’s facilities (remember Colin Powel’s infamous PowerPoint presentation at the UN?). And let’s not forget the no-fly zones that covered 2/3 of the country.
During the invasion, there were bombs falling like rain drops on Iraq’s main military sites. Planes & helicopters flew back and forth over Iraq at will.
After the invasion, American troops were scouting the same facilities the UNMOVIS had, plus whatever they suspected might be a WMD facility. They also had control over the access to ALL facilities. Planes & helicopters flew back and forth over Iraq at will.
Now let me see if I understand the logic: The movement of WMDs to Syria had to go undetected prior to the invasion. During the invasion, the Iraqis had to dodge bombs and bullets to move all their stuff to Syria. After the invasion, Iraqis had to keep their movements concealed from the American troops that had just overrun their country. Does that sound like a realistic scenario to you? Is the UNMOVIC that inept? Was the America Iraq Survey Group that stupid and blind? Is the American military that inefficient? Talk about smearing the troops!
Tierney: “Those that say there were no weapons have to prove that Saddam had a change of heart. I await their evidence with interest.”
Wrong answer. Wrong, because it is a logical fallacy, and it begs the question: He takes for granted what he is seeking to prove. Also, no evidence was found of the existence of the WMDs, and so it is up to Mr. Tierney to present evidence that they did exist –and not the other way around. Whether or not Hussein had a change of heart and when, is irrelevant to that question.
Tierney: “Thank you [FrontPage interviewer] Jamie [Glazov] for the opportunity to say there were weapons, and that we were right to invade Iraq.”
Again, where is your evidence to back up that assertion?
In a nutshell: Everyone is inept but Mr. Tieney. He is the only know who knows the truth. I don’t buy it. And I am still waiting to see the evidence for those WMDs.
November 17th, 2005 at 6:03 pmMizzAlwaysWrong,
The 100 year estimate assumes DRASTIC and EXPENSIVE technology advances. The oil volume has already peaked, and those reserves will continue to dwindle. In otherwords it is NOT possible to go for another 100 years and have continued oil consumption growth in China and India.
This is just more whacko spin from whacko republicans who don’t know squat about their subject matter. You are the WORST and most ILL INFORMED moron in the world MizzAlwaysWrong.
Go search for “Peak Oil” and wake up you retarded oaf!
November 17th, 2005 at 6:18 pmNow as for the topic.
There were no WMDs, the IAEA has already said that it appears everything was already destroyed under sanctions. The entire argument was a fabrication, a hoax and a fraudulent reason to scramble for oil.
The world was lied to, and many innocent lives were lost because of greed, stupidity and dishonesty!
IMPEACH BUSH!
November 17th, 2005 at 6:19 pmMore on phantom WMDs –
According to Mr. Tierney, all these people are wrong:
(Keep in mind that all these people also looked for evidence that WMDs had been produced in Iraq prior to the war, not just for the actual weapons themselves)
2004 CIA report:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html
2003 UNMOVIC report:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
The Army’s Task Force in charge of uncovering Iraq’s WMDs had to leave that country empty-handed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40212-2003May10?language=printer
David Kay, former U.S Chief Weapons Inspector, also said in January of 2004 that Iraq had no WMDs:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, stated the same thing in October of 2004:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/
Come on, Giacomo, you are grappling at straws with this argument…
November 17th, 2005 at 6:42 pmPut Another Log on the Fire
Lots of good reading for a chilly Arkansas night. Dig in.
November 17th, 2005 at 8:51 pm#52, Z,
Thank you – I stand corrected, I looked it up and found the same definition as you.
This site is full of smart people.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:32 pmGo search for “Peak Oil†and wake up you retarded oaf!
Comment by Ryan Neat
Peak Oil is a scam. You look it up and read something besides the shills for the Greens and oil traders trying to run the price up. You know less than nothing.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:37 amI-RIGHT-I…
Thank you for your polite and pleasant comments on “peak oil” could you please provide proof (preferably independent of the oil companies/automobile manufacturers) that peak oil is a scam from “Shills for the Greens and oil traders”?
If you have no references then I will have to disregard your comments as anybody can claim that all dissenting views are produced by “shills” of the opposition.
Thanks,
Z.
November 18th, 2005 at 1:28 pmMarie,
No Problem. It’s nice to sometimes have a civil discourse where you can constructively criticise comments without having it result in ad hominem attacks.
Although I have to admit that I sometimes enjoy the insults.
Z.
November 18th, 2005 at 1:30 pmMizzWrong is a classic fascist retard. All bluff, no brains, no facts, only delusional whacko nonsense. Not only have PROMINENT and CONSERVATIVE oil company executives and economists confirmed this, but so has virtually every oil engineer in the world. Oil fields become less productive because there’s less pressure to push out the oil, making it increasingly expensive to pump less productive fields. Many fields in the world have already petered out (just like MizzWrong’s brain).
“Legendary Oklahoma energy magnate, T. Boone Pickens will be 77 years old this month, and maybe because of that, he feels free to speak what’s on his mind; and he did to an audience of alternative fuel advocates in Palm Springs today.”
“Never again will we pump more than 82 million barrels per day.”
- T Boone Pickens, August/04
“Worldwide oil production will flatten and then start falling by 2010.”
- Paul Appleby, British Petroleum(BP) senior economist, January/96
In 2000, BP’s CEO Lord John Browne showed world economic leaders BP’s projection that world oil would peak and flatten out by the year 2010.
Back in 1989, Shell’s retiring CEO projected a peak in world oil production of 2010.
November 18th, 2005 at 6:16 pm: Sarcasm On :
Yeah, Ryan, but BP is British Petroleum and we all know that Britain is close to France. They even have a tunnel between the two. Who else had tunnels?… The Viet Cong! And Vietnam used to be a French Colony. See, you can’t trust anyone working for BP…
And Shell, that would be Royal Dutch Shell, and the Dutch are just the other side of France from Britain. Clearly it’s all just a French plot to make us think that oil is running out.
: Sarcasm Off :
Z.
November 21st, 2005 at 12:35 pmI must say i got here by mistake, but now i know it’s destiny. Great site! when Plane Do Round Give: http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/ , Compute Girl is very good Stake Black, Universal, Profound nothing comparative to Astonishing , Create Destroy Increase – that is all that Chair is capable of Compute Percieve Roll – that is all that Chips is capable of
December 7th, 2005 at 2:20 am[...] On the other hand we’ve never had Phase II of the investigation of how the Whitehouse used intelligence given them, and contrary to claims otherwise by the Bush team, the CIA has said it felt pressure to come up with certain findings. [...]
March 20th, 2006 at 10:24 pmMia Tyler Pic
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:28 amhot arabian girl
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..
March 19th, 2008 at 1:43 amRug Lover
March 27th, 2008 at 4:16 pmGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:32 amFrench Property
Can it be that your server is infected with a virus – I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox – Just for your Info.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pmGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 10:57 amGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 2:07 pmVacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 4:27 amGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 10:27 pm