Hess

[Xavier_Onassis]

It was obvious that the mushroom cloud Condi was referring to was an atomic weapon threatening the US.

Why else would she have said it in reference to the need to overthrow Saddam?

[sirs]

It was obvious that the mushroom cloud Condi was referring to was an atomic weapon threatening the US.

As I said, obvious to morons, perhaps

Why else would she have said it in reference to the need to overthrow Saddam?

Asked and answered already.  It was not THE reason to take out Saddam.  The PRIMARY reason was to take out his current non-nuclear WMD threat.  Along with that threat he posed, was also to prevent him from aquiring a nuke, PERIOD

[Brassmask]

You know why it wasn't THE reason?  Because they never said what THE reason was.

They just threw out new "reasons" when everyone wound up finding that the old "reason" was simply fucking horseshit.  Horseshit that you supported and condemned other for calling horseshit till it was revealed as horseshit which you THEN ignored in favor of the new "reason/horseshit".

In the end, it is all horseshit and the only point becomes that you support it and we don't and never did and now there are more of us who know that it is horseshit. 

Just in your wildest imaginings, could you give us a scenario, bizarre or otherwise, that might cause you to find the situation in Iraq intolerable and unworthy of our continued involvement?  Barring, of course, our "winning" or the "Iraqis standing up" or "democracy flourishing in Iraq".

Would you be for our just killing all the Iraqis and anyone who tried to come in and stop us from killing all the Iraqis in order to have that small piece of land be considered a "democracy"?  'Cause I think that is what Bush intends to do if he can.  I think that he will do whatever it takes no matter how vile or insane it "appears" to anyone in order to make the statement "Iraq is a democracy" a true statement.

If someone is telling him that the Syrians and the Iranians are stopping that statement from becoming true, then by god, we gotta get rid of them or make them stop stopping that statement from being true.

[_JS]

As I said, obvious to morons, perhaps

If not the United States then surely the beloved Israel was hinted at as being a target. Regardless, mushroom clouds were a ridiculous assertion for Iraq and anyone associated with intelligence information (as Condi is) certainly knew it.

The PRIMARY reason was to take out his current non-nuclear WMD threat.  Along with that threat he posed, was also to prevent him from aquiring a nuke, PERIOD

The primary reason did not exist and the secondary reason is pure fabrication.

[Amianthus]

You know why it wasn't THE reason?  Because they never said what THE reason was.

The reasons for going to war against Iraq were, and continue to be, those spelled out in the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq."

[sirs]

You know why it wasn't THE reason?  Because they never said what THE reason was.

Yes, they did.  Only the ABB & anti-war crowds just keep pleading ignorance to that.

[sirs]

As I said, obvious to morons, perhaps

If not the United States then surely the beloved Israel was hinted at as being a target.

They would fall into the range of his scuds, so yea, they could easily have become a nuclear target, though the adjective "beloved" is abit inappropriate

The PRIMARY reason was to take out his current non-nuclear WMD threat.  Along with that threat he posed, was also to prevent him from aquiring a nuke, PERIOD

The primary reason did not exist and the secondary reason is pure fabrication.

AT THE TIME, the NIE, and global intelligence community would beg to differ, regarding the primary reason, and I'm afraid there was plenty of circumstantial evidence, defector testimony & intel to conclude the 2dary reason
[/quote]

[_JS]

They would fall into the range of his scuds, so yea, they could easily have become a nuclear target, though the adjective "beloved" is abit inappropriate

Oh, I think "beloved" is very appropriate given the inhumane boundaries the Israeli government is allowed to cross on a daily basis.

Israel is well known for taking care of their own defences and their preparedness for any attack. Using that as an example to drum up emotional support would be rather dubious.

AT THE TIME, the NIE, and global intelligence community would beg to differ, regarding the primary reason, and I'm afraid there was plenty of circumstantial evidence, defector testimony & intel to conclude the 2dary reason

AT THE TIME there was information that countered the primary reason as well.

The second reason lacked any sufficient evidence to be spoken of in public as a real threat. Do you have the slightest notion what it takes to create a nuclear weapon? You don't just build one in a basement of some apartment building.

Condi knew this (or else she has no business in her current role and none at her former role) and thus should have never alluded to any "mushroom cloud." It was pure emotional droll without a shred of fact to support it.

[sirs]

They would fall into the range of his scuds, so yea, they could easily have become a nuclear target, though the adjective "beloved" is abit inappropriate

Oh, I think "beloved" is very appropriate given the inhumane boundaries the Israeli government is allowed to cross on a daily basis.

In your obviously biased opinion, perhaps

Israel is well known for taking care of their own defences and their preparedness for any attack. Using that as an example to drum up emotional support would be rather dubious.

And once again, Isreal was not the focus, unless your reading Tee's leaves.  Simply a plausible reference, and by no means, "beloved".  More accurately, an ally

AT THE TIME, the NIE, and global intelligence community would beg to differ, regarding the primary reason, and I'm afraid there was plenty of circumstantial evidence, defector testimony & intel to conclude the 2dary reason

AT THE TIME there was information that countered the primary reason as well.

Of course there were.  There always is info that will run counter to another.  We have info & opinion that says Iraq would have been a better place with a murderous dictator still in charge.  The issue is where was the preponderance.  It most certainly was nearly unanimous within the intelligence comminuties, that world leaders frequently rely on when making foreign policy decisions, that Saddam had his stockpiles.  When one's own CIA head says it's a "slam dunk", you generally believe him

The second reason lacked any sufficient evidence to be spoken of in public as a real threat.

In your opinion perhaps.  I clearly recall after we went into Iraq the 1st time, it was learned just how far along Saddam had gotten in his nuclear weapons program, that the 1st gulf war pretty much thrashed.  Neither you nor I work for the intellegeince agencies.  Neither you nor I have any frellin clue just how real or not real the threat was.  so, I can either believe you, or those more closely assocated with the intel gathered.  As cool as you are Js, I opt for the latter, until I'm given sufficient reason not to.  Your say so just doesn't cut it

[_JS]

Of course there were.  There always is info that will run counter to another.  We have info & opinion that says Iraq would have been a better place with a murderous dictator still in charge.  The issue is where was the preponderance.  It most certainly was nearly unanimous within the intelligence comminuties, that world leaders frequently rely on when making foreign policy decisions, that Saddam had his stockpiles.  When one's own CIA head says it's a "slam dunk", you generally believe him

Should the people be given a one-sided case for causing pre-emptive war?

In your opinion perhaps.  I clearly recall after we went into Iraq the 1st time, it was learned just how far along Saddam had gotten in his nuclear weapons program, that the 1st gulf war pretty much thrashed.  Neither you nor I work for the intellegeince agencies.  Neither you nor I have any frellin clue just how real or not real the threat was.  so, I can either believe you, or those more closely assocated with the intel gathered.  As cool as you are Js, I opt for the latter, until I'm given sufficient reason not to.  Your say so just doesn't cut it

Nice try to push it onto me.

Yet Condi knows, as most intelligent people do that one does not simply fabricate a nuclear weapon in one's basement or physics lab. The fastest method to do so is through enriched uranium reactors developed by the Soviets and known as the Zippe centrifuge system (this is how Pakistan and now Iran are developing their weapons). This is a far easier and simpler method than using plutonium (and other more expensive cascade plants).

The problem for Saddam, of course, is that it isn't so easy for him to hide the underground chamber necessary to hold 50,000 or so such centrifuges. I wonder if your defector told you that. Moreover, it takes considerable energy to run one of these plants, something easily detectable by the united Nations inspectors and subsequently by the British or American intelligence agencies.

In short, Sirs, it was a duplicit comment for Condi to make. Either she is grossly incompetent or (more likely) she was told to make the emotional appeal and did so knowing full well that an Iraqi mushroom cloud was as likely as a 49ers and Raiders Superbowl this year.

[Michael Tee]

<<When one's own CIA head says it's a "slam dunk", you generally believe him>>

That's the most inexcusable negligence I can imagine.  Even if that was how it happened (which is a crock anyway, even if that moron Bush HAD "believed" his "intelligence" rather than cooking it to order, his negligence would have been inexcusable.

You DON'T "generally believe" ANYBODY when it's an issue of war and peace.  That's what the fucking "President" was elected for, to be the CHIEF EXECUTIVE, meaning to make INFORMED decisions affecting the lives and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.  You QUESTION, you EXAMINE, you TEST the information that comes in from anybody.  The responsibility for making war or peace does NOT rest with the head of the CIA.  Never has, never will.

Nobody elected the head of the CIA and there's no place in the Constitution for him.  I generally don't pay any attention to this non-issue (was Bush justified in believing the intelligence about WMD) because it's such a fucking crock to start with - - there was no intelligence except what he and his pals chose to have cooked up to order that indicated Saddam had WMD.  Even if he HAD such weapons, the idea that he would attack America with them or give them to others to attack America with is so fucking stupid and ludicrous that no sane individual would or could ever believe it for a second.  

However, even if you are dumb enough to believe this incredible shit, that Bush was fed "bad intelligence," there would be no excuse for Bush NOT probing that intelligence, where it came from, could it be fake, who would be inclined to fake it if it were, etc.  Some of the "intel" (the "yellowcake" letters purportedly from Niger) were obvious fakes.  The most cursory inspection and analysis would have revealed that.  They were a significant part of the case for the invasion.  The fact that they were faked should have immediately aroused suspicion.  If the "slam dunk" case included that kind of childish lie, how strong was the rest of the case?

That garbage about simply accepting at face value the word of your CIA chief without looking further in it, in a matter of war and peace, would be the greatest act of negligent homicide that a head of state could commit.

[sirs]

Should the people be given a one-sided case for causing pre-emptive war?

Simple answer, it's the President's decision, not the people's.  The President was given all sides, and chose according to the intel he was provided.  And the "people's representatives" (Congress) concurred, giving their blessing with the authorization of force issue.  End of story

[_JS]

Simple answer, it's the President's decision, not the people's.  The President was given all sides, and chose according to the intel he was provided.  End of story

Then why go around to the people and make speeches on the subject? Why show slides of supposed "mobile WMD labs?" WHy have Condi, Powell, Cheney, et al travel the country and warn of the dangers?

Clearly he sought the people's decision, whether you are willing to admit it or not. So I ask again:

Should the people be given a one-sided case for causing pre-emptive war?

[Michael Tee]

JS WROTE:  It was obvious that the mushroom cloud Condi was referring to was an atomic weapon threatening the US.


sirs REPLIED:  As I said, obvious to morons, perhaps
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sirs QUOTED:  Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on January 16, 2007, 11:47:14 PM
Why else would she have said it in reference to the need to overthrow Saddam?


sirs REPLIED:  Asked and answered already.  It was not THE reason to take out Saddam.  The PRIMARY reason was to take out his current non-nuclear WMD threat.  Along with that threat he posed, was also to prevent him from aquiring a nuke, PERIOD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I love about sirs is his ability, first of all, to deny obvious historical fact; his denial that the Bush administration had ever raised the spectre of nuclear anihilation as a justification for the invasion of Iraq.  Never happened.

So an obvious example of just such a thing happening is easily found:  Condi's statement that they can't afford to hold off further action to look for the smoking gun, because they don't want the smoking gun to turn into a mushroom cloud.

THAT doesn't count because it wasn't "meant seriously," it was something only a moron could believe.  Well, one might ask, who cares who Condi was trying to scare, the morons (who vote in the  tens of millions in the U.S., apparently,) or anyone else.  The words were said, the scare tactic was used, perhaps on morons, or perhaps Condi likes to flatter herself that some non-morons listen in on her speeches from time to time.)

At this point, we have a clear-cut example of something having been said that sirs had assured us all had never been said.  Whether it was said to morons (a sizeable portion of the American electorate, obviously, perhaps even a majority) or to morons and non-morons alike, would seem to be immaterial.  

What sirs had claimed had never been said, had in fact been said, and very clearly and succinctly said at that.  By no less an authority than Condoleeza Rice herself.

sirs then goes on to re-invent history.  "The PRIMARY reason to take out Saddam was the non-nuclear WMD threat."  Now I don't know about you, but I can't recall a single instance of anyone in the Bush administration taking the trouble to distinguish the various kinds of WMD threats and identifying the "non-nuclear WMD threat" as the "PRIMARY" threat requiring immediate action, but who am I?  Does Bush give me private briefings?  Apparently, sirs gets them, because unlike the rest of us, he seems to have identified "non-nuclear WMD's" as the "PRIMARY" threat.  Either that or he just makes up incredible shit as he goes along, fabricating more phony "historical record" to prop up whatever obvious bullshit the diarrhoea in his brain is spilling out through his keyboard at warp speed.

You can't really argue with this guy because you are going to spend at least three-quarters of your time debunking the phony history that he keeps generating as fast as his fingers can type it.

[_JS]

Well supposedly the tens of thousands of tons (I'll supply the quotes if anyone wishes) of anthrax, botulina, and other horrible biological and chemical weapons od mass destruction were smuggled into Syria without the United States, Turkey, United Kingdom, or any other intelligence agency knowing.

Revising history is fun!

Maybe the Zippe-type centrifuge reactors are in Syria as well. I'm not even real sure why Syria is our mortal enemy now (they were our allies in the Gulf War), but who knows?

Personally I liked the whole "just a few Saddam loyalists" crap they were sputtering before it became too obvious that no one was buying into that.