David Kay resigns as WMD search chief

Jet Set Junta · 01-23-2004, 08:44 PM

[url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040123/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._usa_weapons_dc[/url]

Looks like the massive cache people claim will eventually be unearthed just took a serious hit today.

Oh wait, they all moved to Syria and the war was really for liberation and "oil, that lifeblood of democracy" ( © Spirit of Weeb, Jetsinsider.com, 2004).

tailgators · 01-23-2004, 09:13 PM

I sure hope 5-ever doesn't hear about this. He'll be so disappointed.

shakin318 · 01-23-2004, 09:19 PM

I'd say the words of Mr. Kay's interim report should not be overlooked. Here's an excerpt, unscrubbed by biased (by either side) media:

[quote][b]
What have we found and what have we not found in the
first 3 months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program
activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq
concealed from the United Nations during the
inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of
these deliberate concealment efforts have come about
both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and
officials concerning information they deliberately
withheld and through physical evidence of equipment
and activities that ISG has discovered that should have
been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few
examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I
will elaborate on later:

A clandestine network of laboratories and
safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service
that contained equipment subject to UN
monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW
research.

A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in
human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials
working to prepare for UN inspections were
explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

Reference strains of biological organisms
concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can
be used to produce biological weapons.

New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella
and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF),
and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were
not declared to the UN.

Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists'
homes, that would have been useful in resuming
uranium enrichment by centrifuge and
electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared
production facility and an admission that they had
tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range
of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel
propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant
missiles, a capability that was maintained at least
until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi
scientists have said they were told to conceal
from the UN.

Plans and advanced design work for new
long-range missiles with ranges up to at least
1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit
imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range
would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets
through out the Middle East, including Ankara,
Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and
2002 to obtain from North Korea technology
related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles
--probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship
cruise missiles, and other prohibited military
equipment.

In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment
efforts, we have been faced with a systematic
sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a
wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies
suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to
erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files
burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are
ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts. For
example,

On 10 July 2003 an ISG team exploited the
Revolutionary Command Council (RCC)
Headquarters in Baghdad. The basement of the
main building contained an archive of documents
situated on well-organized rows of metal
shelving. The basement suffered no fire damage
despite the total destruction of the upper floors
from coalition air strikes. Upon arrival the
exploitation team encountered small piles of ash
where individual documents or binders of
documents were intentionally destroyed.
Computer hard drives had been deliberately destroyed. Computers would have had
financial value to a random looter; their destruction, rather than removal for resale or
reuse, indicates a targeted effort to prevent Coalition forces from gaining access to their
contents.

All IIS laboratories visited by IIS exploitation teams have been clearly sanitized, including
removal of much equipment, shredding and burning of documents, and even the removal
of nameplates from office doors.

Although much of the deliberate destruction and sanitization of documents and records
probably occurred during the height of OIF combat operations, indications of significant
continuing destruction efforts have been found after the end of major combat operations,
including entry in May 2003 of the locked gated vaults of the Ba'ath party intelligence
building in Baghdad and highly selective destruction of computer hard drives and data
storage equipment along with the burning of a small number of specific binders that
appear to have contained financial and intelligence records, and in July 2003 a site
exploitation team at the Abu Ghurayb Prison found one pile of the smoldering ashes from
documents that was still warm to the touch. [/b][/quote]

[url=http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html]Kay's complete report[/url]

Come Back to NY · 01-23-2004, 09:21 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Jan 23 2004, 09:44 PM
[b] [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040123/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._usa_weapons_dc[/url]

Looks like the massive cache people claim will eventually be unearthed just took a serious hit today.

Oh wait, they all moved to Syria and the war was really for liberation and "oil, that lifeblood of democracy" ( © Spirit of Weeb, Jetsinsider.com, 2004). [/b][/quote]
Yes...this was all about oil; that's why oil prices haven't moved an inch since MArch right?

bitonti · 01-24-2004, 01:42 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Jan 23 2004, 10:21 PM
[b] Yes...this was all about oil; that's why oil prices haven't moved an inch since MArch right? [/b][/quote]
cause its not about OIL in 2004 its about OIL in 2014 and 2024.... China's got an intense appetite for the stuff and we had to beat them to the punch.

this war was about Bush settling family business and setting up the carlyle group for energy related dividends for the next quarter century

you can believe that or you can believe that bull**** about WMD and bringing democracy to Iraqis (who we won't let vote by the way)

<_<

Come Back to NY · 01-24-2004, 01:46 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Jan 24 2004, 02:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Jan 24 2004, 02:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Come Back to NY[/i]@Jan 23 2004, 10:21 PM
[b] Yes...this was all about oil; that's why oil prices haven't moved an inch since MArch right? [/b][/quote]
cause its not about OIL in 2004 its about OIL in 2014 and 2024.... China's got an intense appetite for the stuff and we had to beat them to the punch.

this war was about Bush settling family business and setting up the carlyle group for energy related dividends for the next quarter century

you can believe that or you can believe that bull**** about WMD and bringing democracy to Iraqis (who we won't let vote by the way)

<_< [/b][/quote]
oh...soo GWB was putting policy in place now so it will effect us in 20-years when he may no longer be on this earth?

Positve thinking and good theory! <_<

bitonti · 01-24-2004, 02:54 PM

get it straight its not policy that will help the nation its policy that will help his and his buddy's investment portfolios

what's so hard to understand he's a OIL man who's family grew rich on OIL.

Iraqi OIL is not only plentiful its cheaper to extract than any other source in the world.

its laughable how you bring up your OIL bill... like any savings are gonna be passed on the consumer? haha what a joke.

---

[b]shakin[/b] the interim report means nothing compared to the final report and you know it. <_<

bitonti · 01-24-2004, 04:05 PM

its not just Kay its also Powell ...

[url=http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/7788887.htm]http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...rld/7788887.htm[/url]

[quote][b]Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged Saturday that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein may not have had the massive weapons stockpiles that the Bush administration claimed before it went to war to topple his regime.

While making clear he believes the war was justified nonetheless, Powell said that if caches of chemical and biological arms are not found, the reasons for the error must be determined.

The secretary of state's remarks, made to reporters as he flew to this nation in the Caucasus, appeared to be the farthest any top U.S. official has gone in publicly acknowledging questions about the case President Bush made against Iraq before last March's invasion.
[/b][/quote]

[quote][b]"The open question is how many stocks they had, if any, and if they had any, where did they go. And if they didn't have any, then why wasn't that known beforehand?" [/b][/quote]

contrast that with what the white house is saying

[quote][b]"Yes, we believe he had them, and yes we believe they will be found," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday. "We believe the truth will come out."
[/b][/quote]

<_< :blink:

Come Back to NY · 01-24-2004, 04:07 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 24 2004, 03:54 PM
[b] get it straight its not policy that will help the nation its policy that will help his and his buddy's investment portfolios

what's so hard to understand he's a OIL man who's family grew rich on OIL.

Iraqi OIL is not only plentiful its cheaper to extract than any other source in the world.

its laughable how you bring up your OIL bill... like any savings are gonna be passed on the consumer? haha what a joke.

---

[b]shakin[/b] the interim report means nothing compared to the final report and you know it. <_< [/b][/quote]
yes...I guess we call this "forward thinking" <_<

shakin318 · 01-24-2004, 05:28 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 24 2004, 03:54 PM
[b]
[b]shakin[/b] the interim report means nothing compared to the final report and you know it. <_< [/b][/quote]
Damn straight bit. So I guess you can concede how ridiculous you and a few others on this board sound on the matter then.

But then again, libs have a way with never being willing to accept anything as "final" until it jibes with their agenda (see 2000 Fla. election results).

Spirit of Weeb · 01-24-2004, 05:30 PM

It doesn't matter what was found or what wasn't.

If the US uncovered 1000 nukes pointed at NYC with Saddam and Osama's signature on them, the libs would spin it some other way: "[i]Maybe Rumsfeld gave them to him in the 80's when they shook hands![/i]" or "[i]Colin Powell said 2000 existed and only 1000 were found, so he lied![/i]"

You guys made the fuss about WMDs, made them the centerpiece. The President didn't.

Not one of you would change your opinion about the war or Bush even if tomorrow they dug up a bomb that could destroy the planet.

Make it the centerpiece of your outrage. Stew in your anger for another year, and then hopefully you'll stew in it four more. Just like us conservatives did between 1992 and 2000.

If we are not attacked again by November, the President will be reelected. The majority of Americans feel safer with him running the show and the economy is on the uptick.

Game, set, match.

bitonti · 01-24-2004, 06:35 PM

weeb

how convenient that all of a sudden the WMD doesn't matter - it was the defining issue that brought this nation to war...

but now? doesn't matter.

whatever <_< can't say we didn't see that coming.

by the way im not Angry

the men who died for no reason,

their families will have the rest of their lives to stew in anger

5 died today alone

game, set, match???

weeb what the wrong with you why don't you take a long hard look in the mirror

these men are dying for NO REASON. NONE.

but hey why listen to ugly reason when you can just stay in your little world where everything Bush says or does is gospel truth

good luck with that <_<

Spirit of Weeb · 01-25-2004, 01:36 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 24 2004, 07:35 PM
[b] weeb

how convenient that all of a sudden the WMD doesn't matter - it was the defining issue that brought this nation to war...

but now? doesn't matter.

whatever <_< can't say we didn't see that coming.

by the way im not Angry

the men who died for no reason,

their families will have the rest of their lives to stew in anger

5 died today alone

game, set, match???

weeb what the wrong with you why don't you take a long hard look in the mirror

these men are dying for NO REASON. NONE.

but hey why listen to ugly reason when you can just stay in your little world where everything Bush says or does is gospel truth

good luck with that <_< [/b][/quote]
I didn't say they did and neither did President Bush.

You don't know they don't exist. They could be buried in the desert. They could be in Syria. Everyone, liberals included, thought they did. They had them in '91. Even if you destroy the weapons, the knowledge, experience and capital to build them was still there. You think the knowledge just disappeared too?

For crying out loud, [u]even Libya has them[/u]. So a pissant country like Libya has them, but Iraq didn't. Come on, use your brain. We couldn't even find the Unabomber or the Abortion Clinic bomber [b]for years[/b] IN OUR OWN OPEN SOCIETY. [b]He haven't found the source of the anthrax attacks here yet. I guess that didn't exist either and we should stop wasting resources finding out the truth.[/b]

The President didn't want to give Saddam a chance to get so powerful with WMDs that attacking him would've caused greater causalties. I don't know why you guys find it so hard to believe that Saddam and Osama had a mutual enemy they both hated far greater than they may have hated each other. And if it wasn't Al Queda, it may have been one of a hundred other groups, or one we aren't even aware of yet.

Men are not dying for no reason as you say. And if we had let the liberal solution play itself out, more men would have died.

It's your opinion, and your entitled to it. Lack of concrete evidence does not equal truth and you know it! The guy had 12 years and 12 months to remove evidence and kill the people he needed to to keep the secrets.

The difference between us is that you take the word of Saddam over both Bill Clinton and George Bush and that's just sad. As much as I hate Clinton, if he had shown the same set of balls to Saddam as he did to Monica, all this would be for naught. And like what he did unilaterally in Eastern Europe, he would have have my support for that.

bitonti · 01-25-2004, 08:43 PM

WMD was a bullsh-t issue from the get go. Pakistan and N Korea are PACKING nuclear powers... but we are worried about Botox in Iraq?

i call bullsh-t

jets5ever · 01-26-2004, 11:11 AM

I am not ducking this thread - I have opinions on it which I will state at length once I have some time. I am super-busy at work these days and haven't had much time to babble on JI.

I don't even disagree with some of the thrust of what detractors are saying, however I think Andrew Sullivan has some sensible thoughts on the issue.

Anyway, I'll be back (if anyone cares)

Govjetz · 01-26-2004, 12:51 PM

I have a question if Bush loses and Kerry for arguments sake wins as the new pres would you offer an apology to the world for invading Iraq based on bogus info or would you ignore it and stay the course? If so would it help or hurt the U.S.' image to do either?

Section109Row15 · 01-26-2004, 12:54 PM

[quote][b]I have a question if Bush loses and Kerry for arguments sake wins as the new pres would you offer an apology to the world for invading Iraq based on bogus info or would you ignore it and stay the course? If so would it help or hurt the U.S.' image to do either? [/b][/quote]

I would hope he would publically apologize and I think we could possibly gain back some International respect.

Jet Set Junta · 01-26-2004, 01:01 PM

I don't like the idea of "apologizing" to anyone, and it only plays right into the hands of rabid right-wingers and their theses on liberal "guilt" and "america-hating". What's done is done; we're over there, we got rid of a nasty dictator even though we spent way too much money, American lives, and bull**** from our leadership to do it. Kucinich has made noises that he'd go this route, and it's one of the reasons I prefer Dean or Clark to him as candidates -- that and his ridiculous faces on TV and sub-1% polling.

The proper 'exit strategy' is simply to give the country over to the Iraqis ASAP as the propaganda peddlers want you to believe we will, let THEM decide what companies from Halliburton to whatever jackass French oil company gets contracts on the oil, and keep the UN or some diplomatic alliance on their asses to ensure that terrorism is not supported by the new regime -- the way we supposedly do with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, et al without actually invading their soil and spending $200 billion to end their dictatorships.

I don't think America needs to apologize to anyone for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but I do think that more diplomacy and less thinly-veiled divying of spoils for Bush's Buddies in corporate America is going to be needed to get the rest of the world back in our corner. Despite the contempt modern-day right wingers have for every single society in the world outside ours, we can't win any "war on terrorism" with all of them hating us. Nor do we need to kiss anybody's ass -- it's called "leading by example" and "being diplomatic", something I haven't seen from the Bush Administration since day one. Reagan and Daddy were humble foreign ass-kissers compared to Dubya.

Section109Row15 · 01-26-2004, 01:06 PM

[quote][b]I don't like the idea of "apologizing" to anyone[/b][/quote]

Look at my signature, do you think Bill O'Reilly should apologize?

tailgators · 01-26-2004, 01:17 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Jan 26 2004, 02:06 PM
[b] [quote][b]I don't like the idea of "apologizing" to anyone[/b][/quote]

Look at my signature, do you think Bill O'Reilly should apologize? [/b][/quote]
Do you think [b]O'Really?[/b] will live up to that?

I don't, somehow he'll weasel out of it.

01-23-2004, 08:44 PM	#1
Jet Set Junta All League Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 851	[url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040123/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._usa_weapons_dc[/url] Looks like the massive cache people claim will eventually be unearthed just took a serious hit today. Oh wait, they all moved to Syria and the war was really for liberation and "oil, that lifeblood of democracy" ( © Spirit of Weeb, Jetsinsider.com, 2004).

01-23-2004, 09:13 PM	#2
tailgators Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Kingston, NY Posts: 3,975	I sure hope 5-ever doesn't hear about this. He'll be so disappointed.

01-23-2004, 09:19 PM	#3
shakin318 Beslubbering beef-witted lout Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Funkytown Posts: 7,175	I'd say the words of Mr. Kay's interim report should not be overlooked. Here's an excerpt, unscrubbed by biased (by either side) media: [quote][b] What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work? We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later: A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research. A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN. Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons. New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN. Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS). A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit. Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN. Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi. Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment. In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts. For example, On 10 July 2003 an ISG team exploited the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) Headquarters in Baghdad. The basement of the main building contained an archive of documents situated on well-organized rows of metal shelving. The basement suffered no fire damage despite the total destruction of the upper floors from coalition air strikes. Upon arrival the exploitation team encountered small piles of ash where individual documents or binders of documents were intentionally destroyed. Computer hard drives had been deliberately destroyed. Computers would have had financial value to a random looter; their destruction, rather than removal for resale or reuse, indicates a targeted effort to prevent Coalition forces from gaining access to their contents. All IIS laboratories visited by IIS exploitation teams have been clearly sanitized, including removal of much equipment, shredding and burning of documents, and even the removal of nameplates from office doors. Although much of the deliberate destruction and sanitization of documents and records probably occurred during the height of OIF combat operations, indications of significant continuing destruction efforts have been found after the end of major combat operations, including entry in May 2003 of the locked gated vaults of the Ba'ath party intelligence building in Baghdad and highly selective destruction of computer hard drives and data storage equipment along with the burning of a small number of specific binders that appear to have contained financial and intelligence records, and in July 2003 a site exploitation team at the Abu Ghurayb Prison found one pile of the smoldering ashes from documents that was still warm to the touch. [/b][/quote] [url=http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html]Kay's complete report[/url]

01-23-2004, 09:21 PM	#4
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	[quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Jan 23 2004, 09:44 PM [b] [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040123/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._usa_weapons_dc[/url] Looks like the massive cache people claim will eventually be unearthed just took a serious hit today. Oh wait, they all moved to Syria and the war was really for liberation and "oil, that lifeblood of democracy" ( © Spirit of Weeb, Jetsinsider.com, 2004). [/b][/quote] Yes...this was all about oil; that's why oil prices haven't moved an inch since MArch right?

01-24-2004, 01:42 PM	#5
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Jan 23 2004, 10:21 PM [b] Yes...this was all about oil; that's why oil prices haven't moved an inch since MArch right? [/b][/quote] cause its not about OIL in 2004 its about OIL in 2014 and 2024.... China's got an intense appetite for the stuff and we had to beat them to the punch. this war was about Bush settling family business and setting up the carlyle group for energy related dividends for the next quarter century you can believe that or you can believe that bull**** about WMD and bringing democracy to Iraqis (who we won't let vote by the way) <_<

01-24-2004, 01:46 PM	#6
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Jan 24 2004, 02:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Jan 24 2004, 02:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Come Back to NY[/i]@Jan 23 2004, 10:21 PM [b] Yes...this was all about oil; that's why oil prices haven't moved an inch since MArch right? [/b][/quote] cause its not about OIL in 2004 its about OIL in 2014 and 2024.... China's got an intense appetite for the stuff and we had to beat them to the punch. this war was about Bush settling family business and setting up the carlyle group for energy related dividends for the next quarter century you can believe that or you can believe that bull**** about WMD and bringing democracy to Iraqis (who we won't let vote by the way) <_< [/b][/quote] oh...soo GWB was putting policy in place now so it will effect us in 20-years when he may no longer be on this earth? Positve thinking and good theory! <_<

01-24-2004, 02:54 PM	#7
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	get it straight its not policy that will help the nation its policy that will help his and his buddy's investment portfolios what's so hard to understand he's a OIL man who's family grew rich on OIL. Iraqi OIL is not only plentiful its cheaper to extract than any other source in the world. its laughable how you bring up your OIL bill... like any savings are gonna be passed on the consumer? haha what a joke. --- [b]shakin[/b] the interim report means nothing compared to the final report and you know it. <_<

01-24-2004, 04:05 PM	#8
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	its not just Kay its also Powell ... [url=http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/7788887.htm]http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...rld/7788887.htm[/url] [quote][b]Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged Saturday that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein may not have had the massive weapons stockpiles that the Bush administration claimed before it went to war to topple his regime. While making clear he believes the war was justified nonetheless, Powell said that if caches of chemical and biological arms are not found, the reasons for the error must be determined. The secretary of state's remarks, made to reporters as he flew to this nation in the Caucasus, appeared to be the farthest any top U.S. official has gone in publicly acknowledging questions about the case President Bush made against Iraq before last March's invasion. [/b][/quote] [quote][b]"The open question is how many stocks they had, if any, and if they had any, where did they go. And if they didn't have any, then why wasn't that known beforehand?" [/b][/quote] contrast that with what the white house is saying [quote][b]"Yes, we believe he had them, and yes we believe they will be found," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday. "We believe the truth will come out." [/b][/quote] <_< :blink:

01-24-2004, 04:07 PM	#9
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 24 2004, 03:54 PM [b] get it straight its not policy that will help the nation its policy that will help his and his buddy's investment portfolios what's so hard to understand he's a OIL man who's family grew rich on OIL. Iraqi OIL is not only plentiful its cheaper to extract than any other source in the world. its laughable how you bring up your OIL bill... like any savings are gonna be passed on the consumer? haha what a joke. --- [b]shakin[/b] the interim report means nothing compared to the final report and you know it. <_< [/b][/quote] yes...I guess we call this "forward thinking" <_<

01-24-2004, 05:28 PM	#10
shakin318 Beslubbering beef-witted lout Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Funkytown Posts: 7,175	[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 24 2004, 03:54 PM [b] [b]shakin[/b] the interim report means nothing compared to the final report and you know it. <_< [/b][/quote] Damn straight bit. So I guess you can concede how ridiculous you and a few others on this board sound on the matter then. But then again, libs have a way with never being willing to accept anything as "final" until it jibes with their agenda (see 2000 Fla. election results).

01-24-2004, 05:30 PM	#11
Spirit of Weeb All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 2,393	It doesn't matter what was found or what wasn't. If the US uncovered 1000 nukes pointed at NYC with Saddam and Osama's signature on them, the libs would spin it some other way: "[i]Maybe Rumsfeld gave them to him in the 80's when they shook hands![/i]" or "[i]Colin Powell said 2000 existed and only 1000 were found, so he lied![/i]" You guys made the fuss about WMDs, made them the centerpiece. The President didn't. Not one of you would change your opinion about the war or Bush even if tomorrow they dug up a bomb that could destroy the planet. Make it the centerpiece of your outrage. Stew in your anger for another year, and then hopefully you'll stew in it four more. Just like us conservatives did between 1992 and 2000. If we are not attacked again by November, the President will be reelected. The majority of Americans feel safer with him running the show and the economy is on the uptick. Game, set, match.

01-24-2004, 06:35 PM	#12
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	weeb how convenient that all of a sudden the WMD doesn't matter - it was the defining issue that brought this nation to war... but now? doesn't matter. whatever <_< can't say we didn't see that coming. by the way im not Angry the men who died for no reason, their families will have the rest of their lives to stew in anger 5 died today alone game, set, match??? weeb what the wrong with you why don't you take a long hard look in the mirror these men are dying for NO REASON. NONE. but hey why listen to ugly reason when you can just stay in your little world where everything Bush says or does is gospel truth good luck with that <_<

01-25-2004, 01:36 PM	#13
Spirit of Weeb All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 2,393	[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 24 2004, 07:35 PM [b] weeb how convenient that all of a sudden the WMD doesn't matter - it was the defining issue that brought this nation to war... but now? doesn't matter. whatever <_< can't say we didn't see that coming. by the way im not Angry the men who died for no reason, their families will have the rest of their lives to stew in anger 5 died today alone game, set, match??? weeb what the wrong with you why don't you take a long hard look in the mirror these men are dying for NO REASON. NONE. but hey why listen to ugly reason when you can just stay in your little world where everything Bush says or does is gospel truth good luck with that <_< [/b][/quote] I didn't say they did and neither did President Bush. You don't know they don't exist. They could be buried in the desert. They could be in Syria. Everyone, liberals included, thought they did. They had them in '91. Even if you destroy the weapons, the knowledge, experience and capital to build them was still there. You think the knowledge just disappeared too? For crying out loud, [u]even Libya has them[/u]. So a pissant country like Libya has them, but Iraq didn't. Come on, use your brain. We couldn't even find the Unabomber or the Abortion Clinic bomber [b]for years[/b] IN OUR OWN OPEN SOCIETY. [b]He haven't found the source of the anthrax attacks here yet. I guess that didn't exist either and we should stop wasting resources finding out the truth.[/b] The President didn't want to give Saddam a chance to get so powerful with WMDs that attacking him would've caused greater causalties. I don't know why you guys find it so hard to believe that Saddam and Osama had a mutual enemy they both hated far greater than they may have hated each other. And if it wasn't Al Queda, it may have been one of a hundred other groups, or one we aren't even aware of yet. Men are not dying for no reason as you say. And if we had let the liberal solution play itself out, more men would have died. It's your opinion, and your entitled to it. Lack of concrete evidence does not equal truth and you know it! The guy had 12 years and 12 months to remove evidence and kill the people he needed to to keep the secrets. The difference between us is that you take the word of Saddam over both Bill Clinton and George Bush and that's just sad. As much as I hate Clinton, if he had shown the same set of balls to Saddam as he did to Monica, all this would be for naught. And like what he did unilaterally in Eastern Europe, he would have have my support for that.

01-25-2004, 08:43 PM	#14
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	WMD was a bullsh-t issue from the get go. Pakistan and N Korea are PACKING nuclear powers... but we are worried about Botox in Iraq? i call bullsh-t

01-26-2004, 11:11 AM	#15
jets5ever Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 11,692	I am not ducking this thread - I have opinions on it which I will state at length once I have some time. I am super-busy at work these days and haven't had much time to babble on JI. I don't even disagree with some of the thrust of what detractors are saying, however I think Andrew Sullivan has some sensible thoughts on the issue. Anyway, I'll be back (if anyone cares)

01-26-2004, 12:51 PM	#16
Govjetz All League Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NE PA Posts: 968	I have a question if Bush loses and Kerry for arguments sake wins as the new pres would you offer an apology to the world for invading Iraq based on bogus info or would you ignore it and stay the course? If so would it help or hurt the U.S.' image to do either?

01-26-2004, 12:54 PM	#17
Section109Row15 Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 3,406	[quote][b]I have a question if Bush loses and Kerry for arguments sake wins as the new pres would you offer an apology to the world for invading Iraq based on bogus info or would you ignore it and stay the course? If so would it help or hurt the U.S.' image to do either? [/b][/quote] I would hope he would publically apologize and I think we could possibly gain back some International respect.

01-26-2004, 01:01 PM	#18
Jet Set Junta All League Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 851	I don't like the idea of "apologizing" to anyone, and it only plays right into the hands of rabid right-wingers and their theses on liberal "guilt" and "america-hating". What's done is done; we're over there, we got rid of a nasty dictator even though we spent way too much money, American lives, and bull**** from our leadership to do it. Kucinich has made noises that he'd go this route, and it's one of the reasons I prefer Dean or Clark to him as candidates -- that and his ridiculous faces on TV and sub-1% polling. The proper 'exit strategy' is simply to give the country over to the Iraqis ASAP as the propaganda peddlers want you to believe we will, let THEM decide what companies from Halliburton to whatever jackass French oil company gets contracts on the oil, and keep the UN or some diplomatic alliance on their asses to ensure that terrorism is not supported by the new regime -- the way we supposedly do with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, et al without actually invading their soil and spending $200 billion to end their dictatorships. I don't think America needs to apologize to anyone for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but I do think that more diplomacy and less thinly-veiled divying of spoils for Bush's Buddies in corporate America is going to be needed to get the rest of the world back in our corner. Despite the contempt modern-day right wingers have for every single society in the world outside ours, we can't win any "war on terrorism" with all of them hating us. Nor do we need to kiss anybody's ass -- it's called "leading by example" and "being diplomatic", something I haven't seen from the Bush Administration since day one. Reagan and Daddy were humble foreign ass-kissers compared to Dubya.

01-26-2004, 01:06 PM	#19
Section109Row15 Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 3,406	[quote][b]I don't like the idea of "apologizing" to anyone[/b][/quote] Look at my signature, do you think Bill O'Reilly should apologize?

01-26-2004, 01:17 PM	#20
tailgators Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Kingston, NY Posts: 3,975	[quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Jan 26 2004, 02:06 PM [b] [quote][b]I don't like the idea of "apologizing" to anyone[/b][/quote] Look at my signature, do you think Bill O'Reilly should apologize? [/b][/quote] Do you think [b]O'Really?[/b] will live up to that? I don't, somehow he'll weasel out of it.