How about linking it and quoting the relevant passages then.
Besides, who furnished the information? Wasn't Powell just doing his job?
World intelligence agencies agreed on several things, and others were conjecture.
I challenge you to furnish the complete text of the speak. Not edited snippits, but the complete text.
Well, it would have been nice if you quoted the "money quote."
You said its there, but you're going make us find it?
What a lazy mo-fo...
Relevant passages:
The facts on Iraqis' behavior - Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort - no effort - to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.
Second, as with biological weapons, Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery s s with mus , 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents. If we consider just one category of missing weaponry - 6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war - Unmovic says the amount of chemical agent in them would be in the order of 1,000 tons. These quan ies of chemical weapons are now unaccounted for.
Plenty more.
Need your hand held anymore, WC?
Well, I copied all three link pages into word and did key word searches. I cannot validate you claim.
Please quote the appropriate paragraph.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa
No, but how about better context:
What you will see is an ac ulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior. The facts on Iraqis' behavior - Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort - no effort - to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.
Let me begin by playing a tape for you. What you're about to hear is a conversation that my government monitored. It takes place on November 26 of last year, on the day before United Nations teams resumed inspections in Iraq.
The conversation involves two senior officers, a colonel and a brigadier general, from Iraq's elite military unit, the Republican Guard.
(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE) Speaking in Arabic.In 1995, an Iraqi military officer, Mujahid Sali Abdul Latif (ph), told inspectors that Iraq intended the spray tanks to be mounted onto a MiG-21 that had been converted into an unmanned aerial vehicle, or a UAV. UAVs outfitted with spray tanks cons ute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons.
Iraq admitted to producing four spray tanks. But to this day, it has provided no credible evidence that they were destroyed, evidence that was required by the international community.
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling.
Unmovic already laid out much of this, and it is do ented for all of us to read in Unscom's 1999 report on the subject.
So...Let me set the stage with three key points that all of us need to keep in mind: First, Saddam Hussein has used these horrific weapons on another country and on his own people. In fact, in the history of chemical warfare, no country has had more battlefield experience with chemical weapons since World War I than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Second, as with biological weapons, Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery s s with mus , 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents. If we consider just one category of missing weaponry - 6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war - Unmovic says the amount of chemical agent in them would be in the order of 1,000 tons. These quan ies of chemical weapons are now unaccounted for.
How did Cheney lie? I don't see it.
For one, having the capacity to do something doesn't mean it's actively being done.
Looks like the NYT translated the do ents...
LOL, says the guy who won't read.
Nah, it's more fun to watch you deny the quotes when they're right in front of you. Keep doing it.
That isn't Cheney's speech.
Do you read anything?
Nothing that hadn't already been said by others.
Right. So this finding that conservatives are celebrating as justification for the Iraqi invasion is a small fraction of the stockpiles of WMD's described by Powell and others when making the case for our sending troops into Iraq.
Bad intel, tbh
Also discredited intel that the administration decided to use anyway since it met their ends.
he asked for authorization for military force in iraq. he got it.
was called "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" and not "Authorization for Bush to have full responsibility resolution"
The decision to use force was his and his alone. Sure, Congress abdicated its responsibility, that was the whole point.
What is so difficult to understand about this?
Congress passed a resolution authorizing use of military force against iraq. He needed permission, they gave it. They could just as easily have said no.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
The legal finding produced by his staff said he didn't, but it was nice of him to ask.
Since you got it wrong, nothing -- but none of that changes the fact that the decision to use force was Bush's and Bush's alone.What is so difficult to understand about that?
Didn't Congress, in a resolution, authorize the use of military force in Iraq?
And had Dubya used military force in Iraq prior to said resolution?
It's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be.
Sure.
Absolutely.And had Dubya used military force in Iraq prior to said resolution?
It sure isn't complicated. You are regularly getting simple facts wrong.It's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be.
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
You understand that authorization and use use of military force are not the same thing, right?
The Iraq resolution was reached in October 2002. When did dubya use military force in Iraq prior to that?
Yeah, so long story short Bush said "i want to use military force in iraq" and then congress issues a resolution saying "bush can use military force in iraq" full well knowing that it is exactly what he will do. they could have just as easily issued a resolution saying "bush shall not use military force in iraq" or they could have done nothing.
February 2001.
You seriously didn't know this?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
