Reply With Quote
So, we've been in this circle a hundred times in this forum. Why bother?
Unfortunately, Kori's seen fit to make you a moderator who can't be put on ignore. Let's see how I do at just ignoring you.
I concluded you were an idiot a long time ago, and I was never sorry about it.
So, we've been in this circle a hundred times in this forum. Why bother?
Unfortunately, Kori's seen fit to make you a moderator who can't be put on ignore. Let's see how I do at just ignoring you.
Aw, Yoni's taking his ball and going home.
Keep posting the do ents about WMDs that definitely did exist unless they didn't and were ready to deploy at a moments notice but weren't because Saddam completely surprised but still managed to get out of Iraq in huge truck caravans because they weren't clearly marked and Saddam couldn't talk to his commanders in the field.
Okay, one last post to Chumpy.
No, I'm not taking my ball and going home. I'm just through arguing with you. I don't suffer idiots for long and I've suffered you much too long. And, if I'm such an idiot, why would you want to do any different?
Have a nice life.
Another failed message board oath.
It's fun. I "suffer" idiots all the time.No, I'm not taking my ball and going home. I'm just through arguing with you. I don't suffer idiots for long and I've suffered you much too long. And, if I'm such an idiot, why would you want to do any different?
The latest article from Thomas Joscelyn. An interesting read about the latest Senate Intelligence Committee's report.
Two things he points out:
(1) It seems that we have more evidence that Tyler Drum er's, a 26-year veteran of the CIA, story was not accurate. Drum er told 60 Minutes and a number of other media outlets earlier this year that (via the French, it later turned out) the CIA had recruited Naji Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister, as a top spy inside Saddam's regime. Drum er insisted that Sabri told the CIA that Saddam didn't have any WMD programs of any kind.
According to an account from the Washington Post earlier this year and evidence cited in the newly released Senate Intelligence Report, that story was not accurate. Sabri actually told the his debriefers that Iraq did have WMD programs.
(2) I found it interesting that the Democrats wanted to include Sabri's testimony, but only as far as it supposedly denied any connection between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. They didn't want to include his prewar testimony about WMD's. Why? Well, the former would have cut against the Bush administration, while the latter would have worked in the Bush administration's favor.
That's cherry-picking defined.
Wow, the Democrats acted like politicians.
Stunning.
Include both his pre and postwar testimony. It'll show how ed up the intel was.
Reads to me that the reason Sabri was hardly mentioned with relation to Saddam's WMDs was because he was playing the U.S...
the US military did not include Sabri in the " deck of cards" featuring the most-wanted Iraqi suspects.For a short time before the 2003 invasion, the CIA maintained French-sponsored, third-party contact with Sabri. In exchange for $100,000, Sabri offered the agency important details on some of Saddam's alleged weapons programs and assurances on the discontinuance of others. Sabri told the CIA that Saddam had stockpiled certain chemical weapons, specifically "poison gas." Newly declassified reports indicate that Saddam had if fact possessed those same weapons of mass destruction. In the lead-up to the invasion, the CIA pressured Sabri to defect to the United States, but Sabri declined. Communication between Sabri and the agency ceased thereafter.
I'm sure folks would say lots of things for $100,000.
That kinda money goes a long way in the M.E.. I'm sure Sabri would claim Saddam killed JonBonet for that kinda cash.
How far would $25M go?
, Yoni would say Saddam had no WMDs and vote for Hilary if someone gave him $100,000.
Why is Yoni wasting time in Round Rock. He should try to get a job in the Cheney administration, Cheney loves this kind of intelligence.
I highlight, you decide.Gateway Pundit assembles evidence of Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda ties and possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Click on the image to see the .pdf file.
The Arabic original shows the Falcon emblem of the Iraq Intelligence Service. A translation is provided if you scroll down in the linked pdf do ent. I have highlighted the key wording but there is more:
Unless we see a translation that is different I think we have this:
1) Proof that Saddam had small amounts of anthrax -- or a belief by his intelligence service that they possessed enough anthrax to use in this endeavor.
2) Proof that Saddam was willing and had planned to use non Iraqi terrorists to carry out a biological attack.
What are you ing about Yoni? You got your Saddam, he's in court.
Iraq is a cluster , our men and women are still dying. Isn't that what you wanted?
How much anthrax is needed to cause mass casaulties?
Does anthrax make mushroom clouds?
Does ebola?
Most people bought into the Saddam has WMD since he had them back in the 80s when he gassed the Iranians and again later when he gassed the Kurds. BushCo didn't think that would be enough to sell the American public on the Saddam threat hence the Saddam is developing nukes stories began to be trotted out. Dr. Rice had the famous "don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud" statement.
And by the way, whatever happened to the Anthrax mail guy? That particular terrorist kinda disappeared.
But the $100,000 star informant said the bioweapons program was crap.You really can't make your mind up about anything, can you?
Saddam had no WMDs and had no links to AQ.
Iran has more WMDs (or is seriously trying to build them) and has more links to terrorists.
I still don't know why the US went into Iraq (aside from toppling a dictator thug).
Tell me, smeagol; from all we know about the cir stances surrounding the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa, could a reasonable person presume he was murdered?
So regime change and nation-building on a hunch is the best we can do?
we went into iraq because they got tired of all the ing from the left over the years about not doing enough nation building... like taking care of all the dictators in south america, africa and asia... it was good nation building as long as we were taking out evil military dictatorships that basically killed off leftist... yeah I remember that good old days when leftist here wanted the US to take care of these regimes.... my how the times have changed....
"we went into iraq because they got tired of all the ing from the left"
just ing amazing bull .
Yes, times have changed.
In earlier decades, Islamic terrorism wasn't the threat, to USA and its allies (do we still have any of those? do we even care? ), than it is today, so non-terrorist bad guys like Sunni/Baathist Saddam, (who just happened to be militarily opposed/counter-weight to Shiite terrorist Iran (ie, effectively Saddam on OUR side)) will have to get in line behind fighting the terrorists as the US priority.
Last edited by boutons_; 09-13-2006 at 08:41 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
