| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#21
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Cheney going to Hell
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:31:28 -0500, Gogarty
wrote: (Snip) I have always wondered why the intelligence agencies did not contact foreign nationals doing business in Iraq. Who knows better what's going on in a country than those who buy and sell goods and services to that country? They did. They knew the "yellowcake" story was a fabrication, they knew the "aluminum tubes" were the wrong size and gauge for refining nuclear material and they knew the Winnebagos were too small to be a "mobile weapons lab." It was ginned up intel proven wrong before any of it was presented. |
|
#22
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheney going to Hell
"jps" wrote in message ... And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. |
|
#24
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheney going to Hell
|
|
#25
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheney going to Hell
On 2/26/13 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"jps" wrote in message ... And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. One might say that Clinton was smart enough to talk the talk, and Bush was dumb enough to walk the walk. |
|
#26
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheney going to Hell
wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:50:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. People want to forget that. ---------------------------------------------------- Some people also want to forget that Clinton ordered the bombing and cruise missile strikes on targets in Iraq in 1998 based on "Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors." And he also ordered the famous strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. The cruise missiles fired at suspected terrorist camps were an attempt to kill bin Laden, who was thought to be connected to the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Problem was, bin Laden wasn't there. It was also later determined that the strikes in Sudan at a pharmaceutical plant was based on bad intel or just bad decision making: "the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed." Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1990s." This is why I don't automatically buy into the "Bush lied us into war" routine, favored by many. Seems there were enough mistakes and bad intel to go around for everybody. |
|
#27
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheney going to Hell
On 2/26/13 5:48 PM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:50:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. People want to forget that. ---------------------------------------------------- Some people also want to forget that Clinton ordered the bombing and cruise missile strikes on targets in Iraq in 1998 based on "Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors." And he also ordered the famous strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. The cruise missiles fired at suspected terrorist camps were an attempt to kill bin Laden, who was thought to be connected to the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Problem was, bin Laden wasn't there. It was also later determined that the strikes in Sudan at a pharmaceutical plant was based on bad intel or just bad decision making: "the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed." Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1990s." This is why I don't automatically buy into the "Bush lied us into war" routine, favored by many. Seems there were enough mistakes and bad intel to go around for everybody. Once again, Clinton was smart enough to not invade Iraq with a huge military force and depose Saddam Hussein. G.W. Bush was not that smart. |
|
#28
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheney going to Hell
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 2/26/13 5:48 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:50:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. People want to forget that. ---------------------------------------------------- Some people also want to forget that Clinton ordered the bombing and cruise missile strikes on targets in Iraq in 1998 based on "Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors." And he also ordered the famous strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. The cruise missiles fired at suspected terrorist camps were an attempt to kill bin Laden, who was thought to be connected to the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Problem was, bin Laden wasn't there. It was also later determined that the strikes in Sudan at a pharmaceutical plant was based on bad intel or just bad decision making: "the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed." Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1990s." This is why I don't automatically buy into the "Bush lied us into war" routine, favored by many. Seems there were enough mistakes and bad intel to go around for everybody. Once again, Clinton was smart enough to not invade Iraq with a huge military force and depose Saddam Hussein. G.W. Bush was not that smart. --------------------------------------- One might say that Bush was successful whereas Clinton was not. :-) We will never know what "could have been" had Hussein remained in power. We can only speculate. Not to dismiss or minimize the price paid in American or innocent Iraqi lives, but the reality is that it is a price that sometimes has to be paid and a pain to be borne. Dismissing it all as "lies" serves nothing but to make those who lost a loved one (who was doing his/her job) even more painful to bear. It has happened before and will certainly happen again. |
|
#29
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheney going to Hell
On 2/26/13 6:09 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 2/26/13 5:48 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:50:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. People want to forget that. ---------------------------------------------------- Some people also want to forget that Clinton ordered the bombing and cruise missile strikes on targets in Iraq in 1998 based on "Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors." And he also ordered the famous strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. The cruise missiles fired at suspected terrorist camps were an attempt to kill bin Laden, who was thought to be connected to the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Problem was, bin Laden wasn't there. It was also later determined that the strikes in Sudan at a pharmaceutical plant was based on bad intel or just bad decision making: "the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed." Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1990s." This is why I don't automatically buy into the "Bush lied us into war" routine, favored by many. Seems there were enough mistakes and bad intel to go around for everybody. Once again, Clinton was smart enough to not invade Iraq with a huge military force and depose Saddam Hussein. G.W. Bush was not that smart. --------------------------------------- One might say that Bush was successful whereas Clinton was not. :-) We will never know what "could have been" had Hussein remained in power. We can only speculate. Not to dismiss or minimize the price paid in American or innocent Iraqi lives, but the reality is that it is a price that sometimes has to be paid and a pain to be borne. Dismissing it all as "lies" serves nothing but to make those who lost a loved one (who was doing his/her job) even more painful to bear. It has happened before and will certainly happen again. One might say that Clinton was smarter and more successul, because during his watch, Americans weren't sent in to invade Iraq, 4000 Americans weren't killed, tens of thousands of Americans weren't injured, at least 100,000 Iraqis didn't die, and we didn't blow what will turn out to be $2 billion plus on a moronic war effort. |
|
#30
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheney going to Hell
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 2/26/13 6:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 2/26/13 5:48 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:50:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. People want to forget that. ---------------------------------------------------- Some people also want to forget that Clinton ordered the bombing and cruise missile strikes on targets in Iraq in 1998 based on "Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors." And he also ordered the famous strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. The cruise missiles fired at suspected terrorist camps were an attempt to kill bin Laden, who was thought to be connected to the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Problem was, bin Laden wasn't there. It was also later determined that the strikes in Sudan at a pharmaceutical plant was based on bad intel or just bad decision making: "the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed." Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1990s." This is why I don't automatically buy into the "Bush lied us into war" routine, favored by many. Seems there were enough mistakes and bad intel to go around for everybody. Once again, Clinton was smart enough to not invade Iraq with a huge military force and depose Saddam Hussein. G.W. Bush was not that smart. --------------------------------------- One might say that Bush was successful whereas Clinton was not. :-) We will never know what "could have been" had Hussein remained in power. We can only speculate. Not to dismiss or minimize the price paid in American or innocent Iraqi lives, but the reality is that it is a price that sometimes has to be paid and a pain to be borne. Dismissing it all as "lies" serves nothing but to make those who lost a loved one (who was doing his/her job) even more painful to bear. It has happened before and will certainly happen again. One might say that Clinton was smarter and more successul, because during his watch, Americans weren't sent in to invade Iraq, 4000 Americans weren't killed, tens of thousands of Americans weren't injured, at least 100,000 Iraqis didn't die, and we didn't blow what will turn out to be $2 billion plus on a moronic war effort. ------------------------------------------ Only time will tell. Until then, the debate will continue. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| What the hell is going on in the US? | General | |||
| What the hell is going on... | General | |||
| What the hell? | General | |||
| What the Hell???? | ASA | |||
| What the Hell is That? | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
