Posted on 02/21/2006 5:38:24 PM PST by kellynla
WMD: The quote above is that of a former UNSCOM member after translating and reviewing 12 hours of taped conversations between Saddam Hussein and his aides. So what's on the covers of Time and Newsweek?
Funny thing about dictators and tyrants: Very often they are meticulous record keepers. The fall of the Third Reich, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's Iraq all produced treasure troves of information. In Iraq's case, there were so many documents and records that even now only a small fraction have been translated and analyzed.
Among them are 12 hours of conversations from the early 1990s through 2000 between Hussein and his top advisers. They reveal, among other things, how Iraq was working on an advanced method of enriching uranium, how Iraq was conspiring to deceive U.N. inspectors regarding weapons of mass destruction and how these weapons might be used against the U.S.
The tapes were officially presented Sunday by former FBI translator Bill Tierney to a private conference of former weapons inspectors and intelligence experts in Arlington, Va. Tierney is an Arabic speaker who worked in the mid-1990s for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the agency responsible for overseeing Iraq's disarmament.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
Bush was right.
The man who, after we took Afghanistan, looked at the globe and knew the war wasn't over but had barely begun, is not someone who's going to hand over anything to a foreign power just to play nice. Bush looked at the Middle East, I believe the evidence shows, and thought, This clash is coming whether we want it to or not; do we do it on our terms or on theirs? Do we wait for a nuke or another 9-11, and admit to what we know NOW, or do we take the fight to the enemy?
People seem to forget something about the Iraq invasion (they forget a lot of things, but anyway): Sure, Cheney was incorrect in saying we would be welcomed with open arms, but his and Bush's critics seem to forget how very wrong THEY were about The "Arab Street". Remember those stories after we took Baghdad (which a certain democrat candidate said would take one year and at least 5000 US dead) about how depressed Arab men were because we took down "the Elite Republican Guard" so easily? That's because the Middle East is both more complex and more subtle than many Americans know, or want to believe.
It's a game. A dangerous one, but a game. How will it be won--by us basically admitting we think all those Arabs are alike and we will kill them all and that's it? (Isn't that called genocide?) Or do we live on the planet Earth and deal with those who can be dealt with using the currency they understand...namely, uh, currency. Business. What is the Middle East without all that oil? And do all those countries have the same interests?
Tell me which scenario is more likely: The Middle East, minus Israel, is united against the US and tries to destroy us because they all hate us, every one of them (I'll ask my Iraqi housemate about that, and the Chinese one, too--once they're done with their English courses and their nights on the town)? Or that the Middle East has inter-national interests IN the Middle East, and is not completely US-focused, and would rather make money than blow up one of its best sources of income and in turn get blown up?
Just some thoughts, but I think Bush is playing a longterm game here. I suppose after WW2 we stopped trading with Germany, Japan and Italy, but I wasn't around so I can't comment. But those three nations aren't exactly considered nuclear threats to us, now are they?
Iirc, France, Russia, Germany, and others had highly placed people on the take in the oil-for-food scam. They were making millions. Small wonder there was resistance.
As for the port thing, we shall see. This ain't Dubya's first rodeo, and goat roping is 101.
To add to all the prewar evidence about Hussein's wmd programs, we now have testimony from some of Hussein's top officials (Sada and Al-Tikriti) and tapes revealing Hussein's conversations with his flunkies concerning creating and hiding nuclear weapons and wmds. Of course all this damaging information, including all the tons of prewar evidence collected by the world's intel services and Unscom, is faked. (/sarcasm)
1) where are they now
2) what type are they
3)Are there delivery systems involved.
4)And most importantly who controls them now.
Most comments seem to be see we were right there were WMD eat crow liberals.
What no one seems to care about is have we screwed the pooch on this one.
We got evidence of WMD we haven't got the actual WMD which means they are still out there.
I think that maybe that is something to worry about before we start dancing in the streets over the libs come uppance.
One of the reasons to go into Iraq was because of the fear that Saddam may supply terrorist organisations with those weapons. a real fear discussed at length on this forum.
Where is the worry now.
As someone is has worked with various agencies I believed in the we SNAFU theory.
I hope you are right and I am wrong.
But in nearly all ops like this situations tend to go further than worst case scenario
I don't understand why Republicans aren't talking about this more; holding a big press conference in fact. I don't get it. Thanks for the ping.
No, it is people like you that are a joke, if you weren't so scary. You don't know anything except what a one paragraph manipulative press release tells you. You are a complete pawn.
[...critics seem to forget how very wrong THEY were about The "Arab Street"...]
I have collected testimonies from grateful Iraqi and Afghani citizens, because I know the MSM will not report that they consider themselves to be liberated, NOT occupied.
[...we think all Arabs are alike and we will kill them all and that's it?...]
It took a generation to retune Germany's youth after WWII. Russia practiced youth scrubbing in Afghanistan because they couldn't win the war militarily. Their project didn't work because they were only exchanging loyalties, not changing the cultural mindset. I suppose I'm saying that it will only take one generation firmly nurtured in the value of freedom and liberty to turn the ME into a friend. I believe Bush knows this. I also believe that Bush is appropriately conducting this war as an assault on civilization. Like it or not, Bush is our Churchill and this IS World War III.
OTOH Future history as recorded in the Bible (yes, I'm one of those), says this is a war in the spirit. Man's best attempts cannot and will not deliver us from this evil.
How about one that says: I would rather be hunting with Dick Cheney than driving, flying or skiing with ANY Kennedy.
OR
I would rather be hunting with Dick Cheney than be a "friend" of the Clintons.
The municipalities own the ports. Foreign ownership is impossible.
No class, either. I see.
"No class, either. I see."
Says the poster who called me a pawn and told me I can't think beyond a one-paragraph press release, in response to a perfectly reasonable post. I have an appropriate post for people like you, and it ends with "and the horse you rode in on." Proceed straight to Hades, madam.
bttt
I know what's being transferred, and I know it's not fee simple title to our ports, but an ownership interest in the company that currently has the contract on running certain ports. They will essentially own the right to run those ports. It's no different than me saying a leased car is 'mine.'
But the quibbling over this irrelevant semantic issue is starting to piss me off. I have seen corrections by the same side of the argument on different occasions that yes, DP World will own the ports, or no, it won't. But I don't care if they own it, lease it, rent, lease-purchase, REIT it, or mow the f'in yard--the UAE company will control it enough to present a security risk after this deal is done, and that's the point, that shouldn't be happening. I wish the port action defenders (I could have meant ownership or not there, booga booga) could get their act together and present a more cogent argument why we should do this, but I'm sure many will coalesce again around their usual practice of just slinging insults at the people against the White House's foulup dujour. I appreciated discussing it with John Valentine, who has been reasonable in his support of the President if a tad obvious in his own frustration with the opposition to this move. But reasonable discussion has not been the rule.
One of the other threads tries to identify an American corporation in the business that has the size to do this piece of business, but it appears there are none. Anyway, this issue is about done. We're on to the events of the day.
See, there's another problem with the pro-port-action side. It can't get its act together on this argument either. I thought that the people who are running the ports were going to be the same people. If so, ANY American company in the business could simply take these folks and put `em on the payroll and take over the profit-collecting. Or was that it's-the-same-folks-thus-the-risk-isn't-worse argument not true?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.