Ex-US attorney general calls Iraq threat a 'fraud'

Reuters | 9/04/02 | Laura MacInnis

[palmer]

I don't think it would be a disgrace to attack Iraq without evidence of involvement in 9/11, but I do think it would be foolish. I don't think our President is foolish and considering his advisors as a whole, I don't think they are foolish. I will keep waiting for some evidence and change my views accordingly. If it stays classified then I will assume we have our priorities straight. If there's no mention of evidence other than what we have so far (one alleged meeting, no other evidence of support, planning or coordination by Iraqi agents), then I will oppose the attack.

[rb22982]

No offense taken! Next time just say anti-war bedwetters!

[palmer]

There are others for whom no accumulation of facts would be sufficient.

Very true.

[logician2u]

But no matter, his record is near perfect (starting from and including the Vietnam War)

Oh, and by the way: The pretext for Congress approving our massive military intervention in Viet-Nam is now know to have been based on a lie.

As one who served during that conflict, I guess I can thank LBJ and Robert Strange MacNamara for policy decisions that would affect my life forever. (Gee, thanks, you lyin' scum!)

And like most Americans, I fully supported our action there. The peaceniks were a bunch of unwashed, pot-smoking lefties and Communists, after all. Who could possibly feel any compassion for rich kids going to school to avoid the draft while their high school buddies were maimed and killed in the jungles of southeast Asia?

Even when the National Guard opened fire on demonstrators at Kent State, I shed not a tear. They were leftist scum, and they should have obeyed the orders to disperse.

So here we are on the verge of lighting a fuse that could start a World War, and what has changed? Besides the fact there's a Republican in the White House and no draft (yet) to energize the students, I see the same pattern of demonizing the target, marginalizing opponents and whipping up a frenzy among the ranks of journalists, commentators and opinion molders to support going to war for reasons of NATIONAL SECURITY.

In 1965 it was the Domino Theory; in 2002 it's fear of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Whatever works.

[MJY1288]

OK, It's been a good debate,

Cheers,

Goodnight friend,

MJY

[MJY1288]

LOL, OK

Good Night,

MJY

[palmer]

Sure thing, time to go wet the bed!

[MJY1288]

I'm sure you will be fine :-)

[John W]

"....I see the same pattern of demonizing the target..."

I am wondering if folks read what they type before they post it,or,are their views actually this far removed from reality?

To what extent is it necessary to "demonize" Saddam Hussein?

[EGPWS]

"Clark has been a vocal opponent of U.S. policy on Iraq and the U.N. sanctions imposed on Baghdad for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait."

Clark has been a vocal opponent of EVERYTHING the U.S. stands for since 1964!

[logician2u]

Uh, John, in case you've forgotten, Saddam Hussein was our good buddy during the Iran-Iraq war. Some believe he obtained his stock of poison gas from a plant in Florida.

After he took over Kuwait in 1990, George I demonizes Saddam (pronounced Sa-dam' for the intended effect) as a Hitler aspiring to take over the entire Middle East. Remember the hype?

Now there's no question he's a dirtbag and behaves uncivil toward his own family and all that and would like to get his hands on a nuke or two. Not even Ho Chi Minh compares to Saddam for ruthlessness.

Yet there are other evil bastards in the world at least as dangerous and, yes, they even have nukes.

What they don't have, which seems to make them less susceptible to official demonization, is oil and proximity to Israel. Kind makes you wonder.

FReegards,

[dfwgator]

Also, not everyone wants this war. I'd say near half the people I talk to don't want it.

Most of the country didn't want to fight the Nazis either. Good thing we got into the fight before it was too late, don'cha think?

[Wondervixen]

Iraq threat a fraud, eh, Ramsey?

That feeling has been mutual since we met ya!

[Boot Hill]

MJY1288, ALL READERS!!

MJY1288 asks:   " I'm not sure of the capabilities of RADEC, or I would respond, Is this system (RADEC) capable of detecting sources of radiation from a satellite or even if it's already in the form of a weapon? (meaning warhead)????? "

palmer responds:   " Yes especially if it's in that form. It can only be hidden under large amounts of rock or lead. "

I'm disappointed that you didn't take a moment and do a quick Google search of the RADEC claims these two snake oil salesman were trying to pawn off as true on this thread (but I understand your time constraints). Attached below is what the Federation of American Scientists website says about RADEC and as you can see their claim that RADEC can detect nuclear warheads from outer space (or even if you were sitting right next to the damn thing) is an out and out lie. It can only detect nuclear detonations. But based upon the content of their other posts on this thread, I'm not at all surprised that they would try to sneak one by you like this.

The DSP/NDS [Defense Support Program/Nuclear Detonation Detection System] consists of two sensor packages for the detection and location of endo- and exo-atmospheric NUDETs [Nuclear Detonation]: the Advanced RADEC (Radiation Detection Capability) I and Advanced RADEC II. These packages consist of optical, x-ray, neutron, and gamma ray sensors to detect endo-atmospheric, near earth exo-atmospheric, and deep space exo-atmospheric nuclear events [detonations] and to monitor background radiation in space. -- [info in brackets added from FAS site for clarity]   (source)

Other references available if you need them.

Regards,

Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

KC,

bump post #174

Boot

[Misterioso]

Thank you, BH. This is a thread that is fact-deficient.

[Boot Hill]

Misterioso,

My pleasure, Misterioso. Few things rankle me quicker than a poster spreading that kind of intentional disinformation on FR.

Boot

[MJY1288]

Thank You BH, I didn't know what the capabilities of RADEC were, So I didn't want to dispute the claims that were made by palmer. I doubt it was intentional. I was under the impression that the only way to detect a Nuclear device (pre-detonated) was from a very close range with the same equipment being used at our ports on containers. But I don't know what the equipment is called :-)

Thanks again for the clearification.

[1rudeboy]

With a little learning, and a skeptical mind, we are all capable of overcoming our prejudices.

Ok, now explain Ramsey Clark.

[Boot Hill]

MJY1288 says:   " I doubt it was intentional. "

Always a possibility, but based upon the following sequence of posts I have my serious doubts.

"I trust our satellites and radiation sensors..." [129]

"Don't forget the RADEC mentioned above in this thread." [137]

"With RADEC finding radiation sources is pretty easy." [147]

(Q: Is it capable of detecting a warhead?)
A: "Yes especially if it's in that form. It can only be hidden under large amounts of rock or lead." [150]

(Q: From outer space?)
A: "yes" [153]

After a fair reading of those quotes, it is real hard to come away with any conclusion other than that he intended to deceive both you, and the other readers of this thread, as to his knowledge of the capabilities and performance of the RADEC system and, perhaps more importantly, as to his claim about RADEC's ability to protect us from Saddam's budding nuclear arsenal (which is non-existent).

Regards,

Boot Hill