Israelis Bomb Nuke Site???

[BeanCounter]

Has anyone thought that if the Bush administration was really a bunch of crooked liars as Steve keeps telling us that they would have simply planted WMD's in Iraq so they didn't have to deal with the twits that complain about not finding them. I think the fact that we admitted we didn't find them speaks volumes of how truly forthright they've been.

[bomelia]

Admitting we did not find them (yet) and that they never existed are two different things. I do not believe anybody in the adminstration has said that they never existed...but when you get outsmarted, you have to say something. I think there is going to be quite a news bombshell dropped on us in the very near future. Saving a bottle of '82 Cabernet just for the event.

Mike

(ps: hoping politics does not play too big here, but if it hurts liberals, so much the better)

[VRM]

Bernie,
I think ALL politicians are crooked liars! I have no love for the DNC either. There may be one or two politicians worth saving, but I don't know who they are...
Bush lied about why we invaded Iraq. Nuclear material is very regulated. It would be tough to take any of ours and say it was theirs. Besides, that stuff is pretty easy to figure out the place of origin. We even have a group (created by Bush) whose purpose is to figure out who made nuclear material even after it has exploded (obviously a lot tougher, but apparently still possible). All it would take is one person to spill the beans about us planting evidence - or an independent investigation - and we would look even worse than we do now.

This is another reason why the invasion was a bad idea. When (if) Hussein had WMD, then we could be pretty certain that they would only be used under certain circumstances. Hussein was a very known and relatively easily predictable personality. If any WMD were transported out if Iraq they are now in the hands of people who are probably a lot less predictable. And, they will be a lot harder to find.

Steve

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by VRM

Bernie,
I think ALL politicians are crooked liars! I have no love for the DNC either. There may be one or two politicians worth saving, but I don't know who they are...
Bush lied about why we invaded Iraq. Nuclear material is very regulated. It would be tough to take any of ours and say it was theirs. Besides, that stuff is pretty easy to figure out the place of origin. We even have a group (created by Bush) whose purpose is to figure out who made nuclear material even after it has exploded (obviously a lot tougher, but apparently still possible). All it would take is one person to spill the beans about us planting evidence - or an independent investigation - and we would look even worse than we do now.

This is another reason why the invasion was a bad idea. When (if) Hussein had WMD, then we could be pretty certain that they would only be used under certain circumstances. Hussein was a very known and relatively easily predictable personality. If any WMD were transported out if Iraq they are now in the hands of people who are probably a lot less predictable. And, they will be a lot harder to find.

Steve

If Bush lied, then he should face impeachment. But nobody has EVER proved that. You don't get a pass to say anything that you want to say. Normally, you back up your stuff with facts. "Bush lied" is a democrat mantra...nothing more. More and more you reveal yourself with statements like that.

And, if you indeed think all politicians are crooked liars, and you vote for any of them, then what does that say about you? Or do you simply not vote? Don't equivocate here...

Mike

[Roscoe]

Wait a minute. Didn't Bill Clinton in 1996, as president, say the same thing about wmd's? So did Hillary and Kerry (who served in Vietnam) as senators? So did dozens of other Democrats.

So why are you just picking on President Bush?

[VRM]

Roscoe,

What did Clinton et al say about WMDs?

I picked on Clinton plenty when he was in office (and still do sometimes when he is out of office). Same with plenty of other Democrats. What I find pathetic in this forum is that while everyone is happy to beat up those evil liberals (and usually it is justified IMHFO), nobody is willing to even think about the possibility the the GOP is just as corrupt/stupid. Tom Delay once said that you can support the troops, but not the war. If any of you ever blasted Clinton for his mess in Bosnia, but questioned my patriotism because of my anti Iraq-invasion stance, then you are a hypocrite. Plain and simple.

Sometimes the GOP poo stinks worse than that of the DNC, sometimes it does not.

Steve

[Roscoe]

It was in 1998: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

[VRM]

Roscoe,
I thought that was what you were talking about. Hussein had chemical weapons (we supplied them), and he did use them against Iran. We all know that. Those types of weapons usually have a shelf life (according to an article I read on Janes a few years ago).
Hussein also did not allow weapons inspectors in during Clintons administration. This was because he was not afraid of Clinton actually invading, or doing anything other than dropping a few bombs.

However, the weapons inspectors did get access later and they did find some problems with rockets that were a bit too big (and Iraq responded by destroying around 20% of them in just a few days), but they did not find any recent activity of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

Steve

[Roscoe]

Now that's just being naive (Evian spelled backwards). Do you actually think that if a government is manufacturing wmd's and inspectors came, they would actually show them the site where they are making them? c'mon....

OPERATION: IRAQI FREEDOM
Saddam's WMD
have been found
New evidence unveils chemical, biological, nuclear, ballistic arms


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38213

Among Kay's revelations, which officials tell Insight have been amplified in subsequent inspections in recent weeks:


A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program?

"Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"

New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.

A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."

"Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N."

"Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] -- well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]."
In addition, through interviews with Iraqi scientists, seized documents and other evidence, the ISG learned the Iraqi government had made "clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer-range [807 miles] ballistic missiles -- probably the No Dong -- 300-kilometer-range [186 miles] antiship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment," Kay reported.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer, revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents.

The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad, which International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky acknowledged to Insight had been intended for "a clandestine nuclear-weapons program."

[VRM]

Roscoe,
No, I don't expect Hussein to give them a roadmap of where to look. That's why the US pushed for the term 'unlimited access' in the UN docs (and got it), AND it was why the US was giving information to the on-the-ground inspectors in real time as to where to go. And they STILL didn't find anything.

Oh, and if I were to quote Move-On as a news source would you have a problem with it? World Net Daily is just as biased. They are the same idiots that think that soy is making kids gay.

Steve

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by VRM

soy is making kids gay.

Steve

Besides it being Yuppie $hit,I knew there was a good reason to keep it out of my house.Thanks.

[VRM]

Mike,

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

Hussein did let the inspectors in. Bush says he did not. Ergo...

I tend to vote for the GOP more than I vote for the DNC. I vote for Libertarians or Realists more than I vote for either the GOP or DNC. Problem is - some of them are nuts - but frequently those nuts are smarter than the idiots in either the GOP or the DNC. The small parties also have the added benefit of not (yet) being corrupted by big time politics. I also rarely vote for the guy who actually wins.

Steve

[rdorman]

The inspectors themselves reported that Saddam blocked and or hindered inpection attempts on dozens of occasions even going so far as to label them as spies and refusing access. Iraqs WMD program was greatly diminished in the 90's by somewhat successful programs but even on return this century inpectors reported finding dozens of weapons programs, just not the weapon themselves. Recently declassified NGIC report shows the discovery of approx 500 munitions that contain Mustard and Sarin nerve agents in a period from May '04 until June '06. There is a significant gap between what Iraq reported having, what UNSCOM was able to verify and what was destroyed. So, where did all those munitions go? Of course, I have already answered that question.

Either way, right or wrong, we are there and the Iraqi's need to get their $hit together and make their country work. I have no desire to stay in Iraq one day longer then we have to. I wish we where out already.

[BeanCounter]

A high-ranking Iranian air force and intelligence delegation, led by a general, is reported by ... intelligence sources to have landed secretly in the Turkish capital a few days ago. The visitors warned that Iran would not stand by again in the event of another strike against Syria, whether by Israel or the US, or both. Next time, Iran would step in, he said, without specifying in what form. According to our military sources, the Iranian delegation returned to Tehran
empty-handed. The Turks refused to answer questions on the identity of the aircraft that struck a suspected nuclear target in Syria, their movements in Turkish airspace or their altitudes..

The Khorramshar News Agency, which is published by the ethnic Arab underground of Iran’s oil-rich Khuzestan, reported early Oct. 1 that the entire staff of Russian nuclear engineers and experts employed in building the
nuclear reactor at Bushehr had abruptly packed their bags Friday, Sept. 28,and flew back to Russia.

Monday, Oct. 1, Syrian president Bashar Assad claimed to the BBC that Israel had struck an empty military installation on Sept. 6 and that for Syria to retaliate militarily would be playing by “Israel’s rules.” The Israeli
military thereupon lifted its month-long ban on its publication without adding any further information, in the hope of closing the books on the affair.
The reasoning behind this decision was that if Israel refrained from knocking down Assad’s version of the incident and let it stand as an Israeli intelligence
goof shared by America, Syrian honor would be satisfied and a sequel avoided. However, Assad’s decision to hold his war horses at this time is not a strategic one but forced on him for lack of choice. A stance of helpless inaction is not one he can sustain for long. Stretching it out could affect the stability of his regime.

The above from independent Israeli intelligence source.

[VRM]

Bernie,
Yep, that is also an possibility.

It seems interesting that Iran would send people to Turkey to try and get more info. It sounds to me like the Iranians thought that the strike was destined for them.

Still, it is a big poker hand that has not yet been played out, and we just dont have enough info on the cards.

Steve

[rdorman]

Originally Posted by BeanCounter

The Khorramshar News Agency, which is published by the ethnic Arab underground of Iran’s oil-rich Khuzestan, reported early Oct. 1 that the entire staff of Russian nuclear engineers and experts employed in building the
nuclear reactor at Bushehr had abruptly packed their bags Friday, Sept. 28,and flew back to Russia.

That is very interesting... so is the timing. IAEA gets new officers 9/21, IAEA is supposed to meet in Iran over the P1-P2 Uranium enrichment issue at Bushehr on 9/24-9/25, the Russians have been complaining that Iran is behind on the cash, the Israeli air ops, diverted North Korean shipment of 'cement', Russian pulls out... all in the same month Bushehr was scheduled to go online (postponed many times). Things that make you go 'Hmmm'.

[BeanCounter]

Since you're so high on Scowcroft here's something he said:

BY BRENT SCOWCROFT
Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

Our nation is presently engaged in a debate about whether to launch a war against Iraq. Leaks of various strategies for an attack on Iraq appear with regularity. The Bush administration vows regime change, but states that no decision has been made whether, much less when, to launch an invasion.

It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace. He terrorizes and brutalizes his own people. He has launched war on two of his neighbors. He devotes enormous effort to rebuilding his military forces and equipping them with weapons of mass destruction. We will all be better off when he is gone.


Now there's something I can agree with him on. Notice even he thinks Saddam had WMD's.

[J. T. Toad]

thanks Bean. - yes. I think he has no personal accountability. He subscribes to an Gore/Clinton methodology of presenting ideals.

This all reminds me of those Farve commercial of Monday morning quarterback-ing.

back to the original posting... I still find it odd that Israel can pull off on operation with hardly a whimper of media outlet acknowledgment.

[VRM]

Bernie,
What's wrong - are you afraid to post the rest of Scowcrofts article?

Try it here: http://www.ffip.com/opeds081502.htm

I also noticed that you neglected to post the title of Scowcrofts article.
Here it is:
"Don't Attack Saddam"

What do you think he means by that?

Steve

[rdorman]

Thanks for posting a link to Brent Scowcroft's article. I found it interesting in a hind-sight sort of way. Obviously, he was right in certain respects and not in others. Too bad none of us own a crystal ball! In reading his description of Iraq, Saddam and his goals, I could not help but to think about a pre-war Japan. I would imagine that Scowcroft, today, does not approve of the invasion of Iraq but he might phrase it as a pre-emptive strike. I don't think any one has any illusions about Saddam's desire to recreate the map of the Middle East.