UN experts - WMD material removed from I raq

“Ever think we could have bought the influence of every Saudi major and minor prince, military officer and foot soldier, man, police officer, intelligence operative, non-fanatic cleric, schoolteacher, mayor, industrialist, bazaar shop keeper, and camel jockey in Saudia Arabia for the kind of money we are expending in Iraq to "put pressure" on the Saudis? Stratfor, Jane's et. al. indeed!!!
last edited: 6/26/05 11:22:06 AM”

“LOL - Okay, solitary, you're right and the professional analysts are wrong. Good for you, you should call Peter Jenings and let him know, and quit your day job, because you obvously have figured it all out.

This will have to end this laugh fest for me, as I'm moving and will be without internet for awhile. TTFN. Don't let those damn Zionists get you, and keep your tinfoil hat on tight! LOL Pathetic...”

“How come you never have anything of substance as a rebuttal to all the links I post? This stuff is playing out all over the net and you have nothing but crap from an "intelligence" source put out by a known neo-con.

Come back when you want to discuss the U.S.S. Liberty, Jonathan Pollard, and how great an ally the Israelis are to us.
last edited: 6/26/05 1:26:45 PM”

“Mutt, no Zionist conspiracies hold much water now days seeings how Sharon is throwing some 10,000-20,000 Jews out of the houses and communities they built and handing it over to the PLO and Bush is basically forcing it on Israel. Hell, they can’t even secure their own borders 100% much less try and take over the whole middle east.”

“Arial Sharon is giving back stolen land in Gaza so that he can consolidate the holdings of land stolen from the Palestinians on the West Bank. The Israeli right wing does nothing that is not in some way advantageous to them in the long run.
last edited: 6/27/05 8:01:13 AM”

“Sol, first off, please read this in a respectful tone because that is how it is being written, OK? No one’s upset here. Thanks. Answer a few questions for me if you could.

What year was the nation of Palestine formed?

Who was the nation of Palestine’s first king or leader?

What is the history of the nation of Palestine?

What year did the nation of Palestine become a member of the UN? Arab League of Nations?

How is it “stealing” land when they gained control of it because they defeated Egypt, Jordan and Syria when they came against Israel?

Why did the PLO (through Arafat) reject the peace agreement offered by Israel and Clinton that gave them every single thing they wanted?

Why have there been over 350 attacks by the Arabs on Gush Katif since February when they know they will get it soon anyhow?

Why have the Arabs continually attacked Israel even as a two state plan is being formed?

Why does everyone want a Palestinian state so much when we already know what the conditions will be in such a state (no rights for women, no free speech, no freedom of religion)?

If there is some kind of big US/Israeli Zionist conspiracy why is the US forcing Israel into this land give away to terrorists? Why does the US support a two state plan if there is a conspiracy? If there is a huge conspiracy, why does the US go half way around the world to fight phantom terrorists yet Israel is not even allowed to fight them within their own borders?

If Israel did control all of Israel what would the conditions be like? Is Israel not the freest and most congenial nation to all in that region? Do not Arabs living in Israel not enjoy even more freedom than their homelands offer? Are there not even Arabs in the Kenesett?

Is it not true that most of the poor conditions in the area the Palestinians occupy is caused by their own rapid birth rate in their attempts to “out populate the Jews” and immigration?:

“By 1967 the population had grown to about six times its 1948 size. The city's population has continued to increase since that time, and poverty, unemployment, and poor living conditions are widespread as a result of the record high birth rate (5.91 children born/woman on average) Gaza has a high population density.
” -source Wikipedia.

Why have these Palestinians time and again declined offers from Jordan and Syria to take any and all Arabs who want to come there?

What would the world say if nearly 20,000 Muslims were uprooted from their homes of 30+ years for no other reason than they were Muslims?

Why is it that in a region of 22 Arab countries the Jews can’t have a tiny sliver of it that is as small as the state of Vermont of which they have lived for thousands and thousands of years? It is like a matchbook on a football field. Why must they have it all?

Would it not be a good thing if each and every Jew went home to Israel?

You may answer each question posed or you may take them as merely rhetorical. I’m just asking the questions from my POV to stimulate critical thinking.”

“I should also add that I am coming from the POV of a religious person so I do admit that my view is not in any way unbiased. But this does not exclude me from common since completely either. And I am in no way saying Israel has been completely innocent in their past either. They have made grave mistakes and caused shedding of innocent blood in it’s fight against terrorists. It is the cost of sovereignty.”

“From your posts there is a lot of ground to cover. I can't do that at work today. But I will try to answer your questions from my point of view as best I can sometime in the next several days.”

“That's cool. I knew I was dumping a lot on ya. Have a good day Sol.”

“"From your posts there is a lot of ground to cover. I can't do that at work today. But I will try to answer your questions from my point of view as best I can sometime in the next several days."

LOL. Now you know how I felt yesterday! ; )”

“This story has been on numerous sites all over the net but I thought I'd go out and find it on a site Mutt could trust. The Israelis are almost giddy thinking of all the profits they can make on this deal, not to mention all the oil they can siphon off.
Since the fall of the Shan of Iran (their old supplier) the Israelis have been coveting Iraqi oil. Now they have their chance.

http://www.janes.com/regional_news/africa_middle_east/news/fr/fr030416_1_n.shtml

Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?

Israel stands to benefit greatly from the US led war on Iraq, primarily by getting rid of an implacable foe in President Saddam Hussein and the threat from the weapons of mass destruction he was alleged to possess. But it seems the Israelis have other things in mind.

An intriguing pointer to one potentially significant benefit was a report by Haaretz on 31 March that minister for national infrastructures Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking energy resources of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia, reopening the pipeline would transform its economy.

To resume supplies from Mosul to Haifa would require the approval of whatever Iraqi government emerges and presumably the Jordanian government, through whose territory it would be likely to run. Paritzky's ministry was reported to have said on 9 April that it would hold discussions with Jordanian authorities on resuming oil supplies from Mosul, with one source saying the Jordanians were "optimistic". Jordan, aware of the deep political sensitivities involved, immediately denied there were any such talks.

Paritzky said he was certain the USA would respond favourably to the idea of resurrecting the pipeline. Indeed, according to Western diplomatic sources in the region, the USA has discussed this with Iraqi opposition groups.

It is understood from diplomatic sources that the Bush administration has said it will not support lifting UN sanctions on Iraq unless Saddam's successors agree to supply Israel with oil.

All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a masterplan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests. Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the pipeline project is economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel's energy bill.

US efforts to get Iraqi oil to Israel are not surprising. Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the US guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. The MoU, which has been quietly renewed every five years, also committed the USA to construct and stock a supplementary strategic reserve for Israel, equivalent to some US$3bn in 2002. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on oil exports from the USA.

Moreover, the USA agreed to divert oil from its home market, even if that entailed domestic shortages, and guaranteed delivery of the promised oil in its own tankers if commercial shippers were unwilling or not available to carry the crude to Israel. All of this adds up to a potentially massive financial commitment.

The USA has another reason for supporting Paritzky's project: a land route for Iraqi oil direct to the Mediterranean would lessen US dependence on Gulf oil supplies. Direct access to the world's second-largest oil reserves (with the possibility of expansion through so-far untapped deposits) is an important strategic objective.”

“"All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a masterplan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests."

Yet how can this be when the Bush admin is doing the exact opposite of what Israel's plan for a complete Israel is; Which is giving in to the Palestinians?

Further, how does this make Israel somehow diabolical? They get rid of a hated enemy who bombed them and they find a new source for cheaper oil, while Iraq makes money from the deal. How is this evil? That’s economics. It's not like Israel is stealing the oil is it?


"477 of 983 words

[End of non-subscriber extract.]"

It would have been nice to see what was in the last half of the article as well. Many times writters give opposing views in the second half. Not trying to devalue the source for the sake of my own arguement. Just saying.
last edited: 6/27/05 12:27:42 PM”

“I don't think Isreal was the sole reason for the war. But it was certainly one of the moany supposed benefits the war was supposed to bring.”

“Well I for one would like to know where my cheap gas is at these "war for oil" people kept talking about before the war. 42.12 a gallon was the cheapest I found last weekend.”

“Giving back Gaza to Load up in the West Bank.
This from Aljazeera but they probably got it from Reuters.


"Jewish 'Settlers' In
Jordan Valley To Be Doubled
Aljazeera.com
6-26-5

The Israeli ministry of agriculture has drawn up plans to double the number of illegal Jewish settlers living in the sparsely-populated Jordan Valley area of the West Bank, a spokesman for the ministry said.

"The plan which has already won approval from within different ministries will increase the number of residents in 21 settlements by 50% in a year and then by a further 50% in the following year," spokesman Benjamin Rom said.

A total of 6,300 illegal settlers currently live in the Jordan Valley, according to official figures.

According to Rom the plan would involve a major increase in agricultural subsidies and the development of tourism in the area which also incorporates the Dead Sea.

The plan would be submitted within two weeks to an inter-ministerial commission on rural affairs which is chaired by Agriculture Minister Israel Katz.

According to a report in the Israeli Yediot Aharonot daily Katz had already co-ordinated the plan with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office director general Ilan Cohen.

Furthermore, Israel's finance ministry's budget director has approved by the plan.

The overall cost for the project, which will see at least 50 housing units built per year, is expected to reach $32 million, the paper added.

Under the terms of the internationally backed road map peace plan, Israel must freeze all settlement activity but the government has continued to come up with expansion and illegal occupation schemes.

Sharon believes that Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip allows the Jewish state to strengthen its occupation of the West Bank where the vast majority of the 245,000 illegal settlers live.

Katz, one of the most right-wing members of Sharon's cabinet, has been a consistent sceptic on the Gaza withdrawal which is due to begin in mid-August.

"The answer to(resistance fihgteres) is strengthening Israeli settlements in the Jordan Valley," he told Yediot.

"Abu Mazen (Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas) and the leaders of the (resistance) organizations will look out the Muqataa (leadership compound) window every morning and see the Israeli Jordan Valley flourishing."

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who held talks with Sharon in Jerusalem last weekend, has consistently warned Israel against creating "facts on the ground."

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=8779”

“Then please find it from Reuters. I don't do Arab media.”

“Man I wish we could sit and talk one day. This is just not the venue for really good conversation. Believe it or not, through all of this we do have some common ground. But it is only by way of discussing each issue can we find out what we have in common.”

“How can you know your supposed enemy if you don't know how he thinks?”

“Don't change the subject. It's directly from Al Jazeera.”

“Well, we have immigration, guns and beer. What more is needed for a healthy relationship? LOL! It's probably best if we simply agree to disagree on this Sol and call it a day. What do ya say?”

““How can you know your supposed enemy if you don't know how he thinks?”

True. This is one of the things that has helped shape how I think of the Arab nations. I have studied how they think, how they act and especially what they say. Here is a link to a site where all Aribic media is translated. Most of which are state run media outlets. There's even video there. See what is said when they don't think people are watching.

http://www.memri.org/index.html”

“A lot to respond to here.

First off Sarge: You said "What Rumsfeld said continually before the war was what was a threat was Saddam's WMD program. When asked, he said it could be 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, but it's coming."

The quotes I cited have Rumseld saying that there was an immediate threat from existing weapons... not a program with potential coming in a matter of years. Thats the contradiction.

In terms of your list of assertions:

1. Saddam had WMD.
2. Saddam used WMD.
3. Saddam had a WMD program.
These were all true when the US was helping Saddam. Rumsfeld was giving him a hand on Reagan's behalf while he was using them. It's odd to see Rummy use them years later to justify war.

4. Saddam's old facilities he used to make WMD were still capable of making WMD.
The usefulness of these facilities was being assessed by an active inspection regimen at the time of the invasion. Present capabalities seemed to be highly limitted.

5. Saddam was pursuing additional WMD.
He didn't seem to have an active effective program in place. Much of the evidence for such a program was trumped up.

6. Saddam was allowing terrorists to train in his country. I'd be interested to see what evidence you have that he was allowing terrorists that were planning to attack the US to train in his country. The Al-Qeda cell I've head about was operating in US/Kurdish controlled Iraq where Saddam didn't have control.

7. Terrorists were pursuing WMD.
Surely some were. Probably the greatest danger would be stockpiles in the former USSR.

8. Saddam was ordered to account for his WMD (which the UN knew he had because he was using them). True

9. Saddam played cat and mouse with the inspectors and never complied with the inspection process. First part is true, however inspectors prior to the invasion were citing excellent compliance and cooperation. (this was the result of Bush's threats to go to war and the vote authorizing him to go to war... Saddam was complying under the gun).

10. Saddam shipped large amounts of *something* to Syria.
Lot's of things get shipped all over the world. What is your evidence that this is ominous?

11. The U.N., including all major players against the war for Iraq, were illegally making deals with Saddam. This is an over-reach. There were people in countries who were major players for and against the war that were involved in illegal deals with parts Saddams regime. This was also true for the UN.”

“A lot to respond to here.

First off Sarge: You said "What Rumsfeld said continually before the war was what was a threat was Saddam's WMD program. When asked, he said it could be 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, but it's coming."

The quotes I cited have Rumseld saying that there was an immediate threat from existing weapons... not a program with potential coming in a matter of years. Thats the contradiction.

In terms of your list of assertions:

1. Saddam had WMD.
2. Saddam used WMD.
3. Saddam had a WMD program.
These were all true when the US was helping Saddam. Rumsfeld was giving him a hand on Reagan's behalf while he was using them. It's odd to see Rummy use them years later to justify war.

4. Saddam's old facilities he used to make WMD were still capable of making WMD.
The usefulness of these facilities was being assessed by an active inspection regimen at the time of the invasion. Present capabalities seemed to be highly limitted.

5. Saddam was pursuing additional WMD.
He didn't seem to have an active effective program in place. Much of the evidence for such a program was trumped up.

6. Saddam was allowing terrorists to train in his country. I'd be interested to see what evidence you have that he was allowing terrorists that were planning to attack the US to train in his country. The Al-Qeda cell I've head about was operating in US/Kurdish controlled Iraq where Saddam didn't have control.

7. Terrorists were pursuing WMD.
Surely some were. Probably the greatest danger would be stockpiles in the former USSR.

8. Saddam was ordered to account for his WMD (which the UN knew he had because he was using them). True

9. Saddam played cat and mouse with the inspectors and never complied with the inspection process. First part is true, however inspectors prior to the invasion were citing excellent compliance and cooperation. (this was the result of Bush's threats to go to war and the vote authorizing him to go to war... Saddam was complying under the gun).

10. Saddam shipped large amounts of *something* to Syria.
Lot's of things get shipped all over the world. What is your evidence that this is ominous?

11. The U.N., including all major players against the war for Iraq, were illegally making deals with Saddam. This is an over-reach. There were people in countries who were major players for and against the war that were involved in illegal deals with parts Saddams regime. This was also true for the UN.”

“On the Syrian hypothetical. It is way too hypothetical to get specific about the rationale. However if this was the case, then the whole Kaye commission and the report would have been an empty charade.

Secondly, it is hard to believe that Saddam would really trust Syria with his WMD's.

Additionally, given Syrias alleged cooperation with terrorists and other insurgents going to Iraq - wouldn't it make sense for the US to behave differently?”

“The quotes I cited have Rumseld saying that there was an immediate threat from existing weapons... not a program with potential coming in a matter of years. Thats the contradiction.

Your quotes are from after the start of the war. Hence, he did not use it as a scare tactic to get us to go to war.

1-3 Your spin is irrelevant. They are all true, as you admit.

4 Limited is irrelevant. Still capable of killing millions. That's relevant.

5 You dodged the point. He was pursuing additional WMD. That's a fact. Even Russia acknowledged that, and they were against the war.

6 I didn't say anything about the US. You are sounding like a politician now, changing the subject at each and every turn to throw the discussion off track. He allowed terrorists to train in his country, that's a fact.

7 The greatest danger is the one that is used.

8 Of course it is.

9 The inspectors lied. Look at the facts. They were playing cat and mouse to the very end. The UN is crooked. You know this.

10 Because it was denied yet we know it as fact. It was denied when it was illegal. It was denied when we were looking for WMD, which the inspectors as you claim said was done with great compliance, but obviously it was not.

11 We found newly aquired weapons and war replacements from Russia, France and Germany after the war started. That's an over-reach? I disagree. They supported him militarily before the war. That's a fact.”

“Sol - The report to Netanyahu - as I read it - cleary seems to be the case of a group of people trying to shape and influence both US and Israeli policy. They are trying to change Israel's policy. This apparent existence of alliances between US and Israeli neo-cons is inconsistent with the idea that one nation is controlling the other, and certainly doesn't demonstrate anyone trying to go against either nations national interests.”

“pedx - One of the reasons your spin is irrelevant for 1-3 is because we know he had more than he used. I'm not a math genius, but more-less=some. That means he had some left. He never accounted for them.

The UN and the US gave him a break. He was invading a country to take it over and we stopped kicking his butt with the condition he would account for the "some" that were left over. He did not comply. That alone is reason to take him out.”

“Sarge: What's your evidence for saying discrediting the inspections in the months leading up to the war?

In terms of what Saddam used vs. what he once had, Ritter and others have pointed out that what he would have had in 1991 would not have been useful in 2003. The stuff degrades.”

“My evidence is that no matter what the inspectors later said, they were having to try to "trick" Saddam as to where they were going. They had to take great precautions to make sure they weren't bugged. They would get to a site when minutes earlier large trucks pulled away.

I don't care what report they gave - that is not compliant inspections. Any one with reason knows this.

Your other point is completely irrelevant. That is proof once again that he wasn't complying. If he was complying, why didn't we have the material to test it? There was NO trace anywhere of it. You don't think Saddam would know where they destroyed it? Come on. Common sense is all I ask here.”

“re: Ritter, he's an idiot.

We found mustard gas in Iraq after the war.

Do you know what the shelf life of mustard gas is?”

“42.12 a gallon was the cheapest I found last weekend.”
Nigal

Damn Nigal, where you buying gas at that price? It's only $2.29 a gallon here and that's the highest it's been this go-'round.”

“Sarge - Are you trying to suggest that Mustard Gas is a WMD that we need to fear and an imminaent danger to us if stockpiled in Iraq???

Of course Mustard Gas will last almost indefinitely if properly stored, and its nasty stuff, but it it is not fast acting, counter measures can be taken and it usually takes better than 50% body exposure to kill.
last edited: 6/27/05 6:44:03 PM”

“And Sarge how much mustard gas was found? Do you know where else it has been found in recent decades?

(thank goodness for the ability to edit out stupid typos!)
last edited: 6/27/05 6:49:26 PM”

“pedx - How much was allowed under the UN agreement?

Did we find (or report) all that had? How do you know?”

“Silent J - Put stress on the bolded words if it helps: " ... is that we thought he also had existing stockpiles, and now we know that those are not there."

Sarge

That's called spin.

Here's a really good example of spin:

10 Sep 2003

In a speech to the National Press Club, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "I said, 'We know they're in that area.' I should have said, 'I believe they're in that area.'"

See how he changes it from, "I know" to "I believe". He carefully worded that one didn't he. You have entered the 'more spin than you can handle' zone.

Your last sentence is completely false as well. I think you are making the same mistake as Silent J and getting hung up on this "right now there are stockpiles of WMD" thing. I don't think you'll find a quote before the war started where somebody from the administration said, in essence, "Saddam has stockpiles of (insert WMD type here) right now and he can use them at any moment against the U.S."

Sarge

5 Feb 2003

During his U.N. presentation, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."

I have my reasons for believing what I believe, and I'm assuming you have very good reasons for believing what you believe. Do you? I hope so, because you sound pretty sure of yourself.

Sarge

So let me guess. Your sitting next to 200 tons of chemical agents right now, but you can't divulge that because of security reasons. Well, if you could take a pic, ala Abu Ghraib, and send it to me I'd appreciate it. I'll forward it to Charles Duelfer. Remember him? He was the chief U.S. inspector that stated Iraq did not have weapons at the time of the invasion. Then I'll send it to David Kay. He was the chief inspector prior to Duelfer who made the exact same statement.

I would respond to your spin prematurely but I enjoy seeing you try to cling to this hopeless belief of WMD's existing.

P.S. Okay I can't resist. Your going to say, "They said he did not have them at the time of the invasion." That doesn't mean Iraq didn't have them before the invasion. Before, of course, being anytime since Saddam began his reign in Iraq in 1979.”

““42.12 a gallon was the cheapest I found last weekend.”
Nigal

Let's hear it for hand eye coordination. That's $2.12.”

“Sarge

That's called spin. - Silent J

No, that's called reading all of the words. Spin is when you elliminate words.”

“Sol - The report to Netanyahu - as I read it - cleary seems to be the case of a group of people trying to shape and influence both US and Israeli policy. They are trying to change Israel's policy. This apparent existence of alliances between US and Israeli neo-cons is inconsistent with the idea that one nation is controlling the other, and certainly doesn't demonstrate anyone trying to go against either nations national interests.”

While your viewpoint may have IMO a small amount of validity I might point out that no person that is not an ethnic Jew and having United States citizenship went on to hold a position inside the Israeli equivalent of the Pentagon or DOD. Also, several of the authors (Richard Perle as head of the Defense Policy Board and Douglas Feith as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy) used their government positions to actively promote a war with Iraq for reasons that were false. Sarge’s assertions to the contrary, the stories of WMD, the yellow cake, the Saddam-Al Qaeda-911 connection, etc were fabrications pure and simple and Perle and Feith knew it. And even though he was not one of the authors Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfwowitz, knew it too and admitted as much in his interview in Vanity Fair.

Also, from what I read there are no real advantages to the United States by following the recommended course of action outlined in the paper. The authors do want the Israeli economy weaned of US aid (fat chance of that) but only because they want Israel to be able to pursue foreign policy objectives without the hindrance of the United States “carrot/stick”. As an example, the Israeli right- wing majority would like nothing better than to expel all non-Jews from pre-1967 Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. They can’t do that because even the United States would stand against them in the United Nations and possibly cut the aid off as a response.

I never said that one nation is controlling another totally. Bush and the non-Jewish neo-cons went willingly along with this war to control the oil for reasons I stated earlier in this thread. But I will re-quote the most amazing (to me) passage of the paper.

“To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.”

Don’t misinterpret this to mean that everyone in America will be too preoccupied with the elections to care what the Israelis are doing. What it means is that no Congressional incumbent, no one running for Congress, no sitting president, and no presidential candidate would seriously buck any actions taken by the Israelis because they are scared to death that (1) rich Zionists in the US will cut off a significant portion of the campaign contributions and (2) powerful Zionists in the US who control many of the major outlets of mass media and neo-con think tanks will turn against them. And before you start talking “tinfoil hat conspiracy theory” let me say that my statements are based on statistical facts. So if Mutt or any of the rest of you want to call me an anti-semite or nazi the first thing I’ll do to do is present a list of who owns and/or runs the most influential newspapers, think tanks, and broadcast media outlets in the United States. We can also look at lists of major campaign contributors.

My position is this. Israel and its backers in the U.S. weld a lot of influence in this country. Many of them affected the President’s and the Congress’ decision regarding the decision to wage war on Iraq. They did it for reasons that were advantageous to Israel. The foreign policy objectives of Israel are not in all cases beneficial to the United States. In many cases they are detrimental to the United States. People need to know this and understand the implications of backing Israel unequivocally.

Furthermore, concerning a statement made by Nigal, Israel is a democracy only if you’re an ethnic Jew. For all others so unfortunate as to live there it is an apartheid state. As an example, try buying a house in Israel if you’re a Christian. Try immigrating to Israel if you happen to marry an ethnic Jew and you’re a Palestinian. Try driving your car on an Israeli road built exclusively for use by Jews. Try getting to an olive grove your Palestinian grandfathers father owned if it’s on the other side of Sharon’s Wall. As a young child try walking pass a “settler” compound on your way to school with the protection of an American observer and see what happens to you and the observer. I could go on and on. No wonder young Palestinian teenagers are willing to blow themselves up.

And finally, past actions by the government of Israel are a true indication that Israel is not even a good ally of the United States. People on this thread should do research into topics like the U.S.S. Liberty, the Lavon affair, Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli sale of United States military technology to China, the barely mentioned Franklin/AIPAC spy case that is on-going. That’s just the stuff we know about. Then come back and tell what a friend we have in Israel.
last edited: 6/27/05 8:41:41 PM”

“re: Rumsfeld - He admitted he worded it wrong. That's spin? He admitted being wrong in what he said and you call that "spin"? Get real.

re: Powell's quote - Since you only posted a snippet, I went to the transcript. I could not find where he said he would use those stockpiles against the U.S. I might have missed it, so please tell me where he says it. It's broken into "parts", so just tell me what part it's in. Thanks.

re: garbage - Not sure how to respond to those personal comments. I'll just leave it at that.”

“There is so much good stuff on the net right now about Douglas Feith, the Office of Special Plans, and Israeli spying in general. Check this out. Bet you won't read about it in the Weekly Standard or Forward.

http://dual-loyalties.blogspot.com/2004/12/fbi-probes-dod-office-united-press.html
last edited: 6/27/05 9:47:17 PM”

“Sarge - I see no reason the US wouldn't trumpet anything they found in Iraq. They kept on anouncing trivial stuff, or stuff that was disproved.

In answer to my question that you didn't address, they are still finding shells with mustard gas in France from WWII and, even in the US, where it was tested. So, I'm not about to be blown away that there would be some found in Iraq.”

“I'm not letting thread go to be with Jesus and the angels just yet. There's way to much good stuff that needs airing today.

More on the AIPAC/Rosen/Franklin spy case.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050704fa_fact”

“I still find it ludicrous that a pissant, impotent nation such as Iraq would have done anything to provoke retaliation from the world's largest armed force and economic powerhouse.

It was a stupid notion in summer '02, when the Dubya regime started making noises about the "threat" and the need for war, and it still is.”

“Sarge - If you're Syrian hypothetical is true. Does that mean Rumsfeld lied when he said:

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." on 3/30/03

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html”

“I don't think you'll find a quote before the war started where somebody from the administration said, in essence, "Saddam has stockpiles of (insert WMD type here) right now and he can use them at any moment against the U.S."

Sarge
4:44:00 PM
6/25/05
ignore this user

Is this close enough?

Rumsfeld 9/19/02: “[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2002/s20020919-secdef2.html

Cheney, 8/26/02: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
Cheney, 8/26/02
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

GW Bush: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020928.html”

“No. The claim by the left that the administration said Iraq has stockpiles of WMD that could be used at any moment against the U.S.

They did say they had stockpiles of weapons, (which I believe they did and moved them), but they did not say they could be used against the US at any moment. In other words, the "imminent threat" in THAT respect, that the left continually claims they said, was not said.

They said he intended to use them against us, but not any any moment. In other words, it would take some time and a lot of strategy for Saddam to get the weapons over here to use against us. It was not immenent in the sense that we in the U.S. were in danger of being attacked at any moment. AND, nobody claimed that to be the case. Yet, the left keeps saying that we were in that danger.

It's simply not true.”

“All that being said pedxing, I maintained before, during and after the war that the reason for going to Iraq was NOT the wmd issue.

I saw first hand how the media made that the issue before the war.

They focused on the wmd and pummeled the administration with questions regarding it where they themselves were downplaying it.

The main issues were the killing by saddam and the assisting of the terrorists.

I can't prove this to you without replaying all of the transcripts, IN ORDER, and in context, but I paid a lot of attention to it at the time, and not by reading articles written about the news conferences, etc., but by watching them as they happened.”

“I wonder if there's a Kentucky Fried Chicken in all of Syria? Interesting. I'll check on it. Carry on.”

“Your prayers are answered Buck!



http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/388/re7.htm”