On February 5, Powell told the UN Security Council that the Iraqis possessed a drone that could fly 500km, violating UN rules that limit the range of Iraqi weapons to 150km. " There is no possibility that the design shown on 12 March has the capability to fly anywhere near 500 kilometres," drones expert Ken Munson said on Jane's website (http://jdw.janes.com). " The design looks very primitive, and the engines -- which have their pistons exposed -- appear to be low-powered," he said.
ANYONE REMEMBER THIS ONE?


http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/27_lies.html

Oh please! Your cut and paste is not limited or for transformative purposes. Go ahead, I'm not a moderator here but I think you are going to find out that your view of Fair Use is quite incorrect. Happy cutting and pasting, Madison.

-Drew

OK madman...A brief lesson on how the presidency works. The CIA provides a daily intelligence estimate to the president. Part of his decision making is based upon this analysis. The CIA is composed of mostly long term civil servants. The top two or three are appointed by the president with the approval of congress. In reference to the article you pasted above, Have you seen the estimates that the CIA provided to the president in the year leading up to the Iraq war? And do you suppose that the people at the blog you read have seen them?Currently, they are classified Top Secret, and I presume that they have been forever to protect sources and methods of analysis. If you have seen them, and I make the presumption that youi are not on the authorized list, then you are guilty of crimes against the security of the United States, treason, if I may call it that, and the same for the bloggers that you quote. So, either you have no real clue what you are talking about, or you are guilty of being a traitor. Which one would you prefer to admit to, if I may be so bold as to ask?

please stay on topic and just a reminder the topic is abut the lies that led to the Iraq war, if you would like a topic about something else start your own

Iraq is so bad, why does the Bush Administration have to repeatedly Lie to start a war?

1. Powell relies on FORGED documents to link Saddam to terror.

MSNBC: "They have been the closest of allies. But under the intense pressure of a diplomatic crisis at the United Nations and an imminent war in Iraq, the friendship between the United States and Britain is beginning to fray. The most recent strain emerged when U.N. nuclear inspectors concluded last week that U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear program were based on forged documents. The fake letters supposedly laid out how Iraqi agents had tried to purchase uranium from officials in Niger, central Africa."

MORE: http://www.msnbc.com/news/883164.asp?cp1
this is interesting.

madison, this is directly related to your topic, Just because you have no response to it does not make it unrelated. You feel obligated to blame the "lies" as you choose to paste them on the Bush administration without analyzing how they reached that conclusion. This subject is a lot like a computer....put garbage in and garbage comes out. You also refuse to admit that, along with the CIA, several other countries had arrived at the same conclusion. Even that bastion of liberalism, the UN, believed that Saddam possessed such weapons stockpiles. Do you also believe that they were liars also? Just a thought for one to ponder.

well. I am off to bed I will check to see any responses tomorrow, or if as usual, OI post a thought and the thread dies immediately.

Well, I think John Fogarty pretty much summed it up.

'I Can't Take It No More'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXgOhBbKFeA

You know what madman, the simple fact of the matter is that you dont need proof to go to war. All you need is probable cause. Dont belive me. If you look at the actions and regulations of military and police operations you will find that they are surpisingly simalar. If the police think you have say explosives, then they will send someone to check you out and give you a chance to let them search willingly, unless they belive that there is an eminate threat. If you refuse they gett a warrent to search weather you like it or not. If you still refuse, and by this time it is only by violence you will be able to refuse, in a situation like this they will respond with violence, ie you shoot at them they shoot at you and the like. Of course there response is in proportion to yours. In the case of iraq they belived iraq had wmd. They gave many many opertunities for saddam to willingly alow the un to inspect. He did not comply. The UN then said we are sending inspectors weather you like it or not. He still refused and held the inspectors at bay some times with armed guards other times with delay tactics. Finaly we steped in, albeit for multiple reasons, and basicly said let us search or else and he chose the or else option there for forcing everyone, at least for a period of time, to assume that he has the wmd's. In a situation like this you can not take a chance, just like the police would not take the chance if they belived that you or anyone had explosives or other items of a distructive nature.

Yes, but there was no way to hedge that bet. Those who are most upset now that we went in and found no weapons (otherwise known as the worst bluff in history) had there been weapons and they had been used on Americans. Then the cry would have been that President Bush did not protect the nation, that he should have "known" how bad a guy Saddam was and should have listened to those who begged him to do something about the threat he posed. I mean, it would have been the exact opposite of what we are now dealing with. Good point, Rayne.

-Drew

And if people dont belive that take a look at the situation with china. People are, at the same time none the less, yelling about bush going to iraq and not wanting to send our military to china. I dont know about you but I dont want a million chineese deployed becouse they would just simply overpower us by numbers. What people dont realize is, in war like in life you have to pic and choose you battles carfully or you will not last. Thanks for the comment drew

Who's talking about sending our military to China?

Just because of the flap with Tibet and the Dalai Lama?

That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do.

There are other ways (like economic) we can show our dissatisfaction with China.

The thing about going to war with Iraq is that they didn't allow the U.N. weapons inpectors enough time to DO THEIR JOB.

Bush Jr. was so itching to go to war that he had to rush, and that was a huge mistake, as we now know.

Also, it made this country LESS secure, not more, by allocating troops and resources to Iraq when we had other fish to fry in Afghanstan, and, possibly, elsewhere (North Korea, anyone? Iran?).

And the more National Guard troops we had fighting overseas (which is NOT what the National Guard is for) the less we had to help in domestic catastrophes like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

applauding emoticon here

The problem with your analogy is, Saddam had resources and capability to do the 9/11 crime, he always had for all the time he was in power. People did not put into consideration, he did not do it all this time, what and how did 9/11 change that fact??? Bin Laden struck us on 9/11, bin laden is still free and Saddam paid for 9/11 with his life, where is the fair and just in that?? Oh I know already "Saddam did not lose his life for 9/11" but what caused us to go there???

Pathetic isn't it...

Dragoness, using your logic I take it you were massively opposed to Clinton removing Aidid, a man who could not have funded an attack on America if given another fifty years? Consider also how all Saddam had to do was cooperate with U.N. Inspectors and he'd still be in power today--tormenting, raping, and murdering "his" citizens. He didn't and so we went in. If we were wrong, how is the world not better off the day he was left swinging in the gallows? Iraq was the field. Syria, Iran, all of those nutty little nations sent their martyrs to try to score some KIAs. The issue is not my analogy, it is with the fact that you'd be playing the other side of this if we had been hit by Iraq at some point. Sometimes intelligence is going to be wrong--it happens. And sometimes (like when Chamberlain thought Hitler no threat at all) it is dead on right. I'm personally thankful that we did not take a chance.

-Drew

they showed at lest two of these on the news

We were not going to be "hit" by Saddam, history showed it already and if a dictator tortures his own residents, is that really our concern? We allowed Castro, we allowed Saddam and others as long as it benefited us, so your point still rings false.

Being wrong and having lied are two entirely different things. President Kennedy believed in the "Domino Theory" as it pertained to Vietnam which simply stated that if South Vietnam fell it would trigger communist aggression that would soon reach the cost of California. It didn't (though one could argue that UC Berkley tempts that argument) but that was because they were wrong, not necessarily because they lied.

Oh, and enough of he "Bush and Company" were the only ones who believed that Saddam had WMDs. Examples:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

These are all quotes checked at Snopes.com and easily found all over the Web. So yeah, as you can see from the quotes above it was ALL Bush and Company that believed this. No one else--lest of all, our good friends on the Democratic side of the row.

-Drew