PDA

View Full Version : More truth versus truthiness ...



LWW
10-24-2010, 04:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.</span>

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.</span>

In August 2004, for instance, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.”</span> The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”</span>

In WikiLeaks’ massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs, there are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. Most of those are intelligence reports or initial suspicions of WMD that don’t pan out. In July 2004, for example, U.S. forces come across a Baghdad building with gas masks, gas filters, and containers with “unknown contents” inside. Later investigation revealed those contents to be vitamins.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime.</span> Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”

A small group — mostly of the political right — has long maintained that there was more evidence of a major and modern WMD program than the American people were lead to believe. A few Congressmen and Senators gravitated to the idea, but it was largely dismissed as conspiratorial hooey.

The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.

But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms. As Spencer noted earlier, a January 2006 war log claims that “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were smuggled in from Iran.

That same month, then “chemical weapons specialists” were apprehended in Balad. These “foreigners” were there specifically “to support the chemical weapons operations.” The following month, an intelligence report refers to a “chemical weapons expert” that “provided assistance with the gas weapons.” What happened to that specialist, the WikiLeaked document doesn’t say.

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/.../#ixzz13Guv1p4M (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/#ixzz13Guv1p4M) </div></div>

LWW

Qtec
10-25-2010, 06:21 PM
Truth.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Remember That Mushroom Cloud?</span>


Published: November 2, 2005

The indictment of Lewis Libby on charges of lying to a grand jury about the outing of Valerie Wilson has focused attention on the lengths to which the Bush administration went in 2003 to try to distract the public from this central fact: American soldiers found a lot of things in Iraq, including a well-armed insurgency their bosses never anticipated, <u>but they did not find weapons of mass destruction.</u>

It's clear from the indictment that Vice President Dick Cheney and his staff formed the command bunker for this misdirection campaign. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But there is a much larger issue than the question of what administration officials said about Iraq after the invasion - it's what they said about Iraq before the invasion.</span> Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, may have been grandstanding yesterday when he forced the Senate to hold a closed session on the Iraqi intelligence, but at least he gave the issue a much-needed push.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet, to name a few leading figures, built support for the war by telling the world that Saddam Hussein was <span style='font-size: 17pt'><u>stockpiling </u>chemical weapons</span>, feverishly <span style='font-size: 17pt'>developing germ warfare devices</span> and <span style='font-size: 23pt'>racing to build a nuclear bomb</span>. Some of them, notably Mr. Cheney, the administration's doomsayer in chief, said <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Iraq had conspired with Al Qaeda</span> and <u>implied that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11.</u></span>

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these <u>relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.</u> </div></div>

Tell me, how many 1,000s of people have been killed with these WMDs since the Jihadis/insurgents got their hands on them?
How many US personal were attack with WMDs?
My guess is none.

Isn't it true that the only way these rusty old forgotten toxic shells could kill you is if it hit you on the head after falling from a great hight or if you opened it up and eat the contents?

Put it this way, there was nothing found in Iraq that could have possibly make Saddam a threat to US security.

Q.....

pooltchr
10-25-2010, 06:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Put it this way, there was nothing found in Iraq that could have possibly make Saddam a threat to US security.

Q.....


</div></div>

And so you are saying that Sadam was absolutely, without a doubt, not trying to get his hands on nukes or wmd????????????

Steve

Qtec
10-25-2010, 07:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Put it this way, there was nothing found in Iraq that could have possibly make Saddam a threat to US security.

Q.....


</div></div>

And so you are saying that Sadam was absolutely, without a doubt, not trying to get his hands on nukes or wmd????????????

Steve

</div></div>

Geez, I thought I was quite clear.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>there was nothing found in Iraq that could have possibly make Saddam a threat to US security.</u><span style="color: #990000"> or justify an invasion that cost 1,000s of Americans their lives, not to mention the number of Iraqi civilians. </span></div></div>

The American people would never have given their consent to the Iraq invasion if it was all about a few rusty old shells buried somewhere in the desert.
The reason they gave for war was the threat of Saddam obtaining a nuclear weapon.....a REAL WMD..which was contained in their main argument.

1. Saddam tried to obtain uranium.
2. Saddam tried to obtain Alu tubes for enrichment.
3. Saddam could give this bomb to Al Q.

This has all been debunked.



Q..........ask me about the Alu tubes........did you know for instance that these tubes were made in China and that the US knew about them before they were made? That 'we just managed to stop Saddam from getting these tubes for centrifuges'" story was all BS.

LWW
10-26-2010, 02:37 AM
So are you now claiming wikileaks to be lying?

Or ... are you confirming you "BELIEVE" that they are dastardly liars when the spoon says they are dastardly liars, while they are paragons of truth when the spoon says they are paragons of truth?

Please ... dance some more for me on this one.

LWW

Qtec
10-26-2010, 05:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please ... dance some more for me on this one.

LWW </div></div>

You are the one doing the dancing. Hopping around trying not to answer any Qs I have asked.

A rusty old chemical filled shell buried in the desert for 20 yrs is only a WMD if it works! All the ones they found were just lumps of metal. AFAIK, no 'WMD' was found that was produced after [roughly ] 1992.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell me, how many 1,000s of people have been killed with these WMDs since the Jihadis/insurgents got their hands on them?
How many US personal were attack with WMDs? </div></div>



Q.........WMD is a catch phrase dreamt up by the Bush to deceive the public. According to them a grenade is a WMD, so is a home made pipe bomb.

LWW
10-26-2010, 05:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> AFAIK, no 'WMD' was found that was produced after [roughly ] 1992. </div></div> [/quote]

That's because you don't pay attention ... using the UN definition of WMD they have been found in massive quantities, including hidden in "SCRAP" that was exported to Jordan and including research and production that was ongoing.

Your refusal to deal with reality is not proof of your fantasy being reality.

LWW