Sunday, November 20, 2005

New Evidence of Iraq's WMD's!

New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD's, Ties to Al-Qaida

Short account in Newsmax about the Weekly Standard's report of documents translated by U.S. Intelligence analysts. I wonder if this will hit the main liberal rags, NYTimes, LATimes, Boston Globe, etc. Maybe, but buried back on page 16.
Some main topics discovered about WMD's:

• Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents
• Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)
• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs
• Ricin research and improvement

As to connections with Al-Qaida:

• Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)
• Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity
• Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq
• Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals
• Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda - reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak

Once the documents are fully available in English, this ought to provide enough evidence to stop the stupidity that cloaks itself as liberal arguments against the Iraq War. Then they can all shut up, sit in the back seat, and let the grown-ups drive.

9 Comments:

At 5:21 PM, Blogger Chris said...

Thanks for the link.

So far these are only documents. The actual WMD that Saddam possessed would be nice. I'm not sure we went to war over documents.

 
At 5:24 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Yeah, I'd like to see the WMD caches that the supposed maps refer to. I'd like to also know if the WMD's were shipped to Syria like some think.

 
At 6:46 PM, Blogger Chris said...

I would too. Because I do believe that they were there.

 
At 11:30 AM, Blogger Saur♥Kraut said...

OK, if I had to choose, I'd guess that there were WMDs because of Saddam's record. I mean, if he's getting away with it, do we think this modern (yet more constrained) Hitler would say "Ah, forget it. Let's dismantle and give up on that idea."

Still, I would love to see the actual documents. Until then, it's speculation. :o(

 
At 6:57 AM, Blogger Shaw Kenawe said...

UL,

I know that you and your fellow travelers desperately want to find the reason (WMDs) for Bush's Excellent Adventure.

It's not going to happen.

There were none.

Saddam was not an imminent threat to the United States.

Al Qaeda was responsible for the carnage on 9/11.

Bush took us to war because IRAQ WAS AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

Remember Condi's mushroom cloud?

Bush and his minions either lied or criminally exaggerated the threat so that he could get his war on.

Reality is difficult, but once you accept the truth, it will set you free.

 
At 8:50 AM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Shaw:

What an idiotic statement, "there were none." Honestly, what do you take yourself for? Do you really think this builds your credibility with the UL?

I truly believe that most liberals are second class rhetoricians who have selective memories, hoping the idiots who believe them do too. What I'm trying to figure out, Shaw, is where do you fit in? I'm wondering if you're the malicious type that knows better, or if you've been duped. You seem totally comatose when it comes to the reality of you party's pro-Iraq War sentiments. That tells me your reasoning capability is flat-lined. Yet, you come off like a "science fair" volcano, spewing statements as substantive as baking soda and red liquid jello lava.

Shaw, it's okay to change your mind and accept the truth. People do it every day. You may lose your own readership, but you'll gain quite a following.

 
At 1:00 PM, Blogger Shaw Kenawe said...

UL,


Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel

By Murray Waas, special to National Journal

© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

Read the rest of the report here:

http://tinyurl.com/aoonk

If what you've reported from Newsmax is truth, the Bush administration would have had it translated in a heartbeat and shouted this news from the roof of the White House.

Rice, Rumsfeld, and Cheney would have been all over the Sunday shows saying "I told you so."


Why has the administration been silent on this? Why?

Could it be because there is no credibility to it?

The Democrats voted for the resolution to give the president power to go to war as a last resort when all other avenues failed. Any right minded Senator or Representative would have voted in this way, assuming they had been told the truth about Saddam's capabilities and assuming that the Bush administration had not held back any intelligence that showed that the data on WMDs, biological and nuclear weaponry was not conclusive, and in most cases bogus.

But the administration was not forthcoming with Congress. And now the truth of how the administration pushed for this war in a dishonest way is out there for the American people to examine and to allow them to come to unhappy conclusions about their government.

 
At 6:53 AM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

I keep making the same mistake; I assume that when liberals are faced with evidence, they will see things differently. Isabella, apparently, you are proving me wrong.

Do you people want to find WMD's in Iraq? If the documentation shows that there was an extensive weapons program in Iraq, you'd want to pursue it to the end, which would be finding the WMD's, right? Now, this would mean setting aside your hatred against Bush, for if the weapons are found, then the intel was not flawed. Are you prepared for this kind of honest inquiry? My instincts tell me no.

Your conjecture about what the Bush administration would do, though I must say is in keeping with your anti-Bush drumbeat, is not a proof. Do you assume the Bush administration would act like any typical liberal administration? There's also the possibility that the information is actually being used to search out and find the WMD's, since that is far more important in the scheme of things than trying to swing fickle public opinion polls. Why don't we wait and see what develops?

As to your parting comments, you really don't get it, do you? Do you honestly think that by repeating the same BS over and over ad nauseum, you are making your case with me? Come to think of it, I should asking myself this as well, if I keep making the same logical inferences with you over and over again, will you somehow understand what I mean? Maybe ultimately, you don't give a damn. I show you logical inferences; you regurgitate text from liberal journalists with the same flawed logic.

If Bush lied to the Congress and the people of the United States regarding weapons capability of Iraq, then you would have to make the same charge against, Clinton, Gore, Albreight, Pelosi, Rockefeller, Reid, Daschle, Kennedy, et al from 1998 onward prior to the Bush administration. Hello? Do you get it? Was Bush involved in Clinton's actions in '98? If you are consistant you would have to admit that Clinton lied...same intel. If Bush acted on the same intel, how does this mean Bush to be lying? Your conclusions do not follow your argument. Your argument is invalid. Does this mean ANYTHING to you? Hello?

Do your REALLY not see the flaw in your logic? I'm serious. Are you so blinded by your "blood lust" to get Bush that you don't see the glaring fallacies you try to push on this logic blogsite?

This pseudo-intellectualism you and others maintain is quite troubling. And, I wouldn't be surprised, given the capacities you've shown me, if you take this as an insult. You're emotions are in the "driver's seat," and your rhetoric tries to mask it. So, try, as I think you will, to keep a stiff upper lip, for the cause of...whatever. It's not logic; it's something else. What? I don't know.

 
At 7:30 AM, Blogger Shaw Kenawe said...

UL,

It's been 9 days since you posted your story on WMD alleged "evidence."

You also predicted that the "liberal rags" wouldn't print this "evidence" and if they did it would be buried on some back page.

Apparently, the pro-Bush outlets, FAUX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et.al., are ignoring this "evidence" as well. As are the top war hawks in Congress--I've heard nothing from them either.

I've heard nothing from the conservative rags either. Are the documents still being translated, or perhaps, outsourced, say to Uzbekistan for interpretation?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home