| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Hoax or a Political Nuke?; Find out mid-to-late February. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 10 2006, 08:12 PM (441 Views) | |
| Post #1 Feb 10 2006, 08:12 PM |
|
|
Intelligence Summit Someone posted this on another site. I wanted to share it with you. Check out Saddam's WMD tapes. The regular media has not picked this up at all yet. The article is from the Intelligence Summit's own site. If it's real, watch out! |
Administrator
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Feb 11 2006, 01:29 AM | Son N Law |
| I gotta think that if there were even a smidgeon of truth to this, Bush would be wearing it as a t-shirt in every public appearance. I seriously doubt we would have heard a word about anything but this at the SOTU. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Feb 11 2006, 08:51 AM |
|
|
Actually, he wouldn't. One of the chief gripes President Bush's supporters have about him is that he tends to allow the nay-sayers to hog the spotlight and does not strike back. In some ways, this is admirable. It shows him as being "above the fray," as not stooping to their level. It shows patience, waiting for things to pan out and not saying, "I told you so," with each revelation. The downside to this strategy is that his opponents get to demonize him without much challenge. That's OK for short periods; it makes the critics look overly-negative and uncivil. Over the long haul, it erodes faith in him by the masses. He recently struck back over a week-long period with a positive effect. I think he should do it more often, but not constantly. If he did it constantly, the ugliness of his critics would be ascribed to him. That aside, there is one more reason that the president would not even be discussing this yet: It is just now coming to light. The contents of the tapes have not yet been made public. We only have the contractor's word for what the tapes say, hence the question in the title. This may be nothing, or it could be a political nuke. Anyway, I don't want to be seen as "rooting" for it to be one or the other. I am anxious to hear the whole story. I am also curious as to why these tapes would not have piqued the curiosity of the mainstream media. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Feb 12 2006, 12:39 PM | Son N Law |
| Yeah, this is going to be quite interesting when it plays out. It looks like the Summit is open to the public. Do we have any posters in the Arlington area interested in going? |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #5 Feb 14 2006, 03:25 PM |
|
| I couldn't find what you guys are talking about -- the tape. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #6 Feb 14 2006, 03:46 PM | Son N Law |
| They won't be released until this Saturday. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #7 May 13 2006, 12:41 PM | JABlovesastros |
|
its true they had them ive seen pictures...my friend whos a specialist for the army...he deals with wmd's and he took pictures of him sitting on one huge long wmd' with long range capabilities alot of ppl try to cover it up and say it was a waste to go there but i think they had them |
Newbie
|
|
|
|
| Post #8 May 13 2006, 01:11 PM | Son N Law |
| I'm sorry, but if there were any substance to that claim at all, it would be Bush's number one talking point. There would be no way to cover it up. Instead, the people who were blowing the WMD trumpet three years ago, and still support the war, are playing an entirely new song called "The WMDs Never Really Mattered to Begin With." |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 May 13 2006, 01:48 PM |
|
|
While I in no way support the contentions of the post to which you responded, I have to take exception to your contention that supporters of the war are singing a new tune. They aren't. What has changed is the way in which supporters views have been framed by the opposition. Back just before the war, the position was inaccurately framed as Iraq's having WMD means we have to go in. As I spent much time pointing out on mets.com, even before the war started, that was an incorrect characterization. At the time, many of my posts predicted the very argument used today by many war opponents: that the non-discovery of stockpiles of WMD means the war was a mistake. No one today is saying that the WMD don't matter other than those who are miscommunicating the unchanging reasoning behind the war. I will try to explain, once more, the reasoning for the war that has been static since before the war: 9/11 changed the world. We can no longer rely on oceans to protect us. If a terrorist threat formed overseas, we now need to deal with it there or face mass death and destruction here. Saddam Hussein had WMD. That was an absolute proven fact. He had even used them on his own people. Following the first Gulf War, Saddam signed a cease-fire that included his agreement to destroy all WMD and allow verification of that destruction by the UN. He repeatedly impeded the ability for the UN to verify any destruction, if any had occured. Prudence required that we assume he still had them. (To this day, we don't know for sure one way or the other.) Furthermore, Saddam was harboring terrorists (including members of al Qaeda) in Iraq. (Note: I am not saying 9/11 terrorists, nor am I saying that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. No one is saying that except those who are mischaracterizing the pro-war POV.) It was the nexus of Saddam not having destroyed his WMD (something we reasonably had to assume and may yet prove to be true) and his support for terrorists that had to be addressed. It did not have to be addressed by war. Saddam was given ample opportunity (even after 9/11) to allow verification of destruction of the WMD. He was even given the choice to step down to prevent war. He chose not to cooperate with inspections. He chose to remain in power. Without knowing for certain that he did not have WMD that he would give to terrorists, common sense required that we take him out of power. That was the point I explained repeatedly, before we went in, to all those who, even before we went in, were saying "What if we don't find any weapons?" The answer basically was, "We aren't going in because he has them. We are going in because we don't know, he isn't cooperating, and our best intelligence says that he does have them." That was the rationale then. That is the rationale now. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #10 May 13 2006, 06:34 PM | Son N Law |
|
That's a very rational argument. The sort of argument that should have been put forth by the government leading up to the war. I'm not saying I would have agreed with it, but I would have respected it. The thing is, though, not everyone is as rational as you are -- especially not this administration. Leading up to the war in Iraq, the only major talking point coming out of Washington was WMD this and WMD that. Rumsfeld himself said, and I quote, "[T]he area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." And now, of course, he blatantly denies ever having said that, as if it weren't a matter of public record. He and Bush used this and other such statements as their justification for war. That was their public rallying point. And now, when their hand is called on statements to that effect, they act like we're not living in the information age and hope someone buys it when they say, time and time again, "I never said that." |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #11 May 13 2006, 07:41 PM |
|
|
It IS and has ALWAYS BEEN the rationale put forth from Washington. (As a matter of fact, "nexus" is the word chosen by President Bush.) That is where I got it. I carefully listened to everything the president was saying and not the fragments that were being highlighted by war opponents. Those fragments were carefully chosen to make it appear that the case hung solely on the absolute certainty that Saddam had WMD. It never did. That is why I started pushing the real case before the war. I saw the setup coming and I knew that if we did not find "stockpiles," the anti-war pundits would say, "See, I told you so," when the only thing they told us was a portion of the truth. It was never the certainty of the possession of WMD. It was always the strong possibility that could not be verified. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #12 May 13 2006, 08:30 PM | JABlovesastros |
|
eye 95 you are always politicaly correct |
Newbie
|
|
|
|
| Post #13 May 13 2006, 08:37 PM | Son N Law |
|
When, though, and where was this said? Maybe I'm just forgetting something, but the only "nexus" I recall being discussed in the lead-up to war was Powell's unfortunate statement about a "sinister nexus" connecting Iraq and al-Qaeda (and just for the record, Powell is the last person who was ever connected with this administration for whom I still have any respect, so I don't say that to bad-mouth him). The thing is, though, at this point, it's not really a matter of whether or not they did or didn't find stockpiles. It's the continued practice of denial. And it's not even plausible denail. It's blatant, ridiculous denial when it comes to anything the administration said in the past about WMDs. Especially on the part of Rumsfeld and Cheney. "Sir, you said..." "No, I NEVER said that." The two of them need to get T-shirts printed up reading "I never said that," and simply point at their shirts on-cue whenever the need arises. And time and time again, each time they utter those fateful words, the public record proves them wrong. So, please, don't think that when I say, "War supporters are changing their tunes," I'm referring to you. Don't take it personally. When I say "those who support the war," I'm talking about the people making decisions who have any real influence upon policy. You've stood your ground throughout the course of this war, and although I don't agree with it, I respect it. The thing is, though, you're not on national TV denying, denying, denying. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #14 May 13 2006, 09:03 PM |
|
|
When and where? Read the President's speeches delivered during the run-up. More importantly, read all the "whereases" in the authorization for force! __________________ This thread is a perfect example of why some in the administration need to say, "I never said that," from time to time. What they have said has been taken out of context and/or whittled down until the original meaning of what was said is totally lost. The most egregious example is presenting the case for war in Iraq as being built solely on the certainty of weapons in Iraq. Of course the members of the administration have to deny saying what they have not said! |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #15 May 13 2006, 09:27 PM | Son N Law |
|
That's not exactly what I meant, though. I meant plainly denying words that had clearly come out of their mouths. Like the above statement by Rumsfeld: ""[T]he area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." He categorically denied ever having said that. Now, had he backed up and said, "Wait, you took my meaning wrong. When I said that, I meant..." it would be one thing. It's another thing altogether to claim he never said those words. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #16 May 13 2006, 09:41 PM |
|
|
And I have absolutely zero doubt that the denials were the result of someone playing "gotcha" word games. I've seen reporters do it too many times. They load questions with premises, some of which may have a kernel of truth, some of which will make the whole premise false. It is a common trick that requires denial--giving the reporter the "gotcha," and fostering the desired impression. I don't put any stock in gotchas. They are about as useful as soundbites. We have to look at the sum total of what is being said, not particular statements. I have fairly presented the sum total of the administration's case for the war--any individual gotchas notwithstanding. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| « Previous Topic · The War on Terror · Next Topic » |
4:15 PM May 20