Wikileaks
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
wkmac
Well-Known Member
bssam,
Not suggesting anyone is lying, at least not anyone outside the corridors of power and decision making. Once again, why did Bush and Rumsfeld both, as seen in the video's make the claims that no WMD was found in Iraq nor have they ever come before the public and just like the presentation to the UN, made that same strong of a presentation to the nation that there was WMD in Iraq?
Stop judging each other whether you're right and I'm wrong or vice versa because that's utter BS at the end of the day. Why have our public officials said there is none and I'll even concede the point to make it a no brainer "There was WMD in Iraq" so now it's not about us any more it's all about them and why they said what they said.
WHY?
Not suggesting anyone is lying, at least not anyone outside the corridors of power and decision making. Once again, why did Bush and Rumsfeld both, as seen in the video's make the claims that no WMD was found in Iraq nor have they ever come before the public and just like the presentation to the UN, made that same strong of a presentation to the nation that there was WMD in Iraq?
Stop judging each other whether you're right and I'm wrong or vice versa because that's utter BS at the end of the day. Why have our public officials said there is none and I'll even concede the point to make it a no brainer "There was WMD in Iraq" so now it's not about us any more it's all about them and why they said what they said.
WHY?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Has Wikileaks given us a glimspe into how the world really works?
Completely disagree! This is the same rationale used on the plains indians and it's morally and philsophically wrong. Treat it like a true free market and if Iraq as a nation wants to exploit it's oil reserves either as a national corporate or on an individual by individual basis, then that's fine but let them do it all on their own. If they ask us freely for help or assistance then so be it but not at the point of a gun. That is how a thief in the night operates.
As for the Iraq is about oil idea, the thinking was that Iraq's oil would be exploited and added to the global marketplace that would aid many different causes so to speak. However, I can't say I've heard in the media about any really oil boom from Iraq and yet in the last several years the price of oil has gone up that might suggest supply doesn't meet demand. Begs the question, what would the end result be if Iraq oil was kept off the global marketplace and what would we be seeing as a result? Who would benefit from that?
I'm just saying........
Completely disagree! This is the same rationale used on the plains indians and it's morally and philsophically wrong. Treat it like a true free market and if Iraq as a nation wants to exploit it's oil reserves either as a national corporate or on an individual by individual basis, then that's fine but let them do it all on their own. If they ask us freely for help or assistance then so be it but not at the point of a gun. That is how a thief in the night operates.
As for the Iraq is about oil idea, the thinking was that Iraq's oil would be exploited and added to the global marketplace that would aid many different causes so to speak. However, I can't say I've heard in the media about any really oil boom from Iraq and yet in the last several years the price of oil has gone up that might suggest supply doesn't meet demand. Begs the question, what would the end result be if Iraq oil was kept off the global marketplace and what would we be seeing as a result? Who would benefit from that?
I'm just saying........
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
"During the a battle in Fallujah, American forces claim they discovered a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there was a call in another part of the Fallujah requesting "explosives experts to dispose of a chemical[weapons] cache."
"In 2004, for example, American special forces members secretly purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard which have been used since World War I. Following testing in a military lab, the chemical was then secured and transferred to a secret location."
Wikileaks:WMD program
"In 2004, for example, American special forces members secretly purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard which have been used since World War I. Following testing in a military lab, the chemical was then secured and transferred to a secret location."
Wikileaks:WMD program
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Announcing the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, Mr. Bush said, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
Two months into the war, on May 29, 2003, Mr. Bush said weapons of mass destruction had been found.
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,” Mr. Bush told Polish television. “For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
On Sept. 9, 2004, in Pennsylvania, Mr. Bush said: “I recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there.”
LINK
Using your logic why did Mr. Bush claim WMD's had been found?
I'm surprised at that question. Talk about a "no brainer". Because there is money and power to be had there. We may not see it at the gas pump, but someone is making a mint. And make no mistake; it takes more than a hostile dictator with possible WMD to bring America into war. Proof? Iran, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan just to name a few.
Of course it's morally and philosophically wrong, repugnant, and vile. War often is. And therein lies the reason to make up "feel good" rationales. Liberating a nation is steeped in nobility. But if liberating nations and securing ourselves from terrorists is the aim, maybe Saudi Arabia and Yemen would have been better targets.
I'm just sayin...
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Or has our propping up these 2 despotic govt's been an underlying cause to the terrorist uprising?
I'm just saying back..........
BTW: Research the US fingerprint in Yemen and you'll find the House of Saud all in the middle of it.
As to my WHY? question, that pertained to nothing other than "Why" in May and August of 2006' on 2 seperate occasions did Bush (see vid @ post #54) and Rumsfeld (see vid @ post #62) say there were no WMD in Iraq, then in his recent book and in interviews Bush again supported his regret that there was no WMD in Iraq and then in 2007' on Meet the Press, Colin Powell said the same thing:
[video=youtube;FejQH_VCB24]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FejQH_VCB24&NR=1[/video]
So I go back to the following assertion, regardless of power, money, conspiracies, whatever (forget all that) and taking the several incidents of WMD or the possibility of WMD (in the case of the 1500 gallon precusor material which I've never seen final test results of and per the article, testing was forthcoming) but for the moment, let's conceed all these incidents are in fact hard evidence of WMD, then I ask again, why did President Bush, Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld and Sec. of State Colin Powell all 3 state that no WMD was found in Iraq when we all here have seen evidence contrary to those assertions? When there is this evidence as has been linked here by AV8 and when early on Bush and his adminstration were so insistent there was WMD, why the 180 degree change?
I'm not asking anything to be proven by anyone here to support their belief that WMD existed, I've conceded the WMD arguement as fact to move beyond it and get to the bigger question. What I'm asking is why did/have these guys changed in what they believed to be true when evidence as AV posted now suggests otherwise?
Why?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Naomi Wolfe has written a very good piece on the 1917' Espionage Act for HuffPost.
[video=youtube;nxPB9yy7IJ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxPB9yy7IJ4&feature=sub[/video]
[video=youtube;nxPB9yy7IJ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxPB9yy7IJ4&feature=sub[/video]
I've been chewing on your "why" question trying to come up with an analogy. I think the best is the startup football league (USFL or XFL?). They ended up sueing the NFL over something or other and won--the grand sum of $1. Sometimes winning is losing. I think that's what ended up happening in the WMD scenario. Although there was WMD found, it was old, depleted, and of such dubious quality that one could hardly hold them up as evidence of an ongoing program. Therefore it's easier to claim "faulty intelligence analysis" and move on than to continue to point at the evidence that under careful scrutiny proves the opposite. Better for the USFL/XFL to quietly go away than to continue to herald their $1 victory that makes them look even more a joke.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/
Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.
Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.
From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.
Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.
Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.
From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
More,
I've been meaning to ask, what does this cartoon have to do with Wikileaks? Did Wikileaks leak a classified email pertaining to some 2011 city budget somewhere?
Hoping you will explain!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Glenn Greenwald on Joe Biden verses Joe Biden
Babagounj
Strength through joy
sounds like a non winner
