Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Sadam Hussein
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jones" data-source="post: 79983" data-attributes="member: 4805"><p>I am curious where you heard this as well. Is the idea that some "liberal" somehow came into sole posession of this evidence, and has been hiding it the whole time? That seems a little hard to believe. If this evidence is at all credible, why isn't the White House talking about it? Very simply, because they know it's <strong>not </strong>credible. The Iraqi general who made these claims has a lot to gain by peddling them....He has just written a book called "Saddam's Secrets", and he's essentially on a promotion tour. He has been unable to corroborate any of what he says, you basically can choose to believe him or not. Go buy his book if you like, he seems to need the money.</p><p></p><p> I prefer to trust the findings in the <em>Duelfer Report, </em>which, among other key findings included the following:</p><p> <em><span style="color: Red"><strong>While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. </strong>There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdads desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.</span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: Red"></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: Red"> </span></em><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black">Further:</span></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"> <span style="color: Red"><em>In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain</em></span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"><span style="color: Red"><em>advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW</em></span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"><span style="color: Red"><em>program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.</em></span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"><span style="color: Red"><em></em></span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"><span style="color: Red"><em></em><span style="color: Black">Just for clarification, BW= Biological weapons, ISG= Iraq Survey Group.</span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black">Charles Duelfer was the man that the Bush administration chose </span></span></span></span>to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs. He spent 12 months in Iraq tracking down every lead before making his report to congress, and quite frankly I think he's a lot more credible than some former Iraqi general who's shilling for a book deal on <em>Hannity and Colmbs.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p> <em></em>Here's an excerpt from the Washinton Post's coverage of his testimony, and keep in mind that this is Bush's man:</p><p> </p><p> <span style="color: Red"><em>Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.</em></span> </p><p> <span style="color: Red"><em>"We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.</em></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"> This information is all out there, guys, it's a matter of public record. Read the Duelfer Report, read the 9-11 Commision Report.</span></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black">And Tie, stop with the "liberal" stuff, everybody who disagrees with the policies of the current adminstration or who cares about finding the truth is not a "liberal". Labeling people is a convenient way of dismissing someone without having to adress what they are saying.</span><span style="color: Black"><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jones, post: 79983, member: 4805"] I am curious where you heard this as well. Is the idea that some "liberal" somehow came into sole posession of this evidence, and has been hiding it the whole time? That seems a little hard to believe. If this evidence is at all credible, why isn't the White House talking about it? Very simply, because they know it's [B]not [/B]credible. The Iraqi general who made these claims has a lot to gain by peddling them....He has just written a book called "Saddam's Secrets", and he's essentially on a promotion tour. He has been unable to corroborate any of what he says, you basically can choose to believe him or not. Go buy his book if you like, he seems to need the money. I prefer to trust the findings in the [I]Duelfer Report, [/I]which, among other key findings included the following: [I][COLOR=Red][B]While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. [/B]There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdads desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered. [/COLOR][/I][COLOR=Red][COLOR=Black]Further: [COLOR=Red][I]In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. [/I][COLOR=Black]Just for clarification, BW= Biological weapons, ISG= Iraq Survey Group. Charles Duelfer was the man that the Bush administration chose [/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs. He spent 12 months in Iraq tracking down every lead before making his report to congress, and quite frankly I think he's a lot more credible than some former Iraqi general who's shilling for a book deal on [I]Hannity and Colmbs. [/I]Here's an excerpt from the Washinton Post's coverage of his testimony, and keep in mind that this is Bush's man: [COLOR=Red][I]Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.[/I][/COLOR] [COLOR=Red][I]"We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.[/I][/COLOR] [COLOR=Red][COLOR=Black] This information is all out there, guys, it's a matter of public record. Read the Duelfer Report, read the 9-11 Commision Report.[/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=Red][COLOR=Black]And Tie, stop with the "liberal" stuff, everybody who disagrees with the policies of the current adminstration or who cares about finding the truth is not a "liberal". Labeling people is a convenient way of dismissing someone without having to adress what they are saying.[/COLOR][COLOR=Black][COLOR=Red][COLOR=Black] [/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Sadam Hussein
Top