Salvage the Iraq invasion here!

[RedFury]

Fair and balanced: pre-invasion truths told by the Bush WH…

Since there seems to be a lot of heat directed at the current Administration for their handling of the pre-invasion intelligence, I thought it would only be fair to make a list of the undeniable factual truths used to justify GW-2.

Seems only fair that I get the ball rolling:

er…

hmm…

aah…

:::tap tap tap:::

Oh, oh, I got it!..mm, no, no, not that one either. :smack:

Zzzzzzz…

mmmmm…

Damn! I admit it, maybe this wasn’t such a good idea. Time to pull out all stops and go into emergecy mode:

Saddam’s an eeeeeeevildoer! Yep! That’s it.
There, I feel much better already. Fair and balanced is where it’s at and I’ve just done my share.

In fact, I think that’s Fox News knocking at my door

[SPOOFE]

I take it you were one of the people at the Vomit-in?

[SPOOFE]

Ah, th’ hell with it. Here’re a few pre-invasion truths:

“The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.”

“The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.”

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence.”

Get the rest of the SOTU transcript here. If it makes you feel better, you can mentally ignore the one sentence that turned out to be wholly erroneous. Focus on the other thousand or so sentences instead.

[RedFury]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
**Ah, th’ hell with it. Here’re a few pre-invasion truths:

**

Great. thanks for the help.

Let’s see what you came up with:

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it."

Scary stuff indeed. Only one problem, where is it? Because after three months and literally 100,000’s of men looking for it, nothing, zilch, nada. Is this some sort of “faith-based” threat?

**

“The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.”**

Geez, I’m breaking into a cold sweat all over again just reading about the it. But there’s that problem again, where the fuck is it? Hmm…must be that “murky intelligence” Wolfowitz alluded to.

Wonder how “murky” it is about, oh, fer instance, North Korea? Shoot, Dubya might as well be jumping into his fighter jet (along with his trusty cod piece) right now if that’s the standard for war!

**

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence.”**

Well, either US intelligence is full of shit or Saddam’s the new Houdini. How else do you explain the 29,984 unaccounted for “munitions.” You’d think GI’s would be tripping all over the stuff, there’s so many of both.

**

Get the rest of the SOTU transcript here. If it makes you feel better, you can mentally ignore the one sentence that turned out to be wholly erroneous. Focus on the other thousand or so sentences instead. **

Mmm…I think you mean, if it make you feel better. But no thanks, I’ll just sit here and wait for more of the “undeniable factual truths” I asked for. You know, like the Al-Queda links, aluminum tubes, deathly drones…all mentioned by your pResident at one time or another during his all-out marketing campaign.

See, Bush Lies, and then, he lies some more.

Mind you, the “Saddam’s eeevil” bit I’ve already granted.

Thanks for playing all the same.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

This is a nice twist on the “Bush is a liar” thread. Really.

If I didn’t know better, I’d say that you were either Reeder’s other screen name or just a troll. However, I know that a) You’re neither of those, and b)You’re completely serious, so I’ll answer it seriously. Here’s my answer:

:rolleyes:

Thank you for starting yet another pointless thread. It gives me occasion to use the rolleyes smiley in an appropriate manner.

[december]

Was there a typo in the thread title? It looks like it should have been:

Savage the Iraq invasion here!

[SPOOFE]

Scary stuff indeed. Only one problem, where is it? Because after three months and literally 100,000’s of men looking for it, nothing, zilch, nada. Is this some sort of “faith-based” threat?

Are you claiming that the UN did not, in fact, reach that conclusion in '99?

Oh wait, you’re a fucking dumbshit that doesn’t know how to read.

Fucknut. You’re the reason that the war protest movement wasn’t taken seriously.

[Linear_Crack]

*Originally posted by RedFury *
Because after three months and literally 100,000’s of men looking for it, nothing, zilch, nada. Is this some sort of “faith-based” threat?

100,000’s of men looking for WMD? Bullshit. Cite.

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
Fucknut. You’re the reason that the war protest movement wasn’t taken seriously.

I agree.

[Larry_Mudd]

he United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin

Pardon me if this makes me a little nervous, since I myself have materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.

Yes, it’s true. I have a 20-gallon stainless steel pot, more than a hundred 1-quart, wide-mouthed mason jars, limitless access to discarded pea-husks and beanstalks, running water, electricity, a library card, an 800X microscope, and plenty of time.

Boo!

[Eternal]

AH! JESUS CHRIST! LARRY MUDD IS TEH AXIS OF EVIL!!!11!!!

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
Ah, th’ hell with it. Here’re a few pre-invasion truths:

Nothing like quoting the President as a factual source to refute a claim that the President lied, is there? :rolleyes:

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it."

From here:

Source: Bush cites the United Nations Special Commission [UNSCOM] 1999 Report to the UN Security Council. But most all the Report’s numbers are estimates, in which UNSCOM had varying degrees of confidence.

In addition, UNSCOM did not specifically make the claim that Bush attributes to it. Instead, the Report only mentions precursor materials (“growth media”) that might be used to develop anthrax. One must make a number of additional assumptions to produce the “over 25,000 liters of anthrax” the President claimed.

Earlier the same month, in a January 23 document, the State Department, similarly cited the UNSCOM report, although noticeably more accurately than the President: “The UN Special Commission concluded that Iraq did not verifiably account for, at a minimum, 2160kg of growth media. This is enough to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax…” (Emphasis added.) State does not explain how it projected a thousand liters more than the president.

And two days after the State of the Union, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage addressed the UNSCOM estimates in a more truthful light: as a reference to the" biological agent that U.N. inspectors believe Iraq produced." (Emphasis added.)

It short, in the State of the Union, the president transformed UNSCOM estimates, guesses, and approximations into a declaration of an exact amounts, which is a deception.

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it."

Source: Bush cited the same UNSCOM Report. Again, he transformed estimates, or best guesses - based on the work of the UNSCOM inspectors and informants of uncertain reliability - into solid fact.

His own State Department more accurately referred to the same information as “belief,” not fact: “Iraq declared 19,000 liters (of Botulinum toxin) [but the] UN believes it could have produced more than double that amount.” (Emphasis added.)

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence."

Source: Bush cites “U.S. intelligence” for this information, but it appears to have first come from UNSCOM. If so, he seems to have double the number of existing munitions that might be, as he argued “capable of delivering chemical agents.”

UNSCOM’s report, in its declassified portions, suggests that UNSCOM “supervised the destruction of nearly 40,000 Chemical munitions (including rockets, artillery, and Aerial bombs 28,000 of which were filled).” And UNSCOM’s best estimate was that there were15,000 - not 30,000 - artillery shells unaccounted for.

The CIA’s October 2002 report also acknowledges that “UNSCOM supervised the destruction of more than 40,000 chemical munitions.” Yet none of its declassified documents support Bush’s contention in the State of the Union that 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical weapons remain unaccounted for.

Where did Bush’s number come from? Was it real - or invented?

[Liberal]

If they had the weapons before as the UN claimed, the weapons should still be exactly where they’ve always been — like Excaliber stuck in a rock. Such weapons cannot be moved. There is no known force that will move a beaker from one location to another.

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by Eternal *
**AH! JESUS CHRIST! LARRY MUDD IS THE AXIS OF EVIL!!!11!!! **

Yeah, but we knew that already.

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**If they had the weapons before as the UN claimed, **

The UN didn’t claim. GWB claimed.

[Liberal]

Okay, it was Teedledee instead of Tweedledum.

[ccwaterback]

Well, on a TV newscast it said …

Well, in the newspaper it said …

BAAAA BAAAA … DAMN IT!!! Why do I keep bleating like a sheep???

[RedFury]

**Are you claiming that the UN did not, in fact, reach that conclusion in '99?

**

One thing at a time. For starters, I claim that you’re either a blind ideologue or a twit with a broken index finger. For your sake I hope its the latter. Fingers mend.

Had you not been one of the two, odds are quite high that you would have chosen to click on either of the two links – provided for both your convenience and my entertainment. Once there, your question would have been answered in full.

To spare you from further embarrasment, I’ll give you the abridged version. Turns out there’s really no ‘UN report’ as quoted by Smirk, but rather a UNMOVIC assesment. And not only does he use the high end estimates provided by UNMOVIC, but he also fails to explain that liquid anthax only has shelf life of about a year and that “UNMOVIC has no evidence that drying of anthrax or any other agent in bulk was conducted.” Meaning that the odds Saddam actually had anything usable, were at best, unkown. Not the feeling one got listening to the Emperor, was it?

It’s also worth pointing out that while the assesment is dated 1999, the actual inventory numbers cited refer back to the 1991 inventory. There was simply no evidence that they existed at the time the report was written.

In addition to the above, you mighty also want to read some of the other articles on those sites. Then again, you might not, as they don’t exactly corroborate your pResident’s claims. A lie? Stretching the truth? Somewhat of a fabrication? FWIW, I kind of enjoy the ‘sexed-up’ moniker. Those Brits, they speak English so well, don’t they?

But whatever it is, you’d agree it’s not an “undeniable factual truth,” right?

**Oh wait, you’re a fucking dumbshit that doesn’t know how to read.

Fucknut. You’re the reason that the war protest movement wasn’t taken seriously.**

Not surprisingly, you have it ass backwards. See, if it wasn’t for non-thinking asslickers and cheerleaders such as yourself, the invasion wouldn’t have happened. And there be a lot more innocent people alive today.

Well, that was easy. Run along now – take good care of that finger, 'cause the mind’s a gonner already.

PS-On preview. I see Desmostylus has already spoilt half my fun. Oh well, plenty more to go around.

[RedFury]

Linear Crack?!?

Oh well, that explains it.

[John_Carter_of_Mars]

Yawn Whattawaytostarttheday. Another class of Shrub Cutting 101.

I’m real glad George and Tony did the deed to Saddam. It needed to be done and it was done.

Anybody want some coffee?

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
If they had the weapons before as the UN claimed, the weapons should still be exactly where they’ve always been — like Excaliber stuck in a rock. Such weapons cannot be moved. There is no known force that will move a beaker from one location to another.

There is also no known force (assuming I remember things correctly) preventing anthrax, vX, and other biological and chemical weapons from expiring over time.