[fluff]

But with a twist..

I have now seen two threads here questioning why it was that Saddam did not save his skin by ceasing his bluff that he had WMD. Apparently he deceived not only Western intelligence services but his own generals!

The source for these comments? Apparently some are attributed to David Kay.

What confuses me is that if it is true that Saddam bluffed too long that he had WMD, why was it that Bush and Blair (the latter particularly) had to work so hard to convince their peers that Saddam was lying when he said he had no WMD?

Tony Blair: 'It is absurd for Saddam to claim he has now unilaterally disarmed.' - March 2003

Who's bluffing who now? Who's re-writing history and are the intelligence services going to be able to pull off the Emperor's new clothes trick?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
What confuses me is that if it is true that Saddam bluffed too long that he had WMD, why was it that Bush and Blair (the latter particularly) had to work so hard to convince their peers that Saddam was lying when he said he had no WMD?

Since this was all about oil according to many, I think the case can be made that the difficulty might be tied to existing (pre-invasion) oil interests and monetary debt. For example, France, Russia and Germany.

 

[LordOpie]

Was it that they had to convince congress/parliament that Iraq had WMDs or was it that they had to convince 'em that he was an imminent threat?

Everyone knew Iraq had WMDs, tho it appears now that it was an extremely small amount and many argued that UN sanctions were doing a good enough job keeping Iraq in line.

I agree that sanctions were keeping Iraq neutralized, but I agree with the invasion for other reasons.

 

[fluff]

I'm not going into the reasons for the war, right or wrong, so much as the spin that is currently being put on the intelligence. It's not even relevant as to whether the intelligence was correct or not so much as how they are trying to justify getting it wrong.

We are now being lead to believe that our intelligence services were fooled into believing that Iraq had large amounts of WMD due to Saddam's claims and that his deception extended to his own generals and hence how were our intelligence services supposed to know that he might not have large amounts of WMD.

If our respective governments/intelligence services/journalists pull this one off it will be the deception of the decade.

After all if the intelligence services had wanted a source that might have shown that Iraq may not have had WMD, all they had to do was listen to Iraq's submissions to the UN.

In Blair's case he had to convince parliament. I also remember Colin Powell working hard to convince the UN.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
I'm not going into the reasons for the war, right or wrong, so much as the spin that is currently being put on the intelligence.

uhh, just so you know, I didn't get that from your first post at all. In fact, I was unclear as to what you were asking, you were all over the place.

Originally posted by fluff
After all if the intelligence services had wanted a source that might have shown that Iraq may not have had WMD, all they had to do was listen to Iraq's submissions to the UN.

You mean all the reports Iraq filed with the UN claiming that they did indeed have WMDs Or the UN inspectors complaining about how Iraq was reassembling the missles after they left and the inspectors demanding that they be destroyed instead of dismantled?

Iraq was the biggest liar of 'em all! And we're not even sure who was lying... Saddam? His generals? The scientists? Colonel Mustard doing it with Mrs. Cherry in the pantry?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
uhh, just so you know, I didn't get that from your first post at all. In fact, I was unclear as to what you were asking, you were all over the place.

Whatever

Originally posted by LordOpie

You mean all the reports Iraq filed with the UN claiming that they did indeed have WMDs Or the UN inspectors complaining about how Iraq was reassembling the missles after they left and the inspectors demanding that they be destroyed instead of dismantled?

Iraq was the biggest liar of 'em all! And we're not even sure who was lying... Saddam? His generals? The scientists? Colonel Mustard doing it with Mrs. Cherry in the pantry?

So you don't recall Iraq claiming not to have WMDs?

Do you have sources for them claiming to the UN that WMD were still there in large amounts?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
So you don't recall Iraq claiming not to have WMDs?

And I also remember them not cooperating with Weapons Inspectors for the better part of 10 years.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
And I also remember them not cooperating with Weapons Inspectors for the better part of 10 years.

What does that have to do with my question?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
What does that have to do with my question?

Everyone remembers that. I remember that after the first Gulf War when they said that and it turned out to be a big fat lie.

Just because someone says something doesn't make it true. If they had been completely open with inspectors from day one fulfilling all requests then maybe their words would have meant something.

I remember North Korea saying "We don't have any nuclear weapons programs." And then low and behold they did. How about Libya? For years and years, "oh no not us". Then.... are you getting my drift?

Or how about. "Read my lips no new taxes." or "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman."

Should I go on?

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
Who's bluffing who now? Who's re-writing history and are the intelligence services going to be able to pull off the Emperor's new clothes trick?

if anybody's going to be legitimately maligned, it is NOT this administration. Who resigned under pressure for sexing-up? Not blair, but rather andrew gilligan.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
Everyone remembers that. I remember that after the first Gulf War when they said that and it turned out to be a big fat lie.

Just because someone says something doesn't make it true. If they had been completely open with inspectors from day one fulfilling all requests then maybe their words would have meant something.

I remember North Korea saying "We don't have any nuclear weapons programs." And then low and behold they did. How about Libya? For years and years, "oh no not us". Then.... are you getting my drift?

Or how about. "Read my lips no new taxes." or "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman."

Should I go on?

No, because you are either missing the point of my question or justing posting irrelvant information.

There is a lie doing the rounds that our intelligence services were fooled into thinking that Iraq had WMD because Saddam was bluffing that he did have them, even to the point where he deceived his own people. I want to see some basis for that claim.

The stuff you and Opie have posted here does not address that, it addressing justifying a belief in WMD despite Iraqi claims to the opposite. A different question and one I am not asking in this thread; we've done that one to death elsewhere.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
No, because you are either missing the point of my question or justing posting irrelvant information.

dude, I'm trying to tell you, you didn't ask a specific question, you're unclear as to what you want to discuss. And if you "whatever" me again, I'll accuse you of having a bad day.

Originally posted by fluff
Do you have sources for them claiming to the UN that WMD were still there in large amounts?

OMG you lazy pain in the butt... I will not once again post a link to stuff I've been posting all along.

But while we're on the topic of sources, you don't post too many, I have not seen one posted by you where Iraq claims to have no WMDs... so, do as you say... post a source. Or drop it.


But seriously, compose one complete sentence or request as to what you want to discuss, cuz you'll just frustrate yourself with everyone coming at you from different directions. And in your first post, you did indeed ask...

why was it that Bush and Blair (the latter particularly) had to work so hard to convince their peers that Saddam was lying when he said he had no WMD?

And I did answer it with what I thought was a reasonable response.


Stop having a bad day

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
There is a lie doing the rounds that our intelligence services were fooled into thinking that Iraq had WMD because Saddam was bluffing that he did have them, even to the point where he deceived his own people. I want to see some basis for that claim.

first off, when you start a paragraph with "there is a lie..." You don't really invite discussion since you've set your position so clearly.

second, N8 (finally) posted something useful. I too ignore his posts, but for G-d's sake man, at the top of the forum is an article that references spy pics of Iraq doing weird sh:t. Did ya look at it?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
first off, when you start a paragraph with "there is a lie..." You don't really invite discussion since you've set your position so clearly.

second, N8 (finally) posted something useful. I too ignore his posts, but for G-d's sake man, at the top of the forum is an article that references spy pics of Iraq doing weird sh:t. Did ya look at it?

And I'm having a bad day???

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
dude, I'm trying to tell you, you didn't ask a specific question, you're unclear as to what you want to discuss. And if you "whatever" me again, I'll accuse you of having a bad day.


OMG you lazy pain in the butt... I will not once again post a link to stuff I've been posting all along.

But while we're on the topic of sources, you don't post too many, I have not seen one posted by you where Iraq claims to have no WMDs... so, do as you say... post a source. Or drop it.


But seriously, compose one complete sentence or request as to what you want to discuss, cuz you'll just frustrate yourself with everyone coming at you from different directions. And in your first post, you did indeed ask...

And I did answer it with what I thought was a reasonable response.


Stop having a bad day

Here you go:

Link to CNN

And the question is, reduced to its bare bones just for you:

When did Saddam Hussein claim to have weapons of mass destruction after this point?

OK?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie

But seriously, compose one complete sentence or request as to what you want to discuss, cuz you'll just frustrate yourself with everyone coming at you from different directions.

I've looked for the incomplete ones without success. Can we quit the jibes?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
And the question is, reduced to its bare bones just for you:

thanks!

And thanks for the link.

Not to get picky, but...

Iraqi officials say the report proves Baghdad has no weapons of mass destruction. 8 dec 2002(Fluff's link)

...that's a bold face lie because 3 months later...

In 14 Feb 2003...

We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site. One-third of the quantity has already been destroyed. The laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, which we found at another site, has also been destroyed.

I grant you that the WMD (mustard gas) was kept by UNMOVIC and I'll admit that it's a bit of symantics, to say (above) that it's a bold face lie, but, well, it is, cuz WMDs existed. Therefore, Iraq's own interpretation of their own report is wrong.

Continuing from the same link,

How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? (A fair question posed by them and you today.) So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared (Wasn't declared?) and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

Then, a few weeks later in March...

While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision.

That seriously implies one of two things only... 1) That Iraqi Administration is filled with idiots -or- 2) They lied.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but it appears that Iraq claimed to have WMDs, they claimed they don't, they claim they do... they block efforts to determine the truth. Who cares... go kick their butts!

And this is just random inspection of a few documents that I looked at and I'm no one!


... I'm not going to comb the actual documents to prove to you that Iraq made the claims, in part cuz I don't have the actual documents, but you can see from the link above and you can do your own searches that Iraq did indeed make claims according various people including Hans Blix (from the link). Now, if you want to call the people doing the work liars, there ain't much to discuss then.


PS: I'm so totally done with this issue and will not be researching any more nor responding to this topic. Sorry man, I look forward to discussing other stuff with ya! I concede.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
thanks!

And thanks for the link.

Not to get picky, but...

...that's a bold face lie because 3 months later...

In 14 Feb 2003...
I grant you that the WMD (mustard gas) was kept by UNMOVIC and I'll admit that it's a bit of symantics, to say (above) that it's a bold face lie, but, well, it is, cuz WMDs existed. Therefore, Iraq's own interpretation of their own report is wrong.

Continuing from the same link,


Then, a few weeks later in March...

That seriously implies one of two things only... 1) That Iraqi Administration is filled with idiots -or- 2) They lied.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but it appears that Iraq claimed to have WMDs, they claimed they don't, they claim they do... they block efforts to determine the truth. Who cares... go kick their butts!

And this is just random inspection of a few documents that I looked at and I'm no one!


... I'm not going to comb the actual documents to prove to you that Iraq made the claims, in part cuz I don't have the actual documents, but you can see from the link above and you can do your own searches that Iraq did indeed make claims according various people including Hans Blix (from the link). Now, if you want to call the people doing the work liars, there ain't much to discuss then.


PS: I'm so totally done with this issue and will not be researching any more nor responding to this topic. Sorry man, I look forward to discussing other stuff with ya! I concede.

As you said, semantics. If the stuff was held by UNMOVIC it really wasn't in Iraqi hands was it? To claim that any of the other detail you post is of sufficient strength on which the intelligence serves could say 'Saddam bluffed us into believing he had WMD stockpiles' is asking a lot.

I am not denying that WMD did once exist and clearly the intelligence services looked at information with anti-Saddam tinted glasses. What I object to is the story being put out that it was inevitable that our intelligence services should be fooled because Saddam was busy making everybody believe that he had WMD when clearly Iraq was trying to convince the UN that they did not.

(And whether the Iraqi claims to have no WMD were true or not is not relevant to the question of "whether they were bluffing thatthey had them or not?")

As per this thread: Linky

And touched on here:Another linky

Is history going to be written that Saddam could have prevented the war if he had only stuffed bluffing that he still had WMD? Perhaps it will but it will not be the truth.

 

[DRB]

This is really pointless. Fluff you have your mind made up and want this to be about Bush and Blair's failure. PERIOD. Anything else will be discounted regardless of how on point it is.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
This is really pointless. Fluff you have your mind made up and want this to be about Bush and Blair's failure. PERIOD. Anything else will be discounted regardless of how on point it is.

Dude, what I'm trying to get at here has nothing to do with Bush and Blair. It seems that Opie and yourself are seeing a different question here to the one I'm trying to get across.

This doesn't even have anything to do with why we went to war, its more question of spin and just how much wool can be pulled over people's eyes.

If the intelligence was wrong it was wrong, end of story. Why do we need to believe was wrong becase Iraq wanted us to believe they had WMD? (Or why has that story come about?)

I'm having difficulty understanding why this is so hard to grasp.

This isn't me trying to push a political agenda.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
If the intelligence was wrong it was wrong, end of story. Why do we need to believe was wrong becase Iraq wanted us to believe they had WMD? (Or why has that story come about?)

Okay one more time......

There is a lie doing the rounds that our intelligence services were fooled into thinking that Iraq had WMD because Saddam was bluffing that he did have them, even to the point where he deceived his own people. I want to see some basis for that claim.

You have already classified the possibility of part of the failure being attributible to Iraqi bluffing as a lie, what's the point of going forward?

Much of the bluff aspect of this comes from David Kay's testimony. I'll give you the short version. Saddam had taken over the WMD program but had no real oversite into what was going on. The scientists involved would make up their activities and pocket the money. If in fact this is the case can you imagine what would have happened to these folks if they had been found out? I bet they did and did everything in their power to cover their tracks to avoid that.

The bluff wasn't so much one to the external world but one that had internally developed and made it much more difficult for the truth to come out. There were defectors that said these programs existed which it turns out that they "thought" these programs existed. Military commanders told investigators that they knew their units didn't have WMD but were sure others did. Especially when Saddam may have assumed that these programs were going on.

Think of Potemkin villages.

Of course there are also possibilities that Saddam and Iraq were bluffing the whole thing to keep an invasion from happening. The man was a sociopath who's actions have been pretty difficult to determine or second guess.

Of course all of this is a lie and will probably involve another "clarification" of the question you are asking.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
What I object to is the story being put out that it was inevitable that our intelligence services should be fooled because Saddam was busy making everybody believe that he had WMD when clearly Iraq was trying to convince the UN that they did not.

(I'm technically not posting or commenting because I'm just doing a N8 and copying and pasting... )

a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for".

 

[Sideways]

By KATHERINE PFLEGER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Intelligence analysts never told President Bush before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's rule posed an imminent threat, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday in a heated defense of agency findings central to the decision to go to war.
...

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
(I'm technically not posting or commenting because I'm just doing a BS and misquoting... )

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a post, which LordOpie provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 milligrammes of nerve-synapse were "unconnected".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Sideways
By KATHERINE PFLEGER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Intelligence analysts never told President Bush before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's rule posed an imminent threat, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday in a heated defense of agency findings central to the decision to go to war.
...

which is consistent with the president's comments in the SOTU address.

i thought you were anti-bush

 

[N8 v2.0]

I think this question needs to be asked; when the President said to the nation that "the mission was to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program," was the president lying?

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by N8
I think this question needs to be asked; when the President said to the nation that "the mission was to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program," was the president lying?

were his lips moving?

-proxy post by silver

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by $tinkle
which is consistent with the president's comments in the SOTU address.

i thought you were anti-bush

if the CIA didn't tell bush there was an imminent threat, yet bush thought so, that would imply that the thought originated within the gwb administration. in other words, that it was fabrication all along.

 

[MMike]

is this going to be like the iran-contra thing? who will be the next ollie north?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by Toshi
if the CIA didn't tell bush there was an imminent threat, yet bush thought so, that would imply that the thought originated within the gwb administration. in other words, that it was fabrication all along.

So.... was the President lying about Iraq's WMD program becoming an imminent when he said:

"...and so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years."


Should he be held accountable for the above statement?

 

[ummbikes]

This is a cross posted quote from ]HERE

Originally posted by N8
So, let me get this straight then.

You say "Yes, the President was lying to the American public and the World" with respect to the following two statements then?

1. When the President said to the nation that "the mission was to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program," was the president lying?

2. Was the President lying about Iraq's WMD program becoming an imminent when he said:

"And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years."


Should he be held accountable in some way?

1. Yes, the evidence as listed by me and others over the last year indicate that the WMD was only a constructed reason to invade.

2. Yes, the evidence indicates that prior to invasion that the WMD programs in Iraq were years or decades away from having a viable system.

3. Yes, he rallied hard for the invasion and may have been directly involved in fabrication of facts or if not directly involved his staff was. He is, as the saying goes, where the buck stops.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by ummbikes
2. Yes, the evidence indicates that prior to invasion that the WMD programs in Iraq were years or decades away from having a viable system.

I'll disagree completely with you there. They *did* have systems in place and running up until 1993-4? And the only reason their systems weren't running was because of the constant vigilance of the UN inspectors. If UN had stopped, I bet they'd be fully functional within six months.

EDIT: I do agree with you otherwise.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by ummbikes
This is a cross posted quote from ]HERE




1. Yes, the evidence as listed by me and others over the last year indicate that the WMD was only a constructed reason to invade.

2. Yes, the evidence indicates that prior to invasion that the WMD programs in Iraq were years or decades away from having a viable system.

3. Yes, he rallied hard for the invasion and may have been directly involved in fabrication of facts or if not directly involved his staff was. He is, as the saying goes, where the buck stops.

Cool... both quotes are from President Bill Clinton from a speech addressing the nation about military action he ordered towards Iraq. The action and speech is dated Dec 1998... at the height of the Monica Affiar...





Now, was it bad intel OR was the President attempting to divert attention way from his lying...???

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by N8
Cool... both quotes are from President Bill Clinton from a speech addressing the nation about military action he ordered towards Iraq. The action and speech is dated Dec 1998... at the height of the Monica Affiar...





Now, was it bad intel OR was the President attempting to divert attention way from his lying...???

Oh, so clever N8.


I'll bite though, in Clinton's case more Monica Fallout than probable threat.

Don't for a minute think I give a pass the Bush because of Clinton's faults, let us not forget Clinton was impeached.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Oh, so clever N8.


I'll bite though, in Clinton's case more Monica Fallout than probable threat.

Don't for a minute think I give a pass the Bush because of Clinton's faults, let us not forget Clinton was impeached.

No, but they both share the same intel gathering services.


However, you have shown your liberal hypocrisy on the matter.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by N8


However, you have shown your liberal hypocrisy on the matter.

Hey bitch, I have been as cordial as I can with you asshole. If you disagree with my analysis thats one thing but don't you dare question my integrity.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Hey bitch, I have been as cordial as I can with you asshole. If you disagree with my analysis thats one thing but don't you dare question my integrity.

Steady dude... no need for bad language and name calling is there?

Perhaps hypocrisy is a bit strong... maybe "blind hatred of President Bush" would be more applicible...???

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by N8
Steady dude... no need for bad language and name calling is there?

Perhaps hypocrisy is a bit strong... maybe "blind hatred of President Bush" would be more applicible...???

N8 you presented me a question. I said Clinton probabaly did what he did with Iraq because of Monica.

I didn't say it was okay.

I'm just going to slowly walk away muttering under my breath...

You obviosly have a hard-on for Bush which is fine.

I think he needs to be replaced, I have arguements and supporting evidence.


Choose to be critical of your leaders or bury your freaking head in the sand I don't care.

Just read what I wrote again and explain to me how I supported Clinton's spin on the issue.

I'm done with this with you.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by ummbikes
N8 ...

I'm done with this with you.

Do you like me better when I merely post newzie bits with little or no commentary? Cuz, I do like that MUCH better... all this typing sucks... and besides you got all mad and that's no good.

I vote for N8Newz...

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by N8
Do you like me better when I merely post newzie bits with little or no commentary? Cuz, I do like that MUCH better... all this typing sucks... and besides you got all mad and that's no good.

I vote for N8Newz...

Or you could just limit your posts to something *somewhat* useful and relevant?

Steady dude... no need for bad language and name calling is there?

You're not serious, are you? You call him a hypocrit and then say that? Don't try to make him look bad because now you're you're offending him a second time.