Read the entire report... It was based on info that was available when Bush MADE the decision.
And HINDSIGHT ???? One of the MOST compelling reasons was the supposed threat of nuclear prolifration produced by a nuclear plant built and funded by the US. They knew it to be inoperable. (Taiwaitha) The info from the infamous "Curveball" that claimed a purported purchase effort for Nigerian yellowcake was KNOWN to be wrong... It was a German source report and the Germans flat out told Bush TO HIS FACE that it was wrong (meanwhile sitting in a bunker untouched and verified by the Keys report were several TONS of US supplied yellow cake). Just a starter. Bring it on. But do make sure it is Empiracal and first hand, eyes ears and feet on the ground info, just as should have been done. On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:00 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > I pointed you to the conclusions as well... I will say further that > to judge if someone lied or was justified doing a particular course of > action using 20/20 hindsight is in the main a faithless line of > arguing... People in acting can not go into the future to know what > they do not know while deciding... > > On Feb 25, 4:10 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> My cherry picking is from the CONCLUSIONS drawn by a republican >> committee.....after they investigated ALL public and "secret" >> documentation and testimony. >> >> If I'm cherry picking itn is because I am in a Cherry Orchard.... you >> seem to be doing your cherry picking in a bean field. >> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:24 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > If and when I have time I will provide links and quotes FROM YOUR >> > Proof... Until then I will say you are cherry picking... >> >> > On Feb 24, 5:43 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The information provided to the Committee indicated that Iraq was >> >> renovating and expanding fixed dual-use facilities, was capable of >> >> producing biological warfare agents, and was engaged in research >> >> that was suitable for biological weapons. All of these activities were >> >> were dual-use, however. Therefore, all of the activity could have been >> >> related to legitimate, non-biological weapons activity. Few >> >> intelligence reports suggested specifically that the activity was >> >> relatedto biological weapons. The Intelligence Community also >> >> hadreporting which indicated that Iraq may have had a mobile >> >> biologicalweapons production capability, but most of that intelligence >> >> was obtained from a single HUMINT source to whom the >> >> IntelligenceCommunity never had direct access. >> >> >> So far it says that most intel was from a second hand never contacted >> >> and unidentified source. >> >> >> "However, the definitive statement that Iraq 'has' such facilities was >> >> not supported by the intelligence." >> >> >> NEXT !!!!!! >> >> >> delivery >> >> >> The majority position in the new NIE was also modified regarding the >> >> intent of the mapping software Iraq had been trying to procure. The >> >> new assessment stated that the software "could support programming of >> >> a UAV autopilot for operation in the United States."132 Even with the >> >> less conclusive assessment in this NIE, the DIA, the USAF, and the >> >> Army all interpreted "recent reporting to mean that the purpose of the >> >> Iraqi request for route planning software and topographic database was >> >> to acquire a generic mapping capability - a goal that is not >> >> necessarily indicative of an intent to target the U.S. >> >> Homeland."133(U) On March 3, 2003, CIA published an assessment of the >> >> threat from Iraqi UAVs. The assessment described the attempted mapping >> >> software purchase,noting that while the CIA could not exclude that >> >> this purchase was directed by Baghdad, "information acquired in >> >> October suggests that it may have been inadvertent on the part of the >> >> procurement agent. We are attempting to collect additional information >> >> regarding Iraq's intentions with this software. >> >> >> end meaning...they did not have the software. a year later can you say >> >> "google earth" which geographically maps the entire world giving to >> >> the public the supposedly secret information that would have been >> >> gathered... further in the years right after desert storm they did >> >> fire ONE missile that went further than the allowed 1500 km.... they >> >> destroyed these systems and were left with only the 600km missiles >> >> which were legal under the UN guidelines that the US chose to >> >> unilaterally ignore and invade. they did have more legal missiles than >> >> thought though. >> >> >> As far as what is and is not uncivil I am covered under the TOS from >> >> google that leaves that determination of language use up to the norms >> >> in the originating country.... I am NOT in Gringolandia and being >> >> "politically correct" here is taken as insincerity and akin to lying. >> >> If I see an unknown black man on the street and call for him I say >> >> "oy. Negro!!!" no offense was meant and none was taken... it was >> >> simply an identifier of who I was wanting to talk to and we talk. If I >> >> think you are or you are doing something stupid not to say so is >> >> disingenuous. >> >> >> jgg, If you are going to try to quote laws, rules and or more`s to me >> >> please be informed on the subject.... it makes you look the fool and I >> >> do not think you are so. >> >> >> On 2/24/09, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > I DID... They concluded did have delivery systems that were >> >> > banned... They concluded Saddam did hid some labs... They concluded >> >> > Saddam could restart a chemical WMD program within weeks by using dual >> >> > purpose manufacturing plants... All of which Saddam was obligated to >> >> > either destroy, or not have... I read the post war conclusions BIG >> >> > LETTERS and the develish small print in the conclusions... You might >> >> > try that Mark... >> >> >> > >>> To make it simple for you so that you do not have to suffer your >> >> > >>> own inadequacies.... >> >> >> > Now this Mark is an example of uncivil insults by the moderator who >> >> > post a warning to me for something far more civil.. >> >> >> > On Feb 24, 3:48 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > GAWD jgg, You have no idea on how to read a report. The precursors >> >> > > which you >> >> > > are quoting are part of the "evidence" that is to be admitted or not >> >> > > and if >> >> > > admitted (after checking source and giving weight accordingly) at a >> >> > > later >> >> > > stage in the report. >> >> >> > > To make it simple for you so that you do not have to suffer your own >> >> > > inadequacies..... >> >> >> > > Go to the parts that are in big letters at the end of each general >> >> > > section >> >> > > marked CONCLUSIONS. These are for the laymen. Then you will be more >> >> > > likely >> >> > > to be less confused with the universally used and accepted >> >> > > bureaucratic >> >> > > legalese. >> >> >> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:56 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > > Gawd Mark, how wrong you are... It is in your own proof.... >> >> >> > > > pgs 32-34 (undeclared precursors), p55 (dual manufacturing capacity >> >> > > > which was banned) Conclusion 8 (missiles) >> >> >> > > > The main problem you have here is refused to admit that by the UNSC >> >> > > > definitions of WMD (stockpiles, precursers, manufacturing capacity, >> >> > > > research, delivery systems, components thereof) Saddam had WMD... >> >> > > > Now you might argue that the degree he had them was insufficient for >> >> > > > invasion, but he in fact had them... Secondly you ignore the >> >> > > > reliance >> >> > > > by the leaders in both parties on faulty intel by all the major >> >> > > > intel >> >> > > > agency in both the Clinton and Bush years (and before).. Thirdly >> >> > > > your >> >> > > > ignore that Saddam refusal to provide full and unfettered access so >> >> > > > outside third party could not verify the facts which was required >> >> > > > due >> >> > > > to Saddam prior programs, use and lies concerning them prior to >> >> > > > 1996... >> >> >> > > > The Kay Report stated that Saddam was waiting for Sanctions to end >> >> > > > to >> >> > > > redo his WMD programs... >> >> >> > > > Your requirement of ONLY letting me use previously approved "proof" >> >> > > > is >> >> > > > another standard tactic to limit an honest and and civil debate >> >> > > > Mark... >> >> >> > > > On Feb 24, 10:30 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > Since public domain empiracal data ( >> >> > > >http://politicalforum.googlegroups.com/web/iraq.pdf?hl=en&gda=H27U8Do...) >> >> > > > > says and proves me correct your point is forfiet. >> >> >> > > > > I have seen NOTHING from you that bears up to any standard of >> >> > > > > proof. >> >> >> > > > > I will wait while you argue your Republican position with the >> >> > > > > Republican committee that authored the report mentioned above.... >> >> > > > > I >> >> > > > > will accept as proof of your position ANY and ALL info they did >> >> > > > > not >> >> > > > > have when forming the report as pertinent. Lacking that >> >> > > > > ........... >> >> > > > > your position goes by the way of all other emotional and second >> >> > > > > hand >> >> > > > > informed opinions.... >> >> >> > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:52 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> >> >> > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > > > To quote a poster on this board >> >> >> > > > > > "and not a single point countered... not a single question >> >> > > > > > answered" >> >> >> > > > > > You claimed "Saddam had no WMD" , "Saddam was no threat", and >> >> > > > > > the >> >> > > > > > "Saddam had no involvement with AQ"... All three conclusions >> >> > > > > > are >> >> > > > > > wrong... I made my counter arguments, you changed the topic... >> >> >> > > > > > Civil debate requires a number of things >> >> >> > > > > > 1) sufficiently respectful between debaters >> >> >> > > > > > 2) the debaters respond the points made by others with relevant >> >> > > > > > facts >> >> > > > > > and logic >> >> >> > > > > > 3) a willingness to accept there may be errors in your logic >> >> > > > > > and facts >> >> >> > > > > > On Feb 23, 5:50 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > >> If you want to gety that involved then we need to talk "blue >> >> > > > > >> jeans" >> >> > > > > >> and "music" and travel rights. >> >> >> > > > > >> Just how deep is your knowledge ?? >> >> >> > > > > >> On 2/23/09, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > > > >> > 1) Using the definition used by the UNSC, Saddam did have >> >> > > > > >> > WMD, >> >> > > > > >> > period... Do you know what they were? >> >> >> > > > > >> > 2) Saddam's Iraq, as described by the Kay Report was in fact >> >> > > > > >> > a >> >> > > > failing >> >> > > > > >> > state... That combined with the Saddam induced corruption >> >> > > > > >> > in the >> >> > > > UN, >> >> > > > > >> > Saddam's refusal to follow UN Resolution (and the UNSC >> >> > > > > >> > alowing it to >> >> > > > > >> > happen), the rise of stateless terrorism to deliver WMD, and >> >> > > > > >> > the >> >> > > > > >> > willingness ofr the failing state of Iraq to introduce WMD >> >> > > > > >> > in the >> >> > > > > >> > hands of stateless terrorists DID pose a threat to the US >> >> > > > > >> > and the >> >> > > > > >> > entire world order... That you refuse to even address this >> >> > > > > >> > point >> >> > > > is >> >> > > > > >> > telling -- you insist on seeing Saddam in a traditional >> >> > > > > >> > state to >> >> > > > state >> >> > > > > >> > conflict, when this was NOT about that... >> >> >> > > > > >> > 3) Bush went into Iraq to address the sytematic causes of >> >> > > > > >> > groups >> >> > > > like >> >> > > > > >> > AQ -- bad >> >> ... >> >> read more » > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
