kallend 2,129 #1 February 4, 2004 Haven't had one for a while: politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1140460,00.html Doesn't this get interesting? "A prominent Israeli MP said yesterday that his country's intelligence services knew claims that Saddam Hussein was capable of swiftly launching weapons of mass destruction were wrong but withheld the information from Washington. "It was known in Israel that the story that weapons of mass destruction could be activated in 45 minutes was an old wives' tale," Yossi Sarid, a member of the foreign affairs and defence committee which is investigating the quality of Israeli intelligence on Iraq, told the Associated Press yesterday. "Israel didn't want to spoil President Bush's scenario, and it should have," he said. Another member of the committee, Ehud Yatom, said Israel had told the Americans it believed the weapons existed but had not seen them. On Sunday, the former UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, told Y-Net, an Israeli newswire, that the Israeli intelligence services reached the conclusion years ago that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction. "In the end, if the Israeli intelligence knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, so the CIA knew it and thus British intelligence too" he said."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #2 February 4, 2004 The Indendent has a few stories today. http://www.independent.co.uk David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #3 February 4, 2004 Isn't it nice when the story fits your beliefs?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #4 February 4, 2004 Better than when you tell a story and it turns out to be false **cough** bush **cough** Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,129 #5 February 4, 2004 QuoteIsn't it nice when the story fits your beliefs? Try this one then. www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/04/1075853937887.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #6 February 4, 2004 Did Bush or anyone else in the US administration ever use the 45 minute claim? I rememer Tony Blair using it and it being thrown around in the UK press. Today's Independent has a story from one of the UK's intelligence analysts that is interesting reading. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #7 February 4, 2004 Bush used the 40 minute claim in his State of the Union address, IIRC. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #8 February 4, 2004 Quote"In the end, if the Israeli intelligence knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, so the CIA knew it and thus British intelligence too" he said." thats not true. the mossad is the very best in the world at the dirty gme of cloak and dagger. the brits and americans should never be comparedwww.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,129 #9 February 4, 2004 QuoteBush used the 40 minute claim in his State of the Union address, IIRC. _Am Nope. But Bush did say this (from www.whitehouse.gov) in Oct 2002: "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." And Ari Fleischer used the 45 minute lie in a press briefing on Sept. 24 2002 (also to be found on www.whitehouse.gov).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,129 #10 February 4, 2004 QuoteQuote"In the end, if the Israeli intelligence knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, so the CIA knew it and thus British intelligence too" he said." thats not true. the mossad is the very best in the world at the dirty gme of cloak and dagger. the brits and americans should never be compared Good to hear that you know more than Scott Ritter. I *suspect* he's referring to intelligence sharing. To all the apologists: which really seems most likely to you, that the CIA, NSA, and all the other acronyms were hopelessly inept, or that the politicians cherry picked and spun the information for their own purposes?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #11 February 4, 2004 Is this proof enough that the world is right in calling BS ? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScubaSteve 0 #12 February 4, 2004 I think we are looking at things all wrong. The WMDs were there maybe in the early 90s. iraq was to disoise of the WMDs and WMD programmes. Iraq provided no paper trail or evidence of their destruction. The burden of proff was on Iraq. Somehow the left used to media to spin thia into a GW thing, when this was clearly a problem for the previous two administrations. I was hoping that we would find the missing materials and weapons in Iraq. For the sake of finding them before they find inocent people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #13 February 4, 2004 have you ever considered that isreal and iraq were arch enemies thus giving isreal motive for wanting to see the US annihalate Iraq and not sharing said intelligence? And no I never said I supported what we've done to Iraq. You simply have not convinced me that your opinion is the right one. You have yet to provide any evidence that isn't circumstantial to prove that the GWB administration knew without a doubt that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Now that said...if my inability to jump to conclusions makes me an apologist. so be it.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #14 February 4, 2004 What is telling about the Israelis is their choice to do nothing. We know that if the Israelis feel they are being threatened that they will take decisive action. They did it when they took out Saddam's early nuclear ambitions and they would have done it again if he posed a real threat. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #15 February 4, 2004 QuoteIraq provided no paper trail or evidence of their destruction Paper trail? How about a paper room?? Iraq provided piles and piles of information pertaining to their weapons programs. All of which was deemed unsatisfactory by the U.S. QuoteThe burden of proff was on Iraq. There is no 'proff' that would have made him happy. Let us not forget the UN inspectors who conclusively found nothing... Who argued with the Bush administration that there was NOTHING. What do you suppose was in their best interest? The safety of innocent people or the protection of Saddams stockpiles of WMD? Unfortunately, the UN inspectors are the ones who fell victims of the spin as their efforts became the butt of many an American Joke. It is the burden of the U.S. war maching that is upon Iraq... not proof. QuoteSomehow the left used to media to spin thia into a GW thing GW just happens to be the leader of the U.S. nation. He also just happens to be the one who made the decision to invade. Nobody spun this into a GW thing... he did that all on his own. He's the one who goes into the 'axis of evil' crap anytime someone takes a harder then agreed upon line of questioning concerning his motives. He's the one with no explanation for his actions. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,129 #16 February 4, 2004 Quotehave you ever considered that isreal and iraq were arch enemies thus giving isreal motive for wanting to see the US annihalate Iraq and not sharing said intelligence? And no I never said I supported what we've done to Iraq. You simply have not convinced me that your opinion is the right one. You have yet to provide any evidence that isn't circumstantial to prove that the GWB administration knew without a doubt that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Now that said...if my inability to jump to conclusions makes me an apologist. so be it. "The Buck Stops Here", notice on President Truman's desk. Unfortunately the notice can no longer be found.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
