AdD 1 #1 November 5, 2004 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld conceded Monday that U.S. intelligence was wrong in its conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and appeared to back off earlier statements suggesting former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda. "Why the intelligence proved wrong (on WMDs), I'm not in a position to say," Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "I simply don't know." When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two." But a short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement: "A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood. "I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq." (Rumsfeld statement) http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html _____________________________________ Finally he tells the truth, but apparently it was "misunderstood". Hmm, seems pretty clear to me he said he hadn't seen the evidence, I guess like the rest of America he just took Bush's word for it.Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #2 November 5, 2004 Old news. Anyways Rummy is likely to go soon, from what I gather.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #3 November 5, 2004 Nice timing on this admission. I wonder how long he has been willing to conceed on this point but the GW camp wouldn't let him. Therefore all of those bashings he took at the hands of the press was just so he could take one for the team; thus Kerry would have one less talking point on the election trail. Looks like Ashcroft and Rummy will be the scape goats for the war._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #4 November 5, 2004 QuoteI wonder how long he has been willing to conceed on this point but the GW camp wouldn't let him. The administration conceeded that a long time ago... old news. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #5 November 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteI wonder how long he has been willing to conceed on this point but the GW camp wouldn't let him. The administration conceeded that a long time ago... old news. J On the connection to AQ?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #6 November 5, 2004 Hey -- it doesn't matter. We're there now. Maybe next time we'll try to have some better intelligence before going to a war which ends up with tens of thousands of people dead, but, he was a really bad dude. How long would it have taken for those 10,000 people to die in Saddam Hussein's Iraq? How many of the now-insurgents/terrorists would have had trouble finding a place to release their violence, and ended up as petty criminals or just assholes intead of being full-blown insurgents, resistance fighters, and terrorists? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #7 November 5, 2004 QuoteOn the connection to AQ? With regard to 9/11, yes.All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #8 November 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteOn the connection to AQ? With regard to 9/11, yes. I don't remember Bush saying that._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #9 November 5, 2004 QuoteOn the connection to AQ? I don't know if Bush said it, but it has been said by others in the administration, to include Cheney. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #10 November 5, 2004 So what exactly is the new justification for the war right now? It's so hard to keep up... I guess we'll just have to keep liberating them till all their oil is gone.Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #11 November 5, 2004 QuoteSo what exactly is the new justification for the war right now? There is no "new" justification... we are there now and have an obligation to, and an interest in, returning the country to a level of stability where they can govern themselves. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SabreDave 0 #12 November 5, 2004 QuoteHey -- it doesn't matter. We're there now. Maybe next time we'll try to have some better intelligence before going to a war which ends up with tens of thousands of people dead, but, he was a really bad dude. reply] A bad dude helped into power by what country? Armed to the teeth by what country mainly? Encouraged to attack Iran by what country? Or how about Afghanistan? Does anybody remember when Bush was a supporter of the Taliban? Remember when millions were given to them for supporting opium poppy eradication? They were a US ally in the "War On Drugs" and were encouraged by the Bush administration even with their brutal and well known disgusting human rights record and treatment of women! Then there is the former CIA payroll boy-Osama..... but that's another story These clowns (Saddam/Osama) are both assholes that deserve a quick and timely meeting with Allah no doubt(is that a personal attack?) But what level of responsibility do the people who supported them at first and helped them to attain a level of power have? Any?SabreDave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SabreDave 0 #13 November 5, 2004 There is no "new" justification... we are there now and have an obligation to, and an interest in, returning the country to a level of stability where they can govern themselves. J Just a thought here but.......(I can feel the flames) does anyone else consider the fact that maybe, just maybe they are not capable of governing themselves? Some societies are not ready to embrace democracy, some outright don't want to. When you have thousands of years of tribalism and religous splintering and ongoing warfare because of it, maybe it can't be sorted out all nicey, nice democratically?!?! On another note.... With all the talk in this forum about God and Christians etc maybe it is time to consider what I believe to be true...........organized religion is poisonous. It has caused more war and killing than anything else in the history of man! An interesting quote by GWB, "I believe God wants me to be president." You will find that people like OSama, Al Zaqari(SP?), etc, etc also believe such utter fucking nonsense. God has no place in the justification for war or killing by anyone. Not the Muslims, not the Christians, NO ONE!! That fact GWB would say that insanely arrogant and dangerous thing was the real breaking point for me and alot of others in the world. He sounded no different than those pricks in Hamas, Al Aqsa(SP?) Martyrs Brigade, Al Qaeda etc............... Phewwww, I'm done...........for now. Have a nice daySabreDave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SabreDave 0 #13 November 5, 2004 There is no "new" justification... we are there now and have an obligation to, and an interest in, returning the country to a level of stability where they can govern themselves. J Just a thought here but.......(I can feel the flames) does anyone else consider the fact that maybe, just maybe they are not capable of governing themselves? Some societies are not ready to embrace democracy, some outright don't want to. When you have thousands of years of tribalism and religous splintering and ongoing warfare because of it, maybe it can't be sorted out all nicey, nice democratically?!?! On another note.... With all the talk in this forum about God and Christians etc maybe it is time to consider what I believe to be true...........organized religion is poisonous. It has caused more war and killing than anything else in the history of man! An interesting quote by GWB, "I believe God wants me to be president." You will find that people like OSama, Al Zaqari(SP?), etc, etc also believe such utter fucking nonsense. God has no place in the justification for war or killing by anyone. Not the Muslims, not the Christians, NO ONE!! That fact GWB would say that insanely arrogant and dangerous thing was the real breaking point for me and alot of others in the world. He sounded no different than those pricks in Hamas, Al Aqsa(SP?) Martyrs Brigade, Al Qaeda etc............... Phewwww, I'm done...........for now. Have a nice daySabreDave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #14 November 5, 2004 Quoteno different than those pricks in Hamas, Al Aqsa(SP?) Martyrs Brigade, Al Qaeda etc Except for the fact that he worked through the established system to get his poistion... not killing off his opponents. Quotejust maybe they are not capable of governing themselves? Prior to the rise of the Bathists (sp?) Iraq had one of the most progressive governments in the middle east... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #15 November 5, 2004 QuoteBut a short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement: "A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood. "I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq." (Rumsfeld statement) very cleverly worded. Bush did the same thing when he said "the reason I said there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda, is because there was a connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda." see the similarity?? What is going on here is that although they admit there was no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda, there were Al Quaeda connections in Iraq (Abu al Zarqawi). The fact that Saddam did not associate with those Al Quaeda connections is conveniently glossed over. They're not flipflopping, they're just doing some creative ommissions. The Bushies can be a lot more clever than you might think. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #16 November 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut a short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement: "A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood. "I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq." (Rumsfeld statement) very cleverly worded. Bush did the same thing when he said "the reason I said there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda, is because there was a connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda." see the similarity?? What is going on here is that although they admit there was no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda, there were Al Quaeda connections in Iraq (Abu al Zarqawi). The fact that Saddam did not associate with those Al Quaeda connections is conveniently glossed over. They're not flipflopping, they're just doing some creative ommissions. The Bushies can be a lot more clever than you might think. Just curious what you think would be the situation in Iraq today if Saddam was still in power? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #17 November 5, 2004 >Just curious what you think would be the situation in Iraq today if >Saddam was still in power? About the same, but with fewer terrorists, 10,000 more living Iraqis and 1000 fewer dead US soldiers. The argument most pro-war people use is that it will _eventually_ be better; time will tell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #18 November 5, 2004 and we'd be struggling with the enemy who hated us for WHO WE ARE, instead of all the new ones created by WHAT WE DO....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #19 November 5, 2004 Quote>Just curious what you think would be the situation in Iraq today if >Saddam was still in power? About the same, but with fewer terrorists, 10,000 more living Iraqis and 1000 fewer dead US soldiers. The argument most pro-war people use is that it will _eventually_ be better; time will tell. What do you think would happen to the U.N. Sanctions after Hans Blix declared no WMDs. Do you think the UN would have continued with them in light of what we now know about the violations in the Oil for Food scandal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #20 November 6, 2004 > Do you think the UN would have continued with them in light of what > we now know about the violations in the Oil for Food scandal? They would have likely changed form if Blix determined that Hussein was substantially complying with the WMD ban. They would not have gone away; heck, Halliburton made millions in illegal deals with Iraq and that didn't stop us from invading. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #21 November 6, 2004 Quote> Do you think the UN would have continued with them in light of what > we now know about the violations in the Oil for Food scandal? They would have likely changed form if Blix determined that Hussein was substantially complying with the WMD ban. They would not have gone away; heck, Halliburton made millions in illegal deals with Iraq and that didn't stop us from invading. How long do you think it would take until the sanctions were lifted entirely? They would have to end sometime. Do you think SH would force the Weapons Inspectors to leave once it was deemed he was in compliance with all UN Resolution? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #22 November 6, 2004 QuoteHalliburton made millions in illegal deals with Iraq and that didn't stop us from invading. And the same with France. And Russia. And lest we forget, the UN.... ... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #23 November 6, 2004 QuoteHalliburton made millions in illegal deals with Iraq and that didn't stop us from invading. When does Cheney go on trial for this? Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #24 November 6, 2004 >How long do you think it would take until the sanctions were lifted >entirely? Until Hussein was either our ally again or out of power. >Do you think SH would force the Weapons Inspectors to leave once >it was deemed he was in compliance with all UN Resolution? He would surely try. But as he failed to keep them out when we became determined, he would fail likewise at getting them to leave (unless we stopped caring, that is.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #25 November 6, 2004 -be a student of reality- take your own advice. learn."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
