What's more embarrassing than making a basic math error live on national TV? Making that error while smugly trying to highlight an error made by a regular target who was actually right in the first place. Such was the case on Friday night's Countdown show as MSNBC host Keith Olbermann tagged as "jawdropping" the contention on the Defense Department's Web site that, under Donald Rumsfeld's leadership, the U.S. military has "liberated more than 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq." As Olbermann read from the tribute to Rumsfeld, he pointed out that the site's listing of 31 million Afghans and 27 million Iraqis as benefitting from this liberation add up to 58 million instead of 50 million, as if this were some embarrassing mistake, even though the site had actually estimated the number as "more than" 50 million. Before previewing his latest "Special Comment" attack on President Bush scheduled for Monday, Olbermann concluded: "And neither calculation includes anybody who's not really liberated yet, like from sectarian violence. The Pentagon clearly much better at hyperbole than it is at math." (Transcript follows)
Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the Friday November 17 Countdown show. After having spent time criticizing President Bush's comments about what lessons might be learned from the Vietnam War about how to deal with Iraq, Olbermann continued:
Keith Olbermann: "Any jawdropping induced by the President's take on Vietnam history today possibly equaled if you take a gander at a new feature on the Pentagon Web site. With Defense Secretary Rumsfeld now a short-timer at the Department, he or at least his press office, hoping to tout all he has accomplished in six years at the Pentagon with a new Internet page titled appropriately enough, 'Six Years of Accomplishments with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.' Near the top of the list, a war on terror that has, quote, 'liberated more than 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq.' Breaking it down specifically, 31 million in Afghanistan and 27 million in Iraq, which should equal 58 million instead of the aforementioned 50. Heck, round it off, and it should at least read 60. And neither calculation includes anybody who's not really liberated yet, like from sectarian violence. The Pentagon clearly much better at hyperbole than it is at math.
Olbermann: "And this program advisory, Mr. Bush's trip to Vietnam continues throughout the weekend. Thus, there is plenty of time for him to amend or worsen his misunderstanding of the lessons for us there, a 'Special Comment' among a thousand other things urgently needed about Iraq is a special Vietnam history tutor for this President. That will be on Monday's edition of Countdown, 'Special Comment' 8pm and Midnight Eastern, 5 and 9 Pacific."
Comments Policy
By using my high tech calcula
November 18, 2006 - 01:34 ET by joe conservativeBy using my high tech calculator if you add 31 million people of Afhganistan plus 27 million in Iraq you get 58 million who are worse off thanks to the bungling efforts of Rumsfeld and Prez AWOL.
Troll."I would also say
November 18, 2006 - 01:40 ET by BlondeTroll.
Tony Blair has finally admitt
November 18, 2006 - 01:48 ET by joe conservativeTony Blair has finally admitted that the British intervention in Iraq has been a disaster. Its time for Bush to fess up with the truth.
Troll."I would also say
November 18, 2006 - 01:50 ET by BlondeTroll.
"Troll."Blonde,Not
November 18, 2006 - 05:09 ET by Indiana Joe"Troll."
Blonde,
Not merely le bon mot.....but le mot juste!
(correct usage / sp.? I defer to mademoiselle... )
"I can SHACK that troll in one word.".... "Then, SHACK THAT TROLL!!!"
ROTFLMAO!!! ..... ;^D
"Tony Blair has finally
November 18, 2006 - 12:08 ET by SMGalbraith"Tony Blair has finally admitted that the British intervention in Iraq has been a disaster"
Another example of the liberal bias in the press. Here's what Blair actually said.
During the interview with David Frost, Frost suggested that the West’s intervention in Iraq had “so far been pretty much of a disaster”.
Blair: “It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq? It’s not difficult because of some accident in planning, it’s difficult because there’s a deliberate strategy - al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."
Dollars to Olbermann's errors that KO will repeat the liberal "Blair said Iraq is a disaster" meme.
Blair
November 18, 2006 - 18:05 ET by pbthinkerGod, don't you just wish that George Bush could explain things so simply? Of course Olbermann couldn't quote Tony Blair, since any accurate quote would ruin his premise.
But Blair yesterday had to is
November 19, 2006 - 02:39 ET by joe conservativeBut Blair yesterday had to issue a correction. Now and then the truth manages to "slip" out of Blair or Prez AWOL.
joey the fake conservative liberal
November 19, 2006 - 03:11 ET by SportPoliticsThe correction : I said difficult due to warmongering terrorists.
Difficult due to actual terrorists is not the same as Olberic's bushy caused disaster where there is no terrorism, was no terrorism until bushy created the terrorism that isn't there because there is no relation to 911 or the war on terror in Iraq, which you cannot have since terror is a tactic anyway, so pulling out by redeploying is the new demolib election mandated strategy, because we have to get back to fighting the terrorists which we forgot about and left in Afghanistan, in the war on terror that can't be fought or won since it's a tactic that you cannot have a war against.
Take the blue or red pill it doesn't matter, in this world bluedogs and redpinko commies are the same thing.
Like when the truth slipped
November 19, 2006 - 12:10 ET by HypocriteHaterLike when the truth slipped out when Kerry said uneducated people would end up getting stuck in Iraq.
"Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong." - Ronald Reagan
9-11 was a disaster.Iraq is a
November 18, 2006 - 19:07 ET by NL2079-11 was a disaster.
Iraq is a war.
Blair is wrong, and so are you.
What you and the rest of these liberals are demanding is a retreat in the face of a fanatical enemy who will remain intact on the battlefield. This is folly.
Unless you are some old fart,
November 19, 2006 - 02:43 ET by joe conservativeUnless you are some old fart, why not join Bush's war on terror in Iraq?
Allow Al Qaeda to win this wa
November 19, 2006 - 03:15 ET by NL207Allow Al Qaeda to win this war in Iraq and every man, woman and child in America will have another opportunity to join this 'War on Terror' right here in America just as those who died and were traumatized on 9-11 did.
Did Fox News not cover NIE r
November 19, 2006 - 03:34 ET by joe conservativeDid Fox News not cover NIE report that concluded that terrorism has gotten worse because of the war in Iraq? Bush is sooo inspirational....for the terrorist
Nice Segue to avoid the pont
November 19, 2006 - 03:45 ET by NL207Nice Segue to avoid the pont you had to concede. Cut-and-run will only invite the Islamic Jihadists to America again. My point.
Why are you so concerned with what is in the 2006 NIE on Iraq? Your side claims that the several NIE on WMD in Iraq prior to 2004 were completely wrong. Why should any other document produced by such a failed organization get anything else right either? Or could it be you simply selectively filter you inputs to reject information that does not support your pre-conceived notions just as the NY Times selectively printed only those statements in the 2006 Iraq NIE that supported their pre-concieved opinions about the situation there.
Do you not agree with the NIE
November 19, 2006 - 03:58 ET by joe conservativeDo you not agree with the NIE report? Prez AWOL failure in Iraq has been match by his war on terrorism. The rest of the report will paint even a bleaker picture. I can hardly wait for its release.
How dense can you be? The NI
November 19, 2006 - 04:49 ET by NL207How dense can you be? The NIE summary, all 4 pages of it, was made public long ago. Do you not think those traitors at the New York Times would not have already published any more of it if those portions were hurtful to Bush?
The NIE summary also says these things:
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit.
The jihadists. greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution.an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari.a-based governance spanning the Muslim world
If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.
Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
Notice how much this document supports the Bush strategy to spread democratic institutions in these Muslim states? What is going on in Iraq right now? Just such an attempt.
God bless the New York Times.
November 19, 2006 - 05:08 ET by joe conservativeGod bless the New York Times. Like all other unflattering intelligence reports, Prez AWOL is dragging his feet on releasing more of the NIE papers. The excuse is the report is still in a rough draft state. If you believe that I have some WMD fresh from Iraq to sell you.
The 4 page summary is all tha
November 19, 2006 - 05:22 ET by NL207The 4 page summary is all that existed at the time the NY Times illegally published excerpts from it. It is all that ever existed. It is all the summary that ever will exist for 2006 on this subject. There is no more.
The contributing materials are voluminous, all secret, top secret and CSI. Release of these will compromise intelligence sources. The President and other national leadership, including the ranking members of the Intelligence committees of both chambers of Congress, never read those. They have aides that do that sort of thing. They all get the summary. That has been made public, all of it, already.
You lose again.
In Search of....
November 19, 2006 - 08:01 ET by SportPoliticsOf the approximately 200 former CW scientists—
about 60 of whom are considered key CW experts
from the Al Muthanna years—ISG attempted to
contact close to 150 to determine their activities
since 1991 and any efforts by the Regime to utilize
their skills for CW-related efforts.
identify initial location information for approximately
130 individuals, many of whom were not able to
contacted.
• Based on locations, employment, and availability,
ISG experts were able to speak to nearly 30 former
key-CW scientists, none of whom claimed to have
been involved in CW-related activities after 1991 or
to know any individuals suspected of involvement
in such work. EXCEPT ONE...
With the exception of one instance, when former
VX expert Imad Husayn Al-Ani...
___________________________________________
200 chem scientist, the ISG gets to talk to LESS than 30, leaving...
170+ UNACCOUNTED FOR.... with 8 months leading up to "certain invasion" for SADDAM to prepare the means of GETTING RID of evidence - including HUMAN SCIENTISTS.
Less than 30 of 200 the ISG talks to....LOL
Imagine that, NONE( oops! sorry picking up bad Duelfer report habit- saying NONE, but meaning ONE) of them admitted anything... well even SADDAM admits NO WRONG DOING in his YEARS LONG imprisonment and TRIAL- with day after day after day of hammering away...
{ Kinda creepy how 200 is 60 key- then attempting to talk to only 150, having then perhaps a place to look for 130, then "luckily!" of that 130, less than 30 ( but never saying how many less) " all very KEY" cw people, all of which say no no !!! - err- well except yeah there's one that doesn't, but.... }
It's CREEPING LIBERALISM....
" WE don't think that people can support the coalition because they're waiting for that cut n run thing that happened before to happen again..."
" Our less than 30 former CW scientists out of 200, whom we at least got a phonecall into once each, never admitted anything, and had no idea that anyone else was involved in any of the cw stuff, but ELSEWHERE in our report we claim we found the CW labs, that were cleaned, burned, sanitized, scrubbed and pretty much cleared of any smoking gun evidence, and we knew they were testing on humans and were planning on making 2 specific forms of mustard, and Sarin, but we had no real evidence of anything, and cannot draw any real conclusions, except to say we know he was ramping up the second he had a chance, and much of the evidence had been destroyed and shipped off before we got here, it was a systematic method of getting rid of it all...but remember, we haven't found anything...and noone is talking...
By the way, nothing is missing and we have no evidence they took things off to other places.Except of course the evidence of what was shipped off and sold to other countries when we caught it. So far, 32 former Iraq scientists have been murdered since Bush invaded."
LOL I tell ya man.
I hate to pat myself on the b
November 19, 2006 - 04:05 ET by joe conservativeI hate to pat myself on the back, but even before the war I knew there was no WMDs in Iraq. Democratic hearings in the Senate and the House next year will reveal that Prez AWOL knew this to be true too.
Don't pat yourself too hard n
November 19, 2006 - 04:25 ET by NL207Don't pat yourself too hard now.
1. Both Clintons, Kerry, the UN and every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD. Even Saddam's own generals thought they had them. Why do you suppose Saddam's generals thouht they had WMD?
2. Subsequent to Sept. 2003, many WMD were found in Iraq.
You lose.
The upcoming partisan witch hunts the Democrats are planning to conduct will 'prove' nothing except how little wil the left has to oppose the obvious evil that Islamofascism represents.
Do you not remember that ther
November 19, 2006 - 04:49 ET by joe conservativeDo you not remember that there were qualified weapon inspectors on the ground in Iraq before the war? DOING THEIR JOB. But Prez AWOL had to prove he was a “War President” went to war anyway. BTW Bush own chief weapon inspector David Kay in his report concluded NO WMD IN IRAQ.
Simple logic here. WMD were
November 19, 2006 - 05:01 ET by NL207Simple logic here. WMD were found after Sept 2003 in Iraq. David Kay says there were no WMD in Iraq. Therefore David Kay was wrong.
There were also THESE WMD found outside Iraq after Sept 2003. I wonder where they might have come from?
The existence proof of actual recovered weapons in hand dictates that your beliefs and the statements of all these 'no WMD in Iraq' experts are simply false. If there really and truly were no WMD, then there ought to be NO WMD, wouldn't you think?
Please name your source mater
November 19, 2006 - 05:12 ET by joe conservativePlease name your source material for the WMD claim. I bet its written in crayon.
Already posted in the links
November 19, 2006 - 05:25 ET by NL207Already posted in the links you obviously haven't read. One WMD munition in hand equals one ton of left wing bulls*** that it didn't exist.
David Kay report joe conservative
November 19, 2006 - 05:29 ET by SportPoliticsDavid Kay report joe conservative, you know, the one that declares nothing according to you ? See the pretty picture of 57 bioweapons vials ?
I knew that you could.
______________________________
What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts. For example,
I would now like to review our efforts in each of the major lines of enquiry that ISG has pursued during this initial phase of its work.
With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.
David Kay has said a lot of things joecon
November 19, 2006 - 05:25 ET by SportPoliticsDavid Kay has said a lot of things joecon, and many are different over many years. One of note was " we don't know what shipped out in the 400 trucks into Syria, the Bekka Vallley. We cannot see into them with satellites, could not interdict, and Syria won't tell us."
Another" You should invest in a digging or mining firm in Iraq, we won't know for 100 years everything that Saddam has buried in the sand".
What is obvious, is that the UN and every talking head has an easier time of it if they just cave to "world opinion", even as it is outright lying. It just easier, all the way around, to no longer hear the rabid screams of the hate Bush kookballs. Of course it doesn't completely silence them, but it lowers the number of death threats and cursing emails and calls from a thousand liberal inspired congressional hearings, "go over the propaganda" in minute detail, in the hopes that " the so long sought after and fantaically desired and pushed for single sentence of words can be issued in a moment of weakness ", after demanding an answer for the thousandth time.
Much the same has occurred now with Tony Blair's interview on I hear David Frost's show. A "kind of " so "it would seem" phrase that "characterized" toward such a "fashion or form" wasn't "vehemently denied" immediately in the answer, and therefore ...
BECAME THE BIG SUPERHIT ADMISSION THE DEMOLIBS AND INDEED THE ENTIRE LIVING HUMAN RACE HAD BEEN TRYING TO PRODUCE WITH THOUSANDS OF SIMILAR INQUIRIES OVER YEARS OF TIME.
Of course, the fact that immediate vehement denial was NOT instantly included in the first TWO WORDS of the reply ( blair to frost) that confirm the leftists AMBITION FOR ADMISSION PLAYED ATOP THE TREES AND HOMES AND AT THE HIGHEST PITCH OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA... means everything and enough that three hundred thousand other words can be entirely ignored....
I mean that's just it isn't it. Same thing with Bush and his entire administration. You liberals and your media cohorts ignore tens of thousands of words in questions answered thousands of times, and pick out of that huge pile, the one or two that you can find that " make them out to be the liars you say they are ".
What is amazing to me is, when I go check your one or two " convicting phrases " , they always have a sort of twisted out of character context and lack the surrounding sentences and fail to issue direct opposites in the same exact interview.
Liberals, and their media hyper insane machine work on dispensing lies and distortions, that they eventually "create" by demanding a thousand times the answer to the same question, often worded as a hostile statement designed to make the respondent comply with the declared pre-concieved false notion.
That's who and what you liberals are. That's what you've become, that's how you operate.
You're so far gone in your own lying charades that completely bugging out of Iraq after demanding the troops get the heck out because it's a failed civil war and bush blew it all, you have the insanity to demand we all agree that you really mean "redeploy", and if in fact we dummies knew what "redeploy" means, we wouldn't be so confused by your plan, which we haphazardously and incorrectly characterized.
I mean, you liberals are lunatic gasbag liars, and there really isn't any way around it. I guess you retardolibs are just buzzed up and emotionally run and charged and braindead enough that if you get the word " disaster" or "quagmire" or "redeploy" CONFIRMED somehow by some sort of one word "win", that's all you really care about.
Libs : " We won the frmaing debate - our new dmeocrat strategy we've has since that looney lib at the college, our professor god wrote that book about framing the debate for us, to tell us why we were such losers. Well, we won the one or two word framing battle ! "
" quagmire"
"redeploy"
"civil war"
" can't fight a tactic"
"mission accomplished"
you shill for the Left
November 19, 2006 - 13:16 ET by tumblerfor a "conservative joe" don't you consistently shill for Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, et al? It's not that you haven't got all your little ducks in a row. It's that all your rubber ducks are Democrat talking punts, coming from Michael Moore and George Soros. How much does Soros pay stooges like you, joe?
I'm reminded now, of an old Sinatra song; it suits you perfectly: "Don't Cry Joe".
God are guys still arguing ab
November 19, 2006 - 13:24 ET by OttoGod are guys still arguing about WMD. They aint found any. There never were any. Iraq is a disaster, even big Daddy Henry went public and admitted it this morning, there is no victory in Iraq. Our guys are just going to stick around to provide target practice and like the over 2800 so far die for nothing. The American people have figured this out and they want out.
WMD never showed up
November 19, 2006 - 13:44 ET by tumblerWe all know the weapons never showed up in Iraq. But we had to cover that interesting possibility, or else risk mass destruction and deathe in our homeland. The risk was too great. If you doubt it, you're just an imbecile, Otto.
An imbecile thinks like so------>>>
"Our guys are just going to stick around to provide target practice and like the over 2800 so far die for nothing."
First, don't say they're "our guys"-- because YOU don't have any respect for them, NONE. Admit this, before coming here to make an ass of yourself.
Secondly, our MEN and women in uniform aren't anywhere to be "targets"-- They are there to FIGHT. It's a huge difference to "die for nothing" and to FIGHT for our country. This is a fine point IMBECILES and PUNKS never seem to notice. All they think of is, wha hoppened to WMD?? No WMD!!! I hereby declare VICTORY over all imbeciles!
In GOP controlled Senate,
November 19, 2006 - 04:56 ET by joe conservativeIn GOP controlled Senate, Roberts has stonewalled investigation after investigation and ceded the ability of congress to exercise oversight. Why has no reporter asked him what happened to phase II of the WMD investigation?
"Why has no reporter ask
November 19, 2006 - 05:07 ET by NL207"Why has no reporter asked him what happened to phase II of the WMD investigation"
First of all, you don't have any basis for knowledge as to what reporters have or have not asked Senator Roberts. More correctly, no reporter has filed a published story about this. Maybe because there is no story there they care to report? Since the press is rabidly anti-Bush, that isn't going to help your argument.
Roberts has been sitting on t
November 19, 2006 - 05:22 ET by joe conservativeRoberts has been sitting on the Phase II of Intelligence Report for over three years of broken promises.
Then there ought to be a veri
November 19, 2006 - 05:32 ET by NL207Then there ought to be a veritable ant hill of stories from the New York Times and other liberal papers about this and there hasn't been a one, now has there. Which means you are full of balogna again.
I am going to be generous here. I am going to assume you are just an ignoramus, and not a lying bastard. Maybe you should do a littlle research for once. If you did, you might find this: Links to Iraq Intelligence Phase II Reports
So what is it Senator Roberts has been sitting on? It sure as H*** isn't the phase II report.
lol- joecon ghostwisps away NL207
November 19, 2006 - 08:42 ET by SportPoliticslol- joecon ghostwisps away...
Danger, danger, joe liberal self-esteem issues erupting, evacuate errored area, evacuate, evacuate... not safe
Still waiting on your source.
November 19, 2006 - 05:25 ET by joe conservativeStill waiting on your source.
Learn how to 'click' on the h
November 19, 2006 - 05:39 ET by NL207Learn how to 'click' on the hyperlinks to find sources. Unlike you, I have referenced numerous sources. You have referenced nary a one. We have nothing but your rhetoric by which to appreciate your argument.
You do realize you look really stupid now. You've had your dismal little rear end sawed off, taxidermied, mounted on a plaque, and handed to you for hanging on the wall and you are still smarting off.
Information that doesn't fit
November 19, 2006 - 05:53 ET by Andrew H.Information that doesn't fit the agenda is too hard to understand so they move on. The portable labs, the sairn gas cylinders, and long range ballistics are but a mirage. He still said they were better off before being given freedom. He still maintains I suppose, the Taliban and Husseins were better. Sick puppy among many sick pussies.
Never relent.
"The portable labs, the
November 19, 2006 - 06:02 ET by joe conservative"The portable labs, the sairn gas cylinders, and long range ballistics are but a mirage." Yes they were a mirage manufactured by Prez AWOL.
"Yes they were a mirage
November 19, 2006 - 06:08 ET by Andrew H."Yes they were a mirage manufactured by Prez AWOL." = honest debate.
Never relent.
PORTABLE LABS AND SARIN AND MISSILES
November 19, 2006 - 07:13 ET by SportPoliticsDUELFER REPORT page 6:
ISG has no evidence that IIS Directorate of Criminology (M16) scientists were producing CW or BW agents
in these laboratories. However, sources indicate that M16 was planning to produce several CW agents
including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin.
• Exploitations of IIS laboratories, safe houses, and disposal sites revealed no evidence of CW-related research
or production, however many of these sites were either sanitized by the Regime or looted prior to OIF. Interviews tokey IIS officials within and outside of M16 yielded very little information about the IIS’ activities
in this area.
• The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories were never declared to the UN.
• The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.
LOL - In other words, they have "no evidence", because it was destroyed, but they did find out that they were going to make chemical weapons and they know WHAT they were planning on making, mustards AND SARIN. They also know this stuff was tested on human subjects, unable to testify because they're DEAD.
The interrogations of the IIS chem weapons makers "yielded very little information" ( THEY DESTROYED AND BURNED UP THE LABS AND TEST SUBJECTS WERE DEAD), so the IIS Saddam henchmen never said anything, or "revealed very little" since it was destroyed. LOL
DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
ps - These laboratories were never declared to exist to IAEA UNIMOVEC BOMVIC UNSCOM or the UN.
DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Duelfer report notes that &qu
November 19, 2006 - 07:26 ET by joe conservativeDuelfer report notes that "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability -- which was essentially destroyed in 1991 -- after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized" and that Iraq "had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam."
How do you explain the fact h
November 19, 2006 - 07:30 ET by ChemicalOperatorHow do you explain the fact he had chemical weapon labs, and a limited quanitity of banned chemical weapons?
Do they not count because he didnt have a written policy?
DNC presidential candidate for 2008, "Brave Sir Robin"
What joecon means ChemOp
November 19, 2006 - 08:58 ET by SportPoliticsWhat joecon means ChemOp:
ISG D. didn't find the burned up and destroyed harddrives data, since it was unrecoverable, and of the 30 million documents not yet translated, they declare them all moot preemtively and containing no plan. Futhermore, since only less than 30 of at least 200 scientists could even be found to have a talk to at all, no "identifiable group" is around either, all with the same pretty labelled lab coats or something.
Some chem labs is none. Some wmd is none. Some missing is none gone. Much systematically destroyed and covered up and yet to be found is none. 30 million documents not read or looked at yet is no written plan. 100's of tons of dual use wmd lab equipment found sold in other nations post invasion is none. Key scientists murdered so they couldn't talk is no evidence. Unable to travel about is thorough searching. "Unmarked" meaning "not obvious violations clearly posted for inspectors easy eyeballing" chemical munitions is no chem munitions at all.
LOL - That's what they mean ! That's it man !
Saddams plan
November 19, 2006 - 07:53 ET by SportPoliticsSaddams plan joecon, no different than the demolibs, huh.
Duelfer report
In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted. All sources suggest that Saddam encouraged compartmentalization and would have discussed something as sensitive as WMD with as few people as possible.
Reports of an unexplained discovery of VX traces
on missile warhead fragments in April 1997 led to
further tension between UNSCOM and Iraq. The
uneasy relationship escalated with the discovery of
the ‘Air Force Document’ (see RSI chapter) in July
1998, which indicated further Iraqi deception and
obfuscation over its CW disclosures.
infrastructure to be developed. The lack of effective
monitoring emboldened Saddam and his illicit
procurement activities.
Concurrently, Iraq continued to upgrade its indigenous
manufacturing capability, pursuing glasslining
technology and manufacturing its own
multipurpose controllers.
ISG believes that two of Saddam’s primary goals
after the war were to recover economically from war
damage and to retain Iraq’s capability to reconstitute
its WMD program after sanctions were lifted or
became ineffectual, inspections were removed, and
the threat of force abated.
SO JOE, NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT IT, YOU LOSE ON CW.
It's not in crayon joeCON
November 19, 2006 - 06:05 ET by Sua Sponte 75I know this is not written in crayon for you, and it has it's fair share of words with more than two syllables, but I believe you will get the point, probably not but I'm still throwing it out there.
Now it's awfully strange that prior to this administration everyone was more than willing to conduct combat operations against Iraq over it's WMD stockpile and programs. Now how and why would anyone want to conduct pre-emptive strikes on a country that does not have any or are seeking to develop them? So the lie goes back to just after the First Gulf War?
Let's take a look shall we? (HT Free Stinker & Chris Donohoe for helping out with this)
1. Saddam was known to have WMD and used it in at least 3 separate situations.
2. There is a long list of WMD, delivery systems, and banned conventional weapons found in Iraq
3. Saddam Hussein had a History of Aggression, attacking 5 other nations.
4. Terrorists have been found in Iraq & there were numerous associations between Iraq & terrorists
5. Other Casus Belli
On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..." February 17, 1998, Bill Clinton: "Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan." Here are just some of the things this defection forced Iraq to admit, as cited by Clinton: "[A]n offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs.
In President Bush's January 28, 2003 State of the Union he specifically cited the information gathered by the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and Bill Clinton as a basis for his conclusion that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction.
Headline: Clinton Demands Total Access for U.N. Arms Inspectors
Subheadline: Source: Annan expected to make Baghdad trip
Date: February 17, 1998
Source: CNN
The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:
5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs
Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world."
Headline: Clinton Speech: Iraq has Abused its Last Chance
Date: December 16, 1998
Source: CNN
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
A letter from the Senate Committee on Armed Services to President Bill Clinton on October 9, 1998. It reminds the president of the February resolution authorizing military force if Saddam failed to comply with UN Security Council resolutions "concerning the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
The letter concludes: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Signed by following Senate Democrats: Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry.
Headline: Iraq Survey Chief Duelfer: Saddam Was Developing Nukes
Source: NewsMax
Byline: Carl Limbacher and Staff
Dateline: Thursday, August 5, 2004
The former U.N. weapons inspector, who replaced David Kay as head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group last year, said that Saddam was financing his nuclear program by misappropriating funds from the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program.
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn't vote for me."
Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
I don't even know where to st
November 19, 2006 - 06:59 ET by joe conservativeI don't even know where to start.
· S. Hussein used Chemical weapons Against Iran, Done with the backing of the Reagan admistration
· S. Hussein used Chemical weapons vs. the Kurds. Reagan admistration did nothing
· Any source like Newsmaz or Worldnet Daily are shrills for the GOP.
· Sarin & Mustard Gas Outdated. Were Weapons of Mild Discomfort
· WMD hidden in Syria Why does the MSM cover up this story
· Iraqi commander confirms Iraq had WMD SO where are they?
· MiGs found buried in the sand SO What?[BBC]
· Banned Missiles found. Had very limited range
· Still More Banned Weapons found [WorldNet Daily] Bull Sh*t
· Still More Banned Weapons found (part 2) Bull Sh*t part 2·
· Unexamined Bunkers that may contain WMD [NY Sun] May Contain?
· UN Inspectors think WMD moved to Syria[World Tribune]Show me the proof
· WMD Moved to Syria/Lebanon [WorldNet Daily] Thanks for yuks
· Suspected ties between Saddam and the 2001 Anthrax ‘Attacks’ That is a first.
I
·
"Banned Missiles found.
November 19, 2006 - 07:08 ET by ChemicalOperator"Banned Missiles found. Had very limited range"
They are BANNED. The range doesnt matter, thats like saying stealing is alright as long as its not a lot of money.
"S. Hussein used Chemical weapons Against Iran, Done with the backing of the Reagan admistration
· S. Hussein used Chemical weapons vs. the Kurds. Reagan admistration did nothing"
The point is he used the weapons. And its time for you to pony up the source of your "Done with the backing of the Reagan adminstration". Where is the proof?
"Sarin & Mustard Gas Outdated. Were Weapons of Mild Discomfort"
You tell that to the people they are used on. There are a reason they are banned.
Hurry, get back to your liberal talking points and then post again, maybe it will work better this time.
Saddam had WMD's and used them. They may not have been nuke's, but they were WMD's none the less.
DNC presidential candidate for 2008, "Brave Sir Robin"
When Iraq use gas against Ira
November 19, 2006 - 07:17 ET by joe conservativeWhen Iraq use gas against Iran back in the early eighties. The Democratic congress tried to pass sanctions against Iraq only to be squashed by the Reagan administration.
Still didnt provide any facts
November 19, 2006 - 07:22 ET by ChemicalOperatorStill didnt provide any facts or links.
Even so what is your point? What does Reagan have to do with Iraq using gas on Iran? He still used it.
You can try to deflect attention from that issue as much as you want, but Saddam had WMD's and used them. Bottom line.
DNC presidential candidate for 2008, "Brave Sir Robin"