After the end of the first gulf war and the inspectors were sent to look for
Sadaam's banned weapons, do any of you Bush bashers remember how it was they
were found?

Hint: It was not because they discovered them on their own.

How do you explain this one:

"On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News
interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in
the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north
somewhat."

In comments Sept. 10 before the National Press Club, Rumsfeld conceded
that he may have overreached. "I said, 'We know they're in that area,"
Rumsfeld said. "I should have said, 'I believe we're in that area. Our
intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and that was our best
judgment."

http://truthout.org/docs_03/111103I.shtml

Hint: he was lying.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
m...
How do you explain this one:

"On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News
interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in
the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north
somewhat."

In comments Sept. 10 before the National Press Club, Rumsfeld conceded
that he may have overreached. "I said, 'We know they're in that area,"
Rumsfeld said. "I should have said, 'I believe we're in that area. Our
intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and that was our best
judgment."

http://truthout.org/docs_03/111103I.shtml

Hint: he was lying.

I don't think so, I think they were relying on the information that they had
at the time.

In the first Gulf war they found nothing until an Iraqi Genera; defected and
told them where to look.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
m
How do you explain this one:

"On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News
interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in
the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north
somewhat."

In comments Sept. 10 before the National Press Club, Rumsfeld conceded
that he may have overreached. "I said, 'We know they're in that area,"
Rumsfeld said. "I should have said, 'I believe we're in that area. Our
intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and that was our best
judgment."

http://truthout.org/docs_03/111103I.shtml

Hint: he was lying.

Hint, Jacob Kramer thinks that he can read other people's minds. At this
point it appears that Rumsfeld was wrong. But without presuming omniscience
on his part, we don't know the he knew he was wrong.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
m

How do you explain this one:

"On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News
interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in
the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north
somewhat."

In comments Sept. 10 before the National Press Club, Rumsfeld conceded
that he may have overreached. "I said, 'We know they're in that area,"
Rumsfeld said. "I should have said, 'I believe we're in that area. Our
intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and that was our best
judgment."

http://truthout.org/docs_03/111103I.shtml

Hint: he was lying.


Hint, Jacob Kramer thinks that he can read other people's minds. At this
point it appears that Rumsfeld was wrong. But without presuming omniscience
on his part, we don't know the he knew he was wrong.


Arnold, in the absolute you are right.
*But* if you authorize me to speculate I think there is 99.999% chances
that he knew he was wrong, and you know that... So he was lying. ;-)
Most of people knows, has understood now, that WMD was only a pretext to
enter in Iraq. I'm sure you aren't so naive and that you perfectly know
that all this Holywood show was orchestrated for the mass-media.

Please don't give absolution to the devil.

"Lionel" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
m

How do you explain this one:

"On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News
interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in
the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north
somewhat."

In comments Sept. 10 before the National Press Club, Rumsfeld
conceded that he may have overreached. "I said, 'We know they're in
that area," Rumsfeld said. "I should have said, 'I believe we're in
that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and
that was our best judgment."

http://truthout.org/docs_03/111103I.shtml

Hint: he was lying.

Hint, Jacob Kramer thinks that he can read other people's minds. At
this point it appears that Rumsfeld was wrong. But without presuming
omniscience on his part, we don't know the he knew he was wrong.

Arnold, in the absolute you are right.
*But* if you authorize me to speculate I think there is 99.999%
chances that he knew he was wrong, and you know that... So he was
lying. ;-)

You surely don't need my authorization to speculate.

;-)

Most of people knows, has understood now, that WMD was
only a pretext to enter in Iraq. I'm sure you aren't so naive and
that you perfectly know that all this Holywood show was orchestrated
for the mass-media.

Frankly, if the WMD fiasco was orchestrated, I would sincerely hope that the
parties involved would have done a better job!

Please don't give absolution to the devil.

There is no single devil in this story. None of them deserve absolution. By
picking on one of them or a small groups of them, people are tacitly giving
the rest a pass.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
.com


How do you explain this one:

"On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News
interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in
the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north
somewhat."

In comments Sept. 10 before the National Press Club, Rumsfeld
conceded that he may have overreached. "I said, 'We know they're in
that area," Rumsfeld said. "I should have said, 'I believe we're in
that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and
that was our best judgment."

http://truthout.org/docs_03/111103I.shtml

Hint: he was lying.


Hint, Jacob Kramer thinks that he can read other people's minds. At
this point it appears that Rumsfeld was wrong. But without presuming
omniscience on his part, we don't know the he knew he was wrong.


Arnold, in the absolute you are right.
*But* if you authorize me to speculate I think there is 99.999%
chances that he knew he was wrong, and you know that... So he was
lying. ;-)


You surely don't need my authorization to speculate.

;-)


Most of people knows, has understood now, that WMD was
only a pretext to enter in Iraq. I'm sure you aren't so naive and
that you perfectly know that all this Holywood show was orchestrated
for the mass-media.


Frankly, if the WMD fiasco was orchestrated, I would sincerely hope that the
parties involved would have done a better job!

- Cuba 1961 "Baie des Cochons"
- Tehran US ambassy American hostage

Please don't give absolution to the devil.


There is no single devil in this story. None of them deserve absolution. By
picking on one of them or a small groups of them, people are tacitly giving
the rest a pass.

Fully agree with you I need to precise my point.
I was speaking of the devil in general, the Devil with a big *D*.
Far from me the idea to give absolution to Saddam or any extremists.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
.com


How do you explain this one:

"On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News
interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in
the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north
somewhat."

In comments Sept. 10 before the National Press Club, Rumsfeld
conceded that he may have overreached. "I said, 'We know they're in
that area," Rumsfeld said. "I should have said, 'I believe we're in
that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and
that was our best judgment."

http://truthout.org/docs_03/111103I.shtml

Hint: he was lying.


Hint, Jacob Kramer thinks that he can read other people's minds. At
this point it appears that Rumsfeld was wrong. But without presuming
omniscience on his part, we don't know the he knew he was wrong.


Arnold, in the absolute you are right.
*But* if you authorize me to speculate I think there is 99.999%
chances that he knew he was wrong, and you know that... So he was
lying. ;-)


You surely don't need my authorization to speculate.

;-)


Most of people knows, has understood now, that WMD was
only a pretext to enter in Iraq. I'm sure you aren't so naive and
that you perfectly know that all this Holywood show was orchestrated
for the mass-media.


Frankly, if the WMD fiasco was orchestrated, I would sincerely hope that the
parties involved would have done a better job!

It wasn't orchestrated. Here's what happened, near as I can tell:

Sadam knew where all the weapons were and destroyed them, but knew he
had a final card that he could pull to get the U.S. in trouble. All
he had to do was take the remaining weapons, get rid of them, and destory
the paperwork. He knew that the U.S. would not possibly believe anything
that he said. And we fell for it. We were convinced that he was hiding
WMDs and all his insistance that they were just made our military look
harder and get angrier(obviously he was lying as Sadam never tells the
truth). All he had to do was stall a LITTLE bit and act cagy and there
was no way that we would think that they were destroyed.

There are none. He let us think that there were to give us a black eye
in the U.N. and to give himself(if he survived) a possible claim with
the U.N. when he pops up a decade later in exile somewhere. He's not
interested in power, mind you, but damaging the U.S. reputation, and
a claim by him a decade from now about the invasion being illegal
(which would certainly pass in the U.N.) would hurt us more than any
terrorist attack possibly could.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
m


How do you explain this one:

"On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News
interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in
the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north
somewhat."

In comments Sept. 10 before the National Press Club, Rumsfeld
conceded that he may have overreached. "I said, 'We know they're in
that area," Rumsfeld said. "I should have said, 'I believe we're in
that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and
that was our best judgment."

http://truthout.org/docs_03/111103I.shtml

Hint: he was lying.



Hint, Jacob Kramer thinks that he can read other people's minds. At
this point it appears that Rumsfeld was wrong. But without presuming
omniscience on his part, we don't know the he knew he was wrong.



Arnold, in the absolute you are right.
*But* if you authorize me to speculate I think there is 99.999%
chances that he knew he was wrong, and you know that... So he was
lying. ;-)



You surely don't need my authorization to speculate.

;-)


Most of people knows, has understood now, that WMD was
only a pretext to enter in Iraq. I'm sure you aren't so naive and
that you perfectly know that all this Holywood show was orchestrated
for the mass-media.



Frankly, if the WMD fiasco was orchestrated, I would sincerely hope
that the
parties involved would have done a better job!


It wasn't orchestrated. Here's what happened, near as I can tell:

Sadam knew where all the weapons were and destroyed them, but knew he
had a final card that he could pull to get the U.S. in trouble. All
he had to do was take the remaining weapons, get rid of them, and destory
the paperwork. He knew that the U.S. would not possibly believe anything
that he said. And we fell for it. We were convinced that he was hiding
WMDs and all his insistance that they were just made our military look
harder and get angrier(obviously he was lying as Sadam never tells the
truth). All he had to do was stall a LITTLE bit and act cagy and there
was no way that we would think that they were destroyed.

There are none. He let us think that there were to give us a black eye
in the U.N. and to give himself(if he survived) a possible claim with
the U.N. when he pops up a decade later in exile somewhere. He's not
interested in power, mind you, but damaging the U.S. reputation, and
a claim by him a decade from now about the invasion being illegal
(which would certainly pass in the U.N.) would hurt us more than any
terrorist attack possibly could.


Are you hurt now if I say you that CIA has orchestrated Salvatore
Aliende murder ?
Do you know one US president who was sorry about that ?
US predators' job is nearly finished now in Iraq this is why they start
to speak about necessary U.N presence and power in Iraq.

Arnold would say : "if irony kills...". ;0)

Obie Wanna Wild Fantasy said:

All he had to do was stall a LITTLE bit and act cagy and there
was no way that we would think that they were destroyed.

There are none. He let us think that there were to give us a black eye
in the U.N. and to give himself(if he survived) a possible claim with
the U.N. when he pops up a decade later in exile somewhere. He's not
interested in power, mind you, but damaging the U.S. reputation, and
a claim by him a decade from now about the invasion being illegal
(which would certainly pass in the U.N.) would hurt us more than any
terrorist attack possibly could.

You're insane. But I'm sure you suspected that.

George M. Middius wrote:


Obie Wanna Wild Fantasy said:


All he had to do was stall a LITTLE bit and act cagy and there
was no way that we would think that they were destroyed.

There are none. He let us think that there were to give us a black eye
in the U.N. and to give himself(if he survived) a possible claim with
the U.N. when he pops up a decade later in exile somewhere. He's not
interested in power, mind you, but damaging the U.S. reputation, and
a claim by him a decade from now about the invasion being illegal
(which would certainly pass in the U.N.) would hurt us more than any
terrorist attack possibly could.


You're insane. But I'm sure you suspected that.

It wouldn't be the first time we were fed bad intelligence by
foriegn powers and bought it. The people in Washington are so
out of their minds rabidly religous conservative that they are
almost too easy to bait.

A more rational White House wouldn't have believed it, or if
they did, they would have kept their mouths shut until they
did find them during the invasion.

Find them THEN announce them. This keeps you from sticking
your foot in your mouth repeatedly.

Obie Wanna New Pair of Shoes said:

[Saddam is] not
interested in power, mind you, but damaging the U.S. reputation

You're insane. But I'm sure you suspected that.

It wouldn't be the first time

Try again, loonmeister.