Petraeus: US surge goals being met »
Posted by: JamesMarcus 12 months ago579 Comments Report this Story
General David Petraeus said Monday the military goals of the surge strategy were being met, in crucial testimony to Congress. Petraeus admitted improvements were uneven, but said it should be possible to reduce the 168,000 US presence in Iraq to pre-surge levels by "next summer."
Read Full Story at afp.google.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 579
-
0%
AnteUp12 months ago
I am watching the Petraeus hearing right now and I can
tell you that this war has brought our political parties
together as never before. BOTH Republicans AND Democrats
agree on one thing! "IT'S ALL THE IRAQI'S FAULT!"
Who in heaven's name am I going to vote for??
I am disgusted by all of them!
Reply-
0%
dunkirk12 months ago
The joint resolution that was based on the Dumyas intel that was later shown to be cherry-picked? You usually omit that part.
Reply-
0%
dunkirk12 months ago
ROFLMAO, yeah lets trust the group that lies thru their teeth to get the agenda THEY want pushed thru.
Altho I guess you missed the part where ALL the evidence was cherry picked to support the assertion Dumya was making. They didnt get to see the stuff that contradicted it. But then again I guess you do like to have peopole in power that decide what to do first and then go about finding evidence to support it.
Reply-
-
-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
2. R&D Conducted in Libya: The great bulk of the work on WMD and on associated missile delivery systems, however, was conducted since 1991 in a partnership with Libya, and also with Egypt, at facilities in Libya, in order to keep the programs away from US and United Nations (UN) probes. That, too, was noted by GIS.2
Saddam utilized his best efforts and international contacts and alliances to limit the scope of debate and UN inspections...
However, there were numerous failures to maintain the total secrecy of his actions at an operational intelligence level. This may have been inevitable, given the scope of the WMD programs being conducted in Libya, where an estimated Iraqi workforce of up to 20,000 scientists, engineers and workers were engaged in WMD and missile development, and in other countries, such as Mauritania (intended as a launch site for ballistic missiles to threaten the US), where Iraqi intelligence officials were conducting aspects of the strategy.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
Anaysis. By Gregory R. Copley, Editor, GIS. Discussion and analysis of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs relating to the former Iraqi Administration...By focusing entirely on Iraqi WMD programs within the physical borders of Iraq...the arguments missed the point that the bulk of the Iraqi WMD work since 1991 was conducted outside the borders of the country...
There is a very substantial, historical chain of intelligence �;; much of which has been cited and verified by Global Information System (GIS)a subsiderary of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
1. Documents Moved to Syria: In essence, documentation of that small portion of the WMD program which was administered directly in Iraq was moved, along with other sensitive material and resources, to the Hshishi Compound at al-Qamishli (Kamishli) in Syria, just near the Iraqi border, in August-September 2002. This was noted by GIS at that time.1
Reply-
-
0%
dunkirk12 months ago
Maybe since it never made the news. BTW did you notice the SOURCE for that story? PowerLineBlog. You do understand a blog represents an OPINION and isnt fact. So in response to your final question "we" folks aren't ignoring it it seems "we" folks require something called PROOF not cut and pasted references taken out of context. Altho maybe you could forward that to Bush seems hessaying NOW there were no WMD. He be grateful I'm sure, to see how you went an found where they were.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
CAPECORALM:
"The great bulk of the work on WMD and on associated missile delivery systems, however, was conducted since 1991 in a partnership with Libya, and also with Egypt"
Why would Egypt deceive the US and UN? This article seems to ignore the fact that Egypt is not a rogue nation but rather a moderate one compared to other Middle Eastern Muslim countries, Egypt is an ally of the U.S., Egypt was joined the coalition of forces that helped fight Saddam in the 1st Gulf War, Egypt participates in the UN, and Egypt's former prime minister Boutros Boutros-Ghali served as Secretary General of the UN from 1991-1996. To suggest that Egypt would help Saddam defy the UN and US runs counter to Egypt's actions and moderate line.
As for Libya, they abandoned their WMD program and paid reparations for Pan Am flight 103 and UTA Flight 772. If there were Iraqi WMDs hidden there, the Libyans would have led us to them as part of their reconciliation plan with the West.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
It amazes me what CAPECORALM and DAVIDHALKO deem as primary source documentation from an official governemnt, military, or intelligence outlet. The ISSA is NOT the definitive word on intelligence regarding Iraq. In fact, according to their own website, the ISSA is nothing more than an NGO composed of volunteers whose mission is to allow for an "exchange of information and views in INFORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. These conferences are OFF-THE-RECORD...to maintain the Strategy conferences as forums for the INFORMAL exchange of ideas and contacts."
http://www.strategicstudies.org/
The ISSA does NOT have clearance to classified information. Members are NOT even active members of intelligence or military agencies. And their articles are NOT the comprehensive, definitive guide to current intelligence on Iraq, but are rather the INFORMAL musings of their volunteer members. Even a cursory reading of their 1 to 2 page articles reveals that the articles are outdated and too brief.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
If you are truly interested in learning intelligence on Iraq, however, declassifed documentation from OFFICIAL government, military, and intelligence outlets are available to the public. For example:
The Iraq Perspectives Project found no active WMD program post-1991.
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006...
"'Chemical Ali' was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD, but claims many within the ruling circle always believed they did...According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about having WMD during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD, but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary. Saddam went on to explain that if Iraq made such a declaration, it would not only show Israel that Iraq did not have WMD, but might actually encourage the Israelis to attack."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006...
"By late 2002, Saddam finally tilted towards pursuing policies designed to persuade the international community that Iraq was cooperating with UNSCOM and that it was free of WMD...As 2002 drew to a close, the regime took active measures to counter the Coalition's assertion that WMD still remained in Iraq. Saddam was insistent that 'in order not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war,' Iraq would give full access to UN Inspectors."
"Saddam became convinced that because there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq, the Americans or Israelis were not beyond planting fake evidence."
"Saddam avoided taking actions in the year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. that would appear obstructionist or threatening. In late 2002, he told a group of officers that Iraq would provide UN inspectors with the access they needed, thus denying President George W. Bush and the Americans any excuse for starting a new conflict."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
A 2006 Senate Intelligence Report (with a Republican chair and majority) concluded:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt10...
"Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear weapons program"; "Iraq's acquisition of high-strength aluminum tubes was not intended for an Iraq nuclear program, but were likely intended for a conventional rocket program" which Iraq was allowed to possess; "Iraq pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are high dubious"; "Iraq no longer had a large scale biological weapons production capability after 1996" and there was "no direct evidence that Iraq maintained stocks of biological weapons or possessed bulk biological agents after 1996"; "Iraq never possessed, or developed, mobile facilities for producing biological agents"; "Iraq was not expanding its chemical industry to support chemical weapons production"; and "Iraq did not possess missiles which exceeded UN range limits."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
The Iraq Study Group also found no evidence that Iraq had an active WMD program post-1991. They found that UN sanctions, inspections, and no-fly zones were effective in containing Saddam.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/repor...
"The ISG found that Iraq ended its nuclear program in 1991 and that Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressivel declined after that date. The ISG found no evidence that Saddam Hussein attempted to restart the nuclear program. The intellectual capital (needed to restart a WMD program in the event UN sanctions were lifted) had decayed since the end of the nuclear program in 1991, and there was no evidence that scientists were engaged in renewed weapons work. A CIA nuclear retrospective said that Saddam 'probably harbored some intent to acquire nuclear weapons, but there were credible claims...to suggest he abandoned such pursuits."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
Here are Scott Ritter's--former Marine Major on the UN inspection Team--own words claiming UN inspections were effective and that a preemptive attack on Iraq would be a mistake.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/...
"Iraq is not a sponsor of the kind of terror perpetrated against the United States on September 11 and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamental extremism that characterizes those who attacked the United States on that horrible day," Ritter said...In his address Sunday, Ritter denied that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction..."Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, had been certified as being disarmed to a 90 [percent] to 95 percent level," he said...Ritter said that the Bush administration was "using weapons inspections as an excuse" to go to war with Iraq.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
"we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within 5 years...The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within 3 years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections. In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence."
--Scott Ritter, 2002
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
Neocons will argue that Democrats voted for the AUMF, but what they conveniently neglect to mention is that Douglas Feith is under investigation for misleading Congress with "alternative assessments" that contradicted the IC.
http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting...
"In the case of Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda, intelligence was exaggerated to support Administration policy aims primarily by the Feith policy office, which was determined to find a strong connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, rather than by the IC, which was consistently dubious of such a connection...The non-IC or "alternative" intelligence analysis neatly fit the Administration's desire to build a strong case for an invasion of Iraq to overthrow the Saddam regime, particularly given the fact that the usual source of intelligence analysis, the IC, was skeptical about the existence of a close or cooperative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
As for progress in Iraq, Petraeus ought to be rightfully proud of the moderate progress he has made on the security front. The problem is that the Sunnis helping us drive out Al Qaeda are some of the most avid anti-occupation groups in the country. This means that there is a very real fear that after they're done driving out Al Qaeda, they could TURN ON US if Iraq's politicians don't reconcile! Until these political and ISF training benchmarks are met, we haven't really accomplished much that's guaranteed to last.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20518951/
"But Democrats and even some Republicans say military progress made in recent weeks is not the issue. If Baghdad politicians refuse to reach a lasting political settlement that can influence the sectarian-fueled violence, the increase in troops is useless, they said."
Reply
-
-
0%
disraeli12 months ago
So if the WMD work (and I suppose the WMD's such as they were) was done outside of Iraq why was it necessary to invade Iraq.
Something doesn't quite jive with this explanation.
Isn't this somewhat akin to the cops kicking down your door and trashing your house when the meth lab in question was on the next block. The best face I could put on that would be a reasonable target, but lousy aim. Still, doesn't do much for your wrecked house though.
Reply-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?...
""Frontpage Interview's guest today is Ryan Mauro. He is the 19-year old author of Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq and founder of WorldThreats.com."
This is your source? You have the audacity to disregard the conclusions reached by dozens of CIA, FBI, DIA, Pentagon, and military experts for the sake of a 19-year old without ANY experience in the military or in one of America's major intelligence agencies? Does Mauro even possess a bachelor's degree in ANY field?
Ryan Mauro's credibility pales in comparison to the dozens of intelligence and military experts who have DECADES more experience and training (not to mention unfettered access to classified information) than Mauro does.
I hope you didn't waste your money on his book.
Reply-
-
0%
ybdogsct11 months, 3 weeks ago
SANDOKAN:
"Actually, fact & logic dictate that one does not need a college degree to ascertain whether something is right or wrong. Nor for that matter to explain what one sees!"
What an oversimplistic explanation. Actually, fact and logic dictate that a 19-year old without a bachelor's degree and without access to classified information has MUCH LESS credibility than the dozens of intelligence and military experts with bachelors, masters, and even doctorates in addition to decades of experience in intelligence gathering and access to classified information.
So when a 19-year old challenges the intelligence community by offering contrary analysis, I have to wonder why you or anyone with a brain, for that matter, would take his word over that of the majority of the intelligence community.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
UncontrollableScaldingDiarrhea12 months ago
Libs are just upset Petraeus is bringing sexy back to the US's chances of stabilizing Iraq.
They can't stand it.
Reply-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.12 Replies
-
0%
UncontrollableScaldingDiarrhea12 months ago
Thanks, I love sending Libs in a tailspin.
Which brings me to a larger issue, Libs. You need to slow down on sucking down the ice cream I bring your for "comfort hour". Otherwise, I'm going to need contributions to the ice cream fund. It's running low.
Reply-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
USD:
"Thanks, I love sending Libs in a tailspin."
Don't flatter yourself.
You're going to have to come up with a DOCUMENT-SUPPORTED argument in order to accomplish that. You have yet to post any argument supported by primary source documentation from an official government, military, or declassified intelligence outlet.
LOL
Reply-
0%
UncontrollableScaldingDiarrhea12 months ago
You mean like documented support you offer in other threads that gives a short view assessment of the the total picture?
Hey look, we could have paid off the national debt in a few decades!!! Right, if one ignores the avalanche of outlays coming for the baby boomers. Unless Libs have developed a gold tree to help us fund the unlimited bipartisan promise of unlimited health care to seniors.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct11 months, 4 weeks ago
USD:
"You mean like documented support you offer in other threads that gives a short view assessment of the the total picture?"
The direct links to entire primary source documents from official government, military, and intelligence sources speak for themselves and are more substantive than anything you've offered up so far. You should actually take the time to read these IN FULL. Who knows; you might actually learn something.
USD:
"Unless Libs have developed a gold tree"
You conveniently ignore that before the baby-boomer generation aged, they were part of the work force and contributed to a significant increase in tax revenue. These funds would have been enough to provide health care and ss, if politicans (both Dems & Repubs) hadn't been dipping into medicare and ss to pay for their pork projects.
I'm still waiting for ANY primary source documentation that makes mine appear "short-viewed," although something tells me I shouldn't hold my breath.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
wtagg11 months, 3 weeks ago
Do I need to do all the work for you?
Murtha brought up the need for a surge or to get out in the spring of '04 because of the escalating losses. He was accused of being a traitor for the suggestion. 3 years later the administration apparently has an epiphany that the surge *is* the solution.
Please explain why it wasn't the solution in '04.
My point isn't whether the surge is a good and successful military strategy, but why there was a 3 year wait to implement it and the responsibility of those that waited. How many causulties were suffered by our precious troops during that period? Tens of thousands.
It is sad that individuals like David find humor in such things.
Reply
-
-
-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
ybdogsct11 months, 4 weeks ago
DAVIDHALKO:
"They should have been shot as traitors."
Then you can start by pointing your gun at those, like Douglas Feith, who misled the country into waging war against Iraq and now have the blood of thousands of American soldiers as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on their hands.
http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting...
On second thought, just make Dick Cheney the executioner. He'd probably shoot all the White House staffers in their faces before accidentally shooting himself.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
gamahuche12 months ago
We don't need yr ice-cream. It might be a better use to apply it gently to what must be a painful part of your anatomy.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
In your haste to respond to DUNKIRK, you failed to provide a simple answer to his question: where is the evidence that Iraq was actively producing WMDs after 1991?
And if an active WMD program has been found, why hasn't Bush Jr. posed in front of it for a photo op?
And if an active WMD program has been found, why did Bush accept Rumsfeld's resignation after Rumsfeld claimed that "we know where the WMDs are...They are in and around the region of Tikrit."
And if an active WMD program has been found, why hasn't Colin Powell returned to the administration?
And if an active WMD program has been found, why aren't we attacking the countries who harbored terrorism by safeguarding Iraq's WMDs?
And if an active WMD program has been found, why hasn't it been reported on the most recent National Intelligence Estimates?
Link to an official military or intelligence document that claims an active WMD program has been found.
Reply-
-
0%
pc2511 months, 4 weeks ago
The secret's out: on August 24th, 2007, UN weapons inspectors found 6 to 8 vials of chemical weapons sitting in an office at the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) headquarters in NYC. They found the vials when archiving files due to the fact that UNMOVIC is closing down its mission. They placed the vials in a sealed package and put them in a safe located in a secured room. Subsequently, on August 29, 2007, UNMOVIC employees discovered the inventory list which listed the content of the vials.
The vials were originally obtained by UNMOVIC in 1996, but apparently sat in the office unnoticed for the past decade. Normally, such vials should have been sent directly to the lab for testing and not to the UNMOVIC headquarters, but I suppose anyone could make such a mistake. Orâ;¦.at least we know the UN can.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
repealthe22ndbush200812 months ago
You are ignorant. The Democrats were talking about Saddam's WMD's from the mid-90's till after the invasion. One example:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of WMD technology, which is a threat to the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998
Maybe the Dems duped Bush!
Reply-
0%
wtagg12 months ago
What you have demonstrated is that both sides of the aisle were wrong. That certainly doesn't make it right.
Reply -
0%
dunkirk12 months ago
ROFLMAO, and you are gullible. Seems the reports coming back at that time had Saddam destroying the WMD, so that statement may have been true. However the interesting part is when Dumya invaded there were NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA. Seems that Clinton got Saddam to destroy the WMD without the loss of a single American soldiers life. Dujya should have been taking notes. Oh wait whats that, Saddam smuggled them to Syria? Why thats odd, and with the BEST technology on the planet they cleaned up both the storage and mfg facilities so well we couldnt detect one trace of any of the TONS of biologics Dumya said they had. NOT one trace. AND then to boot saying those WMD are NOW in Syria and could be distributed to terrorists WHO does Dumya sabre rattle against? Iran. Imagine that.
Reply-
-
0%
dunkirk12 months ago
Hmmmmmm another of the right wing sharp cookies here. Maybe you missed all the sanctions that had been placed on Iraq. I thought so.
Oh and I missed YOUR explanation of how we didnt find a trace of biologicals. You know a third world country managed to clean up biologicals better then FEMA.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk12 months ago
Now go back and read the post again. All that was intel that the Dumya cherry picked. That means he didnt randomly release information, it means he ONLY picked intel that supported his agenda. So now why was it Bush was in such a hurry to get the inspectors out when they started toi report NO WMD or facilities to produce them?? ROFLMAO.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk12 months ago
ROFLMAO, yea a nice link to the stories that later had the Pentagon declaring that the chemicals under your sink were more dangerous. Great find. It would be a shame had Saddam started the Windex cannon.
"Why were liberals in the government blocking the testing?"
ROFLMAO your story is dated 10/16/2006. Hmmmmm that seems to be when YOUR boys had control of COngress and when THEY were rubber stamping anythig in front of them. So why DID the REPUBLICANS block the testing?
Reply -
0%
jcasos12 months ago
I'm not sure of your military credentials or how many times you've been in Iraq before and after Saddam. I have been to Iraq back in Desert Storm and now during Iraqi Freedom and was directly involved in finding WMDs.
Fact is Saddam had WMDs before and after we invaded the second time, I saw them and oversaw their destruction. Saddam buried his equipment, his air force, his weapons in the sand bordering Syria. I'm not sure Google Earth maps are recent enough to see the dig craters, but I assure you they are there.
And to your "not one trace". I remember throwing away a 6" thick bio-chem suit I had to wear while entering one of these "facilities" and dumping out gallons of sweat with it. My chemical badge was pitch black (meaning exposure to chemical weaponry).
Rockets and mortars that are fired on our roofs over here bear the mark of the Iranians. Iran definitely has got a hand in this war.
That's my two cents, take them for what their worth.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct11 months, 4 weeks ago
JCASOS:
"My chemical badge was pitch black (meaning exposure to chemical weaponry)."
No one is disputing the fact that Saddam had manufactured CBW in the past. However, the very fact that your chemical badge turned pitch black should be indicative that his CBW were in disrepair beyond use. Mustard gas, or Bis(2-chloroethyl) sulfide, degrades in a number of ways including free-radical halogenation, auto-oxidation into sulfoxides and sulfones, and spontaneous alkylation into sulfonium salts. This would have made the degraded mustard gas ineffective as a weapon and more harmful to Iraqi troops. Likewise, sarin, or 2-(fluoro-... degrades quickly even if properly stored. The fact that it blackened your chemical badge means it was exposed to the elements, not properly stored, and degraded beyond use.
These are clearly not examples of active WMD production.
Reply-
0%
jcasos11 months, 4 weeks ago
A lot of the weapons were in disrepair beyond use, especially in the chemical plants, look northwest of Baghdad. Our experts tell me (and that's all I have to go on) that the weapons we uncovered were likely to be several MONTHS old. I'm definitely not an expert, so this is pure hearsay, sorry that's all I have. But think, just if Saddam couldn't get the containment correctly, would that stop him from trying? Remember Saddam used to throw people of the top of roofs, so I don't think he cared one bit about the lackadaisical containment methods of these chemicals and the safety of the Iraqi troops.
This is not for you ybdogsct, I respect your analysis, and you could be 100% correct--The fact that I already have a -3 rating means that everyone's minds are already made up. I just wrote what I saw, heard, smelled, and felt over in Iraq. If you don't want to hear that, what's really happening, you should take a look at yourself.
Reply-
0%
dunkirk11 months, 4 weeks ago
Odd tho with WMD beig several MONTHS old we never saw ANY declaration of the definitive finding of them by the BUSH ADMINISTRATION and Bush himself finally admitting there were NONE. How odd. Especially since our "experts" claimed they were so new.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct11 months, 4 weeks ago
JCASOS:
"Our experts tell me that the weapons we uncovered were likely to be several MONTHS old."
Are you sure you didn't mishear what your experts told you? Is it possible that the experts said that the chemicals degrade after only being several months old, not the the chemicals themselves were actually only several months old? These compounds don't last longer than a few months. After all, sarin and mustard are outdated, World War I-era technology (and the mechanisms as well as the kinetcs of its spontaneous degradation can be well understood even by an undergraduate student with no more than 2 years of university level chemistry). They did not have a long shelf life at all.
Again, I don't know exactly what you saw and heard, so I can't speak with certainty. But your description doesn't seem to match the science behind these simple compounds.
JCASOS:
"I respect your analysis, and you could be 100% correct"
And I respect your experience. Thank you for serving.
Reply
-
-
0%
ybdogsct11 months, 4 weeks ago
JCASOS:
"But think, just if Saddam couldn't get the containment correctly, would that stop him from trying?"
Because if Saddam couldn't store these chemicals in a stable form, then they would be utterly useless to him. They degrade in a matter of months even when stored properly.
Furthermore, consider this. Sarin and mustard may have been effective against Kurdish civilians in relatively enclosed or contained areas, where long exposure can be assured. But what good are they against coalition air craft? How do you gas a pilot traveling at supersonic speeds? How would Saddam have targeted the U.S. with CBW if he didn't have the missile delivery systems to target the U.S. directly?
Saddam was not stupid. He knew that he had everything to lose and very little to gain (from a military tactic standpoint) from these old weapons. Israel alone has enough to neutralize Iraq's old technology and cover Iraq in bombs several times over.
Saddam knew this.
Reply-
0%
sinophil4911 months, 4 weeks ago
jcasos - Charles Duelfer, the chief US WMD investigator when our forces invaded Iraq found components of chemical WMD's and about 500 artillery shells adapted for chemical delivery. The overwhelming majority were empty. A few contained chemicals that had degraded to the point of uselessness. In his report to congress, he stated, "There are more toxic chemicals under most American kitchen sinks"
than in the shells.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
repealthe22ndbush200812 months ago
They are so ignorant that they can't tell the disparity in comparing a rightist COMMENTATOR and a leftist REPORTER.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
pc2512 months ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE
i guess you need to be reminded what the democrats were saying
including your beloved BC
Reply -
0%
Maui12 months ago
This spin circus today was no surprise. Bush and gang's souping up the Lt.General to rock star proportions was anticlimactic. The report was a misleading farce! Waging this war was a complete fabrication -- a series of fabrications destroying nations. This war, invasion and occupation was a massive murderous crime!
IMPEACH & IMPRISON - BUSH & CHENEY!!!!
Reply-
-
0%
Maui12 months ago
Let me help you out there. Wrong people, wrong time span. The SPIN CIRCUS actually started immediately following 911, and was timed today on its' eve, by the SAME PEOPLE, yours untruly, EMPEROR BUSH & CHENEY & RUMSFELD & ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN.
Again, this continued spin circus today was no surprise. The report was a misleading farce! Waging this war was a complete fabrication. This war, invasion and occupation was a massive murderous crime!
IMPEACH & IMPRISON - BUSH & CHENEY!!!!
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy12 months ago
ROFLMAO You probably mean that Busch and company staged 9/11 just so they could invade Iraq.
It is sad when a respected man testifies and the side that can only gain if the surge is a flop calls him a liar. Seems to me a slight conflict of interest there. Moveon.org started it before he even took the stand. All good radicals then get in line and repeat variations of it. Be good little sheep and repeat it some more.
Reply-
0%
Maui12 months ago
Did you say "repeat it some more"? With pleasure, but simplified for you slower ones.
The SPIN CIRCUS actually start immediately following 911, and timed today on its' eve, by the SAME PEOPLE, EMPEROR BUSH & ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN.
This spin circus today was no surprise. The report was a farce! Waging this war was a complete fabrication. This fabricated war, invasion and occupation was a massive murderous crime!
IMPEACH & IMPRISON - BUSH & CHENEY!!!!
Reply-
-
0%
sir_samurai12 months ago
Yo, Zeig, Sucker as your signature, must be your proper surname, as in
Zeig-Heil Bush Sucker, huh?
Reply -
0%
Maui12 months ago
Zeig-Heil
We all know which "battle cry" you swear by OATH to, don't we? Your name (as per Sir Samurai) and obtuse posts here says it all about you. And I could also imagine such a shallow commenter as you would have this picture of your beloved Fuhrer on your bedroom wall too:
The Fuhrer's Newest Zeig Heil Photo Op
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/271925...
Please enlighten us for a change with solid info and facts, such as: HOW MANY TIMES A DAY do you look at a photo of Bush, click your heels, and say The Fuehrer Oath (if this is the best you can do)?
IMPEACH & IMPRISON - BUSH & CHENEY!!!!
Reply-
0%
sir_samurai12 months ago
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
Wow, Maui, this photo is both funny and scary!!!
But you gotta luv these idiots who set themselves up like ducks and give us even more platform here too.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
pc2512 months ago
I guess you people forgot about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/09/10/th...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-...
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R....
Reply
-
-
-
0%
medic91b211 months, 4 weeks ago
darth-rove where were you when the army and marines did not have armored vehicles, where were you when troops or their famalies had to buy vest for them, where were you when soldiers and marines went back 2,3,4 times, where were you when our wounded were cast aside like dirt. You don't seem to get it so let me spell it out for you, this is not about libs or bushies,democrats or republicans this is about AMERICA where AMRERICANS come together look at the facts reach a compromise roll up their sleeves and tackle the problem at hand, you're quick to lable people yet you have not put any HONEST options out there. This not a John Wayne movie this is real life and they're americans dying over there so we BETTER ask questions because more will die if we don't. I belive in free speech but this ideologcial babble is wearing thin
Reply
-
-
