The Iraq War Was a Mistake!

Cypress said:
This is the post-war conclusion of the intelligence community, and the republican-led Senate Select Committe on Intelligence. The conclusions were virtually unaniously adopted by both republicans and democrats, 15-1.
Click to expand...



US Senate Bipartisan Iraq Intelligence Report - Phase 2, Sept. 2006:

“In a response to questions from Committee staff asking if DIA recovered or received information or intelligence, after the raid on Salman Pak in April 2003 that indicated non-Iraqis received terrorist training at the Salman Pak facility, DIA said it has "no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991." DIA assessed that the foreigners were likely volunteers who traveled to Iraq in the months before Operation Iraqi Freedom began to fight overtly alongside Iraqi military forces...DIA said it has "no information from Salman Pak that links al-Qa'ida with the former regime."….The facilities included a derelict aircraft and train intended for counterterrorism training.

In response to a question from Committee staff about postwar information recovered at Salman Pak, DIA said is has ”no information from Salman Pak that links al-Qa’ida with the former regime.”


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf
 
Dixie said:
Do you even know what counter-terrorism is? Iraq was training its security forces, and those of other arab countries, in techniques to fight jihaddist terrorists. That's what the aircraft fuselage was for: to train security forces how to defeat aircract hijackers.

ROFLMFAO! So... were the alQaeda and Ansar Al Islam terrorists there to merely play the roll of the bad guys? WOW, these terrorists are very caring people to take time out of their busy schedule of suicide bombings to help the counter-terror forces train! That was a nice thing for them to do!

Some people just go BEYOND stupid!
Click to expand...


"ROFLMFAO! So... were the alQaeda and Ansar Al Islam terrorists there to merely play the roll of the bad guys?"


Al Qaeda wasn't at salman pak:

US Senate Bipartisan Iraq Intelligence Report - Phase 2, Sept. 2006:

“In a response to questions from Committee staff asking if DIA recovered or received information or intelligence, after the raid on Salman Pak in April 2003 that indicated non-Iraqis received terrorist training at the Salman Pak facility, DIA said it has "no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991." DIA assessed that the foreigners were likely volunteers who traveled to Iraq in the months before Operation Iraqi Freedom began to fight overtly alongside Iraqi military forces...DIA said it has "no information from Salman Pak that links al-Qa'ida with the former regime."….The facilities included a derelict aircraft and train intended for counterterrorism training.

In response to a question from Committee staff about postwar information recovered at Salman Pak, DIA said is has ”no information from Salman Pak that links al-Qa’ida with the former regime.”
 
Like I said...Salman Pak was training nationalists.... not wahabbists.... but Dixie and the neocons only pretend like they give a shit about the differences between the two... deep down in their hearts, they hate all ragheads kinda like white racists from Dixieland still really hate all black folks.....
 
-DIXIE: “Saddam's regime did indeed meet with representatives of alQaeda .and authorized training camps for them. You can deny this all you like, the evidence is well documented, and irrefutable!"

-DIXIE: “There was a profound and clear connection between Saddam Hussein and radical Islamist terrorism.”

*United States Senate Bipartisan Iraq Intelligence Investigation Conclusion: "Postwar finding indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of Al Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, REFUSING ALL REQUESTS from Al Qaeda to provide material or operations support. …..Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa’ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa’ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations.”


-DIXIE: “No, idiot, you count 16 Congressmen who didn't find conclusive proof of something, and you are assuming that means Saddam didn't aid alQaeda or harbor Zarqawi. It's part of your problem, you don't comprehend things very well. When someone states that they couldn't find evidence or proof of something, they are NOT saying it didn't happen!….When I read "we found no credible reporting" I have to wonder, what kind of reporting was found that was deemed non-credible? Who determined this? Why can't I see the "non-credible" reports and judge for myself if it's credible?[/i]


You just said the evidence that saddam was training al Qaeda terrorists was “irrefutable, clear, well-documented, and profound”.

I just showed you that our post war intelligence, as confirmed nearly unanimously by the Bipartisan Senate Committee on intelligence, says there’s no credible reporting to support your assertions. In fact, they conclude the opposite of what you just asserted

Why did you then change your argument to: “just because there’s no credible evidence, doesn’t MEAN it didn’t happen!” ... You just said the evidence was irrefutable!!!

Why did you change your story?
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
DIXIE: “Well, it was determined by this very Intelligence Report, that Saddam did indeed seek enriched yellowcake uranium from Africa.”

That wasn't the Committe's conclusion after July 2003:


From the report you mention: On June 17, 2003.…CIA produced a memo for the Director of Central Intelligence which said “since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false document earlier this Spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad”.




“Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq”

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/....gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf
Click to expand...

Well then, they contradicted themselves on page 37 of the report, where they find the following: "Subsequently, the governments of Niger and Iraq entered into an agreement for the sale of 500 tons of yellowcake uranium."

Your problem is, you want to cherry pick things from the report that you think makes your case, while disregarding the rest. The fact that the Intelligence Report on the Niger Yellowcake issue is 40-something pages long, of which many large chunks of information have been blacked out, and we simply don't know what was "concluded" there, is a clear indication to any thinking person, that the report was not about something that never happened, and just a false story based on a forged document. If that were the case, the committee could have addressed it in a small paragraph, instead of 40-something pages.
 
maineman said:
Like I said...Salman Pak was training nationalists.... not wahabbists.... but Dixie and the neocons only pretend like they give a shit about the differences between the two... deep down in their hearts, they hate all ragheads kinda like white racists from Dixieland still really hate all black folks.....
Click to expand...


And I've already told you once, you fucking pedophile, I am not bigoted toward Muslim people, and my position against terrorists has nothing to do with racism.

If you want to take off the gloves again, and start hurling personal insults at me, we can play that game some more... I thought that was in the past, but I guess you think you are entitled to have a double standard.
 
You just said the evidence that saddam was training al Qaeda terrorists was “irrefutable, clear, well-documented, and profound”.

You need to fucking learn how to read, moron...

Saddam's regime did indeed meet with representatives of alQaeda .and authorized training camps for them. You can deny this all you like, the evidence is well documented, and irrefutable!"

This is what I actually posted. I have no idea of what Saddam knew or didn't know, for all we know, he was strung out on heroin in one of his palaces at the time, and didn't even know his own name! His REGIME certainly DID meet with alQaeda, and members of alQaeda and other radical terror groups DID indeed train at Salman Pak. This is most certainly well-documented and irrefutable. And I don't give a shit what 16 politicians couldn't find evidence of... they couldn't find the fucking bathrooms in the Capitol if they didn't have a map!
 
I just showed you that our post war intelligence, as confirmed nearly unanimously by the Bipartisan Senate Committee on intelligence, says there’s no credible reporting to support your assertions. In fact, they conclude the opposite of what you just asserted

Look idiot... You have not proven a goddamn thing! Insufficient evidence doesn't "conclude" anything, except the fact that there was insufficient evidence! It no more makes your point than it makes mine! It's inconclusive due to a lack of information or evidence! Do you just not comprehend this, or what?

If you were giving us a report that said... We, the Bipartisan Senate Gods, have determined as fact, that Saddam never even spoke to a terrorist and didn't even know where Niger was, because of the evidence we discovered.... THEN you would be making a point here, THEN I would have been 'proven wrong' on this! Now, those are YOUR conclusions, no doubt, it's just not what the Senate Gods said in the report! You are taking a "WE DON'T KNOW" statement, and converting it to "WE KNOW FOR A FACT!"
 
DIXIE: Well then, they contradicted themselves on page 37 of the report, where they find the following: "Subsequently, the governments of Niger and Iraq entered into an agreement for the sale of 500 tons of yellowcake uranium."


Hey Einstein? Can you read?

That was a report from back in 2002. I've never said that in 2001-2002 there weren't allegations and reporting of possible sales.

I said the Report YOU CITED, concluded that by at least July 2003, the CIA had concluded the sale documents were forged, and that there was NO OTHER credible reporting that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.
 
Dixie said:
And I've already told you once, you fucking pedophile, I am not bigoted toward Muslim people, and my position against terrorists has nothing to do with racism.

If you want to take off the gloves again, and start hurling personal insults at me, we can play that game some more... I thought that was in the past, but I guess you think you are entitled to have a double standard.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you feel the need to call me a pedophile with no proof...

and you most certainly are bigoted toward muslim people. In order to get on your shit list, all one has to be is a muslim and a terrorist.... it doesn't matter what brand of terrorist any particular muslim is, if he is both a muslim and a terrorist, you want to expend the lives of other braver Americans in your wish to kill them. You are not equally fervent in your hatred of all terrorists.... the Tamils in Sri Lanka get NONE of your bile...the Catholics of the IRA get NONE of your bile.... there are terrorist groups all over the globe, but YOU are only focused on muslims, irregardless of whether they are nationalist muslims with NO desire to harm the United States or wahabbists who want very much to draw us into conflict with the Islamic world.

And there is NO credible evidence whatsoever that Saddam's regime trained wahabbists in any way. There is NO proof that Al Qaeda ever trained at Salman Pak....

but we both know that bigoted racist zealots don't need evidence.... they just need koolaid.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
DIXIE: Well then, they contradicted themselves on page 37 of the report, where they find the following: "Subsequently, the governments of Niger and Iraq entered into an agreement for the sale of 500 tons of yellowcake uranium."


Hey Einstein? Can you read?

That was a report from back in 2002. I've never said that in 2001-2002 there weren't allegations and reporting of possible sales.

I said the Report YOU CITED, concluded that by at least July 2003, the CIA had concluded the sale documents were forged, and that there was NO OTHER credible reporting that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.
Click to expand...

Hey Einstein? Can you read? There was 40-something pages of "credible reporting" on the Niger deal... most of it is blacked out... did you miss that? This seems to be quite a bit of information on something that never supposedly existed or happened, doesn't it?


In any event, you can't hold the administration responsible for details you discovered AFTER THE FACT! Unless you can somehow prove that Bush knew his intelligence reports were flawed, or there was some information that contradicted these reports, which there wasn't. You are taking something that, by all accounts, could not be concluded after the fact, and trying to use this to prop up your myths and logical fallacies. You read "found no credible evidence" as meaning, the charges are bogus... and that is not what was concluded at all. Were there discrepancies in intel reports? Sure! There almost ALWAYS is, it's the nature of "intelligence" for this to be the case, most of the time. Because a document was a forgery, doesn't mean there was no legitimacy to the claim, especially when there was a ton of evidence to support the claim, without relying on the forged document. For instance, the testimony from the Nigerian official who said, unequivocally, that Saddam was indeed seeking to buy uranium from Niger! Why the hell would he lie about this?
 
I don't know why you feel the need to call me a pedophile with no proof...

And I don't know why you feel the need to call me a racist with no proof...

and you most certainly are bigoted toward muslim people. In order to get on your shit list, all one has to be is a muslim and a terrorist....

No, I am only bigoted toward terrorists... I don't care if they are Muslim terrorists or Buddha terrorists! I don't care what their "cause" is, or why they feel compelled to kill innocent people including women and children, I am opposed to terrorist acts of all kinds, and it makes no difference to me, what religious persuasion the terrorist happens to be.
 
but we both know that bigoeted racist zealots don't need evidence.... they just need koolaid.

Yeah, and we both know that retired old farts who spent too much time at sea, need a little boi ass now and then.... right?

I'm going to tell you one more time, asshole... you need to drop this now, before it gets any uglier. I have no problem leaving the past in the past, but I'll be damned if I sit here and take your pot shots without responding. If you wish to persist in implying that I am a racist bigot, then I will continue to bring up your illustrious reputation as a child predator.

Tit for tat, dude... Tit for tat!
 
Dixie said:
I don't know why you feel the need to call me a pedophile with no proof...

And I don't know why you feel the need to call me a racist with no proof...

and you most certainly are bigoted toward muslim people. In order to get on your shit list, all one has to be is a muslim and a terrorist....

No, I am only bigoted toward terrorists... I don't care if they are Muslim terrorists or Buddha terrorists! I don't care what their "cause" is, or why they feel compelled to kill innocent people including women and children, I am opposed to terrorist acts of all kinds, and it makes no difference to me, what religious persuasion the terrorist happens to be.
Click to expand...


the fact that you only approve of sending braver Americans than you to die killing MUSLIM terrorists and not any of the myriad other terrorists on the face of the globe is pretty clear and convincing evidence of your bigotry.

I, on the other hand, am certainly OPPOSED to the use of terror as a political tactic, but I do not feel inclined to send American fighting men and women all over the globe to die in an effort to eradicate all terrorists of all persuasions.... I only support using our troops to fight those that seek to do US harm, which is why I opposed the war in Iraq.

You don't really care, however...from your perspective.... wahabbist....palestinian nationalist.... who gives a shit...they're just ragheads and they're terrorists....so lets kill 'em all.
 
You are not equally fervent in your hatred of all terrorists.... the Tamils in Sri Lanka get NONE of your bile...the Catholics of the IRA get NONE of your bile.... there are terrorist groups all over the globe, but YOU are only focused on muslims

Maybe that's because the Tamils and the IRA didn't fly fucking planes into our buildings and kill 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11? Maybe it's because these terror groups are not hell-bent on establishing a global Caliphate to rule the fucking world under 5th Century Muhammad Law? Maybe it's because there is no sense of urgency in stopping those terrorist groups from killing MORE Americans in the days to come?

It could be any one of these, or a combination of them, which accounts for my current level of outrage and condemnation, but it's certainly not because of any prejudice toward Muslim people, many of which are my personal friends, who also share my disdain and condemnation toward terrorists.

What you are implying is one of the most offensive and insulting accusations you could possibly make, and you have nothing to support it, except your typical judgemental condescending personal opinions. It's about the biggest "cheap shot" you can take at me, and you know it. Of course, this is typical of you, when you are defeated in debate, you always resort to the cheap shots and unfounded accusations.
 
it's that same mindset that caused you to applaud the application of shock and awe against cities densely populated with innocent civilians. they were all ragheads to you...

you are a bigot but do not have the grace to admit it.
 
Dixie said:
You are not equally fervent in your hatred of all terrorists.... the Tamils in Sri Lanka get NONE of your bile...the Catholics of the IRA get NONE of your bile.... there are terrorist groups all over the globe, but YOU are only focused on muslims

Maybe that's because the Tamils and the IRA didn't fly fucking planes into our buildings and kill 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11? Maybe it's because these terror groups are not hell-bent on establishing a global Caliphate to rule the fucking world under 5th Century Muhammad Law?
Click to expand...


more proof. No palestinians or Iraqis flew any airplanes on 9/11. No arab nationalist organizations support the establishment of a global caliphate.... but you don't really care to make that distinction.... they are ragheads and therefore, to you, they are YOUR enemy.
 
the fact that you only approve of sending braver Americans than you to die killing MUSLIM terrorists and not any of the myriad other terrorists on the face of the globe is pretty clear and convincing evidence of your bigotry.

This is where you are wrong. I don't consider the terrorists to be "Muslim" any more than I considered the KKK as being "Christian", and neither does the vast and overwhelming majority of the Muslim community. It's pretty clear and convincing evidence of you bigotry, to be lumping these barbarians in with the Muslim faith as a whole.
 
So far, YOU are the only person here who is using the racial slur "raghead". Perhaps that is indicative of how you personally feel about Muslims? It's certainly not emanating from MY keyboard.
 
The Bush Administration, for several months before the war, used "The Italian Documants" as justification for their insistence that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger.

For much of those several months, The IAEA was requesting to see said documents. The Bush Admin flatly IGNORED the requests until just a few days before the war started...too late to STOP the war.

After gaining access to said documents, The IAEA pronounced that they were a CRUDE FORGERY, and ANY serious intelligence agency would have known it within a very short period of time.

By the way Dixie, learn to read. Page 37 doesn't provide a conclusion by the panel, it explains that ONLY The CIA wrote a finished intelligence product on "the report"...

Said "report" was described as:

At the time, all IC analysts interviewed by Committee staff considered this initial report to be very limited and lacking needed detail. CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Department of Energy (DOE) analysts considered the reporting to be “possible” while the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) regarded the report as “highly suspect,” primarily because INR analysts did not believe that Niger would be likely to engage in such a transaction and did not believe Niger would be able to transfer uranium to Iraq because a French consortium maintained control of the Nigerien uranium industry.


It never ceases to amaze me how partisan lunkheads think they can get away with taking phrases out of context, while accusing their opponent of doing the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top