Looks like those pesky WMDs might be turning up. If this pans out, what the hell will the left run on then???



-- Modified on 6/12/2004 10:15:50 AM

In case everyone is wondering why the "majors" have not picked up on this scoop, a little background on the "WorldTribune", brought to you courtesy of the New Yorker.

Of interest is that the Drudgereport has been pushing this hard on his website. Guess that Kerry - Intern story that Drudge was touting so heavily just a few months ago didn't pan out either.

Interesting enough, the Los Angeles Time, not exactly a conservative rag ran a similar story Thursday, June 10, 2004.

It ran it on page 84 of the front section of the paper under a Nordstroms ad.  Why page 84?  It is obvious that with this kind of news, their editorial hatred of Bush could be questioned.

Similarly, the use of Sarin gas last month in an artillery shell by the Shiite terrorists was reported on page 59 of the front section of the Los Angeles Time, once again exposing their anti-administration bias.

If your point is that media, news and print have biases, no shit sherlock!  But it is the lefts game to bury the facts at the bottom of a Macy's ad and denounce those who would point out their self censorship and the resultant biased editorializing of the "News"!

Until he broke the Lewinsky story. Bottom line is these news sources break the stories the majors don't want to because it goes against their political grain...

If you review the actual UNMOVIC report (Link at Bottom of Post), rather than believe that right wing wannabe newspaper rag (paybacks a bitch ain’t it), you can’t really come to ANY conclusion about ANYTHING relating to the supposed WMD’s. All it really reports is that they have found scrap metal old parts that were shipped out of Iraq and that some old buildings were torn down. Is THAT, YOUR, proof ? ? ? ,  come on . . .

Your link/story doesn't even mention Line item #14 of that report,

[ #14. In general, from 1999 to 2002 Iraq procured a variety of dual-use biological and chemical items and materials, including chemicals, equipment and spare parts. To date, UNMOVIC has found "NO" evidence that these were used for proscribed chemical or biological weapon purposes. Although some of the goods may have been acquired by Iraq outside the framework of mechanisms established under Security Council resolutions, most of them were later declared by Iraq to UNMOVIC in its semi-annual monitoring declarations. ]

ALSO, see said Photo's on Page #4, really scarey WMD's huh ?
They call it "Scrap Metal" for a reason.

=============================================

Related to Your story, why not post this link ...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/2/221920.shtml

... "Powell Presses CIA About Faulty Intelligence" . . .

- Secretary of State Colin Powell is demanding the CIA explain its faulty intelligence during the run up to the Iraq war. He is having a hard time finding answers as he presses officials at the CIA to account for faulty information he was given regarding Iraq's banned weapons of mass destruction programs.
- Powell’s timing for his demands couldn’t be worse for the administration, which would rather focus on other issues during a heated election season.
- The agency now considers the information to be false, but Powell wants to know more about the sources the CIA used to come to a conclusion that served as one catalyst for President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.
- The Times said the CIA relied on four sources for the information, at least two of which were Iraqi defectors who were introduced to American intelligence circles through the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group formed in exile by Saddam nemesis AHMAD CHALABI.
-{note: George Tenet resigns as CIA director the NEXT day, and of course you know what they think of Chalabi now.}-

Convincing 'Evidence' ???
-------------------------
- As early as last summer Powell said the intel regarding mobile labs was "some of the most solid" evidence the U.S. had, though in the past few months he has retreated somewhat from that claim.
- And two weeks ago, Powell said "the sourcing" of the information "was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading."
- A source close to Powell told the New York Times that Powell was purposively distancing himself from the Bush administration and its Iraq policy.

Seeking Answers ???
------------------
- But Powell knows he has the administration in the crosshairs. He can’t be fired by Bush because of the political backfire. At the same time, he can exact revenge on the administration for not having heeded his early advice to avoid a direct war with Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Suspicious Trailers ???
-----------------------
- Suspicious semi-tractor trailers found in Iraq after the American invasion were initially thought by the CIA to be mobile biological weapons factories. In May 2003, the agency produced a white paper that made the case. And as recently as January, Cheney referenced the trailers, saying if they were what they were suspected to be, he "would deem that conclusive evidence" that Saddam had developed WMD programs.
- BUT the administration and the CIA, save for Cheney, have since backed away from the suspicious trailer theory. They were based primarily on an INC defector to Germany known as "Curveball," senior intelligence officials say, however now most intelligence analysts believe the trailers were used to produce hydrogen for weather balloons used in artillery practice.
- And, one of the four sources cited by the CIA initially as suppliers of the Iraqi WMD information had been labeled a fabricator in May 2002 by the Defense Intelligence Agency—information Powell was never given before making his plea to the U.N.

=============================================

"Are You Better Off Today Than You Were Four Years Ago ?"

-- Modified on 6/12/2004 3:35:23 PM

-- Modified on 6/12/2004 3:47:51 PM

The following is an excerpt from 2 sense's link to a New Yorker article from 9/1/03:

"In fact, the World Tribune is not published in the United Kingdom, nor is it, to be precise, a newspaper. It is a Web site produced, more or less as a hobby, in Falls Church, Virginia, and is dedicated to the notion, as its mission statement explains, that “there is a market for news of the world and not just news of the weird.” (Nonetheless, the site includes a prominent feature, Cosmic Tribune, with an extraterrestrial focus, and it links to a Mafia journal called Gang Land News.) Its editor and publisher, Robert Morton, is an assistant managing editor at the Washington Times and a former “corporate editor” for News World Communications, the Times’ owner and the publishing arm of the Unification Church, led by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. (Morton and his wife, Choon Boon, are themselves followers of the Reverend Moon.) Among the World Tribune’s other recent half-ignored scoops are that Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for last month’s blackout and that a North Korean defector stressed, during a meeting in July with White House officials, the need for a preëmptive military strike against Kim Jong Il."

From Snowman's World Tribune source:

 "The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared"

 I thought we had already conquered Iraq by May 2003, and was still occupying Iraq by February 2004.  And Saddam was still able to make his missle and WMD sites disappear while we are the occupiers?  I think not.



-- Modified on 6/12/2004 4:30:24 PM

Well, it's going to be tough for the U.S. to preemptively strike against North Korea, especially when the U.S. is redeploying those troops to Iraq.

Look folks, our going into Iraq was just a plain bad idea. Whatever the remnants of Sadaam Hussein's "Weapons of Mass Destruction", there isn't enough there "there" to warrant all of the Coalition/Iraqi deaths and injuries, not to mention the hundreds of billions that it has and will cost, and the decimation of the Army as an effective fighting force. Ironically, there's probably no group in Washington D.C. more sorry about the whole enterprise than the neocons. They're learning (belatedly) that it's one thing to write their jazzy op/ed pieces about why we need to invade Baghdad and then Teheran, and another thing entirely to actually go ahead and do it. It's been said before that if any of them had actually served in the military, we probably wouldn't be in this pickle today.

Already the voting returns are coming in from our erstwhile Coalition members, and the voters are speaking their minds. First, there was the election of Zapatero and the hasty removal of Spanish troops from the Iraqi theater. Just last Thursday, Labor took a huge drubbing in local elections, judged mostly as a "no" vote to Tony Blair and his unflinching support of the war in Iraq. There's a real question whether Blair will last until the end of the year. Now, polls in the U.S. are clearly indicating that U.S. voters view our invasion of Iraq as a mistake.

If the Republicans get booted out this November, the decisive issue will undoubtedly be our invasion of Iraq. The irony is, and it's a bitter one given the high numbers of casualties involved, that if the Republicans would have listened to their anti-war opponents and simply let the UN inspectors do their job, George W. would probably have been in good shape to be elected in November.

which doesn't prove the clock is working.  Throw different shit out daily, and eventually one of them might stick to the wall.

-- Modified on 6/12/2004 5:25:50 PM

BTW, lets talk about invading North Korea AFTER we have been working diplomatic channels for 10 years and they have snubbed an amy resolutions as Iraq did...

I'm sure Germany and France will be on board for this one, since they probably will not be getting rich off of oil contracts like they were with Iraq.

the night of the 2000 elections. Please name me one major news source that has not run a story that has turned out to be bad and then you have an argument, otherise you're just blowing smoke!!

Remember this one: "Dewey defeats Truman!!"

Snowman39 says "Latest polls show 60% support the fact that we went into Iraq" yet fails to provide any back up or Proof, like oh ummmmmmm A LINK.

HOWEVER, I WILL !

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-na-iraqpoll11jun11,1,5543291.story?coll=la-news-times_poll

THE TIMES POLL
--------------------
"Going to War NOT Worth It, More Voters Say"
Support has slipped in the last six months.

By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer
June 11, 2004

WASHINGTON — MOST U.S. voters now say it was not worth going to war in Iraq . . . according to a Times poll.

The survey also showed widespread concern that the war had damaged America's image in the world, a strong desire to see NATO take the lead in managing the conflict, and deep division over whether President Bush could rally more international support for the rebuilding effort.

In perhaps the most emphatic measure of anxiety about Iraq, 53% said they did not think the situation there merited the war; 43% said it did. When Times polls asked that question in November and March, the numbers were essentially reversed.

The poll underscores how attitudes about the war loom as a dividing line in the presidential election. Among those who think the threat from Iraq justified war, Bush leads Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, 83% to 13%. Among those who think the war was not justified, Kerry leads, 84% to 11%.

Nearly three-fifths said Bush's Iraq policies had hurt America's image abroad; one in five thought they had improved attitudes toward the U.S.

Such concerns have eroded confidence in Bush's management of the war. Just 44% said they approved of Bush's handling of the war; in March, that figure was 51%. In the new poll, 35% said he had outlined a clear plan to succeed in Iraq.

------------------------------------

Note: (May need to register at LA Times to view link, I'll look around for another)




-- Modified on 6/14/2004 6:47:50 PM

Thanks for the LATimes link, AHTBS. That was indeed the poll I was thinking of when I stated that the majority of voters now think that our going into Iraq was not worth it.

Indeed, the polling of only 43% of registered voters that still think it was a good idea to invade Iraq matches rather closely George W.'s recent polling support, in head-to-head matches with Kerry:

Poll      Date    John Kerry George Bush

Fox News June 9     45         43

LA Times June 9     51         44

Gallup   June 8     50         44

Zogby    June 7     44         42

ARG      June 3     48         46

I reiterate my central point: our invasion into Iraq was ill-conceived and may well cost George W. the election.

One very interesting point has been the rapidity with which the American public is turning negative on the Iraqi war. Although parallels have been made between Iraq and Vietnam, it should be remembered that US involvement in Southeast Asia was highly popular for years (at least 4 years in the mid to late 60's) before turning decisively negative. I would suppose that this is due, in part, to the relative inability of the W. administration to control the media outlets - there are really too many of them, particularly given the internet. Indeed for an administration that prides itself on keeping secrets, everything seems to be tumbling out like a vulgar belch.

Snowman39, how come you DON'T respond to Facts ? can't defend your position, or What ?

You post link to WMD story, I post link to actual report with photo's, NO REPLY FROM YOU ! ! !
You post BS that polls show 60% support fact we went into Iraq, I PROVE (w/ Link) that your statement was BS, and in fact can also now show Iraqi's DON'T/DIDN'T want us there, and yet STILL NO RESPONSE FROM YOU ! ! !

I'M CALLING YOU OUT Snowman39, PUT UP OR ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG ! ! !
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Poll of Iraqis Reveals Anger Toward U.S.
----------------------------------------------
Jun 15, 6:01 PM EDT
By John Solomon
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A poll of Iraqis commissioned by the U.S.-backed government has provided the Bush administration a stark picture of anti-American sentiment - more than half of Iraqis believe they would be safer if U.S. troops simply left.

The poll, commissioned by the Coalition Provisional Government last month but not released to the American public, also found radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is surging in popularity, 92 percent of Iraqis consider the United States an occupying force and more than half believe all Americans behave like those portrayed in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of a multimedia presentation about the poll that was shown to U.S. officials involved in developing Iraq policy. Several officials said in interviews the results reinforced feelings that the transfer of power and security responsibilities to the Iraqis can't come too soon.

The poll results conflict with the generally upbeat assessments the administration continues to give Americans. Just last week, President Bush predicted future generations of Iraqis "will come to America and say, thank goodness America stood the line and was strong and did not falter in the face of the violence of a few." However, the current generation of Iraqi's seems eager for Americans to leave, the poll found.

The coalition's confidence rating in May stood at 11 percent, down from 47 percent in November, while coalition forces had just 10 percent support. Nearly half of Iraqis said they felt unsafe in their neighborhoods. And 55 percent of Iraqis reported to the pollsters they would feel safer if U.S. troops immediately left, nearly double the 28 percent who felt that way in January.

Frustration over security was made worse this spring by revelations of sexual and physical abuse of Iraqis by U.S. guards at the Abu Ghraib prison.

The poll, taken in mid-May shortly after the controversy began, found 71 percent of Iraqis said they were surprised by the humiliating photos and tales of abuse at the hands of Americans, but 54 percent said they believed all Americans behave like the guards.

The prison scandal has also become fodder in the United States, as Democratic challenger John Kerry accuses Bush of failing to set a proper moral tone. "I think the president is underestimating the full affect of what has happened in the world to our reputation because of that prison scandal," Kerry said Tuesday.

Anger at Americans was evident in other aspects of the poll, including a rapid rise in popularity for al-Sadr, the Muslim cleric who has been leading insurgents fighting U.S.-led coalition forces.

The poll reported that 81 percent of Iraqis said they had an improved opinion of al-Sadr in May from three months earlier, and 64 percent said the acts of his insurgents had made Iraq more unified.

The coalition's Iraq polling of 1,093 adults selected randomly in six different cities - Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Diwaniyah, Hillah and Baquba was taken May 14-23 and had a margin of potential sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. Crucial details on the methodology of the coalition's polling were not provided, including how samples were drawn.

The most recent independent polling by Gallup found more than half of Iraqis want U.S. and British troops to leave the country within the next few months.

---------------------------------------------------------
"Are YOU Really Better Off Today Than Four Years Ago ?"

-- Modified on 6/15/2004 3:53:15 PM

Check out the first question!!

BTW, I didn't say SHIT about the Iraqis, so I don't know where you are getting that crap from. Last time I checked, they couldn't vote in Presidental elections...

In regards to your counter regarding WMDs, did you even READ the article you linked to before you tried to use it as proof? From what you linked to:

Quote:

Still, the question of whether or not Saddam manufactured weapons of mass destruction has not been fully answered. Indeed, Saddam may have had an active weapons program, as the Bush administration insisted, but managed to squirrel it away before the shooting began.

End Quote:

So basically, your article admits that mine may be valid. THANKS FOR BACKING UP MY ARGUMENT...

Man, you need to get a LOT BETTER at this debate stuff if you want to try to call somebody out on a public board like that...

your link from pollingreport.com backs you ONE time debate expert, with gee a FOX news poll, EVERY OTHER POLL backs MY Stats ! ! ! !

FOX News/Opinion Poll, gives you your 60%, but LOOKIE it's going down each time they re-poll. And it also says they think it has made the USA LESS SAFE ! ! !
The Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor poll I guess also backs you but to a lesser degree.

-----
ALL these polls say the exact opposite !

Associated Press-Ipsos poll
The Los Angeles Times Poll
The Gallup Poll
ABC News/Washington Post Poll
CBS News Poll
Newsweek Poll
Time/CNN Poll


And say people either don't think Iraq was worth it and/or Bush is handling it Badly, and has put the USA in MORE danger ! ! !

by the way, Thanks for that link

==================================

as for the WMD's;

"Still, the question of whether or not Saddam manufactured weapons of mass destruction has not been fully answered. Indeed, Saddam "MAY" have had an active weapons program, as the Bush administration insisted, but managed to squirrel it away before the shooting began."

You think the word "MAY" backs up your claim and was worth going to war over huh ?

Plus maybe you think the new 9/11 commission report is bogus too huh ? Did you bother looking at the Photo of your WMD at that junk pile, looks about as dangerous as a Yugo, but hey I guess your right in the wrong hands that Yugo could be a Killer.

The whole debate started with my post of

"Latest polls show 60% support the fact that we went into Iraq"

You were the one that said that number was a lie, I proved you wrong(AGAIN, THIS IS GETTING REPETATIVE).

The other questions deal with entirely different subjects (how is Bush handling the war, etc). If you want to debate these, fine, but that was not my statement. Try sticking with the debate at hand, if you want to start another debate, post a new thread and well debate that, but don't start quoting irrelavent survey questions which do not have anything to do with what I first posted...