How to Build an Atomic Bomb, By GWB

[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No comments about “Blessed July?” None about support provided to Al-Qaeda linked terrorist in the Phillipines? Are we going to be selective here? Recognize the Nuclear weapon schematics (I thought they werent supposed to have?!) while ignoring the above?

If I could just interrupt your fist fight with the straw man claiming Saddam was an angel…

Where are the working ties with al qaeda? none.
Where are the WMD we thought he had at the time of invasion? not any.
Connection to 9/11? none.

It’d be really helpful to stick with the actual disagreements…

Now, continue to justify how in the world its a good idea to have blueprints for building a fission bomb on the internet. Perhaps vetting this material would have been a good idea…instead, idiots running on “strong on terror” put this stuff on the web, having no idea (admitted) what was in the info.

and now back to your disagreement with straw man.

My god, the more I read your post over… You called these documents blueprints for building a fission bomb. These blueprints were found post-war Iraq! You are ignoring the elephant in the room! The questions begging to be asked here!

It falls in line with the Iraqi Survey group findings.

Folks there are millions of, yet to be translated, Iraqi documentation and media. The intelligence community has been overwhelmed by the sheer amount of media that STILL has yet to be translated and analyzed. What will be found in those once it’s all said and done?

Some of these things discussed here have only recently been translated. And this comes from captured media. Who knowns what was destroyed in the coordinated and wide-scale “sanitation” operations during the war.

Couple what some of these documents have recently demonstrated, to the findings of the Iraqi Survey group…Saddam’s regime was actively preserving and compartmenatlizing WMD research, and production capabilites.
[/quote]

Still no connection to 9/11.
Still no working relationship with al qaeda (the opposite).
Still no active WMD programs.

Whitehouse says all the above
Pentagon says all the above.
Evidence says all the above.

Now back to your dramatic fight with straw man.

Oh, ok cool. Then there was no detailed Iraqi nuclear schematics, captured POST-WAR, posted on the internet.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Saddam’s regime was actively preserving and compartmenatlizing WMD research, and production capabilites.

Still no connection to 9/11.
Still no working relationship with al qaeda (the opposite).
Still no active WMD programs.

Whitehouse says all the above
Pentagon says all the above.
Evidence says all the above.

Now back to your dramatic fight with straw man.[/quote]

Here’s what I said.

“Saddam’s regime was actively preserving and compartmenatlizing WMD research, and production capabilites.”

Care for me to post ISG findings backing this up? I’d invite anyone to look at the finding on their own. However, if you want to challenge my quote, I’ll start posting ISG findings. I can back this statement up, if you’d like me to.

Nor, do you even touch upon the fact that among the debated documentation, of which the nuclear papers were part of, that Iraq supported a phillipines terror group linked to Al Qaeda. Having your cake and eating it too?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, ok cool. Then there was no detailed Iraqi nuclear schematics captured POST-WAR on the web.[/quote]

If this is true, then I have to ask: Why do Congressmen Roberts and Hoekstra hate America? Why does President Bush hate America? Why did they supply this information to our enemies? When do their trials for treason begin?

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Oh, ok cool. Then there was no detailed Iraqi nuclear schematics captured POST-WAR on the web.

If this is true, then I have to ask: Why do Congressmen Roberts and Hoekstra hate America? Why does President Bush hate America? Why did they supply this information to our enemies? When do their trials for treason begin?[/quote]

I’m not defending thier decision to do this. It was stupidity to the extreme. But, I’m not a biased hack, who ignores the elephant in the room. How do you point out the Nuclear papers and not exclaim “Damn, they still held onto this shit, instead of turning it over?” Or the connections to the Al Qaeda linked Phillipines group? What about the “Blessed July” documents?

Yes, I absolutely agree this was bone-headed. But damn, talk about blatant picking and choosing amongst these documents. Why aren’t the other documents getting big play time? We know the nuclear tech papers were reliable, after all.

Here’s a site that dealt with translations of the documents. Read through it, and don’t forget to check the archives. Feel free to google your own sites, if you’re not comfortable with this one. As we know, the government site has been pulled.

http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com

An interesting article on how recently translated documents (the amount translated so far is pitifully small) call into question the commission’s conclusions. Remember the Commission didn’t have translations of these documents at the time. And, again, they’ve barely scratched the surface on translating these things. The amount of documentation is massive. An excerpt from below.

A former DEMOCRATIC senator and 9/11 COMMISSIONER says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a “significant set of facts,” and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that “Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States.” Mr. Kerrey said he believed America’s understanding of the deposed tyrant’s relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Saddam’s regime was actively preserving and compartmenatlizing WMD research, and production capabilites.

Still no connection to 9/11.
Still no working relationship with al qaeda (the opposite).
Still no active WMD programs.

Whitehouse says all the above
Pentagon says all the above.
Evidence says all the above.

Now back to your dramatic fight with straw man.

Here’s what I said.

“Saddam’s regime was actively preserving and compartmenatlizing WMD research, and production capabilites.”

Care for me to post ISG findings backing this up? I’d invite anyone to look at the finding on their own. However, if you want to challenge my quote, I’ll start posting ISG findings. I can back this statement up, if you’d like me to.

Nor, do you even touch upon the fact that among the debated documentation, of which the nuclear papers were part of, that Iraq supported a phillipines terror group linked to Al Qaeda. Having your cake and eating it too?[/quote]

OK, first:

“The US government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents.”

and secondly all you or anybody needs to know about the ISG as it pertains to fake administration claims pre-invasion:

Iraq had no deployable wmd in 2003, and no production since 1991.

That Iraq had nuclear ambitions prior to 1991 is known already, to the entire world. Hilarious that wing-nuts are discovering things already known. This cookbook to building a bomb of course dates to 1991, it has nothing to do with 2003.

But if you find documents saying after 1991 Saddam started rebuilding centrifuges and cascade halls…you know, all that stuff needed to actually build a bomb–please post’em.

And again, the entire world knew saddam sponsored terrorists, but of course giving cash to a group that’s getting cash from another group doesn’t equal a working relation with al-qaeda or osama.

Man this is a dumb thread. OF COURSE we know that Iraq was working on WMD… around the time of the first Gulf War.

What do you think the UN weapons inspectors were searching for (and destroying) all throughout the 90s?

OMG, they found a blueprint!!! (pees pants)

Dumbasses.

If I had put bomb-making plans up on the internet, even unwittingly, I’d probably be facing prison time right now. But instead, we send these clowns in DC a juicy government paycheck. Pathetic!

[quote]100meters wrote:

And again, the entire world knew saddam sponsored terrorists, but of course giving cash to a group that’s getting cash from another group doesn’t equal a working relation with al-qaeda or osama.[/quote]

Woah! The entire world knew Saddam sponsored terrorists?! You just said this?! For other readers, I assume he’s talking about Iraq’s support for for Abu Sayyif, an Al Qaeda linked, Phillipino terrorist group. Let’s not forget promised rewards to suicide bomber in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Well damn! Even if he didn’t have any coordination with Osama (wouldn’t draw a conclusion yet), so what?! Hello! supporting Islamic terrorists in foriegn countries? International terrorism?

The connection to Abu Sayyif was only a start. Tommorow I’ll go over some additional documents regarding the training of non-Iraqi fighters. And no, I seriously doubt you’ve seen this evidence. Much of the documentation has only recently been translated.

By the way, did you read the article above? The one with the Democrat? He had a seat on the Commission. It’s a must read. Since then there’s plenty more translations. Too bad the media has been very lackluster in following them. Unless it’s pointing out that Iraqi had forbidden nuclear documentation!

I like the comment about how the nuclear documentation is dated around 1991. And? Think about it for a second, seriously. And? This documentation was not to be held back! This is the kind of documentation that was suppossed to be declared, and turned over/destroyed!

What you’re trying depeserately to avoid, is this. These documents were not declared and turned over/destroyed. These documents preserved nuclear WEAPON tech. Just say it already. Yes, Saddam’s regime preserved WMD know-how and research.

Tommorow I’m going to get into this debate alot. I had assumed more people knew about these recent translations and finds. Guess not. Anyways, I’ll be expanding on this. But, it’s going to be a looooong post.

For now, I invite you all to go to this link.
http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/

The Post-War commission report didn’t even have ALOT of these documents available. The intelligence community doesn’t have enough translators to even put a dent in this stuff. And, there is literally millions of media/documentation sources left to be translated.

I want to be clear, I’m not claiming Saddam had stockpiles of WMD left. I’m claiming he preserved research, documentation, kept WMD researchers close by, equipment, undeclared labs, undeclared and illegal bio samples, illegal delivery systems, etc. His intent was absolutely clear. I’ll get into some of this alo, tommorow.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Man this is a dumb thread. OF COURSE we know that Iraq was working on WMD… around the time of the first Gulf War.

What do you think the UN weapons inspectors were searching for (and destroying) all throughout the 90s?

OMG, they found a blueprint!!! (pees pants)

Dumbasses.

If I had put bomb-making plans up on the internet, even unwittingly, I’d probably be facing prison time right now. But instead, we send these clowns in DC a juicy government paycheck. Pathetic![/quote]

Uh? I’ll ask you too. What exactly is the point of bringing up the year? Were they allowed to keep Nuclear WEAPON technical documentation from that time?

And, you act as if this is all that’s been found hidden away, and preserved in Iraq. Look through the ISG interim and final findings for an idea. It’s absolutely clear that Saddam preserved WMD know how, thwarting UN inspectors time and time again. Oh sure, they’d catch him here and there. But post war turned up a large amount the UN inspectors never saw.

Visit here too.
http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/

Sloth,

As the years roll by and more of the democratic talking points are exposed as specious excrement, I’m beginning to seriously suspect that the partisan democrats are FAR MORE INTERESTED IN POWER than in principle.

Imagine if the saddam tapes were recordings of Bush.

The dems would highlight it day and night.

Much of what you are saying, I’ve posted over and over and over.

Their responses to this are very telling.

Again, they are like the hydra, knock one head off and another springs up.

It’s all about power.

JeffR

Sloth,

One more thing: I wanted to HIGHLIGHT the fact that the WMD commissions DID NOT HAVE these translations.

They didn’t have the tapes.

Therefore, all the “it’s all over folks, nothing here to see” is PREMATURE.

The question becomes: Since W. is doing a lackluster effort keeping this in people’s faces, do you and I have the strength or the time to educate the closed minded?

I’m up for it if you are.

JeffR

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Oh, ok cool. Then there was no detailed Iraqi nuclear schematics captured POST-WAR on the web.

If this is true, then I have to ask: Why do Congressmen Roberts and Hoekstra hate America? Why does President Bush hate America? Why did they supply this information to our enemies? When do their trials for treason begin?[/quote]

Michael,

Before we start pointing fingers at the Republicans (again) for creating this website perhaps lumpy/bradley/tme/pox and their ilk need to first acknowledge that Bush didn’t “lie” about the threat of hussein and his WMD’s to get us into the war.

Perhaps, they need to update their thinking on just how dangerous saddam truly was.

That’s a good starting point for this discussion.

Care to wager on their ability to do it?

JeffR

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I want to be clear, I’m not claiming Saddam had stockpiles of WMD left. I’m claiming he preserved research, documentation, kept WMD researchers close by, equipment, undeclared labs, undeclared and illegal bio samples, illegal delivery systems, etc. His intent was absolutely clear. I’ll get into some of this alo, tommorow.

[/quote]

Uhhh…The world already knows about his wishes. It’s his claimed capabilities at the time of invasion that matter, and those claims were obviously lies.

Why is this so hard to get?

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Oh, ok cool. Then there was no detailed Iraqi nuclear schematics captured POST-WAR on the web.

If this is true, then I have to ask: Why do Congressmen Roberts and Hoekstra hate America? Why does President Bush hate America? Why did they supply this information to our enemies? When do their trials for treason begin?

Michael,

Before we start pointing fingers at the Republicans (again) for creating this website perhaps lumpy/bradley/tme/pox and their ilk need to first acknowledge that Bush didn’t “lie” about the threat of hussein and his WMD’s to get us into the war.

Perhaps, they need to update their thinking on just how dangerous saddam truly was.

That’s a good starting point for this discussion.

Care to wager on their ability to do it?

JeffR

[/quote]
What they said: Iraq has wmd, deployable wmd even, and we know where they are.

Documents from 1991 don’t make this true.

You understand the concept of TIME ?

The Bush admin doesn’t defend any original reason for invading. They may know more than you. You can give up now. You were lied to. And you can prove it to yourself if so desire.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hello! supporting Islamic terrorists in foreign countries? International terrorism?[/quote]

What do you call supporting Osama Bin Laden and his Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan?

What do you call supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, financing them by selling weapons to Iran, an enemy country?

See also:

Or do a little research on the CIA/Mossad backed car-bombing of a Mosque in Lebanon in 1985 (failed attempt to kill a Shiite leader).

So, please, don’t give us that “Oh my god! How can you even think of supporting foreign terrorists” act when the US uses it as just another tool of foreign policy.

And don’t act all surprised when some of those tools later come back to bite you in the ass.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I want to be clear, I’m not claiming Saddam had stockpiles of WMD left. I’m claiming he preserved research, documentation, kept WMD researchers close by, equipment, undeclared labs, undeclared and illegal bio samples, illegal delivery systems, etc. His intent was absolutely clear. I’ll get into some of this alo, tommorow.

Uhhh…The world already knows about his wishes. It’s his claimed capabilities at the time of invasion that matter, and those claims were obviously lies.

Why is this so hard to get?

[/quote]

Um, 100 meters, who are you arguing with? Why are you bringing up pre-war intelligence to me? Why do you imagine that’s relevant to what I’ve discussed? My effort has been focused on what has been found post-war. Where is it that you’ve seen me claiming active WMD stockpiles have been found? Or, active production? Have I made claims to support stockpiles and active production?

I will explain one more time to you. I am demonstrating Saddam’s intent. You seem to conceed this by stating “The world already knows about his wishes.” Ok, so why in the world are you arguing with me? I’ve done no more than point out the plethora of prohibited research and materials Saddam’s regime hid. Is that what you disagree with?

No matter how old the research was that produced the technical know-how, it was absolutely prohibited for them to hide and preserve that knowledge. Is this what you disagree with?

Again, it seems you’ve conceeded his intent. A couple posts above you conceeded Iraq’s connections to terrorism (note I’ve made no claim to helping Ossam carry out 9/11).

So, exactly what part of my agruement are you disagreeing with? At the moment, I’m stuck trying to figure it out. Perhaps, if you’d point out where you think I’ve erred, I could actually make a rebuttal. But, as it is, I can’t figure out what you’ve disagreed with me on. Hell, I’m not sure if you’ve even read my posts.

I’m not even discussing, at this point, if we should have gone to war. I’m not attempting to defend pre-war claims of production/stockpiling (made by members of both parties, btw). So, please, rebut the points I’ve actually argued. You throw around “Straw Man” alot, which is ironic

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hello! supporting Islamic terrorists in foreign countries? International terrorism?

What do you call supporting Osama Bin Laden and his Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan?

What do you call supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, financing them by selling weapons to Iran, an enemy country?

See also:

Or do a little research on the CIA/Mossad backed car-bombing of a Mosque in Lebanon in 1985 (failed attempt to kill a Shiite leader).

So, please, don’t give us that “Oh my god! How can you even think of supporting foreign terrorists” act when the US uses it as just another tool of foreign policy.

And don’t act all surprised when some of those tools later come back to bite you in the ass.

[/quote]

Ok…And exactly what does that have to do with me, or my positions? Have you seen me support ANY of these acts? Are you arguing that I shouldn’t care about my family, friends, and potential threats to them?
Are you arueing that I, a US citizen, am no longer justified to hold opinions on such matters?

By the way, I’m interested in the Osama allegation. Would you be willing to back that up? I warn you that I’ll be a stickler on sources and documentation used. It’s just that I’ve read a number of articles debunking this claim, and wonder if you’ve something new I haven’t seen.

And can you link to the 1985 CIA/Mossad plot. I’m getting nothing but dedicated conspiracy sites, and would like to see something a little more trustworthy.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I want to be clear, I’m not claiming Saddam had stockpiles of WMD left. I’m claiming he preserved research, documentation, kept WMD researchers close by, equipment, undeclared labs, undeclared and illegal bio samples, illegal delivery systems, etc. His intent was absolutely clear. I’ll get into some of this alo, tommorow.

Uhhh…The world already knows about his wishes. It’s his claimed capabilities at the time of invasion that matter, and those claims were obviously lies.

Why is this so hard to get?

Um, 100 meters, who are you arguing with? Why are you bringing up pre-war intelligence to me? Why do you imagine that’s relevant to what I’ve discussed? My effort has been focused on what has been found post-war. Where is it that you’ve seen me claiming active WMD stockpiles have been found? Or, active production? Have I made claims to support stockpiles and active production?

I will explain one more time to you. I am demonstrating Saddam’s intent. You seem to conceed this by stating “The world already knows about his wishes.” Ok, so why in the world are you arguing with me? I’ve done no more than point out the plethora of prohibited research and materials Saddam’s regime hid. Is that what you disagree with?

No matter how old the research was that produced the technical know-how, it was absolutely prohibited for them to hide and preserve that knowledge. Is this what you disagree with?

Again, it seems you’ve conceeded his intent. A couple posts above you conceeded Iraq’s connections to terrorism (note I’ve made no claim to helping Ossam carry out 9/11).

So, exactly what part of my agruement are you disagreeing with? At the moment, I’m stuck trying to figure it out. Perhaps, if you’d point out where you think I’ve erred, I could actually make a rebuttal. But, as it is, I can’t figure out what you’ve disagreed with me on. Hell, I’m not sure if you’ve even read my posts.

I’m not even discussing, at this point, if we should have gone to war. I’m not attempting to defend pre-war claims of production/stockpiling (made by members of both parties, btw). So, please, rebut the points I’ve actually argued. You throw around “Straw Man” alot, which is ironic

[/quote]

OK, then what’s the point of you discussing things already universally know?

We knew intent–
We knew sponsoring terrorists—

so?

I guess I’ll apologize for assuming you’re justifying Bush’s reasons for invasion–since you’re only saying what was already known, and not insinuating anything else.