If Britain's intelligence agency believed that no WMDs existed in Iraq, why was Britain's military asking questions about Saddam's possible use of WMDs? Were they not informed? How does Britain's intelligence services account for areas that were never inspected because Saddam deemed them off limits? How do they account for the gaps in time where no inspectors were in country at all?
Seriously, help me out here. I'm completely open to the possibility that I'm full of ★■◆●. Gulf War I was the big war that my generation were worried about being drafted into, so I've followed the events of it closely since the beginning. Conventional wisdom of all the muckety mucks in Washington was that Saddam had stockpiles and programs in place. The American policy of regime change in Iraq was born in 1998 under Clinton, and I'm sure you've seen the laundry list of prominent Democrats quoting the "lie." I never heard a Democrat refute this in any way until the Republicans won the Whitehouse.
They say that conventional wisdom in Washington politics is just like concrete, it hardens and then there's nothing you can do about it. Is that what this is? Everyone was wrong from the start? I only ask because it seems more like politicians playing politics with a very, very serious issue. Given the fact that about 40 Iraqi air force jets were found buried under the sand, found completely by accident, to say that there may be other goodies buried in that country is in no way grasping at straws.
Downing street memo.
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
They did this because they were doing their political theatrics.Pebkac wrote:If Britain's intelligence agency believed that no WMDs existed in Iraq, why was Britain's military asking questions about Saddam's possible use of WMDs? Were they not informed? How does Britain's intelligence services account for areas that were never inspected because Saddam deemed them off limits? How do they account for the gaps in time where no inspectors were in country at all?
yup. it was like playing with fire.They say that conventional wisdom in Washington politics is just like concrete, it hardens and then there's nothing you can do about it. Is that what this is? Everyone was wrong from the start? I only ask because it seems more like politicians playing politics with a very, very serious issue.
To me, burying a jet and burying a bigass missile are two very different things.Given the fact that about 40 Iraqi air force jets were found buried under the sand, found completely by accident, to say that there may be other goodies buried in that country is in no way grasping at straws.
Have you ever seen how big a jet is? Have you ever seen how big a missile is?
Our minuteman ICBMs, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead from the US straight to Baghdad, are 59.9 feet long, and weigh in at 79,432 pounds.
One F-22 Raptor jet, our newest and best low-profile jet, is 62 feet 1 inch long, 44 feet 6 inches wide, and 16 feet 5 inches tall, and clocks in at about 60,000 pounds.
Let it be noted that the MiG-25R Foxbat B fighters our soldiers unearthed were even bigger than the F-22, clocking in at 78 feet 1 inch long, 45 feet 11 inches wide, and 20 feet tall, weighing over 80,000 pounds.
Which of these would be harder to bury?
Our minuteman ICBMs, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead from the US straight to Baghdad, are 59.9 feet long, and weigh in at 79,432 pounds.
One F-22 Raptor jet, our newest and best low-profile jet, is 62 feet 1 inch long, 44 feet 6 inches wide, and 16 feet 5 inches tall, and clocks in at about 60,000 pounds.
Let it be noted that the MiG-25R Foxbat B fighters our soldiers unearthed were even bigger than the F-22, clocking in at 78 feet 1 inch long, 45 feet 11 inches wide, and 20 feet tall, weighing over 80,000 pounds.
Which of these would be harder to bury?
It's my understanding that this memo was never intended to be viewed by the public, that's why it's discovery was such a coup, right? For who's benefit were they doing the political theatrics? If everyone in the room knows it's bull★■◆●, why bother?They did this because they were doing their political theatrics.
See Stryker's post. If anything, burying 40 Soviet-made aircraft is at least AS difficult as burying a missile or a pile of munitions.To me, burying a jet and burying a bigass missile are two very different things.
Wouldn't someone, if they wanted to hide a weapon the size of a scud, bury it in such a way that it wouldn't take hours to clean out, especially if needed in a hurry? Also, wouldn't it be buried with it's launcher accompanying it? Because a missile is basically a giant paper weight if there's no way to fire it.
My guess is the planes they found over there were just piles of crap and buried like garbage.
My guess is the planes they found over there were just piles of crap and buried like garbage.
Correct.It's my understanding that this memo was never intended to be viewed by the public, that's why it's discovery was such a coup, right?
heh, your guess is as good as mine. Sometimes politics confuses the hell outta me.For who's benefit were they doing the political theatrics?
I would imagine that the priority would be to get them out of site ASAP, as they would most assuredly be bombed. Then, wait until the Americans leave (as they always do, no stomach for a fight you see), and then dig them up and hose them off.Wouldn't someone, if they wanted to hide a weapon the size of a scud, bury it in such a way that it wouldn't take hours to clean out, especially if needed in a hurry? Also, wouldn't it be buried with it's launcher accompanying it? Because a missile is basically a giant paper weight if there's no way to fire it.
As for SCUD missiles, they aren't the only game in town. Mortar shells, RPG rounds, and any number of things could be a delivery device. How about 50-gallon drums, not too hard to bury a few thousand of those. The point was that if you can bury a fighter wing, you can successfully bury (hide) anything and have a reasonable expectation that it will never be found. That's why there's so many holes in the desert outside Vegas.
My guess is that British intelligence was not convinced of the nonexistence of WMDs. Unless they knew the minutes of the meeting would be publicized, I can't think of any reason why a roomful of people would discuss scenarios that they knew had no chance of coming to pass. It makes no sense, and that is why this "smoking gun" has yet to grow any legs.heh, your guess is as good as mine. Sometimes politics confuses the hell outta me.
Back on topic. It would appear best to wait awhile before rushing to judgement on the memos. As with Bush's national guard forged papers we have this on the DSM:
"The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.
Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper)"
http://tinyurl.com/bmk8n
"The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.
Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper)"
http://tinyurl.com/bmk8n
I don't think you're considering every delivery scenario. You think a missile is the only way to deliver a nastygram?That's gotta be one big mortar to reach from there to here.
CBS syndrome has travelled across the pond?Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper)"
It was a bit of a joke. I'm sure there are a lot more.. but anyways, back to the topic.Pebkac wrote:I don't think you're considering every delivery scenario. You think a missile is the only way to deliver a nastygram?That's gotta be one big mortar to reach from there to here.
woody, it's a transcription for a reason. to protect the source.
And stop trying to turn this into a dem vs rep thing. Bash tried it and now you're trying it too.
Please mon Ferno, I did not mention any libs, cons, dems or reps. I compared to the CBS report as merely the most recent bit of fabricated news. Are the DSM's illigitimate? I haven't a clue. Just going to wait and see how this turns out.
OTOH if you would like I could turn the DSM's into another failed liberal attempt to unseat a sitting president, but I won't....yet.
OTOH if you would like I could turn the DSM's into another failed liberal attempt to unseat a sitting president, but I won't....yet.