Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

George Tenen's speach (long post)

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Smeg Head, Feb 6, 2004.

  1. Smeg Head

    Smeg Head IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    George Tenen's speach (long post)

    Whole text

    I'm going to take important excerpts of the speach and comment on them.

    First strike. Iraq was a nation with a past of using WMDs, the money to make them, the desire to make them, and the motive to use them.
    Second strike. Iraq kept perfect records second only to Hitler's Germany. They knew exactly where all the weapon systems were. They had a long and near perfect record of keeping things hidden from the UN inspectors. Only somebody in denial could believe Saddam's goons when they say they "don't know" where the weapons are.

    We knew they were playing a shell game. Why would they do that if they didn't have something they didn't want the inspectors to find?
    Multiple sources. Not one with the big picture. But all together and the puzzle becomes clear. They had weapons and weapon systems that were prohibited.

    Did these strands of information weave into a perfect picture? Could they answer every question? No, far from it. But taken together, this information provided a solid basis on which to estimate whether Iraq did or did not have weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.

    [/quote]But before we start, let me be direct about an important fact. As we meet here today, the Iraq Survey Group is continuing its important search for people and data. And despite some public statements, we are nowhere near 85 percent finished. The men and women who work in that dangerous environment are adamant about that fact.[/quote]

    We're nowhere near done. Saying there is nothing there is like saying you have no socks without looking any further than your sock drawer. Same goes for Iraq. We're not done looking. And we won't be done for a lot longer.
    But with the past history of Iraq you cannot deny that it's use wasn't likely. You do not invest millions of dollars in a weapon system just to not use it. Unless said system is part of a MAD deterrant. Which a regional biological weapon delivery system is not.

    Yet Saddam had biological-capable UAVs. Those two points separate don't mean much. But together and you have the necessary components for a biological war.

    The Iraq Survey Group found a network of laboratories and safe houses controlled by Iraqi intelligence and security services that contained equipment for chemical and biological research and a prison laboratory complex possibly used in human testing for biological weapons agents that were not declared to the United Nations.

    It also appears that Iraq had the infrastructure and the talent to resume production, but we have yet to find that it actually did so, nor have we found weapons. [/quote]

    They had the infrastructure, the talent, the delivery system and the desire to have said weapons. With Iraq's previous history of using WMDs, you cannoy deny he was a danger to the world.

    Until we get to the bottom of the role played by the Iraqi security services, which were operating covert labs, we will not know the full extent of the program.

    And I must tell you that we are finding discrepancies in some claims made by human sources about mobile biological weapons production before the war. Because we lack direct access to the most important sources on this question, we have as yet been able to resolve the differences

    My provisional bottom line today: Iraq intended to develop biological weapons. Clearly, research and development work was under way that would have permitted a rapid shift to agent production if seed stocks were available. But we do not yet know if production took place. And just as clearly, we have not yet found biological weapons.

    Before I leave the biological weapons story, an important fact that you must consider: For years the U.N. searched unsuccessfully for Saddam's biological weapons program. His son-in-law, Hussein Kamil, who controlled the hidden program, defected and only then was the world able to confirm that Iraq indeed had an active and dangerous biological weapons program.

    Indeed, history matters when dealing with these complicated problems. While many of us want instant answers, the search for biological weapons in Iraq will take time and it will take patience. [/quote]

    Have not YET found biological weapons. Tenent said earlier they were not done yet. There is still much of Iraq to search. He's (and I as well) have said have patience.

    A few dorm rooms. Iraq has the land mass of California. Do you remember the arguments as to why we can't find illegals immigrants? It's too big of a task. And there are millions of immigrants in California alone. How difficult do you think it'd be to locate three specific rooms in California that have been expertly concealed by people with unlimited money?

    I've designed a few basements with concealed spaces in them. All have been for keeping valuables safe and concealed. Even using just basic construction techniques it is possible to conceal the existance of said room without any dificulty. True experts in concealment with the space of Iraq could make several tons of chemical weaponry disappear and never be found again.

    Taken by itself this source is easily discounted. But add in the intercepted electronic communications. Add in the refusal to account for the missing WMDs. Add a pinch of past history of lying and deception. Fold in the means of delivery. Whip together with purchase orders for nuclear components from North Korea. Bake for an hour at 350 degrees and voila! A picture of Saddam doing everythign in his ability to have a massive WMD system.

    But the search will continue.

    Which ties in with human sources saying the WMDs were concealed in plain sight in amongst the conventional weapons. We haven't had the time for our limited resources to inpect every individual mortar shell, artillery shell, missle warhead, bomb, etc. This will take a LONG time.

    Difficult when you are tasked with providing the intelligence used for the protection of the US and the rest of the world by proxy.

    I personally believe this to be the case. We erred on the side of caution. Keeps our civilians alive.

    Had not Sen. Church and Sen. Kerry not been so pro-active in destroying our intelligence capabilities this problem wouldn't have been so insurmountable. And had Pres. Clinton not issued the order that we can no longer hire "undesirables" for clandestine work, we could have turned hundreds if not thousands of Iraqi goons to our side (i.e. paycheck) and really known what was going on.

    To give Pres. Clinton credit, he did allow the intelligence community to grow slightly. Only because we were no longer allowed to use "undesirables" to do the dirty work for us. But it wasn't enough to stem the tide of people leaving the morass the intel community was beaten down to.

    Now as in since Pres. Bush became president and made the intel community feel welcome again.

    And that is just what they're telling us about. Nevermind the thousands of SpecWar people who do the black ops we know nothing about. Nevermind the other nations doing the same and sharing their intel with us.

    Libya is more of a success than he's making it out to be. By fighting in Iraq, we forced Libya's hand. We fought one war and because of it avoided another. Countless thousands of Libyians don't have to die because of a single despot.

     
  2. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    You'd be alot more credible if you had spelled Tenet's name correctly :p

    No different from the UK, the US, French or Germans. Remember?

    1) Then where are these weapon systems?
    2) Record keeping is kinda what government does.
    3) I'm pretty sure most modern governments are much better than 1930's Germany at keeping records. Points for comparing Hussein to Hitler.

    Nope, we thought and assumed they were. Read the Kay report. I'm afraid of your multiple double negatives, but hiding something that may or may not exist is hardly a good reason. But more points for baseless accusations.

    I can take three pieces of information and claim that Jesus Christ is actually Donald Trump. That doesn't make it so. Now you're just grasping.

    Toning back the number of cats looking for the ghosts in the desert suggests otherwise. But, you're right (finally). We're not done looking yet.


    Way to cover your *** with Star Wars. 'Nuff said, weak sauce.

    How do you jump from think (in the text) to know (what you assume)? Again, wild speculation not backed by facts....hmmm, a pattern seems to be emerging.

    After this, you totally suck at parsing the quotes and what not ;), and I'm tired. I'll leave the rest of your poor reasoning to others who actually care.

    Long story short, there was no imminent threat to the U.S., there seem to be no WMD, and we were lied to by the administration.
     
  3. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So if Hussein was never claimed to be an imminent threat, why are we so hell bent on proving he was? Why did we invade if there was no imminent threat?
     
  4. Stark_

    Stark_ IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    How quickly we forget. The case for war was made under the assumption that Iraq had these weapons, would not hesitate to sell or use them, and that they posed and immediate and serious threat to our national security. Not that we would be liberating the citizens of Iraq, not that Iraq might be dangerous soon, but that Iraq posed an IMMEDIATE AND SERIOUS THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY!

    I would say all evidence now points to that idea being wrong. We seem to have been lead into a war based on very shaky "facts". I believe that further investigation will only reinforce this.
     
  5. Smeg Head

    Smeg Head IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    We stopped him BEFORE he could be an imminent threat.

    Saddam has been a known threat to the US since 1998. The reasons given for Operation Desert Fox were the exact same ones as the reasons given for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Saddam has been known to be a threat for years. You quickly you forgot that.

    Those "shaky facts" were agreed upon by the UN and Pres. Clinton in 1998.
    Those "shaky facts" were agreed upon by congress in 2002.
    Those "shaky facts" weren't entirely right and not entirely wrong. The question still remains, are we safer now that Saddam is dead?
     
  6. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    When did he die? I hadn't heard that. You're so funny, Smeg. Especially when you try to debate. Stick to opinon, you're much better at that.
     
  7. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are a lot of people and nations that could become an imminent threat 10-20 years down the road. I don't see us invading Europe or Russia or China or South America or...

    You've gotta face facts, man. The argument for pre-emptive strike doctrine is pure paranoia and absolutely nothing else. There is no way to know a man's future intentions.

    It is not logical, humane, or even economically or militarily viable to invade all nations that could at some point become an imminent threat.

    Didn't you just say he wasn't a threat?

    So was he or was he not a threat?

    "Shaky facts" not being entirely right is exactly what makes them shaky facts. We are much less safe with him gone. How many Americans per day were dying prior to his "death" compared to after? How many nations existed in states of anarchy prior compared to after?
     
  8. jimmyboy

    jimmyboy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    When it comes down to it, the U.S. invaded Iraq because it believed Iraq to be an imminent threat at the time of the invasion.

    "Bush had come under increasing pressure from Democrats in recent days in the wake of the admission by chief weapons inspector David Kay that he could not substantiate that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had the kind of weapons arsenal the administration maintained was in existence and which it used to justify the invasion of Iraq. " Source:Yahoo news.

    "Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet on Thursday defended the spies and analysts under his command, contending they never said Iraq (news - web sites) posed an "imminent" threat ..." Source: Chicago Tribune.


    Frankly, Bush has 9 months to explain the debacle. Maybe the better answer is to apologize to the American public for being incompetent, and justify that the "ends justifies the means," because Libya, a "rogue" state has forfeited its nuclear program and N. Korea is soon to follow. 9 months is a long time. The American public may forget. N. Korea may follow...

    But it looks like a mutiny in D.C. as Tenet refuses to take the bullit for Bush. Smeg, too bad you're not in the CIA. Wondered whether you would have gone down quitely for your president or spoke up as Tenet did.
     
  9. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Ah Smeg ... I do find your posts entertaining :p
     
  10. Damascus

    Damascus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    I'm still waiting for this earthshattering news Smeg said he had about WMD. It's been months and it was supposed to prove us wrong. These guys really know how to tease.
     
  11. Sergeant

    Sergeant IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Bah, Smeg, I'm just tired of trying to get others to see it our way. I find no fault in our offensive against Iraq. Whether the real reason is oil, WMD's or the chance for American troops to have a Super Bowl party in one of Saddam's palace's, the bottom line is this, Saddam was a brutal, violent, sadistic ruler. He used chemical weapons on his own citizens many times, invaded Kuwait unprovoked, murdered anyone who opposed him, brutalized his citizens, took advantage of the oil-for-food program for personal power gains. He was a regional threat for certain and we are all but certain if he wasn't a global threat already, he would have been if given enough time and could have been if someone pushed him in a way he didn't like.

    Crap, I've just explained myself on this again. :xsmile4:
     
  12. Damascus

    Damascus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    So we can alter sovereign nations on a whim because we feel like it? We don't like you, so we're gonna kill you?
     
  13. Smeg Head

    Smeg Head IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Ah, but it's fun trying.

    And yes Damascus, that's exactly how it is. We don't like those who support and harbor those that want to kill our civilians. So we kill them first. I'd rather a few enemy die than millions of Americans. Don't you?
     
  14. Sergeant

    Sergeant IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    We don't like Saddam, we didn't kill him. So who exactly are you talking about? Iraqis have died who support and fight for Saddam even now that he's in custody and totally out of power. They do so by choice and we return fire. Ours have died, theirs have died, that is war.

    But to answer your question, yes, that's how it is. You harbor terrorists, fund terrorism, threaten neighbors, brutalize and terrorize citizens, defy the world community, violate cease fires and you will be dealt with. You put it simply and a little harshly but in a general sense, yeah, that's how it goes.
     
  15. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But he wasn't a threat.

    I know it's easy to bypass your own moral beliefs by pretending we only killed 6 or 7 faceless people who had no lives other than hating America, but we've killed thousands upon thousands of non-military personnel who are just trying to carve out a life for themselves in the dirt, imprisoned hundreds, and lost hundreds of our own. For what? To eliminate a non-threat.
     
  16. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So the US is next on the chopping block?
     
  17. Sergeant

    Sergeant IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Eh, just say your post. Now we can wait for Dam or someone else to come back and say "I don't want anyone to die!". They want their cake on a silver platter and fed to them by a nubile woman desiring nothing else but making their cake eating experience as erotic as possible.
     
  18. Damascus

    Damascus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    And how many US civilians did Iraq kill?
     
  19. Sergeant

    Sergeant IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    True, lots of innocent people have died. But, **newsflash**, they were dying in larger numbers when he was in power and he did it for no other reason because he could and it kept him in power. We are not TRYING to kill innocent people just trying to get by. We are trying to eliminate a threat in Iraq that is hindering our ability to rebuild that nation and secure the peace and prosperity these people want and deserve badly.

    So please tell me, what terrorists have we harbored, what terrorism have we funded, what neighbors have we threatened, what citizens do we brutalize, we haven't defied the world community, and what cease fires have we violated?

    And if you try and come back with "the US did violate the world community by going to war", we didn't. The US, Great Britain and other nations were in on this as well.
     
  20. Sergeant

    Sergeant IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    NONE. And thank God for that. Now, he WAS killing his own citizens, or don't they matter? OR would you rather we'd waited until a mushroom cloud went up or a few bio attacks happened?

    Yeah, good idea, at least we'd have our smoking gun then, along with hundred of thousands of bodies. Maybe then you people would pipe down. But then you would probably say "Why didn't someone do something about him before this happened?"

    Good grief. :xrollseye
     

Share This Page