Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Because the CIA told him that they knew it for a fact."
This is simply untrue. The CIA never told Bush that they knew, for a fact, that Saddam had WMDs. Hey, I don't doubt that there are people at the CIA who were positively convinced that WMDs existed, but that does not make it an official CIA document. A substantial percentage of the American public believes in flying saucers and some of them work at the CIA, but that doesn't mean that the CIA believes that flying saucers exist.
Re: "Because an Iraqi general told them that it was so - and he still says it."
It's kind of hilarious that after all you've posted about Arabs being liars, that you would claim that the intelligence agencies trusted the word of an Arab. No, the CIA knows that all humans are congenital liars and their words cannot be trusted. That's why the CIA, and other intelligence agencies, do not rely on the words of one man.
Don't you remember last year when you were claiming that the French said that Saddam had WMDs? I challenged you to find proof and you failed. What the French had said was that they suspected such, not that they were certain. You repeatedly posted the lie that the French had stated that WMDs were a fact. If you've forgotten here's a reminder:
Nadine, November 6, 2003
As Brumar pointed out to you, France stated in PUBLIC that Saddam had WMDs! Their argument was that even though Saddam had WMDs, he was "contained" enough not to need invasion.
... #reply-19473400
Bilow, in reply
In early 2003, France NEVER publicly made the statement that Iraq was in possession of WMDs as of early 2003. Now even I say that Iraq had WMDs long before that, but France DID NOT say that in early 2003, Iraq STILL had WMDs. At best, what Chirac said was that Iraq "probably" still had WMDs. Here's the original source, in context, from Time Magazine:
... #reply-19480860
Nadine, in reply
Carl, you are wrong on both the facts and the implications. In January 2003, Dominique de Villepin argued in the UNSC that "Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are being largely blocked, even frozen," which says quite plainly that they did exist, for how do you block or freeze something that doesn't exist?
... #reply-19480997
Bilow, in response
Cute. You left out the word "programs". Was this an accidental slip on your part [if so, get a computer geek to show you how to "select" text] or did you get it from one of the lying liars? It's a heck of a note when people lie like dogs in order to justify an unwinnable war. And a mistake that involves dropping an important word shouldn't be used to justify the death of thousands.
So after correcting your misquote, if this is the best example you've got that the French "said that Iraq has WMDs", then you failed.
... #reply-19481071
Nadine, in response
Yes, Carl, Barnes did misquote him. But before you go off into another, "see 2+2=22!" dance, let us remember that ... #reply-19481155 [Still no quotes]
It's now January 31st and you still have provided absolutely no evidence to back up your claim that the French knew that Saddam had WMDs in late 2003 or early 2004. None. But still you keep parroting the party line. Hey, if the French really HAD said that Saddam had WMDs, then why did you and the war heads go to the trouble of deliberately misquoting the French in order to make it look like they did? The answer is simple: You had no evidence proving your position, so you faked it.
The best you can come up with is that last post of yours, (i.e. #reply-19481155 ) where you gave what you felt were logical reasons for why the French should have believed that Iraq had WMDs, or why they would not have made it public. That's not proof that the French believed the Iraqis had WMDs, it's only evidence that you think that the French believed the Iraqis had WMDs, LOL.
-- Carl |
