Alaska Darin Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 The # 2 man at CentCom during the Afghanistan/Iraq campaigns was on the radio on the way home tonight. He admitted that HUMINT and Technical Intelligence from 17-19 March showed that Iraq moved WMDs out of the country. He is now working for the Shaw Group in Dubai. His task is infrastructure and military base building in Iraq. Recent Article States the Same Thing As I've stated numerous times before, I'm FAR more concerned that they didn't find anything in Iraq than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 The # 2 man at CentCom during the Afghanistan/Iraq campaigns was on the radio on the way home tonight. He admitted that HUMINT and Technical Intelligence from 17-19 March showed that Iraq moved WMDs out of the country. He is now working for the Shaw Group in Dubai. His task is infrastructure and military base building in Iraq. Recent Article States the Same Thing As I've stated numerous times before, I'm FAR more concerned that they didn't find anything in Iraq than anything else. 47605[/snapback] All Republican lies. They do, after all, put the "con" in "neo-con". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Old News. Not just the WMD's, but some key "figures" as well. And also a couple billion in US currency. The board members don't get that the key biological stuff from the entire program, what was important, made it out in three small suitcases. Sorry, don't have a CBS link. Tom, shouldn't you be a Newly Wed? (Sorry, I just feel a need to bust on you. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Old News. Not just the WMD's, but some key "figures" as well. And also a couple billion in US currency. The board members don't get that the key biological stuff from the entire program, what was important, made it out in three small suitcases. Sorry, don't have a CBS link. Tom, shouldn't you be a Newly Wed? (Sorry, I just feel a need to bust on you. ) 47633[/snapback] Three suitcases? That much? Somebody the other day asked me "Well, where are Saddam's WMD's then?" I answered: "By now, probably Ohio." I think I scared him. Hell, I scared ME...I was just bullshitting him, but I was probably more right than I ever care to know. The Better Half is sleeping already. Has to get up at 5am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 28, 2004 Author Share Posted September 28, 2004 Three suitcases? That much? Somebody the other day asked me "Well, where are Saddam's WMD's then?" I answered: "By now, probably Ohio." I think I scared him. Hell, I scared ME...I was just bullshitting him, but I was probably more right than I ever care to know. The Better Half is sleeping already. Has to get up at 5am. 47649[/snapback] Apparently the Hot Pockets crowd expects something along the lines of an MX rail car garrison to turn up. The good General made mention that they did analysis of the desert in Iraq and there could be "x" number (I don't remember the number but it was more than one and less than 30) of Empire State Buildings buried out there and we'd never be able to find them. He felt their entire chemical program could be buried in 2 van sized containers and their bio was in no more than 2 suitcases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Apparently the Hot Pockets crowd expects something along the lines of an MX rail car garrison to turn up. The good General made mention that they did analysis of the desert in Iraq and there could be "x" number (I don't remember the number but it was more than one and less than 30) of Empire State Buildings buried out there and we'd never be able to find them. He felt their entire chemical program could be buried in 2 van sized containers and their bio was in no more than 2 suitcases. 47666[/snapback] Three. trust me. Chem was never the issue. I'll shut up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 I heard someone (can't remember who) say that the whole WMD hangup is over the word "stockpiles." I tend to think that's correct. Even if we had the three suitcases, people would be complaining that we went to war over three suitcases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 The # 2 man at CentCom during the Afghanistan/Iraq campaigns was on the radio on the way home tonight. He admitted that HUMINT and Technical Intelligence from 17-19 March showed that Iraq moved WMDs out of the country. He is now working for the Shaw Group in Dubai. His task is infrastructure and military base building in Iraq. Recent Article States the Same Thing As I've stated numerous times before, I'm FAR more concerned that they didn't find anything in Iraq than anything else. 47605[/snapback] Darin, He is just some dumb jarhead, WTF does he know, right? As-s-hole. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 28, 2004 Author Share Posted September 28, 2004 Darin, He is just some dumb jarhead, WTF does he know, right? As-s-hole. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: 47805[/snapback] You're way too hostile. Maybe you should go to anger management classes with me after Ice does my intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 You're way too hostile. Maybe you should go to anger management classes with me after Ice does my intervention. 48003[/snapback] Ice doing an intervention. Is that anything like a colon blow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 I've worked for Gen. DeLong. He's a pilot whose call sign is "Rifle", in part because he's shot down many weak officer's careers. This guy is hard as woodpecker lips. He's a straight shooter who's NOT politically correct and calls things like he sees them. A very difficult gentleman to work for... While he was the 2nd in command to Gen. Franks, you may have noticed that he never was on the evening news. That's not an accident. While he is an outstanding officer, a politician he's not. I give great weight to what he says. OK Leftys...pile on...Let me start the chant for you...Flightsuit! Bush is a Liar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 I've worked for Gen. DeLong. He's a pilot whose call sign is "Rifle", in part because he's shot down many weak officer's careers. This guy is hard as woodpecker lips. He's a straight shooter who's NOT politically correct and calls things like he sees them. A very difficult gentleman to work for... While he was the 2nd in command to Gen. Franks, you may have noticed that he never was on the evening news. That's not an accident. While he is an outstanding officer, a politician he's not. I give great weight to what he says. OK Leftys...pile on...Let me start the chant for you...Flightsuit! Bush is a Liar! 48043[/snapback] How's he compare to General Boomer then. I have met and talked with Boomer a little. PC is not his gig either but what a great Marine. He was expected to be the Commandant back then, but there was no way Billy boy was goona allow that. Too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 28, 2004 Author Share Posted September 28, 2004 I've worked for Gen. DeLong. He's a pilot whose call sign is "Rifle", in part because he's shot down many weak officer's careers. This guy is hard as woodpecker lips. He's a straight shooter who's NOT politically correct and calls things like he sees them. A very difficult gentleman to work for... While he was the 2nd in command to Gen. Franks, you may have noticed that he never was on the evening news. That's not an accident. While he is an outstanding officer, a politician he's not. I give great weight to what he says. OK Leftys...pile on...Let me start the chant for you...Flightsuit! Bush is a Liar! 48043[/snapback] That's pretty much the way he came across in the interview. The interviewer asked him what "technical intelligence" means. He said "intelligence gathered by technical means." The interviewer pressed him to clarify and he said "that's as much as I'm willing to say." It was nice to see a Senior Officer not give away the store for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 That's pretty much the way he came across in the interview. The interviewer asked him what "technical intelligence" means. He said "intelligence gathered by technical means." The interviewer pressed him to clarify and he said "that's as much as I'm willing to say." It was nice to see a Senior Officer not give away the store for a change. 48053[/snapback] Technical intelligence is really a board topic. Satellite images, phone taps, communications intercepts, monitoring pro Islamic websites for hidden messages. I know in the case of the Lackawanna six, the FBI did a trap and trace on their internet connection. Who knows what type of intelligence they got from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Tony Blair today acknowledged that the intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s suspected weapons of mass destruction - vital to the case for the Iraq war – was wrong. "The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. "I acknowledge that and accept it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 28, 2004 Author Share Posted September 28, 2004 Tony Blair today acknowledged that the intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s suspected weapons of mass destruction - vital to the case for the Iraq war – was wrong. "The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. "I acknowledge that and accept it." 48367[/snapback] So he was wrong then and now he's right? Probably not because it suits your political agenda. [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 So he was wrong then and now he's right? Isn't it funny how when someone takes the time to find out all the facts, you can be wrong one day and then shown more evidence and correct your mistakes. It's refreshing to hear a government official admit they were wrong, as opposed to someone who is too stubborn to admit they led the nation to war under false pretenses. Blair will still be held accountable by his own voters for caving into Bush's rush to war instead of taking the time to find out all the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 28, 2004 Author Share Posted September 28, 2004 Isn't it funny how when someone takes the time to find out all the facts, you can be wrong one day and then shown more evidence and correct your mistakes. It's refreshing to hear a government official admit they were wrong, as opposed to someone who is too stubborn to admit they led the nation to war under false pretenses. Blair will still be held accountable by his own voters for caving into Bush's rush to war instead of taking the time to find out all the facts. 48402[/snapback] Except he's if he's wrong this time, alot more people are going to be dead because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Except he's if he's wrong this time, alot more people are going to be dead because of it. How could that happen, Bush says we're safer now than before the invasion of Iraq. If we can't trust the president to be honest about our safety, then he shouldn't be president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Below are his reasons for not going after bin Laden in Tora Bora. Did we make the right decision based on what the stated reasons were????? TCP: Sen. Kerry has said more than once that President Bush let Osama bin Laden escape at Tora Bora. In your book, to say the least,you explain it much differently. DeLong: Sen. Kerry didn’t know what happened. He’s no more better informed than the armchair generals who went after us (on TV.) And what was going on at the time, where bin Laden was in the Tora Bora caves, there was a tribal area that was full of civilians. You couldn’t go up there with soldiers of any force – especially us – because we would have been fighting them to get to bin Laden. Whether we would have gotten to him remains to be seen. This was a tribe on the border, and the only people who were accepted up there was the Pakistani army. You know how tough guarding a border is – with Texas and New Mexico and Arizona for example. We didn’t kill any civilians unnecessarily up there. We know for a fact from our multiple intelligence sources that we wounded bin Laden. But yes, he did get away. If we had killed a number of civilians, our chances of getting elections in Afghanistan would have never happened. It was a diplomatic, not a political call. It was a call to get this country back together again. We knew the death or capture of bin Laden was important. But getting rid of al Qaeda and getting the country feeling good, feeling nationalistic, was important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts