Saddam possibly captured

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Unfortunately, I don't have the whole article, but this is an NYTimes article from a little over a year ago:

 

 

FOREIGN DESK | August 18, 2002, Sunday

OFFICERS SAY U.S. AIDED IRAQ IN WAR DESPITE USE OF GAS

 

By PATRICK E. TYLER (NYT) 1463 words

Late Edition - Final , Section 1 , Page 1 , Column 6

 

ABSTRACT - Unidentified senior US military officers say covert US program during Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at time when US intelligence agencies knew Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons against Iran; comments respond to query about gas warfare on both sides during Iran-Iraq war; Iraq's use of gas is repeatedly cited by Bush administration in calling for regime change now; covert program took place as top Reagan administration officials, including George Shultz, Frank Carlucci and Colin Powell, publicly condemned Iraq for using poison gas, notably against Kurds; US at time sought to thwart Iran so it would not overrun oil-rich Persian Gulf states; Powell denies account; Saudi Arabia played key role in urging US to help Iraq; military informants say Lt Col Rick Francona toured Fao Peninsula after it was retaken by Iraq in early 1988 and reported that Iraq had used chemical weapons to win; map

 

Unfortunately, it ends there and shills you to buy a subscription. Meh.

[BX 0]

I'd say not, but I still thought it was worth noting.

[Jingus 0]

15.    The US Department of Commerce licensed the export of biological

materials - including a range of pathogenic agents - as well as plans for

chemical and biological warfare production facilities and chemical-warhead

filling equipment - to Iraq until December 1989, 20 months after the Halabja

atrocity.

Uh. Whoops. Never heard that one before. What was this source on this again?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Bush is on ABC right now, if you haven't been watching. Interview about the capture of Saddam and what not. Some very interesting insights, and a few that might interest the more liberal folks on the board: he's basically saying that weapons of mass destruction don't matter in the scheme of capturing Saddam and he's not answering questions about what he'll say if we don't find them. Doesn't look very classy right there, but I'll be damned if he isn't a charming motherfucker. I'm not sure if I want him running my country but I wouldn't mind having him over for Christmas dinner.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's no use, guys. Anything or anyone politically moderate on this board is ferociously attacked by the far-right as they would be on a far-left board. For people like me, you just can't win.

You are a moderate?

 

I could mention that according to that political idealogy test thread about a week ago, I'm about the most moderate person here.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't believe that there were any WMD's when the Invasion Of Iraq was launched. Let's not forget who sold him various weapons in the first place.

Ah, glorious irrelevancy. I am sure there are LESS relevant points to be made --- but I shudder to imagine them.

i like cheese.

DING! DING!

 

We have a winner!

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

.

I don't see how stating that the west sold Iraq arms is irrelevant here. The fact is that we supplied him with weapons and chemicals. Granted, he still would have got them from another source if we hadn't but the fact remains.

We helped the Soviets after Germany attacked them in 1941. I suppose we're to blame for the atrocities of the gulag.

 

Heck, we helped Germany after WWI when their economy collapsed --- so I guess the Nazi atrocities are our fault.

 

Heck, the French helped US during OUR revolution --- so it's ALL the French's fault.

Who does he owe money to? You simply can't have him being tried by Iraqi's. That's the prosecution judging the defendant!

He owes A LOT of money to Russia, Germany, and France. His regime has HUGE debts to them.

Saying that blackmail bombers "will be dealt with" is very easy to type isn't it but won't be so easy to deal with in the real world.

So, your plan is to simply cut and run when we are threatened? Yup, THAT couldn't POSSIBLY encourage our enemies.

As for "the fix" - it isn't a conspiracy. Michael Moore figured it out and detailed what happened in his first book.

So, it's a TOTAL joke, though.

No doubt Moore is a "loon" though. It's a fact that Gore had the most votes - even more if the people who were deemed to be ex-convicts (and weren't) were allowed to vote.

This is laughable. Bush won the initial recount. He won the recount. There was NO legal basis for a manual recount --- and the standards for what constituted a vote constantly changed. And, the recounts kept adding votes for Gore, which violates EVERY mathematical probability model known to man.

Lets not forget the absentee ballots as well.

You mean the ones the Dems tried to keep from being counted? They, historically, overwhelmingly go Republican. Just to give you a hint.

As for "journalists" not figuring it out - plenty of news sources have. Try switching over from Fox

I've seen CNN and none of them say it, either.

 

But, hey, if Moore said it, it CAN'T be wrong.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I wasn't referring to his dead sons I was referring to ex- President Hussain. (Why do people call him Saddam? It's not like we call GW Bush "George").

Because President assumes that the man in power wasn't put there via a violent coup d'etat and didn't rule by terror. It's not like Saddam won election.

 

Do you have a problem calling Hitler "Hitler" instead of "Fuhrer" or "Chancellor"?

The violation, if indeed the geneva convention applies, is FILMING Hussain. I think that the TV pictures were fascinating to watch but you can't have double standards.

Hmm, if no pictures were available, then we're preventing the press from discovering the truth and probably torturing him, against the Geneva Conventions (see Gitmo).

 

If pictures ARE available, we're ridiculing him in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

 

Nice double standard.

Showing the examination on TV IS ridiculing him. If Hussain had captured GW Bush and the same happened to him - what would you think? Showing where he was found, in a small, dirty hole, is also ridiculing him.

It would piss me off --- but I don't think I'd be bitching about the Geneva Conventions.

 

And how is showing WHERE HE LIVED ridiculing him? You have yet to explain that one.

Regarding camp X-ray: oh boy. It's that prison camp in Cuba where the American's are holding prisoners, most of them without charge and are denied the opportunity to defend themselves or appoint a lawyer. They are also kept in appalling conditions.

"Appalling conditions"?

 

You mean, living in the mountains in Afghanistan with NO medical care and little food was better?

 

OK.

 

And, there is a problem with leaks to terrorist groups.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

"1. Bush won the election. He won it fair and square by the rules of the Electoral College system."

 

But the whole dems. argument of the "Bush didn't win fair and square" wasn't that the rules of the Electoral College said he won as opposed to the Popular Vote, it was that they belive Jeb Bush staged a fix in Florida.

Jeb had NOTHING to do with the recount. Katherine Harris didn't exceed her powers enumerated in the Florida State Constitution.

 

And, contrary to what somebody (I think Powerplay said), Bush wins the recount in every manner except in the most stringent connotations as to what constitutes a vote. Using Gore's desired method, Bush wins the vote.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

And, contrary to what somebody (I think Powerplay said), Bush wins the recount in every manner except in the most stringent connotations as to what constitutes a vote. Using Gore's desired method, Bush wins the vote.

-=Mike

I believe Bush lost something like one of the hundred or so recounts done by Newspapers. Something like that; I know at least one newspaper came up with a different result.

[Guest MikeSC]

And, contrary to what somebody (I think Powerplay said), Bush wins the recount in every manner except in the most stringent connotations as to what constitutes a vote. Using Gore's desired method, Bush wins the vote.

          -=Mike

I believe Bush lost something like one of the hundred or so recounts done by Newspapers. Something like that; I know at least one newspaper came up with a different result.

ACTUALLY, a little fact about that newspaper "study":

 

There is not a single investigation that concludes Al Gore received more votes than President Bush in Florida.  In fact, the ultimate investigation, that being the tabulations by Florida's counties, proved otherwise.  After counting the votes a variety of times using normal tabulation processes, George Bush had more. 

 

Democrats anxiously awaited a study conducted by the University of Chicago that reviewed all ambiguous ballots in Florida, not just the one's in Democrat counties.  The study categorizes the number of dimples, hanging chads, types of voting machines, etc.  The study does not determine "winners" or "losers".  But Democrats want you to believe that all overvotes and undervotes were supposed to be Gore votes (dimples, hanging chads, pregnant chads).

http://www.florida2000election.com/deception.htm

Since this article probably won't be enough for some here, I'll also post from the website of the group (NORC) that did the recount:

What did NORC hope to accomplish?

Our goal was to gather data on the appearance of the ballots that were not certified in the November 2000 election in Florida and to create an archive of the markings.  This archive will be available to the public on the day that the media organizations publish and air their stories.  NORC will also use this data to examine the reliability of the various voting systems used in Florida.

 

Which news organizations are involved?

This project was conceived and sponsored by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Tribune Publishing (which includes the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and a number of other newspapers), CNN, the Associated Press, the St. Petersburg Times and the Palm Beach Post. The news organizations were responsible for securing county cooperation, and paying all associated county fees and ensuring proper presentation of  the uncertified ballots.  The news organizations will conduct individual analyses of the data and prepare reports for publication and broadcast.

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp

OR, they didn't actually say who won. They simply classified the ballots.

 

BUT, what was the REAL story about that election? Simply, it was THIS:

JOHN FUND'S POLITICAL DIARY

 

Close Call

Prematurely declaring a winner wasn't the networks' worst sin in Florida.

 

Friday, May 4, 2001 11:18 a.m.

 

The entire Florida election dispute might have been avoided if the networks hadn't declared the polls were closed in Florida when some 5% of the state, in the Central time zone, was still voting. Since those areas voted 2-to-1 for George W. Bush, the GOP nominee probably lost several thousand votes because citizens thought they couldn't cast ballots. Mr. Bush eventually carried the Sunshine State by a mere 537 votes.

It’s now well known that all five TV networks and the Associated Press declared Florida for Al Gore at 7:50 p.m. Eastern time, 10 minutes before the polls closed in the panhandle counties. That could not have dissuaded many voters from casting ballots. But far more serious was the announcement by all five networks at 7 p.m. Eastern time that the polls in Florida had closed. As Brill's Content reported: "At 7 p.m., ET, every network was talking about the poll closings in nine states. And every network was wrong: the polls were closing in only eight states. . . . The polls in that heavily Republican [panhandle of Florida] wouldn't close for another hour--8 p.m. ET." The networks, with the exception of Fox News Channel, continued to repeat this misinformation throughout that hour.

 

Affidavits from 42 poll workers or inspectors were presented at a hearing chaired by Sens. Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman yesterday. They all indicated that they saw a decline in the number of voters beginning at 6 p.m. CST, when ordinarily the voting traffic increases. The networks have yet to fully own up to or explain this more serious mistake. (I repeated this mistake in my Election Day preview piece, for which I relied on the network pre-election briefing books.)

 

To their credit, the networks did undertake some searching examinations of why they prematurely awarded Florida to first Al Gore and then to Mr. Bush. An independent report commissioned by CNN accused all the networks of "an abuse of power" by confusing the public and interfering with democracy. The report, written by Pulitzer Prize-winner James Risser, former journalism school dean Joan Konner and Ben Wattenberg of the American Enterprise Institute, concluded that the networks "staged a collective drag race on the crowded highway of democracy, recklessly endangering the electoral process, the political life of the country and their own credibility, all for reasons that may be conceptually flawed and commercially questionable."

 

In response, all of the networks have pledged not not project an election winner in a state until every polling station there has closed. CNN also vowed not to use exit polls alone to call close elections. But the networks have not specifically addressed why they all misreported that the Florida polls had closed. CBS, for example, explicitly stated that the polls had closed in Florida 13 times during the hour while the panhandle counties were open, along with 15 additional implied statements to that effect and frequent visual references to a map showing Florida's polls had closed. All of the networks except Fox News Channel repeated the contention that Florida's polls were closed throughout the hour that the panhandle precincts remained open.

 

There is growing evidence that the network poll-closing announcement did lower voter turnout. A survey by pollster John McLaughlin estimated that the early calls by the networks discouraged more than 4% more Republicans than Democrats to go to the polls. Another study, by John Lott of the Yale Law School, estimated the drop-off at 3%. That's a range of 7,500 to 10,000 Republican voters for the two studies.

 

The Committee for Honest Politics, a GOP-founded watchdog group, estimated that at each of the 361 panhandle polling places, the networks' false information dissuaded 54 people from voting. That would represent a total of 19,133 Floridians who didn't vote. If these voters would have gone 2-to-1 for Mr. Bush, as actual voters in the panhandle did, that means a loss of 6,377 Bush votes--nearly 12 times his official margin of victory.

 

There's no way of knowing how accurate these estimates are, but the testimony of poll workers and inspectors indicates that something certainly happened after the networks declared Florida's polls closed.

A poll worker in Bay County reported: "Voting was steady all day until 6 p.m. Between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. was very different from past elections. It was very empty. The poll workers thought it was odd. It was like the lights went out."

 

A clerk for elections in Okaloosa County: "Soon after 6 p.m., I noticed the volume dropped to almost zero. In past elections, there was usually a rush of people coming from work, trying to get to vote before the polls closed."

 

Another clerk for elections in Okaloosa County: "I don't think we had more than five people from 6:15 until we closed at 7 p.m. We had averaged 80 voters per hour until the last hour."

 

Warren Brown, deputy for elections, Santa Rosa County: "Eight years ago in the presidential election, there were so many people in line that the last voter did not vote until nearly 10:30 p.m. When I went outside at the end of the day to tell people to hurry along, there was no one in the parking lot."

 

Barbara Alger, a poll inspector in Escambia County: "The last 40 minutes was almost empty. The poll workers were wondering if there had been a national disaster they didn't know about."

 

On Oct. 30, a week before the election, Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris issued a statement to the media pointing out that the polls in the Central time zone would be open until 8 p.m. EST. "The last thing we need is to have our citizens in the Central time zone think their vote doesn't count--because it certainly does," she implored the networks. "Waiting until 8 p.m. EST allows all Floridians the opportunity to decide the outcome of races within Florida." The networks ignored her.

"I remain very disappointed in what the networks did on Election Night," Ms. Harris told me. "I still haven't heard a complete explanation."

 

"The networks owe a duty not to misstate poll closing times, especially when they have been asked by the state involved not to do anything to disrupt voting in that state," says Dan Perrin of the Committee for Honest Politics. He wants to amend the Federal Communications Act to prohibit "on the day of any federal election" any licensed broadcast outlet from disseminating "any false statement concerning the location or times or operations of any polling place designated by proper state authority for use by electors in such election."

 

That's regulatory overkill, but the networks would be wise to note how much their credibility has eroded as a result of the Florida debacle. They should supplement their promises of better behavior in the future with an explicit promise not to declare that polls in any states have closed unless they actually are. So far they haven't done so. Let's hope the Thompson-Lieberman hearing this week is a wakeup call for them.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printT...tml?id=95000423

 

But, I dare say we've discussed this topic enough. Gore lost by the ONLY study that followed all state laws and counted all legal votes.

 

And he won the recount, too.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Congratulations, righties. You couldn't resist the bait some idiot tossed out regarding Florida 2000 and you have completely stalled the original topic of this thread, one of the more important ones in the CE forum.

[Guest MikeSC]

Congratulations, righties. You couldn't resist the bait some idiot tossed out regarding Florida 2000 and you have completely stalled the original topic of this thread, one of the more important ones in the CE forum.

Hint: A topic on a wrestling board isn't "important".

 

You don't see ME bitching when topics turn into theological debates I couldn't give two shits about, do you?

-=Mike

...BTW, I don't think your bitching is "helping", either

[Guest Cerebus]

Congratulations, righties. You couldn't resist the bait some idiot tossed out regarding Florida 2000 and you have completely stalled the original topic of this thread, one of the more important ones in the CE forum.

OMG SWERVE~!

[BX 0]

I told you they would.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Howard Dean is a doctor...

 

Back on topic. Shaved Saddam looks like Geraldo's older brother.

[Guest hunger4unger]

I wasn't referring to his dead sons I was referring to ex- President Hussain. (Why do people call him Saddam? It's not like we call GW Bush "George").

Because President assumes that the man in power wasn't put there via a violent coup d'etat and didn't rule by terror. It's not like Saddam won election.

 

Do you have a problem calling Hitler "Hitler" instead of "Fuhrer" or "Chancellor"?

The violation, if indeed the geneva convention applies, is FILMING Hussain. I think that the TV pictures were fascinating to watch but you can't have double standards.

Hmm, if no pictures were available, then we're preventing the press from discovering the truth and probably torturing him, against the Geneva Conventions (see Gitmo).

 

If pictures ARE available, we're ridiculing him in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

 

Nice double standard.

Showing the examination on TV IS ridiculing him. If Hussain had captured GW Bush and the same happened to him - what would you think? Showing where he was found, in a small, dirty hole, is also ridiculing him.

It would piss me off --- but I don't think I'd be bitching about the Geneva Conventions.

 

And how is showing WHERE HE LIVED ridiculing him? You have yet to explain that one.

Regarding camp X-ray: oh boy. It's that prison camp in Cuba where the American's are holding prisoners, most of them without charge and are denied the opportunity to defend themselves or appoint a lawyer. They are also kept in appalling conditions.

"Appalling conditions"?

 

You mean, living in the mountains in Afghanistan with NO medical care and little food was better?

 

OK.

 

And, there is a problem with leaks to terrorist groups.

-=Mike

Actually Saddam won elections although I concede that they were most likely 'rigged', and more blatantly than the US one was in 2000 (!)

 

Your argument regarding the violation of the Geneva convention is weak. He does not have to be filmed to show that we are abiding by the convention - and anyway, we already broke it when we filmed him! And yes, he is being treated under the Geneva convention, well supposed to be.

 

Showing where he was hiding is violating him as it comes under "embarrasing and or/ridiculing a prisoner". I personally don't care and find the pictures fascinating but rules are rules.

 

So it's ok to keep people locked up, on no charge in many cases, because they lived in Afghanistan and they had poor living conditions anyway? WTF?

[Guest hunger4unger]

.

I don't see how stating that the west sold Iraq arms is irrelevant here. The fact is that we supplied him with weapons and chemicals. Granted, he still would have got them from another source if we hadn't but the fact remains.

We helped the Soviets after Germany attacked them in 1941. I suppose we're to blame for the atrocities of the gulag.

 

Heck, we helped Germany after WWI when their economy collapsed --- so I guess the Nazi atrocities are our fault.

 

Heck, the French helped US during OUR revolution --- so it's ALL the French's fault.

Who does he owe money to? You simply can't have him being tried by Iraqi's. That's the prosecution judging the defendant!

He owes A LOT of money to Russia, Germany, and France. His regime has HUGE debts to them.

Saying that blackmail bombers "will be dealt with" is very easy to type isn't it but won't be so easy to deal with in the real world.

So, your plan is to simply cut and run when we are threatened? Yup, THAT couldn't POSSIBLY encourage our enemies.

As for "the fix" - it isn't a conspiracy. Michael Moore figured it out and detailed what happened in his first book.

So, it's a TOTAL joke, though.

No doubt Moore is a "loon" though. It's a fact that Gore had the most votes - even more if the people who were deemed to be ex-convicts (and weren't) were allowed to vote.

This is laughable. Bush won the initial recount. He won the recount. There was NO legal basis for a manual recount --- and the standards for what constituted a vote constantly changed. And, the recounts kept adding votes for Gore, which violates EVERY mathematical probability model known to man.

Lets not forget the absentee ballots as well.

You mean the ones the Dems tried to keep from being counted? They, historically, overwhelmingly go Republican. Just to give you a hint.

As for "journalists" not figuring it out - plenty of news sources have. Try switching over from Fox

I've seen CNN and none of them say it, either.

 

But, hey, if Moore said it, it CAN'T be wrong.

-=Mike

I'm not saying that we should be held accountable for him using weapons we sold him in the way that he did - but it was fine when he was doing our bidding in Iran. He became a tyrant when WE decided he did i.e when he attacked Kuwait and focused on Saudi Arabia, where the west have business interests.

 

His regime may have huge debts to pay to those countries (i'm taking your word for it) but it's not like he committed his crimes there is it like he has in Iraq.

 

My plan is not to "cut and run" - I'm merely raising the point that 'blackmail bombers' will come out of the woodwork. The handling of his capture will have raised anger amongst his supporters. It's like a red rag to a bull.

 

I'm no Moore 'mark' - I have my own - mind but his account of what happened I believe to be true. I'm moving away from the Election 2000 debate however.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm not saying that we should be held accountable for him using weapons we sold him in the way that he did - but it was fine when he was doing our bidding in Iran. He became a tyrant when WE decided he did i.e when he attacked Kuwait and focused on Saudi Arabia, where the west have business interests.

Yes, because God knows, in the history of the world, you haven't had to support people you don't like.

 

I mean, we DID support Stalinist U.S.S.R during World War II --- but hey, that was World War II. That HAS to be different.

His regime may have huge debts to pay to those countries (i'm taking your word for it) but it's not like he committed his crimes there is it like he has in Iraq.

Um, he DOES have huge debts. Baker is going to Europe for a reason, you know.

 

And how can people who are owed money by him be fair to try him? They have already shown a willingness to protect him.

My plan is not to "cut and run" - I'm merely raising the point that 'blackmail bombers' will come out of the woodwork. The handling of his capture will have raised anger amongst his supporters. It's like a red rag to a bull.

And, again, what are we supposed to do? We will handle the problem. I've not heard of a big upswing in attacks.

I'm no Moore 'mark' - I have my own -  mind but his account of what happened I believe to be true. I'm moving away from the Election 2000 debate however.

Moore wouldn't know the truth if it was chocolate-covered and an inch away from his mouth.

Actually Saddam won elections although I concede that they were most likely 'rigged', and more blatantly than the US one was in 2000 (!)

This is, quite possibly, the biggest dick thing I've seen written on these boards.

Your argument regarding the violation of the Geneva convention is weak. He does not have to be filmed to show that we are abiding by the convention - and anyway, we already broke it when we filmed him! And yes, he is being treated under the Geneva convention, well supposed to be.

No violations have occurred. Not one.

Showing where he was hiding is violating him as it comes under "embarrasing and or/ridiculing a prisoner". I personally don't care and find the pictures fascinating but rules are rules.

Your sympathizing for him is almost comical -- and you ARE sympathizing.

So it's ok to keep people locked up, on no charge in many cases, because they lived in Afghanistan and they had poor living conditions anyway? WTF?

Their living conditions IMPROVED. And Geneva Conventions didn't apply to them. We had that discussion a while back.

-=Mike