So you don’t believe a former Iraqi General, that’s fair enough.

Sada’s allegation is pure hearsay from two “unnamed” friends.

As for the opinion piece it quotes Israeli intelligence, Mossad.

Curveball, Ahmed Chalabi, INC, MI6 “45 minute” Iraqi informant… Intelligence agencies had no problems regurgitating claims from these distinguished characters.

They’ve been quoted in dozens of newspapers saying this, all whom are lying right?

Newspapers print the information that is provided to them. They don’t need to lie to do this.

Is Lieutenant-general James Clapper Jr. also a liar?

No, but there is the possibility he may be an idiot. For example:

According to Clapper, satellite images recording a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria just before the American invasion in March had led him to believe “unquestionably” that illicit weapons material was moved outside Iraq.

In anticipation of invasion, is it not unreasonable to assume that traffic would have increased regardless of any alleged WMD smuggling?

Is it also reasonable to assume that Saddam had a lot of other things he wanted to get out of the country, such as gold reserves?

Zero of the links you have provided give any first person eyewitness accounts of the contents of the convoy.

At least as far as I am aware the satellites capturing imagery of increased traffic did not possess the ability to peer inside the trucks.

But somehow the outgoing director of the US National Imagery believes unquestionably that the trucks contained WMDs.

Those leaps of judgement are usually reserved for polesmokers like Alex Jones and Jeff Rense.

The Syrian connection can’t be definitively proven beyopnd a shadow of a doubt

REALLY.

To state the obvious that things aren’t going exactly like you’d like them to in a perfect world, and then to criticize without offering any alternatives, is pathetic, cynical behavior–and Pelosi, et al had better hope that things don’t go well in the next year, or they will judged harshly for their unprincipled ankle-biting. Isn’t that a great place to be–hoping that things don’t go well in Iraq (which equals more troops getting killed)? I’ll tell you one thing–it’s not patriotic.

You make an excellent point that is difficult to refute, but you are naive in attributing this behaviour solely to Democrats and lefties.

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today” – Tom Delay

“This is Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.” – Richard Luger

“My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they’re made … not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do.” – Trent Lott

The rhetoric is the same from both sides of the aisle.

MKR–Congratulations, first of all, for taking a position on the war. It’s something I’ve never heard from a lefty in five years.

You’re still yet to hear it from one :)

I have to apologize, MKR, I set you up. It didn’t matter what kind of plan you came up with, I was going to find something to criticize. I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a Democrat.

No apology necessary.

I have no respect for the Democratic Party position on Iraq, for reasons such as the bizarre contradictory nature of chastising Bush for not taking the advice of General Shinseki at the outset of the war on one hand, and threatening to cut funding for any escalation of troops in the region on the other.

One of the reasons I continue to not vote for them.

Back on topic…..

I found this site that exposes the real General Clark.

The same site also urges the reader to sign a petition indicating the personally held belief that George W. Bush should be impeached and prosecuted for war crimes.

Then what is your point here?

The point was made by PinkyBigglesworth. I agreed and provided a visual cue. Dude, it’s modern history. Scroll up.

Are you claiming that you have nothing to say about Clark in a thread topic that is all about what Clark said?

Funnily enough, yes.

Are you REALLY wondering why the greatest superpower on the earth can’t have surveillance on every square mile of the earth at all times?

No. Yet again you are deliberately putting words into my mouth.

There’s no need to cover every square mile with surveillance when Donald Rumsfeld knows exactly where the WMDs are.

Are you REALLY telling me that the sites houseing the WMDs that posed such a signicant, immediate threat weren’t under daily surveillance by EP-3E ARIES II, U-2 or Global Hawk aircraft?

How long do you think it would take to load fifty rigs with contraband requiring special handling and storage procedures?

Don’t you think that is a completely unserious position to take?

Absolutely.

that’s an interesting link, but it’s awful hard to tell the players. One source was criticizing Clark’s action in Serbia, and citing a condemnation by Ramsey Clark.

There are few greater honors for an American than to be condemned by Ramsey Clark.

Another series came from CounterPunch; isn’t that the filthy leftist site of Alex Cockbiter? Ground doesn’t get any shakier than that…

I found this site that exposes the real General Clark.

smellthecoffee on January 24, 2007 at 12:44 PM

WHOA DUDE!!!! Are you sure you aren’t “The Rock”, because I can smell what you are cookin’….MKR’s ass!

Great one. Way to put him in his place.

You’re quite impatient, aren’t you. You give me three links full of information to digest and you expect an immediate answer whilst I’m also engaged in discussion with others.

OK, sorry about that.

So you don’t believe a former Iraqi General, that’s fair enough. He’s a part of the Bush conspiracy so he can sell his book. As for the opinion piece it quotes Israeli intelligence, Mossad. They’ve been quoted in dozens of newspapers saying this, all whom are lying right? It’s well known by those of us who follow the news. Research it if you like or ring the Israeli embassy if you’re sceptical. Also, go http://www.debka-net-weekly.com/issue.pl?username=&inumber=131>here and scroll down to: US Spy Satellites “Saw” Heavy Eve-of-War Convoys to Syria.

The absence of a real, life-size chemical or biological weapon – or evidence of a banned nuclear program in Saddam’s Iraq – that dogs President George W. Bush’s footsteps wherever he goes, was partly offset this week by a statement from an authoritative figure, head of a top American spy agency. Lieutenant-general James Clapper Jr., the outgoing director of the US National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), said publicly what DEBKA-Net-Weekly first reported prior to the US war in Iraq. According to Clapper, satellite images recording a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria just before the American invasion in March had led him to believe “unquestionably” that illicit weapons material was moved outside Iraq. ”I think people below the Saddam Hussein and his sons’ level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse,” he said.

Is Lieutenant-general James Clapper Jr. also a liar? Or maybe the news organisation made it up, maybe he should sue. What about French, British, US, Italian and Israeli intelligence services? Just more bs cooked up by Bush right? More to the point can you prove Iraq didn’t have WMD? Do you think Saddam should have been given the benefit of the doubt?

The Syrian connection can’t be definitively proven beyopnd a shadow of a doubt but you wanted a plausible explanation. If Bush was going to go to the trouble of lying to invade a country why wouldn’t he just plant some state-of-the-art WMDs to find? There’s probablly not much point in arguing with you as BUSH LIED!!! is an article of faith impervious to reason.

Not sure what your point is. I said nothing about Clark

Then what is your point here?

MKR on January 24, 2007 at 2:38 AM

Are you claiming that you have nothing to say about Clark in a thread topic that is all about what Clark said?

Get real.

Are you REALLY wondering why the greatest superpower on the earth can’t have surveillance on every square mile of the earth at all times? Don’t you think that is a completely unserious position to take?

450,000 to 600,000 troops, indeed. Bush is being excoriated by the left edges of both parties for finally telling the generals he is taking it from 130,000 to 150,000.

Escalate US troop numbers in Iraq to between 450,000 and 600,000 in number

MKR–Congratulations, first of all, for taking a position on the war. It’s something I’ve never heard from a lefty in five years. And on many points I would agree with you. But can you imagine, though, the political fallout of a draft, which is what you’d need to field that many troops? I think you’ll agree that all your other points are unachievable (though worthy) without the numbers of troops that would require a draft. Ah, but what about the political cost, as your buddies on DU and the Kossaks get ahold of this. It’ll be MKR’s war, a rich-man’s war, drafting disproportionately from the lower income brackets, and people of color–just recycle the litany of anti-draft complaints from Vietnam which I’m sure you remember, student of history that you doubtless are. So now, President MKR, you are a cold, heartless, racist, patrician bastard–depicted in caricature wearing a tuxedo and top hat, snatching babies from their African-American and Latino mothers, and dropping them into meat-grinders labelled “MKR’s war machine.” I can just see the posters–MKR=Hitler, MKKKR, and so on. See, that’s the thing about being president–you have to take responsibility. The president has to set the course, he can’t just thunder “this policy is going in the wrong direction,” a la Kennedy, Pelosi, Durbin, Ried, etc. None of these luminaries have offered any kind of plan; none of them have taken any responsibility. If you toss out the unproven and unprovable charges of lying, and toss out the childish charges that he is stupid (he is inarticulate, but not stupid, and anyway he beat their guy twice) most of the critique of Bush can be boiled down to this statement–”Bush is not perfect.” Yeah, well, he actually took a position, and is accepting responsiblity for it. The only batting 1000 is the one who took no position, or who took a position after the fact. In wars, esp with lousy human intelligence (which only now is beginning to approach effective levels) you’re going to get mistakes, even when run by President MKR. To state the obvious that things aren’t going exactly like you’d like them to in a perfect world, and then to criticize without offering any alternatives, is pathetic, cynical behavior–and Pelosi, et al had better hope that things don’t go well in the next year, or they will judged harshly for their unprincipled ankle-biting. Isn’t that a great place to be–hoping that things don’t go well in Iraq (which equals more troops getting killed)? I’ll tell you one thing–it’s not patriotic. But, because you offered a plan, in my book you escape the charge of being un-patriotic. I wonder if you were a public figure, and anyone cared what you thought and did, you’d have guts to take a position.

You’re still around MKR?

Hey there.

That was not an alignment with Iran in the sense that Clark is suggesting.

Not sure what your point is. I said nothing about Clark.

I said you “seem” to be. Do you deny that you support a dialogue with Iran?

I support decisions on this matter being made by a competent administration. Not this one.

Is it your tactic to misrepresent what others say?

Example please.

I already did. Sat orbits….and you ignored it.

Get real.

“Why couldn’t the world’s largest superpower with complete air superiority over Iraq including advanced satellite imagery, and, if we are to believe, numerous defectors with solid information of the whereabouts of WMD, observe said WMD being removed from sites they where, according to Rumsfeld, known to be housed in?”

Satellites were merely one of the methods that could have been used to verify the movement of WMD. Photography from reconnaisance aircraft is another. If anything, you’ve merely refuted but one element of my statement, but you didn’t even successfully do that. I never

Your involvement in this topic started with a remark and a link in response to a persons criticizm of Clark suggesting a dialogue with Iran.

Correct.

Your implied point was resistance to talks with Iran were hypocritical because of our dealings with Saddam.

Incorrect.

This is comparing apples to oranges because Iraq was aligning with us against Iran,

I never made the comparison.

and in the current case of Iran, Clark is suggesting a dialogue with a country whom has refused all reasoned discussion and is calling for our destruction.

Agreed.

So, you see, YOU are not interested in being serious and thusly, you rarely get a serious response.

No, you people keep making assumptions concerning whom I support as well as putting words into my mouth that I did not say.

No, I’ll let you define it, and then give me the answer. If I define it, you’ll just pick at it, and dodge the issue.

Okay. Let’s define victory simply as ending sectarian violence.

Escalate US troop numbers in Iraq to between 450,000 and 600,000 in number;

Position troops at key points along the Iranian and Syrian borders to stem the flow of foreign combatants;

Take, hold and transform key urban areas with sufficient ground forces for long periods of time, investing significant resources in rebuilding vital community infrastructure such as electricity, clean water and schools;

Impose permanent curfews for trouble hotspots, and use take, hold and transform methods to weed out dissidents. Reward communities for good behaviour by relaxing curfews and any other restrictions;

Encourage international aid in the form of military, financial and logistical assistance, rewarding participants with the ability to bid for contracts and other opportunities in this private sector;

Encourage and assist Iraqi civillians in setting up small businesses to foster commmunity spirit and interdependance and also reduce unemployment.

Your thoughts?

They don’t care about discussion, just arguing their “point” until they’re blue in the face.

They ignore any point or fact that doesn’t suit their twisted world-view. They’re not here to learn or discuss an issue.

Alignment is a pretty unique term for an arms for hostages deal.

That was not an alignment with Iran in the sense that Clark is suggesting.

Am I? Care to provide a direct quote?

I said you “seem” to be. Do you deny that you support a dialogue with Iran?

Is this the favoured tactic for debate on HotAir? Putting words in your opponents mouth?

Is it your tactic to misrepresent what others say?

Educate me on just ONE of the points I have raised and we’ll consider that a serious discussion.

I already did. Sat orbits….and you ignored it.

Your involvement in this topic started with a remark and a link in response to a persons criticizm of Clark suggesting a dialogue with Iran. Your implied point was resistance to talks with Iran were hypocritical because of our dealings with Saddam. This is comparing apples to oranges because Iraq was aligning with us against Iran, and in the current case of Iran, Clark is suggesting a dialogue with a country whom has refused all reasoned discussion and is calling for our destruction.

So, you see, YOU are not interested in being serious and thusly, you rarely get a serious response.