The survey also reveals that Iraqis think that conditions are improving in their country and and a majority are optimistic about the near future.

Check the link for full details.

It seems that only those who make the most noise get their views reported in the liberal media, especially if their views are fashionably Anti-American.

Archival records suggest that the (Nixon) White House pursued a systematic strategy for inducing the cooperation of Harris and Gallup. The president's interest in their results was deliberately emphasized in order to flatter the pollsters and to make their cooperation -- as Nixon's appointments secretary, Dwight Chapin, recalled -- an "ego thing. " [11] The White House also played on the pollsters' sense of patriotism, equating cooperation with national duty. Indeed, both Louis Harris and senior Gallup officials told us that they cooperated with every president who approached them, including Bill Clinton, because they considered it a "public service for the country." As George Gallup, Jr explained, "you can't just say, 'get lost' when the White House calls." [12]

Although the Nixon White House occasionally tried to pressure Gallup by calling newspapers to "squelch" a poll, [13] it generally found the organization politically sympathetic to Republicans. Instead, Nixon and his top assistants reserved their strong-arm tactics for Harris in 1969 and 1970; in 1971 they turned to more positive inducements. Harris was especially distrusted because of his ties to the Democratic party and John Kennedy. (Harris was Kennedy's political consultant and pollster during the 1960 presidential campaign and his term in office.) [14] As Dent recalled, "it was a reality in the White House that Gallup was considered a friend and Harris a foe" who worked for "the other side." [15]

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2897/psnixo.html

...that had the poll shown an overwhelming majority of Iraqis opposed the US presence, loved Saddam, and preferred the Baath Party over Pepsi, you'd be trumpeting, "See? They hate us! They HATE us!!"

But no, since it appears they're actually happy we did what we did, you have to drag up something that happened 30 years ago.

that's why they are killing several a day

...you're an idiot.

Unsubstantiated allegation.

For more on logic at your level, try reading "Logic for Dummies".

Every cloud has a silver lining. So it's not the Vietnam quagmire you on the left had hope for. Still, at least Saddam's freedom fighters are killing a few Americans every week, there's some solace for you in that, isn't there?

"Still, at least Saddam's freedom fighters are killing a few Americans every week..."


Another unsubstantiated allegation. You people are full of them today.

How do we know these so-called "freedom fighters" are not simply Arabic fundamentalists from outside of Iraq?

And exactly how did Hussein's assasins (which are killing just as many Iraqi civilians as Americans btw) merit the title "freedom fighters"? That sounds like an oxymoron to me...

If, you read my post carefully you will see that I was being sarcastic....

We're on the same side here...

Perhaps.

But to acknowledge (even sarcastically):

1. that Hussein has "freedom fighters"

2. that Americans are being killed by Iraqis every day in Iraq

3. that Iraq is a quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam

all in the same post, leads me to believe that we are in fact, not on the same side.

Comments like those do "our" side more harm than good.

Do us all a favor. Change your tactics.

Or change sides.

The Washington Times is an arch-conservative publication owned and influenced by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, of the Unificaiton Church, a very conservative, culty religion. They're also known as "the Moonies".

See the URL for the breakdown.

What's the Washington Times ownership got to do with anything? or Gallup?

If the Washington Times poll showed that the Iraqis wanted the US to leave by the same margins that this poll shows they want them to stay, you left-wingers/anarchsits would be spamming the internet with the poll and proclaiming it as "evidence" that we need to get out immediately.

But instead, the poll doesn't show what you wish it would say, so you got to try and discredit it. And you wonder why your movement never gets any traction.

The Sun Myung-Moon/KCIA- American CIA Friendship Alliance

"Sending weapons and propaganda to hundreds of locations worlwide."

It's my job to defend LA-IMC from those who don't march in lockstep with the commands handed down from the top IMCers who are in control and who give us our marching orders. How am I doing?

1-George Gallup, chairman of the polling organisation is member of BAP (British American Project for the Successor Generation) - an elite transatlantic network supporting right-wing causes.
source>Lobster Magazine http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk

2-RESEARCH ANALYSlS CORPORATION.
One of the most important areas of cooperation between what think-tanks turn out and what becomes government and public policy are the "pollsters." It is the job of the polling-companies to mold and shape public-opinion in the way that suits the conspirators. Polls are constantly being taken by CBS-NBC-ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post. Most of these efforts are coordinated at the National-Opinion Research-Center where, as much as it will amaze most of us, a psychological-profile was developed for the entire nation.

Findings are fed into the computers of Gallup Poll and Yankelovich, Skelley and White for comparative-evaluation. Much of what we read in our newspapers or see on television has first been cleared by the polling-companies. WHAT WE SEE IS WHAT THE POLLSTERS THINK WE SHOULD SEE. This is called "public-opinion-making." The whole idea behind this bit of social-conditioning is to find out how responsive the public is to POLICY-DIRECTIVES handed down by the Committee of 300. We are called "targeted population groups" and what is measured by the pollsters is how much resistance is generated to what appears in the "Nightly News." Later, we shall learn exactly how this deceptive practice got started and who is responsible for it.

It is all part of the elaborate opinion-making-process created at, Tavistock. Today our people believe they are well-informed but what they do not realize is that the opinions they believe are their own, were in fact created in the research-institutions and think-tanks of America and that none of us are free to form our own opinions, because of the information we are provided with by the media and the pollsters.

source>from book, CONSPIRATORS' HIERARCHY: THE STORY OF THE COMMITTEE OF 300. by ex MI6 (British Secret Service) Dr. John Coleman.


…an that explain a lot about Gallup polls.

1-George Gallup, chairman of the polling organisation is member of BAP (British American Project for the Successor Generation) - an elite transatlantic network supporting right-wing causes.
source>Lobster Magazine http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk

2-RESEARCH ANALYSlS CORPORATION.
One of the most important areas of cooperation between what think-tanks turn out and what becomes government and public policy are the "pollsters." It is the job of the polling-companies to mold and shape public-opinion in the way that suits the conspirators. Polls are constantly being taken by CBS-NBC-ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post. Most of these efforts are coordinated at the National-Opinion Research-Center where, as much as it will amaze most of us, a psychological-profile was developed for the entire nation.

Findings are fed into the computers of Gallup Poll and Yankelovich, Skelley and White for comparative-evaluation. Much of what we read in our newspapers or see on television has first been cleared by the polling-companies. WHAT WE SEE IS WHAT THE POLLSTERS THINK WE SHOULD SEE. This is called "public-opinion-making." The whole idea behind this bit of social-conditioning is to find out how responsive the public is to POLICY-DIRECTIVES handed down by the Committee of 300. We are called "targeted population groups" and what is measured by the pollsters is how much resistance is generated to what appears in the "Nightly News." Later, we shall learn exactly how this deceptive practice got started and who is responsible for it.

It is all part of the elaborate opinion-making-process created at, Tavistock. Today our people believe they are well-informed but what they do not realize is that the opinions they believe are their own, were in fact created in the research-institutions and think-tanks of America and that none of us are free to form our own opinions, because of the information we are provided with by the media and the pollsters.

source>from book, CONSPIRATORS' HIERARCHY: THE STORY OF THE COMMITTEE OF 300. by ex MI6 (British Secret Service) Dr. John Coleman.


…an that explain a lot about Gallup polls.

If this Gallup Poll were showing that the Iraqis wanted the US out immediately, you left-wingers/anarchists would be spamming the internet with the poll and proclaiming it as "evidence". None of the above proclaiming "Gallup disinformation" would be posted at all.

Instead, the poll doesn't show what you wish it would say, so you got to try and discredit it. And you wonder why your movement never gets any traction.

thanks, Mandrake for the research. I always suspected most polls were a construct with weighted questions framed in closed and leading parameters.

Of course you did. Expecially when they don't match up with your already predetermined fantasies.

Ah, the beauty of Indymedia..........

Keep the entertainment coming, boys. EV is the name of the game. Provide.

25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.

People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish

You forgot the favorite tactic of those of you on the left-wing/anarchist

Rule #26 - If all else fails, post item after item after item and bury the evidence.

The imc equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "La la la la...I can't hear you!"

Probably just asked Ahmed Chalabi the same question a hundred times.
And since that poll is correct I must surmise the one about the growing dissatisfaction with George(the little boy emperor) Bush is also correct. And they probably got those poll results by asked George the question a hundred times also.

Now you know how we feel about your anti-war marches. They mean nothing.

NEITHER DO YOUR DUMB ASS COMMENTS.

MY FAVORITE POLL?

THE ONE THAT SHOWS G.W.S' RATINGS AT AN ALL
TIME LLLLLOOOOOOWWWWWW!!!!!!!!

HA AHAHAHAHA

YOU ARE THE FUCKING MINORITY HERE IDIOT.
HOW DOES IT FEEL?

ROFL
ROFL

Nice rant. The all caps is helpful in demonstrating the anger and frustration of being outclassed. A slight bit raw which carries over well and will please the others here of like simple-mindedness. Good EV for a short posting. An introduction of a conspiracy theory of some type would have been a nice touch. But overall a good effort by this individual.

OH YOU CONSERVATIVES ARE SOOOO
CLASSY.
NONANARCHIST HAD THIS "CLASSY" COMMENT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE^^^^^^

Gosh, Hex...
by nonanarchist Sunday September 28, 2003 12:14 AM






...you're an idiot.


QUESTION?
WHY ARE YOU SUCH A STUPID ASSHOLE

ROFL
ROFL
ROFL ROFL

No points. You're dropping in EV. When you don't get a comment at all, that means it's REALLY bad. Don't wanna do that.

But don't give up. The contest this week runs through Saturday.

Good Luck!

one that was learned from the slugs that leave their slime trail here.
always accuse the other side of commiting the deads you yourself do.
A pick pocket, when caught will scream 'THIEF- THIEF!'

What's the matter? Don't you think Hex is an idiot, too?

Question: Can't you make a single comment without wallowing in profanity?

The obscenities and the constant yelling only serve to make you look like...get ready for it!...an idiot.

Now...do you have anything to say about the poll?

Preferably without the filth and the caps lock...

it would be better if we could see the questions these polsters used and the demographic involved before judgment.

Gee, I wonder what the people of Vietnam would have said if they were polled during the war....

...probably would have gotten similar results....

...Chicken Boy has to drag up the totally irrelevant "Vietnam" reference.

At least he didn't say "quagmire".

Yet.

Top Bush administration officials have been citing a pair of public
opinion polls conducted in Iraq to demonstrate that Iraqis have a
positive view of the U.S. occupation, but Walter Pincus points out
that the polls actually show Iraqis have a less enthusiastic view
than the administration has portrayed. According to one poll, "only
33 percent thought they were better off than they were before the
invasion and 47 percent said they were worse off," Pincus writes.
"And 94 percent said that Baghdad was a more dangerous place for
them to live, a finding the administration officials did not
discuss. The poll also found that 29 percent of Baghdad residents
had a favorable view of the United States, while 44 percent had a
negative view. By comparison, 55 percent had a favorable view of
France."
SOURCE: Washington Post, September 28, 2003
Try reading and researching instead of making dumb snarky comments

It's only been 5 months. Give it time. The world is not a 30 minute sit-com.

Give it time? Of course we will have plenty of time to "nation build". Oops Bush said he wasn't going to do that. Another lie. We will have plenty of time because we are going to be there permanently. Might as well start sewing on that 51st star on the flag for another state. Call it Iraq-issippi. And the state slogan could be,"Where the right go to lie and the troops go to die."

Time will only make things worse.....

Such optimism. I can see why people are standing in line to join your movement. It's all positive and motivating.

What a joke you people are.

The trend over time has been negative...

...what changes do you see to the current situation to make that trend change?

It's not about wishful thinking...that's what got us in this mess, it's about doing SOMETHING to fix the situation.

So, what is it that this misadministration is doing?..well, they and there sadly disillusioned apologists (yes, take a bow!) are denying there IS a problem....

Gee, that'll help turn things around....given time, of course....

...is no indication of the future."

The real joke is the cheap labor"ditto-head" conservatives who don't think for themselves and just repeat the party line over and over because they have no real arguements for there narrow-minded and spiteful way of life. Isn't it weird that a conservative book was titled "Shut up and sing" and that "Shut Up" is a favorite phrase of Bill O'Really's. That is the standard right wingnut answer to everything.

Fido, what you are quoting is a disclaimer on a perespectus....not an axiom of statistics...

....as a matter of fact, the exact opposite is true...all things being equal, past performance IS an indication of future performance...that's why it's called a TREND...

....T-R-E-N-D.....

...comes after "S"........

David Kay's preliminary report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is out. Here are some highlights (with a hat tip to Andrew Sullivan):

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG [Iraq Survey Group] has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. . . .

Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts . . .:

- A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW [chemical and biological weapons] research.


- A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.


- Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.


- New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.


- Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).


- A line of UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.


- Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.


- Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km--well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.


- Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles--probably the No Dong--300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

"In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts," Kay continues, "we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence--hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use--are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts."

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_09_28_dish_archive.html#106515452491080509

The New York Times headline? "No Illicit Arms Found in Iraq, U.S. Inspector Tells Congress"!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/politics/03WEAP.html

President Bush said this morning that Kay's findings "make clear that Saddam Hussein actively deceived the international community, that Saddam Hussein was in clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, and that Saddam Hussein was a danger to the world." No reasonable person can argue with that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031003-1.html

David Kay's preliminary report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is out. Here are some highlights (with a hat tip to Andrew Sullivan):

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG [Iraq Survey Group] has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. . . .

Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts . . .:

- A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW [chemical and biological weapons] research.


- A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.


- Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.


- New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.


- Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).


- A line of UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.


- Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.


- Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km--well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.


- Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles--probably the No Dong--300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

"In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts," Kay continues, "we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence--hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use--are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts."

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_09_28_dish_archive.html#106515452491080509

The New York Times headline? "No Illicit Arms Found in Iraq, U.S. Inspector Tells Congress"!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/politics/03WEAP.html

President Bush said this morning that Kay's findings "make clear that Saddam Hussein actively deceived the international community, that Saddam Hussein was in clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, and that Saddam Hussein was a danger to the world." No reasonable person can argue with that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031003-1.html

...except that was not the reason given for going to war...

...pretty Ffutal short-term memory ya got there....

...work.

Here you've been bleating since March that "There are no WMD!", despite no personal knowledge and the often-quoted tenet of logic that "you can't prove a negative".

Here now is irrefutable proof that Saddam was working oin WMD, and all you can say is, in a very whiny voice, "...except that was not the reason given for going to war..."

At least you didn't claim that all those scientists and programs were planted by CIA.

But it wouldn't have surprised me if you had.

So: you got your widdle feewings hurt about reasons for the war. Yet you are completely, totally, utterly unable to say the war was a good thing. An oppressive, murderous dictator was removed. WMD programs were found, in direct violation of USNC 1441. Support for terrorism was stopped.

You'd admit it's a good thing, if you had two morals to rub together.

I thought they were burried 12 m deep in the Bekka Valley?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously now, still...NO WMD's that da shrub says were there.

ZIP!

ZILCH!

NADA!

NOPE!

Face it, you boy is a liar, he has lost all crediblility...come join the rest of us and revel in his dropping poll numbers.....

ChickenBoy has to tow the party line, else they don't pay him. He's nothing more than a left-wing paid shill. Just turn on any of the major media outlets and KPC is just another parrot of the hate-Bush crowd. For three years these people have floated trial balloon and thrown darts hoping something would stick, and they haven't yet, and they won't. Bush is in the White House which pisses them off to no end, he's doing the right thing, and he'll be there until 2008. If Chicken Boy wasn't worried, he wouldn't even be here posting.

I'm not worried, I'm happy...

...happily looking at da shrubs numbers drop like a rock..


happyhappyhappyhappy!

Won't you be happy too?

"Geting rid of Saddam was a good thing."

I don't think you can say it.

You and your right wing comments are laughable at best.
The US violated article 6 of the US constitution to fight the war in Iraq over disputed weapons of mass destruction.
Not over Sadaam being a bad guy or over his (non) connection to 9-11.
You right wingers prefer to cloud the issue and say
"Well, you know Saddam was a bad guy, so i guess it was worth it"
No idiot, say it slowly now
The US violated international law because we were
POSITIVE
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

He has none.
Your argument is moot.

I guess we should give the country back, huh? Find Saddam's closest living relative and say, "Ooops. Our bad. Sorry; here's your country back."

What's done is done. What is necessary now is to ensure that another regime like the one we just removed won't spring back up. That's what will be best for the Iraqi people adn the entire region.

Please note I'm not saying there are no WMD. I think they got shipped out. Time will tell.

"The US violated international law"

so called international law, was designed after world war two, to prevent wars amoung competing "allied" armies from many states. However, since then times have changed and today, most genocided and mass killings happenend within the "nation state" order. Thus international law, does not protect human rights, if they are violated by a state, rather than an army.

So is every on the left pro-genocide now. Because international law and human rights are some time in competition against each other. Such as Rwanda, they didn't cross an imageiary line, thus international law, had no recourse to stop the mass killings.

"The US violated international law because we were
POSITIVE
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. "

That Sadam had WMD has NEVER been a serious question.

Of course he had them.

The question is where did he put them in all the time given to him by his global supporters like you and the UN?

Fresca "That Sadam (sic) had WMD has NEVER been a serious question.

This is what really makes me laugh. The right wing when given conclusive evidence by many different sources, always clings to their hopes of "you are all wrong, I am right!!!"
Six months into the campaign there are no WMD to be found, leading experts from the UN say there are no WMD, the CIA says there never was any WMD threat, and the nigerian uranium fiasco is proven a lie.

Yet the right wingers KNOW exactly what happened?
The war of course wasnt about WMD now....
it was about freeing the Iraqi people......
heres the first two paragraphs of Bush's March 20 speech:

"My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to DISARM Iraq, to free its people and to DEFEND the world from GRAVE DANGER.

"On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ABILITY to WAGE WAR.

YES, free the Iraqi people is in there, yet why was the US involved in the first place?
They were "enforcing" UN sanctions against the MASSIVE STOCKPILES of weapons.

THE UN SAID WAIT
THE US SAID NO WE ARE POSITIVE OF WMD.

WE WERE WRONG
ADMIT IT.
SO ARE YOU

to my "pro genocide" friend.

Its always very amusing to me to think about the right wing and how they are so much more AMERICAN, than the "angry left".
Yet, it never ceases to amaze me that their lack of knowledge of the bylaws contained in the US Constitution.


Hey American,
Ever read Article 6 of the US constitution?
Because if you had you would be so quick to show your stupidity to all the readers here at Indy media.

ARTICLE 6--US CONSTITUTION
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Now do you think our alliance with the UN constitutes a treaty?
Yes.

So you can blow hot air all day long about how you think the law is antequated or its not vaid anymore or its just plain bad.
But it is the Law of the Land and the US under george bush VIOLATED IT.

Do some research "American".
Wake up.

"THE UN SAID WAIT" because they were afraid of losing all the oil-for-food money that Kofi is sitting on, the French and Russian oil contracts, and because the UN has a vested interest in blocking US actions.

The UN has no credibility, because it constantly condemns Isreal for the very same actions performed by other nations...yet nary a word is said about them by the UN.

Oh, speaking of the French, looky what Polish troops in Iraq have found in Iraq: "four French-built advanced anti-aircraft missiles which were built this year, a Polish Defense Ministry spokesman told Reuters Friday.

[...]

"Polish troops discovered an ammunition depot on Sept. 29 near the region of Hilla and there were four French-made Roland-type missiles," Defense Ministry spokesman Eugeniusz Mleczak said.

"It is not the first time Polish troops found ammunition in Iraq but to our surprise these missiles were produced in 2003."

[...]

Under a strict trade embargo imposed by the United Nations (news - web sites), Iraq was barred from importing arms after its invasion of Kuwait in 1990."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=4&u=/nm/20031003/wl_nm/iraq_poland_missiles_dc

Now, it requires no great imagination to conclude that France opposed the war so its violation of the UN sanction would not be discovered. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that Roland missiles were fired at Coalition aircraft.

Those wacky French...gotta love 'em!

Even I can admit I'm wrong.

Just found this story, which says the Poles made a mistake:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=4&u=/ap/20031004/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_french_missiles

"WARSAW, Poland - After a protest from French President Jacques Chirac, Poland said Saturday it had been mistaken in reporting that its troops found new French-made anti-aircraft misiles in central Iraq (news - web sites)."

Sorry, France.