My, My It Seems Wikileaks Also Show That All Those Intelligence Agencies Were Right [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : My, My It Seems Wikileaks Also Show That All Those Intelligence Agencies Were Right

Kathianne

10-24-2010, 11:27 AM

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

Most anyone that was on the boards back then, know this stuff, but here's hoping the left is as open to this tact, as the 'torture' bandwagon.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

* By Noah Shachtman
* October 23, 2010

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”

...

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/#ixzz13IJA3clG

Noir

10-24-2010, 11:51 AM

Kathianne

10-24-2010, 12:09 PM

and another 'unfortunate truth':

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wikileaks_nails_the_wild_lancet_scare/

WikiLeaks nails the wild Lancet scare

Andrew Bolt
Sunday, October 24, 2010 at 07:17am

I’m not sure it’s what WikiLeaks intended, but its latest leaks reveal that the infamous Lancet paper which claimed the US-led liberation of Iraq cost the lives of 655,000 Iraqis in fact exaggerated the death toll by at least 600 per cent:

The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq (over six years). These include 66,081 “civilians,” 23,984 “enemy” insurgents, 15,196 “host nation” (Iraqi government forces), and 3,771 “friendly” (coalition) forces. Some 60 percent of the total is civilian deaths.

And that’s leaving aside the argument about who actually killed the Iraqis, and whether more would have died under Saddam. Note also that this death toll is less than the number of people murdered in South Africa over the same period, and that even allowing for population differences, Iraq’s death toll is now lower.

Settle back and see if that’s how the ABC and Fairfax report these latest leaks.

Needless to say, lots of links.

BoogyMan

10-24-2010, 12:13 PM

Gaffer

10-24-2010, 12:38 PM

Odd the Americans milatary didn't make more of this.

In any end, I dont know exactly what lines you guys were feed so I can't really comment on that, however the UK government told us that 45 minutes after Saddam hitting a button WMDs would be raining down over London. Doent seem the Wiki leaks support that in any way.

The MSM didn't report that stuff because it was counter productive to what they wanted the general populous to believe. It was left out of the news on purpose. Making Bush look bad was their primary concern. I knew about these finds because I read independent reporters blogs who were reporting from the field. The news was out there. The media was just ignoring it.

darin

10-24-2010, 01:18 PM

...and the Bush administration failed to highlight Truths. While the Media failed to report, the Army failed to speak loud enough about the WMD finds.

NightTrain

10-24-2010, 01:44 PM

Saddam used his WMDs previously, it was a documented fact. He'd used them against Iranians and against rebellious Iraqis, that was why we established the 'No Fly Zone'.

I never did understand why, given that the entire world knew he'd used them already, liberals would run around after the fact and blithely claim he never had them in the first place.

Noir

10-24-2010, 02:21 PM

Got any references for that claim? I don't remember that one.

Indeedy, it seems time has played with my memory (I was 12 at the time) the claim was Britons could be attacked in 45mins.

Heres the full timeline, it was at the core of the drive to get public support for the war

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3466005.stm

NightTrain

10-24-2010, 02:35 PM

I never heard about Britain being threatened by them... however there was a lot of talk about coalition troops about to invade on the borders being attacked with WMDs via scud missile delivery.

All Saddam had to deliver WMDs were his primitive scud missiles which didn't have the range or guidance systems to reach more than a few hundred miles.

The scud sites and mobile scuds were top priority with the first air strikes inland to protect troops and Israel - didn't get all of them, but most were taken out before they could launch.

DragonStryk72

10-24-2010, 03:13 PM

revelarts

10-24-2010, 11:07 PM

"Remnants" of a chemical lab, A bunker "tampered with", a few canisters and few guys with some chemicals in their house you say?

Enough to go to war over?

Not quite the potential "mushroom cloud" Bush and Rice warned us about. Or high tech Mobile BIO TRUCKS units General Powell talked about.

"TONS of VX"
"Large Stock PILES Chem and BIO"
"THREAT to AMERICA"
"CHEMICAL WARHEADS"
"26000 Liters of ANTHRAX"
"UNACCOUNTED FOR SAREN GAS"
"Capability to rapidly Create More Bio Weapon QUICKLY"
"Hidden in Large Groves of Palm Trees"
"aluminum tubes"
"Uranium From Africa"
"Hidden Weapons of MASS Destruction"
"MUSHROOM CLOUD!!!"
"WAR IS THE ONLY OPTION TO DISARM SADDAM HUSSEIN."

So we go to war and then what do they say?

"OH, they Will be found, over a period of time."

BUSH: "Where are those weapons of Mass Destruction. not over here, no Not over here. they've got to be around here somewhere... OH Well. ...chortle chortle "

One of the 1st set of post i added when I joined the board was about who Saddam got the chemical weapons in the 1st place, (U.S. Arms and chemical companies) and how Major Doug Rockke tells how he and his men were assigned in the 1st gulf war to find and remove all of it. Major Rokke says his men did a through job. He admits that a very small amount of it may have gotten by him. But not enough to go to war over. Fox news years ago did run several pieces on finding few cans of really OLD chem weapons. So old that they weren't even useful. About as deadly as many of the products in our kitchen cabinets.

BUT NONE OF THE ITEMS MENTION IN THE LEAKS COMES CLOSE to the claims of "MASSIVE STOCKPILES" and Hidden Bunkers of Bio and Chem manufacturing we were told about.

A few chem labs in a house?
A few canisters?

Is that what you believed they would find after all of the things we were told to gin us up go to war?

I wish someone would give me an honest answer to that.

Truth is neither Left or Right by the way.

revelarts

10-24-2010, 11:14 PM

Kathianne

10-25-2010, 05:13 AM

The Lancet Story is interesting. I wonder who's responsible for doing that? that needs to be Exposed thoroughly as well.
Lies on the Left Lies on the right. It's just to much work to find the truth these days.

Soros. The Lancet too was proven wrong nearly immediately, just under and mis-reported. By the time of the following, it just didn't matter.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177653.ece

January 13, 2008
Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study
Brendan Montague

A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.

New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003...

PostmodernProphet

10-25-2010, 07:16 AM

Indeedy, it seems time has played with my memory (I was 12 at the time) the claim was Britons could be attacked in 45mins.

Heres the full timeline, it was at the core of the drive to get public support for the war

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3466005.stm

/shrugs....if you've read your link you already know that claim came from the British press, not the British government......the government was talking about attacks in Iraq......

Noir

10-25-2010, 07:58 AM

/shrugs....if you've read your link you already know that claim came from the British press, not the British government......the government was talking about attacks in Iraq......

No, the JIC report was talking about British Bases in cyprus being attacked, and it went on to say that Saddam was only a year away from having nuclear weapons.

From the report...“They [missiles] could be used with conventional, chemical or biological warheads and are capable of reaching a number of countries in the region including Cyprus.

“He has constructed a new engine test stand for the development of missiles capable of reaching the UK sovereign base areas in Cyprus.”

darin

10-25-2010, 09:45 AM

To think, if Saddam had merely complied with the terms of his surrender/cease fire in Gulf War I, Gulf War II wouldn't have happened.

Kathianne

10-25-2010, 04:56 PM

To think, if Saddam had merely complied with the terms of his surrender/cease fire in Gulf War I, Gulf War II wouldn't have happened.

That was succinct and spot on.

revelarts

10-25-2010, 06:29 PM

To think, if Saddam had merely complied with the terms of his surrender/cease fire in Gulf War I, Gulf War II wouldn't have happened.

Is that why we went to war?
Because they broke the surrender agreement? I don't think so.

But lets take that road.
The disarming Iraq of WMD's was the core part of the resolutions.

I hate to give the U.N. any credit but the U.N. Inspectors told the world that there were no W.M.D.s.
But Bush and Blair "fixed", "misread" or "were mislead by" other intel and told us otherwise. ( I say Fixed but won't debate the point with you here)
the point is the UN inspectors said they had no WMDs which was the point of the resolutions and agreements.

So were back where we started.

"MUSHROOM CLOUD!!"
"26,000 liters of VX!!"

etc etc

BoogyMan

10-25-2010, 06:46 PM

Indeedy, it seems time has played with my memory (I was 12 at the time) the claim was Britons could be attacked in 45mins.

Heres the full timeline, it was at the core of the drive to get public support for the war

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3466005.stm

I had never heard that one. You guys are much closer to Iraq than America is.

It seems the claim was a tad more generic than the original version you posted but does certainly include the 45 minute claim.

Kathianne

10-25-2010, 06:52 PM

Is that why we went to war?
Because they broke the surrender agreement? I don't think so.

But lets take that road.
The disarming Iraq of WMD's was the core part of the resolutions.

I hate to give the U.N. any credit but the U.N. Inspectors told the world that there were no W.M.D.s.
But Bush and Blair "fixed", "misread" or "were mislead by" other intel and told us otherwise. ( I say Fixed but won't debate the point with you here)
the point is the UN inspectors said they had no WMDs which was the point of the resolutions and agreements.

So were back where we started.

"MUSHROOM CLOUD!!"
"26,000 liters of VX!!"

etc etc

9/11 made waiting for Saddam's death pointless and dangerous. He should have been knocked off in '92. But he wasn't. The no fly zone was always a joke, UK and US at fault with that.

Noir

10-25-2010, 06:58 PM

I had never heard that one. You guys are much closer to Iraq than America is.

It seems the claim was a tad more generic than the original version you posted but does certainly include the 45 minute claim.

Yep, ofcourse our media was no so easily fooled, and reported on the JIC report objectively and cautiously....

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/sun2-thumb.jpg

revelarts

10-25-2010, 07:20 PM

PostmodernProphet

10-26-2010, 10:45 AM

Is that why we went to war?
Because they broke the surrender agreement? I don't think so.

But lets take that road.
The disarming Iraq of WMD's was the core part of the resolutions.

I hate to give the U.N. any credit but the U.N. Inspectors told the world that there were no W.M.D.s.

????...true, they made that precise claim about six months after the war began, as I recall.....the report they gave just before the war began concluded that Saddam still was not cooperating.....you can verify this by reading the dated reports at the UN website if you don't believe me......

NightTrain

10-26-2010, 10:52 AM

????...true, they made that precise claim about six months after the war began, as I recall.....the report they gave just before the war began concluded that Saddam still was not cooperating.....you can verify this by reading the dated reports at the UN website if you don't believe me......

Exactly.

Everyone involved said he had the weapons prior to the invasion, especially the UN inspectors led by Hans Blix.

The buildup on the border of coalition forces for several months allowed enough time for the removal of the weapons and off they went.

SpidermanTUba

10-26-2010, 02:01 PM

Saddam used his WMDs previously, it was a documented fact. He'd used them against Iranians and against rebellious Iraqis, that was why we established the 'No Fly Zone'.

Uhh, no dude.

The U.S. was Iraqs ally back when Hussein was using chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds. No one gave a damn who Hussein gassed until he threatened the Kuwaiti oil.

revelarts

10-26-2010, 02:34 PM

There where inspections, they resumed in 2002 November well before the war start (March 19 2003) as well as the one you refer to PMP.

NightTrain In early March Blix said he had little or no problem. And they they could find nothing. What they couldn't do was come up with a paper trail of everything that was destroyed by the coalition forces. And No hidden underground facilities found after using radar in the suspected areas or mobile units after spot checks. None.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IImVN1dmGuY&feature=related

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IImVN1dmGuY?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IImVN1dmGuY?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I know major Scott Ritter is not the most popular guy here but he was right. He was there on the ground viewing the destruction and inspecting the sites. From 1991-1998 I think. We cleaned Saddam's house. Major Doug Rockke Confirms this, He was the hands on Medical Army guy chosen to deal with the stuff. He and many of his men are sick today becuase of the stuff they had to clean up, Iraqi and Coalition. But Rockke didn't/doesn't think Saddam had any more left after they where done. (Rockke's got a beef with the army not taking care of him and his men after the fact but that's another story). Basically there was no real evidence that there where any WMD's, only assertions and speculations by "various intelligence agencies" . As said so many times during the run up to war, Iraq was being asked to prove a negative. Prove to me you don't own a gun.

And again I have to point out that we didn't go to war over, his lack of cooperating with U.N. or cease fire agrements. We don't comply with all u.N. Agreements and we shouldn't. Israel doesn't comply with all U.N. resolutions and they shouldn't either. We don't go to war over none compliance of international agreements without violent provocation.. We went to war becuase BUSH and BLAIR "KNEW", and convinced us, that there were TONS of WMD's.

NiightTrain
Apparently Blix's report was misread or he's talking out of both sides of his mouth becuase he has testified that the intel that Bush and Blair used was shabby. I'm listening to the some of the testimony now he gave a a British inquiry just to make sure the summery C-span gives below is correct.
C-SPAN
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/295001-1

Former United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix testified before the British Iraq Inquiry. He told the five-member panel that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and that the U.S. and Britain relied on poor intelligence sources leading up to the 2003 invasion. He said that inspectors failed to uncover any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the U.S. was dismissive of opposing views. The British Iraq inquiry was an independent panel examining British involvement in the war and the circumstances which led to it, and would issue a report which would subsequently be debated in Parliament.

----
I didn't want to talk about this but,
Night train "everybody" didn't know that Saddam had weapons or hard sure plans to get weapons. the Only people who claimed that where the loud minority of Bush, Blair and crew a few misinformed reporters, a few CIA yes men and significantly the Pentagons -Office of Special Plans- group craved out of the pentagon to "fix" the intel that way. There's the leaked Downing st. Memo that shows they wanted the intel for an excuse to invade. ANd would have invaded despite evidence. Blair was so concerned that the U.N. inspectors would not find anything, that Bush suggested they could possible provoke Saddam to attack a U.N. fly over to justify a war. ALREADY PLANNED TO START ON MARCH 10.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Em6pY3DfFbM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Em6pY3DfFbM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

I won't discuss the fixing of intel aspect of this again to anyone unless they listen to or read transcripts of the C-SPAN interview below.
It's the head of C-Span on April 2, 2006 with Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
U.S. Air Force, 1983-2003.
She worked in the Pentagon Middle East desk and saw the real intel and saw the "alternative" intel being feed to the masses. She's was raised republican - of the Barry Goldwater strip- but now considers herself a libertarian. And loves the military and her country.

general info
http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1069

video
http://www.q-and-a.org/Video/?ProgramID=1069

transcript
http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1069

Until you watch or read her I'm not replying to anything else on the fixing vs misleading intel issue. if your just going to deny her story without looking for it. And Deny the Downing St. Memo too. That's fine. But when you want to correct me on facts I'll reply. I'm open to any real info.

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

revelarts

10-26-2010, 03:14 PM

Oh yeah
As far as Iraq MOVING WMD's before the war.
Wheres the proof?
I've heard and read people say that they were sent to Syria.
O.K. if Syria now has WMD's why arn't inspectors there digging in the sand in factories etc. Aren't they a terrorist state as well.

If we are really after WMD's and that's where we KNOW they went.

But you may be right there may be a canisters or 2 there as well. Still it's not enough to go to war with a 2nd or 3rd world middle eastern country who are really not a threat to us and has never attacked us at all.

NightTrain

10-27-2010, 02:02 AM

Noir

10-27-2010, 06:02 AM

The buildup on the border of coalition forces for several months allowed enough time for the removal of the weapons and off they went.

So follow them.

Kathianne

10-27-2010, 06:12 AM

jimnyc

10-27-2010, 06:55 AM

No, you're off base, Revel.

This exact scenario you've presented me with is precisely why I burned out with debating for a few years.

Jim and I and a few others hashed and rehashed the same debates hundreds of times at the previous board, and the board before that one with a new guy that would come in with the same tired, incorrect timelines, kooky conspiracy theories and info.

I can probably find some of my old posts and copy it here for you - there is nothing new that you've said above that I haven't already addressed a hundred times and I don't need the practice anymore.

I'll look into it tomorrow.

I will concur as well. I haven't stepped in as I know it'll turn into another 2 week posting-fest which I haven't the time for. I went through days of reading all the reports from the UN. While they may not have found anything before the invasion, they made it very clear that Iraq refused to fully cooperate until the very end, and that plenty of chemical weapons that were accounted for in 1998 were still unaccounted for and Iraq refused to address their whereabouts.

And while some would like to now, 7 years later, change the reasoning we went into Iraq, you can't change the past and facts. 12 years of repeatedly ignoring resolutions, ignoring no fly zones and firing on us, claiming to have WMD's themselves, refusal to address what they owed Kuwait... basically, in a nutshell, they disregarded nearly every aspect of every resolution.

And I'm sorry, simply stating "well there are other countries who ignore resolutions" is not an answer, it's a lame excuse in a debate. Each country is different, and I really don't see other countries that were as dangerous as Iraq, nor other countries proclaiming themselves to have WMD's that have illegally used them on their own citizens in the past.

And use this reply as a beginning for a search if you like, but I'm not debating 7 year old crap with people who still don't take the time to read all the paperwork but want to watch every youtube video they can find. My debate is my past posts should anyone have the desire to search the hundreds of posts I've made on this subject, both here and at USMB.

revelarts

10-27-2010, 07:19 AM

SO the inspector Blix in the video, in the UN, speaking BEFORE the war, telling the world that there were no WMDs is a tinfoil conspiracy theory?

And his video testimony to the same and more before the British inquiry is conspiracy theory?

HE made his inspections reports up but BUSH, Blair and there intel sources were right, even though all they can find is a few stray canisters? And the same solid intel sources told Bush, Blair and crew that TONS of items went to Syria. We are suppose to believe that. That's not theory? And it's not important that terrorist could get them from there now it seems.

You brought up Blix as credible.

ANd you've listened to the interview with Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, formerly of the Pentagon Middle East desk in the years running up to war, and have an alternative and true account of what she saw and heard? Therefore making her a liar or a very misguided soldier.

Please point me to the evidence and testimony, don't just try to dismiss it because it doesn't fit into you current world view.

Kathianne if you have time please listen to what Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski has to say then you can straiten me out.

But it seems that BLIX was clear, Iraq had No WMD's or problem weapons to speak of and there was No lack of Cooperating to speak of. Nothing that justified war. Nothing that justified what we now KNOW is the mistaken idea (lie) that there were WMD's that threatened the any country let alone the U.S.

jimnyc

10-27-2010, 07:29 AM

Rev - how about actually reading the final UN report before the war, in its entirety, before making incorrect assumptions? You can find the entire report, but here's an excerpt:

UN Chief Inspector Hans Blix, on 14 February 2003, presented a report to the Security Council. Blix gave an update of the situation in Iraq, and he stated that the Iraqis were now more proactive in their cooperation. He also rebutted some of the arguments proposed by Powell. Blix questioned the interpretations of the satellite images put forward by Powell, and stated that alternate interpretations of the satellite images were credible. He also stated that the Iraqis have in fact never received early warning of the inspectors visiting any sites (an allegation made by Powell during his presentation). International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohammed ElBaradei also said that he did not believe the Iraqis have a nuclear weapons program, unlike what Powell had claimed.

This report of February 14 and the protests of February 16 appear to have created reluctance in some of the members of the Security Council over the proposed war on Iraq. A second resolution was being drafted with the intention that it would find Iraq in "material breach" and the "serious consequences" of Resolution 1441 should be implemented.

Blix expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine[citation needed]. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said. "There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence, or you can't find it, I simply say, 'Sorry, I don't find any evidence,' and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence.If you take the time to read his entire report, you will see that Iraq NEVER fully cooperated and the UN was NEVER able to fully inspect or verify weapons that were tagged in 1998 and missing as of 2001.

revelarts

10-27-2010, 07:34 AM

I will concur as well. I haven't stepped in as I know it'll turn into another 2 week posting-fest which I haven't the time for. I went through days of reading all the reports from the UN. While they may not have found anything before the invasion, they made it very clear that Iraq refused to fully cooperate until the very end, and that plenty of chemical weapons that were accounted for in 1998 were still unaccounted for and Iraq refused to address their whereabouts.

And while some would like to now, 7 years later, change the reasoning we went into Iraq, you can't change the past and facts. 12 years of repeatedly ignoring resolutions, ignoring no fly zones and firing on us, claiming to have WMD's themselves, refusal to address what they owed Kuwait... basically, in a nutshell, they disregarded nearly every aspect of every resolution.

And I'm sorry, simply stating "well there are other countries who ignore resolutions" is not an answer, it's a lame excuse in a debate. Each country is different, and I really don't see other countries that were as dangerous as Iraq, nor other countries proclaiming themselves to have WMD's that have illegally used them on their own citizens in the past.

And use this reply as a beginning for a search if you like, but I'm not debating 7 year old crap with people who still don't take the time to read all the paperwork but want to watch every youtube video they can find. My debate is my past posts should anyone have the desire to search the hundreds of posts I've made on this subject, both here and at USMB.

so you tube video of the people who wrote the reports is somehow suspect?

that's lame.

Colin Powell and Condi rice said that Iraq was contained in 2001

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y1X-I-38lrU?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y1X-I-38lrU?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

then SUDEENLY HE a Horrible threat? Did we find anything new on him after 9-11. no. nothing real anyway.
this is one of Lt Col Kwatoski's point. the intel didn't change. She read the intel personally. at least as much as you DMP. maybe a bit more with her top secret clearances don't you think.

and here's his fairly honest response to this whole thing after the fact from Colin Powell
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FejQH_VCB24?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FejQH_VCB24?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

jimnyc

10-27-2010, 07:39 AM

so you tube video of the people who wrote the reports is somehow suspect?

that's lame.

Colin Powell and Condi rice said that Iraq was contained

<object height="385" width="480">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y1X-I-38lrU?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

and here's his fairly honest response to this whole thing after the fact from Colin Powell
<object height="385" width="480">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FejQH_VCB24?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

Hans Blix wrote the report, not Condi or Powell. Again Try reading his report in it's entirety, and all the prior reports leading up to the final report in Feb. of '03.

Your constant barrage of Youtube videos are what is lame. A 60 second clip does not outweigh official documentation from UN inspectors.

Again:

Another matter and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

jimnyc

10-27-2010, 07:43 AM

Not sure why I bother to give in when I state I won't debate things that have been debated for 7 years. Anyone who disagrees with what I've typed is delusional and refuses to read the final UN report to the president, in its entirety. I took tens of hours over the years reading every report possible, from resolutions to updates to UN reports. You simply cannot change history and proclaim this evidence does not exist because of a youtube video. I let the paperwork stand, and debate for me.

Dismissed and have fun playing in the sandbox full of tinfoil! :laugh2:

revelarts

10-27-2010, 07:57 AM

Rev - how about actually reading the final UN report before the war, in its entirety, before making incorrect assumptions? You can find the entire report, but here's an excerpt:

If you take the time to read his entire report, you will see that Iraq NEVER fully cooperated and the UN was NEVER able to fully inspect or verify weapons that were tagged in 1998 and missing as of 2001.

Did you watch the video of Blix testimony in before the U.N. and later in England? He CONCLUDES that IRAQ was not as organized as he ASSUMED, that they could not produce information that they didn't have.

And If you read my post ,I keep reminding you that
Full cooperating was never a justification for war.
the sure presence of WMD was.

the lack of a paper trail of old bio/chem of a ally turned enemy that was "contained and unable to project against even his neighbors" in 2001. is in 2003 a deadly threat worth going to war over.
I disagree.

revelarts

10-27-2010, 08:01 AM

jimnyc

10-27-2010, 08:08 AM

Did you watch the video of Blix testimony in before the U.N. and later in England? He CONCLUDES that IRAQ was not as organized as he ASSUMED, that they could not produce information that they didn't have.

And If you read my post ,I keep reminding you that
Full cooperating was never a justification for war.
the sure presence of WMD was.

the lack of a paper trail of old bio/chem of a ally turned enemy that was "contained and unable to project against even his neighbors" in 2001. is in 2003 a deadly threat worth going to war over.
I disagree.[/QUOTE]

So you know more than people that worked in the pentagon and inspector Blix

OK Jim.

I'm delusional?

Yes, delusional and apparently a conspiracy theorist who is dumb enough to believe a bunch of clips from various sites and youtube instead of taking the time to read the official reports up until the day we entered Iraq. Not my fault your too damn lazy to read and would rather watch TV.

Adios, done with you now. But I'm sure another frequent shopper in the tinfoil aisle will be along soon to comfort you.

revelarts

10-27-2010, 08:44 AM

...to believe a bunch of clips from various sites and youtube instead of taking the time to read the official reports up until the day we entered Iraq. Not my fault your too damn lazy to read and would rather watch TV...

So if it's written down it's true and if the person who wrote it is on tv testifying for 6 hours explaining what he wrote it's false.

and if you don't like what they say it's tinfoil conspiracy.

I see.

NightTrain

10-27-2010, 10:54 AM

Okay, Revel, I will indulge you and repost a few items of mine from years ago.

While I have serious reservations as to whether I'm wasting my time, you were polite. Your beliefs about jet contrails being a government program to poison us and your posts about the government being behind 9/11 makes me think this is a waste of time and you're going to believe what you believe despite facts, but I will try.

First, here are a few quotes from Democrats regarding Saddam. You may recognize a few of them. This should serve to dispel the misunderstanding you appear to have that Bush trumped up intel regarding Saddam's Iraq :

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime.. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23, 2003

NightTrain

10-27-2010, 12:34 PM

Here's a good article that Jim posted back in the day, as well. It's a good read.

Yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine about Saddam Hussein and she said in part,

FOH: ...I just don't agree with being lied to in order to take (Saddam) out.

John Hawkins: What lie do you think you were told?

FOH: That we were in imminent danger of being destroyed by weapons of mass destruction.

My friend isn't very political, but some left-winger apparently got to her and convinced her that Bush was lying about WMD. While her belief is erroneous, it's understandable that some people might buy into the idea that "Bush lied about WMD" because they're not political junkies who remember every detail of the build-up to the war. That's why it's so important for conservatives to remind people of what really happened even as the left tries to rewrite history.

To begin with, this argument that Bush kept emphasizing that we were in "imminent danger" can be quickly and easily disposed of. That's because the whole concept behind making preemptive strikes runs counter to the idea of waiting until a threat is "imminent". As Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union speech,

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)"

Secondly, while Bush certainly made it very clear that he believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that was not the sole reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. To the contrary, Bush hit several themes consistently in the year before the invasion of Iraq including WMD, Saddam's violation of 17 United Nations resolutions (which did not deal with WMD alone), Hussein's mistreatment of his people, & his cooperation with terrorists. To prove that I'm not just blowing smoke, let me go back to Bush's widely covered Sept 12, 2002 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. In that speech which made front page news all around the world, Bush explained what Saddam needed to do to avoid war. If the anti-war critics are right and Bush predicated his whole case on Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, it would be logical to think that Bush simply told Saddam to get rid of his WMD. But to the contrary, Bush said the following,

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

Ok, so we've now shown that Bush wasn't claiming the threat was "imminent" and that Bush's case against Iraq wasn't built exclusively on showing that Saddam had WMD. Even if that's so, we haven't found the WMD yet. Doesn't that mean Bush "lied"?

No, it doesn't. What you have to understand is almost EVERYBODY in the know thought Saddam had WMD. For example, just listen to what "Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House intelligence Committee" had to say about this subject,

"Some are suggesting, certainly, that (Saddam) destroyed the weapons after 1998 or maybe even sooner. It's just counterintuitive that he would have done that. His would have been the greatest intelligence hoax of all time, fooling every intelligence agency, three presidents, five secretaries of defense and the entire world into thinking he still had the weapons."

Furthermore, Harman wasn't the only Democrat who felt that way. There are many examples I could cite, but here's one from the current golden girl of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, making virtually the same case to the American people that Bush did on weapons on mass destruction,

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Since Bush's position on whether Saddam had WMD was indistinguishable from that of most of the VIPs in the Democratic Party, no intellectually honest person can claim that "Bush lied about WMD" unless he also believes that the majority of the US government on both sides of the aisle, along with intelligence agencies and leaders from many other nations, also lied about Hussein's WMD.

At worst, those who are knowledgable about the situation and who aren't blind partisans can say that Bush's allegation that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was in error. But to be truthful, we can't even definitively say that's the case yet. I tell you that because there are a variety of theories about what happened to the weapons of mass destruction. Some people believe that the WMD have been; shipped to Lebanon or Syria, destroyed at some point, hidden and not yet found, carried away in the looting, given to terrorists, not built for years by scientists afraid to tell Saddam the truth, or some combination thereof. At this point, it's difficult to rule any of those possibilities out. But as David Kay pointed out in his interim report, Saddam at the very least intended to procure WMD,

"Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons."

So we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hussein once had and used weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, at the time of the invasion, Saddam either had WMD or planned to acquire them. So all this quibbling over WMD is in a very important sense, irrelevant. Worst case scenario, it's like we stopped a serial killer before he could kill again as opposed to actually catching him with a body in the basement. In any case, sensible people who are concerned about what an anti-American tyrant like Saddam might have done with his WMD should be happy that the "Butcher of Baghdad" is now permanently out of business.

revelarts

10-27-2010, 12:42 PM

Nighttrain, I appreciate you taking the time to dig up your old post.
And that you can don't mind having a conversation about the details with someone whose views you don't agree with.

However I've never said that the gov't did 9-11 What i've said is that it looks like there where explosives in building 7. Witnesses and demo experts have concluded as much and I for 1 can't find any significant reason to dismiss them to date. They and I could be wrong.

Chem trails, I'm not going to the wall with that issue at all but again, to me there is something to look at. i used to dismiss the idea out of hand but now, well, juries still out IMO.

Now concerning the meat of your post. Uh, I'm not a democrat, Last time I voted democrat was for Carter in 1980. And frankly it really doesn't make a difference to me if it's democrat or a republican making the assertions. Bad intel is bad intel. I wanted to believe Bush when he wanted to go to war with Iraq, until i started reading ALL the reports and not just the ones that supported him and the democrats frightened that they wouldn't look butch enough.
People here think I'm hard on Bush, you should have heard me when Clinton was in office. Call me a conspiracy theorist too. well When Clinton was in office i looked into the Mena Arkansas drug issue. I'm convinced that the Clintons and J Elders knew about all of that and more.
Remember Juanita Broaddrick the Clinton rape victim not many people do. But a much more serious story than the poor intern.
Remember Vince foster. Don't get me started.

Look, at best, the Bush, Cheney, the Clinton, Gore, Kerry etc. all were working off of Incomplete and inaccurate reports. The current facts bear that out.

Many here have admitted that the U.N. inspectors said that BEFORE the war started they found ZERO EVIDENCE of WMD's.

But several here have stressed that Saddam was not FULLY compliant with the inspections.
I concede that point somewhat.
But the U.N. Inspector Blix said BEFORE and after the war began that It was not significant.
And I point out that even it he didn't FULLY comply, that it was no reason to go to war. It was Definitely not the reason we were given. ANd in Fact Saddam was not a threat to the U.S..

But giving the fullest benefit of the doubt, At the time, It may have been debatable for those outside and biased toward the right to come to a clear conclusion one way or another.

However, as it turns out Ritter was right. Blix was right but suspicious, the CIA was wrong, Colon Powell says if he knew what he knows now he would not have gone to war.

I get the impression that you guy STILL think it OK to Invade a country becuase they don't comply FULLY with U.N. resolutions.

I get the impression that
You Guys are convinced that the intel was still good. Even though Powell and his chief of staff both say that many of the intel sources the CIA feed him for the U.N. speech where "burnt" or no good. And many in the CIA knew it at the time.

OK, Whatever, I hear your assertions but i don't see the EVIDENCE.

And you don't believe Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski U.S. Air Force, 1983-2003. Who worked in the Pentagon Middle East desk and saw the real intel at a top secret level.

general info
http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1069

video
http://www.q-and-a.org/Video/?ProgramID=1069

transcript
http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1069

You have listen to her correct? Your not just saying shes wrong without giving her a hearing right?

last point,
I didn't start this thread, trying to dig up 7 year old issues
Kathianne posted the thread asserting that WMD and the intel of the Bush Blair and the CIA was right. Asking that those who didn't like the torture info found on wikileaks would comment on the few canisters and home chemistry sets as well. So here I am.

NightTrain

10-27-2010, 12:48 PM

Wow, what a trip down Memory Lane. Not relevant, but funny nevertheless for the Old Crew - and this is where we first met MtnBiker :

Great post, Eric!

lmao, Mtn Biker, welcome to the board!

I wonder what Spillmind will say about this? Hmmmm....

Spillmind : "And 83% of all Iraqis polled stated they need a bong hit."
__________________
Check Your Six

NightTrain

10-27-2010, 01:49 PM

Now concerning the meat of your post. Uh, I'm not a democrat, Last time I voted democrat was for Carter in 1980. And frankly it really doesn't make a difference to me if it's democrat or a republican making the assertions. Bad intel is bad intel. I wanted to believe Bush when he wanted to go to war with Iraq, until i started reading ALL the reports and not just the ones that supported him and the democrats frightened that they wouldn't look butch enough.
People here think I'm hard on Bush, you should have heard me when Clinton was in office. Call me a conspiracy theorist too. well When Clinton was in office i looked into the Mena Arkansas drug issue. I'm convinced that the Clintons and J Elders knew about all of that and more.
Remember Juanita Broaddrick the Clinton rape victim not many people do. But a much more serious story than the poor intern.
Remember Vince foster. Don't get me started.

Good enough, and I didn't think you were a Democrat. But when you say things like :

BUSH: "Where are those weapons of Mass Destruction. not over here, no Not over here. they've got to be around here somewhere... OH Well. ...chortle chortle "

and

Not quite the potential "mushroom cloud" Bush and Rice warned us about. Or high tech Mobile BIO TRUCKS units General Powell talked about.

and

But Bush and Blair "fixed", "misread" or "were mislead by" other intel and told us otherwise.

I won't go on with this, the point that I wanted to get across to you was that Bush has been hammered and falsely accused of "trumping up intelligence" when that is clearly not the case.

There is a very long list of people whose job it was to be informed all agreeing that there was a very serious problem with Saddam's WMDs way before Bush ever took office within the U.S. Government.

Regardless of party affiliation, conservative or liberal, the consensus was that he had them, he was developing them, and he was trying to improve them.

Look, at best, the Bush, Cheney, the Clinton, Gore, Kerry etc. all were working off of Incomplete and inaccurate reports. The current facts bear that out.

Saddam had them and had used them prior. Fact.

That takes care of what the USA thought, next we'll revisit what the international community thought about the situation.

I'm working this point by point, so bear with me.

revelarts

10-27-2010, 02:30 PM

Have you listened to the Lt. Col.?

Please reply to that.

PostmodernProphet

10-27-2010, 02:58 PM

SO the inspector Blix in the video, in the UN, speaking BEFORE the war, telling the world that there were no WMDs is a tinfoil conspiracy theory?

if you have a video of Blix, in front of the UN, before the war, stating there were no WMD then it's a doctored video....

revelarts

10-27-2010, 03:32 PM

Good enough, and I didn't think you were a Democrat. But when you say things like :

BUSH: "Where are those weapons of Mass Destruction. not over here, no Not over here. they've got to be around here somewhere... OH Well. ...chortle chortle "

He said it...
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f_tFKa2_YBQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f_tFKa2_YBQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
and

Not quite the potential "mushroom cloud" Bush and Rice warned us about. Or high tech Mobile BIO TRUCKS units General Powell talked about.
they said that to

"and"

But Bush and Blair "fixed", "misread" or "were mislead by" other intel and told us otherwise.
those are the only options I can think of. whatever the case it was wrong.

I won't go on with this, the point that I wanted to get across to you was that Bush has been hammered and falsely accused of "trumping up intelligence" when that is clearly not the case.

There is a very long list of people whose job it was to be informed all agreeing that there was a very serious problem with Saddam's WMDs way before Bush ever took office within the U.S. Government.

Regardless of party affiliation, conservative or liberal, the consensus was that he had them, he was developing them, and he was trying to improve them.

I don't think we can say it was "clearly" not the case. but i won't belabor the point. and you haven't listened to the Lt Col yet.

in the quotes you posted from the past the commentary said that EVERYONE new that he "INTENDED" and "WANTED" was "ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT" . How many solders are worth killing over bad intentions. I say Zero. the commentary says blightly that it all the killing and dying is worth it.
Lets just say I disagree.

And to the point of EVERYONE thinking that he had them, well
there was a long line of people who where saying that he was not a threat and didn't have WMDS too.
Maj Ritter being one of the most vocal and one that had been in on the ground Iraq more than any of the politicians that were so concerned.

here's the head of MI-5 saying that she didn't think IRaq was a threat. She had access to a bit of itell don't you think?
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6RPi5ud2FI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6RPi5ud2FI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

just quoting from wiki..
"
...July 2002 Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (Ret.) warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the invasion was risky and perhaps unnecessary.

Gen. Hugh Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed that war in Iraq would distract from the War on Terrorism.

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East and State Department's envoy to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, was against it.

...Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to President George H.W. Bush was an early critic. He wrote an August 15, 2002 editorial in The Wall Street Journal entitled "Don't attack Saddam,...

..January 19, 2003, TIME Magazine reported that "as many as 1 in 3 senior officers questions the wisdom of a preemptive war with Iraq."

Ron PAUL and 154 other congressmen voted against the resolution to authorize military action.

You can only say EVERYONE if you dismiss Everyone that disagreed.

Look, at best, the Bush, Cheney, the Clinton, Gore, Kerry etc. all were working off of Incomplete and inaccurate reports. The current facts bear that out.
Saddam had them and had used them prior. Fact.

Yes, Longs years past.

NightTrain

10-27-2010, 04:58 PM

The recovery of the advanced MiG fighter is considered to be an intelligence coup by the U.S. Air Force. The Foxbat may also be equipped with advanced Russian- and French-made electronics that were sold to Iraq during the 1990s in violation of a U.N. ban on arms sales to Baghdad.

The buried aircraft at Al Taqqadum were covered in camouflage netting, sealed and, in many cases, had their wings removed before being buried more than 10 feet beneath the Iraqi desert.

The discovery of the buried Iraqi jet fighters illustrates the problem faced by U.S. inspection teams searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is larger in size than California, and the massive deserts south and west of Baghdad were used by Saddam Hussein to hide weapons during the first Gulf war.

U.S. intelligence sources have already uncovered several mass grave burial sites in the open deserts with an estimated 10,000 dead hidden there. In addition, Iraq previously hid SCUD missiles, chemical weapons and biological warheads by burying them under the desert sand. U.N. inspection teams found the weapons in the early 1990s after detailed information of the exact locations was obtained.

Next is very informative insight into the bullshit the UNSC weapons inspectors had to deal with, in regard to the WMDs everyone knew they had and Iraq admitted they had - and this was back in 1998.

Pay close attention to the shell games Saddam was playing with the UNSC, this continued right up to our invasion.

Straight from the United Nations, it'll keep you busy for a while :

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/sres98-920.htm

NightTrain

10-27-2010, 06:57 PM

Better yet, I found a more complete version of the cat-and-mouse games and descriptions of the WMDs that the UN found from 1991 all the way up to 2000.

Note the constant interfering by Iraqi forces of the weapons inspectors while they moved their evidence from site to site ahead of the inspection teams.

Also note the fact that Iraq declared they didn't have any at first. Then a "defensive" biological program. Then, when caught, an "offensive" biological program. Then being caught importing nuclear weapon components... etc etc etc.

The more I review this, the more I think this is really all you need to read to realize that there was nothing anyone could do short of invading to remove WMDs from Saddam's Iraq.

It'll take a while, but it's a damn clear picture :

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm

NightTrain

10-27-2010, 07:47 PM

Let me know when you've reviewed the United Nations Security Council report and that we agree that Saddam had and was hiding WMDs so we can continue.

Once we're agreed, I will show you why he went from a minor annoyance to a major threat in a big hurry.

revelarts

10-28-2010, 03:06 AM

jimnyc

10-28-2010, 07:31 AM

have you listened to the Lt col.?

I have, 2x now, and I'm of the opinion that she is trying to capitalize on lies. She has little to no corroboration whatsoever. She is trying to be a writer within quite a few media outlets. She is trying to sell a book...

Why hasn't the government (democrats, or rabid liberals) called upon her into the spotlight if everything she states is true and verifiable?

Here is a nice little "bio" about her:

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, formerly of the Department of Defense, claims that George W. Bush toppled Saddam Hussein because Hussein's trade under the abused Oil-for-Food program was conducted in Euros, rather than dollars. This move by Saddam, she said, could cause "almost glacial shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar...(so) one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May (2003) switched trading on Iraq's oil back to the dollar." She also circulates Lyndon LaRouche's rhetoric to the credulous, Hate America Left, and she carved a handy (and, no doubt, profitable) niche for herself on the domestic left-wing, as a result.

Who is this Karen Kwiatkowski, this pundit who came seemingly out of nowhere to elicit praise and collaboration from the elite media organs of the Left? She first became prominent for saying what Donald Rumsfeld's critics believed all along: that forces of appeasement in the Department of Defense (the "non-violent lobby," as the Left would have it) were thwarted by the nefarious forces clustered around the Office of Special Plans, whose policies are designed only to defend Israel.

A recently retired USAF lieutenant colonel, Kwiatkowski is making a name for herself in the media, writing for the American Conservative, Salon, LewRockwell.com, MilitaryWeek.Com and a growing list of leftist publications. Left-wing organs pass her off as the quintessential "good soldier," a Pentagon staffer who was so appalled by the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom that she resigned in protest. Kwiatkowski spent her last four-and-a-half years in uniform working at the Pentagon. Her active service closed with a stint from May 2002 through February 2003 in the office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Near East/South Asia and Special Plans. Kwiatkowski's popularity shows the growing confluence between the Old Right and the Hate America Left.

Kwiatkowski began as a columnist for LewRockwell.com, a website devoted to the legacy of libertarian economist Murray Rothbard and other vanity political concerns. The pairing seemed odd from the start. Kwiatkowski deriving the bulk of her reported income by working for the army. Her other credentials were earned working for the federal government, yet she feels at home on a site whose intellectual forebears have written about the dangers of large standing armies and long to dissolve entire sectors of the government. It's strange that someone who worked to defend foreign nations ended up on a website with articles like "Socialism and Foreign Aid." And her parroting of the site's claim that the current war is the work of Zionist hustlers would seem opposed to the detachment necessary for military planning.

How far is Kwiatkowski willing to go to undo and undermine her former colleagues at the Pentagon? A recent interview with the leftist tabloid LA Weekly has been prominently featured at terrorist-sympathizer site aljazeerah.info, nestled amidst headlines like "Israeli Daily Aggression on the Palestinian people," "Occupational Depravity American Style" and "Palestine's Dance of Life Defeats Israel's Dance of Death."

Her interview with Marc Cooper is notable. To sum up, the self-proclaimed "lifelong conservative" was appalled by the "neoconservative coup" and its "relentless push for war with Iraq." Though U.S. military operations in Iraq, like the enforcement of Clintonian sanctions (which, the Left never tires of telling us, were responsible for thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths) and No-Fly Zones, continued from the end of Desert Storm, Kwiatkowski isn't concerned about that. Rather, she complained that she had no influence over Iraqi policy from her position as an expert on North Africa.

A good soldier would've done what she was told and handled her area of expertise. But the ambitious Kwiatkowski had other plans. Purportedly to preserve her sanity, she began writing "funny, short essays" and sending them to David Hackworth's Soldiers for the Truth website. And so a writer was born.

A look at some of Kwiatkowski's quips illuminates both the tone of the interview and the impact of her work: "Karl Rove…I suggest building a fire line post haste. The neo-conservative and Straussian imperialists in this administration, for the first time perhaps, will serve magnificently." She carped that "big-spending, war-mongering, Empire-seeking and ultra-Nixonian secret keeper Dick Cheney is the ugly spawn of a Party that once articulated small government." In her estimation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were "fools" while the embattled Douglas Feith was simply "foul."

She gave her interviewer, Marc Cooper, much latitude to condemn the Pentagon that currently pays her pension. Cooper was unchallenged when referring to Abe Shulsky of the OSP as the "overseeing monitor of the propaganda flow"; in fact, she played into one of the Left's favorite conspiracy theories, asserting that Shulsky "is a neoconservative…he has that Straussian academic perspective."

When not dangling Leo Strauss before leftists, in the manner of Lyndon LaRouche, she also pursues the War-for-Oil conspiracy. In the LA Weekly interview, she contends George W. Bush's "elective" war may have been waged because of the international petroleum marketing:

"The switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil [sic.] program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000.... If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq's oil back to the dollar."

Like the foreign policy pronouncements of so many of this writer's former paleoconservative friends, Kwiatkowski's assertions contradict themselves many times over. Yet Kwiatkowski's work has been cited by dissident journalist after dissident journalist. Pat Buchanan, Jason Vest, and Eric Alterman have been just a few of the names to take her accounts of the prewar gamesmanship in the Pentagon as Gospel. Still, succor from the far ends of the political spectrum doesn't buy a journalist much credibility - only access to the mainstream press would do that.

Happily for Kwiatkowski, such credibility was conferred upon her. The left-liberal Salon.com introduced her to its readers and embraced a new promotional gimmick simultaneously on March 10. This was pulled off an enthusiastic verve that would make Kwiatkowski the envy of most virgin contributors: "Welcome, MoveOn members, to Salon! Our new Washington bureau brings you this report from within the belly of the Bush administration beast - an eyewitness account of how radical ideologues hijacked the American government along the road to war in Iraq. Salon usually requires readers to watch a short ad or subscribe in order to view a complete article, but we thought this story was just too important - so we're giving you full access without further ado."

In her work for Salon, as with her work for American Conservative, Kwiatkowski lived up to such advance billing with her unsparing look into the "belly of the beast" and the "radical ideologues" who "hijacked the American government." Salon readers and MoveOn members read how pernicious was her "duty in a strange new country, observing up close and personal a process of decision making for war not sanctioned by the Constitution."

It is difficult to overstate the importance of a figure like Kwiatkowski. For one, her former position in the DOD lends her (unwarranted) credibility as an "insider." As a conservative, she gives leftists who cite her added legitimacy. The motifs scored by Kwiatkowski, Justin "Mossad Conspiracy" Raimondo and Pat "Whose War?" Buchanan are toxic to our troops in harm's way; internal dissension emboldens the terrorists and endangers the public's political support of our troops.

But just as important in evaluating Kwiatkowski's legacy when it is finally written is looking at her work and answering the following question: what is she really trying to say? She advances the shared anti-American views of Lyndon LaRouche and George Soros, claiming opposition to U.S. "militarism" is the last bastion of true patriotism. In other words, the terrorists are right: we have met the enemy, and he is us.

Some people will believe anything, with little to no evidence at all, from someone hawking their goods. I question what they say and look for PROOF and corroboration. Apparently even those who would LOVE to knock down the war and Bush administration don't even bring her into the spotlight.

revelarts

10-28-2010, 08:16 AM

Um so you listened. Good.

ANd you can't refute anything she says,
but it doesn't agree with your paradigm so you call her...
1. a liar
2. in it for a book deal (7 years after the fact)

Case closed.

But to convince me she's a liar with no proof but your assertions,
you found a harsh review of (harsh in terms of painting her blue for a conservative audience)

the harsh review doesn't look at any of the content of her ONSITE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS of her day to day activity at the pentagon.

it just tries to discolor her character by saying
1. she writes for the left therefore she's evil
2. she writes for the paleoconservatives and libertarians therefore she out in the political boonies.
3. She said some political things that no conservative will believe, so everything she says can be discounted.

But Again the CONTENT of Her Experience that lead her to where she is now is IGNORED and DISMISSED. Nothing in the article is complimentary even though she served for 20 yrs in the Airforce. The woman just no good in there eyes.

And they give a definition of a good soldier as someone who obeys and keeps their D--- mouth shut.

If that satisfies you Jim, If that's all you can say about the content of what she said then we've really got no basis to talk.

Frankly i get tried of the way we can dismiss info here if we don't like it by throwing a negative label onto it. "conspiracy" "lies" "Liberal" "racist" "conservative" etc without honest consideration.
It's lazy thinking and often used to shut down or side track debate.

Here's a time line with links to other articles that speak to the CONTENT.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_200 3_invasion_of_iraq&specific_cases_and_issues=officeOfSpecialPlans

Also somewhat related the head of the CIA's Bin Laden task force, Micheal Sheauer , was asked to come up with alquida Iraqi connect and couldn't do it either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer#Iraq_and_al-Qaeda

jimnyc

10-28-2010, 08:31 AM

Sorry, but the responsibility is on HER to prove her assertions, not the other way around. Even our own government, many of whom would LOVE to make her words ring true, are not doing so. Why is that? I know why, but then again, there's no tinfoil mucking up my signals.

jimnyc

10-28-2010, 08:35 AM

If that satisfies you Jim, If that's all you can say about the content of what she said then we've really got no basis to talk.

Then stop blabbing. I'm not forcing you to make second handed assertions here without any proof other than that from a woman who seeks to make money from said assertions. Again, the responsibility to prove said assertions is on HER and YOU if you wish to make this your stance. Some of us are not weak enough to allow an entire war to be on the shoulders of one woman's word who has no proof. Some of us like to do our background due diligence in more places than Youtube. That's why you ask NT if he listened to her words rather than replying to what he posted for you from the UN - because you would rather deal in conspiracies than in FACTS.

Methinks you inhaled some chemtrails, and I will make it easy for you and just ignore your bile going forth about this subject. You're welcome.

NightTrain

10-28-2010, 10:54 AM

have you listened to the Lt col.?

I really don't see the point - I gave you irrefutable proof directly from the United Nations, why would we want to listen to a woman who may or may not have been in the loop when the UN reports and intel were coming in?

And upon reading Jim's info on her, I'm definitely not interested.

We're discussing WMDs in Iraq prior to invasion, let's not muddy the waters.

Did you review the United Nations report? Are we agreed there were indeed WMDs and an active effort to gain nukes and missiles to deliver them?

revelarts

10-28-2010, 01:42 PM

OK time out, lets have instant replay here for minute.
I've replied directly to nearly every comment with some form of fact but the response i get are evasive or "but you should look at this". and a bit of mild name calling.
let me recap:

Kathianne
"but here's hoping the left is as open to this tact, as the 'torture' bandwagon."
Wiki leaks info on Iraq chem weapons finds

ME
Is that all, BUsh claimed there where tons etc…

Kathianne
wiki finds the Lancet Iraqi death toll study falsofied

ME
That's interesting. I wonder who did that they should be held responsible.

Kathianne
SOro funded
ME
THANKS K,

DMP
"To think, if Saddam had merely complied with the terms of his surrender/cease fire in Gulf War I, Gulf War II wouldn't have happened."

ME
That's not why we went to war, or at least not why we were told we went to war.
it was because BUSH teal KNEW Iraq had WMDs.
But the un inspectors said otherwise.

Kathianne
We needed to take Saddam Out he was dangerous, 911 , no fly zone was no good . we should have removed him in 92.

ME
Dick Cheney explains why it was a bad idea to take out Saddam in 92.

PostmodernProphet
Un Claims came six months after war began
Before the war he wasn't cooperating.

Nighttrain
Yes, exactly
Everyone said he had weapons before the invasion
Especially Hans Blix
+Saddam had time to move weapons out of country.

ME
inspections start in Nov 2002
Video of Blix in March saying that he found no WMDs,
but didn't have paperwork for other stuff that might be there.
After looking at the site pointed out by -CIA MI6 Massad(?)-
they fond no under ground bunkers, no working factories, no mobile units.

Major S Ritter said there was none
Major Doug Rokke said there was none.
video of 3 hrs of Blix testifying before an inquiry about his U.N. reports and experience that he didn't believe there was evidence to go to war.
video of former CIA officer explaining the Downing st memos
Video and transcript links to Lt Col Kwiatkowski

NightTrain
Revel your off base. Years ago we talked about all this I'll find the old post if i can.

Kathianne
No matter how much data some will cling to tinfoil

Jimnyc
Saddam broke a lot of U.N. resolutions for years and owed kuait money. ANd said themselves they had WMDs
u can't change the reasons 7 years after the fact. Go read my old post. read the docs instead of watching youtube.

ME
So Blix is Tinfoil?
Blix said he found no WMDs and had no consequential problems inspecting.

Jimnyc
Rev how about reading the reports, Feb 14 2003
heres and except
Saddam Never fully cooperated, was never fully inspected, and didn't give a full account for missing items.

ME
SO Youtube of the people who wrote the docs is irrelevant?
here's Gen. C. Powell Condi Rice Pre 911 saying saddam is not a threat.
Here's Powell saying after the fact that he was not a threat and that there were no wmds

Jimnyc
Powell did write reports read the Feb Doc
excerpt
youtube is lame

Jimnyc
anyone who doesn't agree with me is crazy
I read as much as i could, you can't change history,
youtube is irrelevant
tinfiol

ME
did you watch the video of Blix multiple hr testimony.
His conclusions was that there was no evidence or reason to invade Iraq.

ME
you know more than Blix and Pentagon emplyees
but Im delusional

Jimnyc
Yes,delusional lazy and dumb, read the reports
youtube is no good.
fie I'm done with thee

Night Train
OK I'll Indulge you. I found some old info.
Here a bunch of quotes from democrats that thought Saddam had WMDs too.
-long list.-
revel your a poor conspiracy theorist and probably won't believe any real facts but here you go.

Jimnyc
Article of a wise conservative correcting a poor misguide citizen.
by reminding them that Bush said that if Iraq didn't want us to come over there and beat the crap out him he would do Abcd and e.
and make excuses and why Bush saying that Saddam could kill didn't mean he could kill us today.
And the Bush never wanted to go after Iraq just because of WMDs.
And democrat Israeli tool Jane Harman even thought we should attack
Defectors and former scientist all say he wanted wmds.

ME
I'm not a democrat,
I'm not as far gone a conspiracy nut as you make out thanks
and they aren't bringing new info to the table just assertions.
where's the evidence.
We now know there were no WMDs the report they all read where wrong.

please listen to Lt Col Kwiatkowski

NightTrain
Iraq Had WMDs Prior
SO that proves Everyone in the US thought so.

Next I'll show you everyone in the intl community thought so too.

ME
please listen to Lt Col Kwiatkowski

Postmodernprophet
if the video show blix saying there where no WMDs then the videos fake.

ME
Video Head of MI5 saying she didn't think saddam was a threat
List of several military and politicians who didn't believe Saddam to be a threat or have WMDS.

NightTrain
in 1990's we found a lot of WMDS hidden in sand.
Link to a summery of UN inspections
Let me know when you've read it.

ME
have you listened to Lt Col Kwiatkowski

jimnyc
I listened, she's a liar only the people i read tell the truth…
this other guy thinks so too
don't believe her

ME
sigh
Can I get some facts to go with that tirade?

Night train
I don't want to listen her if Jim and the other guy don't like her.
Do you agree with me yet over the stuff i want you to read.

Anyone else see this as interesting.

I'm going to reply later but I just want to get out there where we stand so far in this discussion.

jimnyc

10-28-2010, 02:51 PM

Probably more like this:

Rev - "Did anyone read about the lady who sat next to Bush and knows everything"

Me - What about the 12 years and 4,345,876 pages of documents leading up to the war?

Rev - But didn't you read her articles on those 27 left wing websites she writes for?

Night - How about these official UN documents from over the years?

Rev - Jesus, she's writing a book for profit, how can she lie? Even our entire government is afraid to repeat and/or use her words! It was on Youtube!!

revelarts

10-28-2010, 03:17 PM

ha wow, you make my point.

You've ignored every point i've made and see only we what you've read as valid, and even dismiss Blix when he doesn't agree with you.

jimnyc

10-28-2010, 03:22 PM

ha wow, you make my point.

You've ignored every point i've made and see only we what you've read as valid, and even dismiss Blix when he doesn't agree with you.

Dude, don't be a dickhead. You're the one making a timeline of fake quotes by the rest of us to make yourself look better and literally making things up that we never said. It's not like anyone with a 1/4 a brain won't see what everyone wrote anyway, but you want to prop yourself up by giving a recap in a thread that is only a few pages long. You're angry, or come off so, because people don't want to believe in your "star witnesses" story. If even the rabid left in our government want to ignore her, what does that tell you?

Stick to conspiracy theories instead of applying quotes to my name that I never stated.

revelarts

10-28-2010, 03:28 PM

see here we go,
Name calling and still no comment on Blix's testimony.

jimnyc

10-28-2010, 03:32 PM

see here we go,
Name calling and still no comment on Blix's testimony.

I suggest you read a little harder, I myself even supplied several quotes from Blix on here, just not the quotes YOU want to hear. We are talking about the precursor to war and what was known at the time - and Blix himself stated that Iraq was still in material breach of resolutions and that 1,000 tons of chemical weapons were not accounted for. Those 2 items I think stand at the forefront from the day before we entered Iraq.

Still no comment as to why your beloved Lt. Col. has no solid proof, and why she isn't being welcomed with open arms by the government portion that would love no better than to crucify GWB?

jimnyc

10-28-2010, 03:33 PM

see here we go,
Name calling and still no comment on Blix's testimony.

Oh, as far as the name calling - when you attribute quotes to me that I never stated - that makes you a dickhead.

NightTrain

10-28-2010, 09:32 PM

Where did I call you a conspiracy theorist? Seems to me that I've been downright civil here.

1) You wanted to know about Iraq's WMDs prior to the invasion.

2) I provided proof directly from the United Nations.

3) I asked you to review it.

4) You want to talk about a woman that was "in the loop" with regards to UN Intel.

5) wtf?

Why would we even waste time on the woman when we can get it straight from the UN? Who cares what she knows and what she doesn't and where her loyalties lie?

Rather than screw around all week sifting through mountains of links, the two links I searched for and provided for you sum it all up nicely.

Clean. Easy. Fast. No arguing necessary.

You're either genuinely interested in whether or not Iraq had WMDs or you're more interested in the side stories, theories and intrigue.

I've offered to show you that there were indeed WMDs present prior to invasion and why it was necessary to remove them forcibly from Saddam's Iraq.

If you are no longer interested in learning the truth then please say so. I have a pretty girlfriend that needs a few smooches.

revelarts

10-29-2010, 12:19 AM

Where did I call you a conspiracy theorist? Seems to me that I've been downright civil here.

1) You wanted to know about Iraq's WMDs prior to the invasion.

Right, there was info from the U.N. , the CIA and the D.O.D. Briton and Israel,
It was all in the air at the time. the Lt Col worked at the DoD with her hands on the intel going directly to Cheney and Watching how it was being used and misused.

2) I provided proof directly from the United Nations.
3) I asked you to review it.

that's great, no problem I've read much of it already very quickly and will look at it more closely later. I'll comment on it later. I hope you can take the time to look at the info i provided as well.

4) You want to talk about a woman that was "in the loop" with regards to UN Intel.

All Intel that was available and drove the talking points of the Administration and what was discovered by the U.N..

Why would we even waste time on the woman when we can get it straight from the UN? Who cares what she knows and what she doesn't and where her loyalties lie?

The Bush Administration had set up a special office at the D.O.D. looking for intell that they couldn't get from the CIA and regular DOD sources, she was there. It helped drive what the U.N. looked for and Bush Cheney and Rice used it to convince themselves(?) and the U.S. public.
so yes it's very relevant.

Rather than screw around all week sifting through mountains of links, the two links I searched for and provided for you sum it all up nicely.

Clean. Easy. Fast. No arguing necessary.

Then Blixs assessment of his final report in March is relevant and people should watch that too correct? no fuss no muss.

ANd if that's the case are you saying that when the President differed with the U.N's assesment he was mistaken?

You're either genuinely interested in whether or not Iraq had WMDs or you're more interested in the side stories, theories and intrigue.

I've offered to show you that there were indeed WMDs present prior to invasion and why it was necessary to remove them forcibly from Saddam's Iraq.

When you say prior to the invasion are you talking about in the early 1990's? If that's what your saying we don't need to go any farther. Yes I know he had them in the 1990's. but in 2000 2001 2002. there were items "unaccounted for" but no Proof or solid evidence of them. If it was still there then the U.N. docs didn't know where they were or we would have found them correct? Am I missing something? You say he moved them. OK. Where? Where's the proof, not a defectors story, so many of those have been Proven false. Evidence = the items in hand. TONS of it.

And it's interesting how you want me to know the "truth" but are afraid to listen to another aspect of the story. Unless you just want to take jimnyc's word for something without looking for yourself. There may be more "truth" for you to find as well.

If you are no longer interested in learning the truth then please say so. I have a pretty girlfriend that needs a few smooches.

Smootch de girl, But don't be so sure you have all of the "truth". I think if we're both humble we both might learn something.

revelarts

10-29-2010, 12:31 AM

But you know folks, I just can't figure out why when I say
-There were no tons of WMDs in Iraq. and We didn't find any. and it wasn't worth going to war over. that there's any argument.

If they were there we would have found them. Right? THAT'S SIMPLE. THAT"S CLEAR. even Colen Powell admits that they didn't go to Syria. Blair admits that the intel was wrong. (if not made up) BUSH makes inappropriate jokes about it. Rumsfield even admits we found no WMDs they probably aint there.

It's been 7 years, as so often mentioned.

Why is it so hard to admit here?
it's almost like i'm saying Santa Clause isn't real or something.

NightTrain

10-29-2010, 01:18 AM

Good deal.

So, we can both agree that :

1) There were WMDs in Iraq and Saddam had used them previously.

2) Iraq interfered with inspections and refused to disarm.

3) Had active projects in place to acquire nuclear capability.

4) Was trying to upgrade missile capability for delivery of WMDs.

5) Possessed both Chemical and Biological weapons that they hid from the UN.

6) This was documented from 1991 to 2000.

Just a yes or no, please, Revel. The two links I provided outline this clearly.

jimnyc

10-29-2010, 06:17 AM

It was all in the air at the time. the Lt Col worked at the DoD with her hands on the intel going directly to Cheney and Watching how it was being used and misused.

All Intel that was available and drove the talking points of the Administration and what was discovered by the U.N..

The Bush Administration had set up a special office at the D.O.D. looking for intell that they couldn't get from the CIA and regular DOD sources, she was there. It helped drive what the U.N. looked for and Bush Cheney and Rice used it to convince themselves(?) and the U.S. public.
so yes it's very relevant.

Why do you keep ignoring my request for PROOF of her claims? If you're going to keep bringing my name into your posts, at least answer those questions. What Proof of these allegations, solid proof, did she bring to our government to report what she knows?

Then Blixs assessment of his final report in March is relevant and people should watch that too correct? no fuss no muss.

All that matters from his final report is his admission that Iraq was not fully cooperating, which left them in material breach of resolutions. That and his admission that there were 1000 TONS of chemical weapons unaccounted for that they have been demanding Iraq account for, and Iraq continually ignored. Whether at that point that they found nothing at all, and found the intel given to them thus far to be bogus - none of that changes those first 2 FACTS. This is also another portion of my repeated replies that you continue to ignore. Are you afraid of the truth and giving proof?

PostmodernProphet

10-29-2010, 06:42 AM

I need to correct an error in your post....

Postmodernprophet
if the video show blix saying there where no WMDs then the videos fake.

ME
Video Head of MI5 saying she didn't think saddam was a threat
List of several military and politicians who didn't believe Saddam to be a threat or have WMDS.

it would have been more accurate if you had posted this...

Postmodernprophet
if the video show blix saying there where no WMDs then the videos fake.

ME
no response, no link to a video of Blix saying there were no WMD before the war began

revelarts

10-29-2010, 08:54 AM

I've got to do some work today but I'll reply,
probably to no ones satisfaction but...

I'll be back.

revelarts

10-31-2010, 12:09 AM

Ok, As I said I read the link on the U.N. you've posted and gone back to review it a bit.

the summery of what I get from it is what we seem to agree on.

In the 1990's the vast bulk of Iraq WMDs were destroyed.
What might have been left was unknown, and unaccounted for to the satisfaction of many. But there was no physical evidence of anything significant.
There were a several items of controversy over the years but nothing substantial confirmed in the U.N. reports. Definitely no large stockpiles of WMDs physically discovered. Or paperwork that validated an sophisticated ongoing WMD program. There were some indications that he MAY Have WANTED TO, INTENDED TO, YES. BUT no, ZERO, evidence of an SOLID ONGOING EXISTING PROGRAM. (If i misread the files point out to me where they had IN HAND PHOTOS or the LOCAL of the STOCKPILES of WMDs. AND OR WMD RESEARCH FACILITIES) However they had reason for some suspicion and Yes he played a bunch of games with inspectors for years making him look even more guilty. That was stupid on his part. ( stupid evil dictator is what stupid evil dictator does) And yes as I've said several times he was in breach of the resolutions/cease fire.

I think we can agree on that.
I hope.

Ok that was the U.N. report up to a point

Now Blix made several reports and the last few are significant in that they reveal that he had no evidence that would lead him concluded that there was any reason why we had to go to war.

March 2003 Blix's statement before the U.N.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

He discusses Iraqi dismantling of missiles (non wmd) that went over the range prescribed by resolution. THEY ARE THE ONLY SOLID ITEMS FOUND.
All other comments are about:
-Not having a clear accounting or paper trail of WMDs long ago destroyed in the 1990's.
-NOT being able to prove Iraq is starting it up any new WMD program as various intel agencies say.
-That Iraq doesn't like cooperating but they are.
-And that to check on the other accusations of WMD programs and materials should only take a few months.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.

Are the items sited above any reason to continue plans for war?
How many men are worth sacrificing if instead the Inspectors only needed months to determine if all the negative WMD intel was true?

But the WORST OF THE WORST WMD intelligence wasn't true.

But the WORST OF THE WORST WMD intellegence wasn't true.

part 1

revelarts

10-31-2010, 12:17 AM

Part 2

Frankly I believe that Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice knew it was false.

Ive cobbled together a list of quotes from various sources. Mostly CIA DIA and Administration people, there more i could Add but a picture start to form that, it seems to me, is difficult to dismiss, But I'm sure some of you will.

Anyway
I've already Posted Lt Col Karen Kawaitski's info. AS far as I know only Jim has seen it.
http://www.q-and-a.org/Video/?ProgramID=1069
Jim you question her integrity and wonder why others in the media haven't shared her story.
C-Span is a pretty fair place to start. She been in the New Yorker Magazine, Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano, Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2005/6/29/fmr_pentagon_insider_blasts_bushs_iraq) , militaryweek.com, Huffington Post, AntiWar.com, The American Conservative magazine, Salon, Motherjones, LA Weekly, Coommondreams.com, Russia Today, and more. She's been in several documentaries, Superpower, Why We Fight , Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire, Uncovered: The War on Iraq and Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War.

She work for Doug Feith In the Pentagon on the near east desk and saw an adjunct office created By Feith called the Office of Special Plans that she says Cherry picked intel info messaged it and fed it to the the BCRandR. She saw the same intel they did but knew that much of it had been discredited by DIA and CIA reports. And On some intel they just removed the caveats like the timing to create the impression that what Iraq did in the past they were doing now. the OSP was accountable to noone but the Vice President and Rumsfled.

If she was alone in her Assertions then you might , MIGHT, want to dismiss her. but she's not.

New Yorker Magazine Article by Symour Hersh 1 paragraph

They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. In the past year, according to former and present Bush Administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community. These advisers and analysts, who began their work in the days after September 11, 2001, have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq. They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi. By last fall, the operation rivalled both the C.I.A. and the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the D.I.A., as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda. As of last week, no such weapons had been found. And although many people, within the Administration and outside it, profess confidence that something will turn up, the integrity of much of that intelligence is now in question….

the article goes on to

W. Patrick Lang, the former chief of Middle East intelligence at the D.I.A., said, “The Pentagon has banded together to dominate the government’s foreign policy, and they’ve pulled it off. They’re running Chalabi. The D.I.A. has been intimidated and beaten to a pulp. And there’s no guts at all in the C.I.A.”
Vincent Cannistraro, the former chief of counter-terrorism operations and analysis at the C.I.A., worked with Shulsky (OSP Boss) at a Washington think tank after his retirement. He said, “Abe is very gentle and slow to anger, with a sense of irony. But his politics were typical for his group—the Straussian view.” The group’s members, Cannistraro said, “reinforce each other because they’re the only friends they have, and they all work together. This has been going on since the nineteen-eighties, but they’ve never been able to coalesce as they have now. September 11th gave them the opportunity, and now they’re in heaven. They believe the intelligence is there. They want to believe it. It has to be there.”…
…In interviews, former C.I.A. officers and analysts described the agency as increasingly demoralized. “George knows he’s being beaten up,” one former officer said of George Tenet, the C.I.A. director. “And his analysts are terrified. George used to protect his people, but he’s been forced to do things their way.” Because the C.I.A.’s analysts are now on the defensive, “they write reports justifying their intelligence rather than saying what’s going on. The Defense Department and the Office of the Vice-President write their own pieces, based on their own ideology. We collect so much stuff that you can find anything you want.”…
…A former high-level intelligence official told me that American Special Forces units had been sent into Iraq in mid-March, before the start of the air and ground war, to investigate sites suspected of being missile or chemical- and biological-weapon storage depots. “They came up with nothing,” the official said. “Never found a single Scud.”…
…On April 22nd, Hans Blix, hours before he asked the U.N. Security Council to send his team back to Iraq, told the BBC, “I think it’s been one of the disturbing elements that so much of the intelligence on which the capitals built their case seemed to have been so shaky.”…
So there a are few others that seem to corroborate her story but sadly there's more.

Patrick Lang, DIA
Patrick Lang, the former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defense Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence, said the Office of Special Plans "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat. Lang said in interviews with several media outlets that the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

"“I don’t have any problem with them bringing in a couple of people to take another look at the intelligence and challenge the assessments. But the problem is that they brought in people who were not intelligence professionals, people brought in because they thought like them. They knew what answers they were going to get.” [New York Times, 4/28/2004]"

That agency was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

Vincent Cannistraro Head of CIA's counter-intelligence unit
“I think that early on in the administration—sometime within the first five to six months after Sept. 11, 2001—the decision was made that Iraq had to be dealt with. The intelligence community was tasked to collect information.” [ABC News, 6/16/2003]

“They are politicizing intelligence, no question about it. And they are undertaking a campaign to get George Tenet [the director of central intelligence] fired because they can’t get him to say what they want on Iraq.” [Washington Post, 10/25/2002]

“Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there’s a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA.” [Guardian, 10/9/2002]

“The [INC’s] intelligence isn’t reliable at all. Much of it is propaganda. Much of it is telling the Defense Department what they want to hear. And much of it is used to support Chalabi’s own presidential ambitions. They make no distinction between intelligence and propaganda, using alleged informants and defectors who say what Chalabi wants them to say, [creating] cooked information that goes right into presidential and vice-presidential speeches.” [Independent, 9/30/2003]

He told Reuters that “he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up ‘fraudulent’ intelligence” that had been acquired through the notorious Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. [Reuters, 5/30/2003]

-----
Tyler Drumheller, CIA chief in Europe

CBS NEWS
Former Top CIA Official On "Faulty" Intelligence Claims
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBod y
Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn’t:

"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller.

Drumheller says he doesn't think it mattered very much to the administration what the intelligence community had to say. "I think it mattered it if verified. This basic belief that had taken hold in the U.S. government that now is the time, we had the means, all we needed was the will," he says….

...Meanwhile, the CIA had made a major intelligence breakthrough on Iraq’s nuclear program. Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister, had made a deal to reveal Iraq’s military secrets to the CIA. Drumheller was in charge of the operation.

"This was a very high inner circle of Saddam Hussein. Someone who would know what he was talking about," Drumheller says.

"You knew you could trust this guy?" Bradley asked.

"We continued to validate him the whole way through," Drumheller replied.

According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high-level meeting at the White House, including the president, the vice president and Secretary of State Rice.

At that meeting, Drumheller says, "They were enthusiastic because they said, they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis."

What did this high-level source tell him?

"He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program," says Drumheller.

"So in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?" Bradley asked.

"Yes," Drumheller replied. He says there was doubt in his mind at all.

"It directly contradicts, though, what the president and his staff were telling us," Bradley remarked.

"The policy was set," Drumheller says. "The war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Drumheller expected the White House to ask for more information from the Iraqi foreign minister.

But he says he was taken aback by what happened. "The group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they're no longer interested," Drumheller recalls. "And we said, 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said, 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.'"

"And if I understand you correctly, when the White House learned that you had this source from the inner circle of Saddam Hussein, they were thrilled with that," Bradley asked.

"The first we heard, they were. Yes," Drumheller replied.

Once they learned what it was the source had to say — that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to wage nuclear war or have an active WMD program, Drumheller says, "They stopped being interested in the intelligence."

The White House declined to respond to Drumheller's account of Naji Sabri’s role, but Secretary of State Rice has said that Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister turned U.S. spy, was just one source, and therefore his information wasn’t reliable.

"They certainly took information that came from single sources on uranium, on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all and so you can’t say you only listen to one source, because on many issues they only listened to one source," says Drumheller.

"So you’re saying that if there was a single source and that information from that source backed up the case they were trying to build, then that single source was ok, but if it didn’t, then the single source was not ok, because he couldn’t be corroborated," Bradley asked.

"Unfortunately, that’s what it looks like," Drumheller replied.

"One panel after another found that agencies were giving conflicting information to the president," Bradley remarked.

Drumheller admits they were. "And that's the problem. No. There was no one voice in coming out of the intelligence community and that allowed those people to pick and choose those bits of information that fit what they wanted to know."

…."The American people want to believe the president. I have relatives who I've tried to talk to about this who say, 'Well, no, you can’t tell me the president had this information and just ignored it,'" says Drumheller. "But I think over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time."

CIA CHief Drumheller interview with Spiegel about "Curveball" Info in Powells U.N. Speech.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462782,00.html

…Drumheller: I had assured my German friends that it wouldn't be in the speech. I really thought that I had put it to bed. I had warned the CIA deputy John McLaughlin that this case could be fabricated. The night before the speech, then CIA director George Tenet called me at home. I said: "Hey Boss, be careful with that German report. It's supposed to be taken out. There are a lot of problems with that." He said: "Yeah, yeah. Right. Dont worry about that."
SPIEGEL: But it turned out to be the centerpiece in Powell’s presentation -- and nobody had told him about the doubts.
Drumheller: I turned on the TV in my office, and there it was. So the first thing I thought, having worked in the government all my life, was that we probably gave Powell the wrong speech. We checked our files and found out that they had just ignored it.
Larry Johnson, CIA analyst
“We’ve entered the world of George Orwell. I’m disgusted. The truth has to be told. We can’t allow our leaders to use bogus information to justify war.” [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 6/8/2003]

“By April of last year, I was beginning to pick up grumblings from friends inside the intelligence community that there had been pressure applied to analysts to come up with certain conclusions. Specifically, I was told that analysts were pressured to find an operational link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. One analyst, in particular, told me they were repeatedly pressured by the most senior officials in the Department of Defense.… In an e-mail exchange with another friend, I raised the possibility that ‘the Bush administration had bought into a lie.’ My friend, who works within the intelligence community, challenged me on the use of the word, ‘bought,’ and suggested instead that the Bush administration had created the lie.… I have spoken to more than two analysts who have expressed fear of retaliation if they come forward and tell what they know. We know that most of the reasons we were given for going to war were wrong.”

[b]Melvin A. Goodman Senior Analyst CIA Intell Specialist National war college
“To deny that there was any pressure on the intelligence community is just absurd.” [Reuters, 6/6/2003]
[ed: Goodman is referring here to the lectures he gives to intelligence analysts at the State Department’s Foreign Services Institute] “I get into the issue of politicization. They don’t say much during the question period, but afterwards people come up to me, DIA and CIA analysts who have had this pressure. I’ve gotten stories from DIA people being called into a supervisor’s office and told they might lose their job if they didn’t revise a paper. ‘This is not what the administration is looking for. You’ve got to find WMD’s, which are out there.’” [Vanity Fair, 5/2004]

Stansfield Turner, former director of CIA
“There is no question in my mind (policymakers) distorted the situation, either because they had bad intelligence or because they misinterpreted it.” [USA Today, 6/17/2003]

Richard Clarke, White House counterterrorism advisor
Clarke recounts how on Jan. 24, 2001, he recommended that the new president's national-security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, convene the president's top advisers to discuss the Qaeda threat. One week later, Bush did. But according to Clarke, the meeting had nothing to do with bin Laden. The topic was how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. "What does that tell you?" Clarke remarked to Newsweek. "They thought there was something more urgent. It was Iraq. They came in there with their agenda, and [al*Qaeda] was not on it."

Clarke emphasizes that Bush's focus on Iraq actually served to increase the terrorist danger. Clarke writes that Bush "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."

Clarke is not a Democrat, and his sentiments are not antiwar in principle. In fact he is a foreign-policy hawk and career government official who served five presidents, three of them Republicans.

"Beginning on the night of 9/11, we have the secretary of defense and others talking about going to war with Iraq. I think we knew pretty much that week that the probability of finding a justification for going to war with Iraq was high on their agenda."
"And he said: "Saddam! Saddam! See if there's a connection to Saddam!" And this wasn't "See if there's a connection with Iran, and while you're at it, do Iraq, and while you're at it, do the Palestinian Islamic group." It wasn't "Do due diligence." It wasn't "Have an exhaustive review." It was "Saddam, Saddam." I read that pretty clearly, that that was the answer he wanted.
I said to him, "We have already done that research prior to the attack" -- in fact, we'd done it a couple of times -- "and there's nothing there." And the facial expression back was, "That wasn't the right answer."
So I said, "Well, but we will do it again." And we asked CIA to do it again. CIA did it again, came up with the same answer. That answer was written up and handed to the president by George Tenet in one of his morning meetings, and it said, "For the third or fourth time, we've gone back to look at the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and there is no real cooperation between those two.""
"I remember vividly, in the driveway outside of the West Wing, Scooter Libby, from the vice president's office, grabbing me and saying, "I hear you don't believe this report that Mohamed Atta was talking to Iraqi people in Prague." I said, "I don't believe it because it's not true." And he said: "You're wrong. You know you're wrong. Go back and find out; look at the rest of the reports, and find out that you're wrong." I understood what he was saying, which was: "This is a report that we want to believe, and stop saying it's not true. It's a real problem for the vice president's office that you, the counterterrorism coordinator, are walking around saying that this isn't a true report. Shut up!" That's what I was being told.
I'm somebody who has been in Washington national security for 30 years. I'm not easily intimidated. Imagine if you're an analyst at the CIA who's been there for four or five years."

“I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.” [Washington Post, 3/22/2004]
Associated Events

“The White House carefully manipulated public opinion, never quite lied, but gave the very strong impression that Iraq did it. They did know better. We told them. The CIA told them. The FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging Sept. 11, when Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. I think for a commander in chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable.” [New York Times, 3/23/2004]

Larry Wlkerson, Gen Powell's Chief of staff
Look him up and see what he has to say if your interested

Hans Blix[/]
Between late November and mid-March 2003, Blix reports, the UN inspectors made seven hundred separate visits to five hundred sites. About three dozen of those sites had been suggested by intelligence services, many by Tenet's CIA, which insisted that these were "the best" in the agency's database. Blix was shocked. "If this was the best, what was the rest?" he asked himself. "Could there be 100-percent certainty about the existence of weapons of mass destruction but zero-percent knowledge about their location?"
By this time Blix was firmly opposed to the evident American preference for disarmament by war. "It was, in my view, too early to give up now," he writes. Tony Blair in late February tried to convince Blix that Saddam had WMD even if Blix couldn't find them – the French, German, and Egyptian intelligence services were all sure of it, Blair said. Blix told Blair that to him they seemed not so sure, and adds as an aside, "My faith in intelligence had been shaken." On March 5, Blix on the phone with Rice asked her point-blank if the United States knew where Iraq's WMD were hidden. "No, she said, but interviews after liberation would reveal it."
In that meeting of the Security Council both ElBaradei and Blix reported their continuing plans for further inspections, and both said that outstanding issues might be resolved within a few months. This was not what the United States wanted to hear. In mid-February, President Bush had derided efforts to give Iraq "another, 'nother, 'nother last chance." Blix had pleaded in a phone call about the same time to Secretary of State Colin Powell for a free hand at least until April 15. "He said it was too late."
Three years later, in a speech to the Arms Control Association, Blix reflected on that moment in his office at the UN – the afternoon of March 16 – when the State Department's John Wolf called to say that the time had come to pull the inspectors out of Iraq. "My belief is that if we had been allowed to continue with inspections for a couple of months more, we would then have been able to go to all of the sites which were given by intelligence," he said. "And since there were not any weapons of massive destruction, we would have reported there were not any." An invasion might have taken place anyway, Blix concedes; the Americans and British had sent several hundred thousand troops to Kuwait and could not leave them sitting in the desert indefinitely. "But it would have been certainly more difficult," Blix said. Even so, in Blix's view, something important had been achieved. "The UN and the world had succeeded in disarming Iraq without knowing it." Blix guessed that Saddam hid his compliance so Iran wouldn't think him weak, but it was the Americans who were deceived.

[B]Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, formerlythe director of policy planning at the State Department. A former Rhodes Scholar, he also served as the U.S. coordinator for policy toward the future of Afghanistan and was senior director of Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.
frontline interview
"Was it necessary to go to war when we did?
"When we did, no. That was a question of choice. Obviously, you could have delayed it a day, a week, a month, a year. There was no necessity then. It wasn't as though the Iraqis were poised to suddenly do something or break out. So the decision to go to war -- which obviously was the president's decision -- like everything else about this war, was an elective decision."

curveball
the best source for WMD info was a complete fraud
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,5362808,full.story
60 minites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U7beWttza0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxbV0CjshQ&feature=related

Hussien Kamel, former Director of Iraq's Industrialization Corporation in charge of Iraq's weapons program, stated in an Aug. 22, 1995 briefing with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):
"I don't remember resumption of chemical weapon production before the Gulf War. Maybe it was only minimal production and filling. But there was no decision to use chemical weapons for fear of retaliation. They must have a revision of decision to start production.
All chemical weapons were destroyed. I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missiles, nuclear were destroyed."
Aug. 22, 1995 - Hussein Kamel*

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000674

jimnyc

10-31-2010, 06:44 AM

I'll repeat myself for those who like to talk in circles to muddy the waters:

Still no comment as to why your beloved Lt. Col. has no solid proof, and why she isn't being welcomed with open arms by the government portion that would love no better than to crucify GWB?

Why do you keep ignoring my request for PROOF of her claims? If you're going to keep bringing my name into your posts, at least answer those questions. What Proof of these allegations, solid proof, did she bring to our government to report what she knows?

So I'm assuming she or her buddies have no tangible or direct proof? Were all of these people called before congress or the senate intelligence committee? What charges were brought forth to anyone in our government or military as a result of the proof these people came forward with. What happened when she contacted high ranking leaders the VERY DAY she witnessed the activity? Who was the first person she reported it to when she gained this knowledge, and did that person report it to appropriate authorities immediately?

jimnyc

10-31-2010, 08:17 AM

I have another question for you, Rev, that I've asked of many others throughout the years and they could never give a straight answer, just unfounded accusations and theories.

From the years 2001-2002 there were 9 Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee to that of 8 Republicans. The Chairman was Bob Graham, a Democrat. From 2003-2004 there were 8 Democrats on the committee and 9 Republicans. John Rockefeller would Vice Chair this committee. This committee was privy to all the intel and were briefed directly by the various intelligence agencies leading up to the war in Iraq.

I'll save you the quotes made by prominent Democrats over the years about Iraq, some even being very members of this committee.

But from 2001 to the day we entered Iraq, until this very day, I don't see a single Democrat that had access to MORE information than their counterparts, standing up and complaining about what they saw and what was actually delivered to others and finally the citizens.

I assume you'll say that the intel was already cherry picked by the time the agencies reported to them, but what proof would you have of that? If those YOU are believing have only their word as proof, why would their words be more believable than hundreds and hundreds within government and a Democrat led Intelligence Committee?

I'd like more direct and tangible proof than a handful of people just expecting us to believe them. We would all be naive if we thought every single person in government and our military was pro Bush and pro War.

revelarts

10-31-2010, 09:18 AM

jimnyc

10-31-2010, 09:40 AM

Amazing
Amazing
But I'm not surprised.
OK
I'm not sure what other "proof" your looking for. You have before you Wittnesses telling us that from thier post in CIA, DIA etc they knew the much of the Bush intel was wrong and misused and many say they that had seen the administration do it on purpose.
A murder wittiness is suppose to give testimony of what they know form what they saw and heard from thier positions. You have multiple witnesses here Jim, corroborating the same story.

So, your entire story falls on hearsay and no direct evidence whatsoever. Noted.

P.S. - in a murder trial, you would likely need direct evidence to convict (weapon, motive, DNA...) No credible court would convict on hearsay.

The amazing part is that we live in a country where retards will believe anything they read on a left wing website. The fact that this woman (Lt. Col) posts for so many is a story in itself, the fact that she was doing so while still working is a sin.

As far as the Lt. Col reporting to officials, do you mean report it to the top? Her highest boss was Rumsfeld. He wanted this. And she has said in other interviews that she thought she would be Court Marshaled if she spoke out directly at the time.
The CIA's boss was Tenent who pressed against the tide at 1st but then apparently caved, so who were the CIA people going to complain too ultimately? They felt Tenent didn't have there backs.

These people seriously believed that they could not report their findings to a single person in congress at the time? Not a single one of them thought of getting any tangible proof? Her reasoning for not speaking up is lame. A court martial for telling the truth to her superiors? LOL

As far as Congressional hearings go the only 1 I know of on the issue of pre-war intelligence is the democratic Senate hearing in 2006
you can watch it hear on C-Span (http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2006/06/26/HP/A/3859/Senate+Cmte+Hearing+on+Iraq+PreWar+Intelligence.as px)
http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2006/06/26/HP/A/3859/Senate+Cmte+Hearing+on+Iraq+PreWar+Intelligence.as px

If you prefer to read it there's a link HERE (http://dpc.senate.gov/dpchearing.cfm?h=hearing33)
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpchearing.cfm?h=hearing33

There should have been many more.

Why is the Lt. Col's name not even on the list of those in attendance (as per the link to "read"). And why do you think there weren't "many more" after this one?

And spare me the lengthy reading and/or watching - just tell me what direct evidence was brought to congress and what they did as a result of this testimony and evidence.

And Jim, you have still failed to respond -in any way- to Blixs pre-war assessment that war was not necessary at the time and it would take only months to clear ALL disarmament issues.

Because it's now YOU who is cherry picking. Why can't YOU respond to the fact that even Blix stated they were not in compliance with the missing chemical weapons and that he found it hard to believe they couldn't properly account for them. I also posted earlier his comments about how he thought Iraq was not fully complying.

As for him thinking it would only take a few months.... What does that do as related to the failed resolutions? Did Blix comment on Iraq's cooperating with Kuwait? Did Blix address them shooting within no fly zones? Did Blix address Iraq stating themselves that they possessed WMD's? Did Blix address them giving safe haven to terrorists? Did Blix address Iraq and their human rights treatments? These were ALL in the long list of resolutions and reasons that we went into Iraq. Not all of us are foaming at the mouth liberals who want to scream "No weapons found, they lied, shouldn't have went to war" while completely ignoring 12 years of evidence prior and an unwilling participant in Saddam and his cronies.

jimnyc

10-31-2010, 09:44 AM

But believe what you will Jim, I'm pretty much done here. if you want to know more look it up for yourself.

Ahhh, the old editing of a post, so I'll address this now.

So you're going to take your ball and go home now because some would actually expect proof of allegations of such a magnitude, and don't immediately fawn all over someone because they disagreed with the Bush administration and simply take them for their word? :laugh2:

I don't need to know more, I've seen all the craziness from day one. Unlike people like you, I took the time over the years to actually read thousands of pages of documents. You were busy perusing the rabid left websites and enjoying cute little videos.

If YOU want to actually learn more, take off the tinfoil and READ ALL of the pre-war documentation, and not just those linked to from these noddle headed websites. I don't need to point out these sites for you as you cited them earlier as the ones that your beloved know it all Lt. Col. writes for! :lol:

revelarts

10-31-2010, 11:41 AM

Senate hearing June 2006
Walter Jones (R)

SEN. DORGAN: Congressman, thank you for joining us. Congressman Walter Jones comes
to us from over on the other side of the Capitol building. And we're pleased he's here today.
REP. JONES: Senator, I am very pleased and honored that this distinguished panel of the Democratic Policy Committee would allow me to spend just a few minutes and ask questions. I have actually met with Mr. Pillar and Mr. Wilkerson, and eight other individuals from General Zinni to Newbeau to Betiste to Karren Ketowsti (SP) to Sam Garner to James Bamford. These men know that my heart has ached ever since I found out that maybe the intelligence that we were given as Members of the House to vote for the Resolution was flawed and possibly manipulated.

Believe what you will...

revelarts

10-31-2010, 03:25 PM

So, your entire story falls on hearsay and no direct evidence whatsoever. Noted.

P.S. - in a murder trial, you would likely need direct evidence to convict (weapon, motive, DNA...) No credible court would convict on hearsay.

plenty of people have gone to jail over just 1 eyewitness and we have more than 1 here.

The amazing part is that we live in a country where retards will believe anything they read on a left wing website. The fact that this woman (Lt. Col) posts for so many is a story in itself, the fact that she was doing so while still working is a sin.

Jim she first published her work on the web site SOLDIER FOR THE TRUTH, http://sftt.org/ founded by David Col. Hackworth (http://www.hackworth.com/), he thought her story was credible enough to post the story. I don't get the impression that he's exactly "liberal" or that it's a sin that she wrote to him while at the Pentagon. The other website she post to regularly is a libertarian site LewRockwell.com.

Because it's now YOU who is cherry picking. Why can't YOU respond to the fact that even Blix stated they were not in compliance with the missing chemical weapons and that he found it hard to believe they couldn't properly account for them. I also posted earlier his comments about how he thought Iraq was not fully complying.

from post#72

Ok, As I said I read the link on the U.N. you've posted and gone back to review it a bit.

the summery of what I get from it is what we seem to agree on.

In the 1990's the vast bulk of Iraq WMDs were destroyed.
What might have been left was unknown, and unaccounted for, to the satisfaction of many. But there was no physical evidence of anything significant.
There were a several items of controversy over the years but nothing substantial confirmed in the U.N. reports. Definitely no large stockpiles of WMDs physically discovered. Or paperwork that validated an sophisticated ongoing WMD program. There were some indications that he MAY Have WANTED TO, INTENDED TO, YES. BUT no, ZERO, evidence of an SOLID ONGOING EXISTING PROGRAM. (If i misread the files point out to me where they had IN HAND PHOTOS or the LOCAL of the STOCKPILES of WMDs. AND OR WMD RESEARCH FACILITIES) However they had reason for some suspicion and Yes he played a bunch of games with inspectors for years making him look even more guilty. That was stupid on his part. ( stupid evil dictator is what stupid evil dictator does) And yes as I've said several times he was in breach of the resolutions/cease fire.

I think we can agree on that.
I hope.

As for him thinking it would only take a few months.... What does that do as related to the failed resolutions? Did Blix comment on Iraq's cooperating with Kuwait? Did Blix address them shooting within no fly zones? Did Blix address Iraq stating themselves that they possessed WMD's? Did Blix address them giving safe haven to terrorists? Did Blix address Iraq and their human rights treatments? These were ALL in the long list of resolutions and reasons that we went into Iraq. Not all of us are foaming at the mouth liberals who want to scream "No weapons found, they lied, shouldn't have went to war" while completely ignoring 12 years of evidence prior and an unwilling participant in Saddam and his cronies.

Foaming at the mouth liberal!!!!!!!

Now you've gone to FAR YOU *^#@^* [_# 04 &-)=[ # &$) 8 &$8 0-0 and YOU and your #*)^ - 80 can 4 )$ 80) $_ _#+

Ok sorry about that, I hope i don't get band from the board.

So what your saying is that it doesn't matter that there were no stockpiles of WMD's AT ALL. That there were plenty of of other perfectly good reasons to spend trillions of dollars and give up 1000's of soldiers lives and 100's of thousands of Iraqi lives for.
They may be good enough reasons for you Jim.
But it's not for me, and the administration knew it was not enough for the American people in general. Not just the foaming at the mouth liberals.

there are only a few good reason to go to war that i know of:
self defense after attack,
humanitarian defense of others in some cases,
and Under treaty obligations for another country that's been attacked.

Saddam was "contained" and "not a threat" imminent or otherwise.

"..failed resolutions..."
"..safe haven to terrorists..."
"..human rights treatments..."
"...ALL in the long list of resolutions and reasons..."
"..12 years of evidence prior..."
Collectively or separately do not add up to War and you know as well as i do that's NOT why the President and crew said we needed to go.

"LET'S NOT HAVE THE EVIDENCE OF HIS WMD PROGRAM BE A MUSHROOM CLOUD."

Kathianne

10-31-2010, 03:35 PM

I don't have the patience of Jim and I don't like conspiracy theories to begin with. So I'm just addressing part of your last post:

...Saddam was "contained" and "not a threat" imminent or otherwise...

There was absolutely no indication prior to 9/11 that Bush had plans for Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or anywhere else. Indeed, his first 3 months were trying to find out what the hell was going on, Clinton's administration wasn't exactly forthcoming after the 2000 election. The next 3 months we saw him focusing on education and going to the ranch. Summer was pretty much the same. Then came 9/11. The containment would no longer be enough, as Afghanistan needed to be addressed and all military personnel had to be utilized in most efficient, (for the government), ways possible.

The flyovers to contain were going bye-bye or Saddam had to change his ways. He had until 2003, his choice.

revelarts

10-31-2010, 03:52 PM

wow

PostmodernProphet

10-31-2010, 04:36 PM

wow

/shrugs.....and I would say "wow" to the fact that you are well aware, as is every other human being in the world, that at the time the war began everyone agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.....Blix, the UN, Europe, liberals, everyone.....

after the initial invasion, apparently every liberal in the world suddenly remembered that they had tried to tell everyone it wasn't true......

delusion, but widespread.....quoting them pretending this to be true doesn't win arguments.......

jimnyc

10-31-2010, 05:49 PM

They may be good enough reasons for you Jim.
But it's not for me, and the administration knew it was not enough for the American people in general.

Collectively or separately do not add up to War and you know as well as i do that's NOT why the President and crew said we needed to go.

"LET'S NOT HAVE THE EVIDENCE OF HIS WMD PROGRAM BE A MUSHROOM CLOUD."

First off - post it then if you think the President stated other than what I wrote for you here. I'll give you a hint though, I looked it up again before typing and you'd be wise to just read my words again. While you may only have heard "wmd wmd wmd wmd wmd wmd" - they have ALWAYS given a long list of reasons.

As for whether the reasons were good enough, tough shit that it's not good enough for you. They didn't need nor seek your input, or mine for that matter. It was quite clear after the last resolution what was going to happen and that it needed to happen quick. Those acting like it was a surprise are those that apparently weren't paying attention to both Democrat and Republican leaders who were speaking out against Iraq and their ambitions since 1998. I would have been shocked if we DIDN'T go into remove Saddam, whether the chatter about WMD's picked up from 1998-2003 or not.

You nutters seem to think we shouldn't exercise military options unless enemies are landing on our shores. Whatever happened to protecting right and wrong, protecting innocents, protecting democracy, protecting human rights, protecting allies. State any of these weren't in danger and you'd be a liar. Those were good enough for me - and then ENSURING to the world that they couldn't build, or possess WMD's, was just icing on the cake.

Kathianne

10-31-2010, 05:51 PM

/shrugs.....and I would say "wow" to the fact that you are well aware, as is every other human being in the world, that at the time the war began everyone agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.....Blix, the UN, Europe, liberals, everyone.....

after the initial invasion, apparently every liberal in the world suddenly remembered that they had tried to tell everyone it wasn't true......

delusion, but widespread.....quoting them pretending this to be true doesn't win arguments.......

You just summed up my thinking. He said, 'wow' because he really hadn't an answer to the years of 'containment' where only US and UK took flak, while UN looked on and said, "Keep going..."

jimnyc

10-31-2010, 06:00 PM

You just summed up my thinking. He said, 'wow' because he really hadn't an answer to the years of 'containment' where only US and UK took flak, while UN looked on and said, "Keep going..."

Given the sites that the Lt. Col. posted at, if he falls for that crap - then all he would know is that the intel was faked and doctored, the rest was cherry picked, Bush literally stated "the only reason we are going into Iraq is for WMD" and it can't possibly be out of context crap if it's got 100,000 views on Youtube!

Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, Rangel - these people are not in Washington demanding action based on what revelarts has brought to this thread. Now I gave my opinion, and I'm fairly confident my reasoning is the same reason that the above mentioned idiotic liberals aren't clamoring for this "evidence" of some sort of smoking gun. Any one of them would give their souls and their mother to have solid information such as that.

revelarts

10-31-2010, 06:12 PM

I thought their might be a few people open to facts but it seems if it doesn't fit into the liberal republican boxes around here then it can't be true. Either for us or against us. Tow the party line or your out of the tribe, to heck with the facts. Hard core liberals are the same though, I told my wife years ago that Clinton could shot a baby on camera in broad daylight and Liberals would have a reason ready why he needed to do it. I thought many of us on the right acted more on principal, party be danged.

We have always been at war with Eastasia...

jimnyc

10-31-2010, 06:22 PM

I thought their might be a few people open to facts but it seems if it doesn't fit into the liberal republican boxes around here then it can't be true. Either for us or against us. Tow the party line or your out of the tribe, to heck with the facts.

This is absolutely hilarious! You're the one here trying to convince us of something WITH NO FACTS to land on and NO PROOF - you are simply pawning off hearsay on us, and apparently hearsay that even our own government liberals aren't interested in hearing.

Now re-read what you just wrote to us, which I quoted. Now you know why I think it's hilarious when a condescending shitbrick then accuses us of not being interested in the facts. Go read a Tom Clancy book and come back here with some more "proof" or "facts".

revelarts

10-31-2010, 06:55 PM

so the senate hearing means no one's interested?
Are You Blind.
yes there should be more but the Constitutional scholar and his justice dept Obama hasn't done alot of things they siad they would. And the Democrats promised before they became the majority that they would end the war and have hearings on a lot of stuff. well it ain't happened.
both parties are full of crap and corruption.

but look
the CIA European head Tyler Dhelimmer was on 60 minutes saying that he told those that needed to know that Curve ball was crap and they didn't want to hear it.

That's hearsay? That's Conspiracy? That's Liberal?1?? What?

Richard Clarke was talking directly to BUSH and Bush let him know exactly what he wanted to hear. So did Scooter Libby.
How is that hearsay?
That's 1st person testimony.

Blix called several people as as well as spoke openly at the U.N. saying that they all they needed was a few months to clear the country of danger. that you say your so concerned about.

I'm not trying to be condescending but if i got more rational responses than stuff like...

"THEY ARE LIBERALS YOU DICK HEAD"
"LIBERAL WEBSITES ONLY TELL LIES EVERYDAY ALL DAY"
"YOU RETARDED CONSPIRACY THEORIST THEY ARE ALL LIARS"
"I HAVE NO TIME FOR NEW INFORMATION THAT DOESN'T AGREE WITH WHAT I'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED, IT CAN'T BE TRUE"
"IT'S NOT TRUE!!! EVERYBODY THOUGHT SO EXCEPT FOR YOUR LIBERAL FRIENDS"
"THOSE CIA, DIA, MILITARY, AND STATE DEPT PEOPLE YOU QUOTE CHANGED THERE MINDS AFTER THE FACT EVERYONE KNEW SADDAM HAD THEM AND HE WAS GOING TO KILL US ONE DAY SOON EVEN IF HE DIDN'T."

That's crap, just plain BS.

I've Agreed that Yes Saddam was an evil jerk.
I've Agreed that the U.N. and a lot maybe even most people thought that he had them.
I've agreed that Blixs early report gave many people concern even him.
I've agreed that Saddam broke many of the resolutions.

but you guys won't admit anything without getting snarky.
I mean, so Blix is a liberal and his opinion doesn't matter in March but it does in February? that's BS.
that's not reason, and calling him names and questioning his motives is petty BS.

And saying that we don't have a say in the process sadly may be true but it's not right.

revelarts

10-31-2010, 07:01 PM

This is absolutely hilarious! You're the one here trying to convince us of something WITH NO FACTS to land on and NO PROOF - you are simply pawning off hearsay on us, and apparently hearsay that even our own government liberals aren't interested in hearing.

Now re-read what you just wrote to us, which I quoted. Now you know why I think it's hilarious when a condescending shitbrick then accuses us of not being interested in the facts. Go read a Tom Clancy book and come back here with some more "proof" or "facts".

Frankly I've got more proof here than Bush gave us on the WMD's.
So I'm not sure why you don't believe it.

revelarts

10-31-2010, 07:17 PM

Let me take a different tact.

Ok
Jim, everyone.

What would you consider Proof.
Frankly i don't think you'd consider it proof if the democrats started a new hearing tommorow making the accusations i've submitted.

So what would be proof?

the minutes of a meeting with Blair
you don't believe

the eye witness testimony of people who worked in the white house in the pentagon in the CIA in the DIA in the State dept you falsely consider hearsay.

what would you consider PROOF.
tapes of conversations,
I'm guessing notes and writings won't be good enough for you because the Downing st. memo isn't.
Would it have to be video tape of the perps made by Rush Limbaugh and Sara Palin
A signed confession and admission.

Seriously what is "PROOF" folks?

NightTrain

10-31-2010, 11:24 PM

So it appears that you didn't read the UN report, Revel.

Fine, I will post to you some highlights in the official UN report.

6 Apr 1991 Iraq accepts resolution 687 (1991) (S/22456).

18 Apr 1991 Iraq provides initial declaration required under resolution 687 (1991), declares some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type long-range ballistic missiles. Iraq declares it has no biological weapons programme.

23-28 Jun 1991 UNSCOM/IAEA inspectors try to intercept Iraqi vehicles carrying nuclear related equipment (Calutrons). Iraqi personnel fire warning shots in the air to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles. The equipment is later seized and destroyed under international supervision.

2 Aug 1991 Iraq declares to the first biological inspection team that it had conducted "biological research activities for defensive military purposes".

21-30 Sep 1991 IAEA inspectors find large amounts of documentation relating to Iraq's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The Iraqi officials confiscate some documents from the inspectors. The inspectors refuse to yield a second set of documents. In response, Iraq refuses to allow the team to leave the site with these documents. A four-day stand-off during which the team remained in the parking lot of the site ensues. Iraq permits the team to leave with the documents following a statement by the President of the Security Council, threatening enforcement action by members of the Council.

19 Mar 1992 Iraq declares the existence of previously undeclared ballistic missiles (89), chemical weapons and associated material. Iraq reveals that most of these undeclared items were unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991, in violation of resolution 687 (1991).

May 1992 Iraq provides its first Full, Final and Complete Disclosures for its prohibited biological and missile programmes. Iraq admits to having had only a "defensive" biological weapons programme.

Jul 1992 UNSCOM begins the destruction of large quantities of Iraq's chemical weapons and production facilities.

6-29 Jul 1992 Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture. UNSCOM had reliable information that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities.

Jun 1994 UNSCOM completes the destruction of large quantities of chemical warfare agents and precursors and their production equipment.

Mar 1995 Iraq provides the second Full, Final and Complete Disclosures of its prohibited biological and chemical weapons programmes.

1 Jul 1995 As a result of UNSCOM's investigations and in the light of irrefutable evidence, Iraq admits for the first time the existence of an offensive biological weapons programme but denies weaponization.

Aug 1995 Iraq provides the third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons programme.

8 Aug 1995 General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and former Director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, with responsibility for all of Iraq's weapons programmes, leaves Iraq for Jordan. Iraq claims that Hussein Kamel had hidden from UNSCOM and the IAEA important information on the prohibited weapons programmes. Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare programme than previously admitted, including weaponization. Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation, hidden on a chicken farm ostensibly by Hussein Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programmes which subsequently leads to further disclosures by Iraq concerning the production of the nerve agent VX and Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon. Iraq also informs UNSCOM that the deadline to halt its cooperation is withdrawn.

Nov 1995 Iraq provides second Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited missile programme.

Nov 1995 The Government of Jordan intercepts a large shipment of high-grade missile components destined for Iraq. Iraq denies that it had sought to purchase these components, although it acknowledged that some of them were in Iraq. UNSCOM conducts an investigation, which confirms that Iraqi authorities and missile facilities have been involved in the acquisition of sophisticated guidance and control components for proscribed missiles. UNSCOM retrieves additional similar missile components from the Tigris river, which had been allegedly disposed of there by Iraqis involved in the covert acquisition.

Mar 1996 UNSCOM teams are denied immediate access to five sites designated for inspection. The teams enter the sites after delays of up to 17 hours.

May-Jun 1996 UNSCOM supervises the destruction of Al-Hakam, Iraq's main facility for the production of biological warfare agents.

Jun 1996 Iraq denies UNSCOM teams access to sites under investigation for their involvement in the "concealment mechanism" for proscribed items.

12 Jun 1996 Security Council resolution 1060 (1996), terms Iraq's actions a clear violation of the provisions of the Council's resolutions. It also demands that Iraq grant immediate and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM.

13 Jun 1996 Despite the adoption of resolution 1060 (1996), Iraq again denies access to another inspection team.

22 Jun 1996 Iraq provides the fourth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited biological weapons programme.

Nov 1996 Iraq blocks UNSCOM from removing remnants of missile engines for in-depth analysis outside Iraq.

21 Jun 1997 Iraq again blocks UNSCOM's teams from entering certain sites, which have been designated by UNSCOM for inspection.

Sep 1997 Iraq provides fifth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons programme. An international panel of experts is convened in New York to discuss Iraq’s declaration. The panel unanimously finds Iraq’s declaration to be incomplete, inadequate and technically flawed.

13 Sep 1997 One of UNSCOM's personnel is manhandled by an Iraqi officer on board one of the Commission's helicopters while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of the unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive", that was designated for inspection. Two days later, Iraq again failed to freeze movement inside another "sensitive site" designated for inspection.

17 Sep 1997 While seeking access to a site for inspection declared by Iraq to be "sensitive", UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape the movement of files, the burning of documents and dumping of ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

Sep/Oct 1997 UNSCOM inspection teams are prevented from inspecting three sites designated for inspection, on the basis that the sites are "presidential sites", which Iraq claims are out of bounds to UNSCOM's inspectors.

Oct 1997 UNSCOM completes the destruction of additional, large quantities of chemical weapons related equipment and precursors chemicals. Iraq had previously denied that part of the equipment had been used for CW production. Only in May 1997, on the basis of UNSCOM's investigations, did Iraq admit that some of the equipment had indeed been used in the production of VX.

14 Jan 1998 Iraq continues to block the work of the inspection team.

20-27 Mar 1998 The Commission and Iraq conduct a further technical evaluation meeting (TEM) in Vienna dealing with all aspects of Iraq’s biological weapons programme.

8 Apr 1998 The report of the biological weapons TEM is transmitted to the Council (S/1998/308). As with the other TEMs, the experts unanimously conclude that Iraq’s declaration on its biological weapons programme is incomplete and inadequate.

24-25 Sep 1998 The Commission holds a second international expert meeting in New York to discuss the results of 1998 analyses conducted on remnants of Iraq’s missile warheads.

22-23 Oct The Commission convenes a further international expert meeting to discuss the 1998 analysis of samples taken from remnants of Iraq’s special warheads. The report of the meeting which is submitted to the Council.

31 Oct 1998 Iraq announces that it will cease all forms of interaction with UNSCOM and its Chairman and to halt all UNSCOM’s activities inside Iraq, including monitoring. The Security Council, in a statement to the press, unanimously condemn Iraq’s decision to cease all cooperation with UNSCOM.

3 Dec 1998 The Special Commission submits the first of a series of weekly reports on its activities during the period 17 November to 2 December 1998. The report covers inspection activities during that period and also provides an account of correspondence exchanged with Iraq regarding matters such as the provision of documents, clarifications on a number of points previously raised with Iraq and asking that Iraq provide new substantial information on its biological weapons programme.

9 Dec 1998 The Special Commission submits its second weekly report to the Security Council describing monitoring activities and the difficulties encountered in the course of those activities, including blockage at a site.

15 Dec 1998 The Special Commission reports to the Security-General concerning UNSCOM’s activities and the status of Iraq’s cooperation with the Commission in the period since 14 November 1998. The Executive Chairman concludes that Iraq did not provide the full cooperation it had promised on 14 November 1998 (S/1998/1172)

16 Dec 1998 The Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq.

At the end of 1998, as you can see here, weapons inspectors are absent from Iraq and this program is scrapped - replaced by UNMOVIC with Blix running the show.

NightTrain

11-01-2010, 12:57 AM

Now that Blix is in charge, he trains his new inspection teams. There's a large gap here, from 1998 to 2002. An awful large gap to bury and hide weapons, wouldn't you say?

16 September 2002
The Foreign Minister of Iraq informs the Secretary-General that Iraq has decided to allow the return of wepons inspectors without conditions (S/2002/1034).

27 November 2002
Inspections resume in Iraq.

7 December 2002
Iraq provides UNMOVIC and the IAEA in Baghdad with a declaration of its weapons programmes, required by Security Council resolution 1441.

18 March 2003
UNMOVIC inspectors withdraw from Iraq.

Following a determination by the Commission that the Al Samoud 2 missile system exceeded the range limits set by the Security Council and hence was proscribed, the Commission implemented a programme for destruction. Some 70 missiles and associated equipment were destroyed under Commission supervision before its operations were suspended. At that time, a decision by the Commission was pending as to whether the Al Fatah missile system also exceeded the ranges set by the Council.

Missile imports, however, were more substantial and could have contributed
significantly to any missile development programme. One example was the
importation of 380 Volga engines that Iraq planned to use in the production of the
Al Samoud 2 missile, a missile system UNMOVIC later determined to be prohibited
since its range exceeded 150 km. In its declaration of 7 December 2002, Iraq
declared that it had imported 131 such engines but failed to supply any information
about their origin (suppliers, exporting countries) until inspectors observed 231 such
engines at an Al Samoud production facility.
112. A trend that was especially pronounced in the missile area (but to a lesser
extent also present in the biological and chemical fields) was the use of the term
“local market” to classify the import of some very sophisticated pieces of
equipment, including a dozen high-capacity load cells (used, for example, to
measure the thrust of missile engines or motors) and a number of pieces of
equipment that could be used in the manufacture of advanced missile motors.
UNMOVIC came to understand that Iraq used the term “local market” when an Iraqi
import company imported a commodity and then sold or transferred it to a government facility, which suggested that Iraq was trying to conceal the extent of its
import activities and to preserve its importing networks.

155 mm shells filled with mustard gas
119. The destruction of the chemical weapons agent mustard gas, which had started
at the end of February, was completed in March 2003. Under UNMOVIC
supervision, Iraq destroyed the 155 mm shells and the mustard gas contained in
them. The shells found in 1997 were stored at a declared location — the former
Muthanna State Establishment. In total, there were 14 shells, containing
approximately 49 litres of the agent — four of them had been earlier emptied and
sampled by UNSCOM. The agent was destroyed by chemical reaction and the empty
shells with explosives. Samples taken from the shells showed that mustard gas
produced over 15 years ago was still of high quality — 97 per cent purity.

Thiodiglycol
121. A small quantity of thiodiglycol (500 ml) was destroyed under UNMOVIC
supervision in January 2003. That prohibited mustard gas precursor was found at the
Al Basil Jadriya complex along with some other dual-use chemicals (also of
laboratory quantity) by the chemical inspection team. According to the Iraqi site
representatives, the chemical had been left over by a previous occupant of the
site — the Scientific Research Center — and had not been used by the Al Basil
complex for any purpose. The entire quantity of the chemical was destroyed on-site
by chemical reaction and combustion. Inspection activities following the finding did
not reveal evidence of any research being done at the site regarding the chemical
agent mustard gas or the precursor itself.

122 mm chemical warheads
122. An UNMOVIC inspection team found 12 undeclared 122 mm chemical
warheads and motors at the Al Ukhaidar ammunition depot (11 of them were
unfilled and 1 filled with water). Iraq notified the Commission on 20 January 2003
that four more warheads had been found at the Al Taji ammunition depot. In
February 2003, an UNMOVIC team discovered an additional two undeclared 122
mm chemical warheads at the same depot (one of the six warheads discovered at the
Al Taji depot was filled with liquid that was subsequently identified as water). In
total, 18 chemical warheads were tagged by UMOVIC for destruction.

Chemical equipment
123. In its submission of the backlog of semi-annual declarations in October 2002,
Iraq declared that it had transferred one piece of equipment, previously destroyed in
1997, from the storage area to the phenol factory of Fallujah II. It further declared
that five other items of proscribed equipment from the former Al Muthana weapons
plants had been installed in the military factory Al Qaa Qaa. In its declaration of
7 December 2002, Iraq had declared that an additional piece of destroyed equipment
(a heat exchanger) had been installed in the chlorine factory of Fallujah II.
31
S/2003/580
Following technical discussions on 9 February 2003, Iraq submitted a letter to
UNMOVIC explaining the use of destroyed equipment in Fallujah II and declared
that a third piece of previously destroyed equipment had been installed at the phenol
factory (a pump). UNMOVIC conducted inspections to verify the declarations and
clarify the issue. It decided that Iraq should destroy those three pieces of equipment
at Al Fallujah II and five pieces of equipment at Al Qaa Qaa under UNMOVIC
supervision. However, that destruction was not carried out prior to the withdrawal of
the inspectors.

Chemical weapons
1. Destruction of declared items during the period 1991-1994
6. In the chemical weapons area, a significant portion of Iraq’s production
capabilities were destroyed or damaged through aerial bombardment in 1991.
Sizeable quantities of chemical weapons and their components, including empty
munitions and precursor chemicals, were also destroyed by Iraq unilaterally and
without international supervision.
7. A significant number of remaining weapons declared by Iraq, as well as related
subsystems and components, were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision in the
period from 1991 to 1994, including:
• 38,537 filled and unfilled chemical munitions
• 690 tons of chemical warfare agents
• More than 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals
• More than 100 pieces of chemical weapons production equipment
2. Destruction of additional items identified by UNSCOM after 1994
8. In 1996, UNSCOM found new evidence of chemical production and analytical
equipment and precursor chemicals acquired for chemical weapons purposes still
remaining in Iraq. Many of those items had been exempted from destruction by the
Commission in 1995 on the basis of false Iraqi declarations as to their past use or
intended purpose. In 1997, UNSCOM designated for destruction and supervised the
disposal of the following newly identified items and materials (see S/1996/848):
• 325 pieces of production equipment (of those, possession of 120 pieces was
only disclosed by Iraq in August 1997);
• 125 pieces of analytical instruments;
• 275 tons of precursor chemicals.
9. In addition, UNSCOM discovered that in 1990 many pieces of analytical
instruments had been removed by Iraq from Kuwait for use in its chemical weapons
programme. At the request of the Government of Kuwait, 91 items of analytical
equipment from Kuwait City University were returned by UNSCOM to Kuwait in
1997.
10. In addition to discoveries in the missile area, findings in the chemical area
comprised hidden production capabilities but not weapons themselves, with the
exception of a dozen artillery shells filled with mustard gas found in the period
1996-1997 at a former storage site. However, it should be noted that more chemical
weapons production equipment was identified and destroyed in 1997 than in the
period from 1991 to 1994 (325 and 100 pieces of equipment, respectively).

Biological weapons
1. Period 1991-1995
11. From 1991 to 1994, Iraq consistently denied that it had had an offensive
biological warfare programme. Subsequently, no biological weapons or any of their
components and production capabilities were declared and destroyed by Iraq under
UNSCOM supervision. In July 1995, Iraq finally admitted to having had an
offensive biological weapons programme. However, weaponization was still denied.
The weaponization and the broader scope of the programme were disclosed only in
August 1995 after the departure from Iraq of Lieutenant-General Hussein Kamel.
However, Iraq continued to maintain that all biological munitions and biological
warfare agents produced had been destroyed unilaterally in 1991 along with the
associated documentation.
2. Destruction of equipment and materials after 1995
12. In 1996, the Al Hakam facility, including buildings, equipment and materials
therein, was destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision through demolition. In
addition, the equipment from Al Manal and Al Safah sites, two other facilities that
had been used in the proscribed programme, was transported to Al Hakam and
destroyed there. The air handling system for high containment at Al Manal was
inactivated. The growth media procured by Iraq for the proscribed activities was
also destroyed (see S/1997/774).

Other activities
Destruction of SA-2 missile engines and other items
13. As noted in the Commission’s last quarterly report (S/2004/693), various items
that had been under monitoring in Iraq had been located in June 2004 at scrap yards
in Jordan, including 20 SA-2 engines. With support from the Government of Jordan,
these engines and three more found later by the Jordanian authorities, together with
four other missile and chemical-related dual-use items, were destroyed in Jordan
during August and October 2004, in the presence of an UNMOVIC inspector.

Late in November, the Netherlands authorities destroyed, in the presence of an
UNMOVIC inspector, the 22 SA-2 missile engines found in a Rotterdam scrap yard.

The information in the report on Iraq’s procurement of missile-related items,
components and materials correlate well with UNMOVIC findings. UNMOVIC
14
S/2004/924
found evidence that, from 1999 to 2002, Iraq had procured materials, equipment and
components for its missile programmes. In several instances the items procured
were used by Iraq in the production of the Al Samoud-2 missile system that was
determined by UNMOVIC in February 2003 to be proscribed. The procurement
activity included the acquisition of components and equipment for the manufacture
and testing of missile guidance and control systems and different pieces of missilerelated
production equipment and technology.

The unresolved issue of accounting for approximately 550 pieces of 155-mm
mustard-filled artillery shells continues to be of concern to UNMOVIC as analytical
tests by UNMOVIC in 2003 of identical shells had shown they contained mustard of
high purity. Over a period of time, in its declarations to the United Nations, Iraq
offered several different explanations of the fate of the shells, none of which were
satisfactory to the Special Commission or UNMOVIC. It would appear from the
report that many of the same explanations were given to the Iraq Survey Group by
former Iraqi officials. However, the report also includes a new explanation, namely,
that the shells had not been destroyed and that as late as March 2003 they had been
in the possession of the Special Republican Guard. Further information on this
matter would be useful.

The report states that the Iraq Survey Group also investigated the Iraqi
Intelligence Service and its possible relationship with Iraq’s biological and chemical
weapon programmes. The report provides detailed information on “a set of covert
laboratories to produce, research and test various chemical compounds”, which were
maintained throughout the period 1991-2003 by the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The
information provided suggests the laboratories had pursued research and production
of small-scale, delayed-action assassination methods. Information from interviews
suggested that ricin, sulphur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and sarin might have been
used or synthesized by these laboratories. The report points out that the Group found
it difficult to draw definitive conclusions from its interviews because of conflicting
and inconsistent information, a lack of physical evidence or forensic data. The
report also states that the available evidence on the Iraqi Intelligence Service
programme, which includes results from sampling and analysis, was not strong
enough to conclude that this activity was related to the biological or chemical
weapon programmes. It is not clear from the report that the laboratories would have
met the relevant criteria regarding activities, equipment and materials that would
make them subject to monitoring. UNMOVIC had been aware of the historical
involvement between the Iraqi Intelligence Service and Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction programmes, including allegations of human testing, and some of the
facilities were inspected in the past.

NightTrain

11-01-2010, 01:07 AM

Now, if you take the time to read just what I posted above, Revel, what do you think about WMDs in Iraq?

You were wondering where all those WMDs went after we invaded, as I recall.

In case you missed it, here is some serious food for thought :

Other activities
Destruction of SA-2 missile engines and other items
13. As noted in the Commission’s last quarterly report (S/2004/693), various items
that had been under monitoring in Iraq had been located in June 2004 at scrap yards
in Jordan, including 20 SA-2 engines. With support from the Government of Jordan,
these engines and three more found later by the Jordanian authorities, together with
four other missile and chemical-related dual-use items, were destroyed in Jordan
during August and October 2004, in the presence of an UNMOVIC inspector.

Late in November, the Netherlands authorities destroyed, in the presence of an
UNMOVIC inspector, the 22 SA-2 missile engines found in a Rotterdam scrap yard.

revelarts

11-01-2010, 06:19 AM

I've said several times that Yes In the 1990's he had chemicals weapons but as you've pointed out here that it says a "significant" amount had been destroyed by1994 and by 1997 there was very little of anything found.
A few hundred here, 50 there. Empty and water filled warheads in the open. I've agreed that the paper work was missing etc. that he hide and played games with inspectors.

I even mentioned the conventional missiles, Blix talks about them in his March 2003 report. They had been dismantled or were in the process. But Iraq was allowed to have some missiles. The missiles that Blix found however where beyond the flight range of what was allowed. so it was a breach.

I read all of it.
He had Tons of Chemicals weapons in the early 1990's.
You are correct. I agree.
You do agree that the lion share where destroyed pre 1997, right?
And yes the paper work seemed to indicate to many that he may have had some left over somewhere, there was no Physical evidence given by anyone that i know of at the U.N. or from intel around the world. but none had any physical evidence he still had any stockpiles old weapons or an ongoing weapons program in 2001 or 2002. He WANTED TO and INTENDED TO but it wasn't going anywhere.

And yes He broke all kind of resolutions, I agree, you are correct on that point.

and if there are WMDs in Jordan let the inspectors look in Jordan now.

revelarts

11-01-2010, 07:24 AM

From the Senate Investigation 2006

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Okay thank you very much. Mr. Cirincione, did you find that statements
made by administration officials reflect the weight of the intelligence, or were public statements
much stronger and less caveated by the assessments?
MR. CIRINCIONE: This was the pattern we found, we spent about ten months at the CEIP
producing the report. We all concurred on these findings that when you looked at the intelligence
reports and the NIE there was a clear pattern of escalating the rhetoric. Earlier intelligence findings
done in 2002 expressed concern but were more cautious; the NIE then took a leap and for the first
time appeared specific claims 300-500 tons of biological agents produced. When the administration
presented this they would always drop the uncertainties. This was part of the political necessity as
being clear about the subject, but when all that clarity goes in one direction of exaggerating the
threat, you can understand there is a political distortion of the threat and distortion of the intelligence
to achieve that purpose.
SEN. FEINSTEIN: If I may, let me just tell you what happened to this member of the
intelligence committee. We do not see the president’s daily intelligence briefs. Therefore there is
always the assumption that the President, because he owns the intelligence, knows something that
we don’t know. You tend to think, the President of the United States or the Vice-President, or the
Secretary of State, isn’t going to get before the American public and say something that isn’t
absolutely true, and therefore must have intelligence that we don’t have, and in fact, they didn’t.
MR. CIRINCIONE: When you hear the Secretary of Defense, we know where the weapons
are, you believe that they have rock solid intelligence—
SEN. FEINSTEIN: Oh yes and then he said, ‘north of Baghdad’…
MR. CIRINCIONE: Or when you hear the Secretary of State at the UN say that there was a
fleet of SCUDs and they move them at night, you assume there is some kind of surveillance that lets
you know that. But in all those instances none of those statements were supported by solid
intelligence assessments.

REP. JONES (R): Senator I want to thank you again for allowing me to be with this committee
today. I continue to be amazed with how…and I take responsibility as a member of Congress; I
didn’t ask the right questions, I feel like I let my district down, let my state down, and let the people
of America down. This has been very helpful for me, this is an ongoing project for me, because I
don’t believe that American democracy can survive or will survive unless people know the truth.
And Mr. Cirincione…I’ve been practicing that…
MR. CIRINCIONE: No that’s fine!
REP. JONES: I’ve been practicing that quietly and knew once I said that aloud…
MR. CIRINCIONE: No that’s great coming from a guy with a one syllable name.
REP. JONES: Well it does help me in the south, but you would be welcome too by the way.
I want your feedback, it must sound like I’m hung up on the neocons that were in this policy making
position. I asked General Anthony Zinni, I got involved in a bipartisan commission about a year ago
on the house side with two democrats and two republicans, trying to create a resolution that we can
at least try and develop a definition for victory so at some point we can say to the Iraqis, this is your
fight now, we’re going to bring our boys and our girls home. When I met with General Zinni I was
amazed, I just asked him, General I want to know did we have to go into Iraq? He said,
Congressman, no. We knew what Saddam had, and what he wanted, but his ability to get weapons
of mass destruction or devices was limited to nil, and he said the canisters that he might have had left
from desert storm had pretty much degraded. I said General did you tell anyone, and he said yes I
told the administration. You have him contained, he is not a threat to America. If you do decide to
go in, you need to take 300,000 troops. I really would, I am just amazed at how with all the
professional information that you an others have brought forward, how that cabal was able to
manipulate…and either the press did not to its job, and I’m certainly not blaming them because I
took the blame myself when I started my comments, but where in the world was this misinformation
so protected that it did not get out before congress voted for the resolution?
MR. CIRINCIONE: In March of 2003 it was clear to many of that Saddam was in an iron
cage, he wasn’t going anywhere. We had the security council united, we had inspectors there, it was
working. Then, we went to war, and everything started to fall apart. One, in America we’re not
used to a group like this, this neoconservative movement. Francis Fukuyama, who was one of the
founding fathers of neo-conservatism and has since moved himself away from it compares it to
Bolsheviks. A small group of people who shared an ideology were put in senior positions in this
administration, largely in the early states of the administration when the transition was being run by
Vice-President Cheney and his Chief of Staff Scooter Libby. Libby was friends with all these
people and they were all seated at the Deputy or Deputy Assistant Secretary levels of these agencies.
When you look at the agency process, which is supposed to be an integration of competing views, it
turns out they had already agreed on their priorities. So there were a lot of decisions that were taking place that never even came up to the principals levels, because there was little disagreement about them.
44
Then they set up their own nerve system, their own sort of network, you heard some of the experts in the previous panel about the Doug Feith operation, or what Deputy Sec of defense Steve Cambone was doing.
These supplanted and replaced the normal intelligence process, by having a direct pipeline into the Vice-Presidents office. I agree with Larry Wilkerson, that the answer is the enormous power that the Vice-President has had in this administration, that he set the tone for this, and has provided the strategic and political analysis that under laid the drive for war.

REP. JONES: Senators I just want to let you know that I have encouraged the leadership on
the House side to hold hearings like you have today. I think what you are doing for the American
people that a democracy will withstand when it is challenged, and I thank you for this privilege, and
this honor for letting me sit with you today.
SEN. DORGAN: Congressman Jones thank you for joining us, when you expressed an
interest in attending we were very happy to have you come and join us on the dais. You’re a
republican, I’m a democrat, we share the same dream for this country’s future; we want this country
to do well; this is not about partisanship, under any set of circumstances. I want to make one other
point. We have a number of colleagues who would have come for this, but there are no votes
scheduled today so a number of colleagues are on plane right now, otherwise they would have all
been in town. We invited all Senators from both parties to join us today and I thank Congressman
Jones for coming today. The reason we hold this hearing in the policy committee which has the
opportunity and the right to hold hearings, is that no other committee in the US congress would hold
this type of hearing, and that’s sad. It is very important that a hearing like this, for us to proceed to
ask questions as to what happened and how does it affect what we do in the future...

jimnyc

11-01-2010, 08:31 AM

revelarts

11-01-2010, 10:34 AM

Sounds to me that no one is going to agree about the debate thus far. Seems to me more of a difference in opinion as to what constitutes valid reasons for going to war. Rev seems to think anything short of them dropping a weapon on us or an ally is not good enough. He also thinks the WMD was about the only reason we stated we would go into Iraq.

The 1st is an opinion, and I'm of the opinion that regardless of the WMD we had WAY MORE than enough to remove Saddam. But you know what they say about opinions.

The second can be argued, and Rev is outright wrong. The President never even came close to stating that WMD was the primary and only reason we were going in to remove Saddam. There was a LONG list of reasons that were continually listed from 1998 in the Democrat sessions to 2003 when we entered Iraq. You'd have to be brain dead to miss all the crap stated by both parties for removing Saddam and the continued reasons that were even outright outlined in the resolutions.

Jim, Thanks for a fairly reasonably response without the name calling and snarkiness. I appreciate it.

You avoid the larger problems I bring up so I'll just reply to what you've said here

Rev seems to think anything short of them dropping a weapon on us or an ally is not good enough.
that's what it took in for WW2. Seems like a reasonable standard. The Soviets had a HUGE stockpile of WMDS pointed at us for decades but somehow we didn't find it necessary to invade the USSR. North Korea has KNOWN VERIFIABLE proof of nukes and they've broken UN resolutions to. And he's hurt his own people and he's a crazy dictator who threaten our friends in the region. And they are a known state sponsor of terrorism. But for some reason it's not a forgone conclusion that have to go to war with them, AGAIN. North Korea is worse than Iraq. but no war . go figure. It seems we don't have to go to war with ever bad guy even after 9/11.

But in some folks opinion maybe we should. The opinion of the founders was that we not get intangled in foreign wars.

It seems reasonable to me and as George Bush has even said WAR is a LAST RESORT. However from the evidence before us, we had not exhausted our options.
that's part of what I'm trying to say.

The second can be argued, and Rev is outright wrong. The President never even came close to stating that WMD was the primary and only reason we were going in to remove Saddam. There was a LONG list of reasons that were continually listed from 1998 in the Democrat sessions to 2003 when we entered Iraq. You'd have to be brain dead to miss all the crap stated by both parties for removing Saddam and the continued reasons that were even outright outlined in the resolutions.

forgive me for youtube but it's quick it's easy to get the message IMO.
here's GW Bush clearly answering the question why we went in.
many of you will agree wholeheartedly with his succinct but unhurried answer.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b8ZuQndRLTU?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b8ZuQndRLTU?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

"disarm and disclose"

however in from November to March
the inspector were there,
he was being disarmed, (such arms as there were)
he was disclosing. , as Blix said without any significant impediments.

If the ARMS weren't the "primary" reason we went in why didn't he say that. He didn't indicate ANY other reasons in this statement. Other than generically calling Saddam a threat.
If there were other "Primary or major reasons" then they should have been easy enough to list, as you have you've done Jim.

But when asked directly he says "disarm and disclose".

I don't think I'm misrepresenting President Bush on that point at all.

ANd
if I may
Disagree with the President
at least 2 of his cabinet members mentions that from the 1st days of the Bush presidency he thought Saddam was a problem but in the next few weeks he was asking members of the cabinet to find him a way to get rid of Saddam. 2001-2003 Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil. O'Neil,a Permanent Member of the then formed NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL (NSC), says in 60 minutes interview. memos about dividing up the oil etc..
see it here
This was BEFORE 9/11. Before 9/11. before 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inyCkCvqRO0&feature=related
Ricard Clarke and others mention that at the 1st big staff meeting after 9/11 Bush wanted to attack Iraq.

Mr. Bush says otherwise.
we're all left to decide from what happened and other things said publicly what might be cased.

jimnyc

11-01-2010, 10:53 AM

Again, it's you cherrypicking. One little Youtube video won't change what was stated over and over and over for years. We can sit here and produce text and video of myriad of reasons - not just finding the one video which supports your singular argument. Finding a video where he states that was the reason doesn't make the tons of times where he gave a ton of reasons less merit.

I'll repeat myself DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS gave a ton of reasons as to why we needed to go in and remove Saddam from 1998-2003. It wasn't until 9/11 and closing in on 2003 where the primary reasons shifted more from forcing cooperation of everything in the resolutions toward finding and removing WMD's. But the REASONS we entered Iraq as a whole have left a LONG trail of being spoke of for YEARS and you would have to have been deaf, blind & mute to miss them.

jimnyc

11-01-2010, 10:58 AM

2001-2003 Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil. O'Neil,a Permanent Member of the then formed NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL (NSC), says in 60 minutes interview. memos about dividing up the oil etc..

I love when people bring up O'neill. I will quote a post from myself from a few years back:

Paul O'neill - the same one who is trying to sell his book? The same one who walked off with 19,000 documents from the treasury department after he was fired? No, he wouldn't have any reason to get into the limelight. I'm sure he'd be quite content with zero book sales. Hell, even the freak here in NY known as Charles Rangel (democrat) called for a congressional investigation into O'neill's activities.

Seems you have a fetish with listening to those who stand to profit from their stories. But when one steals government documents and has even 'ol liberal Rangel calling on investigating him - suffice to say he is not a credible witness of someone taking a leak.

NightTrain

11-01-2010, 11:39 AM

Agreed, Jim. Both you and I know that WMDs were never the one and only reason for invading - but since there still seems to be a doubt as to the WMDs presence I thought I would just focus on that point to clear it up.

and if there are WMDs in Jordan let the inspectors look in Jordan now.

Not only Jordan, but the Netherlands as well. I think it's safe to say that the rest of those shipments were long gone by the time anyone discovered the missile engines in the scrapyards.

At any rate, the points I intended to make before we got bogged down in what I thought was a no-brainer regarding WMDs were :

1) There were WMDs - Biological, Chemical (and possibly dirty nukes) in Iraq.

2) The USA found itself under attack by terrorists as illustrated by 9/11, USS Cole, etc etc etc.

3) Saddam's Iraq supported terrorists, had training camps in Iraq, had open dialogue with Al Queda.

4) Given the knowledge of WMDs in Iraq, combined with terrorist support and the known hatred of USA by Saddam, it was an unacceptable risk to allow him to continue his reign in a post 9/11 world. Mustard gas or Anthrax or VX or a dirty nuke in a subway or a crowded stadium is something no one would like to consider.

5) Iraq, geographically, is surrounded by countries that produce fanatic religious zealots by the truckload due to their primitive forms of government.

6) Iraq was found in breach after breach of UN resolutions and it was clear that Iraq had no intention of complying and disarming anyway.

7) Killing three birds with one stone : Setting up a democratic government in Iraq, setting an example for the surrounding countries to throw off their oppressive regimes and bringing a ruthless madman to justice all at once.

revelarts

11-01-2010, 05:11 PM

1) There were WMDs - Biological, Chemical in Iraq.

Only a few canisters after 1996

1) (and possibly dirty nukes) in Iraq.

No evidence of nukes, that's speculation

2) The USA found itself under attack by terrorists as illustrated by 9/11, USS Cole, etc etc etc.

None of which Iraq had anything to do with.

3) Saddam's Iraq supported terrorists, had training camps in Iraq,
Yes he did, the training camps were not Al Qda until after we invaded

had open dialogue with Al Queda.

He had dialogue with the U.S. as well but similarly it wasn't friendly dialogue.

4) Given the knowledge of WMDs in Iraq, combined with terrorist support and the known hatred of USA by Saddam, it was an unacceptable risk to allow him to continue his reign in a post 9/11 world. Mustard gas or Anthrax or VX or a dirty nuke in a subway or a crowded stadium is something no one would like to consider.

If he had more than a few canisters here and there I think threatening him into allowing inspections again was a great move, so great, that it was unnecessary to go to war of the NON-EXISTENT THREAT discovered by April and March by Blix and long known others in our own intel and military community.

5) Iraq, geographically, is surrounded by countries that produce fanatic religious zealots by the truckload due to their primitive forms of government.

who we support with $, even as we supported Saddam to the point of selling him chem and bio weapons

6) Iraq was found in breach after breach of UN resolutions and it was clear that Iraq had no intention of complying and disarming anyway.

yes he was in breach, but he was compiling. how did Blix get in and dismantle the missiles?

7) Killing three birds with one stone : Setting up a democratic government in Iraq, setting an example for the surrounding countries to throw off their oppressive regimes and bringing a ruthless madman to justice all at once.
the democratic gov't is corrupt and fragile and has ties to Iran and is more Muslim in character than and law than it was during the hellish reign of Saddam. Saddam was secularist. Many of leaders now are hard core Muslims. And the regime that many of the other people in Muslim countries are upset with is the U.S. the insurgents have come from all over the middle east to fight us in Iraq. And lets not talk about the lack of water food housing and the DU and the birth defects and illnesses of the war.

jimnyc

11-01-2010, 05:52 PM

Only a few canisters after 1996

Do you read what I write? I must have mentioned it several times in this thread. The UN inspectors accounted for 1,000 tons of chemical weapons and tagged them in 1998. When they returned in 2001/2 - these weapons were unaccounted for, and till this day are unaccounted for - one of the reasons the UN inspectors continually considered Iraq in material breach of the resolutions.

You'll probably say they were destroyed, some will say they were moved, and myself and Blix said the same thing - it was Iraq's responsibility and theirs alone to account for these weapons but they continually ignored the requests from inspectors.

revelarts

11-01-2010, 07:23 PM

are you talking about this,

where you quote Blix I think.

Again:

Another matter and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

not sure of the date on that. I didn't see one.

jimnyc

11-01-2010, 07:51 PM

That's likely one of them, but there were a few stockpiles that were tagged by inspectors before leaving in 1998. Some might be considered to be dated but plenty of it was still quite volatile. Others were still very dangerous as they didn't become "weaponized" until it went through another process, and this would have allowed the chemicals to have a much longer shelf life.

But we'll never fully know the extent since they went missing and Iraq didn't even fully respond for their whereabouts and/or proof of destruction.

So there might be a shitload of useless chemical weapons in the sand somewhere, or there might be chemicals in a warehouse somewhere that has plenty of ability to do destruction. Iraq's material breach made it so we had to find out for ourselves, or possibly never know for sure.

NightTrain

11-01-2010, 10:23 PM

Only a few canisters after 1996

Quite a bit more than "a few cannisters", however - how many cannisters would it take in a subway? One?

No evidence of nukes, that's speculation

IF you will read the two links I provided, the nuclear program continued and is mentioned more than once. After the invasion, we removed nuclear material from Iraq.

None of which Iraq had anything to do with.

I never said they did.

Yes he did, the training camps were not Al Qda until after we invaded

Speculation, but I agree.

He had dialogue with the U.S. as well but similarly it wasn't friendly dialogue.

A bit more friendly with clandestine meetings in other countries and operatives flying to Baghdad, high level links nevertheless.

If he had more than a few canisters here and there I think threatening him into allowing inspections again was a great move, so great, that it was unnecessary to go to war of the NON-EXISTENT THREAT discovered by April and March by Blix and long known others in our own intel and military community.

Yes, because from 1998 to 2002 wasn't enough time to hide everything they wanted to hide. /sarcasm

who we support with $, even as we supported Saddam to the point of selling him chem and bio weapons

This is another tired Liberal lie. We did not sell Saddam any chemical or biological weapons. Period.

yes he was in breach, but he was compiling. how did Blix get in and dismantle the missiles?

Blix found what they wanted him to find. I really don't think you actually read those two UN links I provided - if you did you would not saying something like Saddam was all about compliance. Not honestly, anyway.

the democratic gov't is corrupt and fragile and has ties to Iran and is more Muslim in character than and law than it was during the hellish reign of Saddam. Saddam was secularist. Many of leaders now are hard core Muslims. And the regime that many of the other people in Muslim countries are upset with is the U.S. the insurgents have come from all over the middle east to fight us in Iraq. And lets not talk about the lack of water food housing and the DU and the birth defects and illnesses of the war.

Perhaps. There are many problems, but nothing that can't be overcome. I think they've got a great chance at success - and if they pull it off, then we will truly have Hope and Change in the middle east.

revelarts

11-01-2010, 11:20 PM

Perhaps. There are many problems, but nothing that can't be overcome. I think they've got a great chance at success - and if they pull it off, then we will truly have Hope and Change in the middle east.
I hope and pray for the best for the Iraqis they've gone through the crapper. I hope your optimism is proves true.

Train I think maybe we're closer but we're going to have to agree to disagree a few things.

IF you will read the two links I provided, the nuclear program continued and is mentioned more than once. After the invasion, we removed nuclear material from Iraq.
Have you read anything I've wrtten train?
You haven't responded to any of the info I've posted but keep repeating the same song. I'm not sure we're having a conversation here. i read all of you stuff have you read mine?

A bit more friendly with clandestine meetings in other countries and operatives flying to Baghdad, high level links nevertheless.

I need to see that. the Prague thing was bogus and Karzi was in Bagdad to go to the hospital shortly but was in the Kurdish areas most of the time out of Saddam's sphere of control, NOT having meetings. What are you refering too?

Blix found what they wanted him to find. I really don't think you actually read those two UN links I provided - if you did you would not saying something like Saddam was all about compliance. Not honestly, anyway.
i never said that, but its my understanding that Blix went in under the rules with pop inspections etc. and that he went to the sights the U.S. gov't told him he would find something. you only speculating that he found only what they wanted him to find. If he had found something you'd be waving it around as proof wouldn't ya?

This is another tired Liberal lie. We did not sell Saddam any chemical or biological weapons. Period.

I wish it were.

CBS News - Washington post
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;1
"...a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague....
...Congressional investigations after the Gulf War revealed that the Commerce Department had licensed sales of biological agents, including anthrax, and insecticides, which could be used in chemical weapons, to Iraq.
... "

But your right he didn't get all of his weapons from the U.S. or U.S. Companies but he did get plenty. I can't put my fingers on it, but Major Doug Rokke, the man in charge of cleaning up all the Chemical and Bio weapons in Iraq after Gulf WarI, says that he and his crew saw loads of chem and bio weapons with U.S.A. and English markings, stamped on it.

The Riegle Report
United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session
May 25, 1994
U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War
http://www.gulfweb.org/report/riegle1.html

http://usiraq.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000894
..."In October 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has Senate oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act (EAA), held an Inquiry into the U.S. export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. Inspectors identified many U.S.-manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs...

...we contacted a principal supplier of biological materials to determine what, if any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an offensive or defensive biological warfare program.

Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.... Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials...: Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax...Clostridium Botulinum: a bacterial source of botulinum toxin...Histoplasma Capsulatum: a fungus affecting the lungs...Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause...damage to major organs...Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bateria which causes gas gangrene."....

Original Confidential Gov't doc Approving "dual use" Items for sale to IRAQ
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq57.pdf

U.S. Gov Confidential List of Approved licenses for companies to sell to items IRAQ.
http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/Approved_Licenses_to_Iraq.pdf

NightTrain

11-02-2010, 03:40 PM

I need to see that. the Prague thing was bogus and Karzi was in Bagdad to go to the hospital shortly but was in the Kurdish areas most of the time out of Saddam's sphere of control, NOT having meetings. What are you refering too?

The Czech incident, for one. And the Czechs still stand by it, btw. There were indeed AQ trips to Baghdad, I seriously doubt that an AQ operative would fly to Baghdad for medical treatment.

i never said that, but its my understanding that Blix went in under the rules with pop inspections etc. and that he went to the sights the U.S. gov't told him he would find something. you only speculating that he found only what they wanted him to find. If he had found something you'd be waving it around as proof wouldn't ya?

Of course I would. However, Blix was a fool and got played.

I wish it were.

Kudos for digging that up, you are the very first to have produced something of substance like that. Without exception up to now, when I make that statement my opponent would search fruitlessly and finally come back with weak crap from MoveOn or DU.

It appears that there is much more info on the matter since I last looked into it. I will have to research that further - there are a couple of items that make me suspicious.

In the meantime, however, "dual-use" components does not constitute a Biological or Chemical weapon, does it?

revelarts

11-02-2010, 08:34 PM

Kudos for digging that up, you are the very first to have produced something of substance like that. Without exception up to now, when I make that statement my opponent would search fruitlessly and finally come back with weak crap from MoveOn or DU.

It appears that there is much more info on the matter since I last looked into it. I will have to research that further - there are a couple of items that make me suspicious.

In the meantime, however, "dual-use" components does not constitute a Biological or Chemical weapon, does it?

thank you sir,

ya know ,I've never found many substantial facts on moveon.org the few times i been there.

If you find any mitigating info about the report's content me know. But a while back i found that info and downloaded copies of the gov't records myself just to see and it's seems pretty damning.

concering the Dual Use thing it seem it's a double edged sword. Some of the items in the Blix's list of illegally purchased items were "Dual Use", if i remember correctly. I suppose it depends if you trust his intentions and if there's a viable illegitimate way for him to put the part to use.

But that list of ugly Bio stuff pretty well makes the case in my mind.

revelarts

11-05-2010, 07:48 AM

Not to really keep up this conversation but it seems that a few believe that everyone I've posted has an agenda or something.

so this is just FYI,
and for the record

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kv2BsggNA9Q?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kv2BsggNA9Q?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

1 more post to come

just for the record.

jimnyc

11-05-2010, 08:00 AM

Rev - not arguing, not disputing facts, not disputing words....

Do you not find it at all odd that all these people you choose to quote stand to gain monetarily from selling their books? If they were SO concerned, and the balance of our great country is in trouble - shouldn't these people go to someone, anyone, to speak up instantly? Maybe he did, but I don't recall this man running to congress or the media pre-war.

revelarts

11-05-2010, 12:06 PM

Well Jim Not all of them stand to gain anything. Seems to me that in some instances they stand to lose. Seems to me they'd all have to be pretty jaded to write a book and say , just for the sake of sales , that Bush was wrong about intelligence. I'm Not sure about the book market, but as others have pointed out, Fox has a bigger market share of viewers so if you wanted to promote a book and your in the Military it seems to me that you'd be better off saying that Bush was right, the War was Right and here are even more reasons why. the Military market is "the right" and the FOX news crowd. Why alienate your primary market by saying stuff "liberals" agree with? UNLESS IT"S TRUE.
You may have a different opinion, but I think you overstate the motivation of a book sale.
Lifetime Carreer CIA, DIA, AIRForce, Army, Marines, Etcc etc people all so small as to Accuse the president and administration of those kind of crimes for a few extra dollars in book promotion seems me very unlikely.

Would you do it? Even if it was Clinton. Would you lie about the president about a war? After serving for so long? Just to sell your book? And stick it to Clinton. I'd like to think that this many people would not be so low in integrity.

But I do think we have to listen to everyone with a pocketful of salt, including the President, Democrat, Republican or otherwise.

It may not be this bad but this joke is not far from the truth.

That Politician's Lying.
How can you tell?
He's moving his lips.

revelarts

11-05-2010, 12:23 PM

FYI
For the record,
Maybe these are "cherry picked" but If you look at the full addresses you'll find that they are not.
ANd if there's MORE times of BUSH talking about other reasons for the war than about WMD's and Terrorist links I'd like to see them.
But in his major messages. WMD's are his primary focus.
before and after 911 and even as he was exiting office.

For the record.

------------------------------
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/16/le.00.html
CNN: Gov Bush Jan 2000 Iowa
BLITZER: It's almost exactly nine years since your dad, the president of the United States, accepted a cease-fire with Saddam Hussein in Iraq in exchange for full Iraqi agreement to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. But for the last year, there have been no weapons inspection teams in Iraq at all. If you were president today, what would you do about it?
BUSH: I would continue to keep the pressure on the Iraqi government. I would continue to insist that inspectors be left -- allowed into the country. I would continue to insist that Iraq complied with the cease-fire arrangement.
BLITZER: But they're in violation of the agreement right now.
BUSH: Absolutely. Absolutely. And we shouldn't be sending mixed signals. And if any time I found that the Iraqi's were developing weapons of mass destruction, they wouldn't exist any more.
BLITZER: Who wouldn't exist, the weapons?
BUSH: The weapons of mass destruction, yes. I'm not going to -- they just need to hear that from a potential president, that if we catch them in violation of the agreement, if we in any way, shape or form find out that they're developing weapons of mass destruction that there will be action taken, and they can just guess what that action might be.
BLITZER: And you're not going to spell it out here today?
BUSH: No, sir.
BLITZER: You're not going to spell it out here today?
BUSH: No, sir.
----------
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.
"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
"We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998," said the spokesman of the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear capability for the United Nations.
---------------------------
George W. Bush
Commencement Address at the United States Military Academy at West Point
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002
The gravest danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology -- when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and we will oppose them with all our power. (Applause.)

…We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. (Applause.)
Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they're essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (Applause.) In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. (Applause.)….
--------
George W. Bush
American Enterprise Institute (The Future of Iraq)
Washington, DC
February 26, 2003
...In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)
The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East….
…We will also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos, or settle scores, or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime, and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners -- the Iraqi people.
he world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values,

Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state….
Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders.

In confronting Iraq, the United States is also showing our commitment to effective international institutions. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We helped to create the Security Council. We believe in the Security Council -- so much that we want its words to have meaning. (Applause.)
The global threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction cannot be confronted by one nation alone. The world needs today and will need tomorrow international bodies with the authority and the will to stop the spread of terror and chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. A threat to all must be answered by all. High-minded pronouncements against proliferation mean little unless the strongest nations are willing to stand behind them -- and use force if necessary. After all, the United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to "make sure that the force of right will, in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force."
…Protecting those boundaries carries a cost. If war is forced upon us by Iraq's refusal to disarm, we will meet an enemy who hides his military forces behind civilians, who has terrible weapons, who is capable of any crime.

----------------
George W. Bush
march 19 2003
the day the War began
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….
...Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
-----------

George W. Bush
Remarks at Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, NC
April 3, 2003
...The United States and our allies pledged to act if the dictator did not disarm. The regime in Iraq is now learning that we keep our word. (Applause.) By our actions, we serve a great and just cause: We will remove weapons of mass destruction from the hands of mass murderers. Free nations will not sit and wait, leaving enemies free to plot another September the 11th, this time, perhaps with chemical or biological or nuclear terror. And by defending our own security, we are freeing the people of Iraq from one of the cruelest regimes on Earth. (Applause.)....

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

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=6356046&page=5
Dec. 1, 2008 ABC NEWS Interview
GIBSON: You've always said there's no do-overs as President. If you had one?
BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?
BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.
GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.
BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.
…GIBSON: Greatest disappointment?
BUSH: Well, I mentioned one, and that is no weapons of mass destruction. I think another -- in Iraq.….

----------
http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/02.08.04.html

jimnyc

11-05-2010, 06:41 PM

You may have a different opinion, but I think you overstate the motivation of a book sale.
Lifetime Carreer CIA, DIA, AIRForce, Army, Marines, Etcc etc people all so small as to Accuse the president and administration of those kind of crimes for a few extra dollars in book promotion seems me very unlikely.

GWB and his administration, made up of quite a few filthy rich bastards. Former military personnel, defense secretary, former governor... And yet you seem to think they would lie. That's very credible to you, because it comes from a handful of other officials who ALL have something to gain with their stories.

Believe what you will, no skin off my back, but don't expect me to be hugely surprised by these findings from a bunch of opportunists who were too weak to speak up at the time but want to speak up when they can make $$ of their stories.

revelarts

02-17-2011, 12:11 PM

For the record...

Colin Powell Rips CIA Over Sham WMD Source
Wednesday, 16 Feb 2011 07:22 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/colin-powell-iraq-wmd/2011/02/16/id/386373?s=al&promo_code=BB12-1

Powell — who has stated that his prewar speech to the United Nations accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction was a "blot" on his record — spoke out a day after Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi told the Guardian newspaper that he made up claims of mobile biological weapons and clandestine factories when making reports to Germany's intelligence service, the BND.

The BND had approached Janabi, who was codenamed "Curveball" by U.S. and German intelligence officials, in 2000 and again in 2002 looking for inside information about Iraq.

"They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime," Janabi told the British newspaper. "I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy . . . Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right. I had a problem with the Saddam regime, I wanted to get rid of him and now I had this chance."....

....Although he told Walters that then-CIA Director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate," Powell admitted that "the intelligence system did not work well . . . There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up.

"That devastated me," he said.

Some people did speak up but they were ignored or told they didn't have the "whole story" or told to shut up.

DragonStryk72

02-17-2011, 06:36 PM

9/11 made waiting for Saddam's death pointless and dangerous. He should have been knocked off in '92. But he wasn't. The no fly zone was always a joke, UK and US at fault with that.

Actually, it would have been even better if we hadn't put him in power in the first place, armed him, and trained all of his troops. Yeah, that would have been vastly better all around.

Gaffer

02-17-2011, 07:29 PM

Actually, it would have been even better if we hadn't put him in power in the first place, armed him, and trained all of his troops. Yeah, that would have been vastly better all around.

The US didn't, he was armed by the russians and french,who also trained his troops. Most of his huge army was made up of conscripts. He got his wmd's from the russians. The only thing saddam got from the US was intelligence during the war with iran. We were facing off against the russians in those days and they were buying friends throughout the middle east at that time.

sundaydriver

02-17-2011, 08:28 PM

My jaw just dropped when Powell spoke at the UN and talked about WMD"s and mentioned mobile truck labs with canvas coverings. I do all my cell growth for a fermentation process inside a clean room using a laminar flow hood, not outdoors.

That is when I knew for sure how badly Mr. Powell had been purpously misled.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/17/powell.curveball.iraq/index.html?hpt=T2

revelarts

02-17-2011, 09:25 PM

The US didn't, he was armed by the russians and french,who also trained his troops. Most of his huge army was made up of conscripts. He got his wmd's from the russians. The only thing saddam got from the US was intelligence during the war with iran. We were facing off against the russians in those days and they were buying friends throughout the middle east at that time.

They started with only Russian and French arms but Reagan and Bush end up supplying helicopters and more arms throughout the war. As well as money and intel.
some overtly others covertly.
Not to mention U.S. made Chemical weapons

The Riegle Report
United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session
May 25, 1994
U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War
http://www.gulfweb.org/report/riegle1.html

http://usiraq.procon.org/viewanswers...stionID=000894

and history suggest the CIA had a hand in putting Saddam in power. But i won't go into that.

jimnyc

02-18-2011, 08:36 AM

They started with only Russian and French arms but Reagan and Bush end up supplying helicopters and more arms throughout the war. As well as money and intel.
some overtly others covertly.
Not to mention U.S. made Chemical weapons

and history suggest the CIA had a hand in putting Saddam in power. But i won't go into that.

I've read about the dual use toxins/chemicals we've given to them in the past, but do we have any proof that they ever converted/weaponized this stuff? Besides, there is more PROVEN chemical weapons missing from one stash than we sent to them in a lifetime. The 1000's of "tagged and bagged" identifiable chemical weapons that were accounted for - still remain UNaccounted for after all these years.

Also, if we were on "good terms" with them, you can't "blame" predecessors for what scum used these things for alternatively, and/or against our own troops. We still sell weaponry worldwide. What happens if for whatever reason 20 years down the road we have some sort of fight with one of them - will Obama be to blame because he authorized sales while we were on good terms?

As for Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi - I'm glad people are finally admitting that GWB DID NOT lie and that it was the intel community that failed in many parts.

revelarts

02-22-2011, 01:18 PM

Didn't realize my links had gone bad on the post above here are new ones same info.

The Riegle Report
United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session
May 25, 1994
U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War..
http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000894

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000674

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000900

http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/us_mil_items_exported_gao-2-7-94.pdf

http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/ApprovedLicensesOnePage.pdf
http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/Approved_Licenses_to_Iraq.pdf

http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/riegle-rpt.pdf

revelarts

06-07-2013, 10:35 PM

bump

jimnyc

06-08-2013, 06:43 AM

bump

Why are we bumping older threads? Did new news come out that I am unaware of? Did someone over in Iraq stumble upon the tons of chemical weapons that have been hidden since 1998? I wish they would find them too, Rev!

Voted4Reagan

06-08-2013, 07:53 AM

Major NECRO...

Robert A Whit

07-19-2013, 02:54 PM

Bill Kritol says Obama is a Born agian NeoCon after Libya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6fNur18dlk

So, why haven't you been calling Obama a neocon Revelarts?

Neocon is a term that is used as a pejorative by democrats and though they do set forth principles, this is done by educational think tanks. Bush did not operate on so called neocon principles though the outcomes happened to overlap in some areas.

I know they are not honest due to they don't say the same thing about Obama other than commentary by William Kristol of the Weekly Standard.