Iraq war, the Intel was Cooked on purpose... [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : Iraq war, the Intel was Cooked on purpose...

revelarts

05-14-2011, 10:02 PM

...for those still in doubt

Iraq dossier drawn up to make case for war – intelligence officer
Newly released evidence to Chilcot inquiry directly contradicts Blair government's claims about dossier

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/12/iraq-dossier-case-for-war

A top military intelligence official has said the discredited dossier on Iraq's weapons programme was drawn up "to make the case for war", flatly contradicting persistent claims to the contrary by the Blair government, and in particular by Alastair Campbell, the former prime minister's chief spin doctor.

In hitherto secret evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Major General Michael Laurie said: "We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."

His evidence is devastating, as it is the first time such a senior intelligence officer has directly contradicted the then government's claims about the dossier – and, perhaps more significantly, what Tony Blair and Campbell said when it was released seven months before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Laurie, who was director general in the Defence Intelligence Staff, responsible for commanding and delivering raw and analysed intelligence, said: "I am writing to comment on the position taken by Alastair Campbell during his evidence to you … when he stated that the purpose of the dossier was not to make a case for war; I and those involved in its production saw it exactly as that, and that was the direction we were given."

He continued: "Alastair Campbell said to the inquiry that the purpose of the dossier was not 'to make a case for war'. I had no doubt at that time this was exactly its purpose and these very words were used."...

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeild and Blair knew Saddam was not a threat and ginned up evidence to lead the world to war against the people of Iraq. nearly million dead and counting.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeild and Blair are all war criminals.

Kathianne

05-14-2011, 10:41 PM

I read this and because of the source it will not be relegated to conspiracy forum, but pray tell upon what you write your conclusion?
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeild and Blair knew Saddam was not a threat and ginned up evidence to lead the world to war against the people of Iraq. nearly million dead and counting.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeild and Blair are all war criminals.

You don't get there from the article.

Gaffer

05-15-2011, 08:00 AM

Still Bush deranged after all these years.

From what I read the article blames Blair for everything.

revelarts

05-15-2011, 08:00 AM

“War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946.

...The ICJ (International Commission of Jurists ) today expressed its deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression. The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain have signalled their intent to use force in Iraq in spite of the absence of a Security Council Resolution. There is no other plausible legal basis for this attack. In the absence of such Security Council authorisation, no country may use force against another country, except in self-defence against an armed attack....
http://www.icj.org/default.asp?nodeID=340&langage=1&myPage=ICJ_History

Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314

Article 5

1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.

3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html

"War of aggression ... contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

red states rule

05-15-2011, 08:16 AM

Rev, maybe you are not aware of this but we had an election on the Irag war, the intel, and and if Pres Bush should have remained the CIC

I will break the news to you the way the sportscaster Warner Wolf would

If you took John Kerry and 19 states - YOU LOST!!!

http://mrbiggs.net/images/2004-election-map.gif

Obama is now CIC and we are still in Iraq, GITMO is still open, Patriot Act is still on the books - looks like Obama has kept most of the Bush policies

Missileman

05-15-2011, 05:54 PM

“War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946.

http://www.icj.org/default.asp?nodeID=340&langage=1&myPage=ICJ_History

Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html

"War of aggression ... contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

There's a laundry list of problems with your premise:

1. Hussein was the one who started a war of aggression when he attacked Kuwait for no reason.
2. After liberating Kuwait, Iraq was placed under a UN sanctioned No Fly Zone.
3. It was the Iraqis who routinely were aggressive taking pot shots at US planes enforcing the No Fly Zone.
4. Hussein continued to maintain that he had WMDs and threatened to use them.
5. The US achieved no territorial acquisition nor special advantage from the Iraq war.
6. Hussein was a sponsor of terrorism and was a valid target post 9/11.

revelarts

05-15-2011, 06:25 PM

There's a laundry list of problems with your premise:

1. Hussein was the one who started a war of aggression when he attacked Kuwait for no reason.
2. After liberating Kuwait, Iraq was placed under a UN sanctioned No Fly Zone.
3. It was the Iraqis who routinely were aggressive taking pot shots at US planes enforcing the No Fly Zone.
4. Hussein continued to maintain that he had WMDs and threatened to use them.
All addressed when GWBush tried to convince the U.N. to attack and failed.

5. The US achieved no territorial acquisition nor special advantage from the Iraq war.
I don't think it worked out quite as well as hoped for but....
1. See the memo that surfaced about the oil companies all getting there cuts after the US UK invasion.
2 Saddam was threatening to begin selling oil in euros rather than dollars. killed.
3. We have multiple "enduring" military bases there now.
4. And an embassy "larger than the vatican".
5. A militarily strategic local in the middle east.
6. the American Military industrial complex and friends of Cheney and crew have made BILLIONS/Trillions? from Iraq.
7. Saddam didn't make nice with Israel. killed.
8. the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs thought it would be easy to rule the world. But they are still trying.

6. Hussein was a sponsor of terrorism and was a valid target post 9/11. the Saudis and the Pakistanis were/are as well. Not to mention the Syrians, the Palestinians or Sudan or Yemen. How about those North Koreans? Iraq was no bigger "threat" to the U.S. post 9-11 than any of them.

Missileman

05-15-2011, 06:39 PM

All addressed when GWBush tried to convince the U.N. to attack and failed.

Who gives a fuck whether the UN approved or not except the pansy liberal appeasers?

I don't think it worked out quite as well as hoped for but....
1. See the memo that surfaced about the oil companies all getting there cuts after the US UK invasion.
2 Saddam was threatening to begin selling oil in euros rather than dollars. killed.
3. We have multiple "enduring" military bases there now.
4. And an embassy "larger than the vatican".
5. A militarily strategic local in the middle east.
6. the American Military industrial complex and friends of Cheney and crew have made BILLIONS/Trillions? from Iraq.
7. Saddam didn't make nice with Israel.
8. the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs thought it would be easy to rule the world. But they are still trying.

the Saudis and the Pakistanis were/are as well. Not to mention the Syrians, the Palestinians or Sudan or Yemen. How about those North Koreans? Iraq was no bigger "threat" to the U.S. post 9-11 than any of them.

So your complaint is we didn't attack everyone. :slap:

DragonStryk72

05-15-2011, 09:32 PM

There's a laundry list of problems with your premise:

1. Hussein was the one who started a war of aggression when he attacked Kuwait for no reason.
2. After liberating Kuwait, Iraq was placed under a UN sanctioned No Fly Zone.
3. It was the Iraqis who routinely were aggressive taking pot shots at US planes enforcing the No Fly Zone.
4. Hussein continued to maintain that he had WMDs and threatened to use them.
5. The US achieved no territorial acquisition nor special advantage from the Iraq war.
6. Hussein was a sponsor of terrorism and was a valid target post 9/11.

1. Yes, hence the UN effort to stop it back in the first Gulf Ward, which he lost.

2 &3. Yes, and the US forces we dedicated were under UN control, and they chose not to depose him. That gives us nothing.

4. Um, hold on- Didn't we build a massive military base in Iraq just a couple years ago? That's not an advantage to us? Cause I think the Admiral for Norfolk Naval would say his base is a pretty big damned advantage right there.

5. Really? The US can unilaterally reverse our UN Charter. So then, China could do that right? Say if they saw several countries that were threatening Communism?

gabosaurus

05-15-2011, 11:58 PM

red states rule

05-16-2011, 03:17 AM

Of course it was cooked. Blair wanted to be a good ally, at the expense of his own reputation.

When Dubya took office in Jan. 2001, his first priority was to get rid of Saddam. It was a grudge carried over from when Saddam shit talked Daddy Bush during his term. Several Bush staffers from that time period say he was obsessed with it.

Fast forward to Sept. 11, 2001. Bush promises to avenge the attack by bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. Instead, he send 110,000 troops to Iraq. Fueled by blatant lies that Saddam had WMD and had direct links to bin Laden and AQ. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, wrapped in patriotic fervor, sucked everything in.

Dubya sent only a token force to Afghanistan and never made a real attempt to find bin Laden. Because he knew that bin Laden was better suited as a focus for his alleged "War on Terror." The image of the evil head of AQ regularly releasing audio and video tapes vowing revenge allowed Dubya to act with impunity.

Dubya loved the Iraq war. Not as much as Cheney, but he enjoyed every day of it. The Sept. 11 attacks were the high point of his political career.

So did Bill Clinton "cook" the books as well Gabby?

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

and during the Clinton years many of Dems said the same thing

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"[W]e 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

http://rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

revelarts

05-16-2011, 02:38 PM

Who gives a fuck whether the UN approved or not except the pansy liberal appeasers?

GWBush cared very much, he said so flatly and spent a lot of time, effort and political capital trying to get U.N.'s approval to INVADE a country not threatening the U.S. or anyone else for that matter.

Why? Becuase invading a country is wrong, as you mentioned Saddam invasion of Kuwait was. Or is it only wrong if other countries do it? not the U.S.?

So your complaint is we didn't attack everyone. :slap:

Have you ever seen the Ad for Llap Goch, the secret Welsh art of self defense?

WHAT is LLAP-GOCH again?
It is an ANCIENT Welsh ART based on a BRILLIANTLY simple l-D-E-A, which is a SECRET.
The best form of DEFENSE is ATTACK (Clausewitz) and the most VlTAL element of ATTACK is SURPRISE (Oscar HAMMERstein).
Therefore . . . the BEST way to protect yourself AGAINST any ASSAILANT is to ATTACK him before he attacks YOU . . . Or BETTER... BEFORE the THOUGHT of doing so has EVEN OCCURRED TO HIM!!!
SO YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RENDER YOUR ASSAILANT UNCONSCIOUS BEFORE he is EVEN aware of your very existence!

Banish Inadequacy No longer need you feel WEAK, helpless, INDECISIVE, NOT fascinating and ASHAMED of your genital dimensions. No more need you be out-manoeuvred in political debate!! GOOD BYE HUMILIATION, Wisecracking bullies, Karate experts, boxing champions, sarcastic vicars, traffic wardens; entire panzer divisions will melt to pulp as you master every situation without INADEQUACY. PROTECT YOUR LOVED ONES. You will no longer look pitiful and spotty to your GIRL FRIENDS when you leave some unsuspecting passer-by looking like four tins of cat-food! They will admire your MASTERY and DECISIVENESS and LACK OF INADEQUACY and will almost certainly let you put your HAND inside their BLOUSE of sheer ADMIRATION. And after seeing more of your expert disabling they'll almost go to bed with you, although obviously we can't ABSOLUTELY guarantee this, still it's extremely likely and would make learning LLAP-GOCH really worthwhile although legally we can't PROMISE anything.

it's from a Monty Python book.
http://munkton.tripod.com/llapgoch/

Maybe Bush and Crew took the joke seriously.

One of the last lines of the Ad is ominous when applied to real life.

What Does it Cost?
This, like LLAP-GOCH, is a SECRET but you will find out sooner or later, don't worry."

Missileman

05-16-2011, 02:53 PM

GWBush cared very much, he said so flatly and spent a lot of time, effort and political capital trying to get U.N.'s approval to INVADE a country not threatening the U.S. or anyone else for that matter.

A serious amount of delusion is required to believe Iraq was no threat to anyone...sorry.

Why? Becuase invading a country is wrong, as you mentioned Saddam invasion of Kuwait was. Or is it only wrong if other countries do it? not the U.S.?

So it was wrong for the US to invade Europe in WWII? You're losing credibility with posts like this.

Have you ever seen the Ad for Llap Goch, the secret Welsh art of self defense?

it's from a Monty Python book.
http://munkton.tripod.com/llapgoch/

Maybe Bush and Crew took the joke seriously.

One of the last lines of the Ad is ominous when applied to real life.

Basing your arguments on Monty Python doesn't help your credibility either.

revelarts

05-16-2011, 03:31 PM

A serious amount of delusion is required to believe Iraq was no threat to anyone...sorry.
As Colin Powell and Rice said of him a year or so before the war. "Sanctions have kept Iraq weak. They are not able to project power. The Iraqi army is about forty...thirty-five to forty percent of its original size. It is not a threat to Kuwait in my judgement."
feb 2001 " ...And frankly they (Sanctions) have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…" Rice and other made similar statements.
So yeah not a threat to anyone. except his own people.

So it was wrong for the US to invade Europe in WWII? You're losing credibility with posts like this.
?? Are you eqauting the invasion of Europe against Hilter's take over of much it to the Invasion of Iraq sitting under it's on sovereignty? that's not credible Missile.

Basing your arguments on Monty Python doesn't help your credibility either.

Just trying to make some light of a very sad series of events.

But it's not my credibility or yours that's the issue it's Bush's, Cheney's Rumsfeld's and Blair's that has been shattered.

gabosaurus

05-16-2011, 11:08 PM

A serious amount of delusion is required to believe Iraq was no threat to anyone...sorry.

How was Iraq a threat to ANYONE? It was a very small country whose leader was a delusional lunatic. Even other Arab countries didn't take Saddam seriously.

So it was wrong for the US to invade Europe in WWII? You're losing credibility with posts like this.

Are you forgetting about Pearl Harbor? The fact that Hitler wanted to take over the world? You're losing credibility with comments like this.

Basing your arguments on Monty Python doesn't help your credibility either.

I don't want to talk to you, no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. No go or I will be forced to taunt you a second time!

Missileman

05-17-2011, 05:49 PM

How was Iraq a threat to ANYONE? It was a very small country whose leader was a delusional lunatic. Even other Arab countries didn't take Saddam seriously.

A lunatic with an army at his disposal...nope, no threat there. Get real.

Are you forgetting about Pearl Harbor? The fact that Hitler wanted to take over the world? You're losing credibility with comments like this.

I'm not the one making the ludicrous argument that invading another country is an evil act.

revelarts

05-17-2011, 06:07 PM

I'm not the one making the ludicrous argument that invading another country is an evil act.

so pearl harbor wasn't an evil act?

riiiiight.

DragonStryk72

05-17-2011, 06:27 PM

A lunatic with an army at his disposal...nope, no threat there. Get real.

That same half-starved army that surrendered en masse to our reporters, many times going searching for an American to surrender to? Oh yes, the gravest of threats.

I'm not the one making the ludicrous argument that invading another country is an evil act.

Oh, so then it was okay when Sadddam invaded Kuwait? Well, then we had no recourse for the first Gulf War by that line of thought

Missileman

05-17-2011, 06:37 PM

so pearl harbor wasn't an evil act?

riiiiight.

Where in hell did I say that? I didn't, so run off and play with that strawman you just made.

Your UN quote didn't make any distinctions under what circumstances an invasion is justified, it just said invasions are evil.

Missileman

05-17-2011, 06:39 PM

Oh, so then it was okay when Sadddam invaded Kuwait? Well, then we had no recourse for the first Gulf War by that line of thought

I never said any such thing, you and revelarts should open a scarecrow store.

revelarts

05-17-2011, 07:15 PM

Where in hell did I say that? I didn't, so run off and play with that strawman you just made.

Your UN quote didn't make any distinctions under what circumstances an invasion is justified, it just said invasions are evil.

“War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946.

"Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314
Article 5

1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.

3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."

Aggression
–noun
1.
the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like:
2.
any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights.
3.
the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.

Aggressive
–adjective
1.
characterized by or tending toward unprovoked offensives, attacks, invasions, or the like; militantly forward or menacing: aggressive acts against a neighboring country.

gabosaurus

05-17-2011, 08:13 PM

Missileman

05-17-2011, 10:09 PM

Missileman

05-17-2011, 10:20 PM

jimnyc

05-17-2011, 10:52 PM

Someone please answer this question:
Why did we invade Iraq?

No one on this board (or otherwise) has ever presented a plausible reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
It was not to avenge the attack on the U.S., since Iraq had no involvement.
Iraq posed no active threat to the U.S. Or anyone.
It was a totally selective act of vengeance by a political leader who had an individual axe to grind. And he sacrificed thousands of American lives to do so. And he used blatant lies and underhanded dealing to gain support for such.

That's a crock, and you just don't like the answers you received. I have given quite a few in depth answers to this question giving paragraphs of reasons as to why we went into Iraq (not just to get WMD's). None of the reasons I have ever given have ever been disputed - only a few people stating they didn't believe the reasons were good enough. BUT - those reasons were good enough for many of the most influential Democrats from 1998 - 2001 and many Democrats after that, up to and including the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee (and the President of the Committee who was a Democrat at the time we went into Iraq). These reasons stretched from 1991-2003 & 12 UN resolutions. Saddam continually played a cat and mouse game and even stated himself that he possessed WMD's - and 1000's of tons of chemical weapons remained missing that were accounted for in 1998. He played a game and he subsequently lost.

Don't try and compare Iraq with other countries. If you feel the reasoning was wrong, concentrate on the reasons and the Democrats, Republicans and intelligence agencies who made their cases over a 12 year period. Don't play games with words or the rhetoric game. Stick simply with the facts present up to and including those 12 years and there is ample reasons to go into Iraq, protect their citizens and neighboring countries, and ensure Saddam cannot once again use such weapons against either.

revelarts

05-18-2011, 08:45 AM

That's a crock, and you just don't like the answers you received. I have given quite a few in depth answers to this question giving paragraphs of reasons as to why we went into Iraq (not just to get WMD's). None of the reasons I have ever given have ever been disputed - only a few people stating they didn't believe the reasons were good enough. BUT - those reasons were good enough for many of the most influential Democrats from 1998 - 2001 and many Democrats after that, up to and including the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee (and the President of the Committee who was a Democrat at the time we went into Iraq). These reasons stretched from 1991-2003 & 12 UN resolutions. Saddam continually played a cat and mouse game and even stated himself that he possessed WMD's - and 1000's of tons of chemical weapons remained missing that were accounted for in 1998. He played a game and he subsequently lost.

Don't try and compare Iraq with other countries. If you feel the reasoning was wrong, concentrate on the reasons and the Democrats, Republicans and intelligence agencies who made their cases over a 12 year period. Don't play games with words or the rhetoric game. Stick simply with the facts present up to and including those 12 years and there is ample reasons to go into Iraq, protect their citizens and neighboring countries, and ensure Saddam cannot once again use such weapons against either.

And we come full circle

the Intelligence was COOKED to MAKE A CASE FOR WAR THAT WASN"T REAL, For the sole purpose to convince the Democrats and Republicans and the British and American people we should invade Iraq when BUSH and BLAIR knew it was unjustifiable by Our country's and the U.N.s basic standards, established since WWII.

...Iraq dossier drawn up to make case for war – intelligence officer
Newly released evidence to Chilcot inquiry directly contradicts Blair government's claims about dossier

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...r-case-for-war

A top military intelligence official has said the discredited dossier on Iraq's weapons programme was drawn up "to make the case for war", flatly contradicting persistent claims to the contrary by the Blair government, and in particular by Alastair Campbell, the former prime minister's chief spin doctor.

In hitherto secret evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Major General Michael Laurie said: "We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."

If going into Iraq made so much sense why juice the facts?
the simple answer is you don't.
Only if your case is too weak to convince do you resort to misrepresentation of the the facts (called LIES on the street) to make a case.

And this isn't the only evidence.
Many others have presented similar testimony of the same for years. people from the DOD, the PENTAGON, the CIA, THE DIA, the Presidents own Staff, even written memos, but they have been ignored and brushed aside by some in an attempt to back the Pres, the Party and a war so many have invested emotional and political capital into.

Bush, Blair, Cheney and Rumsfeld KNEW there were no WMD's and not ENOUGH real reasons, by any legal standard, for invasion.
They COOKED the intel to create WMD concerns. A false excuse.
And therefore ILLEGALLY INVADED a Country that never attacked us and was not a real threat to anyone.

That is a war crime.

jimnyc

05-18-2011, 09:14 AM

And we come full circle

the Intelligence was COOKED to MAKE A CASE FOR WAR THAT WASN"T REAL, For the sole purpose to convince the Democrats and Republicans and the British and American people we should invade Iraq when BUSH and BLAIR knew it was unjustifiable by Our country's and the U.N.s basic standards, established since WWII.

If going into Iraq made so much sense why juice the facts?
the simple answer is you don't.
Only if your case is too weak to convince do you resort to misrepresentation of the the facts (called LIES on the street) to make a case.

And this isn't the only evidence.
Many others have presented similar testimony of the same for years. people from the DOD, the PENTAGON, the CIA, THE DIA, the Presidents own Staff, even written memos, but they have been ignored and brushed aside by some in an attempt to back the Pres, the Party and a war so many have invested emotional and political capital into.

Bush, Blair, Cheney and Rumsfeld KNEW there were no WMD's and not ENOUGH real reasons, by any legal standard, for invasion.
They COOKED the intel to create WMD concerns. A false excuse.
And therefore ILLEGALLY INVADED a Country that never attacked us and was not a real threat to anyone.

That is a war crime.

Your link doesn't work, Rev, but tell me what it states concerning Bush? Tell me what it states concerning the myriad of other countries that held similar intel to our intel agencies? Show me the proof that "Bush, Blair, Cheney and Rumsfeld KNEW there were no WMD's".

You say they needed to convince the Democrats. Tell me why the Democrats were singing the same tune since 1998, long before Bush and Cheney were in charge? Tell me why the Democrats in the Senate Intelligence Committee, who actually lead that committee, who were briefed directly by the intel agencies, stated the same thing?

If there is a crime, why is no one crying to the international courts? Why have no charges been brought forth? Surely if someone like you can have definitive proof, SOMEONE would have better proof and it would be quite simple to convince an international court. Please show us these charges. Is there a warrant out internationally for those you claim "cooked" the claims?

You're full of hot air and rhetoric, just like the shit websites you read. I supposed the ENTIRE WORLD is involved in a conspiracy NOT to seek criminal charges on what you state is cooked evidence and clear proof of "illegal" activity?

jimnyc

05-18-2011, 09:16 AM

Nevermind, Rev, the link is the same as your first post, I hadn't realized you were just repeating posts again.

I don't see enough evidence that "evidence was cooked". Nor do I even see the sames of Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld in the article you link to.

gabosaurus

05-18-2011, 12:09 PM

jimnyc

05-18-2011, 12:18 PM

Jim, you are absolutely incorrect. Iraq never had nukes or the capability to produce nukes after the first Gulf War.
As revelarts said, all the "info" about Iraq was a huge lies concocted by those who wanted to get Saddam. It was all a smear campaign to take out a small country who leader had insulted the father of the POTUS. It was personal vengeance, pure and simple.

Saddam claimed he had WMD's. There were 100's of barrels that were tagged by investigators in 1998 but were missing and unaccounted for up till the point they left Iraq.

8 years later and and only rhetoric can be brought towards the Bush administration - no proven lies (unless of course you count the word of a few people trying to sell books). Yet there is a LONG proven history of what FACTUALLY took place and reasoning for entering Iraq.

There was a debate on this board long ago (even though you state no on ever gave a plausible reason, here or elsewhere). I still think this argument stands and gives a TON of reasoning - even though a few resolutions that outlined the consequences is all that was necessary. (funny how all the arguments are towards Bush but no one wants to blame the DEMOCRATS who went into the war, and especially those on the Senate Intelligence, and that committee's leader)

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?7529-Justification-for-War-in-Iraq

Missileman

05-18-2011, 03:17 PM

If that was the case, why didn't take out Saudi Arabia? 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudi nationals who were based and trained in that country.
Or how about Yemen or Pakistan? Both huge centers for terrorism.
Iraq was a scapegoat for these countries. Used for the above stated purpose.

Already explained in the answer you asked for and have now ignored.

Kathianne

05-18-2011, 07:22 PM

To those want to put forth the argument that they 'drummed up charges' for a war to revenge Bush I, why then this link, posted before?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6456.htm

Iraq No Threat

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Please wait a moment for video to load

Video taken from TV documentary "Breaking The Silence" - Click here to view

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

It shows the 'new administration' not only didn't want war in that region, their plans were to get the US out of the 'no fly' deal. 9/11 did change that, mostly for strategic reasons in the area. Only the ignorant or naive couldn't see that. They had the same info Clinton did, Bush I did, Blair did, but they wanted to focus on domestic issues. Bush II had no desire to be a interventionist president, history is like that.

revelarts

05-23-2011, 07:36 AM

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….

Ex-CIA intelligence officer Larry Johnson responded to comments by former CIA Director George Tenet which aired on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday. Tenet said the consensus in the U.S. intelligence community was that Iraq did possess WMD, which the Bush administration said was its reason for invading in March of 2003.
Johnson told CNN on Monday that although Tenet knew intelligence indicating that Iraq had WMD "was a problem," he still played a role in the Bush administration's message to the American people that Iraq was a threat.

"In fall of 2002, he was told specifically that there was a high level source in Saddam's government that was saying, 'We don't have WMD,' " Johnson said. "George Tenet's hands are just as bloody as everybody else in this administration in helping gin up what was an unfounded case for war."

Johnson is a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000.

Tenet, who's authored a new book on his tenure at CIA titled, "At the Center of the Storm," told CBS that he was outraged that senior officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, used Tenet's "slam dunk" reference to bolster Bush's decision to launch the war.

Johnson said Tenet "was willing to tell the president, 'Yeah I'll go out and help manipulate public opinion to build the case for war.' That's not the role of an intelligence chief. The role of the intelligence chief of the United States government is to tell the facts to the president and to the Congress regardless of what the political import of those are."

"He could have stood up and spoke out when he had the job," Johnston said Monday. "He could have changed the course of American history. Instead he kept silent."

The writers accused Tenet of having helped send "very mixed signals" to Americans and their legislators before the war.

"CIA field operatives produced solid intelligence in September 2002 that stated clearly there was no stockpile of any kind of WMD in Iraq," said the letter. "This intelligence was ignored and later misused." In addition to Johnson, the letter was signed by Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, Jim Marcinkowski, Vince Cannistraro and David MacMichael.
...
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-04-30/politics/tenet_1_cia-director-george-tenet-cia-officer-intelligence?_s=PM:POLITICS

None of the Above former CIA wrote any books, except for Tennat and Rumsfeld so we can assume Tennat and Rumsfeld are lying since if you write a book you stand to gain. (they will lie against anything republican or Bush or conservative. to sell books. Books mean liar. Bush wrote a book to everything it it is a lie too I suppose. to make money. never trust a book writer. Negates anything they've every said or done in life. )

Former Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski assigned to the pentagon

...back in May 2002, when as a Lt Colonel in the Air Force, I was assigned to the Near East South Asia office, the home of what would become the Office of Special Plans. What the Pentagon senior civilian staff and the President were saying about Iraq that summer did not match the intelligence I'd been looking at regularly for well over four years. Furthermore, it did not pass the logic test.

It appeared that a small group of people, politically appointed neoconservatives who missed the political clarity of the Cold War, and saw 9-11 as a "new Pearl Harbor," were itching for an invasion of Iraq.

Had I been paying attention, I would have known that these particular civilians had been itching for an invasion of Iraq for some time. Some had even been in government before the current regime, such as House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. But I never suspected that the intelligence system would be corrupted to the extent it was in 2002, and that the mainstream media and leaders of both political parties would genuflect to a war president, and salivate at the thought of more war overseas.

I never thought that so many would lie so much, and so loudly, for so little. I was unfamiliar with the political process in Washington. I was unfamiliar with the fundamental nature of defense spending, and our long-term strategies for base building abroad. And lastly, I had never heard of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby that had extremely close ties to many of the policy decision-makers overseeing Iraq invasion planning and propaganda, influence over a great many legislators in both parties, and at the time, was actively lobbying for an American toppling of Saddam Hussein.

I moved my retirement date up a few months and just after I retired, in July 2003, Knight-Ridder newspapers published an op-ed where I discussed the functional isolation of the policy-makers, their cross-agency cliques of likeminded ideologues, and the groupthink that afflicted them in the rush to war.

I realize today that I was far too kind...

Kath specifically to your question. I never mention PoppyBush.
My Understanding is this, that Powell was a voice of Wait and What the Heck is going on and Cheney and Rumsfeld were the voices of War in Bushes ears.

And Bush said he was always ready to deal with Iraq If "there were WMDs" From the time he ran for office.

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.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/16/le.00.html

But Again the Problem was there were no WMD's and the evidence for this was clear, what wasn't clear could have been cleared by inspectors in a few months Blix Said.

Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld lied.

red states rule

05-23-2011, 07:42 AM

Missileman

05-23-2011, 07:58 AM

In fall of 2002, he was told specifically that there was a high level source in Saddam's government that was saying, 'We don't have WMD,'

ROFL...you think this makes your case? In the event you're suffering from amnesia, the HIGHEST level source in Saddam's government was saying publicly he DID possess WMDs. :slap:

red states rule

05-23-2011, 08:00 AM

revelarts

05-23-2011, 08:01 AM

Rev, please give it up. As I posted before we had an election on Iraq, the illegal war BS, and if the "global test" before the US defneds itself in 2004

If you forgot Rev, your side lost

Stop fighting long ago lost battles and move on to more important things your side should worry about

Like the growing number of people suffering from Toenail Fungus
Um Red I voted for Bush both times he ran. I was holding my nose the 2nd time but i did it. I wasn't aware of the extent of the problem then. now I know better and I'm a kinda pissed that they haven't been called to account for the hell they brought. A lil thing called justice all, drilled into me as a kid i just can't shake.
no statute of limitations on murder and the like.

red states rule

05-23-2011, 08:04 AM

Um Red I voted for Bush both times he ran. I was holding my nose the 2nd time but i did it. I wasn't aware of the extent of the problem then. now I know better and I'm a kinda pissed that they haven't been called to account for the hell they brought. A lil thing called justice. goes

Yea Rev we know where you stand

If you had your way Saddam and OBL would be alive and well today

While Pres Bush, VP Cheney, and the CIA Interrogators would all be sitting in a jail cell

Thank God you are a minority in this nation Rev

revelarts

05-23-2011, 08:11 AM

ROFL...you think this makes your case? In the event you're suffering from amnesia, the HIGHEST level source in Saddam's government was saying publicly he DID possess WMDs. :slap:

Conflicting info, Hmmm seems there should have been more investigation.
OH THERE WAS.
INSPECTORS on the ground before the invasion confirmed the word of the one who said there were ZERO wmd's.
Well Then there you have it. I guess that settles it then. Correct?

red states rule

05-23-2011, 08:13 AM

Conflicting info, Hmmm seems there should have been more investigation.
OH THERE WAS.
INSPECTORS on the ground before the invasion confirmed the word of the one who said there were ZERO wmd's.
Well Then there you have it. I guess that settles it then. Correct?

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RhZ2ZvS2t_E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Missileman

05-23-2011, 08:20 AM

revelarts

05-23-2011, 08:22 AM

red states rule

05-23-2011, 08:23 AM

You can't provide a single instance where the inspectors provided a 100% confirmation that Iraq had no WMDs...it doesn't exist. As I recall, Iraq was hindering the inspection team's ability to make a determination.

You recall correctly

12 years of dealing with Saddam

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-158168/12-years-dealing-Saddam.html

red states rule

05-23-2011, 08:26 AM

So you believe the democrats now Red?
Are you saying that the Democrats might be right from time to time? (they are wrong here but)

NO!!! Democrats liberal commies are wrong all the time. I'm surprised the president BUSH agreed with them on this. It was all a socialist plot to get us into coalitions and drain our resources and create more gov't jobs. instead of jobs being made in the private sector.

I see your point red. Those STINKING Lying democrat TRAITORS!!

What I am saying Rev NOBODY LIED!!!!!!

You are so determined to where your tin foil hat and find a conspioracy everywhere you look that you fail to see everyone said Saddam had WMD's

Get over this Rev - it is old news

You will never get your wish to bring Saddam and OBL back from the grave and put back in power; and have Bush, Cheney, and the CIA Interrogators where jumpsuites with numbers across their chest

revelarts

05-23-2011, 08:43 AM

You can't provide a single instance where the inspectors provided a 100% confirmation that Iraq had no WMDs...it doesn't exist. As I recall, Iraq was hindering the inspection team's ability to make a determination.

We can't provide 100% confirmation of much of anything Missle.
But here's what UN chief inspector Blix said

Hans Blix March 2003

...Nevertheless, intelligence agencies have expressed the view that proscribed programs have continued or restarted in this period. It is further contended that proscribed programs and items are located in underground facilities, as I mentioned, and that proscribed items are being moved around Iraq. The working document does contain suggestions on how these concerns may be tackled.

Mr. President, let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work program which Resolution 1284 requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks. It will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the council has asked us to implement.

It will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the program; for instance, for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will 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 programs.

A few Months of inspection to clear up any issues that MIGHT MAYBE a problem.
Now we do KNOW there were none.

Unless you Have 100% proof that TONS of WMDs where moved to our friends in Syria?

The people I've post were correct and everyone else FROM 2000-2003 (not the 1990's) were either Misinformed or LYING or both.

red states rule

05-23-2011, 08:45 AM

We can't provide 100% confirmation of much of anything Missle.

but here what UN chief inspector Blix said

Hans Blix March 2003

Month of inspection to clear up any issues that MIGHT MAYBE a problem.
Now we do KNOW there were none.

Unless you Have 100% proof that TONS of WMDs where moved to our friends in Syria?

The people I've post were Correct and the everyone else FROM 2000-2003 (not the 1990's) were either Misinformed or LYING.

So how about calling it a draw and dropping the subjct Rev?

Missileman

05-23-2011, 10:41 AM

Unless you Have 100% proof that TONS of WMDs where moved to our friends in Syria?

So you acknowledge that this is a possibility?

Gaffer

05-23-2011, 12:01 PM

jimnyc

05-23-2011, 12:58 PM

Conflicting info, Hmmm seems there should have been more investigation.
OH THERE WAS.
INSPECTORS on the ground before the invasion confirmed the word of the one who said there were ZERO wmd's.
Well Then there you have it. I guess that settles it then. Correct?

Absolutely not true. There were thousands of containers of chemical weapons that were accounted for and tagged in 1998 by inspectors and remained unaccounted for till the day we entered Iraq. They outright refused to turn them up or account for them in any way. I would think that this amount of chemical weapons counted as WMD's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2590265.stm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98042705_npo.html

Blix's report to the UN:

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/bfeb/20_blix.html

red states rule

05-23-2011, 01:05 PM

Absolutely not true. There were thousands of containers of chemical weapons that were accounted for and tagged in 1998 by inspectors and remained unaccounted for till the day we entered Iraq. They outright refused to turn them up or account for them in any way. I would think that this amount of chemical weapons counted as WMD's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2590265.stm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98042705_npo.html

Blix's report to the UN:

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/bfeb/20_blix.html

Oh come on Jim, it is common knowledge with those like Rev that Roive and his criminal gang planted those containers to make Saddam look bad

AHA! No WMD in Iraq!
When I first read David Kay's stunning statement that Iraq doesn't have, nor ever had weapons of mass destruction, I dropped my bong, leapt from my beanbag chair, and shouted "Vive La France!". It proved conclusively that Bush lied about WMD just to steal Iraq's oil!

Then I slowly realized that there was something more sinister at work here.

If Bush lied about Saddam having WMD, then Clinton must have lied when he bombed Iraq back in 1993, 1996, and 1998. We all know that Clinton would never ever ever lie about anything (except for sex, and that was a vast, right-wing conspiracy). Therefore, David Kay must be lying when he says Iraq has no WMD. But if Kay is lying, that means Bush told the truth, which is impossible.

The whole thing really started to make my head hurt. I was going to take an aspirin and go to bed and forget about it, when I suddenly had an idea. Bush lied about WMD, that's now proven to be true. David Kay's statement validates that truth. Therefore, whatever Clinton did or said is therefore irrelevent, and anyone who tries to point out a contradiction in logic is an ignorant dittohead. I have a masters degree in Greco-Roman sexual positions and Interpretive Clog Dancing from UC Berkeley, pal! I think I know a little more about logic than you! You simply misunderstood Clinton when he said Iraq was a nuclear threat. Narrow-minded cons see everything in black in white, when there are really gray areas....graaaaaaay areas, YOU FASCIST NEOCON! BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED, HO HO HO CHI MINH!

There. Everything makes perfect sense now. My head feels much better.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/01/when_i_first_re.html

Gaffer

05-23-2011, 02:22 PM

Oh come on Jim, it is common knowledge with those like Rev that Roive and his criminal gang planted those containers to make Saddam look bad

It just seems to me, if Bush lied about WMD's then why wouldn't he plant some there to make himself look good? Especially since they were able to set explosives in the trade center buildings and all. Should have been a piece of cake. :poke:

red states rule

05-23-2011, 03:20 PM

It just seems to me, if Bush lied about WMD's then why wouldn't he plant some there to make himself look good? Especially since they were able to set explosives in the trade center buildings and all. Should have been a piece of cake. :poke:

Now Gaffer if you are going to bring logic, reason, and common sense into the discussion you are going to derail and end Rev's thread :laugh2:

Gaffer

05-23-2011, 03:55 PM

Yeah, I shouldn't do that. But I occasionally put the tinfoil hat on backwards and get the theories all turned around. :cool:

red states rule

05-23-2011, 03:58 PM

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb052011dAPR20110520054518.jpg

revelarts

05-23-2011, 08:38 PM

ummm rev, how do you know blix wasn't lying?

saddam bought off a lot of people. Money, intimidation, blackmail can all be used to get people to say things you want them too. What makes blix pure and truthful and everyone else liars? If the CIA and president can doctor information, so can the un representative.
1. any evidences of Blix corruption? Extra fat bank account, copies of Threatening letters, phone records ...a n y t h i n g? No.
2. We've been there for... What? 8 years. and haven't found anything. So the case should be closed right there. He wasn't lying.
3. Before the invasion everyone was fine with his reports and he has been consistent and measured. He wrote that "there may be" ...and there are documents that show[/B]... "that there are items are unaccounted for" which some took to mean "SADDAM HAS TONS O CHEMICAL AND BIO AND NUKE WMD's". When Blix in February and March tried to make the point that that was not necessarily the case. and The Iraqis Said they destroyed them.

I seem to recall a former inspector that said saddam had no wmd's and who was later found to be a pedophile and even helped produce a movie about how benevolent saddam was..He should be Judged for the Pedophilia. But his work in Iraq concerning inspections seems to have been confirmed as well.

I'm much more suspicious of the un than I am of the US.

Sadly I'm suspicious of just about everybody nowadays. So show me some evidence and I'll look at it in an as impartial way as i can. In this case many of OUR OWN Intel workers agree with the U.N.. and Our 8 years of finding NADA Confirm those early assessments of the people in and out of the U.S. gov't and U.N. that were of the opinion that Saddam was NOT in 2002 and 20003 in procession of WMDs. And that Blair Bush & crew were lying, that is, making up false evidence, twisting the lil info that was there and IGNORING evidence to the contrary.

Absolutely not true. There were thousands of containers of chemical weapons that were accounted for and tagged in 1998 by inspectors and remained unaccounted for till the day we entered Iraq. They outright refused to turn them up or account for them in any way. I would think that this amount of chemical weapons counted as WMD's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2590265.stm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98042705_npo.html

Blix's report to the UN:

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/bfeb/20_blix.html

Blix
form the February report you site.
Referring to the vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons (such as VX, sarin and anthrax) unresolved when UNSCOM was ejected in 1998, Blix said:

"If they exist they must be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.” He continued,

“This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions."

In the march 2003 report Blix felt comfortable that anything missing could be accounted for in a few "months".

It just seems to me, if Bush lied about WMD's then why wouldn't he plant some there to make himself look good? Especially since they were able to set explosives in the trade center buildings and all. Should have been a piece of cake. :poke:
Why should he waste his time risking to plant anything when he had most of the public bamblozaled and could get people to ignore any evidence that went against "the word of the president" Presidents don't lie (except for democrats). He (Cheney and Rumsfeld) knew that a certain segment of the people whipped into war fever and patriotism would back the president to the wall, though the wall ,past the wall. Let the President be true and everyone ELSE is a liar. Despite ANY evidence to the contrary. Plus who cares what they think 20 years from now just the 1st 5 years we have to keep a lid on it. once we're in it's hard to get out.

World trade center hmm why didn't you go with the big lie of global warming. I've spent much more time there. the gov't still seems to be pushing that as FACT but you think the gov't is lying about the science. Lying about the the solution. And Doing it for fun and profit. Why that rediculous the gov't wouldn't do that. someone would have said something and not written any books about it. and the republicans would have had hearings to expose it and people would be in jail by now.... :poke::tinfoil:

jimnyc

05-23-2011, 09:08 PM

Yes, Rev, IF they exist... They were 100% accounted for - WMD's which were chemical weapons - which disappeared and were UNACCOUNTED for. Iraq REFUSED to account for them. Saddam himself stated they possessed WMD's.

Let's see:

1 - Weapons were tagged by inspectors
2 - Weapons apparently disappear
3 - Leader of country claims they have WMD's

Case closed, they lose.

jimnyc

05-23-2011, 09:13 PM

And that Blair Bush & crew were lying, that is, making up false evidence, twisting the lil info that was there and IGNORING evidence to the contrary.

Can you show ANYTHING at all to prove that ANY intel agency in the WORLD made up evidence about Iraq containing TONS of chemical weapons, that were tagged by inspectors, which apparently disappeared, and Iraq REFUSED to do anything at all to account for them - and then their leader went as far as to proclaim his country possessed WMD's?

Until such time, THERE WERE weapons there accounted for by UN inspectors that were never accounted for. Then you have a LEADER proclaiming to have weapons and that HE WILL USE them.

Again, case closed.

DragonStryk72

05-24-2011, 01:01 AM

DragonStryk72

05-24-2011, 01:08 AM

Can you show ANYTHING at all to prove that ANY intel agency in the WORLD made up evidence about Iraq containing TONS of chemical weapons, that were tagged by inspectors, which apparently disappeared, and Iraq REFUSED to do anything at all to account for them - and then their leader went as far as to proclaim his country possessed WMD's?

Until such time, THERE WERE weapons there accounted for by UN inspectors that were never accounted for. Then you have a LEADER proclaiming to have weapons and that HE WILL USE them.

Again, case closed.

You mean aside from the intelligence agents who have come forward on the matter, that he's been posting for a few pages now? Or from Colin Powell, who was pretty firmly involved in all parts of the Iraq war?

You're telling me that Saddam kept playing like he had big weapons even though he didn't? Why might a ruler in an area that is continually on the brink of war, and just looking for an opening, do something like that? And why threaten a communal enemy that his militaristic neighbors also hate? Come on, Jim, Saddam was a weak case. He was a bastard, and the world's better off without him, but it doesn't change the body of evidence.

jimnyc

05-24-2011, 01:17 AM

You mean aside from the intelligence agents who have come forward on the matter, that he's been posting for a few pages now? Or from Colin Powell, who was pretty firmly involved in all parts of the Iraq war?

You're telling me that Saddam kept playing like he had big weapons even though he didn't? Why might a ruler in an area that is continually on the brink of war, and just looking for an opening, do something like that? And why threaten a communal enemy that his militaristic neighbors also hate? Come on, Jim, Saddam was a weak case. He was a bastard, and the world's better off without him, but it doesn't change the body of evidence.

You misunderstand, not a single bit about the accounted for, then missing, tons of chemical weapons have been disputed by the people Rev posted. In fact, til this very day those weapons have not been accounted for. Saddam went to his grave with whatever he knew, and not a single person in Iraq's government has ever provided information on their whereabouts and/or destruction. That alone was enough to go into Iraq, without even beginning to go into the 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of failure to comply. But again, nothing Rev has posted disputes the missing chemical weapons.

red states rule

05-24-2011, 04:50 AM

So then, why don't you support Obama? We had a vote.

Was foreign policy the main issue of the election in 2008 as it was in 2004?

I do not recall Obama giving a lame ass salute at the Dem convention and telling the fools applauding he was reporting for duty

red states rule

05-24-2011, 04:53 AM

1. any evidences of Blix corruption? Extra fat bank account, copies of Threatening letters, phone records ...a n y t h i n g? No.
2. We've been there for... What? 8 years. and haven't found anything. So the case should be closed right there. He wasn't lying.
3. Before the invasion everyone was fine with his reports and he has been consistent and measured. He wrote that "there may be" ...and there are documents that show[/B]... "that there are items are unaccounted for" which some took to mean "SADDAM HAS TONS O CHEMICAL AND BIO AND NUKE WMD's". When Blix in February and March tried to make the point that that was not necessarily the case. and The Iraqis Said they destroyed them.

He should be Judged for the Pedophilia. But his work in Iraq concerning inspections seems to have been confirmed as well.

Sadly I'm suspicious of just about everybody nowadays. So show me some evidence and I'll look at it in an as impartial way as i can. In this case many of OUR OWN Intel workers agree with the U.N.. and Our 8 years of finding NADA Confirm those early assessments of the people in and out of the U.S. gov't and U.N. that were of the opinion that Saddam was NOT in 2002 and 20003 in procession of WMDs. And that Blair Bush & crew were lying, that is, making up false evidence, twisting the lil info that was there and IGNORING evidence to the contrary.

Blix
form the February report you site.
Referring to the vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons (such as VX, sarin and anthrax) unresolved when UNSCOM was ejected in 1998, Blix said:

"If they exist they must be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.” He continued,

“This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions."

In the march 2003 report Blix felt comfortable that anything missing could be accounted for in a few "months".

Why should he waste his time risking to plant anything when he had most of the public bamblozaled and could get people to ignore any evidence that went against "the word of the president" Presidents don't lie (except for democrats). He (Cheney and Rumsfeld) knew that a certain segment of the people whipped into war fever and patriotism would back the president to the wall, though the wall ,past the wall. Let the President be true and everyone ELSE is a liar. Despite ANY evidence to the contrary. Plus who cares what they think 20 years from now just the 1st 5 years we have to keep a lid on it. once we're in it's hard to get out.

World trade center hmm why didn't you go with the big lie of global warming. I've spent much more time there. the gov't still seems to be pushing that as FACT but you think the gov't is lying about the science. Lying about the the solution. And Doing it for fun and profit. Why that rediculous the gov't wouldn't do that. someone would have said something and not written any books about it. and the republicans would have had hearings to expose it and people would be in jail by now.... :poke::tinfoil:

Rev if you are bucking for your own show at MSNBC you may damn well have it soon

You are a bigger conspiracy kook and history revisionist then Rachel Maddow. You would be coisidered a "mainstream journalist" and even be invited to appear on the Chris Matthews show with other "respected Washingion reporters"

Your posts have shown in your world you would let Saddam and OBL stay alive, while throwing the people who tried to keep you safe and alive in jail - and anything that blows your "facts" out o the water are part of a massive government conspiracy

What an upside down world you live in

red states rule

05-24-2011, 09:58 AM

and so much for the "murders" of inmates at GITMO

The story traced what can only be described as a military conspiracy to kill three inmates and Guantanamo bay, and then pass off their murders as suicides. AdWeek gives a rundown of the two stories - the official line offered by the military and that told by Scott Horton in his Harper's piece.

Whether or not the allegations are true, the fact that large number of reporters declined the scoop - and it was a huge one - due to what they perceived as factual inaccuracies or inconsistencies that remained in the final Harper's article demonstrates that this was not a bang-up reporting job.

Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News’ chief Pentagon correspondent, was another of those journalists. He worked on the story off and on for four months, during which time he reviewed “thousands of pages” of documents, interviewed Horton’s main source, and “talked to at least a dozen people.”

“Ultimately I just didn’t find the story credible, quite frankly,” Miklaszewski says. “I devoted a lot of time to it, and my conclusion was that it just didn’t seem possible that that many people could have been involved in a conspiracy and to have [the killings] remain secret. It stretched all credulity, I thought.”

Hersh confirmed to Adweek that he had dug into the story and dropped it too. A New York Times reporter was also approached by the parties who’d been pushing the allegations of homicide and cover-up at Guantánamo, a person close to the situation says.

Only after the big guys passed was the story shopped to Horton. He won for reporting, but in fact the story fell right into his lap, factual flaws and all.

“We couldn’t really believe it when the piece came out,” one of the reporters who looked into the story says. “I can’t believe Harper’s, I really can’t.”

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/05/24/controversy-continues-swirl-around-award-winning-gitmo-murder-story#ixzz1NHYLpwvq

revelarts

05-24-2011, 11:00 PM

You misunderstand, not a single bit about the accounted for, then missing, tons of chemical weapons have been disputed by the people Rev posted. In fact, til this very day those weapons have not been accounted for. Saddam went to his grave with whatever he knew, and not a single person in Iraq's government has ever provided information on their whereabouts and/or destruction. That alone was enough to go into Iraq, without even beginning to go into the 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of failure to comply. But again, nothing Rev has posted disputes the missing chemical weapons.

Hans Blix Made this Comment: "I don't know how you can have 100% certainty about the existence of weapons but 0% certainty on the location."

BLIX said that ALLLLLL of the issues EVER brought up would only take a few months to discover or clear up "IF ANY".

That the weapons had been destroyed according to Iraq officials other than the Crazy Saddam.

A few months to clear up the issue
No NEED FOR WAR. If Few months to find or decide if the 1991 "tagged" and "counted" "WMDs" weren't there.
NO NEED FOR WAR.
NO NEED FOR WAR.
NO NEED FOR WAR.

Bush said Mushroom cloud, AND ties between Iraq and 9-11,
Rumsfeld said He KNEW were they (WMDS) were "Around TaCrete North south of there"
Cheney said "We have confirmed that AlQuida and Iraqis Intel met before 9-11." then later he says "Well we Never have been able to confirm or not whether that meeting took place" he also said "We believe he's reconstituted nuclear weapons"

On NBC's Meet the Press last Sunday, March 16, 2003, Vice President Cheney audaciously reiterated an ominous note.

NBC: "And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?"

Cheney: "I disagree, yes. And you'll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree. Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong."

After 218 inspections of 141 sites over three months by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei charged that the U.S. had used faked and erroneous evidence to support the claims that Iraq was importing enriched uranium and other material, notably the aluminum tubes and small magnets for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have, to date, found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq," the chief atomic weapons inspector had told the U.N. Security Council on Friday March 7, 2003.

Powell's Chief of staff makes it clear.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UzkR1yvIRHA?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UzkR1yvIRHA?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Lies folks.

jimnyc

05-25-2011, 10:19 AM

Hans Blix Made this Comment: "I don't know how you can have 100% certainty about the existence of weapons but 0% certainty on the location."

BLIX said that ALLLLLL of the issues EVER brought up would only take a few months to discover or clear up "IF ANY".

Lies folks.

Tell me this, Rev - how could Blix have claimed they would have accounted for the thousands of tons of chemical weapons within a few months? They couldn't account for them up till that point, enough for them to put in the report that Iraq was in material breach for failing to cooperate and account for them. Seems like you want to cut out a few sentences of Blix's comments and hang your hat on them - but then refuse to see the reality of others. YOU CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR TONS OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN ANY WAY AT ALL, AND NEITHER COULD BLIX, AND IRAQ NEVER COOPERATED ON THAT ISSUE. This is fact and YOU CANNOT dispute it.

revelarts

06-07-2013, 10:29 PM

bump

gabosaurus

06-07-2013, 10:34 PM

I read this and because of the source it will not be relegated to conspiracy forum, but pray tell upon what you write your conclusion?

You don't get there from the article.

Republicans believe it is a conspiracy theory.
The rest of us know it is the truth.

BillyBob

06-07-2013, 10:35 PM

Republicans believe it is a conspiracy theory.
The rest of us know it is the truth.

What is the 'truth'?

jimnyc

06-08-2013, 06:41 AM

What is the 'truth'?

Would you like a conversation with her? Full of facts and links, less of the rhetoric? Good luck, never going to happen.

jimnyc

06-08-2013, 06:42 AM

Tell me this, Rev - how could Blix have claimed they would have accounted for the thousands of tons of chemical weapons within a few months? They couldn't account for them up till that point, enough for them to put in the report that Iraq was in material breach for failing to cooperate and account for them. Seems like you want to cut out a few sentences of Blix's comments and hang your hat on them - but then refuse to see the reality of others. YOU CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR TONS OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN ANY WAY AT ALL, AND NEITHER COULD BLIX, AND IRAQ NEVER COOPERATED ON THAT ISSUE. This is fact and YOU CANNOT dispute it.

bump

Did you bump in order to address my last post? :) Have you accounted for those tons of chemical weapons?

revelarts

06-08-2013, 07:27 AM

Did you bump in order to address my last post? :) Have you accounted for those tons of chemical weapons?

Blix said Just before the War , the weapons could be accounted for in a matter of months to the satifaction of the U.N.. He said that and Continues to say that war was unnecessary to secure that information or be satisfied that there was no threat.
However they haven't been account for in the past 10 years Jim and and No one is is fear of there lives or a mushroom cloud over them today. No one is claiming we need to invaded a country to secure them. we haven't searched the deserts with a fine tooth comb to find this horrible threat. Why because the threat was just HYPE.

the whole thing was hype.
that missing weapons factiod was just one of the excuses for war Jim. Not a legitimate reason.
Invading a country, the Lapp Goch (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?40741-New-Conservative-form-of-self-defense-LAPP-GOCH&p=637629#post637629) doctrine of Aggressive war, is a war crime. That's why Bush/cheney/rummy had Powell Lie to the U.N..

red states rule

06-08-2013, 07:59 AM

Republicans believe it is a conspiracy theory.
The rest of us know it is the truth.

If Bush lied about WMD's then so did all these Dems

“[W]e 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.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001

letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“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

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 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.” — Bob Graham, December 2002

“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

“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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

“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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/if-the-bush-administration-lied-about-wmd-so-did-these-people-version-3-0/

jimnyc

06-08-2013, 08:10 AM

Blix said Just before the War , the weapons could be accounted for in a matter of months to the satifaction of the U.N.. He said that and Continues to say that war was unnecessary to secure that information or be satisfied that there was no threat.
However they haven't been account for in the past 10 years Jim and and No one is is fear of there lives or a mushroom cloud over them today. No one is claiming we need to invaded a country to secure them. we haven't searched the deserts with a fine tooth comb to find this horrible threat. Why because the threat was just HYPE.

the whole thing was hype.
that missing weapons factiod was just one of the excuses for war Jim. Not a legitimate reason.
Invading a country, the Lapp Goch (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?40741-New-Conservative-form-of-self-defense-LAPP-GOCH&p=637629#post637629) doctrine of Aggressive war, is a war crime. That's why Bush/cheney/rummy had Powell Lie to the U.N..

You can't account for something that they didn't want to have accounted. They had MANY requests to account for the chemicals that were tagged in 1998. They disappeared. Saddam REFUSED requests to account for them.

You say no threat from them since 2001. For all we know these were a portion of what was recently alleged to be used in Syria. It's MORE than obvious that terrorists are still wanting to kill us and/or our allies, and I hope these chemicals are never used in an attempt. But I'm not willing to just shrug my shoulders and act like it's no big deal, over enough chemicals that can take down an entire country of people, or more if used appropriately.

You continue to call it hype. When inspectors literally see the weapons, places UN tags on them and make a report - that's not hype, that's fact and reality. You're more than welcome to ignore these facts, but don't expect others to just forget them as if they never existed. At least not reasonable people.

jimnyc

06-08-2013, 08:13 AM

If Bush lied about WMD's then so did all these Dems

Barely anyone seems to care that this is where the intel and discussion of WMD's started. But they're quick to claim that Bush and Co. made it all up. Did they also somehow go back in time to have so many others hold the same intel? Did they go back in time and have so many make these statements? Odd that the same people claiming things about Bush seem to have very little care as to where the intelligence claims started.

red states rule

06-08-2013, 08:16 AM

Barely anyone seems to care that this is where the intel and discussion of WMD's started. But they're quick to claim that Bush and Co. made it all up. Did they also somehow go back in time to have so many others hold the same intel? Did they go back in time and have so many make these statements? Odd that the same people claiming things about Bush seem to have very little care as to where the intelligence claims started.

It is amazing how that part of history is ignored

And you will note that many of those Dems are still in Congress or serving a Sec of Defense;
and they are held in high esteem in Liberalville

BillyBob

06-08-2013, 09:04 AM

If Bush lied about WMD's then so did all these Dems

The majority of dem Senators voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution.

BillyBob

06-08-2013, 09:09 AM

Barely anyone seems to care that this is where the intel and discussion of WMD's started. But they're quick to claim that Bush and Co. made it all up. Did they also somehow go back in time to have so many others hold the same intel? Did they go back in time and have so many make these statements? Odd that the same people claiming things about Bush seem to have very little care as to where the intelligence claims started.

Doesn't Congress have access to the same intel the POTUS has? Both the House and the Senate have Intelligence Committees.

BillyBob

06-08-2013, 09:16 AM

Would you like a conversation with her? Full of facts and links, less of the rhetoric? Good luck, never going to happen.

Thought I'd give her a chance, even though it's a longshot.

revelarts

06-08-2013, 09:31 AM

The majority of dem Senators voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution.

and what does that have to do with the intell being cooked.
either some of them knew it was cooked too or they were duped by it or they just didn't want to look weak.

revelarts

06-08-2013, 09:40 AM

Doesn't Congress have access to the same intel the POTUS has? Both the House and the Senate have Intelligence Committees.

No, not the same access , similar but not as direct or at hand. ANd some old retired Members of those committes have admitted that while they were on it they didn't even want to know everything the intel depts were doing.
Plus Cheney and Rummy wer working out of the office of special Plan in the pentagon cooking the intel and presenting that to the rest of Congress and to the president to give to the public.

jimnyc

06-08-2013, 10:51 AM

Doesn't Congress have access to the same intel the POTUS has? Both the House and the Senate have Intelligence Committees.

The chairman of the SIC at the time was a Democrat, Rockefeller. This intelligence committee received DIRECT briefings from the intel agencies. They received direct, verbal and written, reports from the FBI and CIA. Rockefeller himself has spoken out about the process and the committee receiving the updates. They overwhelmingly supported going forward in Iraq with this information. The next session committee had a (R) as chairman, but the majority of committee members were Democrat, also all involved in favor of going forward in Iraq. Do a search on these committees and you'll find that they were in fact briefed directly on all on-going intelligence.

Similarly, with Feinstein being the chairwoman now, the various intelligence agencies met very recently with them to give direct updates on the telephone records issue.

revelarts

06-08-2013, 12:37 PM

But Collen Powel and Col Wilkerson Sat with CIA Director Tennent the night before making phone call for various reports and confirmation on various intell and POWELL still got it wrong because he was lied too.
That's with the CIA Director in the same room for days and hours ahead of the presentation.
the congressional committees never have that level of access. And even if they had it they probably would get a similar song and dance.

No one is saying that ALLL of the intel was wrong, But SOME OF IT WAS LIES, some of it WAS OLD, Some of it was HALF TRUE.

BillyBob

06-08-2013, 12:48 PM

and what does that have to do with the intell being cooked.
either some of them knew it was cooked too or they were duped by it or they just didn't want to look weak.

It also reflects the fact that there was more than 1 reason to go into Iraq.

red states rule

06-08-2013, 12:48 PM

and what does that have to do with the intell being cooked.
either some of them knew it was cooked too or they were duped by it or they just didn't want to look weak.

Rev, sometimes you remind me of Col Flagg from MASH

"This is a major conspiracy. This is bigger then all of you"

I will get to the bottom of this even if I have to go all the way to the top"

revelarts

06-08-2013, 01:54 PM

It also reflects the fact that there was more than 1 reason to go into Iraq.

none legal

Little-Acorn

06-08-2013, 02:05 PM

I read this and because of the source it will not be relegated to conspiracy forum, but pray tell upon what you write your conclusion?

You don't get there from the article.

He wrote his conclusion first, then searched until he finally found an article to support it. Sort of.

red states rule

06-08-2013, 02:07 PM

none legal

If that would have been the attitude in DC after 9/11 we never would have had this priceless moment in US history

http://cayankee.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/hang.jpg

Robert A Whit

06-08-2013, 03:25 PM

...for those still in doubt

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeild and Blair knew Saddam was not a threat and ginned up evidence to lead the world to war against the people of Iraq. nearly million dead and counting.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeild and Blair are all war criminals.

Actually none are.

Anybody can disagree with the war, but the war was not criminal. That would be like saying that taking out Al Capone was criminal for the government to do.

Examine Saddam Hussein. He is the one that was executed as a criminal.

This nation had a long standing policy of being at war with Saddam.

Bush concluded Saddam's career.

Robert A Whit

06-08-2013, 03:31 PM

red states rule

06-08-2013, 03:43 PM

What makes you defend Saddam Hussein?

Why have you not raked Clinton over the coals for what he did to Iraq and Yugoslavia and so forth?

Why do you think Bush called it Iraqi Freedom and not the WMD war?

Bush acted to free Iraq. Plain and simple.

and take out a safe harbor for terrorists, terorist training camps, and stop Saddam from funding terrorist groups

revelarts

06-08-2013, 04:10 PM

none legal

What makes you defend Saddam Hussein?
Why have you not raked Clinton over the coals for what he did to Iraq and Yugoslavia and so forth?
Why do you think Bush called it Iraqi Freedom and not the WMD war?
Bush acted to free Iraq. Plain and simple.
1st what does any of that have to do with being legal.
•Defend Saddam? we were good friends with Saddam at one point , suddenly he can live. why He didn't do what we wanted him to. plain and simple.
•Clinton? yep he was Wrong too, Iraq Yugoslavia, China, Mena, Waco, etc etc.
•Iraqi Freedom ? seriously?

Invading another country to "Liberate" them was called an Invasion when the communism did it, but when we do it it's OK? no it's still an invasion.
And freeing the Iraqi people was not a Goal. the Neo-Cons didn't/don't care about the Iraqi People. If Saddam had played ball they would have left him in power.

and take out a safe harbor for terrorists, terorist training camps, and stop Saddam from funding terrorist groups
Saddam hated Muslim terrorist, fought them and gave the U.S. intell on them.

"http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/03/10/29959/exhaustive-review-finds-no-link.html#.UbOZXeuTp5sExhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

| /Stephanie Sinclair / Chicago Tribune

Story | Pentagon cancels release of controversial Iraq report (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/03/12/30172/pentagon-cancels-release-of-controversial.html)
PDF | Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/03/14/12/IraqPerspectivesProject.source.prod_affiliate.91.p df)
On the Web | More McClatchy coverage of the nation's capital (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/washington)

Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.
He and others spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because the study isn't due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday.
President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence....
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/03/10/29959/exhaustive-review-finds-no-link.html#storylink=cpy

But wait RED
How many /11 hijackers and leaders came from Saudi Arabia. Don't THEY Support Terrorist to this DAY. Bush was kissing those Guys , Obama bows to them. Don't they want to stop terrorist and save us?
"

The New York Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html?_r=2):

For more than a decade, questions have lingered about the possible role of the Saudi government in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, even as the royal kingdom has made itself a crucial counterterrorism partner in the eyes of American diplomats.
Now, in sworn statements that seem likely to reignite the debate, two former senators who were privy to top secret information on the Saudis’ activities say they believe that the Saudi government might have played a direct role in the terrorist attacks.
“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks....

Follow the funding for many of the current terror groups and you'll find Saudi Arabian cash.
But neither Bush nor Obama has drone struck ANYONE there. what give?

aboutime

06-08-2013, 04:19 PM

Rev, sometimes you remind me of Col Flagg from MASH

"This is a major conspiracy. This is bigger then all of you"

I will get to the bottom of this even if I have to go all the way to the top"

red states rule. Sounds like, the longer this stuff goes on, and on. The more rev proves to the rest of us how absolutely,
positively, and unquestionably he is terribly, educationally challenged.
You just insulted Col Flagg, associating him with rev.

red states rule

06-08-2013, 04:23 PM

Sorry Rev, I have to bust another bubble you are living in

and YOU accept the NY Times as a source?

Earlier this week, the Pentagon announced that an investigation into over 600,000 documents captured at the end of the invasion of Iraq showed no operational links to al-Qaeda — or at least, that’s how the media reported it (http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/03/report-shows-no.html). After a strange few days in which the Pentagon delayed the report, it finally hit the internet last night — and it’s clear that the analysis done by the media was superficial at best. If no operational “smoking gun” could be found, the report (http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf) still shows that Saddam Hussein had plenty of ties to all sorts of terrorist groups, including radical Islamist jihadis.
For instance, how about their support for The Army of Muhammad, a known al-Qaeda subsidiary operating in Bahrain? On pages 34-35 of the report, we find communications between their Bahrain agent and IIS headquarters confirming Army of Mohammad’s loyalty to Osama bin Laden. What is the response from Baghdad?

The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is working with Osama bin Laden. …
A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that “this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/14/saddam-supported-at-least-two-al-qaeda-groups-pentagon/

and Saddam links to terror, terrorist camps, and terror groups
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513

revelarts

06-08-2013, 04:29 PM

...The Pentagon-sponsored study's... executive summary says that Saddam's regime had interaction with terrorist groups, including Palestinian terror organizations and some pan-Islamic groups.

But "the predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq," says the summary, posted online by ABC News.

That confirms what many experts on Saddam's Iraq have long argued: that his security services were dedicated mainly to fighting threats to his rule....
The summary says that Saddam's secular regime increased cooperation with — and attempts to manipulate — Islamic fundamentalists after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, despite being leery of the Islamists. Iraqi leaders "concluded that in some cases, the benefits of associations outweighed the risks," it says

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/03/12/30172/pentagon-cancels-release-of-controversial.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/03/12/30172/pentagon-cancels-release-of-controversial.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/03/12/30172/pentagon-cancels-release-of-controversial.html#.UbOaXuuTp5s

sounds like the same thing were doing Syria Now, and in Iran now with the Jundullah terrorist Group.
And with Bin Ladin back in the old days, and with Alquida in Lybia

Bush and Obama terror fightin machines, except when they're not.

red states rule

06-08-2013, 04:33 PM

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/03/12/30172/pentagon-cancels-release-of-controversial.html#.UbOaXuuTp5s

sounds like the same thing were doing Syria Now, and in Iran now with the Jundullah terrorist Group.
And with Bin Ladin back in the old days, and with Alquida in Lybia

Bush and Obama terror fightin machines, except when they're not.

I will always remember Pres Bush for great moments like this in world history. If it wre up to you, Sadam would still be in power supporting and financing terror and slaughtering millions of people when ever he felt like it

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/U/2/saddam_ace_in_the_hole.jpg

revelarts

06-08-2013, 04:36 PM

I will always remember Pres Bush for great moments like this in world history. If it wre up to you, Sadam would still be in power supporting and financing terror and slaughtering millions of people when ever he felt like it

So should we attack Saudi Arabia Red? They have connection with 9/11. Bush said Saddam Did not.

red states rule

06-08-2013, 04:40 PM

So should we attack Saudi Arabia Red? They have connection with 9/11. Bush said Saddam Did not.

9/11 was not one of the reasons we took out Saddam

I know that ie has been told over and over by the kook left - but it is simply a lie

aboutime

06-08-2013, 05:26 PM

9/11 was not one of the reasons we took out Saddam

I know that ie has been told over and over by the kook left - but it is simply a lie

rev, and many other Bush haters like him always find easy ways to forget, or intentionally never mention how...Those 12 terrorists from Saudi Arabia, like OBL, had all been chased out of Saudi Arabia, and they were actually WANTED by several Middle Eastern nations as Convicts.
So. Rev. just doesn't want, or doesn't need to be FULLY HONEST...much like Obama who manages to always get to the edge of the HONESTY envelope by leaving out the most important aspects of the FACTS.

Voted4Reagan

06-08-2013, 06:58 PM

aboutime

06-08-2013, 07:28 PM

Iraq violated every Security council resolution put forth after the Gulf War.

After a violation of SC1441 it was too much.

We were justified

End of story .... put this truther conspiracy turd to bed.

V4R. As a veteran of the Gulf War. I understand how most people simply ARE NOT aware...there was never any TREATY with Saddam when George H.W. Bush declared an end to the shooting. It was just a Cease Fire, and included a NO-FLY ZONE over Iraq. Nothing more. So. When George W. Bush began the SHOCK and AWE campaign...after Members of Congress...from BOTH PARTIES agreed that Saddam had WMD's. It was just a continuation of the first...UNFINISHED war called Desert Shield, and Desert Storm.
Of course. All opponents who still call Bush a War Criminal....are still JUST AS DUMB as they were then.

BillyBob

06-08-2013, 07:38 PM

none legal

Legal? All the reasons were 'legal'. The US can invade any country it chooses for any reason it conjures up.

BillyBob

06-08-2013, 07:40 PM

So should we attack Saudi Arabia Red? They have connection with 9/11. Bush said Saddam Did not.

Who said we deposed Saddam because of 9-11?

revelarts

06-08-2013, 09:10 PM

Legal? All the reasons were 'legal'. The US can invade any country it chooses for any reason it conjures up.

yes thank you Bill that about sums it up.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ejvyDn1TPr8?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

just a slight change.

When AMERICA does it that means it's not illegal.

revelarts

06-08-2013, 10:01 PM

V4R. As a veteran of the Gulf War. I understand how most people simply ARE NOT aware...there was never any TREATY with Saddam when George H.W. Bush declared an end to the shooting. It was just a Cease Fire, and included a NO-FLY ZONE over Iraq. Nothing more. So. When George W. Bush began the SHOCK and AWE campaign...after Members of Congress...from BOTH PARTIES agreed that Saddam had WMD's. It was just a continuation of the first...UNFINISHED war called Desert Shield, and Desert Storm.
Of course. All opponents who still call Bush a War Criminal....are still JUST AS DUMB as they were then.

Iraq violated every Security council resolution put forth after the Gulf War.
After a violation of SC1441 it was too much.
We were justified
End of story .... put this truther conspiracy turd to bed.

Why did Bush Go to the U.N. with a Colon Powell loaded up with High Cal BS?
Because NONE of the above reasons were enough to sway the U.N. to grant the U.S. a Pass to Invade Iraq. None of it. Without the pass it would have been considered an illeagal war of aggression, A war Crime.

They had to sweeten the pot. or posion the waters not sure which metaphor is best here.
There may have been be enough for you fellas. Sure OK, I can't argue with that. But not enough for the rest off the world to agree to allow the 500 pound gorilla of the worlds greatest armed forces the lone super power to attack a 3rd world middle eastern nation headed by a tyrant (one of many). A country that was on the ropes in every way after the sanctions.

red states rule

06-09-2013, 08:42 AM

Bottom line is Rev

http://terrafunny.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/funny-pictures-cointoss.jpg

Voted4Reagan

06-09-2013, 10:02 AM

Bottom line is Rev

http://terrafunny.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/funny-pictures-cointoss.jpghttp://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z242/tyronespence/Jihad.jpg

Drummond

06-09-2013, 03:22 PM

Take a good look, Revelarts.

This isn't the first time I've posted such evidence on this forum. But hopefully it can now be the last. Unless, of course, arguments are still put forward which deny the truth of this evidence ?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3492930/Iraq-WMD-Declassified

5108

5109

5110

5111

aboutime

06-09-2013, 03:29 PM

Voted4Reagan

06-09-2013, 03:30 PM

Why did Bush Go to the U.N. with a Colon Powell loaded up with High Cal BS?
Because NONE of the above reasons were enough to sway the U.N. to grant the U.S. a Pass to Invade Iraq. None of it. Without the pass it would have been considered an illeagal war of aggression, A war Crime.

They had to sweeten the pot. or posion the waters not sure which metaphor is best here.
There may have been be enough for you fellas. Sure OK, I can't argue with that. But not enough for the rest off the world to agree to allow the 500 pound gorilla of the worlds greatest armed forces the lone super power to attack a 3rd world middle eastern nation headed by a tyrant (one of many). A country that was on the ropes in every way after the sanctions.

We were justified under 1441... and as Hostilities never ended officially we were still technically at war with Iraq.

Funny thing.... you keep forgetting to mention that at the time we argued in front of the UN that Koffi Anan and half his staf were on the Take. They were getting kickbacks from Saddam in the form of Oil Contracts that should have been going to the Oil for Food Program.

http://www.cfr.org/un/iraq-oil-food-scandal/p7631

The UN Security Council started the Oil-for-Food program (http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/) in 1996 to allow Iraq to sell enough oil to pay for food and other necessities for its population, which was suffering under strict UN sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War. But Saddam Hussein exploited the program, earning some $1.7 billion through kickbacks and surcharges, and $10.9 billion through illegal oil smuggling, according to a 2004 Central Intelligence Agency investigation (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/). Wide-scale mismanagement and unethical conduct on the part of some UN employees also plagued the program, according to the UN Independent Inquiry Committee (http://www.iic-offp.org/).

A September report faults UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, his deputy, and the UN Security Council for allowing Saddam Hussein to graft over $1 billion from the humanitarian operation. The committee’s January briefing paper charged UN management of the oil-for-food “operated in an ineffective, wasteful, and unsatisfactory manner,” leading to some $5 million in documented contractor overpayments, and “undoubtedly much higher” losses not discovered by the limited UN audits.

(END SNIP)

So dont tell me that the UN wasn't resisting a re-invasion based on humanitarian grounds. They were resisting because the Longer that Saddam was in Power the more they could line their pockets with Illegal Oil Money.

Total Graft on the part of The UN...from top to Bottom.

You lose this one REVELARTS... you should never have brought it back to life... It's a total fail on your part.

jimnyc

06-09-2013, 03:40 PM

This isn't the first time I've posted such evidence on this forum. But hopefully it can now be the last. Unless, of course, arguments are still put forward which deny the truth of this evidence ?

I've seen so much "wmd" stuff posted over the years, here and at other boards. Short of them being used, I don't think those against the war will ever find that they were any type of threat. Here's another good write-up on the weapons that were in Iraq, both what was in bulk and what was already weaponized. Many would like to say that the weapons were useless from the first Gulf War, but they don't understand the weaponization of the chemicals. The clock barely starts ticking until they are in fact weaponized, so the shelf life of much of these chemicals is VERY long. Then add in the MASSIVE amount of chemicals that simply disappeared...

Iraq's Chemical Weapon Program

Well before Operation Desert Storm or the U.N. inspections that followed it, Iraq had already begun to build chemical weapons. After launching a research effort in the 1970s, Iraq was able to use chemical weapons in its war against Iran and to kill large numbers of its own Kurdish population in the 1980s. During the first Gulf War, there were fears that Iraq would launch chemical-tipped missiles at its neighbors, particularly Israel, but Iraq refrained for fear of U.S. retaliation. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition troops again feared they might be hit with chemical weapons, though this did not come to pass.

By 1991, the United Nations had established its Special Commission (UNSCOM) and charged it with the task of destroying, removing, or rendering harmless "all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

By the time UNSCOM left Iraq in December 1998, it had eliminated a large portion of Iraq's chemical weapon potential. UNSCOM had overseen the destruction or incapacitation of more than 88,000 filled or unfilled chemical munitions, over 600 tons of weaponized or bulk chemical agents, some 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals, some 980 pieces of key production equipment, and some 300 pieces of analytical equipment. Notwithstanding these extraordinary achievements, there remained important uncertainties regarding Iraq's holdings of chemical weapons, their precursors, and munitions.

I. Chemical Agents

CS and Mustard Gases

After a successful research effort in the 1970s, Iraq began producing tear gas and mustard gas in the early 1980s. Tear gas is not lethal; its chief use is riot control. It causes pain to the eyes and nose, and uncontrollable coughing. Iraq first produced several tons of CS tear gas at its Salman Pak site, and by the early 1980s began military-scale production at the al-Muthanna State Establishment.

Iraq also began to produce sulphur mustard blister gas (HD) in the early 1980s, and by 1983 was able to employ it in chemical munitions against Iran. The primary effect of mustard gas is skin and eye blistering and lung irritation. Heavy exposure to an aerosol of mustard gas causes the lungs to fill with fluid and "drown" the victim. Mustard gas has a low death rate; generally only 2 to 3 percent of its victims perish.

Iraq initially told UNSCOM that 3,080 tons of mustard gas had been produced, but in 1995 Iraq reduced this amount to 2,850 tons. UNSCOM found Iraq's mustard gas to be at least 80% pure and determined that it could be stored for long periods of time, both in bulk and in weaponized form. In its distilled form, mustard gas has a long life, and can be stockpiled for decades. It is relatively easy to produce and load into munitions. Iraq admits filling some 550 artillery shells with mustard gas but says it misplaced them shortly after the first Gulf War.

Nerve Gas: Sarin and Tabun

Iraq moved up to producing the nerve gases sarin (GB) and tabun (GA) in 1984. These gases are highly toxic compounds that can penetrate the body either through contact with skin or eyes, or by inhalation. Just a few droplets will kill within minutes if inhaled or within hours if absorbed through the skin. The initial effects depend on the amount of contact with the agent and are almost immediate. Chemical nerve agents tend to have little or no incubation or latent period in the body. These agents act by attacking the central nervous system, causing rapid paralysis, respiratory failure and death by asphyxiation.

According to Iraq, the sarin and tabun it first produced was of poor quality. It was unstable, and the effectiveness of the agents diminished quickly after production. Iraq claimed that its production methods were later changed to eliminate the stabilization problem. Iraq argued that the tabun it produced was of such poor quality that Iraq turned its research, development and production effort to prolonging the viability of sarin instead.

Iraq adopted the "binary" method of weaponization, in which the components of sarin gas are stored separately until use, when they are mixed. The components of sarin are DF 2 and the alcohols cyclohexanol and isoproponal. Iraq manufactured DF 2 with a purity of 95%, and imported alcohols of 100% purity, so the detonation of its munitions could be expected to yield relatively pure sarin.

At first, Iraq told UNSCOM that it had produced an estimated 250 tons of tabun and 812 tons of sarin. In 1995, Iraq changed its estimates and reported it had produced only 210 tons of tabun and 790 tons of sarin. Thus, it is still uncertain how much tabun and sarin Iraq actually manufactured.

Nerve Gas: VX

Iraq appears to have turned its research efforts toward VX nerve gas in 1985. VX is the most toxic of all known chemical warfare agents. Its effects on the body are similar to those of sarin and tabun, paralyzing the nervous system and causing convulsions and rapid death when contact occurs. A very small amount on the skin (10 milligrams) is enough to kill a man. VX is an oily liquid that may persist in the environment for weeks or longer, thereby posing a major skin absorption risk.

Iraq admitted that it had six or seven research teams working on VX, and production is known to have taken place in 1987-88 and possibly until 1990. A team of U.N. experts concluded that there was clear evidence that Iraq had the capability to produce the agent because the Muthanna State Establishment, as early as 1984, had done industrial scale organophosphorous synthesis, a process much more difficult than that required to produce VX. One plant, in Dhia'a, was reconfigured to produce necessary components for VX by 1988. Iraq also admitted producing and procuring vast amounts of precursor agents for VX, including 58 tons of the chemical choline, a key VX ingredient. Iraq claimed that nearly all of its precursors had been destroyed by aerial bombing during the first Gulf War, and that what remained was secretly destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNSCOM estimated that by 1991, Iraq could have produced between 50 and 100 tons of VX gas. By 1998, UNSCOM estimated that Iraq was capable of producing 200 tons. Iraq at first told UNSCOM that it had only produced 240 kilograms of VX, but in 1996 admitted that it had produced 3.9 tons. Iraq provided documents stating that 2.4 tons of VX were produced in 1988 and the remainder in 1990. Iraq explained this low volume by claiming that it had scaled-up all its chemical weapons processes at al-Muthanna except VX, a claim UNSCOM rejected as incompatible with Iraq's massive R&D efforts. Iraq also claimed that it later abandoned the VX project because the gas was of poor quality and was unstable. Iraq never backed up its claims with verifiable evidence, so the total quantity of VX that Iraq produced is not known.

Total Chemical Agent Produced

Iraq claimed that its chemical weapons program yielded a total of 3,859 tons of useable agents. Iraq insisted that it only weaponized 3,315 tons and consumed 80% of those weaponized agents during the war with Iran. The true extent of Iraq's production and holdings of chemical agents has never been fully verified.

II. Precursors

Chemicals that serve as ingredients for making chemical weapon agents are known as "precursors." In the early stages of its chemical weapon program Iraq imported the necessary precursors. However, from 1986 to 1990, Iraq constructed and operated numerous plants and facilities (such as Fallujah 1, 2 and 3) for producing precursors on its own. Iraq told UNSCOM that during Iraq's entire chemical weapon program, which lasted from the mid-1970s through at least 1991, it produced and procured 20,150 tons of key precursor chemicals. Of that amount, Iraq claimed to have used 14,500 tons to produce chemical agents or other key precursor chemicals, leaving 5,650 tons of precursors unaccounted for. However, Iraq also claimed that only 3,915 tons of precursor agents remained inside the country as of January 1991, a noticeable discrepancy. Of that 3,915 tons, a total of 2,850 tons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision and the rest was said by Iraq to have been destroyed during the first Gulf War or destroyed by Iraq unilaterally.

III. Weaponization

After a chemical warfare agent is produced, it is loaded into a munition so that it can be fired at an adversary. This step is called weaponization.

Tear Gas and Mustard Gas

Iraq admitted that it deployed CS tear gas in both RPG-7 rocket propelled grenades and in 82mm and 120mm mortar shells. CS was also used to fill 250- and 500-gauge aerial bombs. In addition, Iraq admitted that it used both 250- and 500-gauge aerial bombs for mustard gas deployment, as well as 155mm artillery shells. Documentary evidence was found showing that Iraq also filled DB-2 aerial bombs with mustard gas, although Iraq claims that it filled only a few bombs for testing purposes. UNSCOM managed to destroy 12,792 of the 13,000 155mm artillery shells filled with mustard gas that Iraq had declared as remaining after the first Gulf War ended; however, Iraq also declared that it had lost 550 of these shells. UNSCOM was never provided with any substantial evidence to corroborate this claim. A few such shells were destroyed by subsequent inspectors in 2002-2003, but many were still unaccounted for after the second Gulf War.

Sarin

Iraq filled thousands of munitions with sarin or its binary components. These included 122mm rockets, DB-2 and R-400 aerial bombs, and thirty special warheads for the domestically produced Al-Hussein missile (a SCUD variant). The Al-Hussein warheads were discovered and subsequently destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. Iraq also claimed that it unilaterally destroyed 45 additional special warheads that were filled with chemical agents, including binary sarin components.

VX

Iraq denied ever having weaponized VX. In June 1998, however, UNSCOM found evidence of VX contamination on fragments of missile warheads. Iraq never provided an adequate explanation for this evidence, insisting instead that weaponization never occurred. Iraq did admit filling three aerial bombs and one 122mm rocket warhead with VX, but claimed that this was only for storage and corrosion tests. Iraq said that the tests were failures due to the low purity and poor stability of the gas. U.N. experts concluded, however, that weaponization of VX presented no technical difficulty for Iraq and may have been done.

Total Munitions

Iraq declared to UNSCOM that at one time it held over 200,000 special munitions, either filled or unfilled, specifically designed for chemical or biological weapons. These included grenades, mortar shells, aerial bombs, artillery shells, rockets and missile warheads. Of those, Iraq claimed that it used or disposed of approximately 100,000 munitions filled with chemical weapons during the period of its war with Iran, which ended in 1988. With regard to its holdings as of January 1991, Iraq asserted that 127,941 filled and unfilled special munitions remained in the country. During the first Gulf War -- according to Iraq -- 41,998 munitions were destroyed by Allied bombing, and Iraq also said that it unilaterally destroyed 29,662 munitions after the first Gulf War. The remaining 56,281 special munitions were either destroyed or accounted for under UNSCOM supervision.

Iraq gained the ability to manufacture R-400 and DB-2 aerial bombs, chemical containers for 122mm rockets, and Al-Hussein missile warheads. Iraq had to import all other munition shells, but UNSCOM believed that Iraq also had the ability to empty conventional artillery shells and aerial bombs and refill them with chemical agents. Iraq had a wide array of munitions specially designed for chemical use, and some of them were used for more than one chemical agent.

The role of the military in Iraq's chemical weapons program remained a secret. Iraq never disclosed any information to UNSCOM concerning deployment, military requirements, firing or bombing tables, field manuals on the use of chemical weapons, or the chain of command for chemical weapons. According to Iraq, there were never any field manuals specifically for chemical weapons, nor were any specific military units trained to use them. Iraq said responsibility for the planning of combat use for chemical weapons was handled at the Muthanna State Establishment by a special tactical group, but refused to provide any further information.

IV. Manufacturing Plants and Equipment

Although Iraq developed and produced chemical weapons at several secret locations, the main work was done at the Al-Muthanna State Establishment (MSE). It was the principal manufacturing site for both agents and munitions. It also served as a storehouse for precursor chemicals, filled chemical munitions and warfare agents in bulk. The MSE consisted of the Al Muthanna production facility, three precursor production sites at Al Fallujah, and munition stores at Muhammediyat. The Samarra site, also part of the MSE, was the prime production facility for Iraqi mustard gas and nerve agents.

Iraq also produced chemical munitions at a large complex known as Al Taji. UNSCOM found at Taji 6,000 empty canisters designed to be filled with chemical weapons for use in 122mm rockets.

In addition to its work on chemical agents and munitions, UNSCOM attempted to find and destroy hundreds of pieces of production equipment. Iraq admitted that 553 pieces of equipment located at 15 production plants had either made chemical precursors, agents or munitions or had been bought for that purpose. Nearly all of the equipment came from foreign companies. Most of it was at the MSE, including the facilities at Al-Fallujah. UNSCOM, in accounting for this equipment, reported that it was destroyed either as a result of the first Gulf War or under UNSCOM supervision. UNSCOM also destroyed an additional 197 pieces of glass production equipment that MSE had procured.

V. The Situation Prior to the Second Gulf War

After UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq in December 1998, U.S.-led forces bombed many sites believed to be chemical weapon plants. After the bombing, reports emerged that Iraq had rebuilt many of those sites, and that the sites appeared to be operating. It was inferred that Iraq had resumed its production of chemical weapons, and was adding new elements to the portion of its previous stockpile that had never been accounted for. No evidence confirming these inferences has emerged to date.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html

jimnyc

06-09-2013, 04:04 PM

I also remember a bunch of equipment that was used to make the weapons, which was accounted for and also tagged by inspectors, later went missing. I recall inspectors complaining that the equipment was missing, as were cameras that were left in place to monitor. Interesting that such equipment would disappear, as would TONS of chemicals that would be needed as well to make the weapons, and then the cameras monitoring things disappear too. Iraq pledged PRIOR to this to fully cooperate, but refused to help with all of the things that went missing AFTER already being accounted for. Some would like to overlook this and claim there was no threat. But again, if a gun goes missing in your household, and you have children there - and you never did find that gun, would you not consider it a threat until found?

Some will come back with the "Saddam was a great guy, kept the nutters in line and blah, blah blah..." He's also the same man that gassed his own citizens, with the very same type of chemicals that were missing.

Robert A Whit

06-09-2013, 04:18 PM