PDA

View Full Version : More weapons info



crawdaddio
10-06-2004, 04:03 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/international/middleeast/06CND-INTE.html?oref=login&hp

[ QUOTE ]

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 — Iraq had essentially destroyed its illicit weapons capability within months after the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, and its capacity to produce such weapons had eroded even further by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector in Iraq said in a report made public today.

........The report, by Charles A. Duelfer, said the last Iraqi factory capable of producing militarily significant quantities of unconventional weapons was destroyed in 1996. The findings amounted to the starkest portrayal yet of a vast gap between the Bush administration's prewar assertions about Iraqi weapons and what a 15-month postinvasion inquiry by American investigators concluded were the facts on the ground.

At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer concluded, Iraq had not possessed military-scale stockpiles of illicit weapons for a dozen years and was not actively seeking to produce them.

.......The report, by Charles A. Duelfer, said the last Iraqi factory capable of producing militarily significant quantities of unconventional weapons was destroyed in 1996. <hr /></blockquote>

Of course, the rhetoric from the white house has changed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9790-2004Oct5?language=printer

[ QUOTE ]
The Bush administration has held out the possibility that illicit weapons and their components were secreted by Hussein across the border into Syria. This may still be true, but Duelfer's team did not find any proof to support this notion, the official said. "They have no evidence of this," the official said. "It's an unresolved issue." Syria denies it aided the hiding of illicit materials.

.......... Yesterday, administration officials discussed some of the report's findings publicly, arguing that it showed Hussein was a long-term threat even though no weapons of mass destruction were found.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan called Hussein's effort to evade the U.N. sanctions "very revealing." "We all thought that we would find stockpiles, and that was not the case," McClellan said.

............the official said Duelfer will tell Congress in the report and in testimony today that Hussein intended to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction programs if he were freed of the U.N. sanctions that prevented him from getting needed materials.
......."Intentions do not constitute a growing danger," Harman said. "It's hardly mushroom clouds, hardly stockpiles," she added, a reference to administration rhetoric used in the run-up to the war. <hr /></blockquote>

I still assert that Bush (but mostly Cheney,Wolfy and Rummy) wanted this war for reasons I can guess at, but still remain unknown. We were LIED TO. (period)

Peace
DC

Fair_Play
10-06-2004, 04:29 PM
Heck,

<font color="blue"> Who woulda thunk? </font color>

Isn't hindsight always 20/20?

(Shucks, poor Saddam, he coulda retired an gotten a job teachin
Muslim kinnergarden!)*

Alll the Best,

Fair Play

Somebody should tell Saddam to sue - he can get Johnny Whiz Edwards as counsel!

highsea
10-06-2004, 04:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> We were LIED TO. (period) <hr /></blockquote>
The year is 1998. Saddam has kicked out UN inspectors once again, they would not return to Iraq for 5 years.....

[ QUOTE ]
President Clinton ordered air strikes Dec. 16 against Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Warships and combat aircraft began bombarding the defiant Gulf state at 5 p.m. EST -- 1 a.m. in Baghdad, the Iraqi capital.

..."Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

...Butler's conclusions, Clinton said, proved to be "stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing." Instead of living up to its agreement, he said, "Iraq has abused its final chance."

He said Iraq had placed new restrictions on the inspectors, further obstructed inspections and failed to turn over all requested documents. In one instance, the Iraqis removed all documents, furniture and equipment from a building prior to a U.N. inspection.

Butler's report concluded Iraq has ensured U.N. inspectors could make no progress toward disarmament. Even if the inspectors could stay in Iraq, Clinton said, their work would be a sham.

"Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness," he said. "Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, the Iraqi dictator has disarmed the inspectors."

Clinton said he and his national security advisers agreed that Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. He said he deemed military action necessary to prove the international community, led by the United States, had not lost its will. Failure to act, Clinton said, would have "fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region."


Albert Gore, 16 December 1998

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people."

Thomas Daschle, 1998

a 1998 use-of-force resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." "We have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?"


Senator John Kerry, 23 February 1998

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."<hr /></blockquote>There are hundreds of statements like this in the record. Why is it that the left, with perfect 20/20 hindsight portrays Bush as the mastermind of some kind of grand plot to deceive the world about Iraq? Just how much influence do you think GW had on the Clinton administration?

Is it really necessary to completely ignore history in order to criticize the President of the United States?

Qtec
10-07-2004, 04:05 AM
Lets get up to date.
Weapons inspector Hans Blix said there were no stockpiles or nuclear activity, but they needed more time to be sure. At one point he accused the US of holding back intelligence because every time the US said'inspect this place', it turned out to be a waste of time.
When GW says "they [eg Kerry etc] saw the same intelligence reports that I did", thats probably true. He probably got a summary, not the whole file. The evidence presented certainly implied that Saddam was an 'imminent threat'. Something that we know today to be false.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc saw ALL the evidence,including that which disproved or cast doubt on their conclusions. The fact is, they were only looking for evidence that would give them an excuse to invade Iraq, a decision that they had already made.

A little history.

20 years ago, Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam .
In his pocket he had a personal letter from R.Reagan syaing how much he would like to be friends!

Iraqi documents say that Iraq used at least 17,000 chemical bombs against Iran and the Kurds.

[ QUOTE ]

United States Interests Section in Iraq Cable from William L. Eagleton, Jr. to the Department of State. "Iraqi Warning re Iranian Offensive," February 22, 1984.

Between presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld's two visits to Iraq to seek ways to improve U.S.-Iraq relations and to identify measures to assist Iraq's war efforts, the Iraqi military issues a statement declaring that "the invaders[Iran] should know that for every harmful insect there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it whatever their number and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the Mission to the European Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations. "U.N. Human Rights Commission: Item 12: Iranian Resolution on Use of Chemical Weapons by Iraq," March 14, 1984.

The State Department instructs the U.S. delegate to the United Nations to get the support of other Western missions for a motion of "no decision" regarding Iran's draft resolution condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons. Failing that, the U.S. is to abstain on the resolution.

The U.S. is to emphasize points made in a recent State Department press conference, including the assertion that "The USG evenhandedly condemns the prohibited use of chemical weapons whenever it occurs."

Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act
<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Department of State, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs Information Memorandum from Jonathan T. Howe to George P. Shultz. "Iraq Use of Chemical Weapons," November 1, 1983.

Officials from the State Department's Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs tell Secretary Shultz that the department has additional information confirming Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons. They note, "We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, presumably from Western firms, including possibly a U.S. foreign subsidiary." The issue is to be added to the agenda for an upcoming National Security Council meeting, at which measures to assist Iraq are to be considered. The officials note that a response is important in order to maintain the credibility of U.S. policy on chemical warfare.

Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act

<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Iraq attacked Iran. The US and others supported Saddam even when they knew he was using WMDs and even though he was the agressor.


[ QUOTE ]
There are hundreds of statements like this in the record. Why is it that the left, with perfect 20/20 hindsight portrays Bush as the mastermind of some kind of grand plot to deceive the world about Iraq? <font color="blue"> If not Bush, then who? </font color> Just how much influence do you think GW had on the Clinton administration?

Is it really necessary to completely ignore history in order to criticize the President of the United States? <font color="blue">I dont ignore it, do you? </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Q

crawdaddio
10-07-2004, 09:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> There are hundreds of statements like this in the record. Why is it that the left, with perfect 20/20 hindsight portrays Bush as the mastermind of some kind of grand plot to deceive the world about Iraq? <font color="blue">I think it's because the facts that have become available since all the "WMD's" and "links to al qaeda" hubbub before the invasion are clearly showing that Bush, and more importantly his admin., had intent to push this war through even though they had no actual evidence to substantiate their claims. </font color> Just how much influence do you think GW had on the Clinton administration?<font color="blue">None. </font color>

Is it really necessary to completely ignore history in order to criticize the President of the United States?
<hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">I do not ignore history. I am fully aware that Saddam had for years played his little game with UNSCOM. He was an evil man. He wanted to obtain WMD's. It appears, however, (I base this mainly from this report and others from UNSCOM)that he had great trouble keeping his programs going ever since desert storm in '91.
I am trying to make one point only here. That Bush and Co. KNEW their intel was shaky at best and LIED, bolstered their evidence in front of the american people and the world. Many people have died as a result of a war with a country that did not pose a clear and present danger to americans.

Peace
~DC</font color>

highsea
10-07-2004, 10:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>I am trying to make one point only here. That Bush and Co. KNEW their intel was shaky at best and LIED, bolstered their evidence in front of the american people and the world. <hr /></blockquote> Then you need to present your evidence of this. You cite assessments that were written in 2004, after the US has had 18 months in Iraq to see for ourselves. Interesting that the Pentagon would order a complete review of Iraq's WMD capabilities when, according to you, they already knew they didn't exist. Why didn't they just whitewash it or plant some phony evidence?

If you intend to show that Bush knew in advance that Iraq had no WMD's, you need to show us the evidence from prior to the invasion.

Show me some UNSCOM pr UNMOVIC reports that clearly state that Iraq was not in posession of weapons in violation of sanctions. Show me a CIA report. Anything that shows the preponderance of evidence was that Saddam was in compliance will do fine.

One thing that this report shows, which you ignore, is that Saddam wanted everyone to believe he still had the weapons. He even wanted his own generals to believe it, because he was afraid of coup within his regime. It's a little ironic that this deception brought about the very downfall it was intended to prevent (albeit from a different source).

Note the report states that the weapons capacity was largely destroyed in 1991. This should show you that the Clinton Administration (not to mention the rest of the world) was also fooled by Saddam for 8 years. Just reread the statements I posted from 1998.

What you and the rest of the left have failed to show is that the US had any intelligence that would clearly show that Saddam's weapons were destroyed, prior to the invasion in April 2003. There hadn't been an inspection in 5 years.

So were did Bush's secret intelligence come from? Scott Ritter? A disgruntled ex-inspector who was an apologist for Iraq? Are you willing to bet the security of the Nation on that? I guess shouldn't ask that, because I suspect you are.

highsea
10-07-2004, 10:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Weapons inspector Hans Blix said there were no stockpiles or nuclear activity, but they needed more time to be sure. At one point he accused the US of holding back intelligence because every time the US said'inspect this place', it turned out to be a waste of time.<hr /></blockquote>Provide your source, please. I would like to hear it in Blix's words if you don't mind. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>When GW says "they [eg Kerry etc] saw the same intelligence reports that I did", thats probably true. He probably got a summary, not the whole file. The evidence presented certainly implied that Saddam was an 'imminent threat'. Something that we know today to be false. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc saw ALL the evidence,including that which disproved or cast doubt on their conclusions. The fact is, they were only looking for evidence that would give them an excuse to invade Iraq, a decision that they had already made.<hr /></blockquote>Qtec, please don't try to tell me you are privy to classified US intelligence data. You do not know what Cheney, Rumsfield, or Wolfowitz saw or didn't see. You don't know the contents of the President's intelligence briefs, or what reports he read.

Kerry was a member of the Senate Intelligence Commitee. Had he showed up for meetings, he would have had access to the intelligence. I don't know what he saw or didn't see. All I know is he skipped about 75% of the meetings.

As to US support of Iraq in the 80-88 war with Iran, I have already spoken on that extensively in previous threads. To understand it, you need to take it in the context of the cold war. I'm not going to bother repeating myself. Let's not hijack Crawdaddio's thread.

crawdaddio
10-07-2004, 12:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
If you intend to show that Bush knew in advance that Iraq had no WMD's, you need to show us the evidence from prior to the invasion.
<font color="blue"> I apologize, you're missing my point. I don't mean the administration knew he DID NOT have these WMD's. They could not prove that he did or did not. The intelligence gathering was biased and pressured by the admin. to show the results they desired. Rumsfeld admitted in a speech recently (contradicting earlier sound bytes) that he had not seen any hard evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. Hence, no real grounds for invasion. </font color>
Show me some UNSCOM pr UNMOVIC reports that clearly state that Iraq was not in posession of weapons in violation of sanctions. Show me a CIA report. Anything that shows the preponderance of evidence was that Saddam was in compliance will do fine.
<font color="blue">Again, show me the proof that he WAS in posession of said weapons. This is something that you have stated in the past. I.e. centrifuges, sarin, etc...I think the above report pretty much declares that Saddam's WMD programs were in shambles at the time of our invasion. </font color>
One thing that this report shows, which you ignore, is that Saddam wanted everyone to believe he still had the weapons. He even wanted his own generals to believe it, because he was afraid of coup within his regime. It's a little ironic that this deception brought about the very downfall it was intended to prevent (albeit from a different source).
<font color="blue">I did not ignore it simply because I did not quote it. I agree. </font color>
Note the report states that the weapons capacity was largely destroyed in 1991.<font color="blue">Haven't you made statements that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear programs as late as 1995? Do you agree with these (Duelfer's) findings? </font color> This should show you that the Clinton Administration (not to mention the rest of the world) was also fooled by Saddam for 8 years. Just reread the statements I posted from 1998.

What you and the rest of the left have failed to show is that the US had any intelligence that would clearly show that Saddam's weapons were destroyed, prior to the invasion in April 2003. There hadn't been an inspection in 5 years.
<font color="blue">As I said, I don't think Bush and buddies knew Saddam DID'NT have said weapons, but they didn't know positively that he DID either. No evidence, no conviction. </font color>
So were did Bush's secret intelligence come from? Scott Ritter? A disgruntled ex-inspector who was an apologist for Iraq? Are you willing to bet the security of the Nation on that? I guess shouldn't ask that, because I suspect you are. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">Thanks for that little dig at my character, which you know very little about.

Peace
~DC </font color>

Qtec
10-07-2004, 12:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Provide your source, please. I would like to hear it in Blix's words if you don't mind. <hr /></blockquote>

Blix drove a stake through the heart of a key U.S. accusation: that Iraq has mobile bioweapons labs. UN inspectors have followed up on intelligence from the CIA and examined mobile food testing laboratories, mobile workshops, and large containers holding seed processing equipment. They've found no evidence of mobile bioweapons labs. Blix also skewered U.S. claims that Saddam is hiding his weapons of mass destruction underground. The UN inspectors have used ground-penetrating radar and visited sites recommended by the CIA and British intelligence, but have found no evidence of underground activity, converted subway tunnels, buried mobile bioweapons labs, or other such fantasies.

Blix also stated a preference for "twice the amount of high quality information about sites to inspect than twice the number of expert inspectors" -- a direct request for the U.S. and Britain to quit screwing around and give the inspection teams more and better intelligence

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0310inspdis.htm



Inspectors Call US Tips 'Garbage'
By Mark Phillips
CBS News
February 20, 2003

While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases.

CBS News Correspondent Mark Phillips reports the U.N. has been taking a precise inventory of Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missile arsenal, determining how many there are and where they are.

Discovering that the al-Samoud 2 has been flying too far in tests has been one of the inspectors' major successes. But the missile has only been exceeding its 93-mile limit by about 15 miles and that, the Iraqis say, is because it isn't yet loaded down with its guidance system. The al-Samoud 2 is not the 800-mile-plus range missile that Secretary of State Colin Powell insists Iraq is developing.

In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.

U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."

Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."

Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."

The inspectors do acknowledge, however, that they would not be here at all if not for the threat of U.S. military action.

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0310inspdis.htm

Q

highsea
10-07-2004, 01:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr><font color="blue">Haven't you made statements that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear programs as late as 1995? Do you agree with these (Duelfer's) findings? </font color><hr /></blockquote>I was only referring to general statement in the beginning of the report. The report backs up my previous statements about Saddam's desire to reconstitute his WMD programs, including his nuclear bomb plans as late as 1995. Work was continuing on this, just not on a large scale. But it's very clear that Saddam was saving the program to start back up when the pressure lifted. I have presented the evidence on this previously, including CNN pictures of centrifuge parts, statements by defectors from Saddam's nuke program, evidence garnered from Libya, etc.

I agree with Duelfer's report, but it doesn't contradict anything that I already knew, or have stated in the past. It also leaves unanswered the question of whether or not weapons have made their way to Syria, and there is good evidence to suggest that this actually did take place. The report, to my knowledge, doesn't address this issue, at least not in depth.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> <font color="blue">As I said, I don't think Bush and buddies knew Saddam DID'NT have said weapons, but they didn't know positively that he DID either. No evidence, no conviction. </font color><hr /></blockquote>Well, that is different than what you say in your OP. That's a long way from Bush KNEW that the WMD's didn't exist and LIED to the world about the reasons for going into Iraq. If Saddam's own General's didn't know, and he was intentionally misleading the world, how can you reasonably expect anyone to be 100% sure? As I pointed out, the Clinton Administration had been saying the same thing for 8 years. I fail to understand how any reasonable person can consider this a fabrication of the Bush White House.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr><font color="blue">Thanks for that little dig at my character, which you know very little about.</font color> <hr /></blockquote>Well, OK, that was a cheap shot. I apologize if I offended you. My point was simply that in Bush's estimation, the US could not afford to take the chance. Given what we knew then, I agree with his decision.

highsea
10-07-2004, 01:57 PM
Q, never mind. I will try to dig up Blix's report myself. I'm not interested in his statements as filtered through the media. It's tough enough doing the fact checking and screening out your bias without adding in Znet's and CBS's selective editing.

crawdaddio
10-07-2004, 03:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr><font color="blue">Haven't you made statements that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear programs as late as 1995? Do you agree with these (Duelfer's) findings? </font color><hr /></blockquote>I was only referring to general statement in the beginning of the report. The report backs up my previous statements about Saddam's desire to reconstitute his WMD programs, including his nuclear bomb plans as late as 1995. Work was continuing on this, just not on a large scale.<font color="blue">
...........Despite the U.S. intelligence judgment that Iraq in 2002 had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, Duelfer reported that after 1991, Baghdad's nuclear program had "progressively decayed." He added that the Iraq Survey Group investigators had found no evidence "to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

There was an attempt to keep nuclear scientists together and two scientists were discovered to have saved documents and technology related to the uranium enrichment program, but they appeared to be the exception.

Although some steps were taken that could have helped restart the nuclear program, using oil-for-food money, Duelfer concluded that his team "uncovered no indication that Iraq had resumed fissile material or nuclear weapons research and development activities since 1991."

source:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;cid=1802&amp;ncid=1802&amp;e=1&amp;u=/washpost/20041007/ts_washpost/a12115_2004oct6

"He also said there was almost no sign that a significant nuclear weapons project was under way."

source:(fox? news?)http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132709,00.html

"It appears that he did not vigorously pursue those programs after the inspectors left," a Bush administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity in advance of the report's release.

source:http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/9843814.htm
</font color> But it's very clear that Saddam was saving the program to start back up when the pressure lifted. <font color="blue">I agree with you there. </font color> I have presented the evidence on this previously, including CNN pictures of centrifuge parts, statements by defectors from Saddam's nuke program, evidence garnered from Libya, etc.

I agree with Duelfer's report, but it doesn't contradict anything that I already knew, or have stated in the past. <font color="blue">Since we don't have the actual report out yet, I don't know how you can say this. From what I have read about it in various news articles, I think it does contradict the assertion that Iraq had ANY military scale WMD programs in effect. It appears to me that this report will show that, at the time of invasion, Saddams WMD programs were virtually non-existent due to sanctions. </font color> It also leaves unanswered the question of whether or not weapons have made their way to Syria, and there is good evidence to suggest that this actually did take place.<font color="blue">Show me some.
"The Bush administration has held out the possibility that illicit weapons and their components were secreted by Hussein across the border into Syria. This may still be true, but Duelfer's team did not find any proof to support this notion, the official said. "They have no evidence of this," the official said. "It's an unresolved issue." Syria denies it aided the hiding of illicit materials."
source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9790-2004Oct5?language=printer </font color> The report, to my knowledge, doesn't address this issue, at least not in depth.

<hr /></blockquote>

crawdaddio
10-07-2004, 03:39 PM
Just wanted to get this one in too...........

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/9843814.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002, 6 1/2 months before the invasion:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said then. "There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us." <hr /></blockquote>

Cheney today:
"Oopsy, my bad." /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Peace
~DC

highsea
10-07-2004, 03:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>....Since we don't have the actual report out yet, I don't know how you can say this.<hr /></blockquote>I should have said "based on what has been reported so far", nothing has contradicted what I have said previously.

I will refrain from any further speculation about the final contents of the report. I will predict that it will say substantially the same thing as the Kay report, and leave it at that.

Ross
10-07-2004, 03:46 PM
I really think people spend too much time on whether someone "lied" or not. The overly simplistic idea is that if you can prove someone lied, then you have shown they have bad character. Not true though. People "lie" everyday in small ways ("I'm doing great!" or "Yes, your haircut looks fine.") or bigger ways ("I've never met you before tonight, Mr. Edwards.", sorry, cheap shot). And sometimes leaving out info is as misleading as anything you say. Or couching information in a certain way.

The more important question is were you trying to give a faithful representation of reality, and if not, why not? Clinton lied to the country and to his colleagues and friends about the bj. Why? Certainly because he didn't want the scandal and he didn't want his wife to know. He lied under oath, which makes it worse, but his reasons were still personal and not political.

I think what the Bush administration did was to selectively look at and report info that supported an early desire to go to war. When dissenting info came in (like all of the reports that the tubes were likely not for nuclear centrifuges) this info was either ignored, minimized, or omitted. When some internal intelligence told the admin that Chalabi and his defectors were unreliable and had their own agenda, the admin ignored that assessment, and reported their claims without caveats. When a shred of evidence of an Al Qaida connection was discovered, the info was trumpeted repeatedly in speeches.

The effect of all of this was to not give the country a faithful representation of reality. If they did, here is what they would have said:
<ul type="square">
"We don't know if Saddam has an active WMD program or not. Some info suggest he does, other suggest he doesn't. Here's what defectors say but remember they have their own agenda. Here is what the weapons inspectors say.

We have heard isolated reports of contacts between Al Qaida and Saddam but we have no evidence that Saddam ever helped Al Qaida significantly. We don't think Saddam was at all involved with 9/11. But Saddam has supported suicide bombers against Israel so we don't trust him not to shelter Al Qaida in the future.

We still think we should invade though because: Saddam may have WMD's, if not he might develop them fairly quickly, he has a very aggressive history, and we don't think even stepped up inspections will be sufficient to monitor his weapons programs, and we think having a democracy in the ME is the best way to keep the whole region stable. This is important for security but more importantly to ensure a stable and reliable access to oil supplies that our economy needs. " [/list]

If the admin had said this, and reported evidence both for an against the presence of an active WMD program, the nation and congress could have made an informed and balanced decision whether invading was worth it. But they didn't. They suppressed info that didn't support the decision to invade and pushed the other info as hard as they could. The question is why?

My answer is that they didn't trust the country and the rest of the world to make what they saw as the "right" decision if they were given a fair and balanced statement of the contradictory evidence. Bush/Cheney and cohort decided that Iraq needed to be invaded so the admin decided to "sell the war" rather than stating their view and then listening to the country's response. Did they lie? Probably a few times -- Condi telling the country the tubes absolutely could only have 1 purpose, when she knew that many experts disagreed for example. But the main thing they did was listen and report information selectively. They even blinded themselves at times to contradictory evidence. And their goal in not giving an accurate and balanced assessment of the evidence was to influence US and world military policy. Of course all administrations massage their message to fit their agenda somewhat. The question here is do you think the degree to which this admin slanted the info and the reasons they did it constitute a major deception? And was it bad enough that they shouldn't be re-elected? We all get to decide Nov. 2.

highsea
10-07-2004, 05:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>It also leaves unanswered the question of whether or not weapons have made their way to Syria, and there is good evidence to suggest that this actually did take place.<hr /></blockquote><font color="blue">Show me some.</font color><hr /></blockquote>I posted some time back about the attempted attack on Amman. Al-Qaeda operatives from Iraq plotted to make a chemical attack in Jordan with 3 truckloads of chemicals, including Sarin and VX. The trucks were intercepted coming in from Syria. Here is a CNN blurb on the plot:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

David kay, in his interim report on Iraq's WMD's also raised the question of weapons transfers to Syria.

There is also the case of a Syrian journalist who defected to France last January. He is dying of cancer, and he reported that friends in Syrian Intelligence had disclosed to him 3 sites where chemicals from Iraq were buried. "Unofficially speaking", Israeli intelligence has confirmed these sites. The son of the Syrian Defense Minister is said to be the one who arranged to take the chemicals and hide them.

There is some indication that Syria is now trying to dispose of this stuff.

The Sudanese Government recently demanded that Syria empty a warehouse in Khartoum that was storing missiles and WMD components.

There's lots more, but I can not post it. But keep an eye on Syria in the upcoming weeks. You may be surprised at some of the things you see.

crawdaddio
10-07-2004, 09:06 PM
Good post Ross. Once again you convey almost exactly my view on this subject, much better than I can. I like this quote:

[ QUOTE ]
They even blinded themselves at times to contradictory evidence. And their goal in not giving an accurate and balanced assessment of the evidence was to influence US and world military policy. Of course all administrations massage their message to fit their agenda somewhat. The question here is do you think the degree to which this admin slanted the info and the reasons they did it constitute a major deception? And was it bad enough that they shouldn't be re-elected? We all get to decide Nov. 2. <hr /></blockquote>

Tap, tap my friend.

Peace
~DC

highsea
10-08-2004, 04:57 AM
There is a lot going on behind the scenes in the ME that the public does not, and will not ever hear about. All I can really say is try to read between the lines.

Assad has come to the conclusion that his previous relationship with Saddam is now a liability. The guy's not an idiot, and shouldn't be taken for one. A similar situation that we made with Libya is happening in Syria. Assad can never publicly admit to receiving weapons from Iraq, but everyone knows he did.

Very quietly, Syria has agreed to withdraw their troops from Lebanon and make peace with Israel, provided that the US will protect Assad politically. We have agreed to this. Last week, they moved 3000 troops out of Beirut and repositioned them on the border. This is not a little thing. It represents a fundamental shift in a 20 year old position.

Israel hit (I should not say hit, they assassinated) the leader of Hamas right in the heart of Damascus, and Assad downplayed the strike. In fact, Syria made a public statement that no reprisals would be taken from their terrritory. (Israel is in a pinch, but the Mossad are not a bunch of nice guys. Don't confuse them for friendlies.)

The big obstacle for Syria, of course is the jehadis. Syria has been in bed with them for a long time, and Assad is afraid they will start targeting Damascus if he makes overt gestures to the US and Israel. And rightly so (from his perpsective, anyway).

Very quietly, and in the background, the US will collect and dispose of any inconvenient chemical weapons. This is in our best interest. There will be no parades.

Syria is obviously concerned about Iran, so we will be left in a situation where we have to be ready to counter Iran if they start moving against Syria. That's why Iran is supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

I'm not trying to be pendantic, just offering a little dose of real world. Some will approve , and some will not.

Qtec
10-08-2004, 02:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>It also leaves unanswered the question of whether or not weapons have made their way to Syria, and there is good evidence to suggest that this actually did take place.<hr /></blockquote><font color="blue">Show me some.</font color><hr /></blockquote>I posted some time back about the attempted attack on Amman. Al-Qaeda operatives from Iraq plotted to make a chemical attack in Jordan with 3 truckloads of chemicals, including Sarin and VX. The trucks were intercepted coming in from Syria. Here is a CNN blurb on the plot:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/ <font color="red">Nowhere in your link does it mention Sarin,VX or that the chemicals came from Syria.In fact the terrorists themselves[ in their public confessions made on tV]claim that money was sent from Syria to Jordan in order for them to purchase the 'chemicals'. </font color>

David kay, in his interim report on Iraq's WMD's also raised the question of weapons transfers to Syria.

There is also the case of a Syrian journalist who defected to France last January. <font color="red">Oh yes, we know how reliable defectors are!!! Most of the good intelligence on Iraq, which turned out to be false was provided by defectors. </font color> He is dying of cancer, and he reported that friends in Syrian Intelligence had disclosed to him 3 sites where chemicals from Iraq were buried. "Unofficially speaking", Israeli intelligence has confirmed these sites. <font color="red"> Didnt the Israelis also provide , good, intelligence to the US about Saddam,s WMDs which also turned out to be false? </font color> The son of the Syrian Defense Minister is said to be the one who arranged to take the chemicals and hide them. <font color="red"> Why? </font color>

There is some indication that Syria is now trying to dispose of this stuff. <font color="red"> ???? </font color>

The Sudanese Government recently demanded that Syria empty a warehouse in Khartoum that was storing missiles and WMD components.

There's lots more, but I can not post it. But keep an eye on Syria in the upcoming weeks. You may be surprised at some of the things you see. <hr /></blockquote>


I,m surprised about you drawing conclusions based on rumour and heresay!

Imagine you are Assad.
The full force of the US and British armies are in Iraq and attack is imminent.The reason for this invasion is the claim that Saddam has WMDs and he is a threat. All the Coalition has to do to justify their attack is to find some WMDs. Spy satelites are constantly scaning the whole country,drones,spy planes and total air superiority ensure that nothing goes unnoticed.
Saddam calls you up.
"Hey Assad, can you do me a favour? I,ve got 5000 20 year old,unstable shells filled with Mustard and VX, that I need to get rid of in a hurry."

What would you say?
What would ANYBODY say?
Why take the risk?


This sounds like typical GOP dis-information to me.
They just wont admit they were wrong.

Q

highsea
10-09-2004, 03:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>"We don't know if Saddam has an active WMD program or not. Some info suggest he does, other suggest he doesn't. Here's what defectors say but remember they have their own agenda. Here is what the weapons inspectors say.
<hr /></blockquote>That's all just fine if you are of the opinion that Saddam should have been given the benefit of the doubt. It represents a shift in the US official position since 1998 on regime change, and it ignores the statements of every politician of Clinton era. I call this selective memory.

Consider what Hans Blix told the UN on January 27, 2003.

[ QUOTE ]
On chemical bombs

"The [Iraqi weapons report] document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

On chemical rockets

"The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate."

On biological weapons

"There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

"Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC [U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission] supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.

"As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999.

"In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, 'All imported quantities of growth media were declared.' This is not evident. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax."

On missiles

"There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program or data on the consumption of the missiles."

On recently discovered documents

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring papers from their workplaces.

"On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes." <hr /></blockquote>
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.excerpts/

The onus was on Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions and inspection teams. Saddam had more than ample opportunity to do this, and chose deception instead.

Coalition troops were fully expecting a chemical attack upon reaching Baghdad. There were plans in effect for a massive retaliation if this were to occur.

The President chose to err on the side of safety for the US. Now, I realize that you and others don't agree with him on this, but there are many of us who do.

Had he not done so, the case for sanctions would have continued to weaken, cheating would have continued to take place, Saddam would still be in power in Iraq, murdering tens of thousands of Iraqis every year, and the US would still be in a position of dwindling support in the UN.

Ross
10-09-2004, 05:56 PM
Higsea, you create a straw man when you present my position as "giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt." You won't find anywhere in my post where I suggested that. In fact my post wasn't even about whether we should have intervened or whether or not there was evidence that Saddam might have WMD's.

My post was about an entirely different topic. It was about whether the administration looked at and reported the case for the US invading Iraq in an honest way. And the evidence that the admin exaggerated and mislead is all over the place if you are open to taking it in. It goes from not being interested in dissenting points of view, to suppressing dissenting reports, to reporting evidence they knew was likely wrong, to exaggerating the evidence for ties to Al Qaeda, to falsely implying that Saddam was involved with 9/11, to outright lying at times about WMD's, and to changing it's rationale for the invasion repeatedly.

I think the evidence shows that the admin was about as honest as a trial presided over by Uday.

And all of the Blix quotes you gave say simply say that there were unaccounted for WMD's and that means that Saddam MIGHT still have WMD's. In fact the Blix reports are excellent examples of how you report evidence in an unbiased manner. If that was the way the Bush admin reported things, I would have no problem with them on that count. But they didn't.

And your statement that you, but not I, want to "err on the side of safety" suggests that anyone who criticizes the Bush admin for being dishonest with America is saying that Saddam should have just been allowed to go his own merry way. That conclusion just does not follow, IMO.

eg8r
10-09-2004, 07:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And all of the Blix quotes you gave say simply say that there were unaccounted for WMD's and that means that Saddam MIGHT still have WMD's. In fact the Blix reports are excellent examples of how you report evidence in an unbiased manner. <hr /></blockquote> What you are neglecting to mention was Saddam's admittance that he had the weapons and his choice to not prove he destroyed them. Your post is very indicative of the liberal party...You are willing to accept deception as an alternative. There is only ONE reason for Saddam to deceive, and if you think he was bluffing, then just say it.

eg8r

Qtec
10-09-2004, 10:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What you are neglecting to mention was Saddam's admittance that he had the weapons and his choice to not prove he destroyed them. Your post is very indicative of the liberal party... <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">...and what about your post.? </font color>



I,ve lost count of the number of times you have made this false statement.This is what S said in an intreview with Dan Rather,on US television, in front of 30 million viewers.

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/21/iraq/main541427.shtml


Saddam also rejected Bush Administration allegations that besides the missiles delivery system he still has weapons of mass destruction.

Translator for Saddam Hussein: I think America and the United States and the world also knows that Iraq no longer has the weapons. And I believe the mobilization that's been done was in fact done partly to cover the huge lie that was being waged against Iraq, about chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. That is why, when you talk about such missiles, these missiles have been destroyed. There are no missiles that are contrary to the prescription of the United Nations in Iraq. They are no longer there.

Narration: The Bush Administration says Saddam Hussein is just trying to fool the world one more time about his missiles and his weapons of mass destruction. And he faces a new U.N. resolution accusing him of failing to prove he has disarmed. A resolution which, if passed, would in effect authorize war.

Rather: Will the new proposed United Nations resolution, the one that's just out this week -- will this make any difference at all in your position?

Translator for Saddam Hussein: The basic position, there is no change. We have not pursued any weapons of mass destruction. So, what do they want to issue new resolutions about now?

<font color="blue">On the subject of Osama. </font color>

Rather: Mr. President, Americans are very much concerned about anyone's connections to Osama bin Laden. Do you have, have you had, any connections to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?

Translator for Saddam Hussein: Is this the basis of the anxiety in the minds of U.S. officials? Or is it the basis of anxiety in the minds of the people of the United States?

Rather: Mr. President, I believe I can report accurately, that it's a major concern in the minds of the people in the United States.

Saddam Hussein: We have never had any relationship with Mr. Osama bin Laden. And Iraq has never had any relationship with al Qaeda. And I think that Mr. bin Laden himself has recently, in one of his speeches, given-- such an answer, that we have no relation with him.

<hr /></blockquote>


Believe him or not, the fact is he denied having WMDs.

Your argument has no logic because if you 'believed' Saddam when he said he DID have WMDs, then you should 'believe'him when he said he DID NOT have WMDs.
Then again, If you didnt believe his first claim, then you cant use the "Saddam himself said he had WMDs " in your case for going to war!


Q

highsea
10-10-2004, 07:20 AM
Some more from the ISG survey[ QUOTE ]
Revealed: Saddam's WMD plan
FRASER NELSON

ON THE eve of war in March 2003, Saddam Hussein’s goal was tantalisingly close. United Nations’ sanctions designed to curb Saddam were disintegrating in a sea of bribery and corruption; $2.6bn a year was flooding from the black market into Saddam’s coffers; the Iraqi dictator had weapons experts ready to go back to work.

America was on Saddam’s tail, but he had been bribing Russian intelligence officers and French government officials to thwart them in the UN. He had even been assured in May 2002 that France would use its UN veto against the US.

Tariq Aziz, Saddam’s deputy, was upbeat: he assessed Iraq could build weapons of mass destruction (WMD) within two years of sanctions collapsing. Saddam’s strategy, we now know, was clear: accumulate a war chest from fiddling UN sanctions, then use allies in the UN, such as France, China and Russia, to end the sanctions, and then take on Iran in a WMD arms race - after that he would see where things stood.

This is the devastating story from the US-led Iraq Survey Group (ISG), whose report came out last Wednesday. The media in Britain and America concentrated mainly on the obvious headline finding: Saddam had no WMD. For politicians who claimed the opposite (such as Tony Blair and George Bush) this disclosure was indeed deeply embarrassing. But no more so than it was in the autumn of last year, when the ISG first delivered the news.

By last December the insurgency was so bad in Iraq that the physical hunt for weapons was abandoned. The ISG mission changed: it started to debrief captured officials (including Saddam himself) and to translate millions of Iraqi documents from Arabic. To say there were no WMD in Iraq (which, incidentally, the ISG report doesn’t) is to miss the point, perhaps wilfully, of this 2,200-person, two-year mission.

We can now see that WMD were Saddam’s foreign, military and national security policy. They were his equivalent of a nuclear deterrent: he believed they saved him during the Iran war, deterred the US-led coalition from invading in 1991 after liberating Kuwait and allowed him to crush internal Kurdish and Shi’ite revolts.

WMD were essential to his survival in the face of foreign and internal threats, he believed. So he told only a few senior military chiefs - and not until December 2002 - that he was actually telling the truth: he really didn’t have any WMD. He had even bluffed his own ministers and intelligence service, which perhaps makes the mistakes of British and American intelligence more understandable.

In the days when Saddam had WMD he was of a mind to use them. Among documents uncovered by the ISG is an audiotape which records Saddam sounding as paranoid as Richard Nixon. The conversation took place during the first Gulf war. Hussein Kamil, his son-in-law and WMD tsar, was asking where germ warfare should be deployed. "I want Riyadh and Jeddah, which are the biggest Saudi cities with all the decision-makers, and the Saudi rulers live there. This is for the germ and chemical weapons...also, all the Israeli cities, all of them."

"Sir, the best way to transport this weapon and achieve the most harmful effects," says Kamil, "would come by using planes, like a crop plane, to scatter it. This is, sir, a thousand times more harmful." "May Allah help us do it," Saddam replies. "We will never lower our heads as long as we are alive, even if we have to destroy everybody."<hr /></blockquote>Nice guy, that Saddam. Read on about our "allies".
[ QUOTE ]
But in 1997 Aziz approached Saddam with a bribery policy: they should sell oil only to "friendly" countries. Mohammed Rashid, Iraq’s former oil minister, told the ISG that this meant "those nations that would help get [UN] sanctions lifted".

Russia, Iraq’s old ally, became the number one beneficiary, with almost 30% of oil deals, then France (15%) and China (10%). By no coincidence, all three hold power of veto over war in the UN Security Council. After these countries came what Rashid called "individuals who were influential with their government leaders". Countries were bribed collectively but so were key figures personally. Of the top three oil recipients, Russian politicians occupy the top three slots. Then comes Patrick Maugein, a French financier considered "a conduit to French President [Jacques] Chirac".

What did the French get in return? "The primary motive for French continued support and co-operation with Iraq in the UN was economic," says the ISG, citing Iraqi sources. According to Aziz "French oil companies wanted to secure two large oil contracts". The deal with the Devil was done: in May 2002, 10 months before crucial war votes in the UN, Iraqi intelligence reported meeting a senior French politician who assured Iraq that "France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq".

Chirac duly delivered in February 2003. The French were not alone in dealing with the Devil. The ISG report shows that, by the eve of war, Russia’s oil companies (and, therefore, its entire economy) had a vested interest in Saddam’s survival. These companies were being promised the world. In 1997, Lukoil won a $3.7bn contract to develop one of Iraq’s 73 oilfields over 23 years. In April 2001, Zarubezhchneft and Tatneft, two more Russian oil giants, secured an $11.1bn contract to drill in three other oilfields. So close were the Iraqi-Russian relations that a "female colonel in Russian intelligence" agreed a payment of between $15m and $20m in the year before war. Payments were to start in September 2002.

At roughly the same time, a $350bn contract was being dangled by Iraq to begin exploration of the vast Nahr Umr oilfield over a 10-year period. The deal was dependent on UN sanctions being lifted and agreement was struck with Rosneft and Zarubezhchneft. Little wonder that President Putin, desperate for every cent of oil revenue for his cash-strapped government, was not too keen on a US government likely to revoke such deals. By October 2002, when Blair visited Moscow pleading for a UN resolution to enforce war, he was told that Putin would also use his veto. Saddam had France and Russia in the bag.<hr /></blockquote>Well, so much for our "allies". How much do you think they will charge Kerry for their support?

And, oh, yeah. Sanctions were really working...[ QUOTE ]
From 1999, Saddam started investing heavily in arms imports, finding a reliable group of countries and companies willing to ignore the UN restrictions for the right price. Some were Russian, most were Syrian, many were Jordanian. By 2000, "prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem," says the ISG. "Major items had no trouble getting across the border, including 380 liquid-fuel rocket engines."

The full extent of this is shown in the receipts. In 1998, Iraq’s illicit earnings were $283m. By 2002, they had soared tenfold to $2.66bn - thanks to underhand deals with Syria, Jordan and Turkey which the UN was, by then, incapable of stopping. The Baghdad International Trade Fair in 2001 was attended by hundreds, in the widespread assumption that sanctions were close to collapse. Money was flowing freely into Saddam’s coffers: the budget for the Military Industrialisation Committee - the weapons budget - was ballooning and hit $500m by January 2003. By then, planners were proceeding as if there were no sanctions at all. Major items, such as the 380 liquid-fuel rocket engines, had no problem getting across the border. By 2001, Iraq’s rocket designers were assuming that banned material was readily available. <hr /></blockquote> The Article (http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1179862004)

Ross
10-10-2004, 10:27 AM
Eg8r, your "reply" is completely irrelevant to my post. You really should get help with your reading comprehension problems.

highsea
10-10-2004, 06:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>....Since we don't have the actual report out yet, I don't know how you can say this.<hr /></blockquote>David, the report is published on the CIA website.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

The PDF's are very large, but the key findings summary is only 19 pages.

-CM

crawdaddio
10-10-2004, 08:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>....Since we don't have the actual report out yet, I don't know how you can say this.<hr /></blockquote>David, the report is published on the CIA website.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

The PDF's are very large, but the key findings summary is only 19 pages.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks for the link dude. Interesting....

DC

eg8r
10-11-2004, 06:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I,ve lost count of the number of times you have made this false statement.This is what S said in an intreview with Dan Rather,on US television, in front of 30 million viewers......Believe him or not, the fact is he denied having WMDs.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, you are cracking me up. Saddam agreed he had the weapons way back when he was being sanctioned by the UN. Quoting an interview with a murderous dictator (and blindly believing that maybe this time he will tell the truth) and Dan Rather is quite humorous considering the uncovering of Dan Rather's real agenda.

eg8r

eg8r
10-11-2004, 06:54 AM
Wow, great reply. Actually, it was very relevant. I was responding to the quote, not your whole post and in this quote you put the words MIGHT in caps. This should not have been confusing to you, but I guess it was. If you are unable to understand that, further explanation probably would help you anyways.

It is funny, lately all your replys to me seem to be attacks, nothing about the subject matter.

eg8r