View Full Version : INCONVENIENT TRUTH OF THE DAY 02/09/12

02-09-2012, 05:02 PM
For those who buried their collectivist heads deep in the desert sands of denial over the evidence that Saddamite Hussinsein shipped chemical weapons out of Iraq to his Ba'athist buddies in Syria ... (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/assad-forces-mull-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-homs-opposition-says-1.411954)

02-09-2012, 05:26 PM

Because a militarist regime could never obtain from the international market or make such munitions locally? (Hidden premise, or you never thought of any alternative sources.)

Fact is, this article says nothing related to your claim of where these things came from, in the English language version.

However, since there is a link at the bottom of the article to read it in Hebrew, perhaps you found it there?

Maybe they also have his nuclear capability, then?

02-10-2012, 03:41 AM
He didn't have nuclear capability ... thanks to Israel.

02-10-2012, 03:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, since there is a link at the bottom of the article to read it in Hebrew, perhaps you found it there?</div></div>

Nope, and I've known about it for years ... but I look at data that doesn't have the regime's seal of approval.

02-11-2012, 07:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He didn't have nuclear capability ... thanks to Israel. </div></div>

That's quite incorrect. That reactor had been designed by France to be a very poor producer of plutonium, and it was under IAEA monitoring. It would have taken a decade or more to create enough for a single plutonium device, I'm now reading in refreshing my memory on the subject.

What REALLY ended the Iraqi regime's quest for all WMD was the first Gulf War and its aftermath.

Israel's attack only caused Iraq to put many times the manpower and capital resources it had before the attack toward their nuclear efforts.

Wiki, on Operation Opera (the attack):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Israel claims that the attack impeded Iraq's nuclear ambitions by at least ten years.[16] In contrast, Dan Reiter has estimated that the attack may have accelerated Iraq's nuclear weapons program, a view echoed by Richard K. Betts.[17][81] Bob Woodward, in the book State of Denial, writes:

"Israeli intelligence were convinced that their strike in 1981 on the Osirak nuclear reactor about 10 miles outside Baghdad had ended Saddam's program. Instead [it initiated] covert funding for a nuclear program code-named 'PC3' involving 5.000 people testing and building ingredients for a nuclear bomb (...)"[82]

These claims are bolstered by Iraqi researchers who have stated that the Iraqi nuclear program simply went underground, diversified, and expanded.[83] Khidir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear scientist, made the following statement in an interview on CNN's Crossfire in 2003:

"Israel -- actually, what Israel [did] is that it got out the immediate danger out of the way. But it created a much larger danger in the longer range. What happened is that Saddam ordered us we were 400... scientists and technologists running the program. And when they bombed that reactor out, we had also invested $400 million. And the French reactor and the associated plans were from Italy. When they bombed it out we became 7,000 with a $10 billion investment for a secret, much larger underground program to make bomb material by enriching uranium. We dropped the reactor out totally, which was the plutonium for making nuclear weapons, and went directly into enriching uranium... They [Israel] estimated we'd make 7 kg [15 lb] of plutonium a year, which is enough for one bomb. And they get scared and bombed it out. Actually it was much less than this, and it would have taken a much longer time. But the program we built later in secret would make six bombs a year."[83]

Similarly, the Iraqi nuclear scientist Imad Khadduri wrote in 2003 that the bombing of Osirak convinced the Iraqi leadership to initiate a full-fledged nuclear weapons program.[84] United States Secretary of Defense William Perry stated in 1997 that Iraq refocused its nuclear weapons effort on producing highly enriched uranium after the raid.[12] Its interest in acquiring plutonium as fissile material for weapons continued, but at a lower priority.[12] </div></div>

02-12-2012, 07:42 AM
Thanks again ... after years of insisting Saddam had no WMD or research, when the other side becomes convenient you flip into doublethink mode.

Now tell me about how he wasn''t a danger to anyone again.

02-13-2012, 06:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks again ... after years of insisting Saddam had no WMD or research, when the other side becomes convenient you flip into doublethink mode.

Now tell me about how he wasn''t a danger to anyone again. </div></div>

You cannot deal with any changing time line, apparently.

As of the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, we now know that Saddam Hussein ordered the destruction of all plant and equipment and production and stored caches from the WMD programs that he did indeed have before that time.

We know this from Kamal, his son-in-law, who defected, told us all about how he hid things from inspectors, and was widely quoted by US officials as to these deceptions. However, he was in charge of the WMD programs, and what else he told US authorities remained hidden for many years. Which was that all of that had been destroyed BY HIM, under Saddam's order, for fear of what would happen next if he kept doing it.

As to being a danger to somebody, not as of 2001. Who said he was no danger? The DIA, the Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, who both made public statements to the effect that a) Saddam had not reconstituted any WMD program, b) hadn't reconstituted even a conventional military threat, c) neither Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or any other nearby target felt he was a threat, and that d) he was trapped in a box, impotent as to threatening anyone in the region, let alone this country.

Here's a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ) showing partial quotes from both of them on this subject, Powell in Feb. 2001, Rice in July 2001.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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."

</div></div> Pretty simple, he'd been under crushing sanctions, had his army cut to ribbons, and most importantly perhaps, was broke, in huge debt.

Lastly, he'd been bombarded from the air over a 3-4 day campaign, which STARTED with 600 cruise missiles launched in a single volley, against every suspect facility, including the multiple 'presidential palaces,' in the later '90s.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">DIA had no info on Iraq WMD
2003-06-06 21:21

Washington - The Defense Intelligence Agency reported before the war with Iraq it had "no reliable information" that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, a US defense official confirmed on Friday. </div></div>

02-13-2012, 06:56 PM
Yet, amazingly, we found plants and equipment for production and stored caches later on?

02-13-2012, 07:13 PM
If that were so, the Duelfer Report would have been more impressive.

As it was, this is what they found as to those matters:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Duelfer Report

On 30 September 2004, the ISG released the Duelfer Report, its final report on Iraq's WMD programs. The main points of the report are as follows:

Iraq's WMD programs had decayed significantly since the end of the first Gulf War
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991.
There was no proof of any Biological Weapons stocks since 1991.</span>
Iraq hoped to restart all banned weapons programs as soon as multilateral sanctions against it had been dropped, a prospect that the Iraqi government saw coming soon. </div></div>

As many may remember, the Duelfer Report was forced to resort to maybes and future intent, as a justification for the war.

Had we really found what you say, that would have been a more welcome answer to the Bush administration's needs to justify their war. They didn't.

Remember when they touted finding shells with TRACES of anthrax, which goes bad and ineffective quickly?

As their conclusions are summarized above, Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991. There was no proof of any Biological Weapons stocks since 1991. And this was the best case apologia that could be mustered. Mustard? LOL!

02-14-2012, 02:04 AM
This is the problem with people like LWW. The BELIEVE and no amount of evidence or facts can shake that belief.

To admit there were no WMDs would allow for the possibility that Bush hyped the war, mislead Congress and the people and went to war on the basis of false evidence. Something people like myself were saying before the invasion.
Every single new fact that has come to light shows that Bush was determined to attack Iraq despite the evidence.

The Neo-Cons played Bush 'the brainless' like a puppet on a string. They planted stories in the press- Judith Miller NYT.
They outed one of their own CIA WMD specialists to draw attention away from Wilson's op-ed. etc etc etc

There is one absolute piece of proof that they lied.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Top Bush officials push case against Saddam
September 08, 2002

Top officials in the Bush administration took to the Sunday television talk shows to argue the president's case that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a global threat and must go.

With a former U.N. weapons inspector in Baghdad saying the U.S. position on Iraq is overstated, the vice president, two Cabinet secretaries, the national security adviser and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pressed the point that a military intervention could be the only way to topple Saddam's regime.

"There simply isn't a case that this is a peace-loving man who wants to be left alone," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer."

<span style="color: #990000">On NBC's "Meet the Press," <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Vice President Dick Cheney accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms.</span>

"Increasingly, we believe that the United States may well become the target of those activities," Cheney said.

"And what we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest ... is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium -- specifically, aluminum tubes," Cheney said, referring to one of the elements for making nuclear weapons.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Citing Bush administration officials, The New York Times reported Sunday that Iraq tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes.</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The tubes,</span> Rice said, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>"are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."</span>

Centrifuges are one way to separate weapons-grade uranium from natural uranium.

White House sources also tell CNN that Saddam has in recent months met several times with Iraq's top nuclear scientists and <u>encouraged</u> them to continue their work.

Sources say Iraqi defectors who used to work for Iraq's nuclear weapons "industry" tell administration officials Iraq's top priority is acquiring nuclear arms.

Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

A senior administration official involved in Iraq policy tells CNN classified briefings to congressional leaders in recent days included evidence of "procurement issues" relating to Iraq's nuclear programs, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>including the aluminum tubes. </span></div></div>

How many lies in the above quotation?

We now know that Cheney leaked that story to Miller through Libby.

One guy said,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Remarkable.You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean,that's a remarkable thing to do. </div></div>

transcript (http://crooksandliars.com/node/13643/print)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">JONATHAN LANDAY: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Now, ordinarily information-- like the aluminum tubes would-- wouldn't appear-it was top secret intelligence, and the Vice President and the National Security Advisor would not be allowed to talk about this on the Sunday talk shows. <u>But, it appeared that morning in the NEW YORK TIMES and, therefore, they were able to talk about it.</u></span>

DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): It's now public that in fact he has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb."

BILL MOYERS: Did you see that performance?


BILL MOYERS: What did you think?

BOB SIMON: I thought it was remarkable.


BOB SIMON: Remarkable. You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean, that's a remarkable thing to do.

BILL MOYERS: And that's only part of it. Using the identical language of the anonymous sources quoted in the TIMES, top officials were now invoking the ultimate spectre of nuclear war -- the smoking gun as mushroom cloud. </div></div>


02-14-2012, 04:41 AM
And I thought you loved WIKILEAKS? (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/)