Bush says he will declassify intelligence proving Iraqi has WoMD.

[DaShi]

Euro-peaceniks.

[Proteus_MST]

Bush has very often said that he has proofs for WMDs in Iraq. So if he wants to maintain his reliability it is tme to make them public.

We´ll see if he really has proofs or if it is only another Version of the Blair-Paper

[Sava]

LOTM: And you want to trust the inept American Intelligence community? The same people that knew almost everything leading up to 9-11 but couldn't connect the dots? And on top of that, we're trusting the words of a few Iraqi informants in moles? That's like a copy of a copy of a copy. I wouldn't trust it, and thankfully, most of the World isn't either.

Show me a friggin picture of a nuke, some sort of evidence. I don't want this heresey crap. It's retarded... it's just political right-wing rhetoric fodder and it's not worth starting a war over.

But then again, that's just my theory. I could be wrong, it's happened before and happens often . This whole situation reminds me of a joyful South Park quote:

Cartman -- "Suck my b4lls Mr. Garrison!"
Mr. Garrison -- "Present them."
Cartman -- "What?"
Mr. Garrison -- "You want me to suck your b4lls? Then present them?"

Well, I'm not going to suck Bush's b4lls unless he presents them!

[Proteus_MST]

Bush has very often said that he has proofs for WMDs in Iraq. So if he wants to maintain his reliability it is tme to make them public.

We´ll see if he really has proofs or if it is just another Version of the Blair-Paper

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Frogger
If they have such great evidence, then why haven't they pointed the inspectors to where they "know" NBC weapons are being stored?

.

1. Because the inspectors are "leaky" which endanges sources and methods
2. Because the leaks (and the intensive Iraqi espionage against the inspectors) make the inspections ineffective - we give the inspectors intel - the iraqis find out - they "clean" the site - and voila, "no weapons - the inspections are working"
3. Because even if weapons are found A. the sourcs and methods are still blown B. The French and Germans still wont come aboard

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Even if I grant you that, why did the US have all sorts of difficulties in convincing Western countries, particularly France and Germany, that Iraq has CBN weapons?

Well i could answer that, but I'm trying to avoid saying nasty things about France and Germany, who will still be our allies when this is past.

[KrazyHorse]

Those are the weakest excuses I've ever seen, LOTM.

It all boils down to the fact that the US intelligence community has squat to prove anything against Iraq. The cost of inspectors finding nothing to the US position has been a lot higher than revealing a source or two would have been (especially now that W's gonna endanger the same sources if he actually presents some real proof).

So is the current US admin lying or just plain stupid?

[Adam Smith]

Frogger, UR:

There have already been reports that

1. Iraqis were tipped off to immanent UN inspections in at least one case. This means any "inside" intelligence sources could be at risk, as LOTM said.

2. European dipolmats acknowledge in private that Iraq still has chem and bio weapons.

Right now we have a pair of sixes showing. Our cards in the hole had better be pretty good.

PS: Wonder if Saddam has stashed stuff in mosques?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava
And on top of that, we're trusting the words of a few Iraqi informants in moles? That's like a copy of a copy of a copy. I wouldn't trust it, and thankfully, most of the World isn't either.

Perhaps you had difficulty with my English - i didnt say an informant IN a mole (Im not sure what that means,frankkly) I said informants who ARE moles - Not a copy of copy at all, but actual Iraqi officials in place, who have more knowledge of whats really going on than anyone.

And of course the owrkd doesnt trust it cause the world hasnt seen it - and they wont, cause its to dangerous to make is public - and in a couple of months we'll have US troops on the gorund finind evidence, so whats the point??

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sava

Show me a friggin picture of a nuke, some sort of evidence. I don't want this heresey crap. It's retarded... it's just political right-wing rhetoric fodder and it's not worth starting a war over.

/QUOTE]

There are no pictures of Saddams WMD. They're kept underground, safe from the prying eyes of sat recon.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Stuff

Anyhoo, we'll just have to wait and see. But I'm not holding my breath. Sounds like a PR ploy, not a serious presentation of facts.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava
LOTM: And you want to trust the inept American Intelligence community? The same people that knew almost everything leading up to 9-11 but couldn't connect the dots?

Perhaps becuase before 9-11 there was no "smoking gun" Just a lot of disconnected little pieces of inofrmation, that only a paranoid would connect into evidence for what was really happening. There's plenty of "dots" relating to iraqi WMD, (and quite a few dots relating to Al qaeeda ties) but now th every people who thing US intel should be better at connecting dots wont accept the logic of connecting dots.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Even if I grant you that, why did the US have all sorts of difficulties in convincing Western countries, particularly France and Germany, that Iraq has CBN weapons?

It mostly has to do with politicians trying to stay in office when faced with strong anti-war feelings of the populace and a weak economy. That along with dislike for Bush personnally and a knee jerk reaction to stick a finger in the U.S.'s eye when ever possible, especially by Gerhard.

The French politicians have the same problems the German politicians have but they are going to be "in " once things get rolling in Iraq, but, they would like to rangle a few more concessions out of the U.S. in the mean time. In short it is classic Chirac; he will try to be all things to all people (to strengthen Franco-German solidarity but still jump in with the U.S. and Britain at the last minute so that France will have a seat in the post war reordering of Iraq) and still secure the best possible out come for France.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
There have already been reports that

1. Iraqis were tipped off to immanent UN inspections in at least one case. This means any "inside" intelligence sources could be at risk, as LOTM said.

What sort of reports?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Frogger
Those are the weakest excuses I've ever seen, LOTM.

It all boils down to the fact that the US intelligence community has squat to prove anything against Iraq. The cost of inspectors finding nothing to the US position has been a lot higher than revealing a source or two would have been (especially now that W's gonna endanger the same sources if he actually presents some real proof).

So is the current US admin lying or just plain stupid?

well you've nailed down the real question - whats the cost of not providing a smoking gun

There are tow costs to the US going in without as much allied support as we'd like
1. Short term - Less support during the war
2. Long term - less support in the aftermath, strained alliances, etc

1 - is not a problem - we dont need French or German help during the war
2 - would be a problem - but doesnt require a smoking gun pre-war, as long as we find stuff DURING the war - we just the war ex post, instead of ex ante.