Declassified report-WMD Found in Iraq

[RGBVideo]

PLATO: This is old news. Old chemical munitions made before the 1991 gulf war have been found buried under the sand before. Like in this case, they were non-functional. All this proves is that the Iraqi leadership took the cease fire treaty seriously and got rid of it's WMD's the cheapest possible way.

Deity Dude:

Let's face it. Iraq lost a war and agreed to terms to end the war. They included inspections and a no-fly zone. He didn't allow inspectors and constantly attacked the US military patrolling the "no-fly" zone. Personally, I'm surprised something didn't happen the first time he took military action against the US and British airforces.

This is the most disturbing part of your post. You know why? Because it's simply false, yet you seem to genuinely believe it. If you would've read the speeches of Hans Blix (the lead of the weapons inspector team who was a butt of ridicule because he in the end had free access to the country but didn't found any traces of WMD while BushCo "know where they are" as Cheney said it before the invasion) instead of FOX news talking heads, you would know that inspectors were given free access in the end and they didn't find anything -- effectively proving that there were no WMD before the invasion started.

Look at the big picture: Saddam co-operated, showed Iraq had no WMD and pitiful conventional armaments, US invaded in an instant. Kim didn't co-operate, broke treaties like uncle Adolf in the 30s and acted like a schoolyard bully while actually building a functional nuke, US has been a pussy who only increases it's food-aid to North Korea, thus prolonging the reign of that dictator. You don't think Iran is acting rationally now when it's trying to stir fear of it's possible WMD program in the US? I think the leadership of Iran is working in the best possible way in order to avoid an upcoming US invasion.

Seriously, why are you two so damn gullible? Too afraid to make your own conclusions because it's easier to parrot talking points with no relevance to reality? What are you trying to prove to yourselves by defending pre-war propaganda from reality?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Darius871


I don't get why you're asking this... no conservative here is claiming Iraq had any conventionally deployable WMD. How could he use what he did not have?

Right, only Tony Blair was claiming that

But seriously, if he didn't intend to use his weapons, what danger were they?

[RGBVideo]

sorry, I think you'll fail with this try

Originally posted by mactbone
What did Colin Powell give a speech about when discussing Saddam?

Hint, "It's a slam dunk."

It's great that we took out one of the guys that was contained without WMDs. Maybe next time the US can take on North Korea, Pakistan, Israel or one of the other countries with Nukes. Maybe we should just concentrate on countries that have used WMDs and have WMDs, like Britain or the US?

0.8/10

Spoiler:

(not a troll? hint, hint)

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by NeOmega


Just to point out some hypocrisy, remmeber where the anthrax in those attacks came from.


That anthrax was manufactured right here in the United States in a military lab.

That wasn't known at the time.

Originally posted by NeOmega


bad analogy.

Because drugs aren't used to defend your country.

The point is that with sufficient warning people will get rid of incriminating evidence. Would you prefer the example of a street gang that has a cache of illegal arms that they use to defend themselves with against other gangs. Do you think if the police sent them a little note scheduling an inspection for illegal arms that they would find any?

Originally posted by NeOmega

One question, not one single conservative anywhere has answered is:

and Victor galis said it best:

If Saddam wasn't willing to use WMDs against coalition forces as they toppled his regime, when he had little to lose, do you really think he would have used them offensively?


can any bushpologist answer this question?


anyone?

anyone?

I didn't think so.

A quick answer to your questions is that the question is irrelevant because it presupposes the only reason the US attacked was to find WMD's. As I pointed out in my earlier posts, WMD's was one of many issues that resulted in the war.

Another answer would be the one I gave you earlier. Given a 6 month warning of a pending attack by a superior force he destroyed them or sent them to another country (i.e. Syria) before the war. That by no way means that he could not have found a use for WMD's in another environment.

Again, think of the gang that has the cache of illegal arms. They aren't sufficient to take down the entire police force so they destroy them or give them to some buddies. Just because they wouldn't get in a shootout with the entire police department at a prearranged raid, doesn't mean they might not use those weapons to rob a bank, shoot a police officer when he isn't suspecting it or some other offensive attack.

BTW, I am not a Conservative, Bushpologist or Republican. I was just providing what I felt to be an unbiased analysis of the many issues leading up to the war.

[RGBVideo]

Saddam did everything he could to convince he world he had weapons of mass destruction in an effort to firghten us into letting him do what he wanted. Unfortunately, for him he miscalculated. Bush was looking for excuses to take him out and it was all too easy for Bush to take Saddam at face value.

Which is why he started co-operating around late 2002 with the weapons inspector teams, right? I am aware that there are a lot of stories floating around how Hussein personally toyed around with the UN weapons inspector teams, I hope you're aware that they're all set in the 90's.

I agree with your speculation about his intent pre-2002 since it's the same strategy Iran is trying now. But there was a dramatic change of attitude among Iraqi leadership after UNSC 1441 was passed. The threat of an invasion seemed suddenly very real.

edit:

Given a 6 month warning of a pending attack by a superior force he destroyed them or sent them to another country (i.e. Syria) before the war. [..] I am not a Conservative, Bushpologist or Republican.

I mean, really, a nation which is under constant satellite surveillance to the point that humans running on random street can be seen from a top-down viewpoint suddenly moves all it's WMD including container barrels, missile payloads, grenades and other munitions, along with WMD manufacturing industry and infrastructure vital in order to build and upkeep a working WMD defence (or offense which means they'd have all the above stuff plus at least 100-feet long intermediate range and/or even longer and heavier intercontinental ballistic missiles, take your pick) across a 200 mile desert into a neighbouring country without anybody noticing a thing? Why are you so gullible, DD? You don't need to be a registered republican in order to be a sucker who's the reason why the repeat-outrageous-lies-until-they-become-true propaganda tactics deployed by FOX news are presently so succesful.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by VJ

I mean, really, a nation which is under constant satellite surveillance to the point that humans running on random street can be seen from a top-down viewpoint suddenly moves all it's WMD including container barrels, missile payloads, grenades and other munitions, along with WMD manufacturing industry and infrastructure vital in order to build and upkeep a working WMD defence (or offense which means they'd have all the above stuff plus at least 100-feet long intermediate range and/or even longer and heavier intercontinental ballistic missiles, take your pick) across a 200 mile desert into a neighbouring country without anybody noticing a thing. Why are you so gullible, DD? You don't need to be a registered republican in order to be a sucker who's the reason why the repeat-outrageous-lies-until-they-become-true propaganda tactics deployed by FOX news are presently so succesful.

First of all I don't watch FOX News, but it sure sounds like alot of people accusing me of being a gullbile Buspologist do.

Second of all, I never said he had 100 ft long payload systems that he transferred to another country. But, I certainly wouldn't find it inconcievable that 50-60' trucks couldn't be loaded indoors and then driven to another country and unloaded indoors. How many grenades, munitions, barrels etc. could you put in trucks given a 6 month warning. As for dismantleing the industry, a lab that makes anthrax and other bioweapons probably doesn't look alot different than many other legitimate labs especially with a 6 month warning. I'm sure the same is true about chemical weapons.

But, I never said that IS what happened. My point was that IF he had them he COULD have done this. Therefore, not finding them doesn't prove that he had them or not.

It sounds like you are arguing with me about something I am not saying.

My point was right or wrong, The President with the overwhelming approval of Congress and the American citizens attacked Iraq for many reasons not just WMD's. Leading to my second point, that the majority of people and politicians that were for the war and now are against it are using the WMD excuse as their original support for it so they can blame someone else.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the 60% of the people and the majority of the Democratic party that changed their mind about the war but can't admit that they changed their minds. In doing that I pointed out all the other issues (right or wrong) that led people to support the war initially and now when they don't support it, they can't admit they made a mistake or changed their minds. They were "lied" to.

This thread was originally about 500 antiquated weapons and whether they were "the WMD's" My point is that it doesn't matter. Democrats are eager to point out the futility of these 500 weapons because it allows them to keep up the argument they were lied to as opposed to addressing the truth. The truth being that they voted for the war based on 7 or 8 issues if not more and all but one have been proven true. The American public accepts the Democrats excuse because it allows 60% of them to use it themselves.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Darius871


I don't get why you're asking this... no conservative here is claiming Iraq had any conventionally deployable WMD. How could he use what he did not have?

re-read teh post then, and you'll see exactly why I wrote that.

DD was insinuating Saddam had enough time to hide his weapons.


like in his reply, to which I ma about to reply...

Another answer would be the one I gave you earlier. Given a 6 month warning of a pending attack by a superior force he destroyed them or sent them to another country (i.e. Syria) before the war. That by no way means that he could not have found a use for WMD's in another environment.

Another environment? What environment? Alien attack? A more powerful nation than the United States? Why build chem weapons if you aren't going to ever use them?


If he was "trying to hide them", then how could he ever use them, in "another environment" without them being exposed?

I am sorry, your logic is too circular. You stil need to asnswer the question.

Second of all, I never said he had 100 ft long payload systems that he transferred to another country. But, I certainly wouldn't find it inconcievable that 50-60' trucks couldn't be loaded indoors and then driven to another country and unloaded indoors. How many grenades, munitions, barrels etc. could you put in trucks given a 6 month warning. As for dismantleing the industry, a lab that makes anthrax and other bioweapons probably doesn't look alot different than many other legitimate labs especially with a 6 month warning. I'm sure the same is true about chemical weapons.

And where exactly, is any evidence of this?

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the 60% of the people and the majority of the Democratic party that changed their mind about the war but can't admit that they changed their minds.

60% o fpeople? there was always a stalwart 25% that never supported the Iraq war, or did you forget the protests? And changing your mind =/= hypocrisy.

In doing that I pointed out all the other issues (right or wrong) that led people to support the war initially and now when they don't support it, they can't admit they made a mistake or changed their minds. They were "lied" to.

They were certainly misled. You can read all about it here, and watch it on streaming tv starting tonight too:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

with interviews with:

Richard Kerr
He served in the CIA from 1960 to 1992, including deputy director for intelligence (1986-1989), deputy director (1989-1992), and a few months as acting director in 1991.
John McLaughlin

John McLaughlin
From 2000 to 2004 he was deputy director of the CIA and became its acting director following George Tenet's resignation in July 2004.
John Brennan

John Brennan
From 1999 to 2005 he worked closely with George Tenet, first as chief of staff, then as deputy executive director, and finally as director of the National Counterterrorism Center.


CIA Operators


Gary Berntsen

Gary Berntsen
A 20-year veteran in the clandestine service, he commanded a team of CIA and special forces during the war in Afghanistan in 2001.
Tyler Drumheller

Tyler Drumheller
As division chief for the Directorate of Operations (DO) he was the CIA's top spy in Europe until retiring in 2005.
Gary Schroen

Gary C. Schroen
Soon after 9/11 he was selected to lead the first trip into northern Afghanistan to connect with leaders of the Northern Alliance, offer money, equipment and political support, and join forces with them to oust the Taliban in Kabul and other cities in northern Afghanistan.


CIA Analysts

Paul Pillar

Paul Pillar
A CIA analyst for 30 years, he finished his career as the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia and was involved in the intelligence assessments on the Iraq WMD threat.
Michael Scheuer

Michael Scheuer
He was chief of the CIA's Bin Laden Desk from 1995 to 1999 and headed an internal CIA investigation into alleged intelligence linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda - a connection his team found to be unproven.


State Department


Carl W. Ford, Jr.

Carl W. Ford, Jr.
During the first Gulf War he worked on intelligence in the Pentagon under Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. From 2001 to 2003 he was in charge of the State Department's Intelligence and Research Bureau.
Larry Wilkerson

Lawrence Wilkerson
He was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Since retiring from the State Department, he has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration.


Department of Defense

Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong

Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong
From 2000 to 2003 he was deputy commander to Gen. Tommy Franks at Central Command (CENTCOM), where they oversaw U.S. operations in the war in Afghanistan and later the invasion of Iraq.
Michael Maloof

F. Michael Maloof
Not long after 9/11 he joined the Pentagon's Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group that was set up under Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith to examine raw intelligence on the terrorist threat and make recommendations.


National Security Advisers/Policy-Makers

Sen. Bob Graham

Sen. Bob Graham
Senator Graham (D-Fla., 1987-2005) chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. His committee requested a National Intelligence Estimate be done on the threat of Iraq's WMD programs before the Congress voted on whether to go to war.
Richard Clarke

Richard Clarke
A counterterrorism expert, Richard Clarke was a member of the White House National Security Council in both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and is the author of Against all Enemies, an insider account of the Bush administration's policy-making in the war on terror.


Journalist

Steve Coll

Steve Coll
A New Yorker writer, he is the author of Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001.

[Blaupanzer]

The rule Bush's father probably had in mind in stopping the invasion the first time was "if you break it, you own it." So Daddy Bush stopped the coalition and pulled back even though he knew for certain that Iraq had WMD in 1991.

Junior went in and broke the place with the help of Tony Blair in 2003. NOW, 3 years later, we are arguing if that made sense? Clearly, it did not and does not make sense. 500 old rounds of decaying ammo don't prove anything. The President himself actually apologized for believing incorrect intelligence. No WMD.

But Santorum and crew are trying to influence voters into not listening to a particularly devastating indictment of the Bush II regime. It's still all about the spin even after the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis.

[RGBVideo]

I need an answer for one "yes/no" question in the end of this post

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Second of all, I never said he had 100 ft long payload systems that he transferred to another country. [..] I certainly wouldn't find it inconcievable that 50-60' trucks couldn't be loaded indoors and then driven to another country and unloaded indoors. How many grenades, munitions, barrels etc. could you put in trucks given a 6 month warning. As for dismantleing the industry, a lab that makes anthrax and other bioweapons probably doesn't look alot different than many other legitimate labs especially with a 6 month warning. I'm sure the same is true about chemical weapons.

I agree that it's very possible to do within six months. What is inconcievable for me is that this wouldn't have been noticed by satellite surveillance. The main reason I presumed you were getting your news from FOX is because this claim originated as a FOX news talking point.

It sounds like you are arguing with me about something I am not saying.

Sorry if I did, I'll try to pay more attention to it in the future.

My point was right or wrong, The President with the overwhelming approval of Congress and the American citizens attacked Iraq for many reasons not just WMD's.

I think this is false. The most overriding factor in the drumming up for the war was the magic word "weapons of mass destruction" which the administration used on every occasion and left hints that it was nothing but an euphemism for nukes (justifying invasion through fear: ZOMFG THEY'LL NUKE US ALL IF WE DON'T STRIKE FIRST).

Leading to my second point, that the majority of people and politicians that were for the war and now are against it are using the WMD excuse as their original support for it so they can blame someone else.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the 60% of the people and the majority of the Democratic party that changed their mind about the war but can't admit that they changed their minds. In doing that I pointed out all the other issues (right or wrong) that led people to support the war initially and now when they don't support it, they can't admit they made a mistake or changed their minds. They were "lied" to.

The problem here is that you're basing your argument on reading other people's minds -- how can you know what did the people, congressmen and Senators presume to be the justification for the invasion? Are you basing this presumption of yours on what you thought to be the justifications to the invasion before it was started?

[Arrian]

But Santorum and crew are trying to influence voters into not listening to a particularly devastating indictment of the Bush II regime.

Mid-term elections comin' up, yup.

-Arrian

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by NeOmega

Another environment? What environment? Alien attack? A more powerful nation than the United States? Why build chem weapons if you aren't going to ever use them?

Do you read someones entire post or do you just take select parts out and ask silly questions that were already covered. OK HERE IS AN ANSWER READ THIS:

I never said he had them. I said whether or not he had them was irrelevant because it was not the sole determining issue at the time for the invasion.

HERE IS SOME MORE OF THE ANSWER READ THIS TOO:

I could however see a scenario in which he wouldn't use them in a suicide attack against a superior force equipped for just such an attack (i.e. US). However in a different environment they could be very useful.

MORE ANSWER TO FOLLOW PLEASE READ IT ALL:

Examples of how Saddam might use WMD's if left in power that he chose not to use against the US. (if he had them)

Lets start with 2 factual examples:

How about against the Kurds. The sole reason for the no-fly zone. How about the war with Iran or whatever regional power he might decide to pick a fight with next.

OK how about a what-if example: Seeing as he was openly funding suicide bombers, has attacked Israel, Kuwait, Iran and threatened Saudi Arabia would it be inconceivable to think he might give a limited amount to some terrorist to use against Israel or even the United States? Perhaps someone who is pre-infected themselves so it can never be traced directly back to him. Then we could have a new term: 'suicide-WMDer'

Originally posted by NeOmega

If he was "trying to hide them", then how could he ever use them, in "another environment" without them being exposed?

Please see above for an example where they could be used and not traced back.

Originally posted by NeOmega

I am sorry, your logic is too circular. You stil need to asnswer the question.

The logic is very straighforward if you take time to read the entire post an understand what it says you will see it was and has been answered.

Originally posted by NeOmega

And where exactly, is any evidence of this?

I never said there was "evidence". MY whole point is that given a 6 month warning he could transfer his assets without evidence. I was merely responding to you who said it was impossible to transfer these sorts of things in a country that is monitored by satellite. I was just pointing out how easy it was. Again, I didn't say HE DID DO THIS I said given 6 months warning HE COULD HAVE DONE THIS.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Arrian
Not to me. First off, anthrax would be a bioweapon, not a chemical weapon. How many people died in those attacks, btw?

Fewer than were killed by two guys with a rifle and a car.

And don't forget the mentally ill man with a milk carton filled with lighter fuel, who killed 200 people in a South Korean subway.

[Deity Dude]

Re: I need an answer for one "yes/no" question in the end of this post

Originally posted by VJ

I agree that it's very possible to do within six months. What is inconcievable for me is that this wouldn't have been noticed by satellite surveillance. The main reason I presumed you were getting your news from FOX is because this claim originated as a FOX news talking point.

I honestly never heard this on FOX news. It doesn't take a genius though to look at a map and see what countries border Iraq and dislike the US more than Iraq.

Again I'm not saying he had anything or not. I'm just saying with a 6 month warning I knew we weren't gonna find anything.

Originally posted by VJ
I think this is false. The most overriding factor in the drumming up for the war was the magic word "weapons of mass destruction" which the administration used on every occasion and left hints that it was nothing but an euphemism for nukes (justifying invasion through fear: ZOMFG THEY'LL NUKE US ALL IF WE DON'T STRIKE FIRST).


The problem here is that you're basing your argument on reading other people's minds -- how can you know what did the people, congressmen and Senators presume to be the justification for the invasion? Are you basing this presumption of yours on what you thought to be the justifications to the invasion before it was started?

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. All I can say is I lived in the US thru the whole lead-up and as I tried to point out earlier there were lots of issues floating around at the time, UN Inspectors seemed to be the #1 issue if you had to pick one but it was much more complicated than a single issue or 2.

I guess to some up my posts in a nutshell I'll say this.

The US went into Iraq for the most part united. They went in for a multitude of issues.

Some were true

(inspectors, attacking the no fly zone, attempting to assasinate an ex president, use of WMD's against his own people and others, brutality of his regime)

others may or may not have been true

(current possesions of WMD's)

others had nothing to do with Iraq per se but the timing leant itself to looking favorable upon an attack

(US kept overlooking Al Qaeda attacks that led up to 9/11 and now Iraq was pulling similiar type things and the Anthrax attacks in Washington and New York)

and now as time has gone on the vast majority have changed thier mind about the war, which is OK, but they can't admit that they themselves were for this and now they're against it even though almost all and perhaps all of the underlying reasons/worries weren't lies.

The country is war weary and as usual everyone wants to blame someone else.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sandman


Fewer than were killed by two guys with a rifle and a car.

Tru dat but it did shut down congress for a bit. On second thought that was actually a good thing.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by NeOmega


re-read teh post then, and you'll see exactly why I wrote that.

DD was insinuating Saddam had enough time to hide his weapons.

Sorry, I was ignoring DD's posts as a matter of course.

To play devil's advocate, I suppose a possible answer to your question could be that he seriously thought A) the lack of WMD attacks on Coalition forces, B) their failure to find any stockpiles, and C) mounting casualties from a successful insurgency would all erode American public support for the war enough for them to tuck tail and run (just like in Vietnam, a word certainly in Saddam's vocabulary), after which he would return to power.

Such a prediction would have been remarkably accurate, except for miscalculating the extent to which his own people hated him (a variable which he wasn't in the best position to determine while sitting on a gold-plated toilet seat). I don't personally think Saddam had operational WMD and hid them, but IF he did the above train of thought would have been logical from his perspective.