PDA

View Full Version : Iraq may not have had WMD!



Raven
25th January 04, 01:36 AM
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040124.wpowell0124/BNStory/International/

Iraq might not have had banned weapons: Powell

Associated Press

Tblisi, Georgia — Secretary of State Colin Powell held out the possibility Saturday that prewar Iraq may not have possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Powell was asked about comments last week by David Kay, the outgoing leader of a U.S. weapons search team in Iraq, that he did not believe Iraq had large quantities of chemical or biological weapons.

"The answer to that question is, we don't know yet," Mr. Powell told reporters as he travelled to this former Soviet republic to attend the inauguration Sunday of President-elect Mikhail Saakashvili.

Mr. Powell acknowledged that the United States thought deposed leader Saddam Hussein had banned weapons but added, "We had questions that needed to be answered.

"What was it?" he asked. "One hundred tons, 500 tons or zero tons? Was it so many litres of anthrax, 10 times that amount or nothing?"

A senior Bush administration official said Saturday from Davos, Switzerland, where Vice-President Dick Cheney was addressing political and business leaders, that only time will tell about the accuracy of prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs.

"We won't know until we've gotten through the process of interviewing all the people who were involved in those programs and an opportunity to inspect all the sites — until we've completed the efforts that Mr. Kay started and that somebody else now will have to finish," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The Sunday Telegraph in London reported that Mr. Kay said elements of Mr. Hussein's weapons program was sent to Syria.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons but we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Mr. Hussein's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] program," the paper quoted Mr. Kay as saying. "Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

Mr. Kay told reporters in Washington in October that "senior Iraqi officials, both military and scientific," had moved to Jordan and Syria, "both pre-conflict and some during the conflict, and some immediately after the conflict." Other U.S. officials, including the head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, also have suggested Iraqis moved evidence of weapons of mass destruction to Syria and perhaps other countries.

Almost a year has passed since Mr. Powell's speech before the UN Security Council in which he accused Iraq of violating a UN weapons ban imposed after Iraq invade Kuwait more than a decade ago.

Since then, the administration has been less categorical on the issue, contending that Mr. Hussein was actively pursuing banned weapons. The administration generally has avoided the issue of actual possession despite having spent at least $900-million in the weapons search.

U.S. President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union address last week, cited an interim report by Mr. Kay in October in which the inspector claimed to have found dozens of weapons-related programs and equipment in Iraq.

"Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day," the president said.

On Saturday, a Bush spokesman said the administration stood by its assertions that Iraq had banned weapons at the time of the U.S.-led war. Scott McClellan said it was only a matter of time before inspectors uncover their location.

"The Iraq Survey Group's work is ongoing, and it is important that they complete their work," Mr. McClellan said. "The truth will come out, but we already know that Saddam Hussein's regime was given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences, and he chose to continue to be in clear violation of his international obligations."

In an interview published Sunday, but conducted before the announcement late Friday that Mr. Kay was stepping down, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he still believed the intelligence received by his government before the war was correct.

"It is absurd to say in respect of any intelligence that it is infallible, but if you ask me what I believe, I believe the intelligence was correct, and I think in the end we will have an explanation," he was quoted as saying in The Observer newspaper.

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, whose signature campaign issue has been his opposition to the Iraq war, said that Mr. Kay's comments further undermine Mr. Bush's claims that Iraq under Mr. Hussein posed a threat to the United States.

Last week, Mr. Cheney told National Public Radio that the administration had not given up on the search for weapons. The "jury is still out," he said.

In his speech Saturday, Mr. Cheney urged "civilized people" to do "everything in our power to defeat terrorism and to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction."

Taking over for Mr. Kay as head of the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group of roughly 1,400 scientists and other experts is Charles Duelfer, the No. 2 weapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq for much of the 1990s. The team is going through documents, searching facilities and interviewing Iraqis to determine the weapons capabilities of the fallen Iraqi government.

While the emphasis was on weapons of mass destruction as the reason to wage war on Iraq, the administration also suggested that Mr. Hussein was linked with the al-Qaeda organization. Like the weapons, no firm evidence of a solid link has been produced.

On Saturday, a U.S. official in Washington said Kurdish forces had captured a senior al-Qaeda figure as he tried to enter northern Iraq.

Hassan Ghul, a senior facilitator in Osama bin Laden's terror network, was turned over to the United States and is being interrogated at an undisclosed location, the official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, had no details about whether Mr. Ghul was co-operating or providing useful information.

On Friday, a senior American official reported the capture of a purported leader of anti-U.S. resistance in Iraq, Husam al-Yemeni, who officials said headed a cell of operatives in Fallujah, west of Baghdad. The official said al-Yemeni, linked to the Ansar al-Islam group in Kurdish northern Iraq, was thought to be a close associate of Abu Musab Zarqawi, described by some as a key link between the al-Qaeda terrorist network and Mr. Hussein.

In recent months, U.S. forces in central Iraq have detained a handful of people suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda, but American intelligence officials described them as mostly low-level operatives with unclear purposes in the country.

The Wastrel
25th January 04, 01:38 AM
I wish they'd just been straight about this from the beginning.

Raven
25th January 04, 01:40 AM
Myself as well.

But still good was done, even if it was for bogus reasons.

Phoenix
25th January 04, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
I wish they'd just been straight about this from the beginning.

Oh, but that's alright. See, it must be okay to admit that you lied to the world if you win the fight you start.

After all, they did get Saddam, didn't they?

The Wastrel
25th January 04, 01:46 AM
Yeah...I forget...what was the policy goal again?

Phoenix
25th January 04, 01:48 AM
Policy goal? Hmmmm...so many bullshit reasons to choose from.....

nihilist
25th January 04, 01:58 AM
The Bush clan has had Saddam on their "to do" list since the Gulf War.

The fabricating and distorting of facts to meet their ends should come as no great surprise.

MuayThaiBri67
25th January 04, 01:50 PM
Lets not forget that Clinton had the same intel as Bush did. He was even quoted by the Portogese Prime Minister as having told him that I thought he had WMDs too. Congress authorized Clinton to use force back in 98. So what about WMDs. I think just freeing those small children out of prisons was cause enough. Not to mention those thousands upon thousands mass graves. The president didn't lie here he used the same intel that Clinton had. I will say its an intel failure, but Bush didn't lie. As for you Canadians chiming in (Rising Phoenix), worry about your own country, which I believe has barly a military at all.

MuayThaiBri67
25th January 04, 01:51 PM
Oh by the way good to see you RisingPhoenix, haven't seen you posting in a while. How have you been?

blankslate
25th January 04, 02:00 PM
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8777

What's wrong with my thread?

Raven
25th January 04, 02:14 PM
I dunno, you created yours after mine.

blankslate
25th January 04, 02:15 PM
pwned

Raven
25th January 04, 02:16 PM
;)


It's ok man. You'll scoop me next time.

Kungfoolss
25th January 04, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
Yeah...I forget...what was the policy goal again?

I don't know what you leftists would do if we conservatives weren't around to set your political bias straight. :D

Look to the 1991 Gulf War cease- fire agreements or -

"In 1998, President Clinton asserts a U.S. right to unilateral military action against Iraq and argues that Saddam's continued possession of weapons of mass destruction presents a grave threat. His statements provide fodder for Bush administration hawks in 2002. Why Clinton would want to help Bush's partisan political plot in such a way will always be a mystery, although perhaps he wanted to help Bush in order to block the 2004 Democratic presidential aspirants, thus creating an opening for his wife in 2008.

1998, the Iraq Liberation Act unanimously passes the Senate, making it the official policy of the U.S. government to seek regime change in Iraq. That every Democrat in the Senate, including Kennedy, votes to advance Bush's conspiracy so early — when Bush is still governor of Texas — speaks well of Bush's ability to build bipartisan coalitions. Although it's impossible to know without access to congressional phone logs, Rove must have worked the phones very hard."

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry.asp

Kungfoolss
25th January 04, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
I wish they'd just been straight about this from the beginning.

And just which beginning would that be Wastrel?->

During the Clinton administration in the month of October 1998:



Senator Helms: Mr. President, I am an original co-sponsor of HR 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act, for one simple reason; Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and a threat to our friends in the Middle East.This lunatic is bent on building an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction with a demonstrable willingness to use them. For nearly eight years the United States has stood by and allowed the U.N. weapons inspections process to proceed in defanging Saddam. That process is now in the final stages of collapse, warning that the U.S. cannot stand idly by hoping against hope that everything will work itself cut.

We have been told by Scott Ritter and others that Saddam can reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction within months.

The Washington Post reported only last week that Iraq still has three nuclear "implosion devices' --in other words, nuclear bombs minus the necessary plutonium or uranium to set them off. The time has come to recognize that Saddam Hussein the man is inextricable from Iraq's drive for weapons of mass destruction.

For as long as he and his regime are in power, Iraq will remain a mortal threat.


If a Republican is not to your liking, who do you suppose stated the following in the same house chambers? ->



This bill is a statement that America refuses to coexist with a regime which has used chemical weapons on its own citizens and on neighboring countries, which has invaded its neighbors twice without provocation, which has still not accounted for its atrocities committed in Kuwait, which has fired ballistic missiles into the cities of three of its neighbors, which is attempting to develop nuclear and biological weapons, and which has brutalized and terrorized its own citizens for thirty years. I don't see how any democratic country could accept the existence of such a regime, but this bill says America will not.


Survey says: Senator Kerry

Or how about Clinton addressing the American people on Operation Desert Fox two months later:



Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first seven and a half years ago at the end of the Gulf War, when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the cease-fire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

....As the UNSCOM report concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. "In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere.

...First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

...So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

...The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

...If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.


Bill Clinton Dec. 17, 1998

Phoenix
25th January 04, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by MuayThaiBri67
Oh by the way good to see you RisingPhoenix, haven't seen you posting in a while. How have you been?

MuayThaiBri67

I'm not too worse for the wear. And yourself?

The Wastrel
25th January 04, 04:47 PM
Okay Kungfoolss, you missed the point.

Is the policy goal:

1. Protecting US security?

2. Removing Saddam Hussein?

Kungfoolss
25th January 04, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
Okay Kungfoolss, you missed the point.


Did I? Not according to the statements made in 1998 which I have just documented.



Is the policy goal:

1. Protecting US security?

2. Removing Saddam Hussein?


Hmmm, only two options? Why not both? Go back reread Bill Clintons statements he gives 4 reasons alone for the policy constituting the use of force against Saddam Hussein.



"we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens." Bill Clinton


Besides, according to the political left's reasoning, the removal of Saddam enhances US security or do you disagree with their assessments in 1998?

Yuna
25th January 04, 05:08 PM
The whole thing might have been vaguely more easy to swallow had there been actual U.N. approval and a decent plan for post-war reconstruction. It remains to be seen if the end has justified the means.

MuayThaiBri67
25th January 04, 06:00 PM
Amen to that Kungfoolss. But of course those Dems won't hear anything you say. The next few threads will be be how Kungfoolss sucks and so do the rest of Republicans and how we should all die. Various other name calling will ensue. By the way Yuna, the UN did authorize the use of force. They were just to scared to act on it. Could the reason be that 2/3 of the UN is made up of dictatorships?

The Wastrel
26th January 04, 12:02 AM
Once again, I have said over and over again:

1. The war was justified and justifiable.
2. The UN is a political body.
3. International law is a shibboleth.


Please don't paint me as some sort of nutcase lefty. There's no reason for it. What I am saying is that the policy is not a success simply because certain concrete signifiers are accomplished. The policy is a success if American security is enhanced.

I don't work for Bill Clinton or the Democratic Party. I could not possibly care less what they say. I care about what I say.

The Wastrel
26th January 04, 12:03 AM
MuayThaiBri,
Don't be an idiot. You don't know a goddamn thing about me.

nihilist
26th January 04, 12:16 AM
If anyone has any questions as to whether or not Saddam needed to be removed from power should read up on the hideous atrocities the man was responsible for.
Rape camps, people being slowly lowered fet first into plastic shredders while their families were forced to watch.
I really don't give a flip if WMDs exist or not.
The entire country pretty much existed as a huge concentration camp.
There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Saddam's evil has no boundries and it would have been just a matter of time till he used biological weapons on people, and in the meantime more people would have been slowly tortured to death..

Protecting US interests??? That is always "policy" whether or not it's fed to the sheep that way.

The Wastrel
26th January 04, 12:18 AM
I never said there was anything wrong with that. In fact, I'm arguing it's the only thing that matters.

My complaint has always been about the WAY this has been done. Not about the being done itself.

Osiris
26th January 04, 12:26 AM
My problem is that Bush made up a bunch of bullshit and went in under false pretenses. The man is a liar and that is not good.

nihilist
26th January 04, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Osiris
My problem is that Bush made up a bunch of bullshit and went in under false pretenses. The man is a liar and that is not good.

Osiris, you're making GW sound intelligent.

Hint (they tell him what to say)

Osiris
26th January 04, 12:55 AM
I say Bush because he's the face and leader of the government. I mean the people responsible.

nihilist
26th January 04, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Osiris
I say Bush because he's the face and leader of the government. I mean the people responsible.

Yeah.. that would be the Reagan administration.

Osiris
26th January 04, 01:24 AM
No, they did not just invade Iraq.

grandloupmechant
26th January 04, 03:11 AM
All right guys, just as you're talking, some US soldiers may jump on a mine or get blown. Mr Bush must have solid arguments to send GI's to death in the gulf.

grandloupmechant
26th January 04, 03:15 AM
Is that right ? And all the civilians and iraki policemen.
When I check the teletext there's at least 2 dead a day.
So now kungfools : first STFU, then admit it Mr Bush and co lied. And I ask you a question to which I don't know the answer : Beside removing a tyran (which is great), what was the purpose of attacking irak ? Charity ?

Osiris
26th January 04, 03:19 AM
Yes, he decided to save some lives and the only thing he could think of was invading a small country.

grandloupmechant
26th January 04, 07:11 AM
And meanwhile, the north korean take the piss out of US officials lol.

Kungfoolss
26th January 04, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
Once again, I have said over and over again:

1. The war was justified and justifiable.
2. The UN is a political body.
3. International law is a shibboleth.


Please don't paint me as some sort of nutcase lefty. There's no reason for it.


I don't believe I have (or Muaythai has for that matter), perhaps you can show me where I iterated such sentiments within the context of this thread?



What I am saying is that the policy is not a success simply because certain concrete signifiers are accomplished. The policy is a success if American security is enhanced.


I believe the democrats of 98 and the Republicans in the year 2004 have maintained a regime change helps to enhance US national security. It's only now that a Republican is in office that the lib’s have flip-flopped.



I don't work for Bill Clinton or the Democratic Party. I could not possibly care less what they say. I care about what I say.

Well, neither do I, but you did state that the government should have been "straight" with the American people from the get go. My contention is that being "straight" began some 4 years previous, thus the reason for my documenting the facts on that matter.

The Wastrel
26th January 04, 11:13 PM
No, KF, I didn't mean you.

patfromlogan
27th January 04, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
MuayThaiBri,
Don't be an idiot. You don't know a goddamn thing about me.

Acually, MuayThaiBri and everyone else on Bullshido are FBI or NSA or CIA and we are just building a dosier on you, Wastrel.