US Weapons Inspectors: "No WMD in Iraq"

[michaeledward]

More for those of you who make your political decisions based on what some guy you never met posts on the internet....

Tgace, does this mean that you know you are spreading falsehoods, but don't really give a damn because you are never going to meet any of the people who read this refuse anyhow?

 

[Tgace]

Tgace, does this mean that you know you are spreading falsehoods, but don't really give a damn because you are never going to meet any of the people who read this refuse anyhow?

No, it means anybody who gets all torqued up about what somebody posts regarding politics on a martial arts board, or is "swingable" based on some unknown persons posts....ahhh forget about it, youll have to figure ME out for yourself.

It appears you think you already have.



-"Tgace. Over 1-Billion "falsehoods" served."

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I don't know, even though I haven't met the vast majority of people here, I'm interested in what people have to say (and rant about) in the study. I don't assume off the bat that people are here just to make things up or whatever.

 

[Nightingale]

Ok, guys...

do I need to get out the topic bat again?

-Nightingale-
MT MOD

 

[Cryozombie]

Ok, guys...

do I need to get out the topic bat again?

-Nightingale-
MT MOD

Sorry, my bad, I accept responsibility for taking the thread off topic.

 

[Tgace]

Apologies...

:asian:

 

[Tgace]

Back on topic....WMD's

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts

Feb. 25, 1998, Bob KERREY:
Force, either our own or that of dissident Iraqis, will be required to remove this regime.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-13-04-2.html

Focusing on the existence of WMD and the CIA's inability to get it right about Iraq misses the point. It's too easy to lay the blame on the doorstep of the intelligence community. Perhaps the reason the Senate Intelligence Committee and Sen. Rockefeller are reluctant to take aim at the White House is because they know that they too must share the blame for bad decision-making.
It's not because of bad information that Congress voted to support the Iraq war. It's because Congress was unwilling to ask the right questions about how Iraq -- even with WMD -- was an undeterrable threat to the United States. If you don't ask the right questions, you never get the right answers, regardless of the quality of the information.

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]
[font=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36844
[size=-1]

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com [/size][/font]

The U.S. intelligence community has found evidence Syria received Iraqi missiles and WMD in late 2002 and early 2003, U.S. officials said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

The evidence includes satellite photographs of Iraqi convoys believed to be bringing missiles and WMD into Syria as well as assertions from Iraqi officials that ousted leader Saddam Hussein ordered such a transfer.

Still, the agencies fail to agree that sufficient evidence has been obtained to press the issue with the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad.

Importantly, CIA Director George Tenet shares this view, officials said.

As a result, the Bush administration and senior members of Congress have reached different conclusions over whether Syria obtained Iraqi WMD. The administration has determined the intelligence evidence remains insufficient, while senior staffers and members of Congress said the evidence is enough to press Syria to open its facilities to inspection.

"I think that there is some concern that shipments of WMD went to Syria," Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said.

David Kay, who resigned last week from the CIA-sponsored Iraq Survey Group, went further. Kay said Iraqi officials told his investigators that WMD was sent to Syria before the war in Iraq.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," Kay told the London Daily Telegraph. "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 Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 20, President George W. Bush did not identify Syria as a U.S. adversary or a country having missiles and WMD programs. The president did cite Iran and North Korea, both of which have supplied systems to Damascus.

In December, Bush signed into law the Syria Accountability Act. The law calls for a virtual trade embargo on Syria for its occupation of Lebanon, WMD program and harboring of terrorist groups.

But Vice President Dick Cheney said Iraq had assembled WMD on portable platforms, a development that would have enabled the transfer of assets to other parts in or outside the country. In an interview with National Public Radio, Cheney did not cite Syria as receiving weapons from Saddam.

"We've found a couple of semi-trailers at this point, which we believe were in fact part of a [WMD] program," Cheney said. "I would deem that conclusive evidence, if you will, that he did in fact have programs for weapons of mass destruction."

So far, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell have rejected the prospect that Iraqi biological and chemical weapons or missiles were sent to Syria. They echoed U.S. assessments that Saddam would not have trusted Assad with Iraq's missile and WMD assets. "I have seen no hard evidence to suggest that is the case, that suddenly there were no weapons found in Iraq because they were all in Syria," Powell said. "I don't know why the Syrians would do that, frankly, why it would be in their interest. They didn't have that kind of relationship with Iraq."

[/font]

 

[michaeledward]

Weapons of Mass Mustard ....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6095119/

FALLUJAH, Iraq - A U.S. warplane early Tuesday destroyed a popular restaurant in Fallujah that U.S. officials said was a meeting place for the Tawhid and Jihad terror network, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Two security guards were reportedly killed in the attack, which flattened the kabab shop, leaving only a smoking pile of crushed concrete slabs and twisted metal after the raid, according to witnesses.

The U.S. military said the "precision attack" targeted militants loyal to al-Zarqawi, who has a $25 million bounty on his head.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Just incidentally, only slightly buried in much of the testimony about the Bush admin's major screwup here has been a reiterated point that the President and his cronies actively pressured the CIA and others to suppress reports, change reports, and more or less fansify reports to support their already decided-upon position.

But then, I feel sure that the son of an ex-CIA Director would never know nothin' bout the way intelligence works in our government. So I feel sure that the alibi Bish is pushing makes perfect sense.

 

[kelly keltner]

Exactly. Plus the ties to Al-Qaeda AFTER 9/11 gave us plenty of reason to worry and investigate, any way (unless you're France, who hates us anyway). Yes, I know there were no ties between 9/11 and Iraq, even though the liberals would have you believe that that was an argument for going in. It wasn't, but there were ties after 9/11. Another distortion.

France don't even get me started about those frenchies. How many times....................................

kelly

 

[Flatlander]

France don't even get me started about those frenchies. How many times....................................

kelly

I don't believe that denigratory monikers such as "frenchies" are particularly necessary or appropriate to the discussion.

 

[PeachMonkey]

France don't even get me started about those frenchies. How many times...................................

I would be genuinely curious what you mean by "how many times", and just how many times those incidents occurred.

Most of the people who attack the French for their stance on Iraq have little, or no, knowledge of French politics, history, or military history.

Sorry for the thread gank.

 

[MisterMike]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/ap/20041014/ap_on_re_as/nuclear_agency_iraq

Diplomats: Iraq Nuclear Removal Extensive


By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - Missing nuclear-related equipment in Iraq (news - web sites) was removed by experts working systematically over an extended period, diplomats said Thursday, contradicting Iraqi officials who suggested that little was taken and only randomly by looters.


Their comments to The Associated Press were in response to assertions from Baghdad that high-precision equipment removed from Iraq's nuclear facilities was stolen haphazardly and immediately after last year's U.S. invasion.


The diplomats, who are familiar with the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, suggested the IAEA remained concerned that because of the planning and operational skills of those involved, the equipment could be sold to rogue governments or terrorist groups interested in making nuclear weapons.

In a letter to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei said satellite photos and follow-up investigations show "widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement" at sites related to Iraq's nuclear program that had once been subject to stringent monitoring.


On Tuesday, Iraq's interim science and technology minister, Rashad Omar, said all sites under the interim government's control have been secured.


The minister said the missing equipment — which the IAEA says includes milling machines and electron beam welders — was taken in the looting spree that followed last year's invasion, which the United States said was aimed to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. The sites were quickly secured by coalition forces before they were turned over to Iraqi authorities with the formal handover of sovereignty in June, he said.

...

Scary stuff since we don't know where it all went. Of course, why would they move any of it if Iraq wasn't close to making WMD's or the machinery was useless?

 

[heretic888]

Scary stuff since we don't know where it all went. Of course, why would they move any of it if Iraq wasn't close to making WMD's or the machinery was useless?

Money, most likely.

Of course, it really doesn't help a retroactive justification for the war in any event, considering the "removal" took place after the American invasion.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Those sites were NOT quickly secured following the invasion. We secured the oil, but not the nuke material. We knew about this site...it had been monitored by the IAEA for 12 years. The last inspection they did was in 2002, just prior to the invasion, and all was in order. The seals placed on the site were intact.

We invaded...the looters looted to get the milling machines and other stuff, and some of the stuff disappeared. Pity we didn't think to send a company of troops over to watch the stuff.

This was NOT stuff GW listed as among WMD materials. Saddam didn't have control over it. We did...up until we invaded.

Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Finally at an End.

The Iraq Survey Group, which published a report in September stating there are no 'Stockpiles' of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, has closed up shop and come home (or some are now working counter-insurgency).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814588/

By Dafna Linzer

The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.

In interviews, officials who served with the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort shortly before Christmas.

Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.

 

[ghostdog2]

This subject is as exhausted as the weapons inspectors must have gotten.

Yes, we thought there were WMD.
No, they weren't found.

Yes, it was time to quit looking.​

No, it's not a good thing when your intelligence proves to be wrong.​

Yes, the American people know all about it.
No, it didn't stop them from re- electing President Bush.

Enough said?​

 

[michaeledward]

This subject is as exhausted as the weapons inspectors must have gotten.

Yes, we thought there were WMD.
No, they weren't found.

Yes, it was time to quit looking.​

No, it's not a good thing when your intelligence proves to be wrong.​

Yes, the American people know all about it.
No, it didn't stop them from re- electing President Bush.

Enough said?​

All true. But, I think there are just a few more things to say.

As of January 12, 2005 -
1,357 United States service members have died in Iraq.
76 United Kingdom service members have died in Iraq.
84 service members from other coalition countries have died in Iraq.

And, it does not look that the deaths will stop anytime soon.

As long as Service members keep dying. We should all keep talking about all of those items listed above.

Michael

 

[Ray]

One popular misconception is that the US gov't believed Iraq to be an "imminent" threat. My memory may be faulty, but I am sure that GWB said in the televised speech before the attack that America was not going to wait for Iraq to become an imminent threat. It's not a direct quote, but a paraphrase.

I believe that removing Saddam and Sons from power was a correct tactic.

I don't think I can completely believe what either side is saying. But I do believe that there is more to the story than we are told.

 

[michaeledward]

One popular misconception is that the US gov't believed Iraq to be an "imminent" threat. My memory may be faulty, but I am sure that GWB said in the televised speech before the attack that America was not going to wait for Iraq to become an imminent threat. It's not a direct quote, but a paraphrase.

I believe that removing Saddam and Sons from power was a correct tactic.

I don't think I can completely believe what either side is saying. But I do believe that there is more to the story than we are told.

Let's see why some might believe the threat was 'imminent'....

Do you suppose this language below is designed to convey security and safety?

Statement by President George W. Bush"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source:President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

[/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld"[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source:Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

[/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Statement by President George W. Bush"The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take."[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source:Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

[/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source:Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention, White House (8/26/2002).[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

[/font][/font][/font][/font]

http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp?start=10&Subject=Urgent+Threat&submit=Search+Database
[/font][/font]
[/font][/font]