• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

More Saddam and WMD - left still in denial? [Saddam Tapes]

Re: ABC changes Saddam Tapes

Stinger said:
What more do you want? On top of the Kay and Duelfer reports and these first hand accounts, what more do you want?

nothing you give them will ever be enough.

they yell for proof.....and when you give them proof, they change the definition of the word "proof"

make no mistake, if we ever have the weapons in U.S. custody, they will claim they were "manufactured"

the left has too much invested in this ludicrous accusation that there were no weapons to ever admit there were.

you could have a photo of Saddam standing in a room with a gas mask on and a radioactive emblem on his T-shirt and they wouldnt admit they existed or that Saddam was ever a threat to anyone.

its pathetic really.
 
Re: ABC changes Saddam Tapes

ProudAmerican said:
the left has too much invested in this ludicrous accusation that there were no weapons to ever admit there were.

That's the key, they will never ever be able to admit we were justified in removing him. Anyone who reads the conclusions of the Kay and Duelfer reports on top of the 9/11 commission and Senate hearings and STILL don't believe he had to be removed is not living in the real world.
 
Originally posted by Proud American:
nothing you give them will ever be enough.

they yell for proof.....and when you give them proof, they change the definition of the word "proof"

make no mistake, if we ever have the weapons in U.S. custody, they will claim they were "manufactured"

the left has too much invested in this ludicrous accusation that there were no weapons to ever admit there were.

you could have a photo of Saddam standing in a room with a gas mask on and a radioactive emblem on his T-shirt and they wouldnt admit they existed or that Saddam was ever a threat to anyone.

its pathetic really.
What's pathetic is you feeling the need to even think this with no way to prove it.
 
Originally posted by Stinger:
That's the key, they will never ever be able to admit we were justified in removing him. Anyone who reads the conclusions of the Kay and Duelfer reports on top of the 9/11 commission and Senate hearings and STILL don't believe he had to be removed is not living in the real world.
I think you just like to hear yourself talk. Allow me to teach you that we had absolutely no justification to do what we did.

The basic international law principle prohibiting armed intervention by foreign states in internal conflicts is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. It reads:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial intergrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The principle is also accepted as a rule of customary international law and a a peremptory norm (jus cogens) from which no derogation is permitted. Customary international law also includes a general principle of non-interference in internal affairs formulated by the UN General Assembly as follows:

No state or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal affairs of another state. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

UN General Assembly Resolution 25/2625 (1970); see also UN General Assembly Resolution 20/2131 (1965). It's obvious from these principles that a foreign state may not use force to support insurgents or opposition elements against the government of a state. (Ibid., Schachter, pp.37-38)

- Craig B. Hulet, "The Hydra of Carnege".
 
I was watching Bill Maher last night, ( yeah, I know, I know...close your eyes and hide under the covers, conservatives) Anyway, he said something that I never thought I'd agree with...

The world, and in particular the U.S., would be better off now if we had left Saddam in power.

If you think about it, he is absolutely correct.
 
Hoot said:
I was watching Bill Maher last night, ( yeah, I know, I know...close your eyes and hide under the covers, conservatives) Anyway, he said something that I never thought I'd agree with...

The world, and in particular the U.S., would be better off now if we had left Saddam in power.

If you think about it, he is absolutely correct.

Maher is a left wing whacko who knows nothing about politics..........I can understand why you might agree with him though.....;)
 
Navy Pride said:
Maher is a left wing whacko who knows nothing about politics..........I can understand why you might agree with him though.....;)

Well, I'll admit that an argument could be made on whether the Iraqi people are better off with or without Saddam, however the rest of the world, and certainly the U.S., would be much better off today if Saddam were still in power.

And Bill Maher is no left wing whacko...he provides interesting food for thought, and at least he has reps from opposing viewpoints on every show, so both sides get a chance to be heard.
 
Hoot said:
Well, I'll admit that an argument could be made on whether the Iraqi people are better off with or without Saddam, however the rest of the world, and certainly the U.S., would be much better off today if Saddam were still in power.

And Bill Maher is no left wing whacko...he provides interesting food for thought, and at least he has reps from opposing viewpoints on every show, so both sides get a chance to be heard.

When it comes to Saddan and the rest of the world I think the verdict is still out.

Maher is a partisan almost as bad as Michael Moore I don;t care who he has on his show........
 
Hoot said:
Well, I'll admit that an argument could be made on whether the Iraqi people are better off with or without Saddam, however the rest of the world, and certainly the U.S., would be much better off today if Saddam were still in power.

And Bill Maher is no left wing whacko...he provides interesting food for thought, and at least he has reps from opposing viewpoints on every show, so both sides get a chance to be heard.


I Tivo'ed that show. Just watched it this morning. Interesting perspective. I've always wondered if Bush Sr. wasn't correct in his assessment as to why we shouldn't go in and take out Saddam. He said something to the effect of "taking him out will create more problems then it solves." If I get a chance I'll go find a quote.
 
Pacridge said:
I Tivo'ed that show. Just watched it this morning. Interesting perspective. I've always wondered if Bush Sr. wasn't correct in his assessment as to why we shouldn't go in and take out Saddam. He said something to the effect of "taking him out will create more problems then it solves." If I get a chance I'll go find a quote.

I think it was more that the UN resolution said to drive Saddam and his army back into Iraq my friend.....
 
Pacridge said:
Do you have quotes of what he said?

No I don't off hand I just know that the coalition would have dissolved and people like General Powell were advising against going it alone...........
 
Hoot said:
Well, I'll admit that an argument could be made on whether the Iraqi people are better off with or without Saddam, however the rest of the world, and certainly the U.S., would be much better off today if Saddam were still in power.

Not so sure about that. Most people seem to think that the Congressional Research Service is a fairly credible organization (though some disagree with their conclusions on the wiretapping legal position). Before the US invasion, Kenneth Katzman of the CRS studied the Iraq WMD reports and evidence and summarized the concerns as follows in his report dated 12/10/2002:

Nuclear Weapons

During 1991-1994, despite Iraq’s initial declaration that it had no nuclear weapons facilities or unsafe guarded material, UNSCOM/IAEA uncovered and dismantled a previously-undeclared network of about 40 nuclear research facilities, including three clandestine uranium enrichment programs (electromagnetic, centrifuge, and chemical isotope separation) as well as laboratory-scale plutonium separation program. Inspectors found and dismantled (in 1992) Iraq’s clandestine nuclear weapons development program, and they found evidence of development of a radiological weapon (“dirty bomb”), which scatters nuclear material without an explosion. No radiological weapon was ever completed, but Iraq might have tested such a device. UNSCOM removed from Iraq all discovered nuclear reactor fuel, fresh and irradiated. Following the defection of Hussein Kamil (Saddam’s son-in-law and former WMD production czar) in August 1995, Iraq revealed it had launched a crash program in August 1990 to produce a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible by diverting fuel from its reactors for a nuclear weapon. The IAEA report of December 1, 1995 said that, if Iraq had proceeded with its crash program, Iraq might have produced a nuclear weapon by December 1992.

The IAEA, before it ceased work in Iraq, said that Iraq’s nuclear program had been ended and that it had a relatively complete picture of Iraq’s nuclear suppliers. A May 15, 1998 Security Council statement reflected a U.S.-Russian agreement to close the nuclear file if Iraq cleared up outstanding issues (nuclear design drawings, documents, and the fate of some nuclear equipment). An IAEA report of July 1998 indicated that some questions still remained, and the United States did not agree to close the file. In January 2002, as it has in each of the past 3 years, IAEA inspectors verified that several tons of uranium remained sealed, acting under Iraq’s commitments under the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In May 2000, the IAEA destroyed a nuclear centrifuge that Iraq had stored in Jordan in 1991.

The IAEA says that the absence of an inspections program creates uncertainty about Iraqi nuclear activities. The United States believes that Iraq retains the expertise (about 7,000 scientists and engineers) and intention to rebuild its nuclear program, and Administration officials have asserted it is doing so. Some press reports indicate Iraq has recently tried to buy equipment abroad that could be used to make weapons grade nuclear material. On September 6, 2002, the New York Times reported that IAEA/UNMOVIC inspectors have noted from commercial satellite photos construction and other alterations at some Iraqi nuclear-related sites that could suggest banned nuclear activity by Iraq. The CIA assessment, mentioned above, says that Iraq would likely not be able to produce a nuclear weapon until the latter half of the decade, unless it acquires fissile material from abroad.

Chemical Weapons

UNSCOM destroyed all chemical weapons materiel uncovered — 38,500 munitions, 480,000 liters of chemical agents, 1.8 million liters of precursor chemicals, and 426 pieces of production equipment items — and the destruction operation formally ended on June 14, 1994. However, the fate of about 31,600 chemical munitions, 550 mustard gas bombs, and 4,000 tons of chemical precursors, remains unknown. Iraq refused to yield an Air Force document, found in July 1998 by UNSCOM, that could explain their fate, although Iraq allowed UNSCOM to take notes from it. In February 1998 UNSCOM discovered that shells taken from Iraq in 1996 contained 97% pure mustard gas, indicating it was freshly produced. The primary remaining chemical weapons questions center on VX nerve agent, which Iraq did not include in its initial postwar declarations and of which no stockpile was ever located. By 1995 UNSCOM had uncovered enough circumstantial evidence to force Iraq to admit to producing about 4 tons of VX, but UNSCOM believed that Iraq had imported enough precursor — about 600 tons — to produce 200 tons of the agent. In late June 1998, UNSCOM revealed that some unearthed missile warheads, tested in a U.S. Army lab, contained traces of VX, contradicting Iraq’s assertions that it had not succeeded in stabilizing the agent. Separate French and Swiss tests did not find conclusive evidence of VX. About 170 chemical sites were under long-term monitoring. Iraq has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention that took effect April 29, 1997. The CIA assessment says Iraq has renewed chemical weapons production and probably stocked a few hundred tons of agent.

Biological Weapons

Biological weapons is the area with more outstanding and unresolved issues than any other weapons area, according to UNSCOM, which called Iraq’s biological declarations neither credible nor verifiable. Iraq did not initially declare any biological materials, weapons, research, or facilities, and no biological weapons stockpile was ever uncovered. UNSCOM focused its investigation initially on the major biological research and development site at Salman Pak, but Iraq partially buried that facility shortly before the first inspections began. In August 1991, Iraq admitted that it had a biological weapons research program. In July 1995, Iraq modified its admission by acknowledging it had an offensive biological weapons program and that it had produced 19,000 liters of botulinum, 8,400 liters of anthrax, and 2,000 liters of aflatoxin, clostridium, and ricin. In August 1995, Iraq confessed to having produced 191 biological bombs, of which 25 were missile warheads, loaded with anthrax, botulinum, and aflatoxin for use in the Gulf war, but Iraq claims to have destroyed the bombs after the Gulf conflict. UNSCOM monitored 86 biological sites during 1994 -1998. UNSCOM discovered and dismantled the Al Hakam facility on June 20, 1996.

According to UNSCOM, Iraq imported a total of 34 tons of growth media for producing biological agents during the 1980s, of which 4 tons remain unaccounted for. UNSCOM lacked information on Iraq’s development of drop tanks and aerosol generators for biological dissemination, as well as the fate of the biological munitions. No evidence linking the October 2001 anthrax-related terrorism in the United States to Iraq has been announced.White House spokespersons said in late December 2001 that the anthrax used in the attacks appeared to be from a domestic source, such as a U.S. military laboratory. Press reports in 2002 say Iraq has been developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver biological or chemical weapons. The October 2002 CIA assessment said that Iraq had reactivated its biological program and that most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.

Source: http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/archive/documents/iraq/crs_threat_compliance_sanctions.pdf

One comment to note in particular: ". In May 2000, the IAEA destroyed a nuclear centrifuge that Iraq had stored in Jordan in 1991." Doesn't prove anything, but if nothing else, it suggests a willingness on the part of Saddam to hide stuff in a neighboring country.

I re-iterate: IMO, anyone that believes that Saddam, left unchecked,would not have sought nuclear weapons and/or other WMDs, is being completely fatuous. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
http://www.tufts.edu/communications/stories/030303BushSpeech.htm
As long as I live, I will never forget walking into that peace conference at Madrid that followed the Desert Storm with Gorbachev at my side and see a room full of Arabs and Israeli's sitting across from each other beginning to talk about peace. It made a profound impression on me. And, I believe, it can happen again. As long as I live I can't get it out of my mind because it was so very emotional.

Incidentally, the Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had acceded [sic - exceeded] the U.N. mandate and gone on on its own if the United States had gone on on its own, had gone into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces had surrendered and agreed to disarm. The coalition would have instantly shattered. And the political capital that we had gained as a result of our principle[sic] restraint to jumpstart the peace process would have been lost. We would have lost all support from our coalition, with the possible exception of England. And we would have lost all support from the smaller nations in the United Nations as well.
 
Iraq

Bush was 100% right to invade Iraq!
Bush is the most intelligent person to have ever lived and anyone who does not agree with him in every way is stupid!
Bush is truly God's gift to the whole world, I love Bush so much and I want to sleep with him.
 
Hoot said:
I was watching Bill Maher last night, ( yeah, I know, I know...close your eyes and hide under the covers, conservatives) Anyway, he said something that I never thought I'd agree with...

The world, and in particular the U.S., would be better off now if we had left Saddam in power.

If you think about it, he is absolutely correct.

He would be operating without any control over him with sanctions lifted. Free to do as he pleased. The Kay and Duelfer reports are very clear in their conclusions that as soon as the sanctions would have been lift he would have ramped up his WMD research and production. And do you think OBL would be hiding out in barren caves in Pakistan or living a comfortable life in Iraq rebuilding his Al Qaeda and plotting his next moves?

I can't imagine any basis on which to make the statement we would all be better off with Saddam in power.

Remember here are the reasons it was our policy to remove him, overwhelming approved of by the congress and signed by the president.

    • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities. [/FONT]
    • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds. [/FONT]
    • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today. [/FONT]
    • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat. [/FONT]
    • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement. [/FONT]
    • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait. [/FONT]
    • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait. [/FONT]
    • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government. [/FONT]
    • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs. [/FONT]
    • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM. [/FONT]
    • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'. [/FONT]
    • [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] (12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.


      [/FONT]
And here is what the president said

"
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government."



And the Vice President



[FONT=helvetica,arial,sans-serif]"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."[/FONT]

[FONT=helvetica,arial,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=helvetica,arial,sans-serif]And[/FONT]

[FONT=helvetica,arial,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=helvetica,arial,sans-serif]"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."[/FONT]

[FONT=helvetica,arial,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=helvetica,arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT]
 
Re: ABC changes Saddam Tapes

Stinger said:
I heard Mr. Tierney discussing the tapes and interpretations on Hannity, it wasn't a matter so much of the grammer or rhetoric but of the context and lack of in the ABC tapes, IE they seem to have manipulated them to downplay the overall impact. Now can you rebut that or do you have anything that shows otherwise?
Well the US Army's FMSO translations appear to be more in line w/ ABC's than they are w/ Mr. Tierney's.
That could be construed as showing that ABC's translations aren't necessarily the result of an evil liberal plot against the Victim-in-Chief, most picked upon prez. [Poor, poor prez. Kind of makes you feel sorry for him don't it?]
Or, one may choose to conclude that the FMSO are co-conspirators w/ ABC, or worse yet, ABC's dupes!

Or perhaps Tierney's a pro-war nutjob who's as looney as Ward Curhchill.
 
Re: ABC changes Saddam Tapes

Simon W. Moon said:
Well the US Army's FMSO translations appear to be more in line w/ ABC's than they are w/ Mr. Tierney's.

I think it's more what you want to read into it.

I'm reading quote a bit from the translations and releases that support exactly what Mr. Tierney has been saying along with many other sources.

Just a few snippets

Exhibit B

Nuclear capabilities became a topic of discussion in a 1995 meeting with Saddam, vice president Tariq Aziz, and top military officials. An incomplete audiotape of the meeting runs over 62 minutes and begins with Saddam, Mr. Aziz, a Lt. Gen. "Amir" and others discussing how to dodge and parry their way through an upcoming report to the UN Security Council from UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus. "Sir . . . one could be suspicious of it [the Biological Program] if we concentrate on it [UNINTELLIGIBLE] and the trafficking effort and dodging everything in regards to it," a nervous Lt. Gen. Amir explains.
Throughout the meeting the top brass comes off as the frustrated but dutiful victim of oppressive UN sanctions, when in fact the Iraqi leaders are rehearsing their way out of full compliance with UN resolutions. Much of the give and take is about how closely to rely on the French and the Russians to counter the Americans and the British at the Security Council level. Then Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, interrupts uncomfortably: "On the nuclear file, Sir, we are saying that we disclosed everything? No, we have undeclared problems in the nuclear field, and I believe that they know them. Some teams work and no one knows some of them. Sir, I am sorry for speaking so clearly. Everything is over. But, did they know? No, Sir, they did not know; not all the methods, not all the means, not all the scientists, and not all the places."


and
Exhibit D

A handwritten dossier dated Aug. 17, 2002, confirms an operational cell of al-Qaeda inside Iraq and identifies its key member as Ahmed Fadil Nizal Al Khalaylah—also known as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the current leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. Saddam's regime, from the document, seems little concerned about the terrorist's presence—even though tolerating known terrorists violated UN resolutions—and less surprised, perhaps with reason. Another memo, dated Sept. 15, 2001, and from Afghanistan, notes a relationship between al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Baghdad, and a Dec. 1, 2001, memo reports on "the status of rumors" of 3,000 Fedayeen Saddam from Anbar Province who were dispatched "in an unofficial capacity to Afghanistan and have joined the mujahidin to fight with and aid them in defeating the American Zionist Imperialist attack."





http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11671







Or perhaps Tierney's a pro-war nutjob who's as looney as Ward Curhchill.

I don't think such ad hominems are going to help make your case.
 
Stinger said:
I don't think such ad hominems are going to help make your case.

Actually arguing the man will help me make my case. First, I'll explain why it helps me make my case. Next, I will explain how it helps me make my case. Then, I show how you have already provided evidence that it has helped me make my case.

Mr. Tierney's mental instability helps my case because his case is based upon accepting his judgment as sound. Demonstrating his judgment is not sound undermines his case that he shoudl be considered a more reliable translator than the FMSO and ABC.
The fact that Mr. Tierney thinks someone else's clairvoyant dreams are realistic methods for obtaining info about urasnium enrichment facilities shows that he's not quite with those of us working in the reality based model of the world. Since he's more to the moonbat side of things, the fact that the US Army's FMSO and ABC translation both differ from his in similar ways, it shows that perhaps his translations are based in the same world order as the one where friend's clairvoyant dreams are intelligence gathering procedures.

You have provided evidence that my case is working- you switched from talking about the differences between Tierney's translation and the ABC translation of audio tapes. Now, you want to change the subject and begin talking about some docs that the FMSO translated.
If my case that Tierney's a nutjob had no effect, you wouldn't've had to switch from talking about the comparision between his translation and ABC. You would not have to change the subject and start talking about the FMSO's translations of documents instead of talking about Tierney/ABC translations of audio tapes.

Stinger said:
I think it's more what you want to read into it.
This is also a dodge from the translation issue. Now, we're talking about reading into translations rather than just what was said. I see.
My case that Mr. Tierney's mentally unreliable does seem to be working despite you protests that it is not.

Stinger said:
I'm reading quote a bit from the translations and releases that support exactly what Mr. Tierney has been saying along with many other sources.
Just a few snippets
Exhibit B
Unfortunately, I have to ask- Are you aware that this first item is a translation from Mr. Tierney? As such, it's little wonder that it agrees with Mr. Tierney's translation. Hardly a point in your favor to say that Mr. Tierney backs Mr. Tierney.
It's also unfortunate that the author of the article chose not to provide a reference to which specific text he's quoting so that we can compare translations easily.

Here're some differences between Mr. Tierney's work and the work of the FMSO. You tell me if "it's more what you want to read into it," or not.
Tierney said:
Saddam Hussein
Terrorism is coming . . . with the Americans, two years ago, not a long while ago, with the English I believe, there was a campaign [unintelligible] with one of them, that in the future there would be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction . . . . . ..

Saddam Hussein
what is it that we . . . consider this technique . . and use people involved with smuggling. . there were stories on smuggling.

Unidentified Male
But sir, germ warfare –

Saddam Hussein
Before a little, in 89, . . they said in the future they would see a car [unintelligible] a nuclear explosion in, for example, Washington . . or germ, or chemical.

Tariq Aziz
Sir, germ, biological, we can arrange a house, we can arrange a truck, with –

Saddam Hussein
This is coming, this story is coming, but not from Iraq . .

Tariq Aziz
Sir, they can’t do it.
Saddam Hussein
It is coming from others.

Tariq Aziz
biological, this is simple to arrange. This is easy. With any biological [weapon], you can use a truck with germ . . and fill the water tank and kill [unintelligible]. And this not a country, it is not necessary to suspect a country, anyone can do it.

Tariq Aziz
Anyone can do it, an American, in a house near the White House. They would not have much reason, except the institutes. They have big institutes, like Hakim. [unintelligible] Hakim, and it is known that it was destroyed.

Tariq Aziz
They, if they can convince the others also, that this institute has the equipment, I don't think there would makayin [unintelligible]. There would be. [mumbling] Yes?

Unidentified Male
The reaction?

Tariq Aziz
Yes, care with all the shibabish. I mean, if actually, there is going to be destruction, I think our position is not going to be strong. The others are going to say that this is true, the five are not going to accept –
Saddam Hussein
Yes, that is like all, enough of [unintelligible].

Unidentified Male
[a speaker at a distance from the microphone raised concerns about such an attack]

Saddam Hussein
[unintelligible] I know that biological is the farthest thing away from there being a story. Wadiyan [friendly?], they ended it, their work and [unintelligible]

Unidentified Male
[Mostly unintelligible, but mentions a window and air conditioning].
USAFMSO said:
Male 2
Terrorism is coming to them, Americans before 2000 long time and I think the British too, it exist I think Hamid was recording with one of them, I told him in the future terrorism will be with weapons of mass destructions, so what’s going to prevent? Technology will advance and this is long time ago I mean on 1989, we shouldn’t be surprise to see to see a car bomb with nuclear explodes just like Washington, either Germ or Chemical.

Male 3
Sir, any Germ or biologist expert can make it at his home a bottle filled.

Male 2
So this is coming, it means this story is coming, but not from Iraq.

Male 3
No, Sir this they can’t do, especially Biological, biology is so simple in it’s composition, any biologist can make a bottle filled with Germs and throw it in water tank, and kill 100.000 person, so this is not a country, you can’t accuse a country, one person can do it. One American person can do it in a house, next to the White House; there is no real logic in it except if there is a large establishment, like Al-Hakam, in fact Al-Hakam is exposed for destruction, because if they can convince the others too that this establishment with what it
has of equipments, it doesn’t have Machines does it Abu ‘Ali?

Male 4
No, No, it has reactors.

Male 3
Yes, just walls and windows, so for fact they will demand to destroy it, then our position will be strong, because the others will say get rid of this one and…

Male 2
Just like we got rid of the others.

Male 4
Sir in Al-Hakam they measured everything, all Air-conditioning, and its soil, and the surrounded area, and its labs, and it ended on 1992 Biology ended.

Male 2
We know that Biology is far from becoming a story, and then when they finished their job.


Some differences. Perhaps they are gross differences rather than merely a case of "what you want to read into it."​
 
Back
Top Bottom