WMDs & The UN Inspectors...

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by cnredd
I posted this to a response in "Bias In The Media", but it has more relevance in this forum...This is in response to all of those who happily cry "No WMDs!"

In 1998, the UN weapons inspectors found WMDs...

If they found WMD's in '98, why did Hans Blix report say they hadn't had them since 1992?

 

[kal-el]

We all know Saddam had WMD's. He used them on his own people.

And who supplied them to him? If he had them, then why didn't the UN weapons inspectors, or the military find them? You can say he shipped them to another country, but until I see solid proof of that, IMO it is just another ficticious claim.

 

[cnredd]

If they found WMD's in '98, why did Hans Blix report say they hadn't had them since 1992?

And who supplied them to him? If he had them, then why didn't the UN weapons inspectors, or the military find them? You can say he shipped them to another country, but until I see solid proof of that, IMO it is just another ficticious claim.

Go back and read Post #1,7 & 12 for answers...

Kal, I'm especially dissappointed with this one for two reasons...

I guess you think the UNSCOM report is just a lie...and never found them, correct? You either are just responding to MiamiFlorida's one quote or you are in complete denial...

This is JUST the smaller chart provided within the UNSCOM report...The link is on Post 12...

Mustard
(20m3 / 1m3 containers)
295 tonnes of mustard were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision.

Tabun
(2m3 containers)
76 tonnes of tabun were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision.

Sarin and its mixtures
(2m3 containers)
40 tonnes of tabun were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision.

VX
(1m3 containers)
1) According to Iraq, 1.5 tonnes of VX were discarded unilaterally by dumping on the ground.
2) Traces of one VX-degradation product and a chemical known as a VX-stabilizer were found in the samples taken from the VX dump sites.
3) A quantified assessment is not possible.

Total 412,5 tonnes

If you want to redirect the issue and say that the US provided them, do so on another thread...This one simply provided information that's been sourced to the actual UNSCOM report and the IAEA...

As pertaining to your statement about shipping them to another country...I refer to Post #1...

So the question still remains....What happened to them?...This is a question that may take years, if ever, to actually find the truth...There are many possibilities, but "He never had them" is not one of those possibilities...

Since their are people on this thread that make comments without reading the facts first, I will repost the two relevant threads...

 

[cnredd]

Reposted for those who don't want to start at the beginning before making comments which have already been answered...

This is in response to all of those who happily cry "No WMDs!"

In 1998, the UN weapons inspectors found WMDs...That is fact...What does that have to do with the war?...keep reading...

The inspectors were then kicked out by Cindy Shee....whoops!...wrong thread!...I mean, "Saddam"...:2wave:

In 2002/3 the new team of weapons inspectors showed up...Before we get any further, an explanation must be made...

Do not confuse the term "inspector" with "hunter"...The UN inspection team was NOT there to look for weapons...That his one of the biggest things some people latch onto, but it is completely false...

Guess what the UN inspection team was there to do?...Any guesses???....To INSPECT!...not "look for"..not "hunt"....simply to INSPECT....

And what were they there to inspect? They were there to inspect the inventory and facilities that were ALREADY known through the 1998 team...So when they showed up and said "Where's the stuff the previous team saw?", Saddam said "Uhhhh...we don't know what you're talking about."

So the Inspection team said, "Yes you do...we have positive proof that you HAD them...what happened to them?"...Saddam's reply?..."uhhhhh...We destroyed them."

Now...as stated, the inspection team was NOT there to look for anything...they were only there to inspect...and this is VERY important...

The burden of proof was on Saddam and his regime...NOT the inspection team!

I will say it again because some of the forum members are not up to speed with this...

The burden of proof was on Saddam and his regime...NOT the inspection team!

This part is really important, so I will type slower....

The fact that they weren't found IS the problem!...The 1998 inspection team PHYSICALLY saw them...So the question is "Where are they NOW?"...The burden of proof fell on Saddam to PROVE what happened to them...NOT for the inspection teams to FIND them.

Remember...According to the 1991 cease-fire agreement with Iraq, the U.N. had agreed not to lift sanctions until Iraq's full compliance had been verified.

Anyone want to guess why the sanctions were STILL on Iraq at the time of the war?...Simple...Iraq was not in FULL COMPLIANCE. If the 2003 inspection team was allowed to continue, would "full compliance" have been met?...Nope...Saddam didn't grant them "unfettered access", which means the actual inspections would never have been complete...Just like the previous inspection team's...THAT is what Saddam was counting on...another "shell-game" that would've ended with the UN giving in...

You may want to believe otherwise, but history has shown this to be the case...The term "This time we mean it!" has been used by the UN before, and every single time Saddam laughed at them...

If the US didn't throw in the monkey wrench, the UN would've lifted sanctions WITHOUT full compliance, and this would be more proof to the world that the UN is toothless...Their resolutions are meaningless...

So the question still remains....What happened to them?...This is a question that may take years, if ever, to actually find the truth...There are many possibilities, but "He never had them" is not one of those possibilities...

Saddam's burden of proof was not met...He provided no sources for his claim that everything was destroyed...And when some people say "There were no WMDs", they are saying, "Even though Saddam didn't prove that he got rid of them...I believe him when he says that he did."

Congratulations!...I'm sure you will all make great character witnesses at his trial.

 

[cnredd]

Reposted for those who don't want to start at the beginning before making comments which have already been answered...

However, if you would like proof of what WAS there and what was not, here is the ACTUAL UNSCOM REPORT...No political spin...no rhetoric...actual findings...

Hopefully THIS will close the case...

49. The Commission has a certain degree of confidence in the accounting for proscribed items declared by Iraq as having been destroyed during the 1991 Gulf war. The Commission has accepted through its verification the destruction of 34,000 special munitions and 823 tonnes of key precursors. Outstanding issues remain. These include the accounting for 2,000 unfilled and 550 filled special munitions.

50. The Commission has a lesser degree of confidence in accounting for proscribed items declared by Iraq as having been destroyed unilaterally. These include 15,900 unfilled and 100 filled special munitions, the CW agent VX and 50 tonnes of a precursor for the production of VX. Nevertheless, the Commission has accepted through its verification the destruction of 13,660 special munitions and about 200 tonnes of key precursors. However, residual questions remain with respect to proscribed items destroyed unilaterally. The presentation by foreign suppliers of information on the delivery of munitions and precursors requested by UNSCOM could be helpful in the verification of this area.

51. The priority should be given to the resolution of the most important outstanding issues. These include: material balance of chemical munitions (including verification of the expenditure of special munitions in the 1980s, which is required to increase a degree of confidence with respect to Iraq's declarations of chemical weapons remained in Iraq in 1991; the accounting for 550 artillery shells filled with mustard; verification of the unilateral destruction of R-400 chemical and biological aerial bombs); accounting for the production of the chemical warfare agent VX, and; verification of the completeness of declarations provided by Iraq on the material balance of CW production equipment removed from the Muthanna State Establishment (MSE) prior to the UNSCOM inspections.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/

This is just a sampling...Why?...go to the website and see...This report is a freakin' BEAR!...If you want to read the whole thing, bring coffee and a pack of No-Doz.:2razz:

I went directly to the "Chemical Weapons"...My snippets are taken from the bottom under "Assessment"...

Just start reading at the top on what UNSCOM DID see and supervise the destruction of and your eyes will pop out of your sockets...Read my first snippet...34,000 special munitions and 823 tonnes of key precursors...823 ton(nes)?!?!?!...WTF?!?!?!? And this was JUST the "chemical" aspects!!

Remember...they were kicked out by IRAQ BEFORE the completion of the inspections, so they didn't get to supervise the remaining weapons DECLARED by Iraq...Even if Iraq omitted things in their summary, there isn't any evidence that they destroyed everything that WAS in the summary.

What next?...Do I have to go to the inspectors houses for interviews?:doh

Now, for your question of the 2002 Inspection team seeing the "tagged" WMD destined for destruction but not actually destroyed because they were kicked out, look no further than the first paragraph from the December, 2002 update taken DIRECTLY from the International Atomic Agency's website...

6 December 2002 -- Based on reports from the UN, inspectors visited Al-Mutanna, north of Baghdad, where Iraq once had a chemical weapons (CW) warfare programme. During past visits to the site before the 1998 suspension of the UN arms probe, thousands of CW shells and agents had been destroyed by the UN. Dimitri Perricos, the leader of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) inspection team, told reporters today that experts wanted to know if some shells containing mustard gas, which were left out at the site, were still stored there. Mr. Perricos said that in fact the team had found the shells stored at the site.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2002/ma_iraq_0612.shtml

PLEASE tell me you're convinced now!....I'm doing WAY too much research investment and the payout has not been commensurate.

 

[cnredd]

To those who have already read the previous two posts, first, thank you:2wave: ...and second, please bear with the repost...It is the only point of this thread and it is for those who haven't started at the beginning...which is rarely done in this forum...

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Why'd you repost this part even though it's demonstably false?

Do not confuse the term "inspector" with "hunter"...The UN inspection team was NOT there to look for weapons...That his one of the biggest things some people latch onto, but it is completely false...

Guess what the UN inspection team was there to do?...Any guesses???....To INSPECT!...not "look for"..not "hunt"....simply to INSPECT....

And what were they there to inspect? They were there to inspect the inventory and facilities that were ALREADY known through the 1998 team...So when they showed up and said "Where's the stuff the previous team saw?", Saddam said "Uhhhh...we don't know what you're talking about."

So the Inspection team said, "Yes you do...we have positive proof that you HAD them...what happened to them?"...Saddam's reply?..."uhhhhh...We destroyed them."

Now...as stated, the inspection team was NOT there to look for anything...they were only there to inspect...and this is VERY important...

"... this is VERY important ..." and very wrong.

Reposted for those who didn't read it or respond to it at the beginning before repeating comments which have already been answered...

UNSCOM was charged with making their own determinations in re what needed to be inspected.
Per S/RES/687 (1991) 8 April 1991 RESOLUTION 687 (1991)

9. (b)(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;
​

UNMOVIS was charge w/ the indentical discretionary power.
Per S/RES/1284 (1999) 17December 1999 RESOLUTION 1284 (1999)

A. 2. Decides also that UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687 (1991) and other related resolutions, that UNMOVIC will establish and operate, as was recommended by the panel on disarmament and current and future ongoing monitoring and verification issues, a reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification, which will implement the plan approved by the Council in resolution 715 (1991) and address unresolved disarmament issues, and that UNMOVIC will identify, as necessary in accordance with its mandate, additional sites in Iraq to be covered by the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification;
​

Given that both sets of inspectors were to figure what else in addition to and outside of Iraq's declarations also needed inspection, (and given that the US repeated gave the inspector's "hot tips" on where else to inspect,) it seems that the distinction drawn between 'inspectors' and 'hunters' is merely semantics.

Or, perhaps you could explain in light of the mission that UNMOVIC and UNSCOM were charged w/ what exactly is the difference between 'hunter' and 'inspector' in this context besides the spelling.

 

[cnredd]

Why'd you repost this part even though it's demonstably false?


"... this is VERY important ..." and very wrong.

Reposted for those who didn't read it or respond to it at the beginning before repeating comments which have already been answered...

UNSCOM was charged with making their own determinations in re what needed to be inspected.
Per S/RES/687 (1991) 8 April 1991 RESOLUTION 687 (1991)

9. (b)(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;
​

UNMOVIS was charge w/ the indentical discretionary power.
Per S/RES/1284 (1999) 17December 1999 RESOLUTION 1284 (1999)

A. 2. Decides also that UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687 (1991) and other related resolutions, that UNMOVIC will establish and operate, as was recommended by the panel on disarmament and current and future ongoing monitoring and verification issues, a reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification, which will implement the plan approved by the Council in resolution 715 (1991) and address unresolved disarmament issues, and that UNMOVIC will identify, as necessary in accordance with its mandate, additional sites in Iraq to be covered by the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification;
​

Given that both sets of inspectors were to figure what else in addition to and outside of Iraq's declarations also needed inspection, (and given that the US repeated gave the inspector's "hot tips" on where else to inspect,) it seems that the distinction drawn between 'inspectors' and 'hunters' is merely semantics.

Or, perhaps you could explain in light of the mission that UNMOVIC and UNSCOM were charged w/ what exactly is the difference between 'hunter' and 'inspector' in this context besides the spelling.

There is one phrase that separates itself from all of the others...

...it seems that the distinction drawn between 'inspectors' and 'hunters' is merely semantics.

If that's the way you feel...Congrats...But since it seems to keep you up at night with the cold sweats, I suggest you call the United Nations and all of the global media outlets and demand they change the term "UN Inspection Team" to something that is more palatable to your liking.

The only thing your comments have done, and quite convincingly I might add, is redirect the thrust of the original ascertation that Saddam, did indeed, have weapons...

I suggest a defense lawyer profession in your furure, if you are not one currently...You would have a wonderful way of confusing the jury into aquittal because the prosecution said "black socks" when they were, indeed, "dark blue".:roll:

 

[kal-el]

Originally posted by cnredd
So the question still remains....What happened to them?...This is a question that may take years, if ever, to actually find the truth...There are many possibilities, but "He never had them" is not one of those possibilities...

I never said he was never in possesion of them. It is a fact that he used chemical weapons to gas the Kurds in '87. And, yes, the UN weapons inspectors did find them in '98, hence Saddam kicked them out, hence Clinton began bombing Iraq. But the fact remains, we never found them? So where are they?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The only thing your comments have done, and quite convincingly I might add, is redirect the thrust of the original ascertation that Saddam, did indeed, have weapons...

I suggest a defense lawyer profession in your furure, if you are not one currently...You would have a wonderful way of confusing the jury into aquittal because the prosecution said "black socks" when they were, indeed, "dark blue".:roll:

I refuted one of your "very important" points. Take it as you will.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It is factually inaccurate to say that Saddam never had WMD.

But that's not really what's at issue. What's at issue is whether or he had them during the build up to the invasion when the Pro-War Party was talking the "massive stock piles" and venomous-flying-robots-of-terror-from-Iraq to the electorate.

That's the time period that's most relevant to the issue of the invasion.
But, again, even that's just a subsection of the larger issue which was the threat to the US from Iraq. That's the real issue. The threat was composed of several parts. The WMD thing was just one part of the threat.

What gets ignored is that even if he did have them in 2002, none of the professional intel agencies were saying that he was likely to use them offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy). If he had them, he was only going to use the weapons defensively. Saddam was not a "madman" in the sense of being undeterrable or in being oblivious to US military might. In deed, he was deterred during GW from using the WMD that he had by the threat of "national obliteration" at the hands of the US. He had a proven track record of being successfully deterred from using WMD against the US by the threat of US force.

 

[kal-el]

It is factually inaccurate to say that Saddam never had WMD.

But that's not really what's at issue. What's at issue is whether or he had them during the build up to the invasion when the Pro-War Party was talking the "massive stock piles" and venomous-flying-robots-of-terror-from-Iraq to the electorate.

That's the time period that's most relevant to the issue of the invasion.
But, again, even that's just a subsection of the larger issue which was the threat to the US from Iraq. That's the real issue. The threat was composed of several parts. The WMD thing was just one part of the threat.

What gets ignored is that even if he did have them in 2002, none of the professional intel agencies were saying that he was likely to use them offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy). If he had them, he was only going to use the weapons defensively. Saddam was not a "madman" in the sense of being undeterrable or in being oblivious to US military might. In deed, he was deterred during GW from using the WMD that he had by the threat of "national obliteration" at the hands of the US. He had a proven track record of being successfully deterred by the threat of US force.

Yes, during the first few weeks of this war, I was waiting for Saddam to use his "alleged" WMDs against us. Once again, cause that was Bush's main sales pitch for this war. If he wouldn't have said anything about wmds, I doubt the American people would go along with this sharade.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yes, during the first few weeks of this war, I was waiting for Saddam to use his "alleged" WMDs against us. Once again, cause that was Bush's main sales pitch for this war. If he wouldn't have said anything about wmds, I doubt the American people would go along with this sharade.

The composite threat from Iraq was the central justifying "reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly ... on the scale we did it."

 

[kal-el]

The composite threat from Iraq was the central justifying "reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly ... on the scale we did it."

>"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

It seems the White House and Paul Wolfowitz have conflicting arguements over this. They were preaching WMDs,and Wolfowitz says that is just 1 reason, mostly he said, they were a threat. IMO,he was no threat at all. He was contained for 11 years prior to the Anglo-American invasion. After Gulf War 1, the UN placed sanctions on him, which lasted throughout the '90s.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

"One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism ... a fourth over riding one which is the connection between the first two ..."
​

These are a listing of some of the elements that constituted the threat from Iraq to the US.

The third item "is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."
It was rightly recognized as "a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it."

The reason to put American kids' lives at risk on the scale we did it was the threat to the US from Iraq. No threat, no pre-emptiveness to the war- not even any preventitiveness to the war.

 

[kal-el]

"One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism​

Support for terrorism? Please, Iraq had the least terror connections of any Mid East country.​

 

[nkgupta80]

Support for terrorism? Please, Iraq had the least terror connections of any Mid East country.

people will try to refute this by saying that Iraq had some vague connections with Al Queda abck in the day. I mean if this accounts for Iraq being a terrorist friendly nation, then hell when we helped the muhajideen in Afghanistan, we MUST have been a terrorist nation too.

Its a well known fact in all nations who have been fighting terrorism for a long time that Iraq had the least connections. The greatest Iraq probably did in promoting terrorism was giving money to the families of suicide bombers.

 

[kal-el]

people will try to refute this by saying that Iraq had some vague connections with Al Queda abck in the day. I mean if this accounts for Iraq being a terrorist friendly nation, then hell when we helped the muhajideen in Afghanistan, we MUST have been a terrorist nation too.

Its a well known fact in all nations who have been fighting terrorism for a long time that Iraq had the least connections. The greatest Iraq probably did in promoting terrorism was giving money to the families of suicide bombers.

Yes, actually Bin laden detested Saddam,calling him an "infidel."

 

[gdalton]

But that's not really what's at issue. What's at issue is whether or he had them during the build up to the invasion when the Pro-War Party was talking the "massive stock piles" and venomous-flying-robots-of-terror-from-Iraq to the electorate.

Mr. David Kay, Iraq Survey Group

“We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002…… Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:”
(I will list just a few)
(In reference to Bio weapons)
• A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
• Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
• New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

(Nuclear)
• Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

(As Simon puts it “venomous-flying-robots-of-terror-from-Iraq “)
• A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.


http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html

What gets ignored is that even if he did have them in 2002, none of the professional intel agencies were saying that he was likely to use them offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy).

This is David Kay, chief weapons inspector, ISG

"Kay clearly admires Bush, and believes he went to war in Iraq in good faith because he thought Baghdad was a threat to the American people…… Before the war, Kay was one of the most fervent supporters of military action."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...160916,00.html

This is David Kelly, British Weapons Expert, former UN weapons inspector

"British weapons expert David Kelly, who died in July 2003 from cuts to his wrist, said in October 2002 that Iraq had banned weapons and posed an immediate threat"Yes there is," Kelly responded to the question of whether there was an immediate threat. "Even if they're not actually filled and deployed today, the capability exists to get them filled and deployed within a matter of days and weeks. So yes, there is a threat.""

http://www.atsnn.com/story/30448.html\

CNN posted an article on their web site back in 2002 which had this to say, "”Iraq continues to possess several tons of chemical weapons agents, enough to kill thousands and thousands of civilians or soldiers," said Jon Wolfsthal, an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/index.html

Sounds like a few “professional intel agencies” believed Saddam had the weapons and was a threat.

“Yes, actually Bin laden detested Saddam,calling him an "infidel."

9/11 commission report

“In 2001, with Bin Laden’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.” And it goes on to describe a longer history of connections saying that in 1997 Saddam was staying clear of Bin Laden because Saddam was trying to re-build relationships with some of his Middle Eastern neighbors but by 1998 Saddam had changed his mind and “it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings were apparently arranged through Bin Laden’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.” The report goes on to say that in 1999 Al Qaeda’s relationship with the Taliban in Afghanistan was beginning to become strained so more meetings were set up and “Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq” which Bin Laden declined because he felt his position in Afghanistan was more favorable.

www.gpoaccess.gov/911,

And then there is “Summary of Evidence” a report prepared by the US government in 2004, it gives 13 points which I list below, the report was used as a case for designating an Iraqi member of Al Qaeda who is currently detained in Guantanamo as an “enemy combatant”.

1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002.

 

[kal-el]

Mr. David Kay, Iraq Survey Group

“We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002…… Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:”
(I will list just a few)
(In reference to Bio weapons)
• A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
• Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
• New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

(Nuclear)
• Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

(As Simon puts it “venomous-flying-robots-of-terror-from-Iraq “)
• A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.


http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html




This is David Kay, chief weapons inspector, ISG

"Kay clearly admires Bush, and believes he went to war in Iraq in good faith because he thought Baghdad was a threat to the American people…… Before the war, Kay was one of the most fervent supporters of military action."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...160916,00.html

This is David Kelly, British Weapons Expert, former UN weapons inspector

"British weapons expert David Kelly, who died in July 2003 from cuts to his wrist, said in October 2002 that Iraq had banned weapons and posed an immediate threat"Yes there is," Kelly responded to the question of whether there was an immediate threat. "Even if they're not actually filled and deployed today, the capability exists to get them filled and deployed within a matter of days and weeks. So yes, there is a threat.""

http://www.atsnn.com/story/30448.html\

CNN posted an article on their web site back in 2002 which had this to say, "”Iraq continues to possess several tons of chemical weapons agents, enough to kill thousands and thousands of civilians or soldiers," said Jon Wolfsthal, an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/index.html

Sounds like a few “professional intel agencies” believed Saddam had the weapons and was a threat.



9/11 commission report

“In 2001, with Bin Laden’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.” And it goes on to describe a longer history of connections saying that in 1997 Saddam was staying clear of Bin Laden because Saddam was trying to re-build relationships with some of his Middle Eastern neighbors but by 1998 Saddam had changed his mind and “it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings were apparently arranged through Bin Laden’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.” The report goes on to say that in 1999 Al Qaeda’s relationship with the Taliban in Afghanistan was beginning to become strained so more meetings were set up and “Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq” which Bin Laden declined because he felt his position in Afghanistan was more favorable.

www.gpoaccess.gov/911,

And then there is “Summary of Evidence” a report prepared by the US government in 2004, it gives 13 points which I list below, the report was used as a case for designating an Iraqi member of Al Qaeda who is currently detained in Guantanamo as an “enemy combatant”.

1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002.

Ok, how come Donald Duck Rumsfeld claimed their was "bullet-proof" evidence of Saddam ties to Bin Laden, and none was ever put forward? Except the little meeting in Prague between an Iraqi and Mohammed Atta, and the little fact that an al-Qaeda rogue got medical treatment in Bagdad. But the top 2 al-Qeada members in US custody told interrogaters Bin Laden had rejected the notion of working with Saddam.

 

[cnredd]

Ok, how come Donald Duck Rumsfeld claimed their was "bullet-proof" evidence of Saddam ties to Bin Laden, and none was ever put forward? Except the little meeting in Prague between an Iraqi and Mohammed Atta, and the little fact that an al-Qaeda rogue got medical treatment in Bagdad. But the top 2 al-Qeada members in US custody told interrogaters Bin Laden had rejected the notion of working with Saddam.

Anyone notice the hypocracy in not believing the defecting Iraqi scientists that claimed they actually knew of Saddam's WMDs(Bad intelligence) but believing beyond the shadow of a doubt 2 members of a terrorist organization who's only desire is to destroy Western Civilization?(Upstanding citizens of the global community):roll:

 

[kal-el]

Anyone notice the hypocracy in not believing the defecting Iraqi scientists that claimed they actually knew of Saddam's WMDs(Bad intelligence) but believing beyond the shadow of a doubt 2 members of a terrorist organization who's only desire is to destroy Western Civilization?(Upstanding citizens of the global community):roll:

In all actuality, what could al-Qeada gain from lying about Saddam's "alleged" connections with Bin Laden? A defecting Iraqi scientist, well think about that one.

 

[Hoot]

I can't read all this at the moment, but I would like to correct some things...all those reports about what weapons were found by UNScom, or whoever..are weapons that were destroyed before the war....so why attack? There are no DATES on when UNscom found those weapons...the one report about a chemical agent is disputed by independent Swiss labs that report no traces of chemical/biological agents found.

Saddam did not kick the inspectors out before the war...Bush kicked them out because he wanted to start the bombing...the inspectors, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, were on the ground in Iraq doing their job and..reported no WMD, and asked for two lousy stinking months to finish their inspections, but Bush didn't want to wait for truth that would not support his attack plans...plans that had been in place for years.

There's some real truth for ya.

 

[Hoot]

Originally Posted by cnredd
>>Anyone notice the hypocracy in not believing the defecting Iraqi scientists that claimed they actually knew of Saddam's WMDs(Bad intelligence) but believing beyond the shadow of a doubt 2 members of a terrorist organization who's only desire is to destroy Western Civilization?(Upstanding citizens of the global community)<<

Haven't any of you right wingers read one word about Saddam Hussien that is NOT reguritated by right wing pundits?

It's been widely reported that Saddam made a habit of showing "false" WMD plans to scientists...and whoever...knowing that some of them would defect, and/or be captured and swear, under foreign interrogation techniques, that Saddam had WMD...because they saw the plans!

Saddam felt this would further his identity in the Middle East as "one bad dude' and someone not to be messed with, thus further strengthening his hold on power.

Even U.S. intelligence, as bad as it was, now knows that any Iraqi scientist, and what they say, has to be taken with a grain of salt, and not believed to be the Gospel. This was always Saddam's way...deceive your enemies.

 

[G-Man]

To suggest that the US invaded Iraq because Saddam possessed WMD is completely illogical. If the US was sure Saddam had such weapons why invade Iraq and run the risk of him using them???? Are we to believe that if we left him alone he may suddenly unleash these WMD upon us and destroy the west but if we invade his country and overthrow his govt. he won't seek to use such weapons?? Complete non-sense.
The cold war continued for over 30yrs because both sides possessed WMD and neither could/would attack the other without facing its own destruction. If Iraq possessed such weapons I suggest a similiar scenario would have resulted.
Indeed it was Iraq's lack of such WMD and resulted weakness which led to its downfall. If ,like N Korea Pakistan or Israel, Saddam had obtained a WMD capability, no country (including the US) would dared to have launched a military campaign against him.
The war is about oil and profit - pure and simple.

N.B On a seperate note I am complete favour of a nuclear free world and have no desire to see any nation use or stockpile WMD. To suggest that we in the West should be allowed nuclear weapons but no-one else can is an untainable position if my opinion. I am ashamed to say that we cannot be trusted with such weapons any more than any middle eastern country. We (and I include the UK, Germany, France and other western nations in this) have used chemical, biological and atomic weapons in the past, as well as napalm, agent orange and depleted uranium to attack others. What kind of track record do we possess?? It would also be logical to assume we would do so again in the future.