PDA

View Full Version : Question: why does this country still think ZERO WMDs were not found in Iraq?


urgle burgle
01-30-2010, 07:43 AM
I pose this (these) question (s) as a, I guess, fact finding mission of my own. Something that has bothered me for years (I now unfortuneatly have some time to do some digging) is why the defense of the thinking that there were no (zero, people continue to say) chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons (or pre-staging) in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion?

clarifications and disclosure:

I served in the Army as a SSG from 1998-2007 (active). Served as primary MOS 21B (used to be 12B, combat engineer) in primarily Korea and NTC (FT. Irwin, CA, National Training Center OPFOR), and then (unfortuneatly) a recruiter (assigned, not volunteered) from 2004-2007. Primary in training BLUEFOR units to go to Afghanistan and Iraq (we played the bad guys) and my own squad for deployment. I then was yanked to go recruit before deployment. I add this because as clarification I was not deployed to be part of Iraqi Freedom. This is something that saddens me to this day, and I tried mightily to get my recruiting orders detracted so as to go with my squad. Did not happen.
Again I am relaying all this for clarification as to those who may help me in my queries and thought processes. I have had many close friends serve (honorably and with great sacrifice), and we have discussed many of the things that will lead to my eventual questions I will lay out. Also, in clarification, I have had close friends wounded and my best friend killed in this war (SSG Lincoln Hollinsaid, who I greatly miss).

clarifications and disclosures end.

Now I will lay out the background for my questions and musings.

I know the intelligence and thinking we were preparing for going into the invasion (as my primary job was trainng leading up to and for this), and I know what my friends, acquaintances, and co-workers (and what I have read when I was in) have reported from the battlefield. These things were not, nor have not, been brought up in all the haranguing this Country has been going through since 2003.

Some of the following I have seen (intel reports, pictures) and most has been reported to me:

chemical weapons of note were found. Anthrax containers were found during initial invasiion. a number of mine dumps that contained chemical substances were found and guarded for long periods. scud missles were found and used in defense. mass amounts of herbicde chemicals, which were precursors for mass producing chemical weapons were found.

this is just some of the things that have been reported to me from troops that have been on the ground. I cannot get into great specifics.


So, my main question, is why has none of this information been clarified, rumored about, etc. throughout the years? Why is it that more Veterans have not been more vocal about these things? Do you (on this board) know or heard anything of this nature that you could relate to these questions?

I bring this up now, mostly because I cannot sleep, and I was just watching the questioning of ex Prime Minister Tony Blaire by the Brits on c-span. This kinda' brought all these past questions in my mind to lead me to post this.

Now, I am not trying to get into a pissing match about the War, or anything of the like. I am just asking for information, speculation, or ideas. This is an information and idea quest to help me focus my own thoughts, and maybe some of yours you have not thought or questioned.
I know this is long, and I apologize, but I am quite curious of additonal thoughst, and needed to clearly clarify my background, and to some degree premises.

thanks

GoSlash27
01-30-2010, 09:02 AM
So, my main question, is why has none of this information been clarified, rumored about, etc. throughout the years?
It appears it's being rumored about right now.

urgle burgle
01-30-2010, 09:13 AM
well since I know I am not the only one to think these things, but have not seen anyone bring it up in a forum format.....I guess it needs to start somewhere.

unless others could direct me elsewhere, which is partially my purpose of this.

Vincent
01-30-2010, 09:24 AM
Thank you UB for posting on this topic. Its been a very disturbing aspect of our involvement in Iraq and it has always puzzled me that the Bu Bu Boosh administration clammed up on it. There were WMDs. The Iraqi regime was both a soviet client and surrogate. Perhaps the lovefest between Pooty Poot and Bu Bu Boosh was the reason it was swept under the rug.

The fact remains, the premise for invading Iraq was WMDs. Lots of very fine folks suffered and died as a result. There is a great deal of evidence that the Russians were involved in the Iraqi WMD program, and that they cleared out the evidence just before the invasion. Neither party, nor the MSM will touch this.

I have some old articles from the time of the invasion and after. These links are still live...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/oct/28/20041028-122637-6257r/

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2006/0127.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/print/20060412-8.html

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33218

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33216

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml

More recent articles...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71076

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71076

Recounting the "bipartisan" agreement that WMDs were in Iraq and that we needed to do something about it...

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

This one is really interesting...

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5360
http://www.probush.com/ryan_wmd_question.htm

Blog but interesting...

http://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/the-syria-wmd-conspiracy/

Theres lots of stuff still out there, but many of the links to older articles are dead.

Vincent
01-30-2010, 09:32 AM
Some articles with dead links...

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4240684

Iraq Minister Says Saddam's WMD Carefully Hidden
Thu January 29, 2004 10:17 AM ET

By Anna Mudeva
SOFIA, Bulgaria (Reuters) - Iraqi foreign minister Hoshiyar Zebari said Thursday Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction had been carefully hidden, but he was confident they could be discovered.
"I have every belief that some of these weapons could be found as we move forward," Zebari, an Iraqi Kurd, told a news conference in Sofia. "They have been hidden in certain areas. The system of hiding was very sophisticated."
The United States and Britain cited Iraq's possession of chemical and biological arms as their main reason for invading the country in March and toppling Saddam. But no such weapons have so far come to light despite intensive searches.
Former chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay said Wednesday "we were almost all wrong" about the issue and it was "highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons" in Iraq.
But Zebari, on a visit to Bulgaria, said: "We as Iraqis have seen Saddam Hussein develop, manufacture and use these weapons of mass destruction against us. He hasn't denied that."
Zebari was apparently referring to the use of chemical weapons by Saddam's forces against Iraqi Kurdish villages in the late 1980s.
He reiterated the position of Iraq's U.S.-appointed Governing Council that Saddam, accused of sending thousands of Iraqis to mass graves, should be tried by an Iraqi court.
The former Iraqi president was captured in December near his home town of Tikrit, after evaded U.S. forces for months.
Zebari said Saddam's trial should be fair and transparent because it would be a test for Iraq's new rulers to prove their adherence to the supremacy of law.
Asked to comment on Turkey's fears Iraqi Kurds might seek a breakaway state, Zebari said there were no plans to divide Iraq.
"We have proved over the last nine months that all the Iraqis from the North to the South are committed to the national unity. ... No group, no party has any plans to undermine Iraq's unity or territorial integrity," he said.
President Bush said Wednesday he was also committed to a "territorially intact" Iraq.
The Kurds, who fought alongside U.S. forces to topple Saddam, are one of Iraq's best organized ethnic groups after enjoying U.S-protected autonomy since the 1991 Gulf War. They have presented a plan to the Iraqi Governing Council that grants significant autonomy to the Kurdish region.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, June 11, 2004
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.
The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.
The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.
UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," Middle East Newsline reported.
"It's being exported," Perricos said after the briefing. "It's being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal."
"The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags.
He said the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle East. at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Destionations included Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.
The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads.
"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax."
The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was discovered in a junk yard, replete with UN tags. In Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as components for solid-fuel for missiles.
"The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere," Buchanan said. "We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors."
UN inspectors have assessed that the SA-2 and the short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missile were shipped abroad by agents of the Saddam regime. Buchanan said UNMOVIC plans to inspect other sites, including in Turkey.
In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi nuclear facilities were being smuggled out of the country.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
U.S. intelligence suspects Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have finally been located.
Unfortunately, getting to them will be nearly impossible for the United States and its allies, because the containers with the strategic materials are not in Iraq.
Instead they are located in Lebanon's heavily-fortified Bekaa Valley, swarming with Iranian and Syrian forces, and Hizbullah and ex-Iraqi agents, Geostrategy-Direct.com will report in Wednesday's new weekly edition.
U.S. intelligence first identified a stream of tractor-trailer trucks moving from Iraq to Syria to Lebaon in January 2003. The significance of this sighting did not register on the CIA at the time.
U.S. intelligence sources believe the area contains extended-range Scud-based missiles and parts for chemical and biological warheads.
Mutually-lucrative Iraqi-Syrian arms transactions are nothing new. Firas Tlas, son of Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlas, has been the key to Syria's rogue alliance with Iraq. He and Assad made hundreds of millions of dollars selling weapons, oil and drugs to and from Iraq, according to the May 13, 2003 edition of Geostrategy-Direct.com.
The CIA now believes a multi-million dollar deal between Iraq and Syria provided for the hiding and safekeeping of Saddam's strategic weapons.
Not surprisingly, U.S. inquiries in Beirut and Syria are being met with little substantive response, U.S. officials said.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_9.html

U.S. military intelligence: Saddam transferred WMD to Syria
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, September 24, 2004
The U.S. military continues to back its estimate that the former Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq transferred much of its weapons of mass destruction arsenal to neighboring Syria.
U.S. officials said that U.S. Army Intelligence does not share the conclusion that Saddam had abandoned his WMD program before the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003. They said military intelligence has attributed the U.S. failure to find Iraqi WMD platforms or munitions to Saddam's transfer of these systems to Syria in late 2002 and early 2003.
Over the last year, U.S. Central Command has helped the Iraqi Survey Group in the search for WMD in Iraq. The group has wound down its activities in Iraq without any success.
"The Iraqi Survey Group has yet to submit its final report," Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, deputy chief of U.S. Central Command, said. "Besides, who knows what we will find in two years, who knows what was moved to countries like Syria. What we know for certain is that Saddam Hussein had carried out research into an array of weapons of mass destruction."
Smith said Syria was a major ally of Saddam before and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He told a briefing in Qatar on Sept. 5 that Syria helped fuel the current insurgency war in Iraq by enabling the flow of combatants and weapons into Iraq to fight U.S. and allied forces.
The military's assessment that Syria has received Iraqi WMD has been shared by the Defense Department, officials said. They said U.S. reconnaissance satellites had detected the entry of Iraqi convoys of suspected WMD and missile cargo into Syria and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley in early 2003.
"It's a clear fact that the deposits of weapons of mass destruction have not been found since the end of the major combat operations," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. "Another possibility is they gave them to some other country or hid them in some other country."
Officials said Saddam agents have sought to kill Iraqis with knowledge of the former regime's nuclear weapons program. They cited the assassination of Iraqi nuclear scientist Mohammed Toki Hussein Al Talakani on Sept. 4 in the Sunni city of Mahmudiya.
In contrast, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission for Iraq said it failed to find evidence that Saddam had developed unmanned air vehicles capable of deliverying biological or chemical weapons. The agency said the UAVs found in Iraq did not violate UN restrictions.
"The information available to us doesn't indicate Iraq had these drones for the delivery of chemical or biological weapons agents, nor had they gone beyond the 150 kilometer range," UN commission spokesman Ewen Buchanan said. "But we're open to new information and looking forward to the Iraq Survey Group's findings."

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-30-2010, 09:35 AM
Actually..the defense department put out a letter stating that they had found about 500 chemical weapons throughout Iraq.

I guess the question is .."Why didnt the media find this worth reporting as more that a sideline report."

Here is the story and link to ....th most credible site possible in regards to what was found. The Department of Defense.

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.

"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."

"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.

Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.

There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.

Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning.


http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

zulater
01-30-2010, 09:41 AM
I think the invasion of Irag will be viewed in a much more positive way through the prism of history. Saddam Hussein was an evil man who subjected millions of people to his particuliar brands of cruelty for an extended period of time. It's a shame that the world stood silenty by and allowed such a tyrant to victimize his people to the degree that he did for the amount of time that he did.

But of course we all know why.

http://www.heritage.org/research/Internationalorganizations/bg1748.cfm


Anyway even if the cited reasons for going to war were flawed the moral justification was not.

Vincent
01-30-2010, 10:02 AM
No WMDs in Iraq??!! :rofl: This from clinton on 2/17/1998...

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq

Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff:

Please be seated. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your remarks and your leadership. Thank you, Secretary Cohen, for the superb job you have done here at the Pentagon and on this most recent very difficult problem. Thank you, General Shelton, for being the right person at the right time.

Thank you, General Ralston, and the members of the joint chiefs, General Zinni, Secretary Albright, Secretary Slater, DCIA Tenet, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Berger, Senator Robb thank you for being here and Congressman Skelton. Thank you very much, and for your years of service to America and your passionate patriotism both of you. And to the members of our armed forces and others who work here to protect our national security.

I have just received a very fine briefing from our military leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf. Before I left the Pentagon, I wanted to talk to you and all those whom you represent the men and women of our military. You, your friends and your colleagues are on the front lines of this crisis in Iraq.

I want you, and I want the American people, to hear directly from me what is at stake for America in the Persian Gulf, what we are doing to protect the peace, the security, the freedom we cherish, why we have taken the position we have taken.

Blah, blah, blah...

Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future.

So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.

Blah, blah, blah...

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds. We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again. Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.

Blah, blah, blah...

Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer.

Blah, blah, blah...

Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We have seen that constant vigilance pays off. But it requires constant vigilance. Since the Gulf War, we have pushed back every time Saddam has posed a threat.

When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters.

When Saddam threatened another invasion by amassing his troops in Kuwait along the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down.

When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.

If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you very much.

Vincent
01-30-2010, 10:12 AM
I guess the question is .."Why didnt the media find this worth reporting as more that a sideline report."

It ran counter to the "news" they manufacture. It would have "confused" the public that they were carefully cultivating to hate all things Bu Bu Boooosh.

Remember after the surge the MSM announced they weren't going to report anything more on Iraq? Seems it was all good news. Can't have any of that.

Indo
01-30-2010, 10:14 AM
Unfortunately I do not have time right now to read this whole thread----but I will read it in its entirety later.

Just let me say , Urgle Burgle, and to all of you that wear or have worn The Uniform and to all of you that have been wounded or know those who have paid the Ultimate Price, my hat is off to you---with a big thanks for what you do :hatsoff:


And here is to Fallen Brothers :drink:

urgle burgle
01-30-2010, 10:31 AM
thanks all for answering my queries....

you hit the touchstone of what i'm driving at to a point.
most of the country now thinks there were no chemical or biological weapons of any kind. not the case. i have seen some of the postings that you have given. read many more.
however I have not seen much as to instances of many individual reports, stories, antecdotes, etc.
the poor defense given by bush's administration to fight the idea that there were absoulutely no substantial amounts of wmds, or any at all infuriates me. i am not trying to debate whether or not going in to Iraq was worth it, or a good idea, or was the right thing to do. i still have a hard time answering those questions at this point.
so far all you guys have given a treasure trove of good information, links, etc. all additional points of reference. it is not so much going back to clintons admin., bush's pre war intell, all that, it is the stuff that i know was found in the during and up unto now. the personal stories, etc. now i know my brothers in arms do not like to discuss these things, the war, etc. we seldom discuss it. but we have and do at times. after persuing the duelfer report (Iraq Survey Group report) again, and re-searching, i found some good info, which im too tired to get into right now, but the only first hand account by someone in the true know is this
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:jODmIBeLFEcJ:www.analyst-network.com/articles/20/TheInfamousWMDSearchInterviewwithDouglasHanson.doc +The+Infamous+WMD+Search+:+A+View+From+the+Inside+ An+Interview+with+Douglas+Hanson&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

but.....we shall see what we shall see.

urgle burgle
01-30-2010, 10:37 AM
Unfortunately I do not have time right now to read this whole thread----but I will read it in its entirety later.

Just let me say , Urgle Burgle, and to all of you that wear or have worn The Uniform and to all of you that have been wounded or know those who have paid the Ultimate Price, my hat is off to you---with a big thanks for what you do :hatsoff:


And here is to Fallen Brothers :drink:

thanks......this type of acknowlegement means more than you know. when i was in, anytime i was thanked by anyone i know, to me, that made it all worth while.
that thanks given to all those that serve and continue to serve (wish i couldve stayed in) pushes them through the bad times.
so yes.....drinks up to those that have given and still give. i pray for them and thank them everyday.

GoSlash27
01-30-2010, 12:55 PM
I think that many people are aware that there were some things found (old dud artillery shells out in the desert, pesticides, etc). Nevertheless, it was not the "smoking gun mushroom cloud" the administration was fear-mongering with, nor was it anywhere close to the "slam-dunk" case they insisted it was. What is publicly known to have been discovered there did not justify the case for invasion that had been presented to the American people.

What was found there posed absolutely no threat to us, and wasn't indicative of any imminent threat.

urgle burgle
01-30-2010, 02:35 PM
again, my purpose is not to debate whether or not you or i feel the justification for the invasion was warranted. that was not the premise of my topic. my premise was that through information released (IRSG report, documented findings, personal military accounts, etc.), the predominant population of this Country thinks there were no weapons found. or any that could do any harm. reference your statement of "dud artillery shells" and pesticides. the reporting disputes that they were duds (or couldnt be used as IEDs, for example), and the amount of pesticides were stationed so that when the go ahead was given, for example, they could have large amounts of mustard gas ready within days.
Read my first posting again.....I know of incidents of mine dumps, anthrax found, etc. that, for some reason, has not been widely circulated. the amounts are hard to really put into context, as totals are not known, but the point, is that whether small (depending of how you articulate small in a combat sense), this Country thinks that there were either none or miniscule. i am trying to find out why...if anyone knows any other relevant information to show why/why not, etc.

but thank you for taking the time to respond.

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-30-2010, 02:45 PM
I think that many people are aware that there were some things found (old dud artillery shells out in the desert, pesticides, etc). Nevertheless, it was not the "smoking gun mushroom cloud" the administration was fear-mongering with, nor was it anywhere close to the "slam-dunk" case they insisted it was. What is publicly known to have been discovered there did not justify the case for invasion that had been presented to the American people.

What was found there posed absolutely no threat to us, and wasn't indicative of any imminent threat.

Actually I would estimate that the MAJORITY of the american populace has no idea that 500 chemical munitions were found.

As far as if they presented an immidiate threat...well...that would depned on who got a hold of them.

... the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect"...

Vincent
01-30-2010, 04:13 PM
In answer to the premise of the thread "why does this country still think ZERO WMDs were found in Iraq?", IMHO its like any "conventional wisdom". A significant number of Americans believe what they see on TV and read in the papers. Despite the fact that the MSM reaches about 30% of the population at this point, it is still the catalyst to public discourse on most subjects.

It is fact that both the donkeys and elephants had it out for the Iraqi regime. Clinton rattled sabers, launched Tomahawks, and signaled that war with Iraq was imminent. Bu Bu Booosh followed suit. Hans Blix played "cat and mouse" with the actual WMDs, finding much evidence but no caches. The Russians helped the Iraqis in both weapons development and removal from Iraq. All the intel communities were on the same page.

What happened was the exact same thing that happened during Viet Nam. The American left (the MSM, Hollywood, "education", commie front orgs) methodically turned the tide of public opinion over the ensuing 5 years after the invasion. "We invaded Iraq. No WMDs were found. Ergo 'Bu Bu Booosh lied'". Simple mantra. Hear it enough times and you believe it.

There is plenty of evidence to the contrary if one is inclined to look. That is ostensibly the province of the "media" - to look. But their agenda was, as was with Viet Nam, to turn public opinion against the war. In both cases, the political outcome was the same. The military outcome was different because leadership had learned from Viet Nam and applied it.

We were all raised to think armies consist of soldiers in uniforms that march into formations and exchange fire. We fought against a "Generation 3" enemy in Viet Nam that was indistinguishable from the rest of the population. "Guerrilla" - hit and disappear. As their masters would say "death by a thousand cuts". That enemy used domestic and world public opinion to wear us down and force us to end the war. In this war, and yes Barry, its a war, we face an evolved "Generation 4" enemy that has us more worried about "offending" them than fighting them. We give their captured leadership the same legal rights as our own citizens. Its that insane.

Our "4th Gen" enemy has been extraordinarily effective. We have completely lost sight of the fact that they attacked us and killed as many as the Japanese killed at Pearl harbor. "There was absolutely no connection between Iraq and 9/11". And of course "Iraq had nothing to do with Oklahoma City". "There were no WMDs". Etc. Etc. Etc. And God help any poor slob that says or does anything that would offend a muslim.

GoSlash27
01-30-2010, 06:38 PM
the point, is that whether small (depending of how you articulate small in a combat sense), this Country thinks that there were either none or miniscule. i am trying to find out why...if anyone knows any other relevant information to show why/why not, etc.
That's the point I'm trying to get at; The WMDs *were* none or miniscule. Citing the examples provided above, an insurgent could fashion insecticides into an IED, or build some kind of dirty bomb with rusty old VX shells, but that doesn't make them "WMDs" (much as the politicians will try to tell you otherwise) any more than that can of Black Flag under your kitchen sink.
I think all the double-talk as the administration tried to justify the invasion has skewed peoples' perceptions of exactly what a "WMD" is.

A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon capable of inflicting massive destruction to property or population. That's the Army's definition.
There was nothing found anywhere in Iraq that qualifies as such.

Vincent
01-30-2010, 06:50 PM
http://s647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/vinnyq/babybho.jpg

Its all Bu Bu Booosh's fault!!

GoSlash27
01-30-2010, 06:59 PM
Its all Bu Bu Booosh's fault!!

Vincent,
Not sure if that's directed at me or not, but that's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, I blame the Dems in Congress more than I blame Bush. The power to declare war is delegated to them by the Constitution. They can't legally hand that power over to the Executive. They ducked their responsibility, and as a result we're having the debate we should've had before the war... afterwards.

Vincent
01-30-2010, 07:05 PM
Vincent, Not sure if that's directed at me or not, but that's not what I'm saying at all.

Nah. Its just the catch all, and the pic is freekin hilarious. :drink:

I understand your perspective.

urgle burgle
01-30-2010, 11:17 PM
That's the point I'm trying to get at; The WMDs *were* none or miniscule. Citing the examples provided above, an insurgent could fashion insecticides into an IED, or build some kind of dirty bomb with rusty old VX shells, but that doesn't make them "WMDs" (much as the politicians will try to tell you otherwise) any more than that can of Black Flag under your kitchen sink.
I think all the double-talk as the administration tried to justify the invasion has skewed peoples' perceptions of exactly what a "WMD" is.

A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon capable of inflicting massive destruction to property or population. That's the Army's definition.
There was nothing found anywhere in Iraq that qualifies as such.

now as far as the Army definition of WMDs, you are correct 100%. but your putting too much emphasis on semantics. what do you/we (population) consider to be massive?
say you take those 500 munitions (whether mines or shells) and unleash just one or two at multiple locations in a civilian population center. would the casualties then be massive? i would say in totality, yes. so lets update my initial WMD idea. that has become the all encompassing term for any chemical, bio, or nuke entities in our vernacular now. people think of WMD to mean thousands will die immediately. but taken at a lesser degree (i.e., what do you think the reaction of most people , prior to 2003, would feel if there was an imminent possibility of Iraq using NBC attacks on civilan populations, either through themselves or terrorist conduits, on American soil or American targets?).

i believe if the debate was framed truthfully.......with all information relayed as conventional wisdom, the viewpoints would be quite different.
so let me renig on the "why do you think that the country feesl no WMDs were found to, why do you think the country feels no NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons of any kind........."small", "miniscule", "zero", "limited" withstanding. i know-through the net, conversations, etc. that many people become surprises when you do tell them that "500" here were found, pesticides were ready to go, etc.
now that truthfully frames the debate. i am angry at the admin because you never saw or continue to see, when being beaten down by the opposition, talking heads, etc.

"but sir no weapons were found!".....then the response becomes "well we thought the intel was good, they were planning to restart....blah, blah, blah."

not, at the very least. "well thats not true....this WAS found. these are the amounts, we also found this, etc"
then the argument/debate gets framed truthfully.
again.....we could go round and round about why we went, if it was right, was it worth it, etc. all those are good debates........but the debate needs to be framed correctly. this is from any and all sides. you cannot learn from history if you choose to cherry pick the facts....continue to berate the decisions made.......not look at things as a whole and focus on semantics.


but.....again you make a key point, thanks.

urgle burgle
01-30-2010, 11:30 PM
In answer to the premise of the thread "why does this country still think ZERO WMDs were found in Iraq?", IMHO its like any "conventional wisdom". A significant number of Americans believe what they see on TV and read in the papers. Despite the fact that the MSM reaches about 30% of the population at this point, it is still the catalyst to public discourse on most subjects.

It is fact that both the donkeys and elephants had it out for the Iraqi regime. Clinton rattled sabers, launched Tomahawks, and signaled that war with Iraq was imminent. Bu Bu Booosh followed suit. Hans Blix played "cat and mouse" with the actual WMDs, finding much evidence but no caches. The Russians helped the Iraqis in both weapons development and removal from Iraq. All the intel communities were on the same page.

What happened was the exact same thing that happened during Viet Nam. The American left (the MSM, Hollywood, "education", commie front orgs) methodically turned the tide of public opinion over the ensuing 5 years after the invasion. "We invaded Iraq. No WMDs were found. Ergo 'Bu Bu Booosh lied'". Simple mantra. Hear it enough times and you believe it.

There is plenty of evidence to the contrary if one is inclined to look. That is ostensibly the province of the "media" - to look. But their agenda was, as was with Viet Nam, to turn public opinion against the war. In both cases, the political outcome was the same. The military outcome was different because leadership had learned from Viet Nam and applied it.

We were all raised to think armies consist of soldiers in uniforms that march into formations and exchange fire. We fought against a "Generation 3" enemy in Viet Nam that was indistinguishable from the rest of the population. "Guerrilla" - hit and disappear. As their masters would say "death by a thousand cuts". That enemy used domestic and world public opinion to wear us down and force us to end the war. In this war, and yes Barry, its a war, we face an evolved "Generation 4" enemy that has us more worried about "offending" them than fighting them. We give their captured leadership the same legal rights as our own citizens. Its that insane.

Our "4th Gen" enemy has been extraordinarily effective. We have completely lost sight of the fact that they attacked us and killed as many as the Japanese killed at Pearl harbor. "There was absolutely no connection between Iraq and 9/11". And of course "Iraq had nothing to do with Oklahoma City". "There were no WMDs". Etc. Etc. Etc. And God help any poor slob that says or does anything that would offend a muslim.

very well stated and thought out.....all of it.....that is the crux of the problem....our enemies have now been allowed to define and control the battlefield, the fight, the ROE, and the terms.......alot of blame is there on all sides. the left for demonizing and hating the military and all it stands for, for decades. the right for taking the left lightly, miscorrectly making all dems to be the left and despising the military (completely untrue), and focusing on nation building istead of destroying the enemy where it is found.

again.....now the country feels no weapons were found at all. because the bushy admin never framed the debate correctly (for whatever reason), and let it become the whole bush lied syndrome. he didnt lie.....did maybe he overempathise the WMD issue when we had other legitimate reasons for going in? yes. did he fall for bad intel? yes. did he let rummy control too much with too little? yes. there is plenty of blame, debate, everything to go around. but im tired of the blame game....lets correctly frame the picture, learn from mistakes, and try not to do them again.

GoSlash27
01-31-2010, 12:50 AM
i believe if the debate was framed truthfully.......with all information relayed as conventional wisdom, the viewpoints would be quite different.
so let me renig on the "why do you think that the country feesl no WMDs were found to, why do you think the country feels no NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons of any kind........."small", "miniscule", "zero", "limited" withstanding.
Well.. reframing the definition to NBC does certainly change the answer, but with all due respect, it doesn't reframe the debate itself. Possessing chemical munitions and chemicals that could *maybe-possibly* be turned into NBC weapons does not, in and of itself, constitute a clear and present danger to the extent that war is the most reasonable option.
Pretty much every country on the planet has enough of that sort of stuff to fit the definition of NBC weapons. If you dig around your garage, you might find a few NBC weapons lying around there as well if you stretch the definition far enough.

The debate is parallel to the argument after the fact of a mis-executed no-knock warrant. If you dig through the guy's personal belongings long enough, you might very well find a nickel bag of moldy weed. You can argue "why is it that nobody believes he had any drugs whatsoever", but it sidesteps the question of "intent to distribute" and "probable cause". That's not going to justify sending a SWAT team through the wrong guy's door, especially when cops and bystanders are put in the ground as a result.

What irks me about the whole situation is that it was the Dems' *job* to be contrary and force the administration to answer all the hard questions, and they played politics instead. Now we've got a lot of dead troops, a failed campaign, and Obama in the White House. I ain't real thrilled about that.
Who's responsible? Nobody.
I believe that's the problem. The Constitution is set up to make everybody that votes "aye" responsible. That's why we have the power to declare war.

To answer your question above
what do you/we (population) consider to be massive?
The bill of goods we were sold was "a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud". So somewhere on the order of 10^5 casualties strikes me as a reasonable estimate.

ricardisimo
01-31-2010, 02:29 AM
For starters, I think that you might want to edit out the double-negative in this thread's subject line. I'm assuming that what you meant to ask was "why does this country still think ZERO WMDs were found in Iraq?" Correct?

Secondly, I don't know where you get the "still think" part. As of August 9th, 2006 (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/238.php?lb=brusc&pnt=238&nid=&id=), half of the U.S. public believed that Iraq had WMD at the time of the invasion. So, modifying your initial question once again, you probably wanted to ask "why does this country now think zero WMD were found in Iraq?"

Thirdly, can you find any reason to believe that U.S. opinion has changed since 2006? I can't.

Fourthly, Tony Blair - a man with what you and I would have to consider a unique perspective on all things Iraq and WMD - just admitted (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7007886.ece) to a panel investigating his government's handling of the war and the lead-up to it that there were of course no WMD, that he lied about it, that he doesn't care, and that he would do it all over again. Here is a man who is basically on trial, and has everything to gain by saying "Yes, there were WMD, and here is where we found them..." He didn't say that because he was already caught lying about it once before and can't afford to do it again.

Finally, we should make clear that when we say "no WMD were found in Iraq", what we really mean is that no additional weapons or programs were found beyond what Hans Blix's crew of UN investigators found before the invasion. Some material and the skeletons of past programs were discovered, cataloged and kept under guard by the UN. This material was the source of the highly-touted yellowcake shipment to Canada. Does this point speak most directly to your original question?

I think that your question should now read: "How the hell can any Americans still think that any new WMD were ever found in Iraq?"

GBMelBlount
01-31-2010, 07:08 AM
What irks me about the whole situation is that it was the Dems' *job* to be contrary and force the administration to answer all the hard questions, and they played politics instead.

I agree friend.

Sickening Indeed.

GBMelBlount
01-31-2010, 07:10 AM
For starters, I think that you might want to edit out the double-negative in this thread's subject line. I'm assuming that what you meant to ask was "why does this country still think ZERO WMDs were found in Iraq?" Correct?

Secondly, I don't know where you get the "still think" part. As of August 9th, 2006 (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/238.php?lb=brusc&pnt=238&nid=&id=), half of the U.S. public believed that Iraq had WMD at the time of the invasion. So, modifying your initial question once again, you probably wanted to ask "why does this country now think zero WMD were found in Iraq?"

Thirdly, can you find any reason to believe that U.S. opinion has changed since 2006? I can't.

Fourthly, Tony Blair - a man with what you and I would have to consider a unique perspective on all things Iraq and WMD - just admitted (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7007886.ece) to a panel investigating his government's handling of the war and the lead-up to it that there were of course no WMD, that he lied about it, that he doesn't care, and that he would do it all over again. Here is a man who is basically on trial, and has everything to gain by saying "Yes, there were WMD, and here is where we found them..." He didn't say that because he was already caught lying about it once before and can't afford to do it again.

Finally, we should make clear that when we say "no WMD were found in Iraq", what we really mean is that no additional weapons or programs were found beyond what Hans Blix's crew of UN investigators found before the invasion. Some material and the skeletons of past programs were discovered, cataloged and kept under guard by the UN. This material was the source of the highly-touted yellowcake shipment to Canada. Does this point speak most directly to your original question?

I think that your question should now read: "How the hell can any Americans still think that any new WMD were ever found in Iraq?"



Ricardisimo, thank you for sharing your thoughts and especially for pointing out the double negative. I must admit I don't know that I have EVER received a grade better than "C" in English.

Admittedly, you are a much better writer than I am.

So I was just curious, is there actually a clear POINT you were trying to make with your well written post?

I apologize but I must have somehow overlooked it....

ricardisimo
01-31-2010, 02:23 PM
Ricardisimo, thank you for sharing your thoughts and especially for pointing out the double negative. I must admit I don't know that I have EVER received a grade better than "C" in English.

Admittedly, you are a much better writer than I am.

So I was just curious, is there actually a clear POINT you were trying to make with your well written post?

I apologize but I must have somehow overlooked it....

My main point is my last sentence, prompted particularly by the timing of this post, coinciding as it does with the recent Blair interrogation. If he can't even say there were WMDs to save his skin, I don't know why anyone else would believe there were any.

I also was hoping for a clarification if what the OP was referring to was in fact new WMD.

tony hipchest
01-31-2010, 03:31 PM
good question urgle burgle... what did happen to saddams WMD? :tap:

who better to ask than the man himself? i found his jailhouse confessions to this particular FBI investigator to be quite revealing but there will always those who wont believe any of it. infact, saddam could say the sky was blue, the earth was round, and theres lots of oil in iraq, and plenty here would think it was all lies.

(since i have already covered this topic in a pretty lengthy post, i will just primarilly post the links.)

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=24050

heres the interview with FBI agent george piro who spent days on end interrogating saddam, and who saddam claimed knew him better than his own sons-

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml


After his capture, Saddam met every day with one man, an American he knew as "Mr. George." George is FBI agent George Piro, who was the front man for a team of FBI and CIA analysts who were trying to answer some of the great mysteries of recent history. What happened to the weapons of mass destruction? Was Saddam in league with al Qaeda? Why did he choose war with the United States?




"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

...

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

theres alot more. since you seem genuinely interested in the subjuct, i highly recommend the article and interview.

GBMelBlount
01-31-2010, 03:44 PM
My main point is my last sentence, prompted particularly by the timing of this post, coinciding as it does with the recent Blair interrogation. If he can't even say there were WMDs to save his skin, I don't know why anyone else would believe there were any.

I also was hoping for a clarification if what the OP was referring to was in fact new WMD.


Fair enough. I understand your point.

I'm just not sure that Blair's statement necessarily refutes all of the other information.

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 03:49 AM
ok....where to begin? i would argue that the masses think tha no weapons were found. if it were correctly explained that some were found that were old, remains of programs that could be reconstitued were found, no real "large" amounts were found, the desire to reconstitue and continue as well as the know how were found, etc. ....then we have the total truth to be analyzed. did the admin concentrate on the WMD issue way too much...yes. since that was the only thing that seem to resonate at the time. regardlees of all the other reasons we could have used to go in. that list is long. do i think we should have gone in....i still havent made that decision, as i can see all sides, the before, the during, and the after.
as far as tony blair.....i watched nearly the whole thing on c-span, and i didnt get the feeling of lying or trying to mislead. as he was asked the questions in a specific way, those questions were not directly asked. did he or should he have reiterated what was found.....yes, another thing that angers me, and i cannot figure out why.
i wish our country would have this type of hearing. i was impressed....where we do these things with fire and brimstone questioning and only trying to make political points...this format was benign and attempeted to get at the truth of the matter without trying to point blame. in my opinion anyway.
i guess, in a sense, i am trying to make a clarrion call from this board, as i know it has its own veterans, and those that have personally dealt with this issue. i was hoping for other stories, antecdotes, clarification from this sect. i am well aware that since i cannot give "proof", just first person and second to third person accounts of to what was actually dealt with on the ground, that i may not be believed as to what i have seen or been told. i wish i could provide certain proof, but, alas i cannot.
and thanks tony....for the info, of which most i have read. as far as saddam is concerned, i know about the info he passed along. i just am not sure how to take all his musings. he was a great poet.......ha. the reaction to his prose from the interrogators makes me laugh. he was a madman who looked to protect himself. did he always know what his kids were up to or what his underlings had going on? i doubt it.
he may not have given the whole story, which i doubt he did. why should he give anytghing but what paints him in a better light? i still think that amounts were shipped out. how much and to where i dont know. the other frustrating thing, i suppose, which has been lost as we look back is if you asked anyone before hand....do you think he has weapons and if he could use them would he? the answer is a profound yes. should we stop him? yes. however, i know of way too many people that will know not admit to feeling that way then. there answer now, with hindsight, is no and no.
thats not honest in and of itself, and leads to poor debate.
that is all for know

thanks

GoSlash27
02-01-2010, 05:56 AM
i would argue that the masses think tha no weapons were found.
On what grounds? As was noted upstream, in 2006 a majority of Americans thought there were WMDs in Iraq. Are you arguing that perception has since changed?

did he or should he have reiterated what was found.....yes, another thing that angers me, and i cannot figure out why.
The simplest answer is most likely correct: There wasn't anything there worth mentioning.

i suppose, which has been lost as we look back is if you asked anyone before hand....do you think he has weapons and if he could use them would he? the answer is a profound yes. should we stop him? yes. however, i know of way too many people that will know not admit to feeling that way then. there answer now, with hindsight, is no and no.
It's worse if you *are* the guy who said "no and no" back then.

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 08:27 AM
For starters, I think that you might want to edit out the double-negative in this thread's subject line. I'm assuming that what you meant to ask was "why does this country still think ZERO WMDs were found in Iraq?" Correct?

Secondly, I don't know where you get the "still think" part. As of August 9th, 2006 (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/238.php?lb=brusc&pnt=238&nid=&id=), half of the U.S. public believed that Iraq had WMD at the time of the invasion. So, modifying your initial question once again, you probably wanted to ask "why does this country now think zero WMD were found in Iraq?"

Thirdly, can you find any reason to believe that U.S. opinion has changed since 2006? I can't.

Fourthly, Tony Blair - a man with what you and I would have to consider a unique perspective on all things Iraq and WMD - just admitted (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7007886.ece) to a panel investigating his government's handling of the war and the lead-up to it that there were of course no WMD, that he lied about it, that he doesn't care, and that he would do it all over again. Here is a man who is basically on trial, and has everything to gain by saying "Yes, there were WMD, and here is where we found them..." He didn't say that because he was already caught lying about it once before and can't afford to do it again.

Finally, we should make clear that when we say "no WMD were found in Iraq", what we really mean is that no additional weapons or programs were found beyond what Hans Blix's crew of UN investigators found before the invasion. Some material and the skeletons of past programs were discovered, cataloged and kept under guard by the UN. This material was the source of the highly-touted yellowcake shipment to Canada. Does this point speak most directly to your original question?

I think that your question should now read: "How the hell can any Americans still think that any new WMD were ever found in Iraq?"

to some of the things you mentioned i tried to specify within following posts....but i may not have clarified sufficiently.....
you are correct that before '03 a large amount of the population believed that there were WMDs....i will actually feel, in all honestly, it was more than half. but....as it was kind of covered that the semantics of that question are not quite right. so I feel, that the majority of our countrymen feel that no weapons, of any kind, (NBC) were found. this meaning anything that was made from the time period of 1980-2003.
so get rid of the WMD, because then the argument goes to what we consider to equate massive.....which slash gave his viewpoint on that.....i would disagree, but then that just semantics. so then we go to NBC weapons. you mentioned that we should proclude what was found to be stemming as left overs from Iran-Iraq War. I do not think that should be the case, as those weapons could be utilized just as easily (and if done right) as effectively as new NBC weapons.
see, i hate the way WMD now/then gets/got thrown around so loosely and is now the buzz word/abbreviation that it is today. before 2001, nobody used that term. we didnt use that term in training. NBC training was that.....NBC training. we all knew what it could do and the ramifications of that use. because the public knows so little about these things, or they pick and choose their information (which most conspiracy theorists do, i will submit).


hope this clarifies a little bit more.

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 08:41 AM
On what grounds? As was noted upstream, in 2006 a majority of Americans thought there were WMDs in Iraq. Are you arguing that perception has since changed?


The simplest answer is most likely correct: There wasn't anything there worth mentioning.


It's worse if you *are* the guy who said "no and no" back then.

to answer the first.......the 2006 polling. one i dont trust polling very much. i would actually say that more Americans thought they still had WMD/NBC/QVC/AT&T
prior '03. im arguing the perception that once the invasion commenced, the majority feels that nothing (not little, or few, or old/new), nothing was found. i come to this by just the typical conversations with people, reading blogs, message boards, etc.
everthying is always stated as "NO weapons were found", not "Few were found", or "old ones were found", but "NO".

as far as old Tony B. I will point to my previous post about how i watched the interrogation if you will. no questions were really posed in that format. However, I think, it has come to the point he doesnt want to get into the argument we have gotten into in this conversation, the retort would be those were little, old, dud amounts. then he would respond, but they coudlve been still used, blah blah blah.
in other words, i think he saw the futility of trying the argument as i took away from the overall gist of the interview and wouldnt make any difference.
But, i think he was incredibly wrong in that. which is my anger. At least bring it up. and dealing with the politicians the simplest answer is never the best. we think it is. they just make it into talking points.

like i stated before.....i know more than those 500 were found. so is this an intel security thing....if it is at least hint at that.

as for the last part of its worse being the guy who said "no and no", im not sure I quit understand. so if you could please elaborate, dat would be cool and stuff.