So is the Truth Finally Out on WMDs?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

melon

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Messages
11,790
Location
Ásgarðr
Aide: Saddam Did Get Rid of Iraq WMD
1 hour, 51 minutes ago

By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A close aide to Saddam Hussein says the Iraqi dictator did in fact get rid of his weapons of mass destruction but deliberately kept the world guessing about it in an effort to divide the international community and stave off a U.S. invasion.

The strategy, which turned out to be a serious miscalculation, was designed to make the Iraqi dictator look strong in the eyes of the Arab world, while countries such as France and Russia were wary of joining an American-led attack. At the same time, Saddam retained the technical know-how and brain power to restart the programs at any time.

Both Pentagon officials and weapons experts are considering this guessing-game theory as the search for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons continues. If true, it would indicate there was no imminent unconventional weapons threat from Iraq, an argument President Bush used to go to war.

Saddam's alleged weapons bluff was detailed by an Iraqi official who assisted Saddam for many years. The official was not part of the national leadership but his job provided him daily contact with the dictator and insight into the regime's decision-making process during the past decade and in its critical final days.

The official refused to be identified, citing fear of assassination by Saddam's paramilitaries who, he said, remain active throughout Iraq. But in several interviews, the former aide detailed what he said were the reasons behind Saddam's disinformation campaign ? which ultimately backfired by spurring, rather than deterring a U.S. invasion.

According to the aide, by the mid-1990s "it was common knowledge among the leadership" that Iraq had destroyed its chemical stocks and discontinued development of biological and nuclear weapons.

But Saddam remained convinced that an ambiguous stance about the status of Iraq's weapons programs would deter an American attack.

"He repeatedly told me: 'These foreigners, they only respect strength, they must be made to believe we are strong,'" the aide said.

Publicly Saddam denied having unconventional weapons. But from 1998 until 2002, he prevented U.N. inspectors from working in the country and when they finally returned in November, 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating.

Iraqi scientists, including those currently held by the U.S. military, have maintained that no new unconventional weapons programs were started in recent years and that all the materials from previous programs were destroyed.

Both Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have come under fire in recent weeks as weapons hunters come up empty and prewar intelligence is questioned.

The White House acknowledged recently that it included discredited information in Bush's State of the Union speech about alleged Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium - a key ingredient for nuclear weapons.

More importantly, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found.

Before the invasion, the British government claimed Saddam could deploy unconventional weapons within 45 minutes. The Bush administration insisted the threat was so immediate that the world couldn't afford to wait for U.N. inspectors to wind up their searches. Despite the warnings, Iraqi troops never used such weapons during the war.

Intelligence officials at the Pentagon, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said some experts had raised the theory that Iraq put out false information to persuade its enemies that it retained prohibited chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

"That explanation has plausibility," said Robert Einhorn a former assistant secretary of State for nonproliferation. "But the disposition of those missing weapons and materials still has to be explained somehow."

Iraq's claims that it destroyed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons materials could never be verified by U.N. inspectors who repeatedly requested proof.

However, U.N. inspectors, who scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the war, never find any evidence of renewed weapons programs.

"The longer that one does not find any weapons in spite of people coming forward and being rewarded for giving information, etc., the more I think it is important that we begin to ask ourselves if there were no weapons, why was it that Iraq conducted itself as it did for so many years?" Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, told The Associated Press in June.

Saddam's aide suggested the brinkmanship ultimately backfired because U.S. policy switched in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, from containing the Iraqi leader, to going after those who could supply terrorists with deadly weapons.

He described Saddam as almost "totally ignorant" of how Western democracies functioned and attributed his failure to grasp the impact of Sept. 11 to the fact that he increasingly surrounded himself with yes-men and loyalists who were not qualified to give him expert advice on economic, military or foreign policy matters.

___


Very interesting.

Melon
 
I do believe that was a theory presented here in FYM. That he was faking having them.

Matt
 
Melon, this article is pure bullshit. Does anybody in their right mind believe that George W. Bush and Tony Blair are going to guarantee that they will find WMD's and then NOT find them? :huh: Do not be fooled by news articles such as this one. It's complete crap.

Bush and Blair have been reiterating for WEEKS that they will find WMD's. I GUARANTEE that they will find them. They have to find WMD's. They are not going to stake their political careers on a promise that they cannot keep.

My guess is that, since the moment they made their promise that they would find weapons of mass destruction, they have had -- at the very least -- evidence of the manufacture of WMD's. They wouldn't have made such a promise otherwise. They are politicians. They calculate their moves. I would bet that they simply are looking for anything that will further substantiate their evidence.

This is like a trial in a court of law. The rule, as I understand it, is that a lawyer never asks a question without knowing the answer beforehand.

There is no fucking way Bush and Blair would guarantee they will find WMD'S without having an ace in the hole. Bank on it.

I'm predicting that -- once they find their WMD's -- the debate will center around what constitutes a WMD, although Bush and Blair might make that a moot point.

Bush will never be nailed on anything. :|
 
pub crawler said:
Melon, this article is pure bullshit. Does anybody in their right mind believe that George W. Bush and Tony Blair are going to guarantee that they will find WMD's and then NOT find them? :huh: Do not be fooled by news articles such as this one. It's complete crap.

Bush and Blair have been reiterating for WEEKS that they will find WMD's. I GUARANTEE that they will find them. They have to find WMD's. They are not going to stake their political careers on a promise that they cannot keep.

My guess is that, since the moment they made their promise that they would find weapons of mass destruction, they have had -- at the very least -- evidence of the manufacture of WMD's. They wouldn't have made such a promise otherwise. They are politicians. They calculate their moves. I would bet that they simply are looking for anything that will further substantiate their evidence.

This is like a trial in a court of law. The rule, as I understand it, is that a lawyer never asks a question without knowing the answer beforehand.

There is no fucking way Bush and Blair would guarantee they will find WMD'S without having an ace in the hole. Bank on it.

I'm predicting that -- once they find their WMD's -- the debate will center around what constitutes a WMD, although Bush and Blair might make that a moot point.

Bush will never be nailed on anything. :|

So in other words your saying Bush/Blair will plant the WMD's ? Personally I think they already would have planted them if Bush had not screwed the CIA Director around since they would be the obvious choice to plant the weapons. The Military won't plant them so Bush is in a bit of a pickle right now.
 
Here's the deal.

Fact: Saddam had WMD at one time.

Fact: Saddam used WMD on his own people at one time.

Fact: After 'inspections' running up until Saddam threw the UN out of his country in 98, there were still a lot of weapons that were unaccounted for.

Fact: Not one Iraqi will be killed by Quassi and not more woman raped by Uday ever again.

To me, it is not important if we ever find weapons. I think the job in Iraq was something that needed to be done and was something that the former administration didn't have the you know what to do. (A similar case in Afganistan.)
 
wolfwill23 said:
Here's the deal.

Fact: Saddam had WMD at one time.

Right, we even helped him to produce and develop them

Fact: Saddam used WMD on his own people at one time.

Not only on his own people, we gave him informations that he could use them as efficient as possible against Iran

Fact: After 'inspections' running up until Saddam threw the UN out of his country in 98, there were still a lot of weapons that were unaccounted for.

Almost, but not 100% correct, inspections weren't running good, so the US decided to bomb a region, because of that the UN inspectors left the country, after that Saddam didn't let them enter the country again.

Fact: Not one Iraqi will be killed by Quassi and not more woman raped by Uday ever again.

But people like him are exchangable, if we screw it up again, we install the next dicatator (remember Hussein got the power because of us - the western world)

To me, it is not important if we ever find weapons. I think the job in Iraq was something that needed to be done and was something that the former administration didn't have the you know what to do. (A similar case in Afganistan.)

If the reason would have bin a humanitarian much more people would have agreed to this mission. But now it tastes like the US just wanted the oil and military bases in the Arab world
 
Yes, Klaus, you are right. The Western world did put Hussein in power and that is something I am saddened over. But in all honesty, we did not know the terrible man he was at the time. But we can all now see it was a terrible mistake to prop him up like that. But that's been said and done. We can't change the past. But we can darn sure take steps to minimize the disastrous effects of our big mistake, and that's exactly what we did when we put him out of power. Wouldn't you agree?
 
But in all honesty, we did not know the terrible man he was at the time

this is not correct


Bush 1, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolferwits all knew about and condoned the chem/bio weapons he used. The U. S. wanted Iraq to contain the Iranian revolution.
The left him in power after Gulf War 1 and were indifferent when he gassed the Shia in Southern Iraq, that are aligned with Iran.

This is one of the main reasons the Administration?s rhetoric rang so hollow in Europe and with UN members.
 
Last edited:
deep said:



The left him in power after Gulf War 1 and were indifferent when he gassed the Shia in Southern Iraq, that are aligned with Iran.

This is one of the main reasons the Administration?s rhetoric rang so hollow in Europe and with UN members.

The reason Saddam stayed in power after Gulf I is because of two things:
1. We had a deal with the Saudis that we would not roll into Baghdad. Big mistake IMHO.

2. After the 'highway of death' situation (where allied forced killed hundreds or thousands of Iraqi soldiers), the world opinion quickly turned about the war and all the sudden the US was this war mongering machine (just like the world sees us today.)
 
wolfwill23 said:



2. After the 'highway of death' situation (where allied forced killed hundreds or thousands of Iraqi soldiers), the world opinion quickly turned about the war and all the sudden the US was this war mongering machine (just like the world sees us today.)
Ehm, before this war started, more than 75 % was agianst it ( except in the states and the UK )
 
wolfwill23 said:


The reason Saddam stayed in power after Gulf I is because of two things:
1. We had a deal with the Saudis that we would not roll into Baghdad.

Why do you think this ageement was made?
 
You can be pretty sure, that if they find WMDs or Factories to build WMDs today lots of people will think "ok, they had enough time, they didn't allow UN inspections, they need it to save the reputation of their government leaders -> they planted them"
 
EvolutionMonkey said:


So in other words your saying Bush/Blair will plant the WMD's ?

I wouldn't phrase it quite that way. I can't say whether or not the deposed Iraqi regime had chemical/biological weaponry and/or manufacturing plants. I don't know.

Actually, let me back up. I now do know that the former Iraqi government had something in the manner of chemical/biological munitions and/or manufacturing plants. I know that to be the case because Bush and Blair have been telling me so on an almost daily basis, and they would not make a guarantee that they will find WMD's without knowing with absolute certainty that they will indeed find them. (And I mean that. I am being absolutely sincere here).

When Bush and Blair show us the WMD's, will I automatically assume that they planted them? No.

But that is not the primary issue here. WMD's are not the issue central to why I am outraged by the behavior of President Bush. It's how he got us to where we are.

I take issue with the President almost solely because of the spurious campaign -- the so-called "case" -- he made to go to war with Iraq. He deceitfully implicated Iraq in the events of September 11, a connection he will never be able to prove. But he doesn't need to prove it. He made the connection and it became truth.

Furthermore, his "case" to go to war with Iraq was almost entirely based on the presumption that Iraq was producing and maintaining an arsenal of WMD's, and that Iraq posed an IMMINENT threat to the free world, but when troops arrived in Baghdad and WMD's were not immediately found, Bush (and his supporters) changed the meaning of the invasion. At this point, they decided it was about saving the poor, oppressed, tortured Iraqi people. Actually, they changed that meaning just as the invasion started, I suppose as a means of hedging their bets.

After the events of 9/11, President Bush's administration set up the Office of Homeland Security, which served well in inducing fear in Americans with the ridiculous Orange and Red Alerts and so forth, which in turn meant more support for President Bush and his advisors going to war with Iraq, the nation he deceitfully implicated as being connected to the events of 9/11. I call the implication "deceitful" because it is impossible to prove, short of one of the 19 terrorist hijacker's friends or relatives coming forth with a paper trail showing a clear connection between Baghdad and the 19 hijackers. (The frustratingly tragic and predictable irony here is that, because of our invasion of Iraq, the U.S. now probably has a legitimate need for increased security measures at home. In other words, the once ridiculous Orange Alerts will now probably be worth paying attention to. Bush's mad joke has become reality.).

Getting back to the original question of whether or not I believe any found WMD's would have to have been planted, my answer is this: It doesn't matter. President Bush is the captain of the boat. We're his passengers. He has taken us down a river of lies to get us to where we are. I am disgusted and disheartened.
 
Last edited:
Good post, pub. I happen to agree with just about everything you said. Like I said I did *not* like that pro-war rally at Ground Zero. I felt like that desecrated the place. I wish they would keep the damn politics away from Ground Zero. It belongs to all of us. I don't like terrorists any more than the next person. I don't like Saddam, either. Some people claimed that people opposed to the war were pro-terrorist. I found this insulting. It's not true. :mad: :madspit: :censored: :censored:
 
pub crawler said:


I take issue with the President almost solely because of the spurious campaign -- the so-called "case" -- he made to go to war with Iraq. He deceitfully implicated Iraq in the events of September 11, a connection he will never be able to prove. But he doesn't need to prove it. He made the connection and it became truth.

Didn't an Iraqi agent meet with Mohamad Atta in Prague? Didn't we find a terrorist training camp in Iraq?

pub crawler said:
Furthermore, his "case" to go to war with Iraq was almost entirely based on the presumption that Iraq was producing and maintaining an arsenal of WMD's, and that Iraq posed an IMMINENT threat to the free world...

As Powell pointed out, it only takes a very small vial sized amount of Anthrax to kill thousands. In Saddam, we're talking about a mad murder (you can't argue against that) who has used WMD on his own people possibly hiding Anthrax in someone's cupboard somewhere. Are you going to bet thousands of innocent lives that Saddam won't somehow get those chemicals to America or some other 'enemy' country? I would rather error on the side of action.

pub crawler said:
At this point, they decided it was about saving the poor, oppressed, tortured Iraqi people.

That was always one of the reasons for the war.

pub crawler said:
After the events of 9/11, President Bush's administration set up the Office of Homeland Security, which served well in inducing fear in Americans with the ridiculous Orange and Red Alerts and so forth...

Ridiculous? There have been no major terror attacks in the US since this system has been implemented. We're in uncharted waters here. We have a group of rag-tag clan members attacking a superpower, and doing a good job of it. If a clunky color-coded system encourages people to be a little more aware and mayors to put more cops at bridges and tunnels, then I'm all for it.

pub crawler said:
...which in turn meant more support for President Bush and his advisors going to war with Iraq, the nation he deceitfully implicated as being connected to the events of 9/11. ...

Please.

pub crawler said:
...call the implication "deceitful" because it is impossible to prove, short of one of the 19 terrorist hijacker's friends or relatives coming forth with a paper trail showing a clear connection between Baghdad and the 19 hijackers.



Again, didn't an Iraqi agent meet with Mohamad Atta in Prague? Didn't we find a terrorist training camp in Iraq?

pub crawler said:
The frustratingly tragic and predictable irony here is that, because of our invasion of Iraq, the U.S. now probably has a legitimate need for increased security measures at home. In other words, the once ridiculous Orange Alerts will now probably be worth paying attention to. Bush's mad joke has become reality.)


And you would prefer inaction? Clinton showed us all how well that worked. (1993 World Trade Center bombing, killed six and injured 1,000, 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, killed five U.S.
military personnel, 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, killed 224, injured 5,000, 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, killed 17 and injured 3 U.S. sailors, 9/11 killed 2,800 and injured thousands. Total number of deaths due to Clinton's inaction=3,069! It should be noted that after each attack Clinton vowed to bring the criminals to justice. Right. He obviously had his hands full with other things in the Oval Office.)

QUOTE]Originally posted by pub crawler
Getting back to the original question of whether or not I believe any found WMD's would have to have been planted, my answer is this: It doesn't matter. President Bush is the captain of the boat. We're his passengers. He has taken us down a river of lies to get us to where we are. I am disgusted and disheartened.


See above note about Clinton. Oh, you can add a nuclear powered North Korea to that list as well.

All I can say is that we live in very scary times and there are threats that need to be dealt with. I'm glad we have someone in office who is willing to get the job done.
 
I messed up with this part of the post and included it in pubcrawler's quote.

Originally posted by pub crawler
The frustratingly tragic and predictable irony here is that, because of our invasion of Iraq, the U.S. now probably has a legitimate need for increased security measures at home. In other words, the once ridiculous Orange Alerts will now probably be worth paying attention to. Bush's mad joke has become reality.)
And you would prefer inaction? Clinton showed us all how well that worked. (1993 World Trade Center bombing, killed six and injured 1,000, 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, killed five U.S.
military personnel, 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, killed 224, injured 5,000, 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, killed 17 and injured 3 U.S. sailors, 9/11 killed 2,800 and injured thousands. Total number of deaths due to Clinton's inaction=3,069! It should be noted that after each attack Clinton vowed to bring the criminals to justice. Right. He obviously had his hands full with other things in the Oval Office.)
 
wolfwill, I'm not talking about Clinton....lol. I'm talking about President Bush. We can compare presidents for days on end, and it will add nothing to this debate. Please, stick to the topic at hand.
 
wolfwill23: please don't step down to this level (Clinton had no time because..)

If we compare the number of americans killed by terrorist attacks under the Clinton- and under the Bush-administration, Bush dosn't win, because: 9/11 didn't hapen while Mr. Clinton was still president.

Clinton did lots of mistakes during his period, Mr. Bush does lots of mistakes. Do you really want to excuse every mistake of the President with the note that a former president in history wasn't perfect either?

I don't see that Mr. Bush for example did anything helpful yet in the North Korea case - i seriousely hope that he dosn't wait until bombing is the last option.

Klaus
 
Klaus said:


Right, we even helped him to produce and develop them


When you say we you are indeed referring to Germany, France, and the UNited States right. All three were quite important in the development of these weapons in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
pub crawler said:
wolfwill, I'm not talking about Clinton....lol. I'm talking about President Bush. We can compare presidents for days on end, and it will add nothing to this debate. Please, stick to the topic at hand.

We kind of are talking about Clinton because we are talking about different policies. On one side you have action and the other inaction. So I think it's very reasonable for me to bring up the terror attacks that took place on Clinton's watch because I am arguing that these attacks would not go unchecked with Bush. I also feel that Iraq falls into the threat of terror attacks.
 
Klaus said:
wolfwill23: please don't step down to this level (Clinton had no time because..)

If we compare the number of americans killed by terrorist attacks under the Clinton- and under the Bush-administration, Bush dosn't win, because: 9/11 didn't hapen while Mr. Clinton was still president.


Klaus

How long was Bush in office when the 9/11 attacks took place? All of the planning took place during Clinton's watch and in the safety of Afganistan because Clinton didn't have the guts to do anything but lob a couple of Tomahawks over there. He was too scared to put boots on the ground and root out the Taliban. I hold Clinton responsible for not DOING MORE to get Bin Laden when we had the chance. Bush is DOING MORE to root out, capture or kill terrorists and I believe that is exactly what the worlds needs right now.
 
President Clinton most definitely deserves some of the credit for where we are today. It is not a debate over who is at fault but the failed strategy of sending missles into Afghanistan to hopefully hit Al-Qaeda leadership was obviously not the answer. There was clearly not an aggressive enough policy in going after Al-Aqeda. This is also President Bush's fault because he very clearly did not take the threat seriously, nor did Ms. Rice who clearly lied when they claimed they never immagined planes being used.

Under Clinton however, there was a change in the FBI and the CIA in which there were cuts in on the ground intelligence gathering. Many veteran intelligence people were passed over jobs because people were being promoted not based on the jobs that they did, but because of the race and gender. This caused many valuable people to LEAVE our intelligence agencies for the private sector. The loss of these people coupled with a move towards more electronic intelligence and less human on the ground intelligence left us open. This is detailed in Bob Gertz's bokk Breakdown and he makes and excellent case about the failures of the Clinton administration in this area over eight years.


Now as to the WMD. This administration did make its case that there was an immediate threat. There very clearly was not, unless the WMD's have been shipped to another country. The readings that I have done on this topic indicate that the United States has been operating BLIND in regards to Iraq since 1988 when the inspectors were last there. The inspectors were basically our on the ground intelligence. Yes we had intercepts, but without the on the ground intelligence, we went to war based on 1988's last inspections by the UN.

Like it or not, 5 year old intelligence was our best intelligence. There is no published link between September 11 and Saddam. The terrorist camp that we raided in Iraq was linked to Al-Qaeda, however, they were not an Al-Qaeda camp. They were a group of Iraqi's that were funded by Al-Qaeda and their main goal was to overthrow Saddam. See, Saddam and Al-Qaeda were not friends with each other because Saddam's regime show religious tolorance towards Christians.

September 11 is linked to Al-Qaeda because we have had troops in Saudi Arabia protecting our oil interests there. That is the link. IF we were not there it is doubtful that 9/11 and all of the incidents that Wolfwill listed would have happened. These events over the last twelve years fall on the heads of both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. There should have been more pressure to have dealt with Saddam earlier rather than 12 years later. The fact is, President Bush should have finished the job in the Gulf War. Instead he stopped the war for his own political gain. Iran was not going to invade a UN controlled Iraq.

TO say that the administration made a case on a humanitarian level is somewhat true. They did mention that he was a bad man. They did not make it the central theme to their case for war. They did not stand in front of the UN and have Collin Powell speak about the fact that Iraq's administering of the Food For Oil program was killing more Iraqi's a year than the entire 1st Gulf War. They FAILED to make this the central part of their case.

The central part of the case was that the UN was not enforcing its own resolutions. The central part of the case was that we were in a different world after 9/11 and that there was an immediate threat to the United States and its interests. The people of the UNited States were led to believe that we had WMD. Very clearly Saddam wanted us and the world to believe it for some reason. Maybe for the security of his regime. I do believe that the US Generals thought there would be a chemical attack on the troops.

So where are they? If he did not have it, it made a great deterrence. If he did have them and moved them where are they?
 
Well if you take over a company, it's your responsibility as soon as you get paid for the job, also it wasn't mr. bushs fault - the reason for this, and the faults who have bin made, date back much longer.

Mr. Bush is trying to capture and kill terorists. Capturing is a good thing, judging them after they were captured (I'm not talking about show-cases) would be excelent, to show the rest of the world that we believe in justice, not in revenge.
I am afraid that Mr. Bush increases the danger for the US citizens with some of the things he did - the goals are good, the way he tries to solve the problem should be reconsidered.
Don't think that almost all nations, except the US and GB love teorrorists. They do not - lots of these nations have even more experience with terrorists, and because of that they were verry sceptical about the "texas style" of solving problems.

Klaus
 
I think the administration screwed up by making the war more of a WMD thing than a humanitarian thing against Saddam. Saddam was in a league with Slobodan Milosevic at the very least but it seems to me the administration actually downplayed this in favor of the more nebular WMD argument. OK, Saddam had anthrax in 1998. The guy was a madman. But the Niger/uranium controversy overshadowed all of this stuff. That was a screw-up involving lies. The administration probably could have made a case good enough for the U.N, and avoided alot of problems if they hadn't done some of this stuff. The U.S. public doesn't like lies.
 
wolfwill23 said:
Here's the deal.

Fact: Saddam used WMD on his own people at one time.

Fact: Not one Iraqi will be killed by Quassi and not more woman raped by Uday ever again.

As if Bush gives a shit.

If he did, the US would foreign policy wouldn't be as inconsistent and ultimately selfish as it is.
 
I think Powell's decision announced today about not seeking a second term as Sec. of State speaks volumes about the WMD's in Iraq.
While he says it's to keep a promise to his wife, I think he can't stomach anymore undermining by Rumsfeld & Cheney crap.
 
oliveu2cm said:


As if Bush gives a shit.

If he did, the US would foreign policy wouldn't be as inconsistent and ultimately selfish as it is.
'

It's your opinion and you know what they say about opinions...
 
Back
Top Bottom