WMD's in Iraq?

“pedxing - Do mine! Do mine!

When did Bush *cough* say this ... ?

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."”

“Ped, Your eight point manifesto was full of variables and assumptions. It offered no insite into the truth. You really need to get off the blame train.”

“miss ann thrope?”

“"Saddam Hussein's regime represents..."-- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 based on evidence supplied by the White House.”

“John the liar.”

“sarge the schlong”

““The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin --.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

“We felt that in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's [WMD] capabilities fundamentally." Rolf Ekeus Former Head UNSCOM 8/16/00

“All inspections were performed without notice, and access was in virtually all cases provided promptly. In no case have the inspectors seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance of their impending arrival...

The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations….”-- UNMOVIC

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

..the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews in private. -- UNMOVIC

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

“UNMOVIC helicopters have been able to operate as requested both for transport and inspection purposes.

UNMOVIC has been able to send surveillance aircraft over the entire territory of Iraq in a manner similar to that of UNSCOM.” -- UNMOVIC

Non-bold text Bush 1/28/03”

“other tidbits from UNMOVIC ... same doc (also, interesting words that were deleted from above are added below, in bold)

UNMOVIC has identified and started the destruction of approximately 50 litres of mustard declared by Iraq that had been placed under UNSCOM supervision and seal at the Muthanna site in 1998. This process will continue. A laboratory quantity (1 litre) of thiodiglycol, a mustard precursor, which had been found at another site, has also been destroyed.

After some initial difficulties with Iraq relating to escorting flights into the no-fly zones, UNMOVIC helicopters have been able to operate as requested both for transport and inspection purposes;

(b) After some initial difficulties raised by Iraq, UNMOVIC has been able to send surveillance aircraft over the entire territory of Iraq in a manner similar to that of UNSCOM;

It has not yet proved possible to obtain interviews with Iraqi scientists, managers or others believed to have knowledge relevant to the disarmament tasks in circumstances that give satisfactory credibility. The Iraqi side reports that it encourages interviewees to accept such interviews, but the reality is that, so far, no persons not nominated by the Iraqi side have been willing to be interviewed without a tape recorder running or an Iraqi witness present.

In December, UNMOVIC asked Iraq to provide, under the fourth subparagraph of paragraph 7 of resolution 1441 (2002), the names of all personnel currently or formerly associated with some aspects of Iraq's programme of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. The Iraqi response was received at the end of December. However, it was deemed to be inadequate, as it did not even include all those who had been previously listed in Iraq's full, final and complete declaration. Iraq has since then supplemented its list of participants in the missile programme, and has declared itself to be ready to do the same in the other disciplines. This matter is still being followed up.

The experts also reviewed the capabilities of casting chambers at the Al Mamoun facility. These had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision since they were intended for use in the production of the proscribed Badr-2000 missile, but had subsequently been refurbished by Iraq. The experts concluded that these reconstituted chambers could still be used to produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometres. Accordingly, these chambers remain proscribed.

Oddly, the title of this report which mjc quoted (sort of) from ... 'The Results In Terms Of Disarmament Have Been Very Limited So Far': UNMOVIC Quarterly Report, February 28”

“this really demonstrates an out of context quote from above given by Hans Blix: (I'll bold the part mjc quoted above since it's easier to quote that than what he left out.)

Today, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have been that the individual would only speak at Iraq's Monitoring Directorate or at any rate in the presence of an Iraq official.

This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews in private, that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed.

However, we hope that with further encouragement from the authorities, knowledgeable individuals will accept private interviews in Baghdad or abroad.”

“you realy need b1tch slapped.”

“regarding Ralphy boy from above .... here's the rest of the quote mjc left off

Well I don't want to answer the pointed question as such. I would say that we felt that in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's capabilities fundamentally. There are some question marks left. That's why I think that we should take a new track like the one that I proposed: Which is to establish a short controlling regime which prevents the build-up of new weapons. I think that it is according to the line that you were speaking of. So I think that we were in agreement.

... interesting ...”

“mjc ... You're classic dude.

Thanks for the laugh.”

“are you in a wheelchair sarge?”

““Sarge you are so clever. So what you have pointed out is that the UNMOVIC was making progress yet Bush rushed to the Shock and Awe invasion of Iraq. Bush neglected to inform the people that progress was being made. Read it again.

UNMOVIC went on to say “However, even with the requisite cooperation it will inevitably require some time….It is only by the middle of January and thereafter that Iraq has taken a number of steps, which have the potential of resulting either in the presentation for destruction of stocks or items that are proscribed or the presentation of relevant evidence solving long-standing unresolved disarmament issues.”

UNMOVIC also explained that Iraq was cooperating with the process. As for the “no finding of cooperation of substance”, It is clear now that there were no WMD left in Iraq. So therefore Iraq had a tough time producing them or proving the destruction to UNMOVIC.

This information was provide through continued updates and briefings to the security counsel and was finally made official on February 28. So the some time that Bush allowed was less than one Month.

And again, “We felt that in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's [WMD] capabilities fundamentally." Rolf Ekeus Former Head UNSCOM 8/16/00””

“For anyone interested

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/unmovic03-232.pdf”

“What I pointed out is that you posted everything out of context to make your point.”

“And again, “There are some question marks left. That's why I think that we should take a new track like the one that I proposed: Which is to establish a short controlling regime which prevents the build-up of new weapons." Rolf Ekeus Former Head UNSCOM 8/16/00”

“Bushes argument was that Iraq was a threat. That they had WMD, they were not cooperating in the UNMOVIC process, and they were seeking to build Nuclear weapons(those 16 words).

The context in this case (UNMOVIC report)contrasts Iraq's previous action with their current cooperation. You made that clear.

Regardless of the rest of Rolf's statement the fact remains We felt that in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's [WMD] capabilities fundamentally.

We have plenty of question marks with a lot of countries, but we aren't invading them (yet).

The white house only released the information they wanted congress to know to make a point. Is this lieing?”

“When Rolf spoke about the "eliminated WMD capabilities", how many years had it been since he had been involved in the Iraq/U.N. process?

... and what was his position on if we should kick Saddam out?

... I mean, since you value his word, and all.
last edited: 11/19/05 10:05:18 PM”

“Sarge you are good at asking question, please address these facts.

“Bush's argument was that Iraq was a threat. That they had WMD, they were not cooperating in the UNMOVIC process, and they were seeking to build Nuclear weapons(those 16 words).

The context in this case (UNMOVIC report)contrasts Iraq's previous action with their current cooperation.

UNMOVIC also explained that Iraq was cooperating with the process. As for the “no finding of cooperation of substance”, It is clear now that there were no WMD left in Iraq. So therefore Iraq had a tough time producing them or proving the destruction to UNMOVIC.

UNMOVIC report was released publicaly on February 28. So the some time that Bush allowed was less than one Month.

Regardless of the rest of Rolf's statement and his other stances the fact that his statement "we have eliminated Iraq's [WMD] capabilities" hold true to this day.

The White House deception is clear to the rest of us.”

“So basically, you believe there are no WMD, so so you can back that up by taking part of 1 sentence from somebody (out of context), regardless of what that person believed, and use that to substantiate your initial claim?

Are you going to answer my questions?

1. When Rolf spoke about the "eliminated WMD capabilities", how many years had it been since he had been involved in the Iraq/U.N. process?

2. What was his position on if we should kick Saddam out? Why was he holding that position?”

“Germans Say U.S. Used Bad Data to Justify Iraq Invasion
Sat Nov 19 2005 17:58:49 ET

The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush Administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the Iraq war.

The LOS ANGELES TIMES is planning to front the allegation in Sunday editions, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with the LOS ANGELES TIMES that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector codenamed Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.

According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's claims in his pre-war presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.

Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly second-hand and impossible to confirm.

``This was not substantial evidence,'' said a senior German intelligence official. ``We made clear we could not verify the things he said.''

The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, also said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems. ``He is not a stable, psychologically stable guy,'' said a BND official who supervised the case. ``He is not a completely normal person,'' agreed a BND analyst.
last edited: 11/19/05 10:36:59 PM”

“My question is ...

If:The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, also said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems. ``He is not a stable, psychologically stable guy,'' said a BND official who supervised the case. ``He is not a completely normal person,'' agreed a BND analyst.

Then: What the heck was he doing as an informant for the Germans?

Something is fishy about this.

Maybe we should look to the Food for Oil scandal, or the weapons that Germany sold Saddam for answers...”

“To humor you;

1. Rolf Ekeus - United Nations' Head inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1997.

2. His findings were that Iraq's goal was not to developed stocks of chemical weapons, but to develop the means to produce them in a time of war with Iran. He felt that a US placed government would better suite our needs. (That didn’t work out so well with Iran or Afghanistan)

It is too difficult for a country of limited resources to store chemical weapons. They are volatile and unstable over time. That is the M.O. of countries with greater resources such as the US. This is but one reason the intelligence community, outside of the White House, felt the WMD cause was not enough to go to war.

Now for you to address;

Bush's argument was that Iraq was a threat. That they had WMD, they were not cooperating in the UNMOVIC process, and they were seeking to build Nuclear weapons (those 16 words).

The context in pertaining to the UNMOVIC report contrasts Iraq's previous actions with their current cooperation.

UNMOVIC also explained that Iraq was cooperating with the process. As for the “no finding of cooperation of substance”, It is clear now that there were no WMD left in Iraq. So therefore Iraq had a tough time producing them or proving the destruction to UNMOVIC.

UNMOVIC report was released publicly on February 28. So the some time that Bush allowed was less than one Month.

To date the have not found and WMD facilities, weapons, and have stopped looking.”

“Germany had an informant who was "suffer(ing) from emotional ... problems", "suffer(ing) from ... mental problems", not "stable", not "psychologically stable", and not "normal" according to them?

Sound like backtracking/tapdancing to me.

Either the Germans are lying now, or they have EXTREMELY poor standards for informants, according to their own admittance.”

“One last acronym before bed DSM.

Signing off from trolling for sarge.

--Prick”

“The more specific answers would be:

1. It was 3 years from the time he was involved in the Iraq/U.N. situation to the time he made that statement.

2. That Saddam WAS trying to develop WMD, and despite what they were going to be used for, in violation of UN sanctions which had been amended/extended/abused multiple times over many years.

------

What is your question?”

“I like how you called yourself a "prick" mjc.

(for those that are playing along, that is another thing mjc has taken out of context to make a point. You see, on another thread, mjc made it a point to say that I was lying about something (which I wasn't). By him making that wild assumption, I thought it would be fair play (to make a point) to assume something about him, so I told him I will "assume he is a prick". I guess he didn't get the point... and is consequently still "out of context".)”

“mjc, here is a quote for you to think about when you wish to engage in a discussion with sarge, SS, etc.


"When one argues with a moron, there are two."”

“Hey, imagine that, Iraq wants us the hell out of thier country too! link”

“BB calling someone else a moron. Now that's funny!!”

“Or else what?

Or else the U.N. will be very, very angry and will write you a letter saying so.”

““Ped, Your eight point manifesto was full of variables and assumptions. It offered no insite into the truth. You really need to get off the blame train.”
bacpac
1:21:21 PM
11/19/05

Excellent point by point rebuuttal.”

“Sorry, I don't want to get dragged down to your level.”

“I understand, mnucking around with facts and details might give you indigestion.”

“burp, it'll save on healthcare costs.”

“Hey BB - Did you notice in your link how the Iraqi government just stated that killing American troops is a "legitimate right" of resistance?

Who are we fighting for again?”

“Violin, how can they kill one of our troops with flowers and candy?

Yeah, I saw that, it's depressing.”

“Viol - I read that too, but I assume they were trying to differentiate between terrorists and legitimate guerilla tactics. I don't think they were trying to say people who attacked American soldiers weren't the enemy.”

“I don't know about that ped. From this article:

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

The attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.”

“Still makes sense to me. Attacking enemy troops in a time of war ain't terrorism in my book. Attacking civilians is.

I think in war, including war against an occupier and its local allies you attack enemy troops by any means available - barring the kinds of attacks that are outlawed as "war crimes" (I'm thinking of things like using nerve gas).

Adherence to the Geneva convention in WWII was much better on the Western front in Europe than on the Eastern front. Countless lives were saved on the Western front. Imagine calling on the Nazis and their allies to use legitimate tactics - to acknowledge that some of their tactics are legitimate is not the same thing as saying we shouldn't fight hard against them.”

“It looks like the troops are fed up....

Dread Takes a Toll on GIs in Iraq
By Louise Roug, Times Staff Writer

FORWARD OPERATING BASE FALCON, Iraq — A handful of Delta Company soldiers leaned against a barracks wall the other night, smoking. The subject of conversation: what limb they would rather part with, if they had a choice. On the door of a portable toilet a few feet away, someone was keeping the company death toll amid a scribble of obscenities: five KIA.

"When I first got here, I felt like I could actually do some good for the Iraqi people," Sgt. 1st Class Joseph Barker said. But the last six months had hardened him, he said. "We're not going to change the Iraqis. I don't care how many halal meals we give out," he added, referring to food prepared according to Islamic dietary laws.

Of the 160,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq, some have been deployed to the country for the first time. Others are returning for their second or third tours of duty. Those returning find a country that has become even more dangerous. Since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, attacks on American troops using roadside bombs have steadily risen, as have military casualties.

In conversations with troops in the tense cities of Baghdad, Mosul and Tikrit during the last four weeks, morale seemed a fragile thing, especially among those in the line of fire, shot through with a sense of dread.

Many expressed pride in their mission, and the hope that the budding political process would eventually destroy the insurgency. But others described a seemingly never-ending fight against an invisible enemy, and the toll of seeing friends die.

"Morale is a roller coaster," said Lt. Rusten Currie, who has spent 10 months in Iraq. "We were all idealistic to begin with, wanting to find Osama bin Laden and [Abu Musab] Zarqawi, and bring them to justice — whatever that means. Now we just want to go home."

The bracelet on his slim wrist read: "Let them hate, as long as they fear."

"We've become the cliche of every war movie — the grizzled veterans," said Currie, who became embittered after losing a friend, Capt. Raymond Hill — "a big, happy-go-lucky guy," killed by a roadside bomb Oct. 29.

"It doesn't make any sense to kill Roy Hill," Currie said.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, a spokesman for Multinational Force Iraq, says tensions are understandable when troops are attacked with remotely detonated explosives and there's no way to fight back.

"Soldiers can indeed get frustrated because they're not looking at an enemy who's looking back at them," Lynch said. But he added that "morale is generally good."

Barker remembers the day — it was Sept. 15, a Thursday — that changed how he felt about Iraq. Afterward, the mission no longer made sense.

"It's the most helpless feeling I have ever felt," said Barker, of the California National Guard's 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, who lost his friend and second in command, Sgt. Alfredo Silva, to a roadside bomb that day.

"We were the walking dead," he said, speaking of the days after the attack. "It was no longer a matter of making it home alive and in one piece. Just alive would be fine."

After that day, the explosions never seemed to stop. In Delta Company, morale plummeted after four men were killed in nine days, Barker said.

In the mess hall at Forward Operating Base Falcon, just south of Baghdad, soldiers on crutches precariously balanced food trays and sodas as they hobbled among the rows of tables. There were other, invisible injuries — backs and legs refusing to heal.

Many soldiers have been struck by explosives repeatedly — three or four times — since arriving at Falcon base this year. The medics call them "frequent fliers."

Delta Company soldiers have had trouble sleeping.

"One of my buddies, he's also a gunner," said Spc. Evan Bozajian, 23, from Inglewood. "In the beginning, he was really gung-ho. Not anymore. Some of the guys, they hate it. They don't want to do this anymore."

Bozajian, however, still thinks he's doing something worthwhile.
last edited: 11/23/05 11:13:34 AM”

“It looks like the troops are finally getting fed up....

The "news" (and the left) has said they were fed up after the first 3 weeks of the beginning of this.”

“BTW - the "news" we are talking about here are actual words from the troops.

Why don't you support them Sarge? Do you give your support only to those who could care less if they get thier limbs blow off?

Some patriot you are.”

“BB - troops are disgruntled even when they're not in war.

The point is that you presented this as something new, but it's a complaint the media and left have made for years now, since this began. Your portrayal of it as something that is demonstrating a trend should be slightly embarrasing for you.”

“Please check out this work safe video and then come back and answer a simple question:

Was the left lying then or are they lying now?”

“In 1998, the comments were made to enforce the embargo, and press inspectors in Iraq.

Which worked.

The 2002 comments were made from the misleading intelligence that the Administration forwarded to congress.”

“First you mentioned (1998) what the objective was,

then

You compared that (2002) to the source of the objective.

Apples and Oranges”

“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182941,00.html

Iraq's number two General says the WMD's were sent to Syria.”