Breaking News: Saddam possessed WMD, extensive terror ties

i've held off using the "L - word" regarding the bush/cheney administration's assertions and accusations. it really bothered me to go there and believe that my country was helmed by people that were dishonest.

but in light of so many things coming out as untrue or massaged to appear to be legitimate, i've had to review that sentiment.

the last straw came this morning.

after hearing "mr." cheney's boast of having been in the congressional chamber a whopping one day a week and his snide, snarled "i've never met you until tonight" quip to edwards, i felt that i disliked him more than ever.

to then, this morning, see a freakin' picture of him standing right next to edwards shook things into place for me. and many other things that i have sort of given bush and cheney the benefit of the doubt on now are now of a completely dishonest nature in my mind.

so now, thanks to their own actions and words, my hesitation to use the "L-word" is fully evaporated;

dick cheney is a LIAR.

george w. bush is a LIAR.

period.

0 Replies

Cheney thought he had one of those "You're not a Jack Kennedy" statements of the past. Instead, people are learning more about this crew of liars and deceivers.

0 Replies

Yeah, way to really comprehend whqat's going on. I congratulate you on your ability to finally use the "l" word. Too bad you have failed to use it appropriately.

0 Replies

it is because i comprehend what is really going on that i have made the decision to, finally, use the word.

0 Replies

Frokm NYT today:

(Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/international/middleeast/06CND-INTE.html?ex=1254801600&en=a624f1159c119b94&ei=5088&partner=rss )

"U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: October 6, 2004

ASHINGTON, Oct. 6 ? Iraq had essentially destroyed its illicit weapons capability within months after the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, and its capacity to produce such weapons had eroded even further by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector in Iraq said in a report made public today.

The report, by Charles A. Duelfer, said the last Iraqi factory capable of producing militarily significant quantities of unconventional weapons was destroyed in 1996. The findings amounted to the starkest portrayal yet of a vast gap between the Bush administration's prewar assertions about Iraqi weapons and what a 15-month postinvasion inquiry by American investigators concluded were the facts on the ground.

At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer concluded, Iraq had not possessed military-scale stockpiles of illicit weapons for a dozen years and was not actively seeking to produce them.

The White House portrayed the war as a bid to disarm Iraq of unconventional weapons, and had invoked images of mushroom clouds, deadly gases and fearsome poisons. But Mr. Duelfer concluded that even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon.

"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the gulf war," Mr. Duelfer said in his report, which added that American inspectors in Iraq had "found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

Hours before Mr. Duelfer's report was made public, President Bush appeared to try to deflate some the political impact of its core findings.

"After Sept. 11, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light," Mr. Bush said while campaigning in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. "Our nation awakened to an even greater danger: the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder."

"We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons, and one regime stood out," Mr. Bush said. "The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein."

Mr. Duelfer presented his conclusions to Congress beginning with testimony at a closed session of the Senate Intelligence Committee. But his findings were described to reporters in advance of the testimony, although only on condition that they not be published until his afternoon appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, when the report was made public..............."

0 Replies

....."the three-volume report, totaling more than 900 pages, is viewed as the first authoritative attempt to unravel the mystery posed by Iraq during the crucial years between the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and the American-led war that began in 2003. It adds new weight to what is already a widely accepted view that the most fundamental prewar assertions made by American intelligence agencies about Iraq ? that it possessed chemical and biological weapons, and was reconstituting its nuclear program ? bore no resemblance to the truth......"

0 Replies

to be fair:

".....Mr. Duelfer concluded that Mr. Hussein had made fundamental decisions, beginning in 1991, to get rid of Iraq's illicit weapons and accept the destruction of its weapons-producing facilities as part of an effort to end United Nations sanctions. But Mr. Duelfer argued that Mr. Hussein was also exploiting avenues opened by the sanctions, including the oil-for-food program, to lay the groundwork for a long-term plan to resume weapons production if sanctions were lifted.

Mr. Hussein "wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," the report said. But the conclusion that Mr. Hussein had intended to restart his programs, the report acknowledged, was based more on inference than solid evidence. "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions," it said, using the common abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction......"

IMMINENT threat?????????????

0 Replies

While we had the no fly zone and sanctions in place, Saddam's age would have made him inert as a potential threat. He played too many games to have won the maze game with the world community and the UN.

0 Replies

BUSH CONTINUES TO MISLEAD ON WMD

In the lead up to war, President Bush argued that America must invade Iraq because it possessed weapons of mass destruction. For example, on 9/28/02 President Bush said, "the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons."[1] On 10/7/02, President Bush said, "Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."[2] Long after it became clear that there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, President Bush has continued to insist that before the invasion "Iraq was a gathering threat."[3]

A comprehensive 1000-page report to be released today by the Bush administration's handpicked weapons inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, will reveal "Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons" according to the Washington Post.[4] According to Duelfer's report, U.N. sanctions prevented Hussein from reconstituting his weapons programs.[5]

Sources:

1. "Radio Address by the President to the Nation," The White House, 09/28/02, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61151.
2. "President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat," The White House, 10/07/02,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61152.
3. "Remarks by the President at Victory 2004 Rally," The White House, 09/16/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61153.
4. Report Discounts Iraqi Arms Threat, Washington Post, 10/06/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61154.
5. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61154.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

to be fair:

".....Mr. Duelfer concluded that Mr. Hussein had made fundamental decisions, beginning in 1991, to get rid of Iraq's illicit weapons and accept the destruction of its weapons-producing facilities as part of an effort to end United Nations sanctions. But Mr. Duelfer argued that Mr. Hussein was also exploiting avenues opened by the sanctions, including the oil-for-food program, to lay the groundwork for a long-term plan to resume weapons production if sanctions were lifted.

Mr. Hussein "wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," the report said. But the conclusion that Mr. Hussein had intended to restart his programs, the report acknowledged, was based more on inference than solid evidence. "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions," it said, using the common abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction......"

IMMINENT threat?????????????

Where was Mr. Duelfer when the UN inspectors were kicked out and there was no way of verifying what we know now? The only reason he was able to create this report is that he and his team NOW have unfettered access to Iraq.

0 Replies

McGentrix

The inspectors were back in and doing what they were supposed to be doing. When the Bush war was initiated.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

McGentrix

The inspectors were back in and doing what they were supposed to be doing. When the Bush war was initiated.

Why was that au?

0 Replies

Because Bush and company misread all the intelligence available and arrived at their own wrong conclusions about Saddam having WMDs and any relevant connection to al Qaeda. If the weapons inspectors were allowed to continue their search, we could have saved not killing over 15,000 Iraqis and losing over 1,000 of our military. If that weren't bad enough, it's now costing us upwards of 150 billion dollars of our tax money. If you are unable to see the problem with all the wrong decisions Bush and company made, our country is headed for worse problems in the future.

btw, this isn't meant for McG, but for the rest of you that already knows the answer. Wink

0 Replies

No, it's because the US military and it's allies gave Saddam an ultimatum he could no longer ignore. Even then he failed.

It's been known since the report from David Kaye that nobody could find any stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. It's just not news. But what's also interesting in this case, is that some of the other more important testimony by Duelfer is being ignored. For instance, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions, he merely put them on hold. As soon as the heat was off, he was going to start making nuclear weapons. He had the ability and the desire.

Let's talk about biological weapons. Duelfer testified that Iraq could have restarted its program and produced mustard agent in months, and nerve agent in less than a year. So Saddam wasn't a threat, huh? All he would have had to do is restart that program, and sell some of that nerve agent to an Islamic terrorist.

What the Democrats would have done, had they been in power, would have been to wait until Saddam did just that. They would have waited until he posed an even greater threat to the world, the region and his neighbors before they did anything. So they didn't find any stockpiles...who cares? The dictator is out of power, is no longer a threat to the rest of the world, is no longer killing and torturing his own people, and will never produce weapons of mass destruction again. Iraq was a terrorist state, and we took action.

Al-Qaeda doesn't have any WMD stockpiles either...should we look the other way there? I think not.

0 Replies

One thing people seem to be reminded of is that in the case of the biological WMDs, nobody ever needed hundreds of tons of the stuff to create havoc. The total amount used in the attacks which followed 9/11 was probably two or three teaspoons full and, if somebody made even a halfhearted effort to hide five pounds of the **** before the fall of the baathist state, in a country the size of Iraq, we'll never find it. Same would be true for any other bioweapon.

Saddam Hussein had the motive (revenge), he had the financial means and wherewithal, he had the technical capacity, and there is an overwhelming web of circumstantial evidence indicating that the guy had to be taken down.

http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html

There is in fact some evidence that Hussein alone in the world possessed the ability to produce the kind of anthrax seen in the attacks which followed 9/11.

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html

What this means is that you can only give a guy like Hussein the benefit of doubts for so long, and the time was up. At some point, an American president had to give protecting his own people a higher priority than trying to be "fair" with lunatics.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

No, it's because the US military and it's allies gave Saddam an ultimatum he could no longer ignore. Even then he failed.

It's been known since the report from David Kaye that nobody could find any stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. It's just not news. But what's also interesting in this case, is that some of the other more important testimony by Duelfer is being ignored. For instance, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions, he merely put them on hold. As soon as the heat was off, he was going to start making nuclear weapons. He had the ability and the desire.

Let's talk about biological weapons. Duelfer testified that Iraq could have restarted its program and produced mustard agent in months, and nerve agent in less than a year. So Saddam wasn't a threat, huh? All he would have had to do is restart that program, and sell some of that nerve agent to an Islamic terrorist.

What the Democrats would have done, had they been in power, would have been to wait until Saddam did just that. They would have waited until he posed an even greater threat to the world, the region and his neighbors before they did anything. So they didn't find any stockpiles...who cares? The dictator is out of power, is no longer a threat to the rest of the world, is no longer killing and torturing his own people, and will never produce weapons of mass destruction again. Iraq was a terrorist state, and we took action.

Al-Qaeda doesn't have any WMD stockpiles either...should we look the other way there? I think not.

The excuse for the invasion, such as it was - was imminent threat.

Argue that.

It was the casus belli.

The rest is bumping gums together.

Your government, and mine, and Great Britain's, acted to invade another countrybased on - at the kindest interpretation - faulty intelligence.

The cause given has proven to be false.

Argue that.

0 Replies

dlowan, That will never come out from these repubs, because "there is no good answer," and it's impossible to defend. They like to keep their heads in the sand; it doesn't hurt as much that way.

0 Replies

McGentrix
You asked why. Because the US, Yes Bush had massed troops and threatened to invade. Since that was working and Saddam allowed the inspectors in that baits the question, why did the imbecile invade. It could not possibly been for the reasons stated. And it certainly could not have been because he was in continued non compliance with the UN resolution. Which called for the inspections.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

McGentrix
You asked why. Because the US, Yes Bush had massed troops and threatened to invade. Since that was working and Saddam allowed the inspectors in that baits the question, why did the imbecile invade. It could not possibly been for the reasons stated. And it certainly could not have been because he was in continued non compliance with the UN resolution. Which called for the inspections.

That's just not true au.

1-27-03 Hans Blix stated the following:

Quote:

link

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

dlowan, That will never come out from these repubs, because "there is no good answer," and it's impossible to defend. They like to keep their heads in the sand; it doesn't hurt as much that way.

Ack - generalisations.

Over here there is an odd phenomenon - normally conservative voters whom the current government has lost - very briefly, I suspect - over Iraq and the lies about the children overboard stuff (here's the google page on that - since I suspect this appalling piece of outrageous and deeply offenive propaganda went unnoticed overseas: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22children+overboard%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= ).

It is rudely known as the "doctors' wives" phenomenon - fairly wealthy middle class folk, who are normally "rusted on" conservative voters - but who have overcome the prejudice we all share about abandoning our chosen political affiliations, despite evidence of their poor behaviour. The government is said to worry they might affect a few marginal wealthy seats.

Sadly, polls suggest that, while most Australians believe our conservative Prime Minister lied about "children overboard" - and very possibly about Iraq - many expect so little from politicians that this will not change their vote - or they will maintain their conservative vote despite their belief in the PM's dishonesty, for other reasons.

Some of us - conservative or progressive - sometimes do take our heads out of the sand and take a clear look at what "our side" has done.

0 Replies

Breaking News: Saddam possessed WMD, extensive terror ties

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know