| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/25 |
| 2003/12/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11594 Activity:low |
12/26 Where is that guy who guaranteed we would find WMD in Iraq?
http://csua.org/u/5dk
Kay is quitting, the search team is disbanding, ready to
admit that you were conned yet?
\_ wmd moved to Syria and Iran.. vials of stuff
\_ Kay is quitting? So he's a quitter? And? When they send someone
who is willing to do the job and not looking for a quickie career
boost, let us know. And why are you such a hater? Why do you
enjoy the apparent failure of others? Would you be upset if we
had found tons of the stuff on day 1 and Bush looked like a genius
to the whole world? I'll bet you would. No one likes a hater.
\_ Why don't you just admit you were wrong and move on? No one
likes someone who refuses to admit their mistakes.
\_ Exactly right.
\_ Because you can't prove a negative. They hid entire air
bases full of air craft. We've found mobile labs that had
no use other than making germs. Connect the dots.
\_ I am a hater because Bush lied us into war, costed us 150
billion in tax dollars, and distracted us from the real national
security issues. Then again, I should of known better when
GWB conned into the office at first place.
\_ Every intelligence agency in the world and the UN believed
Saddam had WMDs. If it was a lie, everyone agreed on it.
Only after it was clear 1441 was ignored by Iraq (and people
started to believe Bush would begin the war) did people start
claiming there were no WMDs.
\_ You keep claiming that, but it is no more true today
than it was a year ago. France and Russia, particularly
disagreed with the Wolfowitz led assessment:
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/30/1054177726543.html
\_ Well for some reason these people disagree with
you: Clinton, Tom Daschle, Bob Kerry, Byron Dorgan
Jesse Helms, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Carl Levin,
Trent Lott ... from the Congressional Record:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts
Then again you probably have better sources than
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
\_ You know those resolutions are from 1998, right?
Do you know what the shelf life of nerve agent is?
And they do not have anything to do with the idea
that "every intelligence agency in the world" agreed
with Bush.
\_ Tell us. What is the shelf life of nerve agent?
So they had them in 1998 but *after* the UN/US
inspectors left they suddenly stopped making
them? That's just plain stupid. Get out of here
with that noise.
\_ Oh yes, our friends the French... who built
Khomeini a nuclear reactor until Isreal blew it
up and provided the Exocet missile and mirage
fighter to attack the USS Stark. And now the
left is relying on intelligence from what is
effectively the KGB? Never mind the billions
in oil contracts these countries had negotiated
despite UN sanctions or the oil-for-aid
kickbacks.
\_ What's wrong with the left relying on the KGB?
It's not like the KGB hasn't been funding them
since the 50's if not earlier. It makes sense.
\_ From resolution 1441:
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council
resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf
Yeah, the one that passed uninimously through the
Security Council.
Yeah, the one that pssed uninimously through the Security
Council. |
| 12/25 |
|
| csua.org/u/5dk -> www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1553312 His team, the Iraq Survey Group, has found little evidence that Saddam Hussein had such weapons and many members of a team that initially numbered 1,000 have been reassigned to help hunt down Iraqi insurgents. Related NPR Stories Beyond the War in Iraq / echeck function modified from DHTML email validation script. |
| www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html Prior to the war in Iraq, some foreign countries questioned United States assertions on WMD presence in Iraq. Now, some in the United States Congress question whether or not the intelligence agencies manipulated intelligence to gain support for the war in Iraq. However, the White House insists that United States intelligence on Iraqs WMD were fairly presented. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that the efforts of the Saddam Hussein regime to conceal its actions clearly give a picture of a regime that had weapons of mass destruction and was determined to conceal them. France, Russia, and Germany did not find Powells evidence strong enough to support the United Statess stance on the Iraqi threat. However, having already questioned the veracity of the dossier and CIA report, they instead concentrated on persuading the international community to continue UN inspections. Other experts said that the evidence is not sufficient enough to prove that Iraq has WMDs. However, what Secretary of State Powell did prove was that Iraq was capable of producing WMDs. |
| www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/30/1054177726543.html The CIAs public acknowledgement of a review smells more like early positioning for its day of reckoning than a genuine interest in continuous improvement. The CIA cant afford another serious blunder so soon after its failure to pick up the September 11 attacks. Condoleezza Rice was smart enough to attempt her U-turn weeks ago. According to the US National Security Adviser, WMD bombs, missiles and drones are out. Find a pesticide factory, for instance, and you find a chemical warfare facility. The more the place is trashed, the more difficult will be any dispute about the evidence. More recently, the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, has said publicly that Iraq may have destroyed its WMDs prior to the war. The Howard Government will not be keen for an inquiry into Australian assessments on Iraq. Much better to let the whiff of US intelligence failure drift across the Pacific in the hope it implies that Australia was the victim of advice beyond its control. The last thing the Government wants is too much scrutiny of its claims about Iraqs WMDs and links to al-Qaeda, or the fact these claims were in the main contrary to advice from the Governments intelligence community. Some in the Australian intelligence community had latched onto the dodgy American intelligence, resulting in partial contamination of assessments with an overestimation of Iraqs WMD capability. But Australian intelligence agencies made it clear to the Government all along that Iraq did not have a massive WMD program that dubious honour remains restricted to at least China, France, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, Britain and the US. And there was no indication Iraq was intending to pass WMDs to terrorists. There could not have been any doubt whatsoever about all this in the mind of the Prime Minister or of any member of the national security committee of cabinet. Report after report from the bureaucracy made it abundantly clear that the US impatience to go for Iraq had very little to do with WMDs and an awful lot to do with US strategic and domestic interests. John Howards suggestion yesterday that the Government strong line on WMDs matched intelligence advice is contrary to the more moderate line contained in ONA reporting. Shame it put thousands of Australian troops at risk, cost nearly a billion dollars and has increased the terrorist threat to Australia. Howards February statement on Iraq was like something out of a time warp - one Gulf war and 12 years of international sanctions and UN weapons inspections out of date. He has fired missiles at Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, and Qatar, he told Australians. It understood months before it commenced that war was inevitable and Australia would be involved. Despite Howards protestations that no decision had yet been made, the ONAs people in Washington were frantically calling on their best contacts in the State Department and the CIA. Staff were gearing up to run a round-the-clock intelligence assessment function. Coalition forces in Iraq have not found thousands of chemical artillery shells ready to be fired or ballistic missiles loaded with deadly bacteriological agents. That explains Howards lurch towards his much-broader muddle of reasons for involvement in the war. This is not to say that Iraq was of no concern or that some WMD-related materials will never be found in Iraq. Iraq had whats known in the business as a breakout WMD capability in its many dual-use facilities. The Fallujah III castor oil production plant near Baghdad, for example, was, like similar plants elsewhere in the world, suitable for conversion to a ricin toxin factory. And Iraq, again like many countries including Australia, probably still has stockpiles of potential WMD ingredients - the chlorine needed for clean water, for example, can also be used to make deadly chemical agents. US claims about mobile biological warfare facilities could yet prove true, though the implication that Iraqs biological weapons program relied on a handful of trailers tends to confirm the program was limited. The trailers, and any other finds, will remain irrelevant until scrutinised by independent officials. The same goes for the interrogation reports of former Iraqi scientists, including those now detained in Morocco. With so much at stake, the possibility cant be ruled out that a zealous coalition official might attempt to tamper with the evidence. Claims by Iraqis in custody that the WMD program was dismantled before the war could be true, especially if Saddam thought he could survive the war and achieve some sort of moral victory. But that would mean the program must have been much smaller than US assessments. Just as elusive is hard evidence of active co-operation with al-Qaeda. This was always an extraordinary proposition, not least because Saddam was a secular dictator intent on eradicating Islamic fundamentalism. Another mystery is the Howard Governments enthusiasm for playing up the more general risk of WMD terrorism. It was well-advised, in briefing after briefing by ONA, that the risk of such an attack was - and still is - low, and that any such attack would almost certainly involve an unsophisticated device incapable of causing mass casualties. The chemical, biological or radiological device used was not likely to be a true WMD. The Government had also been advised of the many reasons countries do not pass WMDs to terrorists, not least the fear of massive US retaliation. One of the major concerns about the war now is the way it will encourage the proliferation of WMDs. Americas adversaries are being encouraged to acquire WMDs to deter US aggression. Mutually assured destruction kept the US and Soviet Union from each others throats for decades. And, for now, Irans and North Koreas arsenals seem to be influencing the US to back off. The neo-cons in Washington think arms control doesnt work and is contrary to US interests. Hence the USs lack of interest in the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban and Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties. Washingtons determination to develop new battlefield nuclear weapons is an especially alarming development. This is not going unnoticed and will come back to haunt us, says Richard Butler, the former head of the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq. |
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts IRAQ/WMD: What did Clinton & Senate Dems know & whenHYPOCRISYDEMS; SEE FOR YOURSELF Library of Congress 7/19/03 Various Senators Posted on 07/19/2003 4:10:41 PM PDT by Wolfstar ED. They are EXTREMELY revealing as to who was wringing their hands over the danger posed to United States security by Iraq and its WMD just five years ago, and who was calling Iraqs actions that year a crisis. These debates led to passage of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, WHICH MADE REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ UNITED STATES POLICY. Its crucial ammunition for anyone who wants clear, unambiguous evidence of Democrat hypocrisy on Iraq and WMD. BEGIN EXCERPTS: Click link above to search the full Congressional Record. Also note that, where used, bold and upper case emphasis is Wolfstars. NOTE: After Kofi Annan secured one more useless agreement with Hussein, Daschle took the floor to gush like a schoolgirl about that achievement. The reader is advised to pay close attention to Daschles words here. What we should demand is an answer to what intelligence Daschle relied on when he declared that Iraq had not only chemical and biological weapons, but nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. If fully implemented, this commitment will allow UNSCOM to fulfill its mission: First, to find and destroy all of Iraqs chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; The United States remains resolved to secure, by whatever means necessary , Iraqs full compliance with its commitment to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. At the very moment diplomacy appears not to be working, force will be employed. This is not a question of simply delaying and somehow, then, obviating the need for the use of force should it be required. President, we have made great progress on paper over the last 72 hours. Every single one of those scummy Dem presidential wannabes from the senate knows this, but that doesnt prevent them from pretending to be outraged at phony claims that the Bush Administration hyped intelligence. Again, we ought to demand answers to what intelligence Clinton and company relied on in 1998 when they changed United States policy toward Iraq from one of containment to one of regime change. This program was in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention, to which Iraq is a party. ED NOTE: Dorgan presents exhibits in support of a call for an International War Crimes Tribunal for Iraq. The exhibits detail the crimes of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi leaders. The most enormous crime that Iraqi leaders have committed was the genocidal Anfal campaign against Kurds in rural areas of northern Iraq. The campaign involved the destruction of thousands of Kurdish villages, and the murder, disappearance, extermination by chemical weapons, or forcible resettlement of hundreds of thousands of Kurds. The third category is Iraqi violations of treaties and UN resolutions. These chemical weapons attacks, both in the war against Iran and internally against the people of Kurdistan, raise the issue of Iraqs entire program to develop weapons of mass destruction chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. According to the Clinton Administration white paper, Iraqs biological weapons activities included producing 8,500 liters of anthrax, 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin, and 2,200 liters of alfatoxin. Iraq also prepared biological weapons munitions, including 25 Scud missile warheads 5 anthrax, 16 botulinum toxin, 4 alfatoxin, 157 aerial bombs, and aerial dispensers. Iraq researched other ways of using biological weapons, including 155mm artillery shells, artillery rockets, a MiG-21 drone, and aerosol generators. Lastly, Iraq has confessed to a nuclear weapons development program, but again only after Husayn Kamils defection in 1995. ED NOTE: It cant be emphasized strongly enough that the UN Security Council declared Iraq to be in material breach five years ago. Yet that Leftist cabal led by Annan, Chriac and Schroeder refused to stand by its own findings while it was putting Bush and Blair through the wringer earlier this year. I am far, far more interested in learning the truth about this than I am about one sentence in the State of the Union speech. Vigorous diplomacy has been pursued over the past three months, but, thus far, Saddam Hussein has shown that he has no interest in a peaceful solution on anything other than his own terms. We cannot allow this tyrant to prevail over the will of the international community. Our national security would be seriously compromised by a failure to stand up to the challenge he has confronted us with. If Iraq does not comply immediately and unconditionally with United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding unfettered access for United States weapons inspectors, I believe that President Clinton will have no choice but to order the use of air power. NOTE: Ironic, isnt it, that time really ran out five years later under a different president. In recent weeks, several questions and criticisms have been raised with respect to President Clintons policy. They are to curtail and delay Saddam Husseins capacity to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten his neighbors. We should all hope for a genuine diplomatic solution to this stand-off, but no one should doubt our resolve to use force if it becomes necessary. First and foremost, an Iraq left free to develop weapons of mass destruction would pose a grave threat to our national security. ED NOTE: Again, one must ask the question why in 1998 but not in 2003? That, I hope, is the message that will be heard in Baghdad, most importantly. If the Commander in Chief of the United States decides that military force is necessary to be employed against Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Members of the United States Senate will stand strongly behind him and behind those American personnel in uniform who will carry out that policy. NOTE: Lott introduces the bill that, when later passed, becomes the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I am joined by Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator McCain of Arizona, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator Helms of North Carolina, Senator Shelby of Alabama, Senator Brownback of Kansas, and Senator Kyl of Arizona. For months, I have urged the Administration to fundamentally change its policy on Iraq. Monitoring the concealment of weapons of mass destruction is not enough. It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. NOTE: This law passed overwhelmingly in 1998 and was signed into law by Clinton. Yet in the post-9/11, post anthrax-attacks world, in 2002-03 Dem senators reversed course and opposed the invasion of Iraq to effect that very regime change policy they had placed into United States law. There is only one answer: Because a member of their party was not in the White House. They put raw partisan politics above the national well-being and are still doing so today. Saddam Hussein will lose his job, I will lose my job, or I will keep talking about him on this floor. NOTE: Sure enough, Hussein outlasted Kerreys tenure in the Senate. Terrorism may or may not actually be on the rise, but terrorists have recently shown the intention and ability to attack American targets overseas. As we confront organizations like that of Usama bin Laden, we come face to face with people who will go to great efforts to kill Americans, and we react strongly. In the aftermath of events like the bombing of Khobar Towers or the two embassies in Africa, we naturally move terrorism to the forefront of our threat concerns. ED NOTE: Dont know which we Kerrey was talking about, since Clinton didnt do squat about terrorism during his eight-year term. So, as regards the threat posed by Usama bin Laden, what did Clinton and the Senate Dems know, and when did they know it? I refer to the need to free the Iraqi people from one of the most oppressive dictatorships on earth. We Americans, who have striven for more than two centuries to govern ourselves, should particularly feel the cruel anomaly which is the Iraqi governm... |