logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Was Bush misled by the Intelligence?, An analysis of the Intelligence
Kuni
post Dec 11 2005, 08:09 PM
Post #1


*****
Century Mark

Group: BANNED
Posts: 135
Member No.: 5,280
Joined: July-18-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



IPB Image

The SIC Report contains this little tidbit about an Intelligence Report that the Administration got in the summer of 2002.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...chapter12-c.htm
(U) The Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) directed that Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship be published on June 21, 2002, although it did not reflect the NESA's views. CTC's explanation of its approach to this study and the analysts' differing views were contained in the paper's Scope Note, which stated:

(U) This intelligence assessment responds to senior policymaker interest in a comprehensive assessment of Iraqi regime links to al-Qa'ida. Our approach is purposefully aggressive in seeking to draw connections, on the assumption that any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States.

(U) We reviewed intelligence reporting over the past decade to determine whether Iraq had a relationship with al-Qa'ida and, if so, the dimensions of the relationship.

[BLACKED OUT] Our knowledge of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida still contains many critical gaps [DELETED]



Now this tells us a couple of things. First that Bush was told that they were throwing in everything including the kitchen sink, with the ‘purposefully aggressive’ statement, into the report. Secondly, that they didn’t really know what the &$%# they were talking about with their ‘many critical gaps’ disclaimer.

So how do we know Bush was misled? Let’s look at some of his statements, but first, let’s look at a portion of the “Interpreting a Murky Relationship” from June 21, 2002 that the SIC Report failed to mention.

June 21, 2002 CIA report, “Iraq and al-Qa'ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship,” starts with: “In the past several years, Iraq reportedly has provided specialized training to al-Qa’ida in explosives and assistance to the group’s chemical and biological weapons programs, although the level and extent of this training assistance is not clear.


And it shows us what part the [BLACKED OUT] and [DELETED] parts from the above extract from the SIC Report contained.

Our knowledge of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida still contains many critical gaps because of limited reporting [BLACKED OUT] and the questionable reliability of many of our sources."

And finishes with:

“The CBRN Angle. The most ominous indications of Iraq-al-Qa’ida cooperation involve Bin Laden’s chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) ambitions. Although Iraq historically has tended to hold closely its strategic weapons experts and resources, Baghdad could have offered training or other support that fell well short of its most closely held secrets. [BLACKED OUT] of Iraq or Iraqi nationals in al-Qa’ida CBRN efforts, but we cannot determine which, if any of these Iraqi nationals Baghdad directed.


And now for the parts of the October 2001 NIE that Bush got to see.

The October 2, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Continuing WMD Programs, states:
As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training and support are second-hand or from sources of varying reliability. The most conspicuous pattern in the reporting is of al-Qa’ida enduring interest in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) expertise from Iraq. [BLACKED OUT] suggest the involvement of Iraq or Iraqi nationals in al-Qa’ida’s CBW efforts. We cannot determine however, how many of these Iraqi nationals were directed by Baghdad or how many of the reported plans for CBW training or support were actually realized.

None of the hundreds of al-Qa’ida members captured during Operation Enduring Freedom report having been trained in Iraq or by Iraqi trainers elsewhere, but given interest over the years in training and expertise from outside sources, we cannot discount reports of such training entirely.



Entirely? They could not discount the claims 100%. Interesting comment. And let’s not forget the “We cannot determine however, how many of these Iraqi nationals were directed by Baghdad or how many of the reported plans for CBW training or support were actually realized.” comment; they could not determine even One. Interesting.

Now let’s see what Bush did with the “We don’t know” and “we can’t be 100% sure that there is nothing there” comments. But first I should mention another Document that has just had portions declassified.

[URL=levin.senate.gov/newsroom/ supporting/2005/DIAletter.102605.pdf]Ditsum No. 044-02[/URL]:
In February 2002, when al-Libi’s claims about chemical and biological weapons training were first reported in the Intelligence Community, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued DITSUM # 044-02 containing al-Libi’s claims and the following comment:

“This is the first report from Ibnal-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqi’s involved, the CBRN material associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.

Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”


So now we have: “We don’t know”, “we’re not sure, but were almost 100% sure nothing is there”, and “the one guy we tortured some info out of, is lying about the training”.

Now let’s go look at what Bush said? Not yet, we still have to deal with the 1998 “Indictment” that many are claiming proves that Clinton must also have lied.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...004Jun16_2.html
. . . Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superseding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand. . .


So now we have: “We don’t know”, “we’re not sure, but were almost 100% sure nothing is there”, “the one guy we tortured some info out of, is lying about the training”, and “Clinton’s Justice Department didn’t confirm it either”.

Now let’s look at what Bush said.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030206-17.html
“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” Source: President Bush: World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003)


Notice the “Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training” comment? The Intelligence obviously did not say that; it said that it can’t prove that comment and we’re almost 100% sure it’s not true.


And let’s not forget the January 29, 2003 CIA report, the one that came out about a week before Bush’s comment in question, called; “Iraqi Support for Terrorism”

January 29, 2003 CIA report, "Iraqi Support for Terrorism"

Iraq-al-Qa’ida Training:

After contacts the [BLACKED OUT] reporting touches most frequently on the topic of Iraqi training of al-Qa’ida. Details on training range from good reports {BLACKED OUT] varying reliability, often the result of long and opaque reporting chains or discussions of future intentions rather than evidence of completed training. The general pattern that emerges is of al-Qa’ida enduring interest in acquiring CBW expertise from Iraq.

There have been fewer reports of al-Qa’ida receiving conventional terrorist training from Iraq after Bin Laden relocated to Afghanistan in 1996, possibly because Bin Ladin’s needs were less in this area. [BLACKED OUT]

Some of the most ominous suggestions of possible Iraqi-al-Qa’ida cooperation involve Bin Ladin’s CBW ambitions. Although Iraq historically has guarded closely its strategic weapons information, experts, and resources, Baghdad could have offered training or other support to al-Qa’ida. [BLACKED OUT]

Most of the reports do not make clear whether training initiatives offered by Iraqi’s or discussed by the two sides remained in the planning stages or were actually implemented.

In about half of the reports, we cannot determine if the Iraqi nationals mentioned had any relationship with the Baghdad government or were expatriate or free-lance scientists or engineers.

At least [BLACKED OUT] of the reports appear based on hearsay:

[BLACKED OUT] of the reports are simple declarative accusations of Iraqi-al-Qa’ida complicity with no substantiating detail or other information that might help us corroborate them.



So we have Bush saying that “Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training”; yet a week before, the Intelligence was still saying, we can prove that claim.


So given the above: Was Bush misled by the Intelligence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Ted
post Dec 12 2005, 05:07 PM
Post #2


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Iraq-al-Qa’ida Training:

After contacts the [BLACKED OUT] reporting touches most frequently on the topic of Iraqi training of al-Qa’ida. Details on training range from good reports {BLACKED OUT] varying reliability, often the result of long and opaque reporting chains or discussions of future intentions rather than evidence of completed training. The general pattern that emerges is of al-Qa’ida enduring interest in acquiring CBW expertise from Iraq.

There have been fewer reports of al-Qa’ida receiving conventional terrorist training from Iraq after Bin Laden relocated to Afghanistan in 1996, possibly because Bin Ladin’s needs were less in this area. [BLACKED OUT]

Some of the most ominous suggestions of possible Iraqi-al-Qa’ida cooperation involve Bin Ladin’s CBW ambitions. Although Iraq historically has guarded closely its strategic weapons information, experts, and resources, Baghdad could have offered training or other support to al-Qa’ida. [BLACKED OUT]



Regardless of the total reliability of the intel on the AQ connection it was clear that Iraq had substantial WMD and the programs to produce more. As above the “details” are a combination of “good reports” and other less reliable ones. Thus a conservative executive would (given the intel) err on the side of caution esp. after 9/11.

And let’s not forget that the decision to move on Iraq had many elements including the numerous unfulfilled UN Resolutions and the fact that Iraq refused to cooperate with the UN in 2002 with troops on their border. Based on the ISG recent report showing that Iraq had dozens of WMD programs still running in Iraq right up to the invasion, and well funded with the 21.3 BILLION stolen from Oil for Food pgm. Bush made the right choice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Dec 12 2005, 09:45 PM
Post #3


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



There is an old saying among fraud artists that you "can't swindle someone who ain't greedy and trying to swindle you"- and this fits GW to a "T"- it is quite obvious he was jumping at any straw to invade Iraq, no matter what the evidence.

I don't think it was as much mislead as using anything he could to bolster his case to invade- I think the decision was made the day he was elected, long before 9/11, he was just trying to find an excuse.

The yellowcake document is a classic example- a fourth grader trying to forge his moms signature on a detention slip was better- yet, strangely enough, accepted as gospel.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blackstone
post Dec 12 2005, 09:53 PM
Post #4


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,995
Member No.: 5,539
Joined: October-13-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 12 2005, 12:07 PM)
Regardless of the total reliability of the intel on the AQ connection it was clear that Iraq had substantial WMD and the programs to produce more.  As above the “details” are a combination of “good reports” and other less reliable ones.  Thus a conservative executive would (given the intel) err on the side of caution esp. after 9/11.
*

But to take us back to the original question, was Bush misled by the intel on Iraq and al-Qaeda? Comparing the very cautious nature of the posted reports with the very definitive and assertive nature of Bush's public statements, it would appear so far that Bush misled himself by seeing what he wanted to see. On the other hand, I'd still like to know if what was posted here contains all of the intelligence information Bush saw. For example, it seems pretty likely, from the information online that I've looked over so far, that prior to the invasion Qaeda leader al-Zarqawi had received treatment in an elite Baghdad hospital run by Uday Hussein.

There's more material regarding the subject of Iraq-Qaeda connections here. I'm not taking a position just yet on the accuracy of everything there (one of the items listed, the Clinton-era indictment, has been dealt with in Kuni's post), but I think it's a good starting point. I'm not ready to start throwing stones just yet. Allegations like this, at a time like this, should have a relatively high burden of evidence, in my opinion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Dec 13 2005, 12:33 AM
Post #5


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 12 2005, 05:07 PM)
Regardless of the total reliability of the intel on the AQ connection it was clear that Iraq had substantial WMD and the programs to produce more. 


Really? It is not clear to me. Nor is is clear to the US weapons inspections teams who post-invasion finally left Iraq after 2 years without finding anything at all.

Could you perhaps explain how it is 'clear' that Iraq had substantial WMD, and the ability to produce more?


QUOTE
  Based on the ISG recent report showing that Iraq had dozens of WMD programs still running in Iraq right up to the invasion,


Apologies, but that is a complete and utter fabrication The ISG report clearly says exactly the opposite. The chemical weapon finds were a few shells and rockets or decomposed and inert weapons which obviously dated prior to 1991, and in post cases to the 1980s.

The ISG clearly reports that all hidden biological weapons and materials were destroyed after inspections started, and that bio-research was abandoned.


The best the report could claim was that it was likely Saddam's intent to restart research into nuclear weapons AFTER sanctions had been lifted and the economy of Iraq stabilised. However, despite some information that this might have been his intent; "The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners".


The ISG in fact clearly says almost the EXACT opposite of what you just claimed it did.



Let me leave you with a few exerpts from this report, to think on a bit before you make up any other 'claims' about what it says:

"it appears that Iraq, by the mid-1990s, was essentially free of military WMD stocks,"

"if WMD existed, its absence from Iraqi military formations and planning when war was imminent in 2003 would be hard to explain."

And in the conclusion:
"ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability. Senior officers asserted that if Saddam had WMD available when the 2003 war began, he would have used them to avoid being overrun by Coalition forces."

"Iraq had dismantled or destroyed all of its WMD assets and manufacturing facilities. Had Saddam possessed WMD assets, he would have used them to counter the Coalition invasion"

This post has been edited by Vermillion: Dec 13 2005, 12:53 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kuni
post Dec 13 2005, 02:59 AM
Post #6


*****
Century Mark

Group: BANNED
Posts: 135
Member No.: 5,280
Joined: July-18-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
I'd still like to know if what was posted here contains all of the intelligence information Bush saw.
There are reports that the September 21, 2001 PDB said than any “Credible” Intelligence they had on meetings between Saddam and al-Qaeda was Saddam viewing al-Qaeda as a threat and trying to infiltrate it.


The Bush Administration has refused to let the SIC, or anyone, see both the Sept. 21/01 PDB and a more in-depth CIA analysis delivered to the White House shortly afterwards, dealing with the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blackstone
post Dec 13 2005, 04:29 AM
Post #7


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,995
Member No.: 5,539
Joined: October-13-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Kuni @ Dec 12 2005, 09:59 PM)
There are reports that the September 21, 2001 PDB said than any “Credible” Intelligence they had on meetings between Saddam and al-Qaeda was Saddam viewing al-Qaeda as a threat and trying to infiltrate it.
*

And how credible are these reports you mention? Is there a link to any of them?

QUOTE
The Bush Administration has refused to let the SIC, or anyone, see both the Sept. 21/01 PDB and a more in-depth CIA analysis delivered to the White House shortly afterwards, dealing with the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Not even the Robb-Silberman commission was allowed to see them? They've were given general access to his PDB's, as I understand it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Dec 13 2005, 12:30 PM
Post #8


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,943
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Was Bush misled by the Intelligence?

Yes, with qualifications.

Back in the closing days of 2002 and the first three months of 2003, in the build-up to the Iraq invasion, it was a commonplace that Iraq had WMD. Everyone, pretty much - even the French - thought that Iraq had such weapons. The main difference between the pro-war and anti-war factions was scepticism that war was the best way to remove the threat by removing the Saddam Hussein regime and create a stable aftermath.

France's main objections to war were that the intelligence was not reliable enough in indicating that there was a direct and imminent threat that Iraqi WMD would fall into terrorist hands and be used against Western interests, and (notably) that the invasion plans included little or no consideration of how to run Iraq once Saddam was removed, and how to withdraw leaving behind a peaceful country.

There was no particular scpeticism that WMD weren't there, just that the continued UN-led inspections were the best way to find and neutralise them. (And it seemed as though Iraq was finally beginning to cooperate with UN inspectors in the few months prior to invasion, with the build-up of coalition forces in the region.)

But the US/UK/Italian/Australian analysis was that the apparent cooperation was a smokescreen, that the Ba'athists were in secret talks with key al Qaeda operatives, and that Saddam was planning to get hold of nuclear weapons, all of which added up to an unacceptable threat that required preemptive action.

But once troops were on the ground, it became clear that the Ba'athists were in no shape to conduct such research. What few WMDs they had were old, left over from the days when Iraq was a Western client state acting against communism and Islamic fundamentalism (in the shape of Iran), when the WMDs that they had were mostly supplied by the West anyway. The few meetings with AQ members were called into question. The Iraqi 'leaders in exile' turned out to have planted or fabricated much of the damning intelligence, and spun the rest, to further their own ends.

So yes, Bush was misled by the intelligence.

BUT, the qualifications come into play because we now know that Bush and Blair had discussed punitive action against Iraq well before any terrorism-linked WMD concerns came to light. The yellowcake uranium scam was ignored by several intelligence agencies, but was seized upon by the British in MI6 and shared with US counterparts.

We don't yet know, but many suspect, that US & UK intelligence agencies had been told to go out and find evidence that would damn Saddam-era Iraq and excuse forced regime change.

We certainly know (from several inquiries in the UK & US) that such intelligence as there was, including but not limited to the yellowcake fake, was spun by governmentally appointed political advisers to make it look more definite and more damning than it actualy was.

Plus, it's much easier to mislead someone in a direction in which they already want to go, and Bush / Blair had made no secret of wanting rid of Saddam.

So, I think the Bush administration and their allies - especially Tony Blair - were as misleading at least as much as they were misled.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kuni
post Dec 13 2005, 12:34 PM
Post #9


*****
Century Mark

Group: BANNED
Posts: 135
Member No.: 5,280
Joined: July-18-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
Is there a link to any of them?

Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/...005/1122nj1.htm
[i]Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.



edited to conform to the rules regarding posting copyrighted materials


This post has been edited by Dontreadonme: Dec 13 2005, 02:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Dec 13 2005, 05:00 PM
Post #10


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Vermillion @ Dec 12 2005, 08:33 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 12 2005, 05:07 PM)
Regardless of the total reliability of the intel on the AQ connection it was clear that Iraq had substantial WMD and the programs to produce more. 


Really? It is not clear to me. Nor is is clear to the US weapons inspections teams who post-invasion finally left Iraq after 2 years without finding anything at all.

Could you perhaps explain how it is 'clear' that Iraq had substantial WMD, and the ability to produce more?


QUOTE
  Based on the ISG recent report showing that Iraq had dozens of WMD programs still running in Iraq right up to the invasion,


Apologies, but that is a complete and utter fabrication The ISG report clearly says exactly the opposite. The chemical weapon finds were a few shells and rockets or decomposed and inert weapons which obviously dated prior to 1991, and in post cases to the 1980s.

The ISG clearly reports that all hidden biological weapons and materials were destroyed after inspections started, and that bio-research was abandoned.




Well I guess I disagree. What the ISG report said (see below) is Iraq intended to get through the sanctions, get them dropped (with help from France & Russia who were paid off) and them go back into full WMD production. David Kay (see below) had more to say about running programs.

The ISG group further said they could find no proof that Iraq had retained it’s stockpiles of WMD which is different than proof that they were defiantly destroyed. In any case in 2002 every intel agency in the world INCLUDING the inspectors though Iraq may still have retained stockpiles of WMD. I QUOTE from Blix report directly below. Which part of this do you not get???? This is the information available in 2002 and as e know Iraq never complied with UN 1441 or any other resolution. And 1441 went to the point of saying that Iraq must actively PROVE it destroyed its WMD. And Iraq has never done that.

From ISG report: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_20...ine_Events.html
129 BW 1994 1993-1995 Bacillus thuringiensis (dry formulated preparation) produced at Al Hakam
141 BW Early 1995 UNSCOM discovers 42 tons of unaccounted-for BW growth medium; Iraq cannot explain
282 DS June 2000 Saddam orders the design of long range missile
331 POL/PROC 2002 Iraq and Russia negotiate $40B oil
development deal to be undertaken once sanctions are lifted

This from David Kay Report 2003 on Iraq and Intel given :

"I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people," he said.
"We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration," Kay said.
Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom
. The very scale of this program when coupled with the conditions in Iraq that have prevailed since the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom dictate the speed at which we can move to a comprehensive understanding of Iraq's WMD activities.
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.

From Blix in 2002. This is the intel that the US and others depended on.

I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.
Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.

While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991

Resolution 1441 was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active

I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.
Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.
Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

These statements, current intel that did not disprove any of it as well as Iraq’s refusal to prove anything as required by 1441 was the basis for the invasion. TONS of VX and thousands of liters of Anthrax - Enough to kill every person in the worls 4 times.


This post has been edited by Ted: Dec 13 2005, 05:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Dec 13 2005, 05:23 PM
Post #11


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 13 2005, 05:00 PM)
Well I guess I disagree.  What the ISG report said (see below) is Iraq intended to get through the sanctions, get them dropped (with help from France & Russia who were paid off) and them go back into full WMD production. 


Yes, you disagree with the ISG report.

As I already explained and cited through quotations, there was some evidence that Hussein was planning on starting WMD production (nuclear in specific) once sanctions had been lifted and the economy had stabilised, but that this intent was just personal, and no group, working group, scientists were informed of this and no plan existed to make it happen.

That could not be further from YOUR claim that the ISG report claimed that Iraq maintained WMD stocpiled and production right up until right before the second invasion.

QUOTE
The ISG group further said they could find no proof that Iraq had retained it’s stockpiles of WMD which is different than proof that they were defiantly destroyed.


Firstly, actually it is not all that different. both indicate NO EVIDENCE OF WMD IN IRAQ.

Secondly, and more importantly, the quote of yours stating there was no evidence of WMD (or WMD production) in Iraq may not be exactly the same as 'proof that it was all certainly destroyed', but it is VERY, VERY different from your statement a page ago that (I quote) " ISG recent report showing that Iraq had dozens of WMD programs still running in Iraq right up to the invasion".

That was your complete fabrication and what I called you on. Blix's report may show something else, it may not (actually, it doesn't) but that is a seperate issue.

QUOTE
Which part of this do you not get????


The part I don't get is where you totally and utterly fabricated information from a formal ISG report that in fact states clearly the EXACT OPPOSITE of your claims. THAT is the part I do not get. Do you get it?


QUOTE
From ISG report:  1993-1995 Bacillus thuringiensis (dry formulated preparation) produced at Al Hakam
141  BW  Early 1995  UNSCOM discovers 42 tons of unaccounted-for BW growth medium; Iraq cannot explain


Nice selective quoting. It is technically accurate of course, these are quotes from the ISG report, but what you conveniently left out is WHY these things happened until 1995:

(From the ISG Report)
"In late 1995, ISG judges that Baghdad completely abandoned its existing BW program "

"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."

"In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Dec 13 2005, 07:14 PM
Post #12


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Vermillion

That was my error. The report I was referring to (and you seem to have ignored ) was David Kay. Who said

We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration," Kay said.
Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Is he LYING too?? Or just totally inaccurate.

But regardless the issue of the debate here is the available intel in 2002 and as you can see from Blix – and feel free to read the whole report, there was certainly no agreement that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD.

Would you like to respond to the statements by Blix?? This IS the intel the world had.

And personally I find it hard to believe Iraq would go to war (one they could not win) over weapons they had (illegally) destroyed. Contrary to your statement Iraq keep very good records and even Blix knew this. That is why when the morons in Iraq tried to say they destroyed the proof of WMD destruction with the weapons (a ludicrous lie) Blix said the following:


When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons.
However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports and how they have been used. They should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports and production and losses of material.
This is a nice way of saying that he thinks their claim is nonsense and subsequent to this request Iraq related that they were going to identify at least one person that participated in the “destruction” of tons of VX and Anthrax. He was never produced.



Bottom line again – Iraq ADMITTED it produced (tons) of WMD. And they did this only AFTER they were shown the evidence by Butler that detailed the factories and materials. They were then required by the UN to bring these WQMD forward for destruction under UN supervision – which they never did.
Here is more on the subject:

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm


in part:

• May retain biological weapon sprayers for Mirage F-1 aircraft.
May retain mobile production facility with capacity to produce "dry" biological agents (i.e., with long shelf life and optimized for dissemination).
• Has not accounted for 17 metric tonnes of BW growth media.
• May possess smallpox virus; tested camelpox prior to Gulf War.
Maintains technical expertise and equipment to resume production of Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax), botulinum toxin, aflatoxin, and Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene


May retain stockpile of chemical weapon (CW) munitions, including 25 or more special chemical/biological al-Hussein ballistic missile warheads, 2,000 aerial bombs, 15,000-25,000 rockets, and 15,000 artillery shells.
• Believed to possess sufficient precursor chemicals to produce hundreds of tons of mustard gas, VX, and other nerve agents.
• Reconstructing former dual-use CW production facilities that were destroyed by U.S. bombing.


This post has been edited by Ted: Dec 13 2005, 07:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whyshouldi
post Dec 13 2005, 08:32 PM
Post #13


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 114
Member No.: 5,593
Joined: November-1-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Natural Law Party



IF some form of WMD had existed or does exist, in the time the U.S has been in Iraq, something, even minute would have been found by now. I know basically inert weapons have been used, with no effect if I remember, and such were accounted for by the U.N, or covered that they would exist but in hiding from the first gulf war.

President Bush made claims that pretty much have not come to light about the WMD threat. You can look at all forms of intelligence on the issue, but the main thing at hand that is intelligence to me currently is the lack of any proof to support WMD claims, but who knows, maybe tomorrow they will find tons of biological weapons in Iraq or something.

I imagine after the first gulf war that Saddam realized his fossil army could not take on the current U.S army, and maybe really just wanted to protect himself from local threats, who could blame the nasty man. I also doubt he wanted to sit on all that oil and not be able to sell it for money. I cannot blame other nations for wanting that oil, after all its all really conservative thought at work here. Its not different then how the U.S can act or has, after all we did send marines to South America to fight war over bananas I think.

I don’t think you can blame either side. Intelligence is what it is, does not mean it has to be perfect. I don’t think if you had any form to lay grounds for solid doubt that a war should have occurred, but that is just my personal opinion on the issue.

Would Saddam have started over once the sanctions were lifted, maybe, but that is a question you really cannot answer, plus I feel it would be rather hard to hide that stuff, I don’t think any nation has been able to hide such really. Then the other hands at action typically bomb you and leave you with nothing, which I am sure people like Saddam eventually figured out, which leads me back to maybe he finally just wanted to be rich from his oil, thus why we have no found anything to date to support really the large claims of WMD our current president made.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Dec 13 2005, 09:00 PM
Post #14


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
IF some form of WMD had existed or does exist, in the time the U.S has been in Iraq, something, even minute would have been found by now. I know basically inert weapons have been used, with no effect if I remember, and such were accounted for by the U.N, or covered that they would exist but in hiding from the first gulf war.


They have found traces of VX and even an artillery shell with traces in it but generally this is not the case. ALL of what we are looking for could fit into a 3 car garage (as David Kay said) and I am sure it was well hidden before the war and IMO move to another country (Syria) as the invasion began or just before. Even Blix noted in a BBC documentary that Iraqi labs inspected had been “scrubbed clean” and the “key” part of a piece of “dual use” equipment had been removed.

IMO our greatest failure of the Iraq war was Bush trusting Tenant at CIA. He should have demanded that he be told exactly where the WMD was so that as the war began we could drop in and secure it. IMO we let it slip away.

QUOTE
President Bush made claims that pretty much have not come to light about the WMD threat. You can look at all forms of intelligence on the issue, but the main thing at hand that is intelligence to me currently is the lack of any proof to support WMD claims, but who knows, maybe tomorrow they will find tons of biological weapons in Iraq or something.


The Bush “claims” are for the most part echoed by the statements of others as I have quoted above and are nearly EXACTLY the claims made by Clinton and numerous Dems in 1998. Nothing changed from 1998 to 2002.

QUOTE
Would Saddam have started over once the sanctions were lifted, maybe, but that is a question you really cannot answer, plus I feel it would be rather hard to hide that stuff, I don’t think any nation has been able to hide such really. Then the other hands at action typically bomb you and leave you with nothing, which I am sure people like Saddam eventually figured out, which leads me back to maybe he finally just wanted to be rich from his oil, thus why we have no found anything to date to support really the large claims of WMD our current president made.


He would have gone right back into WMD production. As the ISG said he used a lot of the 21.3 billion he stole from Oil For Food Pgm. To keep alive his WMD capabilities. And I don’t know what you mean by “hard to hide the stuff”. Once sanctions were dropped he would not have to hide anything. And again “our current President” made claims based on the intel at hand which included our CIA, the UN (see my Blix quotes above) and the intel of virtually every other country in the world. The difference is he wanted to DO something to get Iraq to comply with UN resolutions and other countries (for dubious reasons in some cases) did not agree.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whyshouldi
post Dec 13 2005, 09:22 PM
Post #15


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 114
Member No.: 5,593
Joined: November-1-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Natural Law Party



In reply to Ted.


I doubt for high ranking CIA personal to allow a WMD threat to slip away. It destroys one of our main reasons for purpose in Iraq being we basically invaded on the wave of feeling coming of 9-11. Plus that stuff when processed correctly is capable of killing large amounts of people thus the name. Again, we would have found infrastructure to support our claims, something besides trace residue and inert unmarked shells that were to exist.

A massive structure to support the creation of WMD would have to be in place, now you can say its been masked, but really you cannot take that point beyond the realm of speculation, anything could qualify as that. To go on about it could be hidden, it could be a vial of some virus, or even just the formula on how to make it, hidden well in the drawer of someone’s house in Germany if you want to go that far, you are going to tell me that such is possible to combat in the world, that threat will never go away as long as some people are unhappy.

I am not trying to turn this into a democrat vs. republican slugfest. I know Clinton tried to handle this threat and almost went to war in Iraq himself, I do not praise the man as much as many may think, but I would take him over the current leadership in a heart beat, that aside it’s the issue I am debating on.

To say he would have went right back into that WMD business is a fragile argument at best, after all, how did he acquire such in the genesis of such a program? You can say he would, or would not, that’s about all you can do there. To say he was such a threat because of such does not stand well with me when we know of nations that do currently provide a far more serious threat but do not receive that same attention, I will not say its because of oil, but I will say I am sure oil does provide a serious component in the decision making. Combat on resources is nothing new to life in general, its not something that ultimately makes us evil in my eyes, at the end of the day people are just people regardless of ignorance being king in my opinion.

On the U.N resolution case, all kinds of resolutions are in breech, people choose to act on the ones they currently see fitting, I again do not fault humans for being people with that, but I will refrain from acceptation such as a reasonable grounds for this war, after all we really were not in the mood at the U.N to make relevant or disclose fully our top secret information that showed a WMD threat north, south, east, and west of Baghdad.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blackstone
post Dec 14 2005, 12:10 AM
Post #16


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,995
Member No.: 5,539
Joined: October-13-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Kuni @ Dec 13 2005, 07:34 AM)
QUOTE
Is there a link to any of them?

Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/...005/1122nj1.htm
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.
*

So we have anonymous statements appearing in an article written by a writer for the Village Voice. And judging from the article itself, it appears to have an axe to grind against the Bush Administration. For example, we have this little gem:

QUOTE
Bush and Cheney have also recently answered their critics by ascribing partisan motivations to them and saying their criticism has the effect of undermining the war effort. In a speech on November 11, the president made his strongest comments to date on the subject: "Baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." Since then, he has adopted a different tone, and he said on his way home from Asia on November 21, "This is not an issue of who is a patriot or not."

Leaving aside the misleading impression this paragraph creates (Bush, in fact, stated in his 11/11 speech that criticism of the war itself is indeed legitmate, so there was no change in "tone"), it has nothing to do with the subject of the article. It was just a gratuitous slap that Waas threw in. This to me casts serious doubt on his objectivity.

By the way, earlier you mentioned that the administration refused to share the 9/21 PDB with anyone at all. But the context of the article strongly suggests that it was just the SIC that it was withheld from. The Robb-Silberman Commission had general access to the PDB's, and though I can't specifically prove that they saw the one from 9/21, I've also found nothing online to suggest it was withheld from them. That commission found, by the way, that the PDB's "were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE" which was sent to Congress.

What I also think needs to be looked at is Zarqawi, as I discussed earlier. Why would a high-level Qaeda operative be receiving treatment in an elite regime-run hospital, if Iraq was so concerned about al-Qaeda? Sorry if all this comes across as a bit stubborn on my part, but as I said, accusations like this, at a time like this, should be met with a pretty strong degree of evidence. Hearsay doesn't cut it, in my view.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kuni
post Dec 14 2005, 05:08 AM
Post #17


*****
Century Mark

Group: BANNED
Posts: 135
Member No.: 5,280
Joined: July-18-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE("Ted")
What the ISG report said
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

. . . The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. . .


I should have clarified that I’m speaking specifically about the al-Qaeda/Saddam Intelligence. No one cared that Saddam had WMD’s, or even if he used them; if we did, Rumsfeld would not have gone to Baghdad and present Saddam with gifts.


QUOTE("Blackstone")
Zarqawi
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9831216/site/newsweek/
A secret draft CIA report raises new questions about a principal argument used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq: the claim that Saddam Hussein was "harboring" notorious terror leader Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi prior to the American invasion

The allegation that Zarqawi had visited Baghdad in May 2002 with Saddam's sanction—purportedly for medical treatment—was once a centerpiece of the administration's arguments about Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell cited Zarqawi's alleged visit in his speech to the United Nations Security Council. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld referred obliquely to Zarqawi's purported trip as an example of "bulletproof" evidence that the administration had assembled linking Saddam's regime with Al Qaeda.

But like the uranium yellowcake claims—since determined to be fraudulent—that are at the heart of the CIA leak case, the administration's original allegations about Zarqawi's trip also seem to be melting away. An updated CIA re-examination of the issue recently concluded that Saddam's regime may not have given Zarqawi "safe haven" after all. . .



This post has been edited by Kuni: Dec 14 2005, 05:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Dec 14 2005, 02:50 PM
Post #18


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
From Kunoi:
. . The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. . .


Well obviously this is out of context. Needless to say no Iraqi scientist wanted to be associated with WMD programs or plans, esp. written ones, because 5,000 people were murdered with them in Iraq and this could mean prosecution for same. What was said about WMD plans was:
In the years following Iraq’s war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait, Saddam’s Regime sought to preserve the ability to reconstitute his WMD, while seeking sanctions relief through the appearance of cooperation with the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...vol1_rsi-06.htm

QUOTE
From whyshouldi

I doubt for high ranking CIA personal to allow a WMD threat to slip away. It destroys one of our main reasons for purpose in Iraq being we basically invaded on the wave of feeling coming of 9-11. Plus that stuff when processed correctly is capable of killing large amounts of people thus the name. Again, we would have found infrastructure to support our claims, something besides trace residue and inert unmarked shells that were to exist.



The CIA had literally not one agent in Iraq. This is why we could not pinpoint the exact site where WMD was stored, which would have been different than where produced. As far as infrastructure Iraq had a vast “dual use” structure as well as clandestine labs as I have posted here. Did you read it? Dual use means that the factory can be a “chemical plant” that can also make WMD given the right ingredients and Iraq had them. Clinton bombed some of them in 1998 but no one thought we got them all by any means. Many were no doubt deep underground. And if you read Blix he is asking for TONS of VX and thousands of liters of Anthrax Iraq admitted to producing AFTER being confronted by proof they had produced same. IMO we should have not invaded without better intel on EXACTLY where the WMD was stored.


QUOTE
A massive structure to support the creation of WMD would have to be in place, now you can say its been masked, but really you cannot take that point beyond the realm of speculation, anything could qualify as that. To go on about it could be hidden, it could be a vial of some virus, or even just the formula on how to make it, hidden well in the drawer of someone’s house in Germany if you want to go that far, you are going to tell me that such is possible to combat in the world, that threat will never go away as long as some people are unhappy.


Yes that threat will never go away and Iraq did hide lots of information (ex 3,000 pages of nuclear research at a scientists house). Iraq also imported 41 tons of bio growh media in the 90s and it disappeared. But after Iraq invaded a country and lost a war it was compelled by UN resolution to turn over these items. And they NEVER complied and this is WHY we went to war.

I
QUOTE
am not trying to turn this into a democrat vs. republican slugfest. I know Clinton tried to handle this threat and almost went to war in Iraq himself, I do not praise the man as much as many may think, but I would take him over the current leadership in a heart beat, that aside it’s the issue I am debating on.


I could never understand the Clinton philosophy. He bombed Iraq and afterward hw and numerous Dems said that Iraq was still in possession of WMD (in clear violation to UN resolutions) and yet he did nothing beyond that. The inspectors were booted, Iraq had not complied and ther was no plan except “keep them in a box”??? What “box” they referred to is beyond me. You would have thought the UN would then go back to war to force compliance – they did squat and the current scandal tells us WHY.


QUOTE
To say he would have went right back into that WMD business is a fragile argument at best, after all, how did he acquire such in the genesis of such a program? You can say he would, or would not, that’s about all you can do there. To say he was such a threat because of such does not stand well with me when we know of nations that do currently provide a far more serious threat but do not receive that same attention, I will not say its because of oil, but I will say I am sure oil does provide a serious component in the decision making. Combat on resources is nothing new to life in general, its not something that ultimately makes us evil in my eyes, at the end of the day people are just people regardless of ignorance being king in my opinion.


I did not say he would go back into WMD the ISG did (see above) and I posted their report. Read it. Sadam was obsessed with WMD and as David Kay said maintained dozens of WMD programs up to the day of the invasion.



QUOTE
On the U.N resolution case, all kinds of resolutions are in breech, people choose to act on the ones they currently see fitting, I again do not fault humans for being people with that, but I will refrain from acceptation such as a reasonable grounds for this war, after all we really were not in the mood at the U.N to make relevant or disclose fully our top secret information that showed a WMD threat north, south, east, and west of Baghdad.
Iraq invaded a country and used WMD to kill thousands of people. This was a serious UN and US issue since we spent $ and lives getting them out of Kuwait. They should comply with the Resolutions or why the heck should we fund the UN?

This post has been edited by Ted: Dec 14 2005, 02:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kuni
post Dec 15 2005, 03:33 AM
Post #19


*****
Century Mark

Group: BANNED
Posts: 135
Member No.: 5,280
Joined: July-18-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
Not even the Robb-Silberman commission was allowed to see them?
Nope, not them either. They only got snippets that dealt with WMD's.


http://www.wmd.gov/report/chapter1_fm.pdf
. . . As part of its investigation, this Commission was provided access, on a limited
basis, to a number of articles from the President’s Daily Brief (PDB)
relating to Iraq’s WMD programs. . .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whyshouldi
post Dec 15 2005, 08:32 AM
Post #20


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 114
Member No.: 5,593
Joined: November-1-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Natural Law Party



In reply to Ted.

Well, 25 million trees a year go into the production of chopsticks in China, so how about that for a threat, wait, wrong debate.

To debate on the character of Saddam Hussein is a bit pointless with me. I know the guy was not Mr. Nice, nor ever claimed he was, but to simply argue on that point, well hey, last time I checked I think the U.S has done some nasty stuff too, like slavery or the whole thing with the native Americans and all, maybe china could come and free them, boy talk about how nuclear weapons stop real world wars.

Plus the whole issue on the WMD, that’s great and fine, so where are they, all just up and vanished, hidden in sandwiches in peoples freezers here and there in Iraq, with no trace whatsoever, not to sound silly but maybe those people that pulled that off could go into magic, probably draw a pretty big audience in Vegas.

Clinton did what he saw fit, I don’t want to debate that simply because questioning his intentions could get you locked away for treason or something similar, not really but hey. Plus the whole WMD thing again, with no evidence to back up those major claims of an immanent threat of death to all Americans, I actually remember thinking about what the U.S was going to find, and to date I think I am still waiting.

Why should anyone fund the U.N, its not like people or governments are ready to live in a united world, I pretty feel it’s a pipe dream too. We should just get down to nuts and brass and figure out where the strong can make capital on the weak as the Romans did before us.

About keeping people in a box, well hey I think I might get offended also if that’s how people thought about me.

Basically to not be sarcastic about it, I think any person that keep up to affairs on the issue would see to date that no WMD has been recovered in Iraq, or any massive infrastructure or big bad plans even for WMD. I think if anything close to that was found, this debate would be seriously lacking in logic and purpose don’t you? I got scared as soon as we would not share intel fully at the U.N, after all we were only asking various nations to support physically a war with there resources be it people or money and related, no reason to want to be serious there.

Sorry about getting your words confused with someone else, many times this issue seems to spit perfectly in regards to political bodies of thought.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 5th, 2021 - 11:30 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.