It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The questioning of Iraqis did not produce any information to support the transfer possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."
Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I was going to post this, but you beat me to it.
The significance of this matter, as I'm sure everyone who wants it quashed is aware, is that it by all rights should force the resignation or impeachment of those members of the Bush Administration involved in rushing the US to war with Iraq based on a pack of lies, including, for starters, W (is for ?) and extra tricky Dicky. They may have committed High Crimes, even treason.
Originally posted by Simulacra
seekerof
In hindsight it's easy to look back on an event and find reasons to justify the course of action. However it was directly (and repeatedly) stated the reason for the infiltration of Iraq lies solely on Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Originally posted by Seekerof
The reason for nailing Saddam may have hinged on WMDs, but it was not the only reasons given, eh?
Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder...
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.
For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country...
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. -- GWB, State of the Union address, January 2003
The burden is on Iraq to comply and disarm. Inspectors are inspectors, not detectives.... Saddam Hussein and his regime are doing everything they can to make sure the inspectors find absolutely nothing...
We must not shrink from whatever is ahead of us. We must not fail in our duty and our responsibilities. Clearly, Saddam will stop at nothing until something stops him. -- Colin Powell, speaking to the UN Security Council, February 2003
The credibility of the UN is important to the world... The question before the United Nations is clear: Is Saddam Hussein taking this final opportunity that was offered by Resolution 1441 to disarm or not?
And the answer to the question, it strikes me, is increasingly obvious. He makes a show of destroying a handful of missiles; missiles which he claimed in his declaration did not violate UN restrictions, but now admits that they do violate UN restrictions.
He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighbourhoods. -- Donald Rumsfeld, March 2003
Saddam's defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding the disarmament of his nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile capacity has led to sanctions on Iraq and has undermined the authority of the UN. -- joint statement by Bush, Tony Blair, and Jose Maria Aznar, March 2003
Iraq continues to deny that it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them. -- Blair, March 2003
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament...
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfil their stated ambitions and kill thousands of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other...
Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorised to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction...
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. -- Bush, March 2003
Originally posted by Indy
Clinton lies about an affair so his wife won't find out. Clinton gets impeached.
David Kay, a former UN inspector and now the CIA's leading consultant who is joint head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), offered an unprecedentedly bullish assessment of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction.
Although he called for patience, he predicted that doubters were in for a "surprise" by the time his work was done.
His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Mr Kay told private Senate hearings in Washington. But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD programme, he said.
That evidence included documents detailing how to conceal arms plants as commercial facilities, and for restarting weapons production once the coast was clear, officials told reporters.
1) The intelligence communities of every major country were confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003. These include the United States, Canada, France, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, even Iran and a slew of others. It was a working assumption that such WMD was in Iraq, so much that I never heard accusations that it wasn’t true until the political war heated up in March, 2003.
2) Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN in February 2003 proved that Iraq was deceiving UN inspectors. What is there to hide?
3) In 1995, a high-ranking Iraqi defector proved Iraq was building WMD despite the UN restrictions. After this was revealed, Iraq admitted it had violated UN restrictions. Why should we believe Iraq was in compliance with the UN today, when Saddam hasn’t in the past?
4) As shown in the Kay interim report, there were thousands of items that Saddam had that could be used in WMD programs. These are usually dual-use items—items that have an apparently “civilian” use and are bought as such, but then when coupled with other items, can make WMD goods. If Saddam violated sanctions, as we know for a fact, why should we believe he had respect for other UN demands? And why would he violate such sanctions to gain such items?
5) As shown in the Kay interim report, why was such an enormous amount of material not declared as required by the UN?
6) Much of the suspected WMDs can fit in a package the size of a palm of a hand. Together, almost all of the WMDs could fit in a two-car parking garage. Why do people expect us to find such items already? Saddam has had 12 years to make programs to deceive Western intelligence, and 4 years to do so without ANY Western interference. And only recently, Coalition forces found fighter jets under the desert sand. If we just recently found huge fighter jets, how can people complain we haven’t found WMD yet?
7) After Iraq admitted producing a certain amount of WMD, disarmament by the UN began. How come a large portion was not disarmed by the UN and Iraq first admitted that it was not disarmed, only to later say they destroyed them “unilaterally”? Why didn’t the Saddam regime just destroy them with UN supervision like the rest of them?
8) There has been lots of evidence that Iraq infiltrated UN inspection and intelligence teams. Why are people surprised the UN didn’t find any WMD?
9) The UN recognized that Iraq was engaged in illicit activity and was not disarming by passing 18 resolutions demanding that Iraq did so. Are we going to believe Saddam Hussein over the world community?
10) With extensive business interests in Iraq, why are people surprised that countries like Russia, France and Germany opposed war with Saddam Hussein’s regime?
11) Bill Clinton is the one who originally put the focus on Saddam Hussein’s WMD possession and links to terrorists. How come when he bombed Iraq in 1998 for four days, there wasn’t such a political outcry that he may be wrong about WMD?
12) It is obvious that weapons would be hidden in the Sunni triangle, the most loyal area to the regime. Today, this area is still not pacified to the extent that would allow a full-fledged search in civilian homes and such. Without the most suspect area fully pacified, why are people jumping to the conclusion that WMDs are a lie?
Originally posted by Simulacra
Originally posted by Indy
Clinton lies about an affair so his wife won't find out. Clinton gets impeached.
Just wanted to let you know that Clinton never got impeached. However he was atagonized about his relationship with his intern enough where the remainder of his office was wraught with this 'scandal'. And then we have Mr. Bush...
In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. He apologized to the nation for his actions and continued to have unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president.