US tried to plant WMD

US tried to plant WMDs, failed: whistleblower

Daily Times Monitor

According to a stunning report posted by a retired Navy Lt Commander and 28-year veteran of the Defense Department (DoD), the Bush administration�s assurance about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to �plant� WMDs inside the country. Nelda Rogers, the Pentagon whistleblower, claims the plan failed when the secret mission was mistakenly taken out by �friendly fire�, the Environmentalists Against War report.

www.dailytimes.com.pk...

dr

No surprizes anywhere. Just more tragedy.

I think they would have been better off making a reality of the joke where they dressed Tony Blair as a WMD, which has been posted a couple of times at ATS.

I am really interested in how much controlled 'leakage' of these kinds of stories there is, and how much of it is sensible protest against corruption and stupidity.

I am frankly sick of the Bush administration involvement in Iraq.

Im sure they are still doing it in Iraq, under the cover of the military. I often wonder about those jets they found buried. probably buried them by themselves. Will be prety damn interesting, the stockpiles of evil wepons they find, all locked and ready for use, yet strangely, at the lasy minute, Saddam failed to use them on the invading armies.

The American public will eat it up like candy, and re elect Bush for being right

Ofcourse. Because god forbid we DO actually find WMD's (i'm starting to think that is un-likely) certain people (you know who you are) just could never bring themselves to admit that maybe the other side was right and they were wrong.

If legit Saddam owned and operated WMD were found, then Saddam was not the insane evil bad guy that Bush made him out to be, because he showed restraint in not using them in the war, as a final blaze of glory.

Bush wouldnt show the restraint saddam did, then. We can barely restrain him from bombing every country on the earth.

Langolier

In my opinion, too late, no matter what planting or 'excavation' is done.

The Iraq War was fundamentally predicated on foreknowledge of exactly where the WMDs were that posed a clear and present danger to US interests, and could be activated in 40 minutes.

Mythology.

And a crock of lies.

Go back to sleep.

I guess I should have expounded when I posted this originally:

The war with Iraq has NOTHING to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction: they are simply a handy excuse to justify what would otherwise have been a still necessary but politically unsurvivable war.

The REAL reason we went to war with Iraq is because they were very interested in forcing a vote in OPEC to change the oil standard currency from the US Dollar (as it has been for most of the century) to the Euro, which would have resulted in almost instant collapse of the US economy. The resulting global depression would likely have led to a far worse World War in order to get out of it.

You might find this thread interesting...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't mind the fact that it's British, that makes it doubly reliable and good... (everything but the cooked intelligence, that is)

Are there still going to be some amongst us that go "beating around the bush"?



news.independent.co.uk...

Revealed: last-minute changes to Iraq dossier
By Jo Dillon, Deputy Political Editor
17 August 2003


The Government's dossier on Iraq's weapons capability was hardened up in the days before its publication in a number of key respects that did not tally with the views of some of its most senior experts, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

Scrutiny of documents released by the Hutton inquiry into the death of the weapons expert Dr David Kelly reveals that not only were key claims about the nature and extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction strengthened in the two weeks before the dossier's publication in September 2002 but that a crucial change was made to the title.

Right up until the publication of the final draft, and as late as 19 September, the document was entitled "Iraq's programme for weapons of mass destruction". But on 24 September, when the Government published the finished version, it left out the words "programme for".

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Will be prety damn interesting, the stockpiles of evil wepons they find, all locked and ready for use, yet strangely, at the lasy minute, Saddam failed to use them on the invading armies.

i'm going to play devil's advocate here.

as a reminder though i am not taking sides in this, i view all hands dirty to a greater or lesser extent so all are guilty in my eyes.

maybe its the way i view the world but i have noticed that AFTER (when i actually paid attention) 9-11 saddam made a really good effort to the play the role of victim. a victim of sanctions, a victim of the US policies and military, etc. 12 years ago after the first gulf war he openly disclosed all WMD that he had in his posession (per UN resolution) and was forced to abide by certain rules and regulations such as unfettered access to UN weapons inspectors, which he kicked out more than once and harassed on an almost daily basis. thats one violation. two he was to destroy all WMD, whether he did or not we still do not know, he has said they have but do we believe him? the smart money says no and you want proof, even a video tape would be helpful. when asked for proof he basically said he didnt have to offer any and expected everyone to take him at his word. violation number two. the resolution against him after the first gulf war also called for military action should he choose not to fully comply. he broke that resolution numerous times and the UN hemmed and hawed over doing something to him but did nothing, it didnt even enforce its own resolution! making the resolution with strong language now a paper tiger. saddam knew this and continued to do as he saw fit. now i'm not saying everyone did everything by the letter but what i am saying is he broke numerous agreements and said he would abide by the rules. he did not. instead of going after him again they only slapped sanctions on him. that punishes the people, not him. punishing him would have been removing him 12 years ago and maybe we could have avoided the problem we are now discussing. the US is blamed for the sanctions among others things done in the hopes of getting saddam to comply. dont blame the US, blame saddam. why? simple concept, if he had complied his people would not have suffered from sanctions. dont blame those who are expecting the rules to be enforced, blame those who do not follow them. the UN doesnt enforce its own resolutions yet is really good at condemning things. all talk, not action. it is well written that the cat would be king of the jungle if mice were elephants. but that isnt how things are, is it?

i dont agree with the way this has been handled but then again after going to the UN time and time again and asking them to enforce their own resolutions instead of making one after another i cant say i blame my government of getting tired of the stalling and BS the UN gave in return. of course i think pressure should have been applied the whole time and i blame my government for not being consistent in this respect.

did he have any? i dont know, none of us, some of you saying with what seems to be absolute certainty that he does not. well as much time as he was left alone without inspectors or anyone keeping tabs on him we do not know if he still has them or not. he was given time to play three card monte with what he had, its now all gone somewhere else and while technically maybe he can claim he does not have them does not mean they dont exist. as much as people have said there's no proof that they are there, i dont see proof that they were destroyed or turned over to other people to handle. rather than assuming he doesnt have them you have to assume he does if he offers no proof. he has no offered proof and never has. the ONLY reason(s) why he let inspectors back in is because he knew if he didnt he didnt stand a chance. again, it is a part of him trying to play victim.

anyone can blame the US for whats it done but i want everyone to really think here. if saddam was removed from power 12 years ago....would we have done this? i seriously doubt it.

also consider this...why are we blaming the US instead of saddam? noone made him do anything. everything he has done he did on his own.

yes it sucks innocent people get caught in the cross fire but rather than blaming the US for trying to do something it should have done a long time ago blame the person who brought this upon an entire region of the world that didnt need it or want it.

his own people tried to overthrow him AFTER the gulf war and after MY country said it would help, it turned a cold shoulder to the iraqis and those who stood up against him were killed along with their friends, family, whole villages gone for opposing him. mass murder that probably could have been avoided if we had simply helped them when they asked us to. (THIS is why some iraqis dont want us there, they view us as liars and i cant say i blame them. its not because of what we are doing now but rather because of what we did to them back then. and it makes sense)

THAT to me is far worse than the present situation. so i have my own reasons for not liking what is happening right now. its not the same as anyone elses i'm sure but its my reason.

i support this and at the same time i dont. i dont know if that makes any sense to you but it does to me.

[Edited on 18-8-2003 by ThePrankMonkey]