Saddam's Nukes?

www.weeklystandard.com...


LEVIN: I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after Saddam. They began to--look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that.


Just what the hell is going on? The 2nd Dem is command admits Saddam had Nuclear Weapons?!?........I am officially confused......

Wouldn't that mean there was a big conspiracy in the UN to protect Saddam from the United States then? After all, the UN Weapons Inspectors said there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq...

Originally posted by ferretman
www.weeklystandard.com...


LEVIN: I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after Saddam. They began to--look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that.


Just what the hell is going on? The 2nd Dem is command admits Saddam had Nuclear Weapons?!?........I am officially confused......

whats there to be confused about? everyone on capital hill, dems and reps alike, believed that saddam had WMD. its just that when the blame game starts, the dems start backtracking and saying "oh, we were misled, its all their fault."

EVeryone thought there were WMD cause Bush's cronies cooked up some "evidence" and presented it. Lies convinced everyone there were WMD.

So how does that explain the Clinton Administration stating that Saddam had WMD? Many top level Democrats did so at that time also.

blame it on the CIA. wouldnt be surprise they decided to flip the coin and it says heads dat means Saddam had WMD.

Uh, no sensfan, it was not a Bush thing. Both Clintons said the same thing, as well as Kerry and his boy and Al Gore. It was said before Bush was in office, even.
PTS is down the hall and to the left; you can't miss it.

There is a reason why the Middle East is in their sights, and I do not believe it is the superficial oil conspiracy reason. It is the spread of Democracy into areas where Democracy is not a widely known concept. Democracy is necessary for them (and you'd better know who they are by now) to control the numerous nations. Democracy is the step before totalitarianism, and it is the way they'll do it and make you think you want it.

The two U.S. political parties are owned by the same people who own the rest of the Western World's politics, money and industry.

Iraq DID have WMD back when clinton was in the white house....that's when they started telling him to get rid of them or else, which iraq did if I remember correctly.

1. NOT EVERYONE was taken in by the BS the whitehouse threw out about WMDS..
2. Why did the people in bushs admin state publically saddam WASNT aquirering WMDS, DIDNT HAVE WMDS ???
3. I still cant believe there are people out there who cant see that there own government lied to them for reasons only they will know.

Iraq is a cash cow the US government has created for itself.
The american public was the gullable sheep used to create this war.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
1. NOT EVERYONE was taken in by the BS the whitehouse threw out about WMDS..
2. Why did the people in bushs admin state publically saddam WASNT aquirering WMDS, DIDNT HAVE WMDS ???
3. I still cant believe there are people out there who cant see that there own government lied to them for reasons only they will know.

Iraq is a cash cow the US government has created for itself.
The american public was the gullable sheep used to create this war.

THE FACTS

Allegations of the use of chemical weapons have been frequent during the Iraq-Iran War. One of the instances reported by Iran has been conclusively verified by an international team dispatched to Iran by the UN Secretary-General.

I dont understand why you posted that??
I never debated weapons wernt used in iraq-iran...

I have to ask a question here. What do you think of the idea that Sadam was duped into thinking that he had a nuclear weapons program? What if he was being ripped off and some of the "Money for Food" players were involved. In my opinion it is the only scenario that fits. The reason that the CIA and everyone else thought that there was a program is that the Iraqi leadership thought that they had one. The reasons that the UN Inspection Teams couldn't find anything is that there was nothing to find. These people shipped in some low grade uranium ore so that the Geiger counters had something to make them click when the brass came around and they bought some minor weapons use items just to have something for show. I seem to remember something about a shipment of Krytron switches being siezed on the way to Iraq in the '90s.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
1. NOT EVERYONE was taken in by the BS the whitehouse threw out about WMDS..

Your making it seem like it was only Intel from the US that said Saddam had WMDs. When infact it was intel from agencies all over the world US Intel, UK Intel, German Intel, Chinese Intel,Russian Intel

Originally posted by ferretman
Just what the hell is going on? The 2nd Dem is command admits Saddam had Nuclear Weapons?!?........I am officially confused......

There is no evidence at all so it seems what is going on is that someone is talking out of his cornhole. Even the CIA never went further than "Saddam could have nuclear weapons in ... to ... years". As to why he says that, he's a politician, because he expects to have something to gain from saying that.

You need to factor time into all of this. The UN found plenty of evidence of WMD's in the early-mid 90s, and said so. Everyone knew then as a result that Saddam both had and was working on making more WMD's. The thing is, he got rid of them at some point before the US invaded, and the UN tried to warn the US at that point (2002-03) but the US was too eager to get the UN out, thinking it wasn't doing a good enough job- when to date, the UN found more evidence of Iraqi WMD's with a few land rovers than the whole US occupation force has.

Iraq was playing a shell game with the UN in the latter (02-03) period. It had probably gotten rid of it's WMD's prior to the UN's second round, but Saddam was determined to keep the illusion up... and the reason had nothing to do with terror or America, it was to do with Iran... Saddam needed Iran to believe that he had WMD's, even when he had gotten rid of them. This is Lawrence Wilkersons view and it's the best explanation for the Iraqi WMD situation I've heard so far.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
it was intel from agencies all over the world US Intel, UK Intel, German Intel, Chinese Intel,Russian Intel

- Actually the House of Commons Parliamentary select committee on foreign affairs investigated this and concluded that what appeared 'UK intel' was often merely intel being fed to the UK services by those in the USA.

It does not matter what people "thought". The President is the one who gave the orders to invade based on lame, weak and unsubstantiated intell.

We must hold our leaders to the highest standards and in this case the highest leaders let us down miserably. They should resign in discrace. America deserves better and they should have the integrity to step aside when they make huge blunders.

Just FYI. I do not think Clintons sex life should ever have been investigated. However since he did lie to us he to should have resigned at that point. Not for the extra marital sex (which is the Clintons and Monicas buisness only), but for the lie itself.

We need leaders who are willing to admit mistakes, and when those mistakes costs lives, to step down. That is Integrity. Even if the war was the right thing to do for numerous other reasons, a Honorble and Nobel President should not want to stay in power after such a horrible blunder.

X

ShadowIX, i agree..

I mean i remmeber sitting in australia listening to Johnny howard explain the reasons..

that saddam had stockpiles.. and he was a threat to global peace..

Im not saying this was the same with all the other major players..
but howard for example might as well just of photo copied bushs intellegence reports because its clear johnny followed bush hook line n sinker without ANY of his own evidence.

The thing about evidence in my eyes is... if you have PROOF something is in closet A.... when you open closet A and find its completely empty.. its not really PROOF or EVIDENCE is it ?