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.

 

Bush has been proven right WMD's were there

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Fox news just interviewed the second highest ranking General in the Iraqi Air Force.

He knows personally of the transfer of WMD's to Syria. After listening to the Saddam tapes where Saddam brags that the West will never find the stuff this General was in the same meetings and said he has no doubt about the transfer.

He said Saddam needed the help of FRANCE and RUSSIA to facilitate the move.

Forget Iran...Hello Syria? This is your wake up call!!!




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
and bomb France and Russia while youre at it huuuh, big boy



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
There is a long tradition of these guys getting out from under the threat of prosecution by telling US sources exactly what they want to hear. Not to mention that there's money to be made...

More interesting is the story of Naji Sabri, Iraq's Foreign Minister under Saddam, who it turns out was working for the CIA. Unfortunately what he was telling the US, while mostly accurate, was not what the administration wanted to hear.


The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.

The sources say Sabri’s answers were much more accurate than his proclamations to the United Nations, where he demonized the U.S. and defended Saddam. At the same time, they also were closer to reality than the CIA's estimates, as spelled out in its October 2002 intelligence estimate.

For example, consider biological weapons, a key concern before the war. The CIA said Saddam had an "active" program for "R&D, production and weaponization" for biological agents such as anthrax. Intelligence sources say Sabri indicated Saddam had no significant, active biological weapons program. Sabri was right. After the war, it became clear that there was no program.

Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in "several months to a year." Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate.

On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong.


Part of the problem with the whole WMD issue is that Saddam was apparently lying to his own staff, claiming he still had large stockpiles of chemical agents, because he feared the Iranians, who he was trying to bluff, had infiltrated his security aparratus. Only the very top echelons were aware that he had destroyed it all in 1991.

The "WMD to Syria" story is simply pap fed to the true-believers, who lap it up. Or isn't it "WMD to Iran" now, since the preferred target has shifted?

[edit on 3/22/06 by xmotex]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
He said Saddam needed the help of FRANCE and RUSSIA to facilitate the move.

And what evidence did he present to support this?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
What i find is funny is this...

how would it have justified the invasion anyway - regardless if it is true or not

many nations have WMD's and many are Islamic...
We have given some to these countries, and have turned our back while other nations have as well...
it is called arms sales, and it is big business in the world..

It is hardly fair to sell someone something, and then use that as justification to attack them...

but the media and the propaganda cant even let us see past the useless question of:
were there WMD's or not?
I dont care... it wouldn't have been a good enough reason IMO

It sets a precendence of "preworry attack"
a preemptive attack is justifiable... it is against a Nation that you KNOW will attack you soon...
A pre worry attack is reason used by tyrants to justify an unjust war...
it is never justifiable... whether is is done by China or Japan, or someone in the middle east... it is wrong...
so why isn't it when we (the USA) do it?



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join