It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Weapons Meet WMD Criteria

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 04:57 PM
Actually Wiki has changed its policies in that regard but I am not sure how....but with all those things a simple google search will reveal morre than enough. As for the senate...they were only shown what the Bush administration showed them. The simple proof of this is think of how many things they have kept congress in the dark about....wiretaping without a warrant immediately comes to mind.

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 04:59 PM
There was residue found in these casings? Including sarin? Sorry, very busy and I need the Cole's Notes.

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 05:01 PM
This is off subject BUT....semper if REPUBLICAN congresspeople complain that the Bush administration doesn't keep them informed................!!!

Republicans Criticize Lack of Briefings on Bank Data
By Edmund L. Andrews
The New York Times

Wednesday 12 July 2006

Washington - The Republican chairwoman of a House subcommittee said Tuesday that the Bush administration had failed to inform Congress adequately that it was sifting through a vast international banking network in an effort to track terrorists' finances.

The lawmaker, Representative Sue Kelly of New York, chairwoman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on oversight, was joined by members of both parties in accusing the administration of being too secretive and unaccountable to Congress about the program. Its existence was disclosed last month by The New York Times and other newspapers.

"Many people in Congress who should have been briefed by the administration were not," Ms. Kelly said. "What else is it that we don't know?"

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 05:06 PM

Originally posted by semperfortis
But see...
That is my entire issue with this.

Go down the list. MANY of the ones that voted for the war, are now the ones hard-lining against it. They had the EXACT same information the President did. Especially the Senate Arms Committee.

Yet, everyone blames this all on President Bush. I still think it was the right thing to do, I'm glad we went there and glad we have done the good we are doing.

The vast majority of the Senate voted for the PATRIOT ACT, in fact the only one who originally voted against it was senator Feingold. In retrospect does that mean they should support the Patriot act from then on?

People make mistakes. Especially senators.

Some of those mistakes include voting for unconstitutional laws. Some of those mistakes include voting for unlawful wars sold on dubious intelligence. Personally I'm glad those senators have the character to be able to admit their mistakes and own up to them rather than repeating their mistakes for the sake of having a consistent voting record.

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 05:07 PM
Topic folks.

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 05:54 PM

Originally posted by df1
Like many threads this one started out as valid news, but it aint news now.

I guess getting past this is a skill we'll have to develop as a community.

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 06:51 PM
Originally posted by ceci2006

"If you did present all the facts, by all due respect, you would acknowledge Scott Ritter's and Hans Blix's opinions about the WMD's. They have both written books about their experiences regarding this area.


"October 7, 2003

The interim findings of David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group make two things abundantly clear: Saddam Hussein's Iraq was in material breach of its United Nations obligations before the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 last November, and Iraq went further into breach after the resolution was passed.

Before the war, our intelligence had detected a calculated campaign to prevent any meaningful inspections. We knew that Iraqi officials, members of the ruling Baath Party and scientists had hidden prohibited items in their homes.

Lo and behold, Kay and his team found strains of organisms concealed in a scientist's home, and they report that one of the strains could be used to produce biological agents. Kay and his team also discovered documents and equipment in scientists' homes that would have been useful for resuming uranium enrichment efforts.

I wonder if they included that in their books?

Mod Edit: Reduced Excessive Extenal Quote. Added Link.

[edit on 12/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:31 PM
My only comment about that is that since Saddam Hussien had no qualms about using WMD against his own people and against the Iranians, why would he hesitate, muchless essentially disarm himself on the eve of a fight that was about his survival in power? It simply does not make sense and the claim that he wanted to embarrass the United States is not even laughable.

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:51 PM
Okay...that was written by Colin Powell in Oct. 03 while he was still Sec. of State. A couple comments about that.

(1) Powell was/is a team player, always has been and as a good team player he would be echoing what the Administration was saying. If he was more of the type to stick to his guns, damned the consequences type, we might not be in Iraq today.

(2) By all accounts he was essentially ghettoized by the Cheney/Rumsfeld bloc, isolated and disregarded. This is a matter of record so by the time this was written our sec. of state was essentially out of the loop. Hard to believe but true. Essentially he was denied any meaningful access to the president that was not screened by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

(3) I wonder what Powell would say about this article today? It is well known that he is furious about the deceptions he was required to present to the UN in that infamous presentation.

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:54 PM
Nope, sorry Grover...Wrong there 100%

Several Senate Committees were briefed on the wiretapping. As well as numerous members.

ALso ALL of the Senate saw 100% of the same material FROM the SAME source as the president on the war.

That is all common knowledge.


posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:55 PM
One last comment about zappafans post. I find it extemely hard to believe that even a raging meglomanic like Saddam Hussien would believe, especially after the trouncing he got in the First Gulf War and a decade of crippling economic sanctions, that his forces had the whereforall to stand up against the American juggernaught and discarded his trump card, his WMD in favor of strictly conventional weapons. It just does not make sense.

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:56 PM
And semper who gave them those presentations? The White House that's who.

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:11 PM
But Grover, Come on now...

You know as well as I do that the members of committees in the house and senate have FULL unfettered access to the individual agencies that provide those briefings to the president. Especially a President as hated as this one is.

Don't spin this. Just because some of the very ones that were briefed are now crying about not being thoroughly briefed, you know as well as I do that is only a ploy to solidify their base for the upcoming election.

They were briefed, on this, on the war and the WMD's. It is just now becoming so very popular to hate one man and blame all of the worlds problems on him, that everyone is falling into the trap.

Misquoting, taking out of context and out right lies assigning him the blame for everything from world hunger to the flu.
When all the time, at the origin of the war, during and immediately after the WMD discussion, he had the support of the house and the senate. Are they denying this, of course and why you choose to believe them and not the President, when their voting record is there for all to see, is beyond my understanding.
They make excuses about how they voted. WEAK empty excuses and you let them get away with it. President Bush makes a decision that saves 100's of Thousands of Iraqi lives and you hate him.

Mystify's the mind


posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:19 PM
First, I have to laugh at all the people calling the weapons Donald Rumsfeld sold to Saddam WMDs, sorry, but DONALD RUMSFELD SOLD THE WEAPONS TO SADDAM IN THE 1980'S!!!!

Anyways, as said, the mustard gas was dangerous if you drank it or poured it in your eyes, other then that it was harmless, why Saddam didn't use it. Of course he didn't know it was there, or else it would have been dug up and been tried to fight off the invasion.

I can't believe some of these people, they really think that Saddam had WMDs and instead of using them had a magician put them in a magic hat and hide them.

Bush himself talked about Mushroom clouds over American cities, where are the Nuclear Weapons in Iraq? Why didn't Saddam use them if he had them?

Those questions are something people like Muadibb haven't answered, even though they have been asked the last few pages.


posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:43 PM
I have said before and I will say it again I do not hate Bush...I really don't care enough about him one way or the other as a person to muster up enough energy to hate him. What I do hate are his politics and the policies that stem from them. Remember I am a self avowed old hippy liberal.

I would grant you probably right Semper if it was only Democrats and liberals who railed against Bush or claimed that they hadn't been fully briefed BUT....take that post I made a few back...that was a Republican committee chairperson that was saying that they hadn't been briefed, in this case on the spying on money transactions. Plus there are many conservatives and Republicans who do not like Bush or his policies either....mostly from the fiscal conservatives concerned about the deficts and spending, but also from the libertirans and some social conservatives as well, mostly concerned about intrusions on our liberties but also about intrusions into more private affairs. And the war was/is not supported by all conservatives and Republicans either. Granted they are a minority in the party but still they exist Pat Buchannan comes immediately to mind.

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:43 PM
Were there WMD's and why were they not used?

Well President Bush was not the only one to think there were. Check the dates on some of the statements.
Also some reasons why they were not used.

What we learned firsthand is what the cia psychiatrists have said for years: Saddam is an egomaniacal sociopath whose penchant for high-risk gambles is exceeded only by a propensity for miscalculation. Those psychiatrists, who study the characters of world leaders, believe that he suffers from what is popularly called “malignant narcissism,” a sense of self-worth that drives him to act in ways that others would deem irrational, such as invading neighboring countries.

But the trait also makes him highly sensitive to direct confrontation and embarrassment, even as he is contemptuous of compromise.

A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.

"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (

n addition to the truck convoys, which carried Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003 "two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean," where Shaw believes they "deep-sixed" additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later discovered by U.S. military intelligence personnel.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

And finally to answer your question why they were not used.

I know Saddam's weapons are in Syria due to certain military deals that were made going as far back as the late 1980's that dealt with the event that either capitols were threatened with being overrun by an enemy nation. Not to mention I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew. At this point Saddam knew that the United States were eventually going to come for his weapons and the United States wasn't going to just let this go like they did in the original Gulf War. He knew that he had lied for this many years and wanted to maintain legitimacy with the pan Arab nationalists. He also has wanted since he took power to embarrass the West and this was the perfect opportunity to do so. After Saddam denied he had such weapons why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found? That would only legitimize President Bush, who he has a personal grudge against. What we are witnessing now is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted.

Interview with Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti
History :

Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti was a southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s and a personal friend of the dictator. Units under his command dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He was known as the “Butcher of Basra” due to his campaigns and defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991. This interview aims to gain some insight into the current situation in Iraq.


posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:48 PM
Also note semper that if the senate had as you say full 100% access to the same materials as the president (actually it is a matter of who needs to know) then why are there so many of them, including Republicans, say that their committees were either not briefed at all or incompletely briefed? The Bush administration has a long track record of refusing to devulge intelligence when it suits them not to.

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:53 PM
That makes no sense. It is counter intuitive to all real politik.

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:55 PM
Not really Grover.

Many of them are up for reelection, the President is not and his approval rating are low.

To disagree is to garner votes.

Simple, political thinking.


posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Johnny Ohm
First, I have to laugh at all the people calling the weapons Donald Rumsfeld sold to Saddam WMDs, sorry, but DONALD RUMSFELD SOLD THE WEAPONS TO SADDAM IN THE 1980'S!!!!

While you laugh at your own made up claims....

Our organization did a study of Saddam's pre-Gulf War suppliers a few year back. We discovered that Germany garnered fully half the total sales. In fact, just before the Gulf War, Germany was selling complete, ready-to-operate poison gas plants to Iraq and Libya at the same time. The rest of the world divided the remaining half of Iraq's purchases. The Swiss, who have an unreasonably good reputation in the world, placed second in the sweepstakes with about 8% of sales (specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines and electrical discharge machines found at nuclear weapon sites; procurement of missile parts and supervision of missile plant construction; equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade). In third place, with 4% each, Italy and France scored a tie.

Will our troops find caches of poison gas, or even be hit by it on the battlefield? If so, German and French companies will be mainly to blame. In the 1980's, the German firm Karl Kolb and the French firm Protec combined to furnish millions of dollars' worth of sensitive equipment to six separate plants for making mustard gas and nerve agents, with a capacity of hundreds of tons of nerve agent per year. These companies had to know what the specialized glass-lined vessels they peddled were to be used for. It is insufferable that, like Pontius Pilate, Germany and France now wash their hands of the whole affair, and even chastise others for cleaning up the mess their companies helped create.

And how would the poison gas be carried? A gas doesn't stream through the ether by itself to reach a target. A specially prepared munition has to deliver it. Iraq admits that in the 1980's it bought more than 3,000 chemical-ready aerial bombs from Spain, more than 8,000 chemical-ready artillery shells from Italy and Spain, and more than 12,000 chemical-ready rocket warheads from Italy and Egypt. Most of these munitions remain unaccounted for. If our troops take casualties from a gas attack, they will have been inflicted by an international consortium of reckless suppliers.

All above excerpted from.

Originally posted by Johnny Ohm
Anyways, as said, the mustard gas was dangerous if you drank it or poured it in your eyes, other then that it was harmless, why Saddam didn't use it. Of course he didn't know it was there, or else it would have been dug up and been tried to fight off the invasion.

right.... i wonder then why so many Kurds were killed by nerve gas, other chemical gases and yes, including used mustard gas......

Iraq is known to have used the blister agent mustard gas from 1983 and the nerve gas Tabun from 1985, as it faced attacks from "human waves" of Iranian troops and poorly-trained but loyal volunteers. Tabun can kill within minutes.

On 16 March 1988, Iraq dropped bombs containing mustard gas, Sarin and Tabun on the Kurdish city of Halabja.

Estimates of the number of civilians killed range from 3,200 to 5,000, with many survivors suffering long-term health problems.

Chemical weapons were also used during Iraq's "Anfal" offensive - a seven-month scorched-earth campaign in which an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 Kurdish villagers were killed or disappeared, and hundreds of villages were razed.

Originally posted by Johnny Ohm
I can't believe some of these people, they really think that Saddam had WMDs and instead of using them had a magician put them in a magic hat and hide them.

I can't believe people like yourself would dismiss the statements and facts given by Iraqi defectors, which btw were the one reason why the UN found many concealed wmd programs which Saddam kept saying they didn't have...

Anyways, Iraqi defectors, which include military officers, such as the second in command of the Air force in Iraq, George Sadas. Iraqi scientists, Russian military defectors such as Ion Mihai Pacepa
and Anatoly Golytsin

In 1984, the KGB defector Anatoli Golytsin predicted a false liberalization in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union whose reforms would be so dazzling that the West would be incapable of retaining a consensus in favor of a strong defense. A deception of such magnitude is well beyond the scope of the Western imagination. But so was Moscow's "trust" operation in the 1920s, which involved the creation of a false opposition and which succeeded in deceiving 11 Western intelligence agencies for several years.
We should wait and see how the chips fall. If all we are seeing is a temporary, limited or false liberalization, we may regret it if someday we awaken to an even greater threat, and with no credible deterrent."
and many others who corroborate not only that Iraq had wmd, but that most of them were moved.. and again... If Saddam didn't want to start a wmd program, and wasn't ordering his regime to have wmd, why would they need empty chemical warheads, banned missiles, banned missile parts, hidden key centrifuge pieces for uranium enrichment, tons of documents dealing with wmd, how to build them and how to maintain them, among some of the things found...

So go ahead and laugh all you want Johny, meanwhile the truth passes you by and bites you in the arse without you knowing because you can't accept the facts...

Originally posted by Johnny Ohm
Bush himself talked about Mushroom clouds over American cities, where are the Nuclear Weapons in Iraq? Why didn't Saddam use them if he had them?

These questions have been anwsered many times before....

Those countries which provided the wmd to countries like Iraq had contigency measures to destroy, hide, or move wmd if the west ever got near to finding them... and yes, there is a lot of evidence which supports this...

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in