NEWS: Iraq WMD Program was in disarray

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   
WASHINGTON -- David Kay, the former chief weapons inspector for the CIA, had more damaging comments appearing in today's news. Kay said that intelligence agencies missed critical clues that the Iraq weapons programs were in a state of disarray under the increasingly chaotic rule of Saddam Hussein. As a result, only a minor program to develop chemical weapons using ricin was under-way during the March invasion by the Americans.
 
www.NYTimes.com (free subscription required) From interviews with Iraqi scientists and other sources, he said, his team learned that sometime around 1997 and 1998, Iraq plunged into what he called a "vortex of corruption," when government activities began to spin out of control because an increasingly isolated and fantasy-riven Saddam Hussein had insisted on personally authorizing major projects without input from others. It's clear the Hussein regime was no longer in complete control of WMD programs, as ambitious schemes to develop weapons were presented, then approved funding was used for other purposes. In response to Dr. Kay's comments, the NY Times is reporting that an intelligence official has said on Sunday that some prewar assessments may have been wrong. The official added at an internal review at the C.I.A. had already begun. This story continues to develop, and become more and more ugly. More links to additional coverage; No evidence of WMDs Bush misled Congress Ex-arms hunter: Prewar data faulty Related discussions on ATS: 'No weapons stockpiles in Iraq' says David Kay Powell casts doubt on Iraq WMDs Related stories on ATSNN War in Iraq still not Justified Powell: Possible Iraq Had No Banned Arms [Edited on 26-1-2004 by SkepticOverlord] [Edited on 30-1-2004 by Nerdling]




posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   
With these latest findings and Human Rights Watch saying that there was no major Humanitarian issue in Iraq, justifying Bush's need to remove Saddam in such a hurry, I find it amazing that there isn't a greater public outcry against Bush and the administration.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
The media and our government did their job of keeping the majority of the U.S. constituency silent on the issue through propoganda and playing the victim card. They all get an A+ for effort, but a E playing us for suckers. I doubt most will ever figure it out.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   
the nazi's had a program on wmd too but noting much has been found so I don't believe david kay. if you want to hide something in iraq nobody will find it if it is in a bunker 3 feet deep in the middle of nowhere or in a basement of a house. but it is there no matter if people can or can't find it.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
MarkLuitzen, you are basically saying the U.S. is blameless and justified despite zero evidence to back up their reasons for the invasion, right? I can't exactly argue with such a train of thought as its not a train of thought that can be reasoned with.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reasons over and over that saddam was not good for its suroundings and for the world politics otherwise we didn't have this discussion. You tell me why removing Saddam or which dictator with force is not good if it can resolve much problems to come which are less problems to come then them stayed in power. its not invasion. On this moment I am completly for a preamtive strike against both the israelian leaders and the palesteinian leaders so younger more intellegent and with a better look at world politics could take over.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I could argue that you are promoting the idea that its good for countries to invade other countries for fake reasons in the name of truth and justice.

From everything I've read, removing Saddam will become a destabilizing force in the Middle East. We have civil war brewing in Iraq as I type this. If you think good will come of more death and destruction thats your perogative, but its more than likely going to happen.

The Shiites want power, the U.S. will not give it to them. Conflict, war, the whole shebang. Thats not to say it wouldn't have happened had the Shiites gotten the control they want, but its now almost a foregone conclusion.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Fake reasons equates to faulty intelligence services or faulty intelligence information, for which had been gathered and documented over the time of 1993 to 2002? The questions abound on many issues.

If Iraq had no WMD or programs, then why did Saddam "play the game"?
Why did Saddam, with hundreds of thousands of troops massing on his borders, continue to not provide nor contradict Bush or the UN by providing said documentation for those "unaccounted for" WMD that even Saddam/Iraq admitted to?
This type questions could go on....

As for Bush and the administration...
Did he really know the evidence was bogus or not accurate or up-to-date?
Did he go by what he was advised by his cabinet and intelligence services, who, in turn, no doubt, were relying on those 'old' and some semi-current intelligence documents and documentations?
Why is the UN still showing that Saddam/Iraq currently still have "unaccounted for" WMD listed and not explained?


David Kay has mentioned in a few interviews and articles that he believes that the blame does not reside with the current administration, ie: Bush, but with the intelligence agencies responsible for providing the currect, up-to-date intelligence information to allow for the President and advisors to make sound, credible assessments and judgements.
All-in-all, possible ultimate responsibility will most assuredly rest with Bush and the administration...do to the position, but for sure, the real and true blame can be passed to many.
Again, a complete investigation, involving all parties, past and present, needs to take place. Another contention that makes this even more frailed , is that no one has been fired or found at fault for anything since 9/11 or in regards to this.....and thats pure bunk!




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 26-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   
This aged provocateur of conspiratorial topics hears a familiar rhythm of words ringing in his head:

"What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

My how this question of Watergate and Iran Contra rings once again in the age of digital sharing.

I wonder how many of our readers recall the era of conspiracy before there was an ability to engage in dialogue across the globe.

As we examine this increasingly volatile topic, the buck must stop with the person at the top, President Bush. For even if he did act upon the wrong information, it is his responsibility, and his alone, to check and double-check and triple-check the reliability of such data before preemptively invading another country with the full might of the U.S. military.

"What did the President know, and when did he know it?"



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The reasons to invade Iraq, unveiled. Smells like impeachment and the real 'Contract of the Century':

www.g2mil.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
As for Bush and the administration...
Did he really know the evidence was bogus or not accurate or up-to-date?
Did he go by what he was advised by his cabinet and intelligence services, who, in turn, no doubt, were relying on those 'old' and some semi-current intelligence documents and documentations?
Why is the UN still showing that Saddam/Iraq currently still have "unaccounted for" WMD listed and not explained?

This makes absolutely no difference. It's his responsibility to make sure he's making sound decisions. If he can't even handle that, he's certainly not fit for president of our country. Think about it. If you had a job, working for any company, and you made a huge mistake that cost them a fortune, it doesn't matter who you blame it on, or how many people under you #ed up, you're the one who has to pay the price. Quit making lame excuses for Bush.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   
"His responsibility" is defined by his cabinet/advisors Satyr. The President rarely if ever makes decision on "his own".
Just as I said and Winston mentioned, ULTIMATE responsibility will rest with Bush and the administration.
You failure to understand what I have said has allowed you to level the charge of "Quit making lame excuses for Bush." Despite this, I will stand by my contentions.

As to the link provided by Makod.....
That information provided within the link/site is far from compelling evidence for "impeachment". No "lame excuse for Bush" required...simple fact.



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   
It was his decision to go to war, so it's his decision to make damn sure he has good reason to go to war. You're still just pussy footing around this, as if he holds no responsibility for anything.
Get real! It's people like you that allow politicians to get away with murder. I have a feeling that it wouldn't matter if the evidence was right in front of you. You'd still be making excuses as to why that evidence isn't good enough to incriminate him, wouldn't you?
Unbelievable!

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   

"His responsibility" is defined by his cabinet/advisors Satyr. The President rarely if ever makes decision on "his own".
Just as I said and Winston mentioned, ULTIMATE responsibility will rest with Bush and the administration.


if bush is responsible, then why make excuses for him, which it seems like you're doing? i'm sure most of the people on this forum are aware that his cabinet/advisors make most of the decisions...but since bush appointed them, once again, the responsibilty falls squarely on his shoulders.

between the 9/11 screw-up and now this BS war, the fact that no one's gone to jail or been at least fired is unacceptable at best.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I'm going to show exactly how I'm frailing around Satyr.....in you imagination, somewhere there is a defintion of "his"....what is it?
You see, this is not a case of "impeachment" involving a sexual encounter with ONE individual. You see, the prior president had no reason to CONSULT and recieve advisement and recommendations of and on sexual actions deemed appropriate for national security or foreign policies, in regards to this sexual relationship/encounter.
In such, the current President, in going to war, speaks or proclaims a national decision BASED on advisement and recommendations given by HIS advisors and/or cabinet. This descision is not a lone decision, its whats deemed in best interest(s) of this nation be it over national security, domestic, or economic concerns, etc. Yeah, probably according to your thinking, and others, it's HIS decision, being he was the one who finally presents the decision to the American people in a speech or announcement......again, based on consultations with advisors and/or cabinet.

Again, ULTIMATELY Bush and administration are accountable for this. This is the THIRD time I have said it.....again, how in the frail am I "pussy footing" or covering for the President?
*shakes head*



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 26-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Again, ULTIMATELY Bush and administration are accountable for this.


maybe if you started and stopped there, you'd be on to something...

and how exactly have they been accountable for this? no one has lost their job, no one has been sent to jail, no one has even admitted that some'one' screwed up. they can continue acting with impunity as long as there are logical people like yourself that can somehow explain why some'one' isn't responsible as long as you end your argument with a disclaimer of responsiblility.

just pick a side man, you don't have to stick to it, just pick one.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   
As posted in my original post:

"Again, a complete investigation, involving all parties, past and present, needs to take place. Another contention that makes this even more frailed , is that no one has been fired or found at fault for anything since 9/11 or in regards to this.....and thats pure bunk!
"




regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I'm going to show exactly how I'm frailing around Satyr.....in you imagination, somewhere there is a defintion of "his"....what is it?
You see, this is not a case of "impeachment" involving a sexual encounter with ONE individual. You see, the prior president had no reason to CONSULT and receive advisement and recommendations of and on sexual actions deemed appropriate for national security or foreign policies, in regards to this sexual relationship/encounter.
In such, the current President, in going to war, speaks or proclaims a national decision BASED on advisement and recommendations given by HIS advisors and/or cabinet. This descision is not a lone decision, its whats deemed in best interest(s) of this nation be it over national security, domestic, or economic concerns, etc. Yeah, probably according to your thinking, and others, it's HIS decision, being he was the one who finally presents the decision to the American people in a speech or announcement......again, based on consultations with advisors and/or cabinet.

Again, ULTIMATELY Bush and administration are accountable for this. This is the THIRD time I have said it.....again, how in the frail am I "pussy footing" or covering for the President?
*shakes head*

Yes, the entire administration is accountable. You're correct there. But Bush is the commander in chief. We don't go to war unless he says we go to war. No congress can call us to war without the president's permission. It's his decision and his alone. Therefore, you're still making excuses.

It's the same as the company/employee relationship I compared above. If you're the CEO of a large corp., and you're in charge of everyone under you, their #-ups reflect upon you directly. If your guys screw up, you get fired. The people you hired may be fired too, in some cases, depending on how involved they were in the bad decision(s). There is no difference between this and the presidency. Anyone can pass the blame. That's all too easy, isn't it? It's so easy, Bush doesn't even have to do it. He has people like you doing it for him!


Don't even try to compare Clinton's sexual escapade with Bush's war. You're only sidestepping the real issues.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Gone to jail?! Who the hell should go to jail?! This is called RUNNING the most powerful nation on Earth, NOT making book in your garage.

Bottom line here is the WMDs were PART of the reason we went to war, NOT the ONLY reason we went to war.

Hussein had spent 11 years violating the very treaties that stopped the first war. We were BOUND by honor and enforcement to go back in and remove him from power.

In 1991 Saddam Hussein signed documents that REQUIRED him to abide by certain rules, and actions in trade for us NOT blowing him off the face of the Earth.

He scoffed at those treaties and went about his illicit deeds. Additionally, he committed heinous acts against his own people in utter violation of globally accepted Human Rights.

The whole "no wmd's = illegal war" argument is BUNK.

PEACE...
m...

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Saytr:
"Don't even try to compare Clinton's sexual escapade with Bush's war. You're only sidestepping the real issues."

The example and comments I gave in relation to this were for ONE main point and purpose:
Impeachment of Bush, in this matter, is going to be quite different in proving and convicting as compared to prior impeachment hearings and trials.
Impeachment alone, is not a simple matter. Its quite apparent, as shown with the inner workings or the "behind the scenes" workings of the White House, that some here think that it is a simple trivial matter. Burden of proof must be solid, decisive, and pretty much unquestionable. A simple 'search' of and on the impeachment process and all that it covers and entails would suffeciently prove the point I am making. Its far easier to throw the word around and not fully understand the indepth process that "impeaching/impeachment" entails.




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 26-1-2004 by Seekerof]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join