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.


Bush's Banned Interview

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by befoiled

did you read the report?

500 munitions were found, and degraded or not they were there and they could have been used.

i do however agree that the full version is yet to be released. only time will tell..

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:08 PM
Please ! Please !

Let, let let me finish !!!!

No Class

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:30 AM
i 'love' how when attacked, 'saddam' tries to hide his 'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!" instead of USING THEM against the invading force.

what a pucking joke. (canadian, eh)

defend away, blind archers.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:42 AM
And is it me, or does 550 tons of stored enriched-uranium yellowcake speak to at least the intent to resart his nuclear ambitions after the sanctions were lifted?
Which he was bribing the french to push?

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:08 AM
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed

what yellowcake?
there was no yellowcake.


this is 'news'.
this yellowcake was declared to the UN way before the war started. it is ENRICHMENT that makes uranium a threat. as long as there are no enrichment facilities, countries are ALLOWED to posses yellowcake for energy development.

and, if they had all that yellowcake, WHY on earth would they need to ship more from Niger, and WHY on earth would valerie plame need to be 'outed'?

[edit on 16-7-2008 by billybob]

[edit on 16-7-2008 by billybob]

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:12 AM

Originally posted by DaleGribble

how long is it going to take you guys to realize THERE WERE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

really i want an honest answer, a simple easy honest answer.

how long?

Thanks for the post. I looked into these claims of having found WMDs, and it turns out that the information you are posting is misleading. While 500 munitions were found, they were all pre 1991, and from old regimes. In fact, the weapon were useless.

If you read the Foxnews story that went along with the article, you will notice it says this,

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Thats right, even the defense department speaking on behalf of the administration admits these weren't the WMDs we went to war for. We knew these munitions existed in 1991 during the Gulf war, and left them there when we left because we didn't think it would be a problem. Bush claimed Saddam had built new weapons, which clearly the official stance from the administration is still that they have found no evidence of that.

Rep. Santorum was the one who reported these documents as a smoking gun, and when he was told that Jim Angle a senior defense department official said these findings were not why we went to war, and these weapons were worthless and couldn't be fired, Santorums only response is "I'd like to know who that is"

Not only that, but Bush's appointed Iraq study group admitted in 2004 that there was a af finding of old unusable WMDs, but overal Saddam had destroyed his stockpile. Bush agrees in his own word here:

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991," the Iraq Survey Group reported in 2004. "There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

"The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there," said President Bush in October of 2004, as cited at Think Progress.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Congresswoman Jane Harman goes on to explain why these findings don't change anything.

"There is nothing new here," said Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA) in a statement. "Nothing in this report, classified or otherwise, contradicts the Duelfer Report, which assessed that we would find degraded pre-1991 weaponry in Iraq.

Harman also blasted what she feels is selective declassification by the Bush administration. "When the intelligence community disseminated classified intelligence conclusively establishing that one of the Vice President's much-touted justifications for war was blatantly wrong, my request to declassify that information was denied," she added. "When the request comes from Republicans and can be spun in an attempt to support a Republican position, however, the answer is markedly different."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

(same source as above)

Just to give you an idea of how insignificant these findings were, the exact same types of degraded unusable WMDs have been found lying around unaccounted for in... Washington DC!

The discovery of poorly accounted for stocks of WMD is not unheard of around the world. Researcher Jonathan Tucker detailed in 2001 for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists the discovery of a significant number of chemical weapons shells in Northwest DC.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

(same source as above again)

So if you are asserting that the weapons you are referencing is justification for war, then the international community should declare war on the US too.

So were there WMDs found. Technically, but they were unusable remains that we had left them keep after the Gulf War with no problem. To this day the administrations official findings are that Saddam destroyed his stockpiles and was not developing more. Even the defense department admits that there was no WMD justification for the war, as similar findings of unusable WMDs have occurred in the US.

I feel its unfair to claim these findings as proof of anything. Everyone knew at one point Iraq had chemical weapons. The claim was that Saddam had developed knew ones that was the reason for the war. Not only did the investigation find that Saddam had destroyed his stockpiles, but they throughly proved that he wasn't building new ones. Hence, it was a lie. Finding old unusable remains of WMDs from the 80s hardly seems to justify you claiming that we need to admit there were WMDs

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
And is it me, or does 550 tons of stored enriched-uranium yellowcake speak to at least the intent to resart his nuclear ambitions after the sanctions were lifted?
Which he was bribing the french to push?

This is also misleading. Although there was yellowcake found, it was pre Gulf war, and was safeguarded.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

So how is yellowcake in Iraq that we knew about since 81 and had been documented after the Gulf War proof that Saddam was trying to develop WMDs. In fact, no further yellowcake was obtained, which seems to suggest he wasn't building weapons. We knew it was there, so if it was such a problem, why didn't Bush Sr. take care of it in the Gulf war?

The other problem with Bush lying about this is the fact that one of the reasons we went to war was that Saddam was trying to by yellowcake from Nigeria, but this to turned out not to be true. From the same article:

The yellowcake issue also is one of the many troubling footnotes of the war for Washington.

A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

So it seems that as of now there is not one piece of evidence to suggest Saddam was trying to develop nuclear weapons or more WMDs. Hence, we were lied to. extra DIV

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:02 AM
Some of you blind Bush followers makeme laugh...

Did Saddam use WMD against his own people? That depends on who you ask, there are reports that those weapons were used by Iran, not Iraq. There are also reports that the weapons used back then were supplied by the US Government.

I love the poster who asked what rights have I lost.... How about Posse Comitatus and Habius Corpus for starters? How about my right to have to take a phone call without the Government listening in? You know the right to privacy? Maybe you dont realize it or maybe you still think that the Government only listens to "terrorist" or Brown people across the globe. What is really sad is that our rights are being stripped away and some of the sheep will not realize it or deny it is happening until they have a need for those rights, then realize they don't have it anymore. Why must people wait until it is too late before they take notice of the world around them?

What about my right to protest? My right to free speech? these are rights of the people as described in the Constitution. We dont have these anymore. Instead you have "free speech zones". Can anyone showme in the Constitution where it says, "You have the right to free speech only in designated areas?"

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:06 PM

Originally posted by DaleGribble

you do realize that Bush would not have gone to war with out the approval of both of these governing bodys dont you?

right or wrong the war wasnt just one persons choice..

I guess you weren't really paying attention in the run up to the war. In October 2002 Bush reached what was described as a "deal" with the house of representatives over the use of force against Iraq. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, when discussing what the deal was said, and I quote "the resolution does not require him (Bush) to get UN approval before action. If the president determines he has to act unilaterally to protect the American people he can."

So, contrary to your statement, Bush would've have, and was planning to, go to war in Iraq without the approval of the UN. He was also saying that the UN was not fit for purpose, because it wasn't following through on it's own sanctions.

After the deal with the senate, Bush sought and called on the UN to impose military action on Iraq if it didn't allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq, and/or it was proved that Iraq had WMDs. There were two problems with this.

1) Hans Blix was the UN weapons inspector. Bush himself blocked a deal between Hans Blix and Iraq for Blix's team to go in and assess their WMD capability. So Bush was not even allowing Hans Blix to search for WMDs, whilst at the same time calling on the UN to impose military action on Iraq for not allowing Blix in, when Bush was stopping Blix going in.

2) When Hans Blix said there was no evidence which could conclusively prove Iraq had WMDs, or was intending to use them, Bush ignored this and, in collusion with the CIA and British intelligence, cooked up unsubstantiated and later proven as false evidence that Iraq had WMDs and could launch them within 45 mins (false UK evidence), and that Iraq had bought uranium from the Niger (false CIA evidence).

So it's plain to see, Bush got the senate to back him going into war with Iraq alone if necessary, then blocked the UN weapons inspector from doing the job he was supposed to do to allow Iraq to comply with the UN Security Council sanctions, then provided false evidence to the Senate and UN on Iraq having WMDs to prove Iraq had broken the UN Security Council resolution and therefore, the UN should respond or be disbanded, because it wasn't implementing it's own rules on sanctions and policy breaches, and therefore the US would have to act alone.

This can all be referenced and confirmed in minutes from UN meetings and MSM reports from the time leading up to the war. And it's as plain as day that the US government was planning to invade Iraq come hell or high water, with or without the UN.

I know we might not like to hear it, but this is what happened, and sometimes the truth hurts.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by Alethia]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in