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.

 

ATS: WMD of Iraq Found?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   
"I think the puppet on the left shares my beliefs, I think the puppet on the right share my beliefs..."




posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Need I repost Donald Rumsfeld on 'Meet the Press'.

Oh... he said immediate, not imminent. Huge difference right?

How could one possibly argue that the administration didn't potray the threat as urgent, immediate, or imminent? Use whatever rhetoric you wish.

Unbelievable...



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joseph Knecht

How could one possibly argue that the administration didn't potray the threat as urgent, immediate, or imminent? Use whatever rhetoric you wish.



Exactely. The wording hardly matters.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Colonel....what, you don't want information to come out unless it fits your agenda?

Heelstone....did you even read your own links?

This is part of what it said in one link "you posted".


Soldiers were standing guard Saturday outside the storage facility where the warhead was discovered Friday during routine operations to secure the airfield. A big wooden box next to the one containing the warhead had a 13-foot missile in it, though CNN has not been able to confirm a connection between the two.

That missile is but one of many troops have found at the base. Some underground bunkers the size of basketball courts were discovered piled high with cans of munitions, crates of missiles, and number of 1,000-pound bombs.

"It appears as though the airbase was evacuated hastily," Maj. Rob Gowan, a public affairs officer said. "A lot of indicators seem to say that the Iraqi forces that were here left very quickly."

In a separate incident, a man who said he is the base's former commander stepped forward with additional information on possible chemical weaponry.

The former Iraqi air force colonel came to Kirkuk Friday and told military officials he knew of 120 missiles within about an 18-mile radius of Kirkuk -- 24 of those carrying chemical munitions, according to an army intelligence posting at the airfield's military headquarters.


Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

Also in that link is specifically said that the test conducted by a "soldier" was not conclusive and they need experts to open the missile, since the tests performed would be consistent if there is any leakage in any chemical weapon.

Heelstone, you did not debunk anything.

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
WND isn't the most trustworthy of sources, but I wouldn't be surprised if this were true. They're likely saving it until right before the election (say a month or two before). Then release the huge lump at once. It'd be a knockout punch on Kerry- after spending the entire campaign talking about how Bush has lied, Bush can show up proving everything he said was true. Kerry's campaign would literally crumble.

In theory, anyway


I agree with you on all counts; not in terms of believing that Bush et al truly figure that it'd be best to wait until they have buildings full of WMD, if they really had a considerable amount already; however, in terms that it's likely what will happen; while for a different reason than what people have stated in this forum.

Journalists Find Many Ways to Kill Truth in Iraq, by Ira Chernus, Mar 18 2004 www.commondreams.org...

Quote: >

Commentary:

That's not only credible, it is extremely; only needing to be verified, while it now seems to be rather too late; although, not in terms of us needing to critically question any claims made by any of the Bush administration, which would be lemming-like to not, or to refuse to, carefully do.

The following article is not totally or perfectly related, but it is to some serious-enough extent.

The Phantom Sovereign, by Jonathan Schell, TomDispatach.com, The Nation, Apr 8 2004 www.commondreams.org... This is a very good article or essay in which the author debunks the notion of there being or the US bringing sovereignty, democracy, a constitution, etc. for the people of Iraq; providing excellent arguments and, in my opinion anyway, competently debunking ....

Regarding WND, the following should be considered of value.

Dubya and the Moonies, date ? www.dubyasworld.com...

Moon Shadow: The Rev, Bush & North Korea, Jan 14 2003
counterpunch.org... Obtained from the above "Dubya and the Moonies" article.

The Bush-Kim-Moon Triangle of Money, Mar 10 2001 www.consortiumnews.com...

The GOP's man on the Moon - Unification Chruch leader and self-proclaimed Messiah builds legacy with support from the Bush administration, Feb 5 2003 www.workingforchange.com...

Stealth tactics, Moonies and the art of cynicism, date ?
www.onlinejournal.com... This is another link provided in the above "Dubya and the Moonies" article.

New UPI editor's journalism oath to Rev. Moon, Nov 10 2003
www.gorenfeld.net... That article doesn't contain much information, while there are hyperlinks to additional materials.

In Depth - Moon and UPI: A New Weapon in an Ideology War, date ? www.mediachannel.org... Got this link from the above article "New UPI editor's journalism oath to Rev. Moon". The webpage lists at least known media and possibly other types of organizations owned by Rev. Moon, plus provides links to various critiques or articles of - basically, anyway - research usefulness. I suggest that people make themselves aware of this kind of information.

Bad Moon on the rise, Sept 24 2003 www.salon.com...

Unification Press International? Rev. Moon Adds United Press International to His Media Empire, Sept 18 2000 www.mediachannel.org... This certainly is an interesting article, and a correction for a hyperlink provided for the extensive list of Moon or Unification Church front groups, is the following Steven Alan Hassan link, Moon Front Groups.

Steven Alan Hassan - Moon Front Groups www.freedomofmind.com... This is the most important resource site that I've come across on the topic of Rev. Moon, the Moon Organization, and Moon's media organizations, front groups, and groups he uses and/or influences, unbeknownst to the people being used. Actually, the link is to a very long list of front groups, and the main moonies directory is also recommended; it should be considered a must; not necessarily meaning that people must believe what's stated about Moon, etc., in this site, and these articles, but at least a must to read and to keep in mind.

Dark Side of Rev. Moon www.consortiumnews.com... Got this link from Steven Hassan's site, and this is an archive of various articles on Rev. Moon, et al, and etc. related.

Commentary, re. Rev. Moon, et al, and etc. related:

Most of what Rev. Moon rather seems, or more, to be trying to do, as well as what he's either left very and obviously implied, or which he actually stated (forgetting which it is), is that he wants to try to use his news media organizations to try to incite the US government to war ever more; to try to make the final Apocolypse, like as per the Book of Revelations of John the apostle, happen. He refers to the Anti-Christ and Satan, so he most likely is referring to that Book, of John.

As an immediate alert, he owns and/or highly influences Insight Magazine, the Washington Times, and etc.; and, since I've learned of this, more careful reading has been done when reading from these news media, leading to a perception that Steven Hassan is rather very accurate, in addition to entirely serious. And, WND is probably influenced, if not owned, by Rev. Moon, too.

If readers desire more of the above kind of information, regarding news media which have become very bogus, but not about Rev. Moon and his groups, not per se anyway, then read the following Joel Beinin report.

TEL AVIV'S INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS: The Pro-Sharon Think Tank", by Joel Beinin, professor of history at Stanford University www.activistsreader.com... I've read some criticisms of Joel Beinin's work, by several journalists working for mainstream news media, such as Le Monde (France), and either or both the Independent (UK) and/or Guardian (UK); however, the Le Monde one was of seriously unprofessional quality, actually childish nonsense, like childish "name calling" or ridicule; while the UK sourced one that I read was not bad, overly negative, and from what I recall, it left a good impression of Beinin's work or claims, while also that the UK journalist thought some were at least worth questioning.

Again, we do not need to take what those two people state as "set in stone", forever, nor as being totally accurate today, as opposed to yesterday; however, I will not refute their work, and make both reference resources.

Lastly, this hopefully will not be too long; although, fewer links regarding Rev. Moon, et al, and etc. related, may have possibly been sufficient, providing additional ones to atomic articles seemed possibly worthwhile.

Only trying to be helpful.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Colonel....what, you don't want information to come out unless it fits your agenda?

Heelstone....did you even read your own links?

This is part of what it said in one link "you posted".


Soldiers were standing guard Saturday outside the storage facility where the warhead was discovered Friday during routine operations to secure the airfield. (snipped)

That missile is but one of many troops have found at the base. (snipped)

(snipped)


Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

(snipped)

Heelstone, you did not debunk anything.

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Muaddib]


The fact that they're finding WMD in Iraq also does not, by itself, debunk or prove anything; it only prove that there now are WMD, but does not prove how long they've been there, or existed.

It is awfully odd that he refrained from using those WMD, if Saddam Hussein and his forces actually had those when GWII was launched. There are possible reasons why he would not have used those WMD; however, no more than for why he would have employed them.

And, it's awfully peculiar, with the constant and flagrant, un-/anti-Constitutional, refusal of Bush et al to hold themselves ACCOUNTABLE, which is a requirement of the presidential office, not a mere option, well, that Bush et al would not do something as described in the article I posted a link to in my prior post, in this forum; that they would not try to save their butts by creating WMD, themselves. They have the manpower to do so, and the parts.

One thing we definitely do know is that we surely do not know the whole truth about what's going on in Iraq, by US forces; and, we do know that they have lied plenty of times through western and other news media. Also, various journalists who interviewed US military troops and officers in Iraq quoted some of them as have referred to Iraqis as subhuman, as low or lower than animals, extremely racist and unacceptable comments. It is also very obvious that Gen. Tom. Franks deliberately struck at known residential neighborhoods, that US forces deliberately allowed the ransacking of ministry buildings which had absolutely nothing to do with military anything; and, etc. People who can conduct themselves in such ways can do anything which is imaginably awful.

It is extremely obvious that we have been lied to with fleuvial streams of malicious twisted propaganda.

Furthermore, note that we do not know that Al'Qaida actually perpetrated the attacks of 9-11. We know that Saudis, including several or more members of the Ben Ladin family were in the USA on and around 9-11, 2001, and that some of them were meeting with the Carlyle Group on 9-11, plus other matters; however, we do not know that they were not "simply" used as a "fall group", as per "fall guys", to cover the tracks of the real and worst of the perpetrators.

People, honest folks anyway, should visit globalresearch.ca, cooperativeresearch.org, 911citizenswatch.org, and other resource sites; and, do plenty of careful reading and thinking, before spreading notions about us needing to believe what the official lines that are given to us say.

All of the nonsensical, even lunatic, criticisms I read about Iraqis in this forum are enough to cause me to cease using this site as of the first day that I've read through forums, here; however, will resort to patience, for a little while. The problem is that all of those criticisms would be more, and at least equally, true, if we said them while standing in front of mirrors.

People should pay attention to principles like the following:

"Do not unto others that which you would not want done unto you"; and,

"Take the logs out of your own eyes before trying to take pieces of straw or grains of sand out of the eyes of others."

Americans, many or the majority of my fellow citizens, have an extremely difficult time understanding those two principles, let alone exercising them masterfully. And, what do we have when we fail to master those principles: HEGEMONY, HYPOCRISY, LIES, DECEIT, APOCOLYPTIC BARBARISM, and etc.

And, Republicans are not people to refer to for war advice; relatively few of them ever serving in war.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   


And, Republicans are not people to refer to for war advice; relatively few of them ever serving in war.


You try to make vague accusations with heresay evidence and then show your true colors with Yellow dog comments like the above. Take this kind of crap to the mud pit where it fits and stop pretending to be an unbias intellectal trying educate the masses.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mikecorbeil
..but does not prove how long they've been there, or existed.


Once again, then why did Saddam kept trying to buy time and did not let the weapons inspectors in many factories until a certain time, a month or two later, when he saw fit that they could go and investigate those sites. What was he trying to hide?

Also, are you going to tell me that the Iranian and Iraqi's new agencies have not lied before, or that they are not biased?

Show me a post by these news agencies, you are willing to believe so blindly, blaming their government for any attrocities they have committed, or say anything bad, even allegations, about their governments.

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Colonel....what, you don't want information to come out unless it fits your agenda?



No, I'm just tired of getting lied to for 4 years.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I guess we should of left saddam alone, and when
he released his WMD on america, or american targets outside of the US, then all of you unamerican j/o could support him some more and blame bush for something else.



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Mikecorbeil
..but does not prove how long they've been there, or existed.


Once again, then why did Saddam kept trying to buy time and did not let the weapons inspectors in many factories until a certain time, a month or two later, when he saw fit that they could go and investigate those sites. What was he trying to hide?

Also, are you going to tell me that the Iranian and Iraqi's new agencies have not lied before, or that they are not biased?

Show me a post by these news agencies, you are willing to believe so blindly, blaming their government for any attrocities they have committed, or say anything bad, even allegations, about their governments.

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Muaddib]



Look in the mirror. "Take the log out of your own eye, before trying to take a piece of straw, or a grain of sand, out of someone else's eye." And, "do not unto others that which you would not want done unto you". Quite simple, really. "Street smarts."


Originally posted by thesaneone
I guess we should of left saddam alone, and when
he released his WMD on america, or american targets outside of the US, then all of you unamerican j/o could support him some more and blame bush for something else.


That's nonsensical scare-mongering. The USA has over 5,000 nukes. Pakistan has 2. Iraq had 0.

Israel had a secret nuke program, and the US has not said anything about that; definitely, nothing negative or threatening, anyway.

The USA does not allow its nuclear weapons facilities, etc., to be inspected by anyone. And, there are basically terrorist and despotic ruler training schools, whatever, in the US; as well as harboring former despotic rulers and high ranking officials.

This world is full of hypocrisy and hegemony; tyranical dictatorship, with a following, supporters, but also opposers; yet, the former have more temporal, political, military, law enforcement, ... power.

Many hype war, but don't risk their own lives.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:21 AM
link   
On May 28th 2004, on the seventeenth quarterly report on the activities of the United Nations Monitoring, UNMOVIC reports its finds of evidence on Iraq/Saddam WMD activities. The head of the Iraq Survey Group stated that the group has continued looking for weapons of mass destruction. He also stated that he did not believe that the group has found enough evidence and information to make a final statement with confidence on Iraq's wmd programmes and to determine with confidence the truth of their existance. But they also present information and pictures on what they have found.

" The testimony also refers to new information on unmanned aerial vehicles being developed and on long-range ballistic missile development. While the Commission has considerable knowledge of Iraq’s unmanned aerial vehicle programmes and long-range missiles, the testimony is not sufficiently detailed for the Commission’s experts to determine the extent to which such information was known to UNMOVIC.

6. The Commission’s experts are conducting an investigation in parallel with the IAEA Iraq Nuclear Verification Office regarding the discovery of items from Iraq that are relevant to the mandates of UNMOVIC and IAEA at a scrapyard in the Netherlands. In particular, following a visit of IAEA to a scrapyard in Rotterdam to investigate increased radiation readings, it was discovered, through photographs taken at the time, that engines of SA-2 surface-to-air missiles were among the scrap (see figure below). They are the type of engines used in the Al Samoud 2 proscribed missile programme. In addition, a number of items and equipment that may also be relevant to the UNMOVIC mandate were seen among the scrap. The existence of missile engines originating in Iraq among scrap in Europe may affect the accounting of proscribed engines known to have been in Iraq’s possession in March 2003."

Excerpted from.
www.globalsecurity.org...

In the report there are pictures taken of an SA-2 engine and other parts which were in possesion of Iraq in March 2003. The report also states that from 1999 to 2002 Iraq procured a variety of dual-use biological and chemical items, including chemicals, equipment and spare parts. Althou in this part the report also states that UNMOVIC did not find evidence that these were used for weapon purposes.

In the report also satellite pictures can be found of facilities, which UNMOVIC states that some of the sites they had been monitoring had been clean up and removed of equipment and material. In some sites whole buildings that had been monitored were completly removed.

The UN meeting of June 9th 2004 has not been posted on the UN website as of yet. The last two meetings posted are June 7th and June 8th 2004.
www.un.org...

The report can also be found directly on the UN site which I posted at the link above, if you scroll down to the UNMOVIC section which is about halfway down on the link. Click on the "Quaterly Reports" and click on the "28 May 2004 (17th)".

The below link is to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs where they also report on the June 9th 2004 UN meeting where UNMOVIC reports what they have found on Iraq's wmd programme. ALthou they report from the same source, The World Tribune, there are several points they present on this site which are worth reading.

UNMOVIC Comes Clean on Saddam's WMD and It's Worried



[edit on 22-6-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Some History on Iraq and WMDS

Well, it seems the question still hasn't been answered on whether actual WMDs still exist, whether they have been take away or what. They used them in the 80s and 90s, particularly chemical. Everyone was afraid that Iraq was going to continue developing them despite an UN act calling for disarmament. Which means even if they weren't still building them, they should get rid of them.

The US was planning to attack Iraq even if 9/11 didn't happen. But 9/11 was convenient in that it gave a strong motive in the war on terror. There's your spin, spinmaster.

Here is also a list of some US companies that helped provide components for the WMDs:
www.theassassinatedpress.com...

How America Armed Iraq


In the early 1990s, UN inspectors told the US Senate committee on banking, housing and urban affairs – which oversees American export policy – that they had “identified many US-manufactured items exported pursuant of licences issued by the US department of commerce that were used to further Iraq’s chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programmes”.


Removed Pages of Iraq UN report


According to Niman, "The missing pages implicated twenty-four U.S.-based corporations and the successive Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. administration in connection with the illegal supplying of Saddam Hussein government with myriad weapons of mass destruction and the training to use them." Groups documented in the original report that were supporting Iraq's weapons programs prior to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait included:


Another Missing Pages Link

Former Inspector Kay says no WMDs found


Kay reported in October that his team found "dozens of WMD-related program activities" that Iraq was required to reveal to U.N. inspectors but did not. However, he said he found no actual WMDs.


[edit on 22-6-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   
I also found another link through FrontPage.com which had escaped me before.

This is the FrontPage.com link.
frontpagemag.com...

" NEW YORK — Twenty engines from banned Iraqi missiles were found in a Jordanian scrap yard with other equipment that could be used for weapons of mass destruction, a U.N. official said, raising new security questions about Iraq's scrap metal sales since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Acting chief United Nations inspector Demetrius Perricos revealed the discoveries to the U.N. Security Council in a closed-door briefing Wednesday. "

This is the June 11th WashingtonTimes.com link where it is reported that 20 engines from banned Iraqi missiles were found at a Jordanian scrap yard with other equipment that could be used for wmd.
www.washtimes.com...

The June 9th 2004 meeting was a close door briefing as the Washington Times reports.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 03:31 AM
link   
It seems it was known all along that components existed, but the question still remains of the existence of the actual WMDs and whether they were destroyed/dismantled. I remember the cyclosarin, pesticide deal in the media, it is very interesting, but that was the good evidence I could find in the article. So I guess thats what we were going for? I thought the article was going to tell of something else that was about to be found. But yes, it seems as though the cyclosarin counts, so...

Dude, Jinsa board members are scattered all throughout the Bush administration including Dick Cheney.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO JUST GET A FAIR AND BALANCED REPORT!!! DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE LIBERALS SAYING THIS, BASHING CONSERVS, CONSERVS SAYING THIS, BASHING LIBS!!! I MEAN C'MON...C'MON>>

[edit on 22-6-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Iraq contacted Osama Bin Laden in the 1990s to work with organizations that oposed the ruling family in Saudi Arabia according to a document found in Iraq.
 

Iraq contacted Al Qaeda in 1990s in anti-Saudi move: report

WASHINGTON - Iraqi intelligence officials contacted Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the mid 1990s as part of efforts to work with organizations that opposed the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, according to a new document found in Iraq, The New York Times said on Friday.

The contacts resulted in Iraq agreeing to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, while a request from bin Laden for joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered, said officials who described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

In these documents there was no further indication of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I don't understand why this is even a topic still. Any WMD's even if found now have NOTHING to do with the alleged WMD's that they were looking for in the past. They've already admitted that the WMD Intelligence was bad to begin with.

Powell Admits False WMD Claim
www.commondreams.org...

Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged--finally!--that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Remember the drawings he displayed.) Yet Powell said on MTP, "it turned our that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading." Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.


Chief US Inspector Admits Iraq Had No WMD Stockpiles
www.countercurrents.org...

The admission by the CIA’s top weapons adviser in Iraq, David Kay, that the country possessed no stockpiles of so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) nor related production facilities is a devastating refutation of the lies used by the Bush administration to justify its illegal invasion and occupation.


Those of you out there that are still hoping to use WMD's as a justification for War need to start trying another angle cause this one has already been exhausted and admitted as being bunk. The only people who are living in denial of this, or purposefully trying to keep the lie alive are Bush and a few others from his Criminal Posse. It's time to break free of the denial here people



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Mojon....you are only one of the few that believes that Iraq did not have WMD prior and during the war....several links have been given of the evidence... the one that should stop the denial is you, even the UN is saying is true and the latest UNMOVIC report says Iraq had stockpiles of wmd, many which were dumped in scrap yards around the world in 2004, and factories working in 2003 and in 2004 they were destroyed, some of them completly dismantled. read the links and stop believing everything the world socialist website says.....
You have to read the original report to find out exactly what was said. The press sometimes exagerate what they are reporting, for example the press has continued saying that the 9/11 commission have not found any evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda, which is not true, if you read the original report it says that they have not found evidence that Iraq was directly involved with 9/11, but there are Al Qaeda and Iraq links. Which even now evidence has come forth about these links.


[edit on 25-6-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Muaddib, let me clarify what it is I'm saying. Which, btw, I will do without having to resort to any 'name calling' or erroneous 'labeling' of others as Socialists, Liberals or any of that sh*t.

Using YOUR links and info:

The head of the Iraq Survey Group stated that the group has continued looking for weapons of mass destruction. He also stated that he did not believe that the group has found enough evidence and information to make a final statement with confidence on Iraq's wmd programmes and to determine with confidence the truth of their existence. But they also present information and pictures on what they have found.


So, they are still investigating. Now 3 years after it was used as the Primary reason for launching a War and invading Iraq. Not to mention the difference between 'WMD Programmes' and 'Stockpiles of WMD's' which was one of the ways 'The Story' changed mid stream. But let's look further, using their own words.


Before 9-11
24 Feb 2001
In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

7 Aug 2001
President George W Bush declares: "He's been a menace forever, and we will do -- he needs to open his country up for inspection, so we can see whether or not he's developing weapons of mass destruction."

After 9-11
Nov 2001
Pentagon official Richard Perle: "He has weapons of mass destruction. The lesser risk is in pre-emption. We've got to stop wishing away the problem."

26 Aug 2002
Vice President Dick Cheney declares: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

7 Oct 2002
During a speech in Cincinnati, President George W Bush declares: "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

2 Dec 2002
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declares: "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."

9 Jan 2003
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declares: "We know for a fact there are weapons there."

19 Mar 2003
During an address to the nation, President George W Bush declares: "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."


And with that build up of Fear Campaigning and as of yet inconclusive proof we now begin the War. Which by the way, isn't against Osama who is blamed for Actually being responsible for attacking us on 9-11, but against Saddam.


During the War
10 Apr 2003
In a message to the Iraqi people, President George W Bush declares: "The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world."

10 Apr 2003
In a message to the Iraqi people, British Prime Minister Tony Blair declares: "We did not want this war. But in refusing to give up his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam gave us no choice but to act."

10 Apr 2003
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declares: "We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."


Sounds good so far!! Yet still no Actual Proof, but the speculation is convincing and powerful.

Then comes some doubts, or if not doubt, just a little less confidence than that which was being touted for the past 3 years as absolute certainty.


24 Apr 2003
President George W Bush declares: "We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."

29 Apr 2003
In Moscow, British Prime Minister Tony Blair wonders openly: "Where is Saddam? Where are those arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, if they indeed were in existence? We don't know whether perhaps Saddam is still hiding somewhere underground in a bunker, sitting on cases containing weapons of mass destruction, and is preparing for blowing the whole thing up, bringing down with him the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. We simply do not know."


But wait. Everyone knew for sure. Without a doubt. Swearing up and down, "We know", 'We know", "We know". But now you say 'We simply do not know." Bummer!!

But that's ok, cause once the War is over and we've caught Saddam, then for sure they'll be found. Right??? Stockpiles of Weapons that were ready and posed a threat to the entire world and could be used any minute.


21 Jan 2004
During his State of the Union speech, President Bush gingerly avoids the topic of whether WMDs actually exist in Iraq by declaring: "We are seeking all the facts. Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."

23 Jan 2004
In an interview with Reuters, former weapons inspector David Kay is asked about the WMDs. He opines: "I don't think they existed. I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and those were a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them. I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production, and that's what we're really talking about, is large stockpiles, not the small. Large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the period after '95."

27 Jan 2004
Regarding the possibility that Saddam might never have had any appreciable WMDs, President Bush puts on the tap shoes: "First of all, I think it's very important for us to let the Iraq Survey Group do its work so we can find out the facts and compare the facts to what was thought."

16 May 2004
Secretary of State Colin Powell tells Meet the Press: "When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed... it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it."


So what's the deal??

Understand, I'm not saying there never were any Bio/Chem Weapons ever. In fact, I seem to remember that we actually provided some of them way back when, when we were on better terms with Saddam. What they are saying now as proof of the chemical weapons is even far from being equal to what was being said at the beginning.


"Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical-agent arena," Hanson says. "In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the 'grandfather' of modern-day nerve agents."


Now, being that all this 'Pesticide' seems a little excessive for a country of sand and little agriculture to say the least. Plus the fact that they were found in old military ammo dumps certainly looks like they are chemicals for military purposes.

However, does this justify the claims that were made or justify our Invasion of another country? Is that enough to justify everything that has happened so far or the chaos and continued War that seems to be building up as a result? Does it prove that the administration or the intelligence they were using as Extremely accurate, or is it more that the intel was just barely correct at all and the Administration blew it out of proportion without even being able to very their claims? Also, why did the reason for all this go from 'Terrorists - Specifically Osama and 9-11' to 'Saddam and Terroism in General' and finally to 'Freedom in Iraq & Promoting Democracy' with 'War on Terrorism' as a secondary issue?

Trust me, I'm not trying to 'Hang' Bush Co. and avoid this new evidence. If they are finding links and stuff now, great, but IMO, putting the puzzle together and coming up with some proof after and during a pre-emtive War with unknown side effects is like skydiving without first checking to make sure there is a Parachute on your back and not someone's camping supplies.

This article is also claiming that it's because of the Media Covering up the facts and trying to make Bush look bad as the reason nobody has seen any of this 'Hard Evidence' until now. Yet in another report it openly states this at the end:

This report was written in accordance with Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting, in which journalists join deployed troops.

So does that mean the Pentagon is trying to Cover-Up evidence and make the Administration look bad? Apparently they are controlling the what is being reported, but why would they cover up anything?

This whole thing stinks of B.S. and Propaganda and Illegal War Profiteering as well as being built upon Lies, confusion, and just out right Incompetence from any and all angles. So my stance on this is that 'There is NO JUSTIFICATION for what's happened or might happen in the future' Either they were wrong from the beginning making it Criminal, or they were right in their assumptions and lucky something did turn up, but either way they've handled the entire thing like a bunch of Incompetent War Pigs. There is NO WAY of telling what is planted and what is real.

It very well could be something else that is being over looked here. Perhaps there were Weapons there & the U.S. did Know this. Also, perhaps they did find them too and chose not to reveal their discovery though. Surely you'd ask, 'But why the hell would they do that??' Could it be that these Weapons and materials that Saddam allegedly was going to use against the U.S. and others actually came from us?? That maybe it was the U.S. who was supplying these things?? We did in the past after all. We have also pulled out the U.N. inspectors who are now no longer allowed to search except on the boarders. The reason could be that if they discovered and traced the materials to their origin, that it would then point right back to the U.S. Just something others way want to think about....



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Yet another frameable quote, as mOjOm finds:

Originally posted by mOjOm

27 Jan 2004
Regarding the possibility that Saddam might never have had any appreciable WMDs, President Bush puts on the tap shoes: "First of all, I think it's very important for us to let the Iraq Survey Group do its work so
we can find out the facts and compare the facts to what was thought."

 "compare the facts to what was thought." ??
There is a fundamental difference between
  the evasive dreaming of "what was thought"
  and a self-responsible assertion such as "what we knew".

The evasive 'somebody thought this up' just screams of denial:
  "I didn't think this" and "we (administration) didn't think this".

It resonates with the image of a leader who wants no responsibility.
An honest leader says things like:

 "I think...",

 "I believe...",

 "We believed..",

 "We thought..."


A bureaucratic coward pens things of the nature we heard, saying, in essence,
 "something (which apears to need some facts) was thought by some nameless entity,
  and if anything goes wrong here, there is no 'I' or 'We' to blame".


It is merely something somebody thought, and who was that somebody?
Who "thought" this into credibility?
Apparently, no one - "...was thought." has no thinker attached to it.
'Thought' by who?
Apparently it was not thought by the President, because, if so,
  he might have simply said:
  "compare the facts to what I thought."
Apparently it was not thought by his administration, because, if so,
  he might have simply said:
  "compare the facts to what we thought."

It was thought up by no one responsible, according to this utterance.

When did 'thought' become a basis for war?
Is it ok to simply sit in your easy chair on a cool spring morning,
  and think up reasons to launch a military invasion?
Simply decide to commit thousands of people to death,
  (innocents as well as combatants), based on some collection of considerations?

In those few words, the President illustrates that the whole war
  was a search for facts to justify some kind of idle afternoon speculations.
In other words - he had no facts, only some thoughts.

- Oops, sorry, he didn't have those thoughts, no one did!

Launching the mightiest miltary machine in history against a third-rate desert ghetto,
  based on some irresponsibly unattributable daydreams - what a gas!

The bottom line:
Unattributed speculation led King George to launch the war on Iraq
  in order to secure facts to justify the speculations.

...X...

[edit on 2004-6-26 by Teknik]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join