TA-ANALYSIS: Britain's Butler Report on Iraq Intelligence Released - Blair: Iraq Had No WMDs

I think it is pretty clear that Saddam did indeed have chemical and biological weapons. Based on that alone, I think he would try to move up and gain Nuclear weapons. He had used WMD in the past. I think the question should be "If he did acquire them, where are they now?" I was led to belive that once we go to Iraq we would just find them, and HUGE quantities of them. I was led to beleive that He was indeed going to use them against the US. So far we have not uncovered these Huge stockpiles that were mentioned, and shown in satellite pics. I have seen no evidance that he was ready to use them against the US. Therefore there is an Intelligence failure, or a Huge stretch of the truth.

Originally posted by neomoniker

This is entry level freshman material. The first thing taught in Art of Lying and Deception is RULE #1.

RULE #1 stipulates that if and when caught in a lie cover it up and obfuscate with ever more entangling lies. Soon, everyone 'll be so flustered they won't know what or who to believe. And that's Just where you want 'em.

Art of lying and deception? Are you saying that it all started with the Clinton administration and they were knowingly lying to the public?

Because my folks love to afflict their minds with that bane of the modern world, namely, TV and more specifically, Fox news channel, I inadvertently hear some of their flotsam they call news. Today I read the topic of this thread, then heard Bill O'Reilly counter with the fact that Brits can be sued for slandering the PM by calling him a liar. So one side pennies up, and the other decides to eclipse with a pound sterling.

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
I think it is pretty clear that Saddam did indeed have chemical and biological weapons. Based on that alone, I think he would try to move up and gain Nuclear weapons. He had used WMD in the past. I think the question should be "If he did acquire them, where are they now?" I was led to belive that once we go to Iraq we would just find them, and HUGE quantities of them. I was led to beleive that He was indeed going to use them against the US. So far we have not uncovered these Huge stockpiles that were mentioned, and shown in satellite pics. I have seen no evidance that he was ready to use them against the US. Therefore there is an Intelligence failure, or a Huge stretch of the truth.

Perhaps the following can shed some light into this.

As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take orders from the Soviet KGB, it is perfectly obvious to me that Russia is behind the evanescence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place. The Soviet Union and all its bloc states always had a standard operating procedure for deep sixing weapons of mass destruction

Excerpted from.
www.washtimes.com...

Pacepa: Contemporary political memory seems to be conveniently afflicted with some kind of Alzheimer's disease. Not long ago, every Western leader, starting with President Clinton, fumed against Saddam�s WMD. Now almost no one remembers that after General Hussein Kamel, Saddam�s son-in-law, defected to Jordan in 1995, he helped us find �more than one hundred metal trunks and boxes� containing documentation �dealing with all categories of weapons, including nuclear.� He also aided UNSCOM to fish out of the Tigris River high-grade missile components prohibited to Iraq. That was exactly what my old Soviet-made �S�rindar� plan stated he should do in case of emergency: destroy the weapons, hide the equipment, and preserve the documentation. No wonder Saddam hastened to lure Kamel back to Iraq, where three days later he was killed together with over 40 of his relatives in what the Baghdad official press described as a �spontaneous administration of tribal justice.� Once that was done, Saddam slammed the door shut to any UNSCOM inspection.

This other infromation also sheds some more light on this issue.

Why should we believe that the almighty Soviet Union, which had proliferated WMD all over the world, was not able to do the same thing in Iraq? Every piece of armament Iraq had came from the former Soviet Union�from the Katyusha launchers to the T72 tanks, BMP-1 fighting vehicles and MiG fighter planes. In the spring of 2002, just a couple of weeks after Russia took its place at the NATO table, President Putin and his ex-KGB officers who are now running Russia concluded another $40 billion trade deal with Saddam Hussein�s tyrannical regime in Iraq. That was not for grain or beans�Russia has to import them from elsewhere.

Excerpted from.
www.frontpagemag.com...

The following information, up to the link, was compiled by Ryan Mauro on Iraq's WMD evidence.

It has been only 7 months since the war in Iraq even began, but charges that the United States lied about Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction are seen in the press daily. This report will examine evidence of WMD independently gathered from the press, and where they presently are. Before going further, I wish to make the following points:

1) The intelligence communities of every major country were confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003. These include the United States, Canada, France, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, even Iran and a slew of others. It was a working assumption that such WMD was in Iraq, so much that I never heard accusations that it wasn�t true until the political war heated up in March, 2003.

Excerpted from.
www.worldthreats.com...

Here is a link of one of the other countries selling and aiding terrorist nations.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The following link gives a good overview of what happened before the war in Iraq.
hnn.us...

Related Links in ATS.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 14-7-2004 by Muaddib]

Finally; someone logical. I can't stand it anymore; the people saying things like, "We didn't find any WMD's in Iraq!! This war is based on lies and it was for oil!!!". Ok, we didn't find A WMD. Not one bomb capable of causing Mass Destruction, but that's not what we were after. We did find chemical weapons such as Sarin in large enough quantites to CAUSE mass destruction.

Originally posted by Herman
We did find chemical weapons such as Sarin in large enough quantites to CAUSE mass destruction.

Why you got the news? Please pass the link or news source. I do not think Bush misadministration will hide such damning evidence from public view. The news I got from CNN is that there was some suspicion of some traces of Sarin in a few rocket, maybe 10 years old.

However the news packaged in such a way to suggest you to think that Sarin Weapon is found. Do not fooled by such propaganda. Use your brain.

Originally posted by zcheng

Originally posted by Herman
We did find chemical weapons such as Sarin in large enough quantites to CAUSE mass destruction.

Why you got the news? Please pass the link or news source. I do not think Bush misadministration will hide such damning evidence from public view. The news I got from CNN is that there was some suspicion of some traces of Sarin in a few rocket, maybe 10 years old.

However the news packaged in such a way to suggest you to think that Sarin Weapon is found. Do not fooled by such propaganda. Use your brain.

Of course, you prefer to ignore everything else that has been found, even if it was banned from Iraq...

Oh btw, the sarin gas along with everything else that was found was banned from Iraq....do you know what that means?

FYI, Sarin gas is a wmd, and if he had a little there were bound to be more. The amount of sarin that can fit in a pin head can kill you.
Oh and btw. This is the conclusion from the UN in 1999 about wmd in Iraq.

The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction concluded that Saddam "probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW [chemical warfare] agents - much of it added in the last year." That assessment was based, in part, on conclusions contained in the final report from U.N. weapons inspectors in 1999, which highlighted discrepancies in what the Iraqis reported to the United Nations and the amount of precursor chemicals U.N. arms inspectors could document Iraq had imported but for which it no longer could account. Until now, Bush's critics say, no stockpiles of CW agents made with those precursors have been found. The snap conclusion they draw is that the administration "lied" to the American people to create a pretext for invading Iraq.

Excerpted from.
Saddam's WMD Have Been Found

That was not the only instance when wmd were found, despite what the naysayers say.

"We've found ten or twelve Sarin and Mustard rounds," said Charles Duelfer, who replaced David Kay as head of the Iraq survey group earlier this year after Kay concluded that WMDs were unlikely to be found.

Excerpted from.
Iraq Survey Chief: More WMD Found


[edit on 15-7-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Excerpted from.
Saddam's WMD Have Been Found

Was that evidence? That was the evaluation of 1999. It is assessment, not evidence. The question is whether in Early 2003 Saddam still had WMD.

"We've found ten or twelve Sarin and Mustard rounds," said Charles Duelfer, who replaced David Kay as head of the Iraq survey group earlier this year after Kay concluded that WMDs were unlikely to be found.

Excerpted from.
Iraq Survey Chief: More WMD Found


What amount Sarin in the rounds? Was it independently verified by third party? US was even trying to smuggle Nuclear material from Kuwait to Iraq, but was stopped by Kuwait. Everyday you can claim you find WMD in Iraq. I find you too eager to believe any thing your goverment said. Use your brain to find the truth.

Zcheng the US trying to smuggle nuclear weapons into Iraq man we could have done that if we wanted to but we didn't and you ask us questions about our clams how bout you? And serine was found in artillery shells in Iran it was from the Iran Iraq war but that doesn't matter cuz saddam was supposed to destroy them all but I guess he didn't.

Even if the "intelligence" reports were accurate and Iraq was not only developing "WMD" (code word for NUKES) but was actually in possession of "WMD," this is a strictly private issue, wholly within the prerogative Right of any sovereign state to do. No third party concensus need be sought or approval granted.

Now here's the real scary part for the brain washed masses out there: Any man or woman has an inalienable RIGHT to develope and possess "WMD" (code word for NUKES). Shocked? Well, it's true none the less.

Remember: Just because a government or some other "authority" figure mandates something does not necessarily turn that something into an incontrovertable reality. It's just his/her/their stated OPINION, not demonstrable fact. And opinions are like a**holes, everyone is entitled to have one.

You see the real story is that if Iraq was indeed in possession of WMD (code word for NUKES) the terrorist Zionist/JUDEO-Christian Bush-Blair regimes would have never staged an unprovoked act of armed aggression to "liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny". Therefore, that can only mean THEY KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq.

Don't expect to read anything like that in your local Jew monopoly media rag-journal anytime soon, because it ain't gonna happen.



[edit on 15-7-2004 by neomoniker]

Originally posted by Muaddib
We did find chemical weapons such as Sarin in large enough quantites to CAUSE mass destruction.

So both the Senate Committee and the Butler Report are wrong then are they?
Along with both the American and British army, who both say they haven't found any WMD.

Why don't you contact the White House with your world changing discovery of WMD?

The FACT is they HAD WMD, but those stocks were destroyed during the Gulf War of 1991 and subsequent weapon inspections had kept them under control.

Take a picture of Abu Ghraib prison from 1980.
Take a picture of Abu Ghraib prison from 2004.

NOTICE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, BOTH PICTURES SHOW ABUSE AND TORTURE OF HUMAN BEINGS.

So that nullifies this reason for the war:

"The U.S. is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the U.S. and the community of law abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating and prosecuting all acts of torture."

— George W. Bush, U.N. Torture Victims Recognition Day, June 26, 2003

This illegal war is wrong and that's all there is to it.
The war mongers on this site are obviously children who have never seen real war.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by shanti23]

Saddam had WMD as we all know. Saddam threw out the UN (after the first invasion) before they completed the job of ensuring his weapons were dismantled. It doesn't take a genius to work out that there must still be some weapons somewhere. Lets move to the second inspection. Does anyone think that Saddam sat there with his WMD to be easily found or has he spent the intervening years making sure they are well hidden ? Despite the fact that the UN did not find WMD the second time does not mean that they are not there. Jesus they only searched known surface buildings! They may or may not exist we do not know we can only make assumptions based on other evidence or our own bias. Given Saddams history and ruthlessness I do not for one minute think that Saddam would hesitate in burying his WMD, then get his secret service to kill everyone who knew where the WMD 's are buried. It's so so easy. You could hide an arctic truck in the middle of the desert with enough WMD to kill half of europe and no-one will ever find it. Get real folks. So there is no hard evidence of WMD as would be necessary for a court of law but enough to make anyone with half a brain cell very nervous.

The above has little to do with the reasons for invading Iraq. Bush was going in anyway because he needed a distraction for the lack of success in finding Bin Laden. Blair is NOT a puppet he is someone caught between the US and Europe. He knew fine well that Bush was going into Iraq no matter what. He knew fine well that if that happened without any UN support the arab world would go ballistic and the world would be a far more dangerous place. The US and US interests would become an even greater target by all islamic militants than they currently are. There would even have been some new militant groups and certaintly greater support for Al Queda. Clearly Blair could not let Bush go it alone otherwise Britain , even if it objected, would be a target due to all the US air bases and US companies here. There's no way that all of that infrastructure could have been dismantled to make Britain safe in such a short time. So Blair had to go along with Bush and persuade him to go via the UN in order to defuse the situation and gain support for the removal of Saddam. This was moderately successful since even the Arab world are afraid of him and everyone knows what he is like. Let's not forget there are quite a few countries in Iraq beside the US and the UK. The two main ones missing are Russia and France both of whom had considerable financial ties with the Saddam regime.

Blair needed a legal footing for Britain to go into Iraq hence the "dossier" built upon evidence which with hindsight is flawed. Kelly did not know that the Iraq had no WMD which is the spin put on all this by the journalists. Kelly was disturbed by the strength of the evidence presented to the government by the intelligence agencies since his interpretation was different. Even Kelly himself stated, prior to all of this, that the only was to remove Saddam may be by force ! Gilligan is a journalist whose credentials are well known to be anti Labour (he is a very strong Tory supporter), therefore his motives for pursuing the "sexed up document" has more to do with his personal beliefs than a search for the truth. Gilligan himself "spun" the information presented to him by Kelly e.g. the infamous "sexed up document" phrase. Kelly broke the official secrects act by going to Gilligan and in doing so put his career and pension in jeapordy at best, at worst he could be hung ! Not that that would happen but treason is still punishable by hanging in Britain but no-one ever will. So he sees his pension drifting away, his career ruined, and his family suffering as a result.....that's why he committed suicide. I doubt he his the first person to ever commit suicide for those reasons! He should have gone through normal whistle blowing channels and his pension would be safe as well as his integrity. He made an error of judgement and talked to, probably, the worse journalist he could have picked !

So here we are with a Prime Minister admitting mistakes were made and the ever so perfect press fuming mad. At least he has the integrity to stand before parliament and state mistatkes were made unlike Bush and the British press. How come the perfect press never admit to mistakes unless forced to do so by a judge ? How come we see all these casualty figures for Iraq civilians but the press never publishes the number of deaths under Saddam Hussein to compare them against (spin) ? A slight clue here for the totally brain dead reader. On average far more people would have died under Saddam Hussein than have currently died under the occupation. Also don't forget that a lot of the deaths are by Iraqis against themselves. However, the "spin" put on all this by the press is that the big bad coalition forces are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Summary :

* I disagree with going into Iraq for the reasons stated by Bush, he was being sneaky.
* Blair had no choice but to go in with Bush, it was a choice between bad and much worse if he didn't.
* The British press is the only effective political opposition in this country so beware of everything you read.
* Saddam Hussein was a menance and people like that should be removed forcibly from office by the UN.
* The UN is riddled with the veto which is total killer of hard descision making (the EU has the same veto problem).
* Democracy with all its flaws is still the best form of government if you wish to prevent bloodshed so the UN should enforce this everywhere.
* I agree that totaliarian states are sometimes the best to get things done quickly and efficiently, but you have huge price to pay especially if you have the wrong colour, race, religion, politics or family.

Oh one last thing. The IRA did not have any weapons due to the fact that the British authorities never found any in a country considerably smaller than Iraq ! Duh. Before anyone replies with "they were guns not WMD" please remember that a WMD cache the size of the IRA's gun/missile cache's would be powerful enough to kill millions.

So the dossier WAS sexed up!

And the BBC were wrong for saying this in public?!?!

Oh and we all REALLY believe David Kelly Commited suicide!

Originally by Malcr
Blair had no choice but to go in with Bush, it was a choice between bad and much worse if he didn't.

Nonsense!
The UK's biggest ever demonstration was the march against the Iraq war.

news.bbc.co.uk...

So it's not like he was on his own with this decision.
That's the thing with politicians, always think they know what's best for everyone else

Blair HAD the chance to make a real difference in the world, but he chose otherwise to the detriment of world stability and human life.

Originally by Corinthas
So what does this do to the Hutton report?

Shows it to be the whitewashing control of hidden policy it really was.
Alastair Campbell comes to mind, no wonder he slipped from the public eye quietly last year ... hmm .. exactly like George Tenet from the CIA ...

The self serving protect their own, ironic, but true - I guess they don't want the house of cards coming down on their heads.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by shanti23]

If Pres. Saddam Hussein had these "WMDs" then why didn't he use them on the Zionist/JUDEO-Christian terrorists when they launched their unprovoked act of armed aggression on sovereign, independent Iraq, who has every right to possess ANY and EVERY weapon it so chooses??? Hmm? WHY?

Any good "tyrant" worthy his name would throw every WMD in his arsenal at a hostile terrorist invader...I know I would. If my sovereign state was under a sustained state sponsored terrorist attack, hell, I'd nuke everything and anything that even looked at me cross-eyed.



[edit on 16-7-2004 by neomoniker]

Originally posted by frontieruk

Originally posted by Muaddib
Is very simple, were Tony blair and the Bush administration the only ones to "ever" say that Saddam/Iraq had wmd? No, in fact the whole world was saying that Iraq/Saddam had wmd and was an assassin

Yep, thats right Muaddib, alot of people like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore all had speeches saying Saddam needed to be dealt with. Besides all this talk about intelligence, isn't Bush being criticized for not acting on intelligence prior to Sept. 11th? But now, Bush should not of acted on the intelligence about Iraq and Iraqs links to terrorist groups. This is a war on terror, any country providing a safe place for terrorist groups to hide out will be dealt with. Bush made that clear at the beginning of this war.

so when between 2001 and 2003 did sadam get these weapons and convince the world he had them? He didn't, bush wanted to start his war, blair said bush needed UN support thus the UN weapons inspectors were sent in (who's head inspector always maintained that they probably wouldn't find anything) as the search went on and it looked less likely that the wmd were going to be found, bush sent the army in to find them, except that story changed, they became liberators of iraq freeing them from dictatorship, the only country that backed the claims of wmd was the british, and as the US and UK have now both found out these assumptions of sadam being dangerous was based on very poor intelligence collecting.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by frontieruk]

Saddams wmd are there, they just havn't found them yet. The UN Inspectors going in Iraq to search for his weapons was a joke. It would have been different if the UN Inspector didn't give Saddam a timeline of inpsections, where and when, giving Saddam plenty of time to hide any evidence. Besides, Iraq is a sand box roughly the size of California, it would be very easy to hide any kind of weapons. There are probably hundreds of caves and tunnels that are used to hide these items.
We also gave Saddam months to give us proof he distroyed his weapons, allowing him plenty of time to hide them in neighboring countries, before we officially entered the country.
If i remember correctly, Saddam admitted he had weapons of mass distruction at the end of the first gulf war and he used chemical weapons, killing hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen and women.

Originally posted by neomoniker

If Pres. Saddam Hussein had these "WMDs" then why didn't he use them on the Zionist/JUDEO-Christian terrorists when they launched their unprovoked act of armed aggression on sovereign, independent Iraq, who has every right to possess ANY and EVERY weapon it so chooses??? Hmm? WHY?

Exactly neomoniker!

I guess some of these posters will give the reason that he couldn't dig them up fast enough from their hiding place in the desert; or that he lost the map where X marked the spot

Also, very good point, a sovereign nation that has the right to do as it chooses as much as America has the right to do what it chooses.

I hear China has WMD, why hasn't America liberated them from their despotic leaders, eh?

Maybe because that wouldn't be the right thing to do....but wait, that is plan B justification for invading third world countries: 'Hey, we're bringing peace and democracy to these people' - Ha! hypocrisy of the WORST kind.

Or for that matter China liberating America of ITS WMD, because it would seem in light of recent events that it can't be trusted with world security anymore!

Wake up already.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by shanti23]

According to me, the real intelligence no one from the public, media or Parliament has ever been shown was correct and was stating that Saddam had no WMDs whatsoever. That's why the Coalition troops went to battle with next to nothing in terms of protective and decontamination equipment. I have posted an extensive analysis to substantiate this claim in the thread related to the recent death of Paul Norman, the UK No1 expert in WMD protection. I strongly think he might have died because he was the man who could have voided the conclusions regarding the cleanliness of Tony Blair'ass reached by both the Hutton and Butler enquiries though this is very much contested by other posters in the thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Zcheng the US trying to smuggle nuclear weapons into Iraq man we could have done that if we wanted to but we didn't and you ask us questions about our clams how bout you? And serine was found in artillery shells in Iran it was from the Iran Iraq war but that doesn't matter cuz saddam was supposed to destroy them all but I guess he didn't.

The problem is that It is way more difficult to convince the international community that those smuggled materials are actually made in Iraq, not from US. US tried several times, and disrupted when Iran disclosed the information.

Wow, so many posts in just one night. Don't be so quick to throw my facts aside just because I didn't post a link. Here's the link.

www.foxnews.com...

Now, if you do some searching for yourself and look up all the other chemical weapons we've found, o the math as to how much destruction they could cause if they were all used, then tell me they didn't have WMD's. I forget the numbers exactly...but there is a certain number placed on the amount of destruction that weapons can cause before they are called, "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Oh, and most of the media here is liberal, that's why you never hear anything about it.