Wingman412 Wingman412

Proof of WMDs

Proof of WMDs

Since fuzzyvet fears me enough to block me from his thread, I will have to post the proof that he demands to have and denies exists in this thread.
Fuzzyhead writes:
...there must have been WMD. But there weren't....
Yeah - we have heard this dribble before. OK here we go...

First, I have to ask - Since the whole world recognizes Husseins use of WMD against his own people, are we left to assume that he used every drop of it at hat time and has never produced or secured any more? No one believed that then and no one should believe it now.

Anyway - here are your details:

This page from the CIA detailing

-Key Judgements: Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
-Discussion: Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
-UN Security Council Resolutions and Provisions
for Inspections and Monitoring: Theory and Practice
-Nuclear Weapons Program
-Chemical Warfare Programs
-Biological Warfare Program
-Ballistic Missile Program
-Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Program and Other Aircraft
-Procurement in Support of WMD Programs

Link= Link

This site has pictures of WMD being used in Iraq by Hussein on his own people. It has great text but the pictures make it not for the feint of heart: Link

In Iraq's own report to the UN on their weapons, they admit to having "8,500 liters of anthrax" and a 'growth media he imported to grow more that can produce 25,000 liters' Where is it?

Here is a quote from a real Hussein insider:
In the two decades before the Gulf War, I played a role in Iraq's efforts to acquire major technologies from friendly states. In 1974, I headed an Iraqi delegation to France to purchase a nuclear reactor. It was a 40-megawatt research reactor that our sources in the IAEA told us should cost no more than $50 million. But the French deal ended up costing Baghdad more than $200 million. The French-controlled Habbania Resort project cost Baghdad a whopping $750 million, and with the same huge profit margin. With these kinds of deals coming their way, is it any surprise that the French are so desperate to save Saddam's regime?

Germany was the hub of Iraq's military purchases in the 1980s. Our commercial attaché, Ali Abdul Mutalib, was allocated billions of dollars to spend each year on German military industry imports. These imports included many proscribed technologies with the German government looking the other way. In 1989, German engineer Karl Schaab sold us classified technology to build and operate the centrifuges we needed for our uranium-enrichment program. German authorities have since found Mr. Schaab guilty of selling nuclear secrets, but because the technology was considered "dual use" he was fined only $32,000 and given five years probation.

Meanwhile, other German firms have provided Iraq with the technology it needs to make missile parts. Mr. Blix's recent finding that Iraq is trying to enlarge the diameter of its missiles to a size capable of delivering nuclear weapons would not be feasible without this technology transfer.

Russia has long been a major supplier of conventional armaments to Iraq--yet again at exorbitant prices. Even the Kalashnikov rifles used by the Iraqi forces are sold to Iraq at several times the price of comparable guns sold by other suppliers.

Saddam's policy of squandering Iraq's resources by paying outrageous prices to friendly states seems to be paying off. The irresponsibility and lack of morality these states are displaying in trying to keep the world's worst butcher in power is perhaps indicative of a new world order. It is a world of winks and nods to emerging rogue states--for a price. It remains for the U.S. and its allies to institute an opposing order in which no price is high enough for dictators like Saddam to thrive.

Mr. Hamza, a former director of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, is the co-author of "Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda" (Scribner, 2000).


And some more discoveries by US forces:

Iraqi Nuke Complex
Friday, April 11, 2003

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. Marines may have found weapons-grade plutonium in a massive underground facility discovered beneath Iraq's Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex, Fox News confirmed Friday.

Coalition forces are investigating a stash of radioactive material found at the site south of Baghdad, an embedded reporter, Carl Prine of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, first told Fox News on Thursday.

...

The discovery of the underground labyrinth of labs and warehouses was unexpected, Fox News has confirmed, and forces in the area are testing a variety of things to best determine the significance of the find.

So far, Marine nuclear and intelligence experts have found 14 buildings that have high levels of radiation, Prine reported Thursday.

His report noted that some of the tests have found nuclear residue too deadly for human contact.

The Marine radiation detectors go "off the charts" a few hundred meters outside the nuclear compound, where locals say "missile water" is stored in enormous caverns, reported Prine, who is embedded with the U.S. 1st Marine Division.

"It's amazing," Chief Warrant Officer Darrin Flick, the battalion's nuclear, biological and chemical warfare specialist told the newspaper. "I went to the off-site storage buildings, and the rad detector went off the charts. Then I opened the steel door, and there were all these drums, many, many drums, of highly radioactive material."

Former Iraqi scientist Gazi George told Fox News Friday that the material "definitely" could have been planned for use in nuclear weapons or dirty bombs.

"The high levels of radiation suggest it's a high-level nuclear waste that was stored underground, trying to hide it for the process of repurposing it for the future … or just to make dirty bombs out of the material that's down there," George said.

"If the material has not been disclosed by Iraqis to the United Nations …[then] definitely this material was hidden there to use it as a source for extracting plutonium chemically and using it in dirty bombs.

"Saddam always tried to hide ... uranium or other nuclear fuels so we could use them in the future for weapons of mass destruction."

George said it's important the coalition find Iraqi scientists who know about these weapons so they can hunt down the harmful material and destroy it.

"I think this demonstrates the failure of the U.N. weapons inspections and demonstrates that our guys are going to find the weapons of mass destruction."

This underground discovery could still test to be perfectly legitimate and offer no proof of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The CIA encouraged international inspectors in the fall of 2002 to probe Al Tuwaitha for weapons of mass destruction, and the inspectors came away empty-handed.

"They went through that site multiple times, but did they go underground? I never heard anything about that," physicist David Albright, a former IAEA Action Team inspector in Iraq from 1992 to 1997, told the Tribune-Review.

"The Marines should be particularly careful because of those high readings," he told the paper. "Three hours at levels like that and people begin to vomit. That leads me to wonder, if the readings are accurate, whether radioactive material was deliberately left there to expose people to dangerous levels.

"You couldn't do scientific work in levels like that. You would die."

Capt. John Seegar, a combat engineer commander from Houston, is currently running the operation in Al Tuwaitha. "I've never seen anything like it, ever," he told the Tribune-Review. "How did the world miss all of this? Why couldn't they see what was happening here?"

The Army Times reported that troops from the 326th Engineer Battalion and chemical specialists on Wednesday found steel containers full of $1 million of sophisticated lab equipment near the Karbala Chemical Company.

The equipment included a machine used to analyze chemical compounds and a 750-pound centrifugal pump that was made in Finland, shipped to a Jordan company and ended up in Iraq. One bin was filled with documents on Baath Party letterhead.

Chemical protective mask filters were on the ground and hand grenades and loose ammunition were also in the facility.

The Mobile Exploitation Team -- made up of civilians and military chemical experts -- went to the scene Thursday and closed off the area.

"This is significant," Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Richard Gonzales, head of the team, told the Army Times. "We would not be here if it was inconsequential."

U.N. weapons inspectors spent five hours at an adjacent munitions factory on Feb. 23.

The Karbala Chemical Plant supposedly was bombed during the first Gulf War, but there are signs that an active lab there was recently used.


And here is an article I wish I was elloquent enugh to have written myself :
Proof Positive...
Mark Alexander (archive)

May 21, 2004

As good logicians are wont to note, the existence of a thing is indisputable proof of its possibility. That said, a whole lot of people have a whole lot of 'splaining to do about their categorical claims that deposed Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction and didn't collude with Jihadi terrorists. Not that we expect them to 'fess up for being wrong -- being anti-American means never having to say you're sorry.

For, lo, we now have demonstrable evidence of Jihadi terrorists and WMD in Iraq. We now have confirmation of the very confluence that President Bush cited a half year before hostilities commenced as the "gravest danger in the war on terror" -- which formed the rationale for taking the war with Jihadistan into Iraq. A 155-millimeter howitzer shell, part of an improvised explosive device, exploded Saturday in Iraq. The IED contained 3 to 4 liters of sarin gas, a deadly nerve agent; two U.S. soldiers were exposed while attempting to disarm the bomb and were treated. An IED discovered a couple of weeks ago was confirmed to contain mustard gas. A "perfume factory" also recently exploded, apparently rigged to self-destruct around unauthorized entrants. Other "dual use" chemicals have been uncovered suspiciously near military facilities -- calling into serious question whether these were dedicated to peaceful civilian purposes only.

Of course, these small quantities of WMD constitute only what Saddam's minions failed to hide or export to Syria prior to the Allied invasion. In October 2002, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi WMD estimated that Saddam had from 100 to 500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents.

Our staff analysts remain convinced that unknown quantities of chemical and biological WMD, and components of Saddam's nuclear WMD, were spirited out of Iraq well in advance of the anticipated Allied invasion. This belief is consistent with our analysis in October of 2002 that the UN Security Council's foot-dragging provided a large window for Saddam to export some of his biological and nuclear WMD. At that time, this column reported that it would be unlikely Allied Forces would discover Iraq's WMD stores in Iraq, noting, "There are substantial intelligence estimates that Iraq shipped some or all of its biological stockpiles and nuclear WMD components through Syria to Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley."

Indeed, as reported here three weeks ago, some of the chemical WMD discovered during the thwarting of a planned al-Qa'ida attack in Jordan appear to have come from Syria. But given that Syria does not possess the technology to produce such chemicals, one can reasonably conclude (unless you are the Demo-nominee for president) that this cache was compliments of Iraq, by way of Syria.

So, that mindless Left-mantra, "Saddam didn't have WMD," has, again, been thoroughly discredited. More to the point, though, if these WMD escaped detection and were used against coalition troops, isn't it very likely there are more?

And last week the world witnessed a masked man, self-identified in a videotape and now confirmed to be al-Qa'ida terror chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, butchering an American citizen (see the article "Scripting the execution of Nicholas Berg"). This Jihadi leader -- in Iraq -- intended the propaganda snuff film to rally potential allies to jihad, to cow Iraqi fence-sitters into deeper neutrality, and to demoralize those opposing Jihadi objectives. Like the WMD discovered this week, al-Zarqawi was in Iraq long before coalition forces launched Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In his State of the Union Address on September 28, 2003, the President identified "the gravest danger facing America and the world" as "outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons" and "could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation."

President Bush made the case: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. ... Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and abets terrorists, including members of al-Qa'ida. Secretly, without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

And as for another Left-chant, "The threat wasn't imminent," the President explicitly argued that intelligence couldn't guarantee such finely calibrated assessments: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

This week Lt. Gen. Patrick Hughes (Ret.), now with the Department of Homeland Security, offered the analysis that the Jihadis would prefer to attack here within the U.S. using chemical or biological weapons, or possibly a "dirty bomb" laced with nuclear contaminants. He specifically mentioned anthrax, as it was successfully used just after the 9/11 assaults, and ricin, planned for use by terror suspects picked up in other locales.

As far as apologies owed, you may recall the screed mere days ago of Los Angeles Times Editor John Carroll, who disdainfully dismissed non-Leftmedia types as "pseudo-journalists." Carroll stated, "You may be familiar with a study published last October on the public misconceptions about the war in Iraq. One of those misconceptions was that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction had been found. Another was that links had been proven between Iraq and al-Qa'ida."

For Mr. Carroll's edification: When WMD explode, they most definitely become found. And when al-Qa'ida videotape themselves in Iraq claiming to be at the essential battleground, they most definitely prove a link.




3 great quotes on the topic - I stumbled accross them and wanted to share:

"You would have thought that the discovery of an actual weapon of mass destruction in Iraq would be big news, especially since it was aimed at American soldiers. But apparently not in the eyes of most U.S. newspaper editors and network television producers, who chose largely to ignore one of the major stories coming out of Iraq this week."
--Linda Chavez

On cross-examination...

"In discrediting the war, the Democrats have pushed the idea that neither dangerous weapons nor terrorist networks existed in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. How do they explain that terrorists Hussein harbored are beheading American civilians and trying to kill American soldiers with poisons he spread?"
--George Neumayr


Open query...

"But I do wonder, did they [conservatives now going weak in the knees over Iraq] ever really think America could transform the Middle East with fewer than 750 American deaths? Did they really think the elites in the chattering classes would sit back passively and be proven wrong again by George Bush, just like they were proven wrong by Ronald Reagan in the Cold War? And did they really think America could bring freedom to the most tyrannical country in the world on the cheap? I hope not, because this war is not about saving American lives or Iraqi lives overseas. This war on terrorism is about saving American lives at home in this war on terror. We've got to win this war, liberate Iraq from terror, and make the Middle East and the world unsafe for terrorists wherever they may roam."
--Joe Scarborough



And if you prefer ultra liberal - here is one from NPR Link

Yes, some of this stuff makes the news. But many will not believe because they....rather, WE are bombarded with thos quote: There are no WMDs in Iraq.
The reason is because they say so. As has been proven in the past, if you just say the same lie over and over and get enough people doing it, then it becomes the truth. Not that it matters to so many who just want something to hang thier hats on. Just one point that they can cling to and not let go of. It is a kind of denial.

Look at the pictures. There is your proof.

Oh there is no doubt that people will try to turn this all around on me, try to poke holes in one or 2 points, call me names... yeah - I expect it.
If you are in doubt just check the pictures and ask yourself: After gassing all these people and putting thousands into mass graves with them, did Hussein just make the WMDs and corresponding manufacturing programs for WMDs just vannish from existence?

A bit on mass graves, "Over 250 sites have been reported, of which approximately 40 have been confirmed to date. Over one million Iraqis are believed to be missing in Iraq as a result of executions, wars and defections, of whom hundreds of thousands are thought to be in mass graves." from The Coalition Provisional Authority and the interim Iraqi Human Rights Ministry.

There are multiple types of physical evidence cited above as well as common sense and relevant testimonials. Yes one person can say, "There are none because I have not seen them." OK but that does not mean they are not there. They are there and we find more all the time.

Oh and by the way, don't look for a Bin Laden capture for your October Surprise - it will be more WMD stockpiles. I'd bet money on it.
Republicans are good at letting their opponents dig themselves a deep hole and wed themselves to an idea right before the rug is pulled out from under them. The clamour, "No WMDs" will be met with a bunch of video footage showing WMDs. There is already enough film out there to put together a nice Moore-esque montage but I think it will come in the form of new discoveries. This issue will be hit hard and fast just a few weeks before election day.
19,839 views 47 replies
Reply #26 Top
Reply #23 By: Solitair - 9/25/2004 4:38:05 AM
Wingman412,
your link to the new UN material is indeed interesting. Having had a good read of all the material I'd say that what has been found however cannot be justified as current WMDs. The rocket engines could be from any stage pre war, and the tagged for disposal goods could easily have been smuggled out or even sent out as disposal. IT's also possible that they were tagged before invasion and had not yet been disposed. There is no also no suggestion that the containers actualyl contained WMD and the inspectors are very good at detecting traces of this stuff. No, it looks like this was just an example of Iraqis making money by selling useless metal to scrap yards.


This of course is just your *opinion*!
Reply #27 Top
I will have to agree with drmiler regarding solitair's post. He uses a lot of could be's and possiblies. Far too much benefit of the doubt when discussing a country that DEFINATELY has had and used WMDs in recent history and continously to attacks other nations including UN peacekeeping troops. Who were set in pace following the Quwait war so that Hussein could not continue to inflict damage on his own populace.
But I digress. I think Soltair should take his own lesson to heart:
one building being beside another is not proof of collusion


17 UN resolutions made it very clear: Let the inspectors confirm what you have reported. They could not do that because the reports were full of lies. So there is the breach.

But here are some good quotes from our friends on the left - back when they were singing a different tune (of course now they sing any tune that paints W in a bad light but that is another story) Enjoy!

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

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."[B] -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

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

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

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."
-- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton 1998

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

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." [/I]-- Dick Gephardt September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

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

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is (sic) neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."
-- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

*Oh & I got some more clear cut, well documented proof of collusion between Bin Laden and Hussein if anyone wants to see, I will find it again.*
Reply #28 Top
The word PROOF is being used. Not strong suggestions.

Couchman, as you admit chem suits and vials are not WMD. Therefore not proof. Suspicious? Yes. Proof? No. As for the shell, is it a WMD? Yes. Is it proof that Iraq had WMD in 2003? No. It's a single shell. There are so many possibilies as to why it was not destroyed. All the evidence points to a stolen or lost shell kept as a souvenier. Further evidence is required.

Yes there are lots of suspicious remains, but none of it is proof. The US own survey team is admitting this. They had access to everything in Iraq and were under huge pressure to find proof. Do you really believe that 1400 of them could not find proof that WMD existed in 2003, but someone here can point at a news stroy and say look there's proof? Yes Saddam once had WMD, but in 2003? The answer is now a proven NO. The authorities got it wrong in 2002/2003. WMD no longer existed at that point and Saddam did tell the truth (for once). Lets move on and stop making conspiracy theories about where Saddam hid them or who he gave them to.

Paul.
Reply #29 Top
Saddam did tell the truth


I'm surprised you haven't bought that bridge yet...

conspiracy theories about where Saddam hid them or who he gave them to.


I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory simply because that info comes straight from he UN.

Taken it total, a preponderance of evidence IS considered proof in a court of law. Here is another analogy that maybe you can relate to. If you are on probation and the officer comes to your house and finds a bullet. ONE measly bullet. no gun, nothing else. There is absolutely zero defense for you. zero. You go to jail on a probation violation because you are not allowed to live in a house with a firearm present. One bullet does not a firearm make, yet courts have decided that is enough evidence.

So when we have a half dozen Iraqi scientists and the facilities they refer to as WMD manufacturing ares check out, and when we find traces of chemical weapons in the Euphrates river and a gigantic shell that was listed as destroyed in Husseins' report to the UN - yet here it is filled with chemical weapons, and a pile of other little facts, that is proof. period.

Hussein does NOT tell the truth. Just because a person does not like Bush does NOT mean that everything they say is true. "Hussein was being honest"... puh leaze!
Reply #30 Top

Reply #28 By: Solitair - 9/26/2004 5:38:30 AM
The word PROOF is being used. Not strong suggestions.

Couchman, as you admit chem suits and vials are not WMD. Therefore not proof. Suspicious? Yes. Proof? No. As for the shell, is it a WMD? Yes. Is it proof that Iraq had WMD in 2003? No. It's a single shell. There are so many possibilies as to why it was not destroyed. All the evidence points to a stolen or lost shell kept as a souvenier. Further evidence is required.


You keep dancing around but never addressing the fact that the shell in question was reported destroyed by the Iraqi government. Yet it was found as part of an IED
Reply #31 Top
If you do not get fox news or internet news you have and will continue to miss any evidence supporting the war or Bush so: No, no aluminum hat needed, just more news sources.


I won't question these sources. I will simply say that it's the President's rhetoric I am listening for. He was the one (with Cheney and Powell) who made it unequivocably clear that there were weapons, they posed an immediate threat to our safety, and we should immediately invade Iraq (with or without UN support) to quell this immediate danger. We all heard it; it was loud and clear. I would think that when these stockpiles of weapons (and not the errant one that got away -- we would be illadvised to claim we know where all of our nuclear fuel rods are at this point, so one or two suspect WMD in Iraq at this point does not a stockpile make) are discovered, the Bush administration will waste no time in making sure that the news gets out on all available channels.

I will not bet wheat I cannot deliver so until I learn how to put a picture online, I cannot take the bet. But you will have my verbal retractions and appologies if even more than is already out there does not surface.


I guess this will have to do, but it lacks whimsy and sufficient consequence. I suspect, rather, a transformation to more "wait and see" grumbling if such evidence doesn't appear before the election. I'll be watching the news and thinking of you...



Reply #32 Top
Yes but I will be watching different news . I do not know what makes you think that you will get "wait and see" from me. I have provided enough evidence of crimes for any rational mind. All I have said was, "Even more will come forth within the next 6 weeks" specifically, NEW evidence and MORE proof of WMDs and I stand by that statement.
Why do you doubt me? Perhaps it is what psychologists call Transference? Which would mean: That is what you would do so you transfer that notion onto me. I suspect that no amount of photos or smoking guns or testimonials or articles or anything will ever convince you of WMDs - you have already taken evidence and said - nope! That doesn't count. So when more comes, will you not do the same?

I am glad you are not a detective. The anaolgy would be:
Suspect A has committed murder on video in the past.
Suspect A is on parole now and the rules of parole are that he cannot possess a weapon.
So when the suspect is found with a few bullets in his car.
Would your logic not resolve that, "These bullets alone do constitute a violation?"
Just how much crime, how many rules violations, or agreement breakings, does one have to perpetrate before your logic finds them culpable and answerable for said crimes?

I am sure that all those guys who are perpetrating terror in Iraq today to try and dissuade elections would agree with you. We should have left Saddam alone. He was honest and innocent. Hate America First! Darn Republicans! How dare they follow through on the threats they make? How DARE they impose Democracy on a peacefull Dictatorship? How dare they return Iraq's resources and foreign aid to its people and remove the private control of the Hussein family? Damn them all! Infidells!!
Reply #33 Top
drmiler,
I'm not trying to dance around the truth here. Iraq produced thousands of these 155mm chemical shells. A single one of these was used as a roadside bomb by people with no concept of what it was. Yes Saddam decalared all these shells destroyed before the 1991 war, but just because one was found does not mean it was purposely hidden from inspectors. As stated it could just as easily have been stolen, misfired, or not exploded, any of which explanations would mean Saddam thought it was destroyed. All the experts hired by the US to locate WMD refuse to accept this as WMD proof, do you believe you know better than them?

Wingman412,
not sure what has happened in the land of the free but over here in the UK I'd be innoncent till proven guilty. As said in my paragraph above, all the experts paid by the Us to discover WMD now state that they didn't exist in 2003. Do you not think they are away of all the 'evidence'? of course they are but they know far more than we do and have first hand examined everything. They still say no WMD existed in 2003. How can you possibly claim to know better? What extra source of information do you have that the inspectors did not have access to?

Paul.
Reply #34 Top
Face it, some people will not accept any sort of Proof unless it is on their doorstep literally.

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT
Reply #35 Top
some people will not accept any sort of Proof


What about Tony Blair. To quote from Yesterday's party conference speech (his equilivant to the state of the union address) ,

"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong.
I acknowledge that and accept it."

Now with Tony Blair accepting that Saddam did not have WMD, maybe some people on JoeUser will accept that? Maybe, just maybe, the prime minister of the UK has access to more information than us and his acceptance that there were no WMD (despite the political fallout this will cause) indicates that there were indeed no WMD?

So please feel free to accuse Tony of not accepting any Proof, but maybe you should listen to him?

Paul.

some people will not accept any sort of Proof


Reply #36 Top
Apparently you can read what Mr. Blair said:

"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong.
I acknowledge that and accept it."


Sounds to me like more support for their argument if Saddam had the capabilities in places to develop them, who knows what could be hidden in the middle of a desert in Iraq, only one man, Saddam, knows all about his programs. Do you think he will be a polite chap and tell us about it?

Face it, some people will not accept any sort of Proof unless it is on their doorstep literally.


Next time use the whole sentence.

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT
Reply #37 Top
Hmm. Yes, but the problem is that the evidence that was stressed as justification for invading Iraq as quickly as possible (in early 2003) was that the weapons were there, ready for deployment., posing an immediate threat to the US and world stability. That, to my way of thinking (and I don't think I am exactly alone on this), is an important distinction.

No, Wingman, you need not make some convoluted (and, again, speculative) argument based on transference. No psycho-babble necessary. It's simply this: You continue to speculate (albeit with supreme confidence) that video evidence of current (i.e. those around in 2002/3) Iraqi/Hussein stockpiles of WMD will become a major part of the election in the next few weeks. The much anticipated "October Suprise" that rolls around every election cycle, I suppose. You may be right. I take a risk in taking this bet with you. But I am fairly confident (and Blair's admission only emboldens my confidence) that you are wrong. And I am willing to place a small portion of my dignity on the line to stand behind my own confidence -- whether that be in the form of a whimsically embarassing photo or an outright apology and retraction.

You say the evidence is coming. I dunno, maybe you are an insider with the GOP. Foolish me, if that is the case. But I am betting it is more likely that you are consumed with a wish fulfillment psychosis (oops...dang! I said no psycho-babble!). So...not Fox, not CNN, not NPR, not WSJ, not internet blog du jour...just this: before the Nov. 2 election the GOP/Bush Campaign either will or will not produce video evidence with the claim "We said Hussein had stockpiles of WMD, we've found them in Iraq, here's the video." That simple.

Now we can both grumble, "wait and see."
Reply #38 Top
posing an immediate threat to the US and world stability


Please post where Bush ever said "immediate" please. I know he siad a few other things but never "immediate".

But I could be wrong too. I'm just interested where this phrase came from.
Reply #39 Top
Grim Xiozan,
how much can you twist this. No WMD means no WMD. Capability, desire, future aims are irrelevant to actual WMD existing in 2003. There is no proof of WMD as stated by Tony Blair, and this thread is about proof of WMD.

Paul.
Reply #40 Top
Grim Xiozan,
how much can you twist this. No WMD means no WMD. Capability, desire, future aims are irrelevant to actual WMD existing in 2003. There is no proof of WMD as stated by Tony Blair, and this thread is about proof of WMD.


Sounds to me like more support for their argument if Saddam had the capabilities in places to develop them, who knows what could be hidden in the middle of a desert in Iraq, only one man, Saddam, knows all about his programs.


- GX
Reply #41 Top
Oh and by the way, don't look for a Bin Laden capture for your October Surprise - it will be more WMD stockpiles. I'd bet money on it.
Republicans are good at letting their opponents dig themselves a deep hole and wed themselves to an idea right before the rug is pulled out from under them.


Despite all the evidence you present, recent developments suggest this isn't going to happen. How do you want to spin this? Is there time for you to modify this claim, time to hold out for the evidence that seems unlikely at this point, or is it time to start wording your retraction? After all....

...you will have my verbal retractions and appologies if even more than is already out there does not surface. Not that what's there already is not sufficient - because it is, I am just betting that there will be more.


Reply #42 Top
Please post where Bush ever said "immediate" please. I know he siad a few other things but never "immediate".

But I could be wrong too. I'm just interested where this phrase came from.


Lee..Bush never said it..what was said is that we must act before Iraq becomes an Immenant threat...the left like to do bit of a play on words here saying the word Immenant was used by Bush..well true in the respect of the whole speech
Reply #43 Top
Please post where Bush ever said "immediate" please. I know he siad a few other things but never "immediate".


No, he never said this word (that I can find) in relation to the threat. I also never said that he said this word (hence the absence of quotation marks), but he did say words to that effect. For example:

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)


A reasonable claim, if what "we know" was actually true. But the claim, taken as a whole, does more than suggest that the Bush administration perceived this as an "urgent" threat. Play semantic games about the context of "urgent" or "immanent" if you like. The threat was immediate enough that it apparently warranted forestalling diplomacy, further security council debates, and inpections underway for an all out invasion.



Reply #44 Top
Let me get this straight, just so that I understand. Because it is important.

Iraq had WMD
Iraq had a lage modern Air Force

Iraq used WMD against civilians
Iraq used his Air Force against Iran
Iraq fought a war with Iran for over 8 years

Iraq invaded Kuwait
U.S. went to war with Iraq
Iraq's Air Force flew to Iran
The same country they just fought an 8 year war with? (Must of been a war of good buddies)

The U.N placed sanctions on Iraq to pressure Iraq to get rid of WMD
After 12 years, Iraq will not prove that they do not have any WMD.
The U.S. wants to go to war with Iraq for one reason because they have WMD

The U.S. did not find any WMD in Iraq

am I surprised?


Reply #45 Top
To further Bungy's point:

1) THE DIRECTOR of the CIA, George Tenet, contradicted yesterday claims made, or implied, by the Bush administration that Iraq had posed an imminent danger to the West before the United States-led invasion last March.
Intelligence reports had "never said there was an imminent threat", he said (2/6/2004, The Independent (UK))

2) When Fleischer was asked "Didn't we go to war because we said WMD were a direct and imminent threat to the US?" He replied: "Absolutely." (same article)

3) In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said, "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction." (1/28/04, Houston Chronicle)

4) "The Iraq Survey Group will continue to gather the facts. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat to America and others. That's what we know." (same article)

An interesting article on the evolution of the administration's rhetoric on WMD in Iraq can be found at salon.com "The hyping of Saddam's WMD." It takes you from "They have chemical weapons and biological weapons," by Rumsfeld in June 2002 to Cheney telling Tim Russert that Saddam "has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons," three days before the war with Iraq started. The article also shows along the way points where the administration hedges when asked directly if the information they are using is credible or current. For example, regarding nuclear weapons, he [Rumsfeld] said, "We do not have evidence that they have nuclear weapons," though the United States did have "evidence that they have had a nuclear program that was robust and that they were very skilled in denial and deception."
Reply #46 Top

Reply #2 By: Solitair - 9/23/2004 7:54:06 AM
I'm afraid I must agree with the previous poster.

No one disagrees that Saddam had WMD. The important question is did he have them in October 2002 when article 1441 was enacted? The documents he gave the the UN said no. Was this a lie?

To date I have seen NO proof that this was a lie.


Solitair have you *read* UN Resolution 1441? I don't think you have so I'll post what pertinent:

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional,
and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special
Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons
inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all
cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international
monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated
demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the
United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC),
established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM,
and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region
and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its
commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to
resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide
access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance
in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to
return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully
detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,


So even the UN was saying Saddam was not in compliance with previous resolutions.
Reply #47 Top
Yes I have read resolution 1441. You have just amazingly quoted the intro NOT the resolution. Have a look at normal UN resolutions and you'll see that most resolutions set a background at the very start. This is what you have quoted.

There is NO doubt that Saddam once had these weapons and has used them. There is no doubt that he was not in compliance with previous resolutions. Both p;oints which I have personally stated again and again. Resolution 1441 went on (do read the rest of it) to give Saddam one final chance to reveal these weapons (provide a detailed report with no omissions) and allow immediate return of inspectors to ALL (includeing presidential palaces) sites. He took this last chance and no WMD were found. So Saddam did comply with resolution 1441. The US and UK invaded anyway.

What do you believe this has to do with the assertation that Saddam had NO WMD in 2003?

Let me reiterate what the Iraq survey group has said "Saddam had NO WMD in March 2003".

Paul.