Iraq War Data was Weak - Intelligence Committee

[sacX]

WashingtonPost

surprise surprise but this is what a lot of folk seem to have been waiting for.. Obviously this isn't the full report but some nice keywords from the letter

"circumstantial", "fragmentary" ,"too many uncertainties"

General tone sounds fairly critical.

[uranidiot]

Originally posted by sacX
WashingtonPost

surprise surprise but this is what a lot of folk seem to have been waiting for.. Obviously this isn't the full report but some nice keywords from the letter

"circumstantial", "fragmentary" ,"too many uncertainties"

General tone sounds fairly critical.

Don't waste your time trying to educate those who spend their lives in denial.

[Paul Markham]

I said it before here and will say it again.

The generals knew they were not facing WMD, the troops were moving so fast the supply lines could not keep up. Not a good tactic if you are facing an enemy with WMD that can be launched in a few hours.

The tanks and guns they were facing were unusable, covered in sand and mostly deserted. The troops were no where to be seen. This was reported by the special forces inside the country long before the war.

Take out Iraq and tell us what Bush has achieved in the last two years.

[Carlos]

Originally posted by charly
Take out Iraq and tell us what Bush has achieved in the last two years.

The few good things or the many bad things ?

[uranidiot]

Originally posted by charly
I said it before here and will say it again.

The generals knew they were not facing WMD, the troops were moving so fast the supply lines could not keep up. Not a good tactic if you are facing an enemy with WMD that can be launched in a few hours.

The tanks and guns they were facing were unusable, covered in sand and mostly deserted. The troops were no where to be seen. This was reported by the special forces inside the country long before the war.

Take out Iraq and tell us what Bush has achieved in the last two years.

I still can't get over my discussion with 12clicks last night.

He actually admitted that he believes everything Bush says.

The political naivity, ideological blindness, and docile nature (towards government) of much of the US population just boggles the mind.

Well, I guess they get everything they deserve.

I guess 12clicks agrees with Bush being anti-porn too.

[rooster]

now we got military experts on gfy too.

The word put out by sadaams generals was that chemicals would be used when troops entered a certain line on the outskirts of baghdad. And that was where all their toughest best trained soldiers were. Thats why it was easy to advance so quick.



I like how this little number was swept under the gfy rug http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13919

[uranidiot]

Originally posted by rooster
now we got military experts on gfy too.

Probably not. But there's a few pragmatists.

The word put out by sadaams generals was that chemicals would be used when troops entered a certain line on the outskirts of baghdad.

How do you know this, or are you basing this on hearsay?

I like how this little number was swept under the gfy rug http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13919

So you really care for the iraqi people do you?

That's fine, you'll be paying for the development of their country for years to come.

You can feel proud.

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by rooster


The word put out by sadaams generals was that chemicals would be used when troops entered a certain line on the outskirts of baghdad. And that was where all their toughest best trained soldiers were. Thats why it was easy to advance so quick.



I like how this little number was swept under the gfy rug http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13919

The word was put out by the US. Gets ratings....

[Stud Money]

The words Intelligence and Government being used in the same document should be illegal IMHO

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by rooster
now we got military experts on gfy too.

The word put out by sadaams generals was that chemicals would be used when troops entered a certain line on the outskirts of baghdad. And that was where all their toughest best trained soldiers were. Thats why it was easy to advance so quick.



I like how this little number was swept under the gfy rug http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13919

The military expert I was quoting was in Iraq three weeks before the invasion, he's in Special Forces.

They were relaying back what was there to face the troops.

Or would you rather believe Bush, that Iraq had to be invaded because it posed a threat to the US?

Saddam's nearest neighbors are Iran, he DID kill millions of Iranians with WMDs. How long do you think the Iranians would have sat at the border if Hans Blix had come back and said absolutely nothing here to worry about and Bush had agreed. 20 or 30 minutes?

Saddam was pulling a confidence trick, he had had his country starved of funds and supplies for years and a formidable foe sitting on his borders.

Simple isn't it?

[Rochard]

I'm a little bit confused as to why we are questioning our reasons for going into Iraq. After the Gulf war, the terms of surrender were pretty clear. The UN asked us to enforce the terms of this surrender, which we did.

And when we did Iraq fired on our airplanes. That's pretty much a fucking act of war. The first time Iraq fired on our planes we should have carpet bombed Bagdad.

Maybe if the fucking French was patrolling the no fly zone mandated by the UN and the terms of surrender, maybe they would feel differently. Maybe if French jets were getting fired at every other day the French would agree with us.

We did nearly what - eight years of putting up with him violating the terms of the surrender? That's enough of a reason already.

[uranidiot]

Originally posted by RocHard
I'm a little bit confused as to why we are questioning our reasons for going into Iraq. After the Gulf war, the terms of surrender were pretty clear. The UN asked us to enforce the terms of this surrender, which we did.

And when we did Iraq fired on our airplanes. That's pretty much a fucking act of war. The first time Iraq fired on our planes we should have carpet bombed Bagdad.

Maybe if the fucking French was patrolling the no fly zone mandated by the UN and the terms of surrender, maybe they would feel differently. Maybe if French jets were getting fired at every other day the French would agree with us.

We did nearly what - eight years of putting up with him violating the terms of the surrender? That's enough of a reason already.

How's life as an American cliche?

[12clicks]

Originally posted by RocHard
I'm a little bit confused as to why we are questioning our reasons for going into Iraq. After the Gulf war, the terms of surrender were pretty clear. The UN asked us to enforce the terms of this surrender, which we did.

And when we did Iraq fired on our airplanes. That's pretty much a fucking act of war. The first time Iraq fired on our planes we should have carpet bombed Bagdad.

Maybe if the fucking French was patrolling the no fly zone mandated by the UN and the terms of surrender, maybe they would feel differently. Maybe if French jets were getting fired at every other day the French would agree with us.

We did nearly what - eight years of putting up with him violating the terms of the surrender? That's enough of a reason already.

Why?
how else can you get weakling into the whitehouse without constantly attacking the guy who's there?

This is what idiots call a strong argument that we had weak intel:
"The absence of proof that chemical and biological weapons and their related development programs had been destroyed was considered proof that they continued to exist,"

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by 12clicks


Why?
how else can you get weakling into the whitehouse without constantly attacking the guy who's there?

This is what idiots call a strong argument that we had weak intel:
"The absence of proof that chemical and biological weapons and their related development programs had been destroyed was considered proof that they continued to exist,"

That seems a strong enough argument to me.

When you enter the world of politics and diplomacy you have to consider the different aspects.

Yes Saddam did fire on US, and UK planes I believe, but did he hit one, did he have the capabilities of hitting one?

Did the US retaliate and take out the tracking radar batteries and the missile sites?

The decision to go to war has to be a little more than "We think he might have WMDs and he might be able to deliver them and he might actually do it.

If Bush did know what he was really facing then he is a war criminal, if he did not then he's misguided.

Because thousands of innocent people died in that war and it does not wash to say it was Saddams fault. He was playing a game to stay in power and the sensible call would have been to walk out and said that he had zero WMDs, little equipment and a pretty useless army. It would have been the truth and the Iranians would have invaded and removed him.

But then the question is "Was it done to prevent the Iranians from having the oil?" Which then leads to "What right does a superpower have to dictate events on the other side of the world?"

Was the oil in the world market place? No
Would the Iranians be accepted as sellers of the oil after an invasion? Probably.
Would sanctions of been lifted if the Iranians kicked out Saddam? Very likely.

The Whitehouse does not like the Iranians. Would Iran be pro Western and less fundamentalist if they were receiving billions of dollars a day? Happens elsewhere, the guys filling their pockets with cash, usually eliminates the opposition.

[RedBumper]

Originally posted by charly

Take out Iraq and tell us what Bush has achieved in the last two years.

Alot of nosehair?

[12clicks]

Originally posted by charly
That seems a strong enough argument to me.

of course it does libby.

Originally posted by charly
When you enter the world of politics and diplomacy you have to consider the different aspects.

no shit? you should write a book about politics and diplomacy with all that knowledge!

Originally posted by charly
Yes Saddam did fire on US, and UK planes I believe, but did he hit one, did he have the capabilities of hitting one?

You mean the saddam who lost the gulf war and agreed to certain conditions for us to not completely take over his country? you mean that guy? because from your tone, it would seem you were talking about the leader of some other harmless country who did NOT attack kuwait.

Originally posted by charly
Did the US retaliate and take out the tracking radar batteries and the missile sites?

yes, but I suppose in the liberal mind, that's wrong too.

Originally posted by charly
The decision to go to war has to be a little more than "We think he might have WMDs and he might be able to deliver them and he might actually do it.

odd that you would object to this. This is the exact mandate the American people gave him after 9/11

Originally posted by charly
If Bush did know what he was really facing then he is a war criminal, if he did not then he's misguided.

all because a porn peddler like yourself says so. ok.
oh, are you Belgian?

Originally posted by charly
Because thousands of innocent people died in that war and it does not wash to say it was Saddams fault. He was playing a game to stay in power and the sensible call would have been to walk out and said that he had zero WMDs, little equipment and a pretty useless army. It would have been the truth and the Iranians would have invaded and removed him.

Really? with US forces in Iraq?
perhaps you shouldn't write that book about politics and diplomacy after all.

Originally posted by charly
But then the question is "Was it done to prevent the Iranians from having the oil?"

well, I guess if you're going to invent a scenario that would never happen, you can invent a question to go wih it.

Originally posted by charly
Which then leads to "What right does a superpower have to dictate events on the other side of the world?"

is that where it leads?
Look, I'm sure being a pacifist weakling all of your life has taught you to fear strength. Perhaps you should move to france.

Originally posted by charly
Was the oil in the world market place? No
Would the Iranians be accepted as sellers of the oil after an invasion? Probably.
Would sanctions of been lifted if the Iranians kicked out Saddam? Very likely.

chuckle head, how many questions are you going to ask about an iranian invasion that would never happen? 5? 10? it's this the leftist way of convincing people that the US was wrong?

Originally posted by charly
The Whitehouse does not like the Iranians.

Niether do Americans. what country are you from?

Originally posted by charly

Would Iran be pro Western and less fundamentalist if they were receiving billions of dollars a day?

of course not.

Originally posted by charly
Happens elsewhere, the guys filling their pockets with cash, usually eliminates the opposition.

Does it really? please point out where muslim fundamentalists have become pro Western because they ran into some money.

If this is the fantasy land you live in, no wonder you make such non-sensical posts.

[directfiesta]

Weak??? LOL...

Iraqi defectors' weapons claims were 'false'

Julian Borger, Washington
Tuesday September 30, 2003
The Guardian

US military intelligence has concluded that almost all the claims made by Iraqi defectors about Saddam Hussein's alleged secret weapons were either useless or false, it was reported yesterday.
The assessment by the Pentagon defence intelligence agency (DIA), leaked to US journalists, amounts to an indictment of the Iraqi National Congress, which brought the defectors to Washington's attention, adding to the momentum towards invasion.

Useless or false, not weak....

PS:" is that the " darn good intelligence" that GW Bush was referring to, or they I not understand him right. He was not referring to his own I hope....

The DIA report strikes at the heart of administration's justification for going to war: that the Iraqi regime represented an imminent danger to the US because of its development of weapons of mass destruction.

"imminent ".... even 45 minutes.... 1600 US inspectors under CIA's Kay and still not a single crack bottle filled with anthrax, as exhibited by Powell at the UN... remember... scarry... let's go to war....

Much of the US and British case against Saddam was built on the testimony of defectors, and in Washingtonat least, most of those defectors were shepherded out of Iraq by the INC.
....
The INC defectors were largely spurned by the CIA and state department, who believed they were concocting stories in the hope of being resettled in the US.

Don't need much "intelligence" to figure that out: you have been fed what you wanted to hear and what your president wanted to scare you with, with the excuse " According to..., according to ... "

But they won an enthusiastic audience in the Pentagon's office of special plans (OSP), set up after September 11, which became a parallel civilian channel for intelligence on Iraq, operating independently of the uniformed officers running the DIA.

According to yesterday's edition of Time magazine, the INC's American representative in Washington, Francis Brooke, was in weekly contact with the head of the OSP, William Luti, in the build-up to the war.

Neither Mr Brooke nor the INC office in Washington returned calls yesterday.

The OSP has been disbanded since the war, but its staff remains at work under different titles in the Pentagon.

So was Dick Cheney .... You have been " OWNED" as you happily say so often...

And now you are and will be paying for it...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...052334,00.html

[rooster]

direct, heres a question. did you dislike ronald reagan

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by rooster
direct, heres a question. did you dislike ronald reagan

A simple NO.

But what has this to do with my above post???
Does it make the claims " true" ....

[Rich]

hahahaha, did 12clicks really say he believes everything Bush says? That's priceless. I've heard about the ignorant Americans who believe everything they see on TV, but I don't think I've had the opportunity to talk to one. This could be fun. What about Saddam Ron, do you think he was the mastermind behind 9/11?

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and stop watching Fox news for ten minutes before you try to have a conversation with grown ups. A pornographer supporting Ashhahahahaha is about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

[jayeff]

Originally posted by uranidiot
I still can't get over my discussion with 12clicks last night.

He actually admitted that he believes everything Bush says.

The political naivity, ideological blindness, and docile nature (towards government) of much of the US population just boggles the mind.

Well, I guess they get everything they deserve.

What choice does he have? At least on this board he has chosen to play the loud-mouthed red neck, someone for whom insults have taken the place of debate.

I have no idea whether that is his real personality or if he is just playing a role which he figures makes him a bigger draw here. Pretty sad either way.

Unfortunately, at least when it comes to wars, the people banging the drums the loudest are rarely the ones who have to suffer the consequences.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by Rich
hahahaha, did 12clicks really say he believes everything Bush says? That's priceless. I've heard about the ignorant Americans who believe everything they see on TV, but I don't think I've had the opportunity to talk to one. This could be fun. What about Saddam Ron, do you think he was the mastermind behind 9/11?

oh look, another idiot joins the argument.

please post a link where GW is quoted as saying saddam was the mastermind of 9/11 or go back into your hole.

I'll wait while you look.

[uno]

Originally posted by 12clicks

oh look, another idiot joins the argument.

please post a link where GW is quoted as saying saddam was the mastermind of 9/11 or go back into your hole.

I'll wait while you look.

That's the beauty of that and the linguistics the admin has used. They never directly say anything. Instead, everything is insinuation and implication.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by jayeff



What choice does he have? At least on this board he has chosen to play the loud-mouthed red neck, someone for whom insults have taken the place of debate.

really? any time you want to debate facts let me know, I'll happily wear you out.

Originally posted by jayeff
I have no idea whether that is his real personality or if he is just playing a role which he figures makes him a bigger draw here. Pretty sad either way.

Yes, I'm sad. what is it you do again?

Originally posted by jayeff

Unfortunately, at least when it comes to wars, the people banging the drums the loudest are rarely the ones who have to suffer the consequences.

No, when it comes to war, leftists can't be counted on to do the right thing even if its over national security.

post some facts kid. I'll wear you out.

[uranidiot]

Originally posted by 12clicks

oh look, another idiot joins the argument.

Yup, you're always around.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by uno
That's the beauty of that and the linguistics the admin has used. They never directly say anything. Instead, everything is insinuation and implication.

wrong. He said exactly what he meant. insinuation and implication is the liberal way.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by uranidiot


Yup, you're always around.

find any facts yet?


didn't think so.

[uranidiot]

Originally posted by 12clicks

wrong. He said exactly what he meant. insinuation and implication is the liberal way.

That's priceless.

[uno]

Originally posted by 12clicks

wrong. He said exactly what he meant. insinuation and implication is the liberal way.

OK, it's obvious you dont' think they are ever intentionally misleading. Sure they don't always mention Iraq in the same breath as 9/11. I can pretend.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by directfiesta


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...052334,00.html

the guardian! ahahahahahahaha

is that where you french canadians get your *facts* that explains everything.

try reading hans blix's report:
http://www.efreedomnews.com/news%20a...eportJan27.htm


even if the big words are too hard for you to understand, you should still get the gist of it.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by uranidiot


That's priceless.

finish school. its your only hope.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by uno
OK, it's obvious you dont' think they are ever intentionally misleading. Sure they don't always mention Iraq in the same breath as 9/11. I can pretend.

you pretend so much, who cares?

9/11 and Iraq should be mentioned in the same breath. Iraq supports terrorism. I'm sure you were the one voice in America after 9/11 saying we don't need to stop terrorism but the rest of us want it stopped.

Iraq has chemical weapons, ties to terrorism, and a rogue dictator who invaded kuwait. I know its not much for a lefty pacifist but its plenty for me.

[JDog]

They already had this. Nobody believes me tho! That's fucked our own country lying to us so we could go to war!

jDoG

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by 12clicks


find any facts yet?


didn't think so.

They never did, but they sure confused the easilely confusable americans, between two burgers:

In the first place, no one in the administration ever claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. The president pinned blame for that attack firmly on Al Qaeda. But the president and his administration also clearly stated that the war on terror was not limited to Al Qaeda, that it was a global war that would be fought on many fronts. The Axis of Evil included (in addition to Iraq) North Korea and Iran, neither of whom bears direct responsibility for 9/11 either. And the administration has dispatched troops to the Philippines as well as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Democrats point to polls showing that large numbers of Americans believe there was a link between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Now, how could people come to that belief? Perhaps because they?ve heard the uncontradicted reports that Saddam did have ties with Al Qaeda. Or perhaps they were thinking of the fact that he permitted Baghdad to become a haven for terrorists like Abu Nidal and others who lived out a comfortable retirement on his generosity. Or perhaps they were considering that Saddam Hussein paid the family of each suicide bomber who killed innocent Israelis the handsome sum of $25,000. Or maybe they had heard about the 707 Saddam maintained at Salman Pak for terrorists to practice hijackings on?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/m...20030919.shtml

PS: american link, so it should be true... LOL

[uno]

Originally posted by 12clicks


you pretend so much, who cares?

9/11 and Iraq should be mentioned in the same breath. Iraq supports terrorism. I'm sure you were the one voice in America after 9/11 saying we don't need to stop terrorism but the rest of us want it stopped.

Iraq has chemical weapons, ties to terrorism, and a rogue dictator who invaded kuwait. I know its not much for a lefty pacifist but its plenty for me.

It's nice you assume so much of me. I'm all for stopping terrorism thanks.

Iraq HAD chemical weapons. It's ties to terrorism includes a camp in the northern Kurdish controlled territory a few miles from Iran and a terrorist who went to Baghdad and died. Absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. He also invaded Kuwait with the assurance that it was of no interest to the US. If i'm a lefty pacifist for not supporting an elective, unecessary war fought on false pretenses that puts some of my family member's lives as well as kills thousands of civillians, then I'm pretty proud to be a "lefty pacifist".

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by 12clicks


Iraq has chemical weapons, ties to terrorism, and a rogue dictator who invaded kuwait. I know its not much for a lefty pacifist but its plenty for me.

USA has chemical weapons, ties to terrorism ( CIA- Israel ...) , and a rogue dictator who invaded Iraq. I know its not much for a righty warmonger but its plenty for me.

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by 12clicks

the guardian! ahahahahahahaha

is that where you french canadians get your *facts* that explains everything.

try reading hans blix's report:
http://www.efreedomnews.com/news%20a...eportJan27.htm


even if the big words are too hard for you to understand, you should still get the gist of it.

Do you want to read last statment by Blix ( on the Guardian) or you prefer Fox news... or better close your eyes...

You bring nothing to refute the actualk post ....

http://www.12clicksisanidiot.org

[12clicks]

Originally posted by directfiesta
In the first place, no one in the administration ever claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. The president pinned blame for that attack firmly on Al Qaeda. But the president and his administration also clearly stated that the war on terror was not limited to Al Qaeda, that it was a global war that would be fought on many fronts. The Axis of Evil included (in addition to Iraq) North Korea and Iran, neither of whom bears direct responsibility for 9/11 either. And the administration has dispatched troops to the Philippines as well as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Democrats point to polls showing that large numbers of Americans believe there was a link between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Now, how could people come to that belief? Perhaps because they?ve heard the uncontradicted reports that Saddam did have ties with Al Qaeda. Or perhaps they were thinking of the fact that he permitted Baghdad to become a haven for terrorists like Abu Nidal and others who lived out a comfortable retirement on his generosity. Or perhaps they were considering that Saddam Hussein paid the family of each suicide bomber who killed innocent Israelis the handsome sum of $25,000. Or maybe they had heard about the 707 Saddam maintained at Salman Pak for terrorists to practice hijackings on?

PS: american link, so it should be true... LOL

well, *YOU* may be confused by America's war on terror but we aren't.
I've heard it was easy to confuse french canadians but I've not believed it until now.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by uno
It's nice you assume so much of me. I'm all for stopping terrorism thanks.

no you're not.

Originally posted by uno
Iraq HAD chemical weapons.

exactly.

Originally posted by uno
It's ties to terrorism includes a camp in the northern Kurdish controlled territory a few miles from Iran and a terrorist who went to Baghdad and died.

wrong, as usual. off the top of my head we can add this terrorist:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84265,00.html

Originally posted by uno
Absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

son, terrorism didn't start or end with 9/11
this is the liberal problem.

Originally posted by uno
He also invaded Kuwait with the assurance that it was of no interest to the US.

really? who told saddam that, you or his sons?

Originally posted by uno
If i'm a lefty pacifist for not supporting an elective, unecessary war fought on false pretenses that puts some of my family member's lives as well as kills thousands of civillians, then I'm pretty proud to be a "lefty pacifist".

be proud of yourself. no one else is.

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by 12clicks


well, *YOU* may be confused by America's war on terror but we aren't.
I've heard it was easy to confuse french canadians but I've not believed it until now.

In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in the Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2003...ld131.raw.html

PS: Americans are confused. we figured it out the first time...

Nice racist comment BTW, but comomg from a fat slob hamburger humper... who cares.

The difference between us is that I can admit that one of your post ( about saying that the administration said that 9/11 ...) is accurate, but you can't. Intelligence is required to do so...

[12clicks]

Originally posted by directfiesta


Do you want to read last statment by Blix ( on the Guardian) or you prefer Fox news... or better close your eyes...
[/url]

maybe you can point out which of his statements you want to count as his last one:

"""The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed."""
"""Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared."""


"""Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."""

"""While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request."""
"""Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared."""

"""The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.""""

"""The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions."""

----------------------------------------------
I'm sure being a leftist US hater, you'll discount all of these facts from Blix because it doesn't work into your story of big bad US

[Honeyslut]

Originally posted by Stud Money
The words Intelligence and Government being used in the same document should be illegal IMHO

Double whammy WORD

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by 12clicks


maybe you can point out which of his statements you want to count as his last one:

"""The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed."""
"""Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared."""


"""Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."""

"""While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request."""
"""Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared."""

"""The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.""""

"""The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions."""

----------------------------------------------
I'm sure being a leftist US hater, you'll discount all of these facts from Blix because it doesn't work into your story of big bad US

Date of this statment.... so I don't loose my time

[12clicks]

Originally posted by directfiesta


In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in the Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.

I'm sure you have a point here.

Originally posted by directfiesta
PS: Americans are confused. we figured it out the first time...

Yes we know nothing. how's it feel to be ruled by the confused.

Originally posted by directfiesta
Nice racist comment BTW, but comomg from a fat slob hamburger humper... who cares.

they consider idiots are race in quebec? who knew?

Originally posted by directfiesta
The difference between us is that I can admit that one of your post ( about saying that the administration said that 9/11 ...) is accurate, but you can't. Intelligence is required to do so...

No, the difference is mostly based on your irrelevance and your hatered of your betters.

[uno]

I beg to differ dear fellow.

--------------------------------------------

HAD being past tense. Let's see what Kay says. That is even good enough for O'Reilly.

--------------------------------------------

foxnews! ahahahahahahaha

is that where you conservatives get your *facts* that explains everything.

--------------------------------------------

I never said terrorism did begin or end with 9/11

--------------------------------------------

Actually US Ambassador April Glaspie was the one who told him that. Not his sons nor myself.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by directfiesta



Date of this statment.... so I don't loose my time

No, moron. you'll learn more without the cliff notes.
don't they teach that in those french canadian schools?

[12clicks]

Originally posted by uno
I beg to differ dear fellow.

of course you do.

Originally posted by uno

HAD being past tense. Let's see what Kay says. That is even good enough for O'Reilly.

No, we already know what Blix says. you know, the liberal darling you love to quote when he bashes america.

Originally posted by uno


foxnews! ahahahahahahaha

is that where you conservatives get your *facts* that explains everything.

Are you saying everything fox reports is false or just the stuff you don't like?

Originally posted by uno

I never said terrorism did begin or end with 9/11

no, you just use it as an argument to have the US sit on its hands and do nothing to protect itself.
Are you sure you're not french?

Originally posted by uno
Actually US Ambassador April Glaspie was the one who told him that. Not his sons nor myself.

really?
saddam asked her if it was ok to attack kuwait and she said yes?
got a link?

[Rich]

Originally posted by 12clicks


Iraq supports terrorism.

Who?

Originally posted by 12clicks


you pretend so much, who cares?

What?

Originally posted by 12clicks


Iraq has chemical weapons

Where?

Originally posted by 12clicks


9/11 and Iraq should be mentioned in the same breath.

Why?

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by 12clicks

well, *YOU* may be confused by America's war on terror but we aren't.
I've heard it was easy to confuse french canadians but I've not believed it until now.

don't see the word " idiots" in your original post, just french canadians....

Originally posted by 12clicks

they consider idiots are race in quebec? who knew?

Read your own post.

End.

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by 12clicks

No, moron. you'll learn more without the cliff notes.
don't they teach that in those french canadian schools?

And now,

One last warning from the man who made an enemy of Bush

UN weapons inspector says Iraqi guilt is still not proven

Helena Smith in New York
Wednesday June 11, 2003
The Guardian

It is, even by the standards of understatement for which Hans Blix is now renowned, "something special". It stands where he can see it best - opposite his desk on the 31st floor of the United Nations: a cartoon depicting the balding Swede as a stick of dynamite with President George Bush demonically waving a match over his head.
Given that the drawing also shows Mr Blix delivering one of his equally combustible reports to the UN security council in the run-up to the US-led war against Iraq, the joke is hard to miss. "Have you seen this?" he asks, trying not to chuckle. "It was given to me by my friends in British intelligence. I think it's great."

That the droll chief weapons inspector should draw attention to the cartoon says more about his mood, 20 days before he leaves the post, than anything else. The almost other-worldly New York view that he has feasted on since being pulled out of retirement for the thankless task of heading the United Nations monitoring, verification and inspection commission (Unmovic) is "nice, yes". But, like his fastidiously neat office, he says: "I won't be missing it."

The job has not been that stressful, he says. "It's just that it occupies you entirely. You don't do much else. There's been an advantage to having an old gentleman, like me, with no family around to do it."

It will be with a sense of relief that the genial Mr Blix, 75 this month, returns to the Stockholm apartment he shares with his wife Eva, a former ambassador. "I like New York," he says. "My apartment also has a spectacular view over Manhattan and that has been a blessing. But I also like oriental antique rugs, the theatre, and Eva and I both love cooking."

He sighs wistfully. "My work at the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency, which he headed for 16 years] was absorbing, but it's not the only thing in the world, is it?"

Mr Blix never sought fame. When it came, in the form of a telephone plea from Kofi Annan three years ago, the lifelong civil servant accepted out of a sense of duty. "We were in Patagonia holidaying at the time and I was waiting in line for a bus to take us to the airport when a travel agent came asking for a Mr Blix. She said a Mr Kofi had phoned."

Mr Blix certainly didn't need to accept the job for financial gain. Instead, he agreed to take it for a limited period because there was no one else who was acceptable to Iraq and the west. But with the post came state-sanctioned sniping from both camps. Before he had set foot in Baghdad, Mr Blix was being accused of ineptitude and inefficacy by detractors in Washington who loathed him for being a Clinton appointee.

There were "enemies" dating from his days as a liberal student leader at Uppsala University; enemies in the form of disgruntled ex-employees closely connected to hawks in the US Pentagon; Iraqi enemies who spread rumours about his being "homosexual, and going to Washington to pick up my instructions every two weeks".

There were even media jibes about his talent for inspection lying exclusively with menus at fancy East Side restaurants. But the accusations of "softness", levelled more often than not by senior American officials, were most galling.

"They would say I was too compliant with the Iraqis when in reality [they meant] I was not compliant enough with what the US wanted. I have never criticised the US or UK for lack of sincerity." Mr Blix tried to focus on the reports for his bosses at the UN security council, pointing out that they were always "happy" with him. Even now, he refuses to be explicitly drawn on just what he feels, insisting he is not "frustrated, bitter or betrayed".

But, despite his apparent equanimity, he cannot conceal his anger at the constant vilification by "bastards" who "planted nasty things in the media". "Not that I cared very much," he insists. "It was a bit like a mosquito bite in the evening that is still there in the morning, an irritant."

What riles him most is that Iraq was not disarmed peacefully. He cups his head in his hands. "The lowest point was at the end when we realised it was not going to happen. That was very disappointing. The war cost a lot in destruction and lives."

As to whether Iraq still harbours weapons of mass destruction (WMD), he says he "remains agnostic". Only time will tell - although that is passing by "quite fast and instead of talking about [finding] WMD they're talking about the programmes.

"We know for sure that they did exist ... and we cannot exclude they may find something," he says. "I was always more prudent in my approach. I am a lawyer ... in a court things should be beyond reasonable doubt.

"It's true the Iraqis misbehaved and had no credibility but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were in the wrong. It could have been bad brinkmanship. Saddam could have misjudged and read about the demonstrations in London, Paris, here and thought they won't dare to go after me."

Mr Blix is worried about the future, expressing "nervousness" at the US adminstration's belief in pre-emptive strikes. "Obviously it raises the need for solid evidence and quality intelligence," he says, adding that intelligence material was treated in "a lighthearted way" by the US and Britain.

He insists the UN has a role, despite it being seen as an "alien power" by some within the US administration who "would not care if it sinks into the East river".

So does he feel that it was worth the personal pain, that he was effective?

"Oh yes," he says without hesitation. "We proved beyond a doubt and under immense pressure that independent, impartial, objective monitoring can be achieved. We were in nobody's pocket. Every day I get letters from inspectors who would like to work again. We're immensely proud of what Unmovic achieved."