Replies

I believe it has been proven that we were not entirely honest during the SALT treaties. I can't point to reference at this time, but I do believe we were in violation, but blew it off as necessary in the cold war. So even in our own treaties, if my memory is correct we were in violation.

I'm not willing to let every anti_american state off the hook. I believe we had enough reason go into Iraq based on the UN resolutions alone and Saddam's noncompliance with that. Factually that was accurate.

My complaint is we as Americans and the world were told that the WMDs were current, real and active programs were underway as we invaded. It was a sales job based on faulty information at best and deception at it's worst. For some reason, the administration felt we needed more reasons than the perfectly justifiable reason that was at our fingertips and legitimate.

I've seen on this and every other Iraq thread comments from Democrats and the previous administration about the realness of the WMD's. Boy, that's something to hitch your wagons to. Yes, there appears to be a ton of hyprocracy. But do we want to link ourselves to the previous administration? Doesn't that imply that old nemisis of "everyone does it"?

What was happening in Iraq is without a doubt horrible. But from a war on terror prospective, especially our interests, Iraq should have been far down on the list. The 9/11 terrorists were funded by the Saudi's and others. The terrorists themselves were primarily Saudi's. Much of the other money in the networks came from many European countries. Saddam's tiess to 9/11 are sketchy at best. Instead of going after the true instigators of 9/11, we go after a periphiral one.

Had all this been at the hands of the Clinton administration with the same actions as the Bush administration, this forum would have been abuzz about all the issues that so many have openned up and uncovered. Yet now we are for the most part strangely quiet.

In a previous post, I translated a "Die Welt" interview with the German microbiologist Gabrielle Kraatz-Wadsack. I've found a lot information on the internet about this woman.

Kraatz-Wadsack - 3Sat

For example, here's an [English] article from the "Guardian Unlimited" in September of 2003 that describes her connection with David Kelly, and offers a short bio of her.

"Guardian Unlimited"....09/14/2003....Gabrielle Kraatz-Wadsack....Kelly's friend and the note Hutton has not revealed

There are, of course, numerous articles in German to be found with a Google search. I think the woman is very consistent in her message.

I've translated two paragraphs that were of interest to me in this particular article, which was written in June, 2002. I am wondering if this may be what you consider to be the 'sales job' genre.

Is Iraq able to produce weapons of mass destruction today?

Gabriele Kraatz-Wadsack: Yes. They have the infrastructure in the country, they have the expertise, they have the experts, the knowledge and they have the materials, particularly for biological weapons. You can assume, if Iraq has the intention to produce biological weapons, then there is nothing to hinder them from doing so. Since December 1998 inspectors are no longer in country, and Iraq has refused to let them back into the country. So, you can't tell what has happened since then. In 1998, 18 experts from 16 countries had already determined, unanimously, before they left the country, that there were many things that weren't clarified. Even at that time, you couldn't determine if the Iraqi biological weapon program had ever ended.

....paragraphs are not sequential....[lj]

The USA is researching its own, strictly secret - critics say: illegal - bio-weapons programs. Isn't it absurd that, of all people, the U.S. government is threatening Iraq with war because the people in power are refusing to cooperate with weapon inspectors and are supposedly in possession of the same weapons?

Gabriele Kraatz-Wadsack: You can't say that. There are defensive research programs, for example, to develop vaccines or diagnostic systems. Every country may have such defensive programs, even the USA. There isn't any problem in this regard. It just depends on intent and Iraq has obviously had an offensive program. No other country has the same weapons of mass destruction as Iraq has had. The USA, meanwhile, gave up their offensive program in 1969.

"Telepolis"....6/29/02...Biowaffen im Irak weiter eine Gefahr?

Translated by longjack

I would tend to believe this woman, for the explicit reason that she was there, 26 times. I don't consider this a 'sales job' , either, given her credentials and experience. Additionally, she certainly was not espousing the popular opinion in Germany at the time.

Since your stance appears to be that the wmd issue was 'a sales job'; For my own edification, I am wondering why I should listen to you and believe that?

longjack