Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Not everyone got it wrong on WMD
IHT ^ | 2-6-04 | scott ritter

Posted on 02/08/2004 2:15:52 PM PST by eagles

Edited on 02/08/2004 3:04:03 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

WASHINGTON: 'We were all wrong," David Kay, the Bush administration's former top weapons sleuth in Iraq, recently told members of Congress after acknowledging that there were probably no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Kay insisted that the blame for the failure to find any such weapons lay with the U.S. intelligence community, which, according to Kay, provided inaccurate assessments.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: cheeseburger; intelligence; iraq; littleschoolgirl; pedophile; scottritter; whoperwithcheese; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last
Like everyone else, I thought Ritter was nuts to think IRaq had been effectively disarmed before the war. Like everyone else I fully expected that we would find stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Like everyone else, I thought France and Germany would have egg all over their "faces' after we could show proof that our intelligence on Saddam was correct. Am I the only conservative who's a bit disillusioned with the fact that the major objective for going to war with Iraq didn't pan out?
1 posted on 02/08/2004 2:15:54 PM PST by eagles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: eagles
I always thought the major objective of invading Iraq was to fight terrorism and defend the Homeland. And we were right.

On this WMD garbage, Sadddam used them in past, never accounted for the remaining WMD. Lets move on.

2 posted on 02/08/2004 2:20:55 PM PST by n.y.muggs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
Is there a link for this missive purportedly from Scott Ritter? As far as your question, see tagline

Prairie
3 posted on 02/08/2004 2:23:00 PM PST by prairiebreeze (WMD's in Iraq -- The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
WMD could be produced by Saddam in a few hours, if he did not have them stockpiled, so it is essentially irrelevant in my opinion. Was Scott Ritter the guy charged as a child molester?
4 posted on 02/08/2004 2:23:16 PM PST by GROOVY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles

5 posted on 02/08/2004 2:25:16 PM PST by hole_n_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
I'm not disillusioned, but that's because I never thought his possession of these weapons was the issue. I was more impressed by his desire for them, and his proven willingness to use them.
6 posted on 02/08/2004 2:26:16 PM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: n.y.muggs
This sounds like a matter of definition to me. It seems that democrats are looking for stock piles that cover acres and fill warehouses. The truth is that its an unlikely scenario. In reality those stockpiles could fit in refrigerators. A hole the size saddam was found in could hold enough anthrax to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

7 posted on 02/08/2004 2:27:41 PM PST by cripplecreek (you win wars by making the other dumb SOB die for his country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eagles
"Am I the only conservative who's a bit disillusioned with the fact that the major objective for going to war with Iraq didn't pan out? "

No, you're just not up on all the facts for going to war!

8 posted on 02/08/2004 2:29:08 PM PST by america-rules (It's US or THEM so what part don't you understand ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
We're not even close to done with our search. To say it didn't pan out is very premature.
9 posted on 02/08/2004 2:29:21 PM PST by thoughtomator ("What do I know? I'm just the President." - George W. Bush, Superbowl XXXVIII halftime statement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hole_n_one
Hey! put a baseball cap and a mustard stained shirt on him and you get a dead ringer for Michael Moore.
10 posted on 02/08/2004 2:29:31 PM PST by cripplecreek (you win wars by making the other dumb SOB die for his country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: eagles
You left out part of the byline:

WASHINGTON (Burger King on 2012 P Street, N. W. Washington, DC 20036):

11 posted on 02/08/2004 2:29:57 PM PST by mikegi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
Am I the only conservative who's a bit disillusioned with the fact that the major objective for going to war with Iraq didn't pan out?

I am disillusioned because the political fallout of the missing WMDs is hurting the War on Terror. I am disillusioned that the media kneejerks to an adversarial position against any war, and against any Republican president, and thus endeavors to suppress the message that we are fighting a difficult war, and the successful invasion of Iraq is a victory in that war. They suppress the message that the liberation of this pivotal Middle East country will transform that dangerous region.

12 posted on 02/08/2004 2:31:10 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
Oh yes, and the WMDs were not a major reason to go to war... the media made that out to be the case since it was a sexy topic, but that never was the case. The primary case was the decades of breaches of the 1991 ceasefire, his repeated stated intentions to attack the US, collaboration with terrorists, his repeated wars of aggression, and the impossibility of turning him out (or his sons, for yet another generation or more of that madness) in any other way.
13 posted on 02/08/2004 2:32:07 PM PST by thoughtomator ("What do I know? I'm just the President." - George W. Bush, Superbowl XXXVIII halftime statement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
i would like to point out that Saddam was not found in one of his palaces. just because the WMD are not in the warehouses where they should be does not mean to me, that they are all gone.
14 posted on 02/08/2004 2:32:27 PM PST by camas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
Theis has probably been beat to death on FR but I still have this nagging question ringing in my ears after hearning Dr. Kay tell us that there are no WMDs in Iraq. That question is:

How in the heck does he know? And what has he offered as proof to demonstrate the truth of this claim?

My problem with all of this is that it is very hard to prove a negative and that is what is going on now. Does Kay in fact know for certain that Saddam didn't bury all of his chemical weapons in concrete bunkers for future use? How could anyone possibly know that he didn't?

15 posted on 02/08/2004 2:32:50 PM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GROOVY
(Repost of a post I made on another WMD thread; note the article claims that the
"just in time" WMD production capability was also apparently on hold...at least that
is the way it appears at this time...)


A good article about the WMD situation is in the current Atlantic Monthly at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/pollack.htm

While this article is, to some degree, a CYA article by Clinton Admin. official
Kenneth Pollack, readers can't miss one main message:
Even up to the day that the tanks rolled into Iraq, the French, the Germans, the Russians,
the Chinese (etc.) all thought that Saddam had WMDs...and the only real question was
what to do about it.

My inexpert guess is that future US Presidents are still going to be in Dubya's debt...
he aborted any possibility that nutburgers like Saddam, Usay, or Quasay would reactivate
their "on-hold" WMD programs...
as well as flushing Khaddafi into the open and even squeezing North Korea a fair bit.
If we (G-d FORBID IT!) get a President Kerry, he'll be the beneficiary of Dubya's
moral strenght in "pulling the trigger".
16 posted on 02/08/2004 2:35:38 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: camas
Not everyone got it wrong on WMD ......

Exactly,......where are those 3 "SH-Mystery-Ships"...and their cargoes?

(I know nothing!......nothing here,....please, ignore.)

17 posted on 02/08/2004 2:36:57 PM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze; eagles
Is there a link for this missive purportedly from Scott Ritter?
Here is a link to the ORIGINAL article, from the International Herald Tribune (2/6/04)
18 posted on 02/08/2004 2:39:29 PM PST by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eagles
Hussein's government's history, along with his defiance of international demands for oversight, justified going to war. This was true since 1998, in my view.

For my part, I've been frustrated the administration emphasized actual possession of weapons as the cause of war to the extent it did. They've got a p.r. problem of their own making, now. A gamble they didn't have to take.

19 posted on 02/08/2004 2:41:32 PM PST by Timm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
great tagline...and so true.
20 posted on 02/08/2004 2:42:10 PM PST by evad (Got my fingers crossed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eagles
It was not illogical for GWB to think that Saddam had WMDs. Apparently Saddam thought he had WMDs, and even gave orders for their use during the war.

Ritter and the others he cites who claimed Saddam had no weapons did not base this belief on any real evidence. Their "proof" was a desire to prevent an invasion of Iraq. A defensible position, but a political one, not an intelligence analysis.

A classic example of political objective driving the analysis of the evidence, exactly what they accuse GWB of.
21 posted on 02/08/2004 2:45:07 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
Am I the only conservative who's a bit disillusioned with the fact that the major objective for going to war with Iraq didn't pan out?

Probably.
You may be the only one, other than the dumbocrats and "progressives", to recall WMDs as the "major" objective of the war. As I recall, there were 7 or 8 items listed, and if any one was "major", it was your personal interpretation.

The rest of us don't have a comprehension problem, and we don't need to go off half-cocked based on an erroneous inference. I for one understood the measage clearly, as you, or anyone else who wishes to do so can go verify by playing back any and all speeches that George W. or his spokesmen made prior to the war: that we could not wait until WMDs became an imminent threat. Any sharp grammar school kid can understand from that the difference between an imminent threat and the prevention of a future potential.

If you misunderstood, that's your problem. Stop trying to share your tendency to misapprehension with the rest of us.

22 posted on 02/08/2004 2:45:20 PM PST by Publius6961 (40% of Californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
Am I the only conservative who's a bit disillusioned with the fact that the major objective for going to war with Iraq didn't pan out?

How much time do we have to find them? 5 minutes after we invaded? A week? 2 months?

23 posted on 02/08/2004 2:46:09 PM PST by Mark (Treason doth never prosper, for if it prosper, NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
In my case i was originally opposed to going to war with iraq. one thing finally solidified my support. It was the newsclip of an iraqi man being dragged kicking and screaming from a UN vehicle by police as the UN workers stepped aside.
24 posted on 02/08/2004 2:49:44 PM PST by cripplecreek (you win wars by making the other dumb SOB die for his country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: eagles
the major objective for going to war with Iraq didn't pan out

The 'major objective' was the destruction of Saddam's regime, which seems to have 'panned out' nicely.

25 posted on 02/08/2004 2:53:05 PM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VOA
Excerpt from the KENNETH M. POLLACK article you referenced (and thanks for posting it...I had missed it):

"I later moved on to the National Security Council, where I served two tours, in 1995-1996 and 1999-2001. During the latter stint the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon. In 2002 I wrote a book called Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, in which I argued that because all our other options had failed, the United States would ultimately have to go to war to remove Saddam before he acquired a functioning nuclear weapon. Thus it was with more than a little interest that I pondered the question of why we didn't find in Iraq what we were so certain we would."
26 posted on 02/08/2004 2:59:45 PM PST by Maria S ("I will do whatever the Americans want…I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid." Gaddafi, 9/03)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: eagles
The problem with posing an article from Ritter is that you're just going to get a lot of replies about Burger King and teen-aged girls, and less on the substance of his story. But while Ritter's appears to be dirtbag in his personal life, he's also probably correct that Saddam was "qualitatively" disarmed.

BUT (here's the second but), his being correct on that issue is also likely irrelevant, because with ample WMD research and development programs, and with a card-carrying America-hating loon like Saddam in charge, Iraq was a problem that couldn't be long tolerated in any post-9-11 War on Terror. Additionally, there was a very real need for an Arab Muslim state to go down post 9-11 and, frankly, Iraq was as good as any other (though I would have preferred Saudi Arabia). Already, the events in Iraq appear to have had a "clarifying" effect on the thinking of some in the region, with some real cooperation possibly now coming from Qaddafi and from the House of Saud.

The problem with media-ready WMD stockpiles not turning up is largely a PR problem for the administration. With an election looming, however, that doesn't make it any less a problem.

The real irony would be for Kerry to end up as President because of Iraq, only to be be sworn in thinking to himself "Damn I glad he got rid of Saddam"

27 posted on 02/08/2004 3:02:19 PM PST by dagnabbit (Settle illegals on the Crawford Texas ranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
I said quite some time ago that when we did not find these huge "caches" of WMD that Bush was given misleading intelligence. The CIA was given misleading foreign intelligence and acted on it.
Now the mantra is, "well we got rid of a horrible dictator and the world is a better place". Can we not say that about 20 other countries in the world? How about North Korea? A country whose leader has threatened the US publicly with nuclear weapons. Oh, thats right we're going to handle that situation diplomatic channels.
How do you explain to the over 1,000 parents of the dead soldiers that we went to war on a false premise? How would you feel if you were one of those parents?
I recently read an AP article written by Mark Lavie entitled, "Ex-general faults Israel's view of threat posed by Irag". "The Israeli assessment may have been colored by politics, including a desire to see the Iraqi leader toppled, said Shlomo Brom, who was a senior Israeli military intelligence officer and is now a researcher with Israel's top strategic think tank." Brom went on to say "Israeli intellegence was a full partner with the United States and Great Britian in developing a false picture of Saddam Hussein"s weapons of mass destruction capability."
Bush's "blue ribbon" committee to uncover information about WMD is nothing but a sham. Their findings are not to be reported until 3/05, spare me. It should only take a week to root out where this BS intelligence came from. At that point heads should roll.
I find this news very disturbing. Sure makes you want to send your sons and daughters to be used as pawns in the shooting gallery we call Iraq.
28 posted on 02/08/2004 3:02:24 PM PST by doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
thanks
29 posted on 02/08/2004 3:03:21 PM PST by prairiebreeze (WMD's in Iraq -- The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Criminey. I'd forgotten about that clip. The ones that came out in the last couple of months showing men being pushed off building and having their tongues cut out ought to be enough to make a case too.

Problem was, of course, the UN supported Saddam for so long that most of the rest of the world didn't want to get rid of him. Too much invested dontchaknow.

Prairie
30 posted on 02/08/2004 3:08:32 PM PST by prairiebreeze (WMD's in Iraq -- The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper
Panned out nicely? More than 100K troops overextended and tied down in a futile nation building operation, Shi'tes (who want domination) headling for a showdown with Kurds (who want autonomy or independence), 83 billion and more spending on nation building, enactment of Shari'a by the new interim authority, Americans killed at average of more than one per day? Don't think so.
31 posted on 02/08/2004 3:09:07 PM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: eagles
If the Administration was wrong about WMD, what is the down side? A mad dictator was taken out for the other reasons cited CLEARLY. 24 million people are free. Hundreds of thousands of dead humans get some measure of justice. Other countries with mad men for leaders have to think twice and a third time when the US speaks. The UN even gets a modest amount of weight since it was their actions that started it.

If the Left is wrong and and there are weapons yet uncovered, what is the down side? Yea, a lot of dead people and terror. The US loses credibility with the world? (Make me laugh.)

Yea, I have no problem with being wrong. (Which I'm not.)
32 posted on 02/08/2004 3:12:05 PM PST by Joe_October (Saddam supported Terrorists. Al Qaeda are Terrorists. I can't find the link.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babble-on; eagles
I'm not disillusioned, but that's because I never thought his possession of these weapons was the issue. I was more impressed by his desire for them, and his proven willingness to use them.

Bingo!

33 posted on 02/08/2004 3:13:33 PM PST by sandlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
You've just describe the average American city.

You forgot to mention that the sky was falling as well.
34 posted on 02/08/2004 3:13:43 PM PST by Joe_October (Saddam supported Terrorists. Al Qaeda are Terrorists. I can't find the link.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: eagles
The timing of Ritter's conversion from anti-Iraq to pro-Iraq is highly suspect.
35 posted on 02/08/2004 3:15:05 PM PST by MamaLucci (Follow the money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
Ritter was wrong. The WMDs were there because RITTER SAID SO HIMSELF before he "turned." Japan said so, Russia said so, Clinton said so, the UN said so, Britain said so, Aus. said so, and Israel said so. ALL these organizations and people weren't wrong. The WMDs were most likely moved.

Again, I could bury two 50 gallon drums on a 100 acre farm if you gave me 3 months and you'd never find it.

36 posted on 02/08/2004 3:20:18 PM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc
We were surprised not to find the huge stockpiles. I am willing to assume for now that David Kay has a reasonable chance of being correct that what stockpiles there were, were not large by the time of the invasion. Otherwise, he probably would have found the "fingerprints" of their being moved or destroyed.

Nonetheless, Saddam was dangerous, and the coalition going to the military option and taking him down is a very successful step in the War on Terror. Saddam was not "just another dictator" - his actions in the Middle East, connections with and support of various terrorist groups, have been quelled. The difference in the dynamics there are vastly different and in our favor. We sent young men into harm's way to help make America safer and that is what they have done.

Libya is just one of the first dominos to fall.

37 posted on 02/08/2004 3:21:57 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
To say it didn't pan out is very premature.

Heh, I had some liberal friends (one of whom is my cousin) tell me that I was "naive" for thinking that the search isn't over yet in Iraq. (Who's the naive one? The one who waits before passing judgment, or the one who assumed that Big Media had the final say when it first reported on the 'lack' of WMD?)

38 posted on 02/08/2004 3:25:33 PM PST by The Grammarian (Did you know Texas is the only state that permits residents to cast absentee ballots from space?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: maestro
If by 'mystery ships' you are not referring to the song lyrics, I've been wondering the same thing. Where are those 'mystery ships'? Were any of the mysteries concerning them ever solved?

Another thing; doesn't anyone remember what Kay actually said, after saying that there are no weapons in Iraq? Seems I remember his next sentence being to the effect that, far from not existing, they had been removed, probably to Syria.

Like the UN resolutions violations that were the actual reason for going to war, most people only recall what the media tells them to remember.

Again: Where are those ships; whose were they; what was on them???
39 posted on 02/08/2004 3:28:03 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (If God didn't want a politician hanging from every tree, He wouldn't have created so much rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch
Correct!

Scary too.

:-(

40 posted on 02/08/2004 3:36:08 PM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: eagles
Seems to me you'd be disillusioned by the capture of Al Capone. I never feel bad about a thug getting kicked in the butt.
41 posted on 02/08/2004 3:38:08 PM PST by Porterville (Traitors against God, country, family, and benefactors lament their sins in the deepest part of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I look at it this way:

If my assumption is correct, Iraq is roughly the size of CA. CA is a pretty damn big state. Right now, as all of us read this and post here, there are tons of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, speed, exstacy, meth..name it. Tons in that state. And although there are lbs nailed at one time or another, I don't expect the motherloads (that we know exist) to turn up within the next nine months.

If finding illicit chemicals (or drugs for that matter) were such an easy task, drugs would not exist in this country.

Sorry, but I'm coming down on the side of patience with the WMD stuff..Hell, were just now finding more of WWI mustard gas at the bottom of some oceans. Kinda makes ya wonder what's at the bottom of the Gulf huh?

42 posted on 02/08/2004 3:46:04 PM PST by Michael Barnes ( <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com">miserable failure </a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
Just remind 'em that they were screaming for more time after 12 years of the UN playing Keystone Kops.
43 posted on 02/08/2004 3:49:47 PM PST by thoughtomator ("What do I know? I'm just the President." - George W. Bush, Superbowl XXXVIII halftime statement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: eagles
Nope.
44 posted on 02/08/2004 3:55:07 PM PST by Schattie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
Am I the only conservative who's a bit disillusioned with the fact that the major objective for going to war with Iraq didn't pan out?

No, probably not. What I am disillusioned about is that the WMD were used as the main show to sell a war that started in 1990. I'm disillusioned that people imagine the war just started in March of last year. I'm disillusioned that as long as the media tells people a war is not taking place, it does not exist. Like it's a tap that gets turned on and off when need be.

Everybody knew this was exactly how the Iraqi war was going to end. Ever since we decided to siege Saddam out of power (siege is warfare too- the war that started in 1990 ended) everybody had to know that this was not going to work. The war would have to take a more decisive phase: i.e. going in to Iraq to take Saddam out.

Yet now when we move to bring the conflict to a close by doing exactly that people like to pretend the war just started and the only reason it did so was WMD. It never stopped. The war never stopped in all those years. It is the loss of that perspective that is really at the root of the current difficulties the administration is having.

I don't think the admin should have ever used the WMD as the main theme to sell the end of the war to people. But they did and this is something they're going to have to sort out. The crucial point to me is that a war that has been ongoing for over a decade is in its final phase now (hopefully) and this can be brought to an end. We all knew the siege of Iraq would end only with Saddam's death or capture and we all knew there are only so many ways to bring that about. We should've simply done it back in 1991 and been done with it a long time ago.

45 posted on 02/08/2004 4:41:49 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagles
Probably.

A little bit of info about Scott Ritter before we go on:

Scott's the guy who said :

"Once effective inspection regimes have been terminated," said Ritter, "Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months."

This was before his payoff.

Scott Ritter is also the guy who visited a Baathist regime children's prison during the 90s. The regime imprisoned children of ANY age, the children of dissidents and anyone Saddam Hussein needed to blackmail. Did Scott Ritter, who by his own admission much later, said he had visited the prison and referred to it as horrific, inform anyone of it- the UN, the US, or even the regime's lobbyist from whom he took bribe money as soon as possible? No, he did not.

Why not? Well, his reasoning was that it was so horrific that there would be an outcry for war as soon as the news hit the public.

So he continued to let the world think Saddam Hussein was just a misunderstood guy and the regime wasn't bad enough to do anything about.

So should I believe the likes of Scott Ritter, or should I believe, say, my brother, who also spent time in Iraq (and Iran) and whose team and spent it gathering intel, and watching the Iraqis' reactions- often a hasty packing and moving job or a frantic scrubdown of the facilities in question- every time the UN leaked to the regime that an inspection was about to go down. And they did this all without taking a $400,000 bribe from a lobbyist who was getting his dough from illegal Iraqi oil sales, and who didn't have the regime off them gold or kids or whatever things passed for bribery then? It's easy for me to say Iraq has WMD just for that reason... I have no reason to believe my brother is a liar.

You, however, might reasonably have doubts given all of the antiwar agitprop out there, much of it funded by Iraq itself with millions of dollars.

To believe Iraq has no WMD, you have to ignore an awful lot of evidence, including some from Ritter himself, like this:

1995 : (IRAQI WEAPONS TESTS ON HUMAN BEINGS AS RECENTLY AS 1995; IRAQ ALSO CLAIMED IT USED UP MORE CHEMICAL BOMBS THAN IT DID IN ORDER TO HIDE STOCKPILES) According to Ritter's testimony in a September 1998 Senate hearing reported on by Zeev Schiff, military editor of Haaretz, "Unscom inspectors also came up with evidence suggesting that Iraq carried out biological weapons tests on human beings in 1995." No details are available about this claim. It is not known, for instance, if prisoners of war were involved in the alleged test. "Ritter also discovered that Iraq had deliberately reported an exaggerated number of chemical bombs that it had used in the [1991 Gulf] War. The reason: so that Baghdad could hide thousands of such bombs and seven tons of chemical components."- "Ritter: Baghdad 'possesses three nuclear bombs' ," by Christopher Walker, Times of London, 9/10/98

In order to believe Iraq has no WMD, you must believe just about every Iraqi weapons scientist was and is lying.

You have to believe those Iraqi weapons scientists have been unemployed for years.

You have to think Iraq's fedeyeen assassinated one scientist and the son of another, plus attempted an assassination on that boy's dad by hitting him six times, because Iraq had nothing to hide, and not because they were talking to Dr. Kay.

You have to believe that all these misquotes of Dr. Kay by the Washington Post were just coincidental.

You have to believe that Dr. Kelley, who was an inspector who seriously believed Iraq had WMD, committed suicide because the BBC made a mistake and didn't mean to be a pack of biased, regime supporting lliars.

You have to believe that Iraq spent millions of dollars bribing people to support them just for the fun of it.

You have to believe Iraq turned down the Pakistani inventor of the Islamic Bomb when he came calling to sell them a plan for a bomb, because Saddam Hussein was too honest to accept or too tight to pay up.

You have to believe that on the eve of war, Saddam Hussein ordered his troops to go out and find trucks to wash and bleach down and repaint, so that we wouldn't think they were slackers when we captured them in the next day or two... the same sort of reason your mom wants you to wear clean underwear in case you get into an accident.

You have to believe Iraq was buiying all this equipment just for the fun of it, and that it went through the trouble of operating all these front companies right up to the invasion just to secretly buy cowpeas from Niger.

You have to believe Iraq's centrifuge design wasn't like one of Libyas- which featured aluminum- and couldn't possibly use aluminum rotors. What's more, you have to believe Iraq really needed high tolerance aluminum pipes to have mirror-smooth interiors, so that it could make extremely expensive rockets that don't do much damage, rockets which we still haven't found today, though some of the aluminum did turn up - not as rockets, though.

You have to believe Iraq really wanted to use those military planes and drones to spray mosquitos, even though Iraq drained the swamps years ago so the Marsh Arabs couldn't grow rice.

You have to believe France was right and pure as the wind-driven snow and never profited off of the Oil for Food program to look the other way or sell forbidden weapons and goods.

You have to believe former ambassador Wilson really isn't on John effin Kerry's campaign staff, wasn't ever on Gore's, and has no association with moveon.org or any antisanctions organization and never donated money to protect his government job- and you sincerely believe a CIA investigation into uranium sales should consist solely of drnking tea by a hotel pool in Niger asking the locals if they ever broke international law and taking them all face-value. You have to believe former ambassador Wislon was able to be thorough and check all possibilities in Iraq out even when the IAEA admits it can't check on the security uranium shipments between the mines and the port because there is no security to speak of until the stuff gets to the docks.

You have to believe that Kurds and Shiites weren't gassed or subject ot chemical warfare but merely stayed out in the sun too long.

You have to believe Iraq decided to dump hundreds of gallons of pesticide into the Euphrates on the eve of war because it didn't want to be caught violating Monsanto's patent, or because it thought the pesticide might eradicate West Nile fever.

You have to believe Iraqi scientists keep vials of extremely exotic pathogens in the home refridgerators next ot their kids' koolaid because they are just really sloppy and stupid.

You have to believe that those Iraqi nationals caught in Europe didn't get ricin from Iraq or from people trained and supported by Iraq, and others were involved in the toxin letters case in Belgium for no reason at all.

You have to believe Hussein just sent out orders to use chemical weapons against invading coalition forces because he thought it might scare us away at the last minute.

You have to believe Iraq's al Ani never met Atta, because the press reports which the Czechs denied the meeting are really true... even if those same Czechs point out that they never said any such thing and were never even spoken to by those same reporters.

You have to believe the Wash Post's reporter Gelman is more right about what Kay said than is Kay himself, and believe that Gelman's reference to who Meekin is and what Meekin said is true even if Meekin says it's not.

You have to be the type of person who upon walking into your kid's room after recieving countless calls from neighbors and the local press about your kids' activities, find a bong, roach clips, cigarette papers, loose tobacco, candles, burnt spoons, syringes with drug residue, inventory lists of drugs and hocked stolen equipment, documents from his conviction in 1992 of breaking & entering & assualt & rape & murder, stolen property, a little black book with the phone numbers of every thug and dealer from the Canadian border to Columbia in it, the stench of pot, small crystals in vials, rat poison residue, knives, a stolen gun, and large quantities of $1 bills, plus three kids tied up stuffed under his bed, and a bucket of human bones in the closet with one rotting corpse that looks like it had bled out of every orifice - ... immediately go down to the police station to bail your baby out for the TWELVETH time in a row.

Now, for the rest of the story:

We went to war with Iraq because we had an agreement with Iraq in 1992 that in exchange for our not kicking Iraq's leader from office and occupying Iraq for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq agreed to meet certain requirements. UNTIL Iraq met these requirements, the state of war would continue.

Among those requirements was that Iraq would pay reparations to Kuwait for lost property and life.

That Iraq would return immediately all prisoners of war and kidnapped civilians it had taken in the course of the war. (this in addition to promising to return all POWs it had still retained from the Iran-Iraq war years before.)

That Iraq would abide by the inspections agreement on WMD.

That it would provide a thorough and accurate accounting of its WMD programs, including delivery systems. That it would provide a thorough and accurate accounting of missile programs above a specified range.

That it would permit inspectors to confirm the accuracy of its own accounting in all of these areas.

That it would destroy all WMD, dismantle ALL of its laboraties, destroy or render unusable ALL of its related equipment, destroy ALL delivery systems, and permit monitoring of all of thise things and related industries until it had been certified to be in compliance with every one of the items.

Iraq also had to give up further research and development, meaning, it had to find those scientists other lines of work and not train anyone for more such work. To say that the war hinged on WMD alone is a lie. Powell's speech even as recently as spring 2003 listed more than WMD as just cause; he brought up the presence in baghdad of one of al Qaeda's leadership- specifically, an indivual whose specialty was toxins like ricin. That individual assassinated US diplomat Foley in Jordan in the fall of 2002 and is connected to a plot in Jordan to poison US military personnel.

Iraq's diplomats, through its embassy in the Philippines, had already been involved in the recent murder of an American Green Beret.

That's good enough for me.

But Iraq never even complied with the most simple of these requirments, and that was its holding hostage 602 Kuwaiti men, women and children, an unknown number of other nationalities captured in Kuwait, one US Navy pilot, and two US citizens it had captured in Northern Iraq much later.

This ALONE is just cause for war.

Iraq wasn't supposed to get a twelve-year probation to get this done. Iraq didn't get to pick and choose inspectors. This opening up was supposed to be done immediately and the very FIRST instance where an inspector was blocked from inspecting a facility was just cause for war. We had just cause on this almost immediately, because Iraq blocked inspections immediately using various means, up to and including violence. But this went on through 1998 when it peaked and inspections were halted altogether because Iraq refused topermit inspections of its presidential palace complexes. Kofi Annan made a half-arsed deal to permit SOME inspections, not by qualified arms inspectors but by bureaucrats and politicians, most likely a bribe-o-rama.

The UN's failure, and the fact that Iraq's intent to NEVER comply with the agreements it made even if it meant war were made clear in 1998, even after the UN's Kofi Annan had visited Baghdad and assured us all was well, was undeniably clear:

DECEMBER 1998 : (IRAQ, UNSCOM DISMANTLES GERMAN CENTRIFUGE INSTALLATION) The Times of London interview with Hamza notes another possible clue tog the nature of Brazil-Iraq relations in the early 1980s. Before leaving Iraq in 1998 -- just days before U.S.-led air strikes -- U.N. weapons inspectors had dismantled an illegally imported German centrifuge installation that had been used to refine progressively natural or low-enriched uranium until it became suitable for weapons, the Times reported. - "Brazil uranium sales to Iraq stir debate ," by Carmen Gentile, United Press International 9/25/02

What was this doing there if Iraq had met its requirements? This ALONE is just cause for declaring the already violated ceasefire agreement void and finishing the job against Iraq- Iraq's efforts to enrich uranium were proven to be an ongoing project:

DECEMBER 1998 : (IRAQ, UNSCOM DISMANTLES GERMAN CENTRIFUGE INSTALLATION) The Times of London interview with Hamza notes another possible clue tog the nature of Brazil-Iraq relations in the early 1980s. Before leaving Iraq in 1998 -- just days before U.S.-led air strikes -- U.N. weapons inspectors had dismantled an illegally imported German centrifuge installation that had been used to refine progressively natural or low-enriched uranium until it became suitable for weapons, the Times reported. - "Brazil uranium sales to Iraq stir debate ," by Carmen Gentile, United Press International 9/25/02

Things were hitting the fan. The US was now made a fool of for the 188th time and was looking the part fo the world's biggest paper tiger. So much so that Abu Nidal- the ANO terror group which had made such a good name in hijacking and in trying to assassinate US officials and their families right in our own country- returned to Iraq and Iraq made no objection. It need not care about appearances. That same month, some of the 911 hijackers entered the US, bin Laden would issue his fatwa against the US, and there would be a terror alert in NY City and DC.

In December's Operation Desert Fox, where we hit precious little, except for one tiny thing which put the lie to Iraq and its apologists over delivery systems. One of the missiles we used knocked the corner from a building's roof. Under that roof, was proof that Iraq had illegally outfitted military aircraft for spraying substances. (The cat was out of the bag- obviously, even after 6 years of UN inspections, the UN had failed to detect this Iraqi weapons program.)

DECEMBER 1998 : (IRAQI OFFICIAL AL-HIJAZI MEETS WITH BIN LADEN IN AFGHANISTAN) Following the December 1998 air strikes on Iraq, Saddam Hussein dispatched Faruq al-Hijazi to Kandahar, Afghanistan in order to meet with bin Laden and plot their revenge. To demonstrate Iraq’s commitment to bin Laden and al Qaeda, Hijazi presented bin Laden with a pack of blank, official Yemeni passports, supplied to Iraqi Intelligence from their Yemeni contacts. Hijazi’s visit to Kandahar was followed by a contingent of Iraqi intelligence officials who provided additional training and instruction to bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. These Iraqi officials included members of “Unit 999,” a group of elite Iraqi intelligence officials who provided advanced sabotage and infiltration training and instruction to al Qaeda operatives. At that meeting, upon information and belief, bin Laden, al Qaeda and Iraq agreed to join efforts in a detailed, coordinated plan for a protracted terrorist war against the United States. - Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda

DECEMBER 1998 : (IRAQI OFFICIALS MEET WITH BIN LADEN IN AFGHANISTAN) Vince Cannistraro, the CIA's former counter-terrorism chief, said Baghdad made an overture to Mr bin Laden in December 1998. Saddam was apparently so impressed by the bombings that year of the two US embassies in East Africa that he sent Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, Farouk Hijazi, to Afghanistan to meet Mr bin Laden. The CIA believed Mr Hijazi offered Mr bin Laden and al-Qa'ida, then being pursued by the Americans, a permanent refuge in Iraq but the offer was refused - "The suicide bomber and the Baghdad conspiracy," By Chris Blackhurst, Independent.co.uk , 14 October 2001

DECEMBER 21, 1998 : (IRAQ'S HIJAZI & BIN LADEN TARGET LIST MADE) "Terrorist cells belonging to the network organized by Osama bin Laden...are ready go into action in the countries of the Persian Gulf and Europe...The list of targets is ready. It was agreed in Kandahar 21 December by Osama himself and Farouk Hijazi... The new recruits, together with the veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Bosnia, form the secret army that is expected to use its weapons against all those who oppose the rais of Baghdad. In order to make them even more dangerous, traditional training has been supplemented with training in the use of chemical weapons, toxins and viruses."  [Corriere della Sera, February 1, 1999 (Italia)] see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743697/posts?page=51#51

DECEMBER 25, 1998 : (BIN LADEN COMMENTS ON AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPORTING IRAQ, SAYING IT JUSTIFIES MUSLIMS KILLING AMERICANS AND BRITS) ". Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi exile accused of masterminding the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, is calling on Muslims to kill Americans and Britons for the airstrikes their countries carried out against Iraq. ``The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders' decision to attack Iraq,'' Bin Laden said in Friday's edition of the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al- Awsat. This made it ``the duty of Muslims to confront, fight and kill'' Britons and Americans, he said. ``And anything that can be taken from them by force is the rightful prize of Muslims,'' Bin Laden said..." - AP, 12/25/98

DECEMBER 1998 : (SADDAM HUSSEIN SENT HIJAZI TO MEET WITH BIN LADEN, ACCORDING TO FORMER CIA COUNTER-TERRORISM CHIEF CANNISTRARO) Vince Cannistraro, the CIA's former counter-terrorism chief, said Baghdad made an overture to Mr bin Laden in December 1998. Saddam was apparently so impressed by the bombings that year of the two US embassies in East Africa that he sent Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, Farouk Hijazi, to Afghanistan to meet Mr bin Laden. The CIA believed Mr Hijazi offered Mr bin Laden and al-Qa'ida, then being pursued by the Americans, a permanent refuge in Iraq but the offer was refused.- "The suicide bomber and the Baghdad conspiracy," By Chris Blackhurst, Independent.co.uk , 14 October 2001

It's interesting that Abu Nidal and ANO came back to Iraq in 1998, interesting that Iraq had its training camp for foreigners complete with aircraft, and interesting that by December 1998 the 911 hijackers were already entering the US, and more interesting that even the PLO whispers upon his recent death in late 2002 in Baghdad where we know he "committed suicide" by shooting himself multriple times in the head- of PLO claims that his presence there was part of Hussein's effort to recruit him to train hijackers, an effort the palestinians mentioned in the Observer tell us he refused, and so was killed. (But they fail to explain why he was killed a year after 911, instead of as soon as he refused.)

Add to this a comment from Cheney:

"We know that Saddam Hussein has, over the years, been one of the top state sponsors of terrorism for nearly 20 years," Cheney said. "We've had this recent weird incident where the head of the Abu Nidal organization, one of the world's most noted terrorists, was killed in Baghdad. The announcement was made by the head of Iraqi intelligence. The initial announcement said he'd shot himself. When they dug into that, though, he'd shot himself four times in the head. And speculation has been, that, in fact, somehow, the Iraqi government or Saddam Hussein had him eliminated to avoid potential embarrassment by virtue of the fact that he was in Baghdad and operated in Baghdad. So it's a very complex picture to try to sort out." - Vice President Dick Cheney on 'Meet the Press,' September 2002

Others claim that he was plotting to overthrow the regime and this is why hussein had him eliminated.

Of course, by this time it was already obvious that it wasn't Abu Nidal, but the US that was pltting to overthrow the regime, and its overthrow was going to be spectacular and involve a lot of troops, so this one seems silly.

So it is interesting that Atta's buddy Jarrah- also a hiijacker and pilot on 911- had a daddy based in Germany with ties to both Abu Nidal's organization and to Libya, for whoom he was an agent and to whom he sold chemicals. This gentleman spent a lot of time visiting strange places in the Libyan desert and also disappeared two months before 911 claiming he was returning to Lebanon.

Add to this another article which says Iraq was training al Qaeda at Nahrawan and Salman Pak on airplane hijacking two months before 9/11.

Add to this the odd mentions of attacks on NY and the White House in Iraqi state-run press around the same time...

JULY 21, 2001 : (IRAQ, FOREWARNING) On July 21, approximately six weeks before the September 11 th attacks, Iraqi columnist Mulhalhal reported that bin Laden was making plans to “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.” Mulhalhal’s July 21 article further informed that bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” Upon information and belief, this references a second Iraqi sponsored attack on the World Trade Center. This interpretation is further bolstered by another reference to New York as “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra everytime he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) identifying New York, New York as a target. Mulhalhal further indicated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer.” (Emphasis supplied) This appears to be a reference to the use of commercial aircraft as a weapon. The information was reported in an Iraqi newspaper who’s editor-in-chief serves as secretary to Uday Hussein’s Iraqi Syndicate of Journalists. The article expressed Iraqi admiration and support for bin Laden’s plans and its appearance in the newspaper would clearly have to be endorsed by Saddam Hussein himself. All Iraqi news media is strictly controlled and censored by the government of Saddam Hussein and is under the direct oversight of Uday Hussein. Various members of Iraqi intelligence work at and control the content of each and every newspaper published inside Iraq. The information contained in Mulhalhal’s published statements were known prior to the events of September 11 th , and that Mulhalhal has ties to Iraqi intelligence, demonstrates foreknowledge of the planned attacks by bin Laden and indicates support by Iraqi co-conspirators. - Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda ... see also http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003069 from the WSJ

JULY 21, 2001 : (IRAQI PAPER AL-NASIRIYA PRAISES BIN LADEN) More recently, and eerily, a July 21, 2001, commentary in the Iraqi publication Al-Nasiriya praised bin Laden: "In this man's heart you'll find an insistence, a strange determination that he will reach one day the tunnels of the White House and will bomb it with everything that is in it."
The article recounts bin Laden's attacks on U.S. targets and U.S. efforts "to pressure the Taliban movement so that it would hand them bin Laden, while he continues to smile and still thinks seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."
The commentary is ominously prescient, especially since it could never have appeared without official sanction. "Bin Laden is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit," it continues, speaking about his goal to "drive off the Marines" from Arabia. Most eerily of all, the writer adds that those Marines "will be going away because the revolutionary bin Laden is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man . . . will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs." Is that a reference to Sinatra's "New York, New York"? Did Saddam know what would happen two months later? - "Saddam and the Next 9/11 : The Iraqi dictator and his son talk about the uses of biological weapons," REVIEW & OUTLOOK, OpinionJournal, WSJ.com, Friday, February 14, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

And this:

JULY 1, 2001 : (IRAQ : THIS IS THE DATE ON A MEMO FROM CHIEF OF IRAQ'S SECRET POLICE TO SADDAM HUSSEIN CONCERNING ABU NIDAL'S TRAINING OF MOHAMED ATTA IN IRAQ; MEMO WOULD BE FOUND LATE IN 2003) a memo ... from Saddam's secret police chief to the dictator dated July 1, 2001, reporting that the veteran terrorist Abu Nidal had been training one Mohamed Atta in Baghdad. - "Safire: From the 'Spider Hole'," The New York Times, 12/15/03, by William Safire

And this:

2001 summer : (3 IRAQIS SPEND 2 MONTHS IN COLUMBIA'S FARC-CONTROLLED ZONE OF CAGUAN - WOULD LATER BE ARRESTED IN THE US ON SUSPICIONS OF ARMS SMUGGLING) - "Search for Bin Laden links looks SOUTH, " By Martin Arostegui, http://www.autentico.org/oa09505.html , Organización Auténtica . October 2001

And this:

JULY 2001 : (ITALY : IRAQI INTELLIGENCE AGENT AL-MAMOURI DISAPPEARS FROM HIS JOB, SHORTLY AFTER HE MET 9/11 HIJACKER MOHAMMAD ATTA; BOTH HAD BEEN SEEN TOGETHER IN HAMBURG GERMANY & PRAGUE, CZECHOSLAVAKIA BEFORE) One of Saddam’s intelligence agents, Habib Faris Abdullah al-Mamouri, was sent to be the new headmaster of a school for Iraqi diplomats in Italy. The bogus headmaster has not been seen in Rome since July, shortly after he also met Atta. The pair are also said to have been together in Hamburg and Prague. There is no proof the men were in direct contact, but as one intelligence source in Madrid said [later in the year] : “They chose a strange time and place to take a holiday.” The Rome daily Il Messaggero, quoting Western intelligence sources, said of Mr al-Mamouri that “he spent more time pursuing contacts helpful to the Iraqi regime among fundamentalist Islamic groups than he had on his supposed teaching duties”. Italian officials say that Mr al-Mamouri held the rank of general in the Iraqi secret service, and from 1982 to 1990 worked in the Special Operations Branch forging Baghdad’s links with Islamic fundamentalist groups in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Gulf and Sudan. He was transferred to his “teaching duties” in 1998, although all the Iraqi Embassy will say of his sudden departure is that “he had money problems”. - "Hijacker 'given anthrax flask by Iraqi agent'," by DANIEL MCGRORY, The London Times, SATURDAY OCTOBER 27 2001

And that Ramsey was getting involved- remember- he was involved with the defense of the WTC 1 attackers:

JULY 21, 2001 : (THE DOMAIN BEATBACKBUSH.ORG IS REGISTERED; LATER THIS BECAME INTERNATIONAL A.N.S.W.E.R. - IT IS ASSOCIATED WITH RAMSEY CLARK)

And this:

JULY 31, 2001 : (IRAQ STEPS UP EFFORTS TO SHOOT DOWN COALITION PLANES) US defense department reports Iraq’s “considerably more aggressive stance in trying to bring down allied aircraft.”- Iraq - Scotsman says Saddam has weapons to wipe out world's population, nuclear bomb within 3 years "The Scotsman dossier - SPECIAL REPORT ON IRAQ" by Fraser Nelson, Westminster Editor

And this is not even skimming the top... It's clear that Ritter's an ass.

46 posted on 02/08/2004 4:42:35 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
Crucial correction in my post:

(siege is warfare too- the war that started in 1990 ended)

Should be:

(siege is warfare too- the war that started in 1990 NEVER ended)
47 posted on 02/08/2004 4:43:18 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
I agree with you. We have all of a sudden accepted that Saddam did not have these weapons based on David Kay alone.

Every intelligence agency in the world said he did. One man says he doesn't and suddenly he is the final word.

That is one of the most illogical things I have ever seen.
48 posted on 02/08/2004 4:51:08 PM PST by texasflower (in the event of the rapture.......the Bush White House will be unmanned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
We were never even looking for large stockpiles- that's a media myth. When my brother was over there in the 90s we were looking for movements of just trucks, ambulances, small boats, and single railroad/ship containers and drums, and of course, people, and not just in Iraq, but in nations with whom Iraq's Hussein was working. We found materials in Jordan and his chemical efforts in Sudan didn't escape notice, nor Iraq's nuclear associations with Libya. No need to hide things when you've got it outsourced and the inspectors don't have a permit to hunt another country for your stuff.

It took until years after the first Gulf War just to find some of his nuke stuff the first time around- and we kept finding it right up to December 1998. And he wasn't even trying that hard to conceal at first, though he did receive intel on what searches were going to happen from the UN and Russia.

49 posted on 02/08/2004 4:54:41 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Paul Wolfowitz disagrees with you. He said WMD was the reason everyone could agree on. The problem was UN support. The UN would only support the action if it was because of WMD (not because Saddam was an evil dictator), so that's what the administration pushed.
50 posted on 02/08/2004 4:57:44 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative ("You can dip a pecan in gold, but it's still a pecan"-- Deep Thoughts by JC Watts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson