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

Skip to comments.

Where the WMDs Went
FrontPage Magazine ^ | Nov. 16, 2005 | Jamie Glazov

Posted on 11/16/2005 5:49:34 AM PST by conservativecorner

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Tierney, a former military intelligence officer and Arabic speaker who worked at Guantanamo Bay in 2002 and as a counter-infiltration operator in Baghdad in 2004. He was also an inspector (1996-1998) for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) for overseeing the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in Iraq. He worked on the most intrusive inspections during this period and either participated in or planned inspections that led to four of the seventeen resolutions against Iraq.

FP: Mr. Tierney, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Tierney: Thanks for the opportunity.

FP: With the Democrats now so viciously and hypocritically attacking Bush about WMDs, I’d like to discuss your own knowledge and expertise on this issue in connection to Iraq. You have always held that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Why? Can you discuss some actual finds?

Tierney: It was probably on my second inspection that I realized the Iraqis had no intention of ever cooperating. They had very successfully turned The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections during the eighties into tea parties, and had expected UNSCOM to turn out the same way. However, there was one fundamental difference between IAEA and UNSCOM that the Iraqis did not account for. There was a disincentive in IAEA inspections to be aggressive and intrusive, since the same standards could then be applied to the members states of the inspectors. IAEA had to consider the continued cooperation of all the member states. UNSCOM, however, was focused on enforcing and verifying one specific Security Council Resolution, 687, and the level of intrusiveness would depend on the cooperation from Iraq.

I came into the inspection program as an interrogator and Arabic linguist, so I crossed over various fields and spotted various deception techniques that may not have been noticed in only one field, such as chemical or biological. For instance, the Iraqis would ask in very reasonable tones that questionable documents be set aside until the end of the day, when a discussion would determine what was truly of interest to UNSCOM. The chief inspector, not wanting to appear like a knuckle-dragging ogre, would agree. Instead of setting the documents on a table in a stack, the Iraqis would set them side to side, filling the entire table top, and would place the most explosive documents on the edge of the table. At some point they would flood the room with people, and in the confusion abscond with the revealing documents.

This occurred at Tuwaitha Atomic Research Facility in 1996. A car tried to blow through an UNSCOM vehicle checkpoint at the gate. The car had a stack of documents about two feet high in the back seat. In the middle of the stack, I found a document with a Revolutionary Command Council letterhead that discussed Atomic projects with four number designations that were previously unknown. The Iraqis were extremely concerned. I turned the document over to the chief inspector, who then fell for the Iraqis’ “reasonable request” to lay it out on a table for later discussion. The Iraqis later flooded the room, and the document disappeared. Score one for the Iraqis.

On finds, the key word here is “find.” UNSCOM could pursue a lead and approach an inspection target from various angles to cut off an escape route, but at some point, the Iraqis would hold up their guns and keep us out.

A good example of this was the inspection of the 2nd Armored Battalion of the Special Republican Guards in June 1997. We came in from three directions, because we knew the Iraqis had an operational center that tracked our movement and issued warnings. The vehicle I was in arrived at the gate first. There were two guards when we arrived, and over twenty within a minute, all extremely nervous.

The Iraqis had stopped the third group of our inspection team before it could close off the back of the installation. A few minutes later, a soldier came from inside the installation, and all the other guards gathered around him. He said something, there was a big laugh, and all the guards relaxed. A few moments later there was a radio call from the team that had been stopped short. They could here truck engines through the tall (10”) grass in that area. When we were finally allowed in, our team went to the back gate. The Iraqis claimed the gate hadn’t been opened in months, but there was freshly ground rust at the gate hinges. There was a photo from overhead showing tractor trailers with missiles in the trailers leaving the facility.

When pressed, Tariq Aziz criticized the inspectors for not knowing the difference between a missile and a concrete guard tower. He never produced the guard towers for verification. It was during this period that Tariq Aziz pulled out his “no smoking gun” line. Tariq very cleverly changed the meaning of this phrase. The smoking gun refers to an indicator of what you are really looking for - the bullet. Tariq changed the meaning so smoking gun referred to the bullet, in this case the WMD, knowing that as long as there were armed guards between us and the weapons, we would never be able to “find,” as in “put our hands on,” the weapons of mass destruction. The western press mindlessly took this up and became the Iraqis’ tool. I will let the reader decide whether this inspection constitutes a smoking gun.

FP: So can you tell us about some other “smoking guns”?

Tierney: Sure. Another smoking gun was the inspection of the 2nd Infantry Battalion of the Special Republican Guards. After verifying source information related to biological weapons formerly stored at the National War College, we learned at another site that the unit responsible for guarding the biological weapons was stationed near the airport. We immediately dashed over there before the Iraqis could react, and forced them to lock us out. One of our vehicles took an elevated position where they could look inside the installation and see the Iraqis loading specialized containers on to trucks that matched the source description for the biological weapons containers. The Iraqis claimed that we had inspected the facilities a year earlier, so we didn’t need to inspect it again.

Another smoking gun was the inspection of Jabal Makhul Presidential Site. In June/July 1997 we inspected the 4th Special Republican Guards Battalion in Bayji, north of Tikrit. This unit had been photographed taking equipment for the Electro-magnetic Isotope Separation (EMIS) method of uranium enrichment away from inspectors. The Iraqis were extremely nervous as this site, and hid any information on personnel who may have been involved with moving the equipment. This was also the site where the Iraqi official on the UNSCOM helicopter tried to grab the control and almost made the aircraft crash.

When I returned to the States, I learned that the Iraqis were extremely nervous that we were going to inspect an unspecified nearby site, and that they checked that certain code named items were in their proper place. I knew from this information the Iraqis could only be referring to Jabal Makhul Presidential Site, a sprawling mountain retreat on the other side of the ridge from the 4th Battalion, assigned to guard the installation. This explained why the Iraqis caused the problems with the helicopter, to keep it from flying to the other side of the mountain.

We inspected Jabal Makhul in September of 1997. The Iraqis locked us out without a word of discussion. This was the start of the Presidential Site imbroglio. The Iraqis made great hay out of inspectors wanting to look under the president’s furniture, but this site, with its hundreds of acres, was the real target.

During the Presidential Site inspections in Spring of 1998, inspectors found an under-mountain storage area at Jabal Makhul. When the inspectors arrived, it was filled with drums of water. The Iraqis claimed that they used the storage area to store rainwater. Jabal Makhul had the Tigris River flowing by at the bottom of the mountain, and a massive pump to send water to the top of the mountain, where it would cascade down in fountains and waterfalls in Saddam’s own little Shangri-la, but the Iraqi had to go to the effort of digging out an underground bunker akin to our Cheyenne Mountain headquarters, just so they could store rainwater.

A London Sunday Times article in 2001 by Gwynne Roberts quoted an Iraqi defector as stating Iraq had nuclear weapons in a heavily guarded installation in the Hamrin mountains. Jabal Makhul is the most heavily guarded location in the Hamrin mountains. With its under-mountain bunker, isolation, and central location, it is the perfect place to store a high-value asset like a nuclear weapon.

On nukes, some analysts wait until there is unambiguous proof before stating a country has nuclear weapons. This may work in a courtroom, but intelligence is a different subject altogether. I believe it is more prudent to determine what is axiomatic given a nation’s capabilities and intentions. There was no question that Iraq had triggering mechanisms for a nuke, the question was whether they had enriched enough uranium. Given Iraq’s intensive efforts to build a nuke prior to the Gulf War, their efforts to hide uranium enrichment material from inspectors, the fact that Israel had a nuke but no Arab state could claim the same, my first-hand knowledge of the limits of UNSCOM and IAEA capabilities, and Iraqi efforts to buy yellowcake uranium abroad (Joe Wilson tea parties notwithstanding), I believe the TWELVE years between 1991 and 2003 was more than enough time to produce sufficient weapons grade uranium to produce a nuclear weapon. Maybe I have more respect for the Iraqis’ capabilities than some.

FP: Tell us something you came up with while conducting counter-infiltration ops in Iraq.

Tierney: While I was engaged in these operations in Baghdad in 2004, one of the local translators freely stated in his security interview that he worked for the purchasing department of the nuclear weapons program prior to and during the First Gulf War. He said that Saddam purchased such large quantities of precision machining equipment that he could give up some to inspections, or lose some to bombing, and still have enough for his weapons program. This translator also stated that when Saddam took human shields and placed some at Tarmiya Nuclear Research Facility, he was sent there to act as a translator. One of the security officers at Tarmiya told him that he had just recovered from a sickness he incurred while guarding technicians working in an underground facility nearby. The security officer stated that the technicians left for a break every half hour, but he stayed in the underground chamber all day and got sick. The security officer didn’t mention what they were doing, but I would say uranium enrichment is the most logical pick.

What, not enough smoke? There was the missile inspection on Ma’moun Establishment. I was teamed with two computer forensic specialists. A local technician stood by while we opened a computer and found a flight simulation for a missile taking off from the Iraqi desert in the same area used during the First Gulf War and flying west towards Israel. The warhead was only for 50 kilograms. By the time we understood was this was, the poor technician was coming apart. I will never forget meeting his eyes, and both of us realizing he was a dead man walking. The Iraqis tried to say that the computer had just been transferred from another facility, and that the flight simulation had not been erased from before the war. The document’s placement in the file manager, and the technician’s reaction belied this story. UNSCOM’s original assessment was that this was for a biological warhead, but I have since seen reporting that make me think it was for a nuclear weapon.

These are only some of the observations of one inspector. I know of other inspections where there were clear indicators the Iraqis were hiding weapons from the inspectors.

FP: Ok, so where did the WMDs go?

Tierney: While working counter-infiltration in Baghdad, I noticed a pattern among infiltrators that their cover stories would start around Summer or Fall of 2002. From this and other observations, I believe Saddam planned for a U.S. invasion after President Bush’s speech at West Point in 2002. One of the steps taken was to prepare the younger generation of the security services with English so they could infiltrate our ranks, another was either to destroy or move WMDs to other countries, principally Syria. Starting in the Summer of 2002, the Iraqis had months to purge their files and create cover stories, such as the letter from Hossam Amin, head of the Iraqi outfit that monitored the weapons inspectors, stating after Hussein Kamal’s defection that the weapons were all destroyed in 1991.

I was on the inspections that follow-up on Hussein Kamal’s defection, and Hossam said at the time that Hussein Kamal had a secret cabal that kept the weapons without the knowledge of the Iraqi government. It was pure pleasure disemboweling this cover story. Yet the consensus at DIA is that Iraq got rid of its weapons in 1991. This is truly scary. If true, when and where did Saddam have a change of heart? This is the same man who crowed after 9/11, then went silent after news broke that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence operative in Prague. Did Saddam spend a month with Mother Theresa, or go to a mountain top in the Himalaya’s? Those that say there were no weapons have to prove that Saddam had a change of heart. I await their evidence with interest.

FP: So do you think the WMD is the central issue regarding Iraq?

Tierney: No, and it never should have been an issue. The First Gulf War -- and I use this term as a convention, since this is actually all the same war -- was a prime example of managing war instead of waging it. Instead of telling Saddam to get out of Kuwait or we will push him out, we should have said to get out of Kuwait or we will remove him from power. As it was, we were projecting our respect for human life on Saddam, when actually, from his point of view, we were doing him a favor by killing mostly Shi’ite military members who were a threat to his regime. I realize that Saudi Arabia, our host, did not want a change in government in Iraq, and they had helped us bring down the Soviet Union with oil price manipulation, but we should have bent them to our will instead of vice versa. Saddam would not have risked losing power to keep Kuwait, and we could have avoided this whole ordeal.

We topped one mistake with another, expecting Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party, a criminal syndicate masquerading as a political party, to abide by any arms control agreement. Gun control and Arms control both arise from the “mankind is good” worldview. If you control the environment, i.e. get rid of the guns, then man’s natural goodness will rise to the surface. I hope it is evidence after more than a decade of Iraqi intransigence how foolish this position is. The sobering fact is that if a nation feels it is in their best interest to have certain weapons, they are going to have them. Chemical weapons were critical to warding off hoards of Iranian fighters, and the Iraqis knew they would always be in a position of weakness against Israel without nuclear weapons. The United States kept nuclear weapons to deter the Soviet Union, but we would deny the same logic for Iraq?

There is also the practicality of weapons inspections/weapons hunts. After seventeen resolutions pleading with the Iraqis to be nice, the light bulb still didn’t go off that the entire concept is fundamentally flawed. Would you like to live in a city where the police chief sent out resolutions to criminals to play nice, instead of taking them off the streets?

As I said earlier, I knew the Iraqis would never cooperate, so the inspections became a matter of illustrating this non-cooperation for the Security Council and the rest of the world. No manipulation or fabrication was necessary. There was a sufficient percentage of defectors with accurate information to ensure that we would catch the Iraqis in the act. UNSCOM was very successfully at verifying the Iraqis’ non-cooperation; the failure was in the cowardice at the Security Council. Maybe cowardice is too strong a word. Maybe the problem was giving a mission that entailed the possible use of force to an organization with the goal of eliminating the use of force.

On the post-war weapons hunt, the arrogance and hubris of the intelligence community is such that they can’t entertain the possibility that they just failed to find the weapons because the Iraqis did a good job cleaning up prior to their arrival. This reminds me of the police chief who announced on television plans to raid a secret drug factor on the outskirts of town. At the time appointed, the police, all twelve of them, lined up behind each other at the front door, knocked and waiting for the druggies to answer, as protocol required. After ten minute of toilet flushing and back-door slamming, somebody came to the front door in a bathrobe and explained he had been in the shower. The police took his story at face value, even though his was dry as a bone, then police proceeded to inspect the premises ensuring that the legal, moral , ethnic, human, and animal rights, and also the national dignity, of the druggies was preserved. After a search, the police chief announced THERE WERE NO STOCKPILES of drugs at the inspected site. Anyone care to move to this city?

FP: Let’s talk a little bit more about how the WMDs disappeared.

Tierney: In Iraq’s case, the lakes and rivers were the toilet, and Syria was the back door. Even though there was imagery showing an inordinate amount of traffic into Syria prior to the inspections, and there were other indicators of government control of commercial trucking that could be used to ship the weapons to Syria, from the ICs point of view, if there is no positive evidence that the movement occurred, it never happened. This conclusion is the consequence of confusing litigation with intelligence. Litigation depends on evidence, intelligence depends on indicators. Picture yourself as a German intelligence officer in Northern France in April 1944. When asked where will the Allies land, you reply “I would be happy to tell you when I have solid, legal proof, sir. We will have to wait until they actually land.” You won’t last very long. That officer would have to take in all the indicators, factor in deception, and make an assessment (this is a fancy intelligence word for an educated guess).

The Democrats understand the difference between the two concepts, but have no qualms about blurring the distinction for political gain. This is despicable. This has brought great harm to our nation’s credibility with our allies. A perfect example is Senator Levin waving deception by one single source, al-Libi, to try and convince us that this is evidence there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, as though the entire argument rested on this one source. Senator Levin, and his media servants, think the public can’t read through his duplicity. He is plunging a dagger into the heart of his own country.

Could the assessments of Iraq’s weapons program been off? I am sure there were some marginal details that were incorrect, but on the matter of whether Iraq had a program, the error was not with the pre-war assessment, the error was with the weapons hunt.

I could speak at length about the problems with the weapons hunt. Mr. Hanson has an excellent article in “The American Thinker,” and Judith Miller, one of the few bright lights at the New York Times, did an article on the problems with the weapons hunt that I can corroborate from other sources. But if the Iraqi Survey Group had been manned by a thousand James Bonds, and every prop was where it should have been, I doubt the result would have been much different. The whole concept of international arms inspections puts too much advantage with the inspected country. Factor in the brutality used by the Baath Party, and it amounts to a winning combination for our opponents.

I was shocked to learn recently that members of the Iraqi Survey Group believed their Iraqi sources when they said they don’t fear a return of the Baath Party. During my eight months of counterinfiltration duty, we had 50 local Iraqis working on our post who were murdered for collaborating. Of the more than 150 local employees our team identified as security threats, the most sophisticated infiltrators came from the Baath Party. This was just one post, yet the DIA believes no one was afraid to talk, even though scientists who were cooperating with ISG were murdered. You can add this to the Able Danger affair as another example of the deep rot inside the intelligence community.

I believe that once the pertinent sources have a sense of security, a whole lot of people are going to have egg on their face. I believe the Iraqis had a WMD program, and I am not changing my story, no matter how many times Chris Matthews hyperventilates.

FP: Before we go, can you briefly touch on some of the prevailing attitudes in the U.S. military that may hurt us?

Tierney: There is a prevailing attitude that the U.S. is too big and ponderous to lose, so individual officers don’t have to take the potentially career-threatening risks necessary to win. I have heard it said that for every one true warrior in the military, there are two to three self-serving, career-worshipping bureaucrats. We shouldn’t be surprised. After all, the Army advertised “Be all you can be!” Or in other words, get a career at taxpayer expense.

President Clinton changed the definition of the military from peace makers to peace keepers, and no senior officers resigned or objected. President Clinton took a one star general who ran a humanitarian effort in Northern Iraq, Shalikashvilli, and made him Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The signal was out, warriors need not apply. Shalikashvilli later spoke at a U.N. meeting and listed the roles for the military in the “Revolution in Military Affairs.” He included warm and fuzzy things like “confidence building,” but failed to mention waging war. In my five years at CENTCOM headquarters, I very rarely heard the words, “war,” “enemy,” or “winning.” This was all absorbed into the wonderful term “strike operations.”

Operation Desert Fox was a perfect example of the uselessness of strike operations. Iraqis have told me that the WMD destruction and movement started just after Operation Desert Fox, since after all, who would be so stupid as to start a bombing campaign and just stop.

It was only after Saddam realized that President Clinton lacked the nerve for anything more than a temper-tantrum demonstration that he knew the doors were wide open for him to continue his weapons program. We didn’t break his will, we didn’t destroy his weapons making capability (The Iraqis simply moved most of the precision machinery out prior to the strikes, then rebuilt the buildings), but we did kill some Iraqi bystanders, just so President Clinton could say “something must be done, so I did something.”

General Zinni, Commander of CENTCOM, and no other senior officer had any problem with this fecklessness. They apparently bought into the notion that wars are meant to be managed and not waged. The warriors coming into the military post 9/11 deserve true warriors at the top. I believe the house cleaning among the senior military leadership started by the Secretary of Defense should continue full force. If not across the board, then definitely in the military intelligence field.

FP: Mr. Tierney it was a pleasure to speak with you today. Thank you for visiting Frontpage.

Tierney: Thank you Jamie for the opportunity to say there were weapons, and that we were right to invade Iraq.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 229; glazov; iraq; wmd; wmds
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-139 next last

1 posted on 11/16/2005 5:49:36 AM PST by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

bump


2 posted on 11/16/2005 5:59:04 AM PST by Robert357 (D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
In Iraq’s case, the lakes and rivers were the toilet, and Syria was the back door.

It is reasonable to surmise that a govt that would bury its planes in the Iranian desert would have no qualms about doing the same with easily concealable WMD. This is more plausible than the contention that the intelligence of Russia, England, US, and France was incorrect.
3 posted on 11/16/2005 6:01:53 AM PST by etradervic (Able Danger, Peter Paul Campaign Fraud, Travelgate, Whitewater, Sandy Berger...demand answers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Demonrats care more about political power than the safety of America and their fellow citizens. When the Clinton administration warned of Iraq's WMDs, Demonrats were able to acknowledge the threat. When the Bush administration, after 9/11, confirms what the Demonrats had been saying, they call him a liar and accuse him of distorting the intel. They are weak and fearful in the face of genuine danger and have no business being taken seriously. The world is far too dangerous for their "leadership" and policies.
4 posted on 11/16/2005 6:02:15 AM PST by GBA (I believe Congressman Weldon! MSM do your job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

Wow. Required reading!


5 posted on 11/16/2005 6:11:28 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED READING.

Now if only we could get a Republican to read it....

6 posted on 11/16/2005 6:19:12 AM PST by theDentist (The Dems have put all their eggs in one basket-case: Howard "Belltower" Dean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
The instances of suspicious weapons activity he cites are problematic. While he can make unverified claims of all sorts, some of the activities he describes should be supportable with current testing. For instance, in the underground bunker where he *assumes* nuclear research was being conducted, enough to cause a technician to get sick from one day's exposure, there would certainly be residual radiation. So the question becomes why aren't we finding these reports of work areas with dangerously high radioactivity? If there were toxic chemicals present for chemical warfare, there would also be traces of it. If the chambers in which the work was done were demolished, we could excavate them and test the rubble for such evidence.

I'm sure he's sincere. But I question why we aren't finding indeliable scientific evidence of the WMD research he's describing here.
7 posted on 11/16/2005 6:20:25 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

Ping for latah


8 posted on 11/16/2005 6:22:40 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating my first full year on FR! Has it been one year already?? Has it only been one year??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

According to whom? You should know better than anyone to question the media, "Mr. President."


9 posted on 11/16/2005 6:23:27 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating my first full year on FR! Has it been one year already?? Has it only been one year??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

I need to find the pictures of US troops digging up the latest MIG-25's and other military hardware buried in the desert. It was posted on my e-mail from a freind in San Antonio


10 posted on 11/16/2005 6:25:59 AM PST by snowman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

There are so many excellent points in this interview, short enough to be soundbites, that one can't repeat them all here. This was a very eye-opening article. Too bad the MSM won't repeat a glimmer of it.


11 posted on 11/16/2005 6:29:11 AM PST by Real Cynic No More (Liberals and MSM manipulate the news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
Ain't gonna happen [with a few exceptions to be fair] with the leadership we have at the WH, RNC, NRCC or the NRSC. However, I can tell you that the Main Street Group [Rep. Bass] continues to pound the President and conservatives relentlessly. The moderates have made a coordinated move to usurp the power of their own respective elected leadership. In the senate, it's the 7 turn coats who got some judges through, but damaged the Party in profound ways. In the House, with DeLay idled, the turn coats [Main Street Group...George Soros] are openly challenging the Leadership of the House with Bass living up to his namesake "the LARGEMOUTH Bass".

We need conservative congressmen and women, as well as the conservatives in the senate to step up regarding this open rebellion.
12 posted on 11/16/2005 6:32:24 AM PST by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

It is the policy of the US government to neither confrim or deny the existance of WMD - even if we sold it to them and know where it is.

Sorry, but that is our rules and sometime we get hurt by them.


13 posted on 11/16/2005 6:38:07 AM PST by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
And I'm wondering why I wasted sooooooo much time on you yesterday. I'm not going to post any more responses to you. Clearly, you have an agenda on this site, and I can't waste time on folks like you who aren't sincere about finding those weapons or in even recognizing what has been found to date. To repeat, time is an issue for all of us, and you are a waste of my precious time. Got it?
14 posted on 11/16/2005 6:38:58 AM PST by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

Because if we say we found it then we would be asked who provided it to the Iraqis and that could cause a very big problem in international relations.For instance, if we said we found chemical biological or nuclear weapons and it was proven another country provided them or helped in the manufacture it could lead to name calling, finger pointing and possible world war. I think before we invaded we told russia to go in and retrieve those weapons cuz if Saddam used them on our invading forces we would expose them, the Russians as the culprits.World diplomacy is no easy matter.


15 posted on 11/16/2005 6:40:16 AM PST by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
There are 2 scenarios :
1.Saddam had WMD and get rid of them before the war started.Russia and Libya helped out. Nobody knew that Lybia had nuclear staff. Libya came out immediately after American bombers "visited" Iraq. Something strange is telling me that Libyan nuclear staff came from Iraq.
2.Saddam had no WMD but he behaved as he had.He played with fire and he get burned. After 9/11 attack, US could not afford to play cat and mouse with a guy like Saddam.We get in Iraq and so far did not found out WMD.So what? We get in Iraq to look for WMD. If the WMD are not there.. they are not there. We had the duty to verify it.
16 posted on 11/16/2005 6:40:58 AM PST by SeeSalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowman1

http://home.att.net/~steven.newton5/wmd.html


17 posted on 11/16/2005 6:41:50 AM PST by petercooper (I was misled. I actually voted for war, before I wanted to vote against it with 20/20 hindsight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
I wasn't responding to you personally, I hit Post Reply on #1, as is the custom.

Apparently, you resent any suggestion that unverified claims of industrial processing for WMD (nuclear, chemical) should have some evidence to back it up. Or that biological weapons production should have traces left as well. As we know from our own weapons production facilities, WMD production is very messy and it is difficult to conceal all the evidence.

The article also fails to account for the complete lack of individuals (technicians, transport drivers, etc.) who had to be involved in production and the evacuation of the WMD.

As I said, it all sounds good. But there should be evidence and witnesses to support efforts on the scale the interviewee describes.
18 posted on 11/16/2005 6:45:36 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

bump for later read


19 posted on 11/16/2005 6:49:33 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

Bump for later reading.


20 posted on 11/16/2005 6:50:39 AM PST by reagan_fanatic (Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence - R. Kirk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
Because if we say we found it then we would be asked who provided it to the Iraqis and that could cause a very big problem in international relations.For instance, if we said we found chemical biological or nuclear weapons and it was proven another country provided them or helped in the manufacture it could lead to name calling, finger pointing and possible world war.

But we do acknowledge giving them the anthrax strains in the Eighties. We also funded their war effort via the BCCI scandal and ran diplomatic interference for Saddam as we wanted to contain Iran. And France's Osarik reactor is no secret (and the public relief everyone expressed that Israel, of all people, bombed it). And certainly Russia supplied a lot of forbidden gear like the nightvision and other stuff bought right before the war to kill our troops as well as their former generals going to Iraq to help organize Saddam's defense. And Pakistan's top scientist giving nuke secrets to a bunch of Muslim countries is no secret. And Europe sold a *lot* of stuff. Even Britain. And those are just off the top of my head.

Well, you can see I don't think our actions and statements on WMD are motivated by concerns over international scandal. There was plenty of scandal already and no one jumped off a cliff.
21 posted on 11/16/2005 6:52:10 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: snowman1

The cockpit

The Dig

The Plane.

22 posted on 11/16/2005 6:54:35 AM PST by usmcobra (30 years since I first celebrated The Marine Corps Birthday as a Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: theDentist

"inspections during the eighties into tea parties"

Who do you know that went to Africa to investigate yellow cake and spent his whole time drinking sweet tea?
Hmmmmm, sounds very familiar.


23 posted on 11/16/2005 6:55:51 AM PST by Holicheese (Would you like a beer? No thanks, I will have a bud light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

All those trucks heading to Syria BEFORE the War and AFTER Rockefeller gave heads up......were not loaded with Saddamn's furniture.


24 posted on 11/16/2005 6:57:43 AM PST by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra

The President must have a reason for not speaking of this...God willing it is part of an overall plan to defeat our enemies, foreign and domestic.


25 posted on 11/16/2005 6:57:46 AM PST by dogcaller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
One other item from yesterday. Here is your first post to me. I have highlighted the section that deals with items found. I and others have provided proof of the existence of WMD in Iraq, yet you refuse to acknowledge these facts. I can't have a discussion with someone who continually moves the goal posts. Have a nice life.

"If this is the vaunted WMD proof, I think it's time to give up."

"Why do right-wing news sources continue to claim WMD when the Bush administration has disavowed such claims? How exactly do website operators get so much intel?"

"Just produce a thimble of sarin, a vial of anthrax, a marble of weapons-grade uranium, then we'll have something to talk about."

26 posted on 11/16/2005 7:00:05 AM PST by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: snowman1
need to find the pictures of US troops digging up the latest MIG-25's and other military hardware buried in the desert. It was posted on my e-mail from a freind in San Antonio.

I've got some, snowman1, How can I get them to you? Hey, Maybe I'm your friend in San Antonio!
27 posted on 11/16/2005 7:02:03 AM PST by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY (( Terrorism is a symptom, ISLAM IS THE DISEASE!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

But had any of the wmd's been used on our troops that would be another story.This little excursion into Iraq and Afghanistan is only a wakeup call to our enemies. We sure do not need to unite them against us by pointing fingers at them, not publicly anyway. As I said a few days ago the whole mideast, europe and southern asia could go from simmer to jiffy pop real quick if not handled properly. From now on I think France and Germany will think twice before helping a muslim country with technology for WMD's.


28 posted on 11/16/2005 7:02:16 AM PST by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Aren't you being just slightly disingenouous? I mean if Hussein didn't have stockpiles of wmds, why were all those weapons inspectors there in the first place? I find it difficult to believe that (1) Hussein had no large stores of wmds and was not close to developing nukes and (2) people who believe he wasn't interested in doing those things. Even people like Hans Blix have noted Hussein's past wmd weapons programs. They just thought that containing him through further inspections was preferable to war.

Another question to ask yourself is do you believe someone like Tierney is telling the truth or just trying to placate us Free Republic warmongers? I would think that any nonpartisan student of Hussein over his horrible tenure in Iraq would agree that (1) he had and used wmds and (2) that being the case, he would develop and use them again if had the chance. Remember we're talking about a man who tried to have a president of the U.S. assassinated. Why is it so hard for many people to connect the dots and assume the worst about Hussein? I felt that Hussein would eventually have to be taken out fourteen years ago when I was still a Dem. I still haven't changed my mind.

29 posted on 11/16/2005 7:03:43 AM PST by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

[Sorry, but that is our rules and sometime we get hurt by them.]

It sure seems to me that these rules are destroying the GOP and the dems are building a network of lies and deceit.
Perhaps the truth about the weapons of mass destruction will stregthen the GOP. It was a mistake when the right allowed RINO liberals into the conservative party and they are getting bit by these monsters.




30 posted on 11/16/2005 7:03:59 AM PST by kindred (Democrats are amoral (no moral values) , don't know it ,and are friends of terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

BTTT


31 posted on 11/16/2005 7:04:17 AM PST by shield (The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etradervic
I have always felt Iraq had WMD's ,what I do not under is why the administration keeps saying we were wrong ,there was no weapons .It does not make sense.
32 posted on 11/16/2005 7:15:47 AM PST by patriciamary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
Now if only we could get a Republican to read it....

Now if we could get the MSM to read it...

33 posted on 11/16/2005 7:17:36 AM PST by From The Deer Stand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marty60
All those trucks heading to Syria BEFORE the War and AFTER Rockefeller gave heads up

BINGO. Talk about telegraphing a punch.

How many months did Saddam have to hide or get rid of this stuff before we actually went in?

34 posted on 11/16/2005 7:19:15 AM PST by McGruff (There is a cancer within the CIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: driftless
Aren't you being just slightly disingenouous? I mean if Hussein didn't have stockpiles of wmds, why were all those weapons inspectors there in the first place? I find it difficult to believe that (1) Hussein had no large stores of wmds and was not close to developing nukes and (2) people who believe he wasn't interested in doing those things. Even people like Hans Blix have noted Hussein's past wmd weapons programs. They just thought that containing him through further inspections was preferable to war.

What's disingenuous is to present claims of WMD activity without any proof to back them up. I'm asking for evidence. A WMD find comparable to those we got when Libya surrendered their program to us. Or a large number of credible witnesses (scientists, technicians, transport people, government officials) who can put together a picture of how they acquired the WMD materials, how and where it was processed, how it was disposed of or evacuated.

Facts are pesky things but otherwise you end up with wishful thinking. I gave up on that a month after we invaded when every WMD claim turned out to be nothing.

Another question to ask yourself is do you believe someone like Tierney is telling the truth or just trying to placate us Free Republic warmongers?

I think that like Blix and others, he'll write a book to make some money. A book like that has to target an audience.

I would think that any nonpartisan student of Hussein over his horrible tenure in Iraq would agree that (1) he had and used wmds and (2) that being the case, he would develop and use them again if had the chance. Remember we're talking about a man who tried to have a president of the U.S. assassinated.

No one pretends Saddam is an angel. And the president Saddam tried to assassinate was, in fact, instumental in his access to U.S. tech in the Eighties, including the anthrax strains he received from our research programs. No effort was made to restrict his access even after it was clear he was intent on WMD programs.

Why is it so hard for many people to connect the dots and assume the worst about Hussein?

I do assume the worst. But I also know how messy WMD really is and how hard it is to hide the evidence, particularly from a country as sophisticated as we are.

Again, the Bush administration no longer claims WMD in Iraq. No one does. A great many fanciful explanations are offered for this but maybe the truth is that the threat was vastly overblown by our intel sources or the WMD programs were largely dismantled or simply too ineffective to succeed in producing WMD of adequate quantity or quality.

I would ask in return to your question: why is it so important for you to believe that which our administration does not claim about WMD in Iraq? It's a fair question.
35 posted on 11/16/2005 7:21:02 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
"...the deep rot inside the intelligence community."

The intelligence community in the US has become politicized. For that reason, it no longer serves its purpose.

Furthermore, why all the back and forth over proof of WMD in Iraq? Rules 'infractions' are not on a par with the potential destruction of whole swaths of this country or the murder of tens of thousands of innocent, unarmed American civilians. Apples and oranges. I say 'no more lawyers in the WH!!!


Besides, a WMD is a commercial air liner with a full tank of gas. It qualifies for WMD... it's massive and destructive, right? Don't think so? Ask survivors of the 9/11 attacks.
36 posted on 11/16/2005 7:22:56 AM PST by SMARTY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
The article also fails to account for the complete lack of individuals (technicians, transport drivers, etc.) who had to be involved in production and the evacuation of the WMD.

Do you not even know who we are talking about here ? Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad. Do you think he got that name because he liked to cut his own meat ?

37 posted on 11/16/2005 7:23:38 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Bump


38 posted on 11/16/2005 7:24:00 AM PST by Rocket1968 (Durbin must resign - NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker

bookmark


39 posted on 11/16/2005 7:24:36 AM PST by RebelBanker (If you can't do something smart, do something right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GBA

Here are just two {of 23} reason for going into Iraq. These are from the Congressional Resolution:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

You can google "iraq war resolutions" and get all 23, but these hypocritical congress critters, not only lie, they swear to it. WMD is only one reason, not even the first reason given, BY THE CONGRESS.


40 posted on 11/16/2005 7:32:35 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Robert357

bookmark


41 posted on 11/16/2005 7:38:51 AM PST by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

bump


42 posted on 11/16/2005 7:45:23 AM PST by TASMANIANRED (Conservatives are from earth. Liberals are from Uranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patriciamary
I have always felt Iraq had WMD's ,what I do not under is why the administration keeps saying we were wrong ,there was no weapons .It does not make sense.

It does if you are trying to build confidence in the Iraqi people. There are also numerous other consequences that could result from acknowledging their existence. If you acknowledge he had some, then the question is how many did he have ? Have all of them been found ? Where did they go ? Did Syria get some ? If Syria got some and we officially acknowledge that they could have gotten some, that act alone could provoke Syria into using whatever they did get. If we told Israel that Syria got Biological and Chemical WMD from Saddam while we were diddling with the UN, would not Israel consider a first strike to prevent their inevitable use on Israel ? If we acknowledge that some nasty WMD existed and that we may not have found all of them, what about Iran ? Would they be justified to invade to help us locate the Loose WMD ? What about if we know that terrorist got their hands on some of the chemical and biological WMD ? Would that not frighten a lot of people ? Perhaps it would be best to deny the existence of the WMD in the first place while we hunt down those terrorist. Not saying any of this happened or is happening, just illustrating some valid reasons to deny the recovery of WMD.

Personally I think the M1 tanks should have gone all the way to Baghdad after we destroyed Saddam's Kuwait invasion force. But as they say, hindsight is 20-20.

43 posted on 11/16/2005 7:46:41 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Terrific interview!

Why doesn't the feckless GOP have this guy on all the Sunday Blab Shows?

44 posted on 11/16/2005 7:47:38 AM PST by Gritty ("Far too many Americans still think the dragons are at the far fringes of the map - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
Personally I think the M1 tanks should have gone all the way to Baghdad after we destroyed Saddam's Kuwait invasion force. But as they say, hindsight is 20-20.

You and me and about 200 million other Americans always thought so. But supposedly the wussy coalition wouldn't stand for it, fearing that Iraq would break apart and destabilize the region.
45 posted on 11/16/2005 7:51:27 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: STFrancis

ping for later reading


46 posted on 11/16/2005 8:01:57 AM PST by STFrancis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

great article. thanks for posting it.


47 posted on 11/16/2005 8:06:47 AM PST by sauropod ("The love that dare not speak its' name has now become the love that won't shut the hell up.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowman1

More pics here: http://www.defendamerica.mil/photoessays/aug2003/p080603b1.html


48 posted on 11/16/2005 8:15:24 AM PST by GBA (I believe Congressman Weldon! MSM do your job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: McGruff
NOW the EVILE Dums claim there were no WMD's when we got there. How convenient.
49 posted on 11/16/2005 8:22:41 AM PST by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: marty60

Saddam wasn't buying yellowcake from Niger, right?

Joe Wilson was going to Niger on BUSINESS.

What BUSINESS?

He owned a company that was in NIGER doing Business.

Doing what business?

The company is a BROKER.

What were they BROKERING?

Sale of Yellowcake between President of Niger and Saddam.

This is the ELEPHANT in the middle of the ROOM.


50 posted on 11/16/2005 8:44:17 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (I jez calls it az I see it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-139 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