Posted on 11/19/2005 6:21:28 PM PST by digital-olive
Where in Syria they may have went:
http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd.html
This Hayes fellow was on Rush's show this week talking about this. He said the amount of info is staggering and is being translated still. Once it's all translated it then must be declassified.
I got out of my truck at that point so I missed the rest of Mr. Hayes phone call.
I disagree - I don't think Iraq was a threat to the US when we invaded. However, that is besides the point. Iraq was obligated to allow weapons inspectors free access as a term of the first wars cease fire.
The US had reason to believe they were a threat and no way to verify that they weren't. As Iraq was in violation of the cease fire, the US had justification to resume the original conflict.
I agree with you in the fact that I also think Iraq would have resumed their WMD program once the UN sanctions were disregarded, became unenforceable, or otherwise removed. However, as stated previously, they were not a significant threat at the time of the invasion.
No it wouldn't necessarily be out there. Especially if the way the information was gained was highly classified. KNOWING that we have this information could, possibly, tip off the enemy that a part of their secrecy has been broken and prompt them to change methods.
It's SOP in the Intel world.
I'm not saying it IS, but I am saying it is a good possibility. Only time will tell in the long run.
Now, I am much more skeptical of this type of claim. I also think that if the Bush administration had this proof, they would have found a way to get it out there.
A quick point of clarification - I still think the US was justified in going to war with Iraq - see prior posts for reasoning.
I love what Newsmax has to say, most of the time anyway. I just don't always trust them. They tend to do alot of vague reporting and don't list many sources, if any at all.
I'm not sure if we're really in disagreement or not. The status before we went in was that Saddam was not going to do anything on a short-time basis to delay sanctions from getting lifted, and they weren't going to be lifted until some time after the date we chose to get rid of Saddam so I'll certainly go along with saying that Saddam wasn't necessarilly a threat on the day we attacked. If you disagree that the sanctions would have eventually been lifted, well, that's where we'll disagree.
If his regime was left in place with no sanctions (and along with that no UN review of his weapons), he would have resumed his WMD programs and his war against the US, fought by way of supplying weapons and funding to terrorist groups.
Back before we attacked, if you accept that the inevitable future is that Saddam will acquire WMD's and use them against our interests, the time to alter that future is while it can still be altered (and before he actually GETS the weapons, ala North Korea). In 2002 and before, there was already discussion of lifting sanctions. We chose the correct time to attack. Any delay would have put us at greater risk, since the momentum was toward lifting sanctions, and the farther down that path we went, the more difficult it would have been to prevent it.
I can well understand your skepticism.
I think we had to go to War against Iraq. Not, however, for any real or alleged WMD's.
He had violated the cease fire agreement that he had with us by refusing to be fully forthcoming in his dealings with the weapons inspectors and for the fact that he had, long before the invasion, begun to fire at our planes.
This alone was reason enough for us to go kick his arse back into the stone age. That is the only argument I have ever made for us going back into Iraq. Those things are public knowledge and proveable.
The ONLY thing I think we did wrong here was this.
There was NO Congressional Declaration of War, and there by god should have been.
Who really knows? Why was Able Danger covered up? I am at the point where I think Washington is truly run by crooks, dumbnuts, and traitors. The good guys don't have much of a chance because they are so outnumbered by those first 3 categories.
I read the other day that the person in charge in 2003 of finding WMD in Iraq told his staff they didn't have time to read documents and were only looking for the actual WMD.
I think it was Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard (who has been doing the best investigative work of anyone in the country these last several years) who reported that.
thanks, Peach.
I'm not at liberty to mention specifics... due to a friend who is a CIA/NSA analyist showing me something he shouldn't have shown me, and the fact that he will do life++ if he was caught. The photos exist. I asked why they are not released and was told that he was wondering the same thing. The photos showed close up detail of the military truck traffic going into Syria from Iraq, as mentioned in the Duelfer Report. And showed missiles, rockets, and artillery shells being incinerated in the Bakarra valley. They were very very detailed. I wish i could provide more, but unfortunately I cannot, and will not.
I can only hope this administration will get its head out and declassify them.
bttt [article from 2005]
Better ask Saddam about this.
"There is no nonsense so gross that society (especially the MSM and the RATs), will not, at some time, make a doctrine of it and defend it with every weapon of communal stupidity." (Robertson Davis quote plus my additions).
In today's paper there were four letters calling for Bush's impeachment for "his lies about the WMDs." The writers and the MSM daily prove the quotation is correct--many Americans, mostly RATs, are purely stupid.
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.