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

Skip to comments.

Ex-Officer Spurned on WMD Claim (Four Unsearched Bunkers)
The New york Sun ^ | January 8, 2006 | ELI LAKE

Posted on 02/08/2006 5:47:44 AM PST by yoe

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 next last
To: lugsoul
The former Baathist general has no proof but his own word. Why should he be believed?

Better question would be, why completely ignore his claims (which are backed up by others as well)? I'm not saying anyone should draw definative conclusions, but at least report the fact that a high-ranking member of Saddam's military is making the claim. To ignore it is just not right.

61 posted on 02/08/2006 8:56:38 AM PST by JaguarXKE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Put yourself in the fall of 2002. Imagine government officials are saying "We have evidence that Iraq may have a anywhere from two to four dozen chemical warheads from before the first Gulf war." Do you care? Does anyone care? Does anyone even try to cite this as a casus belli?

Absolutely I care, especially when placed in the context of 9/11 and Hussein's history. One would have to be a complete idiot (and you are welcome to take offense) to put their faith in Hussein's regime.

The link I provided showed ample evidence of WMDs (which you say, and Hussein and friends said, did not exist). That link was only a small portion of evidence supporting my case.

Yet, like a good little liberal, you keep trying to pretend the "claim of WMDs" was the only reason to go to war. That's been proven false time and time again.

62 posted on 02/08/2006 8:59:32 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
"I have to wonder WHO doesn't want the WMD confirmed? The CIA? The NSA? The UN?"

I don't think any of us trust the UN.

I do not trust the CIA/NSA/FBI.... or any government agency to do anything but try and paint GWB and the right in a bad light. Remember, the GOP is "supposed to be for smaller government" waiting 10 seconds for all to stop laughing" and these people all derive their income from government so they could NEVER support anything but a socialist in the Whitehouse.

63 posted on 02/08/2006 9:11:45 AM PST by Wurlitzer (The difference between democrats and terrorists is the terrorists don't claim to support the troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire
FRT, I have ALWAYS believed and continue to believe the weapons were there and if they are still there in some 'flooded' bunker, I have no doubt that our military is guarding it or have removed it. If the Pentagon and the Administration know about it and are keeping it secret..it is because our national security is involved.

I'll just say, " Same opinion here " and leave it at that..
It's as good an answer as any I've got..
I'm as befuddled as everyone else as to why the most blatant evidence of WMD never gets to the public..

64 posted on 02/08/2006 9:12:48 AM PST by Drammach (In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Coop
If a few dozen aging chemical warheads in the hands of a Muslim tyrant worries you, then I don't know how you sleep at night. Here's a clue - IRAN has chem weapons, too. Egypt? Yep. Saudi Arabia? Check. Pakistan? Of course. Syria? Confirmed. The list could go on and on.

As for the reason to go to war, there is one thing those who try to run from the case made before the war cannot dispute. If Iraq had done whatever we considered to be 'disarming' before we went in, there would've been no war. Period. No amount of internal oppression in that country would've prompted us to go to war. The 'threat' was the deal. That's it. And without the spectre of WMD, no one would even pretend that Iraq was a 'threat' to this country.

You can call that 'liberal' all you want. I don't give a rat's ass if you do. But you claim to be interested in 'evidence' and then try to claim that there was some WMD program that threatened us - which the Duelfer report does not come close to saying - and then turn around and say WMD's aren't the issue. Make up your mind.

65 posted on 02/08/2006 9:43:27 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55

We know the CIA was a nest of traitors aka, liberals. This is serious. We have US officials actively undermining the country because their political party did not win the election.


66 posted on 02/08/2006 9:48:26 AM PST by Galveston Grl (Getting angry and abandoning power to the Democrats is not a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: eastforker; Sabertooth
Or the possible origin of the WMD's. Thats the only thing I can figure.

Except how can we know where the WMD's came from until you actually find them, and then inspect them for Pete's sake? They could always order suppression of the find later.

But that doesn't appear to be what's going on.

67 posted on 02/08/2006 10:03:17 AM PST by Paul Ross (Hitting bullets with bullets successfully for 35 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I said WMDs aren't the ONLY issue. You have trouble keeping up, don't you?

If Iraq had done whatever we considered to be 'disarming' before we went in, there would've been no war.

And it did not. So why do you expend so much energy over trying to insist that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction? It's irrelevant (not to mention wrong).

If a few dozen aging chemical warheads in the hands of a Muslim tyrant worries you, then I don't know how you sleep at night.

What worries me, aside from the prevalent ostrich syndrome affecting so many in the face of a deadly Islamofascist threat, is said Muslim tyrant giving WMDs to terrorists.

As for this absurd accusation of yours:

...then try to claim that there was some WMD program that threatened us - which the Duelfer report does not come close to saying...

...well, I wish you wouldn't make things so easy. I would at least like a challenge, come on!


What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts.



Well now, that's a bit inconvenient. But I have confidence you'll shriek and attempt to raise the bar again. Be my guest. (You are familiar with Mr. Kay, right? Mr. Duelfer was a big fan of his work.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

Excerpt from

STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP (ISG) BEFORE THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE, AND THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

October 2, 2003

68 posted on 02/08/2006 10:06:09 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: JaguarXKE
Why is this stroy, and the former General who says the WMD were moved to Syria being ignored by the MSM? Never mind, I know the answer.

Oh yes and for the most part ignored by Fox News as well. Them evil MSMs must have got to them as well...I tell you, I'm just going to start getting all my news from World Nut Daily. They must be the only ones that tell the truth....

69 posted on 02/08/2006 10:09:54 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
I believe we have the intelligence that tells us everything they had and where it came from. Revealing exactly what they had and where they got it from could very easily cause a world wide panic. Imagine if we found weaponized small pox, plague or other devastating weapons. Lets say they could be traced to Russia or China. That would be an international incident that could have catastrophic consequences.
70 posted on 02/08/2006 10:11:41 AM PST by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Coop
"program-related activities"

What you continue to cite is evidence of programs that used to exist, pieces of those programs being hidden away (i.e. not being used), and some evidence of intent to restart those programs in the future. In other words, evidence that they may have had the capability to present a threat at some point. But no evidence that they presented a current threat.

Oh, and on the 'no WMD' statement you keep repeating, can you at least try to be a little honest? I haven't said once, much less repeatedly, that Iraq had absolutely no WMD. In fact, I have acknowledged that they had stray weapons from pre-'91. But that ain't the story you were sold, at all. Current programs stockpiling massive quantities of N, B, AND C weapons, that's the 'threat' we were facing. You know it as well as I do, but you want to forget it in the interest of whose 'side' it impacts. Me, I'm less concerned with 'sides' than I am with evidence. I'll gladly acknowledge they had some amount of WMD, contrary to your shrieks. Can you acknowledge that what they had was the barest whisper of what you were told they had?

71 posted on 02/08/2006 10:20:08 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Can you acknowledge that what they had was the barest whisper of what you were told they had?

Absolutely not. I have no clue how much they had, nor do you. I will certainly say that the amount found so far is quite small, smaller than expected.

But no evidence that they presented a current threat.

LOL!!! In the words of Sherman T. Potter "Horse feathers!!"

72 posted on 02/08/2006 10:28:46 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Coop
What were they going to do with a 155mm artillery shell that posed any threat to you?
73 posted on 02/08/2006 10:34:01 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Oh, and can you point to any evidence in either the Duelfer or Kay reports of WMD that could have been used by Iraq to strike the US?
74 posted on 02/08/2006 10:37:06 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Gosh, I don't know. I mean, what could a few airplane passengers with boxcutters possibly do to me as I drive slowly past the Pentagon helo pad on the morning of September 11th, 2001? (Two hours prior to impact, as a matter of fact.)


75 posted on 02/08/2006 10:38:01 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

(Waiting for the inevitable answer involving some program or old weapon being modified or completed or improved or made to actually work and then being given to someone completely other to then be smuggled into the US, etc. - hardly a 45 minute process, to say the least.)


76 posted on 02/08/2006 10:38:02 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Coop

By that standard, we should just go take out any country that has any weapons of any kind. That work for you?


77 posted on 02/08/2006 10:39:12 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Oh, and can you point to any evidence in either the Duelfer or Kay reports of WMD that could have been used by Iraq to strike the US?

Yes, although I don't need either report. See Tokyo, 1995 or Paris/London, 2003.

Oh

78 posted on 02/08/2006 10:41:23 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Coop

#77.


79 posted on 02/08/2006 10:44:56 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
Lets say they could be traced to Russia or China. That would be an international incident that could have catastrophic consequences.

And let's say that's the case.

The "incident" has already HAPPENED, i.e., when they supplied the material to Saddam.

It wouldn't be our announcing it.

And those "catastrophic consequences," are not averted by apppeasement. Just like with Hitler and Tojo.

The failure to acknowledge, prove, and confront the perps is an ongoing national security threat.

80 posted on 02/08/2006 10:45:20 AM PST by Paul Ross (Hitting bullets with bullets successfully for 35 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 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