Evidence of complete baselessness

[Hapless]

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/scud_info/scud_info_refs/n41en172/iraq.htm

Although UNSCOM inspections have provided detailed information about past Iraqi programs, assessing Iraq's current capabilities is difficult due to its policies of denial and deception.

Maintains technical expertise and equipment to resume production quickly of anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflatoxin, and Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene).

Believed to possess sufficient precursor chemicals to produce hundreds of tons of mustard gas, VX, and other nerve agents.
Retains sufficient technical expertise to revive CW programs within months.

Interesting reading throughout that page. Note that was published in 1998, way before George W. Bush was elected. Not enough? Well, here's some more:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/index.html

The concern is they either have on hand -- or could quickly re-create the capability to produce -- vast amounts of anthrax, tons of material, compared with the several grams of material that literally shut down the U.S. postal system last year," said Wolfsthal, the deputy director of Carnegie's Non-Proliferation Project, which does research and analysis on the spread of weapons of mass destruction. This is something that could kill thousands upon thousands of people, depending on the means of distribution.

Probably nothing to be worried about there. That guy is probably on the administration's payroll anyway.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/maps/satindex.htm

Even so, UNSCOM’s representatives say thousands of gallons of germ weapons, chemical weapons and some parts of Iraq’s nuclear program remain impossible to trace, at least for the moment

Even Iraq’s reports to UNSCOM have been revised and revised again each time inspectors discover new evidence that shows that the regime's earlier admissions have been intentionally misleading or incomplete.

Whoa...The UN said this stuff? Must have been a Bush Administration plant. No, wait a minute, this article is from 1998 too.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002994

The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognized by the U.N.

Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the U.N. weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and noncompliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions is continuing.

Messrs. Aznar, Durão Barroso, Berlusconi, Blair, Medgyessy, Miller and Fogh Rasmussen are, respectively, the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark. Mr. Havel is the Czech president.

All eight of those guys must be on the Bush payroll. I can't believe they had the gall to say that the danger of the Iraqi regime had been explicitly recognized by the U.N. (Published Jan. 30, 2003.)

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma.../19/ixnewstop.html/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml

The revelation that Saddam is working on nuclear weapons in defiance of the United Nations is further evidence that Iraq is failing to comply with the terms of UN Resolution 1441, which requires Baghdad to make a complete disclosure of its weapons of mass destruction programme.

A false or incomplete disclosure or a failure fully to co-operate with the inspectors would constitute a material breach of the resolution and result in military action against Baghdad.

What a bunch of crap. Lying bastards. NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html

If the emerging evidence of Iraqi involvement in 11 September becomes clearer or more conclusive, the consequences will be immense. In the words of a State Department spokesman after Powell's briefing by the Czech leader on Friday: 'If there is clear evidence connecting the World Trade Centre attacks to Iraq, that would be a very grave development.'

At worst, the anti-terrorist coalition would currently be bombing the wrong country. At best, the world would see that some of President Bush's closest advisers - his father, Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney, to name but three - made a catastrophic error in 1991, when they ended the Gulf war without toppling Saddam.

Wait...that can't be right. A British news organization making connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in 2001??? Not only that, but attempting to tie Iraq to 9/11???? What were they smoking?


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002252

The above article is a VERY interesting read. Granted, it was written by a former Democratic Senator who is himself suspected of war crimes, but the facts presented are no less valid.

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/1997/issue4/jv1n4a1.html

Note that this article is from 1997.

One would scarcely think that Iraq was a defeated power. The mood of senior UNSCOM officials is glum. After their recent experience, there is suspicion that the White House is prepared to sell them out because it is unwilling to do what is necessary to confront Baghdad and its supporters.

Bloody warmongers!!!!! IT'S ALL PART OF A VAST BUSH CONSPIRACY, I TELL YOU. IT'S ALL LIES!!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml

Move along. Nothing to see there about the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37621-2003Feb20&notFound=true

Well, I'll be hornswaggled. A FRENCH company looking to profit from the fall of Saddam. I'll bet Dick Cheny is on the board. LET THE AMERICANS BLEED, WE'LL TAKE THE OIL!!!!

http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument

I figured I'd throw that one in for the heck of it. I know it has nothing to do with WMD or justification for war.

more? when? so you're saying that if saddam was still in power he'd be producing WMD to be used against the US? that's completely speculative, incredulous and completely baseless ...saddam never used them on the US, even during the sanctions, why would he start now?

You're right. Completely baseless. Speculative, even.

 

[CptStern]

why didnt he use them when his back was up against the wall? if he didnt use them where are they? ...if he had the capabilty why didnt he produce mass quantities ...I'll tell you why


btw I'm not seeing the point of this thread ...are you saying the occupation of iraq is justified ...are you saying bush was telling the truth when he said:


"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

George Bush February 8, 2003





are you saying Iraq was worth it?


are you saying the bush admin didnt lie?


he was being truthful?


you mean to say his evidence was credible?

or are you saying that they didnt manufacture the whole thing?



btw it hasnt escaped my notice that the countries you listed that supported bush's assertations that saddam had wmd are also in the "coalition of the willing" ...more like the "coaltion of the me wants a slice of the pie"

 

[Hapless]

why didnt he use them when his back was up against the wall? if he didnt use them where are they? ...if he had the capabilty why didnt he produce mass quantities ...I'll tell you why

Wow. Two very brief excerpts from speeches. That's hard evidence right there. Funny that it runs counter to this. Note that was the U.S. State Department's position prior to GWB's Inauguration. I find it odd that I can't seem to find the full text of either one of those speeches.

btw I'm not seeing the point of this thread ...are you saying the occupation of iraq is justified ...are you saying bush was telling the truth when he said:


"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

George Bush February 8, 2003

I'm sorry. Apparently you didn't read the articles I posted. Please do so.

are you saying Iraq was worth it?

Absolutely.

are you saying the bush admin didnt lie?

Henry Waxman, a Democrat, thinks the Republican administration was being dishonest? Stop the presses.

he was being truthful?

If I posted an article from some far-right website in support of my points, you'd be all over me. Please. World Socialist Web Site? Come ON.

you mean to say his evidence was credible?

Is this the same Guardian that printed this?

If the emerging evidence of Iraqi involvement in 11 September becomes clearer or more conclusive, the consequences will be immense. In the words of a State Department spokesman after Powell's briefing by the Czech leader on Friday: 'If there is clear evidence connecting the World Trade Centre attacks to Iraq, that would be a very grave development.'

At worst, the anti-terrorist coalition would currently be bombing the wrong country. At best, the world would see that some of President Bush's closest advisers - his father, Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney, to name but three - made a catastrophic error in 1991, when they ended the Gulf war without toppling Saddam.

or are you saying that they didnt manufacture the whole thing?

RICHARD CLARKE?? 60 MINUTES????? DAN RATHER???????? You're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that.

btw it hasnt escaped my notice that the countries you listed that supported bush's assertations that saddam had wmd are also in the "coalition of the willing" ...more like the "coaltion of the me wants a slice of the pie"

I didn't list anything. I cut and pasted the section of that letter which listed the AUTHORS of that letter. Reading comprehension.

 

[CptStern]

Wow. Two very brief excerpts from speeches. That's hard evidence right there. Funny that it runs counter to this. Note that was the U.S. State Department's position prior to GWB's Inauguration. I find it odd that I can't seem to find the full text of either one of those speeches.

you're not looking too hard, the transcript of the entire clip is out there

I'm sorry. Apparently you didn't read the articles I posted. Please do so.

I have ..admittedly not all the links but the bulk of them ...still dont see your point here

Absolutely.

hmmm ...so you agree that it was necessary that bush's lies led to the deaths of over 1700 american servicemen and 10's of thousands of innocent civilians? ..you have a skewed sense of justice ...which is odd cuz you're a police officer

Henry Waxman, a Democrat, thinks the Republican administration was being dishonest? Stop the presses.

who cares? I dont play that idiotic partisan game ...you can't dismiss it based on the fact he's a democrat alone ...there's 237 instances of the bush admin misleading the world, why not start with that?

If I posted an article from some far-right website in support of my points, you'd be all over me. Please. World Socialist Web Site? Come ON.

did you read it? it explicitly quotes the Duefler report ...are you discounting that too? you cant just arbitarily discredit a news source just because it has the word "socialist" in it ...attacks it's sources but dont resort discreditijng based on it's name

Is this the same Guardian that printed this?

what does it matter what it wrote? the article stands on it's own merits ...not something that's over 7 years old

RICHARD CLARKE?? 60 MINUTES????? DAN RATHER???????? You're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that.

I'll take the word of the former advisor to the president on terrorism over the word of a stranger on the internet ...thankyouverymuch ...again disprove his lies hapless stop chomping on that stupid partisan bit, it really gets tiring ...especialy since I'm not a democrat, couldnt care less about cbs or dan rather

I didn't list anything. I cut and pasted the section of that letter which listed the AUTHORS of that letter. Reading comprehension.

who happen to be in the "coalition of the willing" ...hence my point

 

[ComradeBadger]

Dead. Horse. Flogging.

 

[Hapless]

you're not looking too hard, the transcript of the entire clip is out there

Care to point me to it?

I have ..admittedly not all the links but the bulk of them ...still dont see your point here

My point is this: Prior to Bush even running for President, a significant number of people, including the U.N., believed Saddam had WMD. I provided numerous examples of this. You said, "so you're saying that if saddam was still in power he'd be producing WMD to be used against the US? that's completely speculative, incredulous and completely baseless." I refuted your claims. That is the point of this thread. Unless you're saying that any attempt to refute your claims is pointless......

hmmm ...so you agree that it was necessary that bush's lies led to the deaths of over 1700 american servicemen and 10's of thousands of innocent civilians? ..you have a skewed sense of justice ...which is odd cuz you're a police officer

I see. It's established fact that Bush lied. He just made up the whole thing out of thin air. Even though I provided numerous examples dating back to two years before he was elected. Ok.

who cares? I dont play that idiotic partisan game ...you can't dismiss it based on the fact he's a democrat alone ...there's 237 instances of the bush admin misleading the world, why not start with that?

Sigh. I can absolutely dismiss it, or at least treat it with a high level of suspicion, especially after other wild claims, charges and whatnot made by other Democrats against this President. Whether or not YOU are a Democrat is of no consequence. There are 237 instances of, in Waxman's opinion, misleading statements.

did you read it? it explicitly quotes the Duefler report ...are you discounting that too? you cant just arbitarily discredit a news source just because it has the word "socialist" in it ...attacks it's sources but dont resort discreditijng based on it's name

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
No, but I can arbitrarily discredit a news source for making misleading statements and using quotes from it's sources out of context. See the link for a more balanced take on the Duelfer Report.

what does it matter what it wrote? the article stands on it's own merits ...not something that's over 7 years old

The same can be said of The Powell and Rice quotes. What does it matter what they said in 2001?

I'll take the word of the former advisor to the president on terrorism over the word of a stranger on the internet ...thankyouverymuch ...again disprove his lies hapless stop chomping on that stupid partisan bit, it really gets tiring ...especialy since I'm not a democrat, couldnt care less about cbs or dan rather

Again, I don't give a shit whehter you are a Democrat, Republican, Mormon, Whig, or whatever. I already explained that above. As far as Richard Clarke is concerned:

http://www.newaus.com.au/042903ecclewilkinson.html

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006214.php

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004906

These are but a few examples. I find it odd that you would believe the word of a former adviser to the President, yet the President himself cannot be trusted.

who happen to be in the "coalition of the willing" ...hence my point

Disprove their lies Stern. Stop chomping at the partisan bit.:E

 

[Gray Fox]

Dead. Horse. Flogging.

?.....

 

[CptStern]

Care to point me to it?

would it have killed you to do a search? ...there's numerous sourceshere's one you may listen to

My point is this: Prior to Bush even running for President, a significant number of people, including the U.N., believed Saddam had WMD. I provided numerous examples of this.

yet nothing was found ...quelle surprise

You said, "so you're saying that if saddam was still in power he'd be producing WMD to be used against the US? that's completely speculative, incredulous and completely baseless."

it IS speculative because there is no evidence that saddam ever directly targeted the US ...if he didnt attack before when he had the capibiluity logic dictates that he wouldnt do so again ...especially since his back was up against the wall and he had nothing to lose ...he STILL didnt use them

I refuted your claims. That is the point of this thread.

how can refute something that hasnt happened yet? how can you say with any certainity that he would have attacked the US? pure guess work nothing else

Unless you're saying that any attempt to refute your claims is pointless......

dont get cheeky with me hapless ...my points are almost always backed up with facts ...something the right cant claim

I see. It's established fact that Bush lied. He just made up the whole thing out of thin air. Even though I provided numerous examples dating back to two years before he was elected. Ok.

so he didnt lie? so those 237 misleading statements were just typos?

Sigh. I can absolutely dismiss it, or at least treat it with a high level of suspicion, especially after other wild claims, charges and whatnot made by other Democrats against this President.

who cares? are you trying to paint ALL democrats with the same brush?

Whether or not YOU are a Democrat is of no consequence.

then why bring up the fact he was a democrat? I dont care what his allegiance is

There are 237 instances of, in Waxman's opinion, misleading statements.

so it's your opinion that it's all waxman's opinion? you've gone through all 237 statements? where are your sources?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
No, but I can arbitrarily discredit a news source for making misleading statements and using quotes from it's sources out of context. See the link for a more balanced take on the Duelfer Report.

cnn more credibility that the guardian ..
:upstare: please cnn is nothing more than a government shill


but it doesnt matter because they're both tackling a different aspect of the WMD commission ..say what you will about the guardian but the fact remains that the CIA admitted using a very unreliable source ...one that was used in Powell's security council report days before the invasion of iraq

[The same can be said of The Powell and Rice quotes. What does it matter what they said in 2001?

because it's a complete reversal of what they said leading up to the invasion

Again, I don't give a shit whehter you are a Democrat, Republican, Mormon, Whig, or whatever.

then why continue to bring up the republican/democrat bs?

I already explained that above. As far as Richard Clarke is concerned:

http://www.newaus.com.au/042903ecclewilkinson.html

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006214.php

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004906

These are but a few examples.

of what exactly? they're blogs and opinion pieces ...is this your evidence? ...just look at this idiots remarks:


"Yet the Democrats are once again given a free pass by our bigoted journalists. "

"Unfortunately, Eccleston is not alone in his bigotry. Marian Wilkinson, Washington correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald, aka The Saddam Times is no better."


the guy is a partisan hack that brings nothing to the table...not once does he mention the fact that clarke claimed bush wanted 9/11 pinned on saddam

I find it odd that you would believe the word of a former adviser to the President, yet the President himself cannot be trusted.

he's a lying liar, what's there to trust?

Disprove their lies Stern. Stop chomping at the partisan bit.:E

hmmm why should I do what you fail to do at every turn ...prove the deufler report is full of lies, prove clarke is lying prove the downing street memos to be false

 

[Absinthe]

It's Quote Wars 2005 (147th rematch)

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE

 

[Tr0n]

Whatcha expect in the politics forum?

They practically live here.

 

[CptStern]

get out of my house you freeloader ...and stop looking thru the fridge

 

[Hapless]

Me and Stern are roommates? Oh crap....

 

[Hapless]

would it have killed you to do a search? ...there's numerous sourceshere's one you may listen to

I meant the full speech.

yet nothing was found ...quelle surprise

I guess in the yearlong, "rush to war," it wouldn't have been possible to move those weapons to Syria.

it IS speculative because there is no evidence that saddam ever directly targeted the US ...if he didnt attack before when he had the capibiluity logic dictates that he wouldnt do so again ...especially since his back was up against the wall and he had nothing to lose ...he STILL didnt use them

Here is some non-evidence for you:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_mylroie.htm

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iraq&ID=SA302

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/351qdcaz.asp

http://www.socialsecurity.org/

how can refute something that hasnt happened yet? how can you say with any certainity that he would have attacked the US? pure guess work nothing else

See above.

dont get cheeky with me hapless ...my points are almost always backed up with facts ...something the right cant claim

glad you put that qualifier in there. Cheeky?

cnn more credibility that the guardian ..
:upstare: please cnn is nothing more than a government shill

Unless I'm missing something, that was in reference to the Socialist website, not the Guardian.

but it doesnt matter because they're both tackling a different aspect of the WMD commission ..say what you will about the guardian but the fact remains that the CIA admitted using a very unreliable source ...one that was used in Powell's security council report days before the invasion of iraq

Way to sidestep.

of what exactly? they're blogs and opinion pieces ...is this your evidence? ...just look at this idiots remarks:


"Yet the Democrats are once again given a free pass by our bigoted journalists. "

"Unfortunately, Eccleston is not alone in his bigotry. Marian Wilkinson, Washington correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald, aka The Saddam Times is no better."


the guy is a partisan hack that brings nothing to the table...not once does he mention the fact that clarke claimed bush wanted 9/11 pinned on saddam

From the World Socialist Website article:

The American working class, however, cannot align itself with either faction in this struggle among the imperialists. Whether Bush or Kerry wins the presidency, the next occupant of the White House will be a loyal defender of imperialism, implacably committed to maintain US domination of Iraq and the entire Middle East

he's a lying liar, what's there to trust?

Yes, Clarke is a lying liar. Glad you agree with me. :cheers: :E

hmmm why should I do what you fail to do at every turn ...prove the deufler report is full of lies, prove clarke is lying prove the downing street memos to be false

I see. You post articles to back up your claims, and your are telling the truth. I post articles to back up my claims, and I am an idiot. I don't think I want you to be my roommate anymore.

 

[MjM]

Wouldnt Blix's report to the security council be more important than anything published in 1998?

10) Briefing of the Security Council, 5 June 2003: Oral introduction of the 13th quarterly report of UNMOVIC

Dr. Hans Blix, UNMOVIC Executive Chairman
5 June 2003

The thirteenth quarterly report of UNMOVIC (document S/2003/580) is before the Council. It covers the period 1 March – 31 May. The Commission carried out inspections in Iraq up to and including Monday 17 March. The day thereafter, Tuesday 18 March, all international staff was withdrawn and the armed action commenced on 19 March.

We are gratified that the withdrawal took place in good order and with full cooperation from the Iraqi side.

I think the UNMOVIC report speaks for itself. It is a bit longer than usual, because we thought it might be useful for the Council to get a fuller perspective on some of the questions.

Let me highlight some points:

The first point, made in paragraph 8 of the report, is that the Commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items – whether from pre-1991 or later. I leave aside the Al Samoud 2 missile system, which we concluded was proscribed.

As I have noted before, this does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might – there remain long lists of items unaccounted for – but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for.

In paragraph 11, we note that the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for has not been shortened by inspections or Iraqi declarations, explanations or documentation. It was the task of the Iraqi side to present items unaccounted for, if they existed, or to present evidence – records, documents or other – convincing the inspectors that the items do not exist. If – for whatever reason – this is not done, the international community cannot have confidence that past programmes or any remaining parts of them have been terminated. However, an effective presence of international inspectors will serve as a deterrent against efforts aimed at reactivating or developing new programmes of weapons of mass destruction.

Although during the last month and a half of our inspections, the Iraqi side made considerable efforts to provide explanations, to begin inquiries and to undertake exploration and excavations, these efforts did not bring the answers needed before we withdrew. We did not have time to interview more than a handful of the large number of persons who were said by Iraq to have participated in the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons in 1991. Such interviews might have helped towards the resolution of some outstanding issues, although one must be aware that the totalitarian regime in Iraq continued to cast a shadow on the credibility of all interviews.

The report before you gives details of the Commission’s supervision of the destruction of 50 Al Samoud 2 missiles out of the 75 declared deployed and of other items in the missile sphere. As you can see from the table in paragraph 114 of the report, the programme of destruction was not completed when the inspectors were withdrawn. Fifty per cent of the declared warheads and 98% of the missile engines remained intact. Also, there was no time to assess whether the Al Fatah missile programme stayed within the range allowed by Security Council resolutions.

In the context of destruction of proscribed items, I should like also to draw the attention of the Council to the information provided in Appendix I. It shows that the weapons that were destroyed before inspectors left in 1998, were in almost all cases declared by Iraq and that the destruction occurred before 1993 in the case of missiles, and before 1994 in the case of chemical weapons.

The existence and scope of the biological weapons programme was uncovered by UNSCOM in 1995 despite Iraq’s denials and concealment efforts. As to items, only a few remnants of the biological weapons programme were subsequently found. A great deal – Iraq asserts all – was unilaterally destroyed in 1991.

Thus, in the main, UNSCOM supervised destruction of actual weapons and agents took place during the early years of the Commission, and had regard mainly to items declared by Iraq or, at least, found at sites declared by Iraq. Subsequent UNSCOM disarmament activities dealt almost exclusively with the destruction of equipment and facilities for the production of weapons connected to past programmes. In addition, of course, UNSCOM was able, with great skill, to map large parts of Iraq’s WMD programmes.

While we are all aware of the large amounts of proscribed items, which still remain unaccounted for, we should perhaps take note of the fact that for many years neither UNSCOM nor UNMOVIC made significant finds of weapons. The lack of finds could be because the items were unilaterally destroyed by the Iraqi authorities or else because they were effectively concealed by them. I trust that in the new environment in Iraq, in which there is full access and cooperation, and in which knowledgeable witnesses should no longer be inhibited to reveal what they know, it should be possible to establish the truth we all want to know.

Let me further make some brief comments on mobile facilities, as there is currently much media attention devoted to this issue. Even before UNMOVIC began its inspections in November 2002, the Commission had received information about such facilities and our inspectors were looking for sites where such mobile units could be hooked up for support services. Upon our request, the Iraqi side presented some information about mobile systems they possessed. As you can see from our report, neither the information presented nor pictures given to us by the Iraqi side, match the description that has recently been made available to us, as well as to the media, by the United States. At UNMOVIC we cannot, of course, make a proper evaluation of the depicted vehicles on the basis of published material alone.

In resolution 1483 (2003), the Security Council declared its intention to revisit the mandate of UNMOVIC. The Council will be aware that UNMOVIC remains ready to resume work in Iraq as an independent verifier or to conduct long-term monitoring, should the Council so decide. In paragraph 16 of the introduction and in Chapter VIII of the report, there are some comments on UNMOVIC’s readiness to resume work in the field.

Some reduction of UNMOVIC staff will take place. However, the core expertise and experience available within UNMOVIC remain a valuable asset, which the Security Council could use where the services of an independent body would be required for verification or monitoring. This might be of particular value in the field of biological weapons and missiles for which there exists no international verification organization.

As this is likely to be my last briefing of the Security Council as Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, I would like to take the opportunity to thank each and every Member of the Council, for the valuable guidance and support offered to UNMOVIC and myself. I would also like warmly to thank the Secretary-General personally and the UN Secretariat for the excellent cooperation since the creation of UNMOVIC.

I have had the opportunity to thank UNMOVIC’s College of Commissioners for the advice it has provided. It has been of great help throughout our existence.

I trust that the Council has noted the excellent working relationship that has prevailed between Dr. El Baradei of the IAEA and myself. We formed a good team of long-standing friendship, in which his knowledge of Arabic proved more directly useful than my knowledge of Swedish.

I want to end my statement by noting the strong commitment among nations, both within and outside of the Security Council, to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – to terrorists as well as to states – and to eventually achieve the elimination of these weapons. The case of Iraq has been a major factor in forging this commitment. The wide support that UNMOVIC has received from Governments and the public is further testimony to the strong wish to reduce the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction and to the continued importance of inspection.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp#10

Remember this is before the war. And he was right. Scratch WMD's of the list for why you went to war with Iraq.

 

[oldagerocker]

Flogging. Horse. Dead.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Hmm, lets see...a crazy malicious dictator who has reason and the means as well as a the ways to hide large amounts of things he doesn't want people to find. Oh, then he has lots of "civilian" items that double as military and a suspicious amount of labs used to make "medicine" even though they contain the materials to make WMDs. Then, weapons equipment systematically "dissapears" and your telling me theres nothing even suspicious about this? That for a fact there is no way he could have had WMDs? That is worse than saying OJ was innocent.

 

[CptStern]

I meant the full speech.

I guess you'd like it time-stamped and annotated? ..there's enough of the quote in the article that proves it wasnt take out of context ...Powell answered it directly

I guess in the yearlong, "rush to war," it wouldn't have been possible to move those weapons to Syria.

for what purpose?

"oh they're coming after me ...you take the stash" - may work for your typical perp but I dont think it applies well to this situation ..when his back was up against the wall why didnt he use them then? the US kept droning on about how he was a threat and was about to unleash wmd on the world ...why didnt he push the proverbial button and let loose the dogs of war? (somewhat appropriate but I like the sound of that sentence)

Here is some non-evidence for you:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_mylroie.htm

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iraq&ID=SA302

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/351qdcaz.asp

http://www.socialsecurity.org/

boobala, they're articles on using pre-emptive strikes on the war on terror, saddam is a sidebar in most of those discussions ...btw what's with the last link?


http://www.socialsecurity.org/


are you suggesting I need to re-finance my mortgage and maximize my RRSP contributions for the fiscal year? thanks for the tip :thumbs:

See above.

I've seen "above" and it aint pretty

glad you put that qualifier in there. Cheeky?

no ...I'd say more "low brow humour" :E :naughty: ...I cant be 100% a 100% of the time .... if you get my meaning

Unless I'm missing something, that was in reference to the Socialist website, not the Guardian.

try to be more specific next time :E

Way to sidestep.

what exactly am I sidestepping?

From the World Socialist Website article:


.....the next occupant of the White House will be a loyal defender of imperialism, implacably committed to maintain US domination of Iraq and the entire Middle East"

....wha? and you're disputing this?

Yes, Clarke is a lying liar. Glad you agree with me. :cheers: :E

I've proved bush is a liar why not do the same and disprove clarke statement that bush wanted him to "pin 9/11 on saddam"

I see. You post articles to back up your claims, and your are telling the truth.

yes

I post articles to back up my claims, and I am an idiot.

well ..I wouldnt be so harsh

I don't think I want you to be my roommate anymore.

meh you keep leaving your underwear everywhere ..so no biggie :E

 

[gh0st]

rifk THERE ARE TOTALLY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
WATCH OUT!

 

[seinfeldrules]

Wouldnt Blix's report to the security council be more important than anything published in 1998?

You're missing his point entirely.

 

[Hapless]

I...btw what's with the last link?


http://www.socialsecurity.org/

Dunno what the hell happened there. Keep in mind I'm using AOL with the cute little heart icon that you drag when you want to link something.:frown: I'll try to dig up the link again if you'd like.....

meh you keep leaving your underwear everywhere ..so no biggie :E

You have entirely too much time on your hands. But it is funny, I'll give you that.

I just got home from working 16 hours straight, so I'll get back to you on the other stuff.

 

[Hapless]

rifk THERE ARE TOTALLY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
WATCH OUT!

Are you ok?

 

[No Limit]

Hapless, you made a good case; better than anyone else that is pro-war. Your first link states this and is pretty much the basis for the fact that Bush manipulated intelligence:

If United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspections were to be terminated, could produce weapons-grade fissile material within several years.

If Saddam kicked the weapon inspectors out in 2002 I would support this war right now. But the weapon inspectors were not kicked out by Saddam; Bush kicked them out 2 days before the invasion. You have to ask, why would Bush not allow the 6 months they wanted to investigate everything and come out with a complete report?

But if you are asking if the case was baseless I digress. Instead of me going through each example you gave and showing how weak the examples were what you need to do is ask yourself if those examples were strong enough to start a war that would last decades and kill thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) especially when you take in to account all the evidance that was posted around here showing how Bush manipulated intelligence and how many people were saying Saddam had now WMDs.

So please, ask yourself; why did Bush not allow the inpsectors to stay for the 6 months they wanted to complete a full report. Remember, the inspectors were the only people that could solve the mystery of the WMDs before the invasion; Bush didn't allow them to do their job.

Why did Bush's administration try to discredit anyone that showed intelligence that contradicted theirs? This weekend new evidance came out that said it was Rove, Bush's closest advisor, that leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent to discredit Joe Wilson who investigated and then refuted (before the invasion) the claim that said Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger.

Why did Powell, Rice, and Cheney before 9/11 say Saddam was not a threat and that he had now WMDs. What evidance came out during that time that made them change their mind. Remember, Rice and Powell were the very top US advisors for our national defense.

Why did Bush not want to seek UN authority to attack Iraq when Bush's entire "justification" for the war was due to UN resolutions?

Why was the British government saying in 2002 that there was not enough evidance of WMDs to justify an invasion but Bush was set on invading anyway so the intelligence would have to be fixed around policy?

Now, I realize you might not accept all these simple questions as you support Bush; but understand, with those questions and along with the mountains of evidance posted that Saddam had no WMDs there was enough doubt created to allow the UN to do the job it was set up to and finish their investigation.

 

[No Limit]

You're missing his point entirely.

No, he is not missing the point. The point is that the Blix report was the latest report before the invasion and was the only report that should have mattered in 2003. It gave full details of the the investigation. Blix also explained why the report differed from prior reports:

we have faced relatively few difficulties, and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM [U.N. Special Commission] in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.

He clearly stated in that quote that Saddam was in full compliance because of pressure from the US.

Some more points from the investigation:

Some practical matters which were not settled by the talks Dr. [Mohamed] ElBaradei and I had with Iraqi side in Vienna prior to inspections or in Resolution 1441 have been resolved at meetings, which we have had in Baghdad.

Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the "no-fly" zones were overcome.

Where authentic documents do not become available, interviews with persons who may have relevant knowledge and experience may be another way of obtaining evidence. UNMOVIC has names of such persons in its records, and they are among the people whom we seek to interview.

Why didn't Bush give them time to interview these people?

I won't waste any more time going through the rest of the report but if has a lot of other key information, read it:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/

The main thing I want you to get from it is this:

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.

That's all they wanted, a few months. Bush denied them those few months; why?

 

[seinfeldrules]

No, he is not missing the point. The point is that the Blix report was the latest report before the invasion and was the only report that should have mattered in 2003. It gave full details of the the investigation. Blix also explained why the report differed from prior reports:

......

My point is this: Prior to Bush even running for President, a significant number of people, including the U.N., believed Saddam had WMD.

 

[Pesmerga]

Flogging. Horse. Dead.

QFT

Put down those sticks, time to focus on more serious political issues. Like N. Korea and China and moon ponies.

 

[No Limit]

......

No, the UN didn't believe it as I pointed out. Blix was the chief inspector, read his findings again.

And you didn't address my simple question. why didn't Bush give the UN the 6 months they wanted?

 

[sniperelite7]

If Saddam kicked the weapon inspectors out in 2002 I would support this war right now. But the weapon inspectors were not kicked out by Saddam; Bush kicked them out 2 days before the invasion. You have to ask, why would Bush not allow the 6 months they wanted to investigate everything and come out with a complete report?

The UN had about 12 years or so to inspect him yet he kept acting suspicuous. 17 UN security resoulotions which asked him nicley to a cease fire the final one saying IF he did'nt stop acting like a jackass there would be dire consequences.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

 

[CptStern]

The UN had about 12 years or so to inspect him yet he kept acting suspicuous. 17 UN security resoulotions which asked him nicley to a cease fire the final one saying IF he did'nt stop acting like a jackass there would be dire consequences.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

the analogy here is if a police officer (a crooked one at that) sold a criminal a handgun ..and at a later date the police officer sees him talking to some unsavoury people ..the officer knows he has a gun (because he sold it to him) yet doesnt want his friend from another department to frisk him because he's sure the criminal has his gun on him ...so the police officer, taking no chances, walks up to him and shoots him dead ...using the justification that the criminal had a gun and was going to use it ...even though on further inspection he didnt have the gun on him and in fact had disposed of it years back

 

[No Limit]

A whole day has passed and not a single right winger making all that noise before has told me why Bush didn't allow the few months the inspectors wated to complete an investigation. You people make me sick, people are dying daily for this war and you wont bother to ask yourselves the most basic questions.

 

[seinfeldrules]

No, the UN didn't believe it as I pointed out. Blix was the chief inspector, read his findings again.

......

My point is this: Prior to Bush even running for President, a significant number of people, including the U.N., believed Saddam had WMD.

That's all they wanted, a few months. Bush denied them those few months; why?

A few more months. It was always a few more months with Saddam. 10+ years of a few more months is a little weak. Its the same with him as Kim Jong Il, they'll stall for more time, never meaning to follow through. Clinton fell for that trick and Bush was sick of it.

 

[No Limit]

......



A few more months. It was always a few more months with Saddam. 10+ years of a few more months is a little weak. Its the same with him as Kim Jong Il, they'll stall for more time, never meaning to follow through. Clinton fell for that trick and Bush was sick of it.

So you are saying that Bush wanted a diplomatic solution but didn't want to allow an investigation to take place in to possible WMDs?

 

[seinfeldrules]

I'm saying Bush was sick of the games. Unless he felt Saddam was being serious this time around, he was going to act. Saddam is (was) basically the mascot of anti-Americanism around the world. He flaunted us with every given chance. In my mind this was about sending a message as much as it was about WMD. So far, the message has held true with places like Pakistan becoming more cooperative and Libya giving up WMD. I truly think that Bush thought Saddam had WMD, and I think he was just tired of the game Saddam loved to play. Saddam had the chance to allow these investigations before, but it always ended with the inspectors being kicked out.

 

[No Limit]

I'm saying Bush was sick of the games. Unless he felt Saddam was being serious this time around, he was going to act. Saddam is (was) basically the mascot of anti-Americanism around the world. He flaunted us with every given chance. In my mind this was about sending a message as much as it was about WMD. So far, the message has held true with places like Pakistan becoming more cooperative and Libya giving up WMD. I truly think that Bush thought Saddam had WMD, and I think he was just tired of the game Saddam loved to play. Saddam had the chance to allow these investigations before, but it always ended with the inspectors being kicked out.

OKay, yes, Saddam played games. But Bush said in his state of the union address that he would do everything he could to resolve this with diplomacy if Saddam was in full compliance with the UN. On March 7th Blix gave a report that stated Saddam was in full compliance with the UN. Again, if Saddam kicked the weapon inspectors out again I would support this war; but he didn't, Bush kicked them out. And I also agree that Clinton was too weak on Saddam but that is for another topic. The issue here is Bush said he would avoid conflict if Saddam complied, he lied.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The issue here is Bush said he would avoid conflict if Saddam complied, he lied.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701610462/U_S_-Iraq_War_of_2003.html
The UN inspections produced a mixed record. On one hand, Iraq granted access to former and suspected weapons sites that had previously been concealed. The Iraqi government also agreed to destroy certain missiles that were capable of hitting targets more than 150 km (90 mi) away (a range prohibited by previous disarmament agreements). On the other hand, Iraq did not facilitate private interviews with Iraqi scientists and weapon makers, and the government was not forthcoming about the details of its earlier weapons programs.

In a February 28, 2003, report Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), concluded that Iraq had cooperated with the process for conducting inspections but had not provided sufficient information or tried hard enough to resolve the considerable uncertainties about the status of Iraq’s weapons program.

 

[No Limit]

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701610462/U_S_-Iraq_War_of_2003.html
The UN inspections produced a mixed record. On one hand, Iraq granted access to former and suspected weapons sites that had previously been concealed. The Iraqi government also agreed to destroy certain missiles that were capable of hitting targets more than 150 km (90 mi) away (a range prohibited by previous disarmament agreements). On the other hand, Iraq did not facilitate private interviews with Iraqi scientists and weapon makers, and the government was not forthcoming about the details of its earlier weapons programs.

The report Blix gave to the UN said that Saddam gave names of people to be interviewed and they were going to do so, its in the link I posted and I think I even quoted it:

While the Iraqi side seems to have encouraged interviewees not to request the presence of Iraqi officials, local minders or the taping of the interviews, conditions ensuring the absence of undue influences are difficult to attain inside Iraq. Interviews outside the country might provide such assurance. It is our intention to request such interviews shortly.

Why didn't Bush allow those interviews to be completed?

In a February 28, 2003, report Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), concluded that Iraq had cooperated with the process for conducting inspections but had not provided sufficient information or tried hard enough to resolve the considerable uncertainties about the status of Iraq’s weapons program.

Where did he conclude that? What I got was this from Blix:

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.

So why didn't Bush allow time to resolve the issue of remaining disarment tasks that Saddam wanted to complete but could not do instantly?

 

[seinfeldrules]

So why didn't Bush allow time to resolve the issue of remaining disarment tasks that Saddam wanted to complete but could not do instantly?

He did not feel Saddam was complying fully. Even an encyclopedia agrees with that. This isnt an opinionated article from some whack site.

 

[CptStern]

still wasnt enough of a legal basis to invade


from the president's legal advisors:

"As I have previously advised, there are generally three possible bases for the use of force: (a) self-defence (which may include collective self-defence); (b) exceptionally, to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe; and. (c) authorisation by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter."



1. self-defense:

Force may be used in self-defence if there is an actual or imminent threat of an armed attack; the use of force must be necessary, ie the only means of averting an attack; and the force used must be a proportionate response. It is now widely accepted that an imminent armed attack will justify the use of force if the other conditions are met.

"the USA has been arguing for recognition of a broad doctrine of a right to use force to pre-empt danger in the future.... this is not a doctrine which, in my opinion, exists or is recognised in international law."



2. Humanitarian reasons:


"The use of force to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe has been emerging as a further, and exceptional, basis for the use of force....."

"....I know of no reason why it would be an appropriate basis for action in present circumstances."




3. and lastly the 3rd reason to go to war: authourization by the Security Council


...well, we all know how that turned out



source

 

[seinfeldrules]

still wasnt enough of a legal basis to invade

...In all honesty, I could care less what the UN says anymore in the first place.

 

[CptStern]

...In all honesty, I could care less what the UN says anymore in the first place.

/me strangles seinfeldrules


it was the president's legal advisor ..not the UN, not europe, not france, not bill clinton or Howdy freakin' doody

 

[No Limit]

He did not feel Saddam was complying fully. Even an encyclopedia agrees with that. This isnt an opinionated article from some whack site.

What whack site? I posted the report from Blix which I got the transcript from CNN. Show me where encarta got their conclusion from his report. Yes, Blix said Saddam didn't follow all the resolutions yet as it was impossible to do so, they needed a few more months. That encarta article is flat out misleading if it talks about the same report I am talking about.