This Should Be FUN!!! WMD.

Haven’t you heard? The meaning of WMD was changed.

WMD now stands for We Meant Democracy.

Bush is spending 100,000 dollars of taxpayer dollars every second (1.2 billion tax dollars a week) to get the Iraqis the right to vote.

You know what’s funny?

Guys who claim they are small-government and tax-cutting conservatives, who say it’s a good idea to occupy another country for years, at the cost of 1.2 billion dollars a week (with no plan and no exit strategy)… because they care so deeply about giving Iraqis the right to vote.

Iraqis voted for a constitution with provisions for Sharia law… in other words Islamic fundamentalism.

[quote]100meters wrote:
So basically we can all agree there is no real information here, and as Duelfer himself says:
Nothing to see here people.

(Weird, we found nothing. NOTHING. But yet the wingers will still try to say sanctions/no-fly zones didn’t work.)

JeffR, it doesn’t matter if he had WMD anyway, remember? We’re spreading freedom now. [/quote]

100m,

How can you seriously say that there is no real information here? Is it mainly due to your partisanship? Like I said previously, the spin that will be generated from the left on this one will be enourmous.

I hereby submit to the jury, the above, which I will call exibit “A”

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Saddam Tapes Tainted by Cherney Foundation
Since news is now considered entertainment, we are expected to check our disbelief and suspicion at the door. However, there is one small troublesome aspect to the Saddam tapes–they were released to the public by the International Intelligence Summit, described “as a nonpartisan, nonprofit forum that promotes an exchange of ideas among members of the international intelligence community… The summit’s main sponsor is the Michael Cherney Fund, whose Web site describes the fund’s main objective as ‘helping realize the intellectual potential of the post-Soviet emigres to Israel.’”

So tainted is the “Israeli philanthropist” Cherney, even staunch Straussian neocons are backing away from him. “In the last week both John Deutch and James Woolsey abruptly left their positions at Intelligence Summit, according to its president, John Loftus, who said their departure is part of a campaign by the directorate of national intelligence to punish him for releasing the recordings,” reports the New York Sun. "The reason both men gave for their resignations was new information they received regarding one of the summit’s biggest donors, Michael Cherney, an Israeli citizen who has been denied a visa to enter America because of his alleged ties to the Russian mafia… The Russian businessman immigrated to Israel in 1995 after allegations in his native country swirled that he was involved with assassinations and other criminal enterprises…

In short, the alleged Saddam tapes, supposedly revealing how Hussein attempted to hide his desire to kick start a weapons of mass destruction program (and thus lending credence to the war crimes of the Straussian neocons), are tainted by the criminal background of “one of the summit’s biggest donors, Michael Cherney,” obviously an Israeli agent proffering dubious goods even hang tough Straussian neocons back away from, smelling a rat.

[/quote]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exibit “B”

I can understand why Russian Spetznaz units would be employed to remove WMD’s. Wouldn’t look too good for mother Russia to have the U.S. invade to find Russian supplied WMD’s in Saddam’s backyard huh.

Wasn’t Russia implicated in something called the “Oil for food scandel”?

Didn’t Russia strongly oppose an invasion of Iraq?

Hmmmmmmmmm.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060224

Saddam Had WMD
Posted 2/24/2006

Now that Leno and Letterman have had their way with Vice President Cheney’s hunting accident and the port controversy, maybe we can get back to something really important ? like Saddam’s WMD program.

Yes, the linchpin of opposition to the Iraq War ? never really strong to begin with ? has taken some real hits in recent weeks. And “Bush lied” ? the anti-war mantra about the president, Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction ? looks the most battered.

Inconveniently for critics of the war, Saddam made tapes in his version of the Oval Office. These tapes landed in the hands of American intelligence and were recently aired publicly.

The first 12 hours of the tapes ? there are hundreds more waiting to be translated ? are damning, to say the least. They show conclusively that Bush didn’t lie when he cited Saddam’s WMD plans as one of the big reasons for taking the dictator out.

Nobody disputes the tapes’ authenticity. On them, Saddam talks openly of programs involving biological, chemical and, yes, nuclear weapons.

War foes have long asserted that Saddam halted his WMD programs in the wake of his defeat in the first Gulf War in 1991. Saddam’s abandonment of WMD programs was confirmed by subsequent U.N. inspections.

Again, not true. In a tape dating to April 1995, Saddam and several aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq’s biological weapons program. On the tape, Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors.

“We did not reveal all that we have,” he says. “Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct.”

There’s more. Indeed, as late as 2000, Saddam can be heard in his office talking with Iraqi scientists about his ongoing plans to build a nuclear device. At one point, he discusses Iraq’s plasma uranium program ? something that was missed entirely by U.N. weapons inspectors combing Iraq for WMD.

This is particularly troubling, since it indicates an active, ongoing attempt by Saddam to build an Iraqi nuclear bomb.

“What was most disturbing,” said John Tierney, the ex- FBI agent who translated the tapes, “was the fact that the individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission (or UNSCOM, the group set up to look into Iraq’s WMD programs).”

Perhaps most chillingly, the tapes record Iraq Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz talking about how easy it would be to set off a WMD in Washington. The comments come shortly after Saddam muses about using “proxies” in a terror attack.

9-11, anyone?

In short, let us repeat: President Bush was right. We had to invade to disarm Saddam ? otherwise, he would have completely reconstituted his chemical, nuclear and bio-weapons programs when inspectors left.

Saddam probably knew better than to use them himself against the U.S. But it’s likely he wouldn’t have hesitated giving one or more to terror groups with which he had routine contact.

Lest you think we’re making the case entirely based on these tapes, let us assure you that other evidence ? mounting by the day ? points to the same conclusion.

We’ve been very impressed by the story told by Georges Sada, the former No. 2 in Iraq’s air force. He has written a book, “Saddam’s Secrets,” that details how the Iraqi dictator used trucks, commercial jets and ships to remove his WMD from the country. At the time, the move went largely undetected, because Iraq pretended the massive movement of materiel was to help Syrian flood victims.

Nor is Sada alone. Ali Ibrahim, another of Saddam’s former commanders, has largely corroborated Sada’s story.

So how was Saddam able to use his “cheat and retreat” tactics without being found out? He had help, according to a former U.S. Defense Department official.

“The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon,” said John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense, in comments made at an intelligence summit Feb. 17-20 in Arlington, Va.

“They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special ops) units out of uniform that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence,” he said.

These are extraordinary developments. They deserve a full airing in the media, since they essentially validate part of Bush’s casus belli for invading Iraq and deposing the murderous Saddam.

But once again, the mainstream media have dropped the ball. They seem more interested in Dick Cheney’s marksmanship and American port management than in setting the record straight about one of the most important developments of our time.

Wishing doesn’t make it so. This has already been debunked.

I know this must be a bitter pill to swallow. Rumsfeld went on TV and said he knew exactly where the WMDs were, in massive stockpiles. Rice said Saddam had an active nuke-building program. Cheney said there was no doubt about it. Powell showed fake aerial photos at the UN.

Then they come up with zip, zero, zilch, nada.

Bupkis.

It’s got to be very disillusioning for you, we’ve had 130,000 troops roaming the country for 3 years and we haven’t found jack shit. Hence the clingy desperation. The unhinged gleeful tone (FUN!!!) The conspiracy theory that the real WMD story is getting suppressed by the liberal media.

Lets say it together:

[b]No

WMDs

in Iraq.[/b]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

More Jew conspiracy theories.

Sweet.
[/quote]

Even in the Never-Never Land of Israeli Intelligence, the Truth Occasionally Will Out
By Richard H. Curtiss
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
January/February 2004
It was a bit stunning, therefore, to read an article in Strategic Assessment, the quarterly bulletin issued by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. The report, titled “The War in Iraq: An Intelligence Failure?” was written by Shlomo Brom, a brigadier general in the Israeli army reserves, and said what no one seems to have dared publish since President George W. Bush decided to wage war on Iraq. Shockingly, it told the full truth about the American and British intelligence “sources” making the case for war.

In fact, according to Brom, these sources were utterly compromised by Israeli intelligence, which made the case for starting the war and kept it going as long as necessary. The retired general described Israel as a “full partner” in U.S. and British intelligence failures that exaggerated Iraqi President Saddam Hussain’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs in the lead up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Israeli intelligence sources and political leaders provided “an exaggerated assessment of Iraqi capabilities,” raising “the possibility that the intelligence had been manipulated,” wrote Brom, former deputy chief of planning for the Israeli army.

In a Dec. 5 article, Washington Post correspondent Molly Moore quoted from the report: "In the questioning of the picture painted by coalition intelligence, the third party in this intelligence failure, Israel, has remained in the shadows

One thing is certain. Israel’s competing intelligence services soon will begin - if they haven’t already - to write scenarios explaining why it will be necessary to bomb Iranian weapons technology, and a whole new virtual weapons industry will materialize.

The reason, of course, is to focus international attention on yet another “rogue state,” so as not to have to deal with the real problem, making peace with Palestinians. How much longer can this flight from reality be allowed to last?

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Wishing doesn’t make it so. This has already been debunked.

I know this must be a bitter pill to swallow. Rumsfeld went on TV and said he knew exactly where the WMDs were, in massive stockpiles. Rice said Saddam had an active nuke-building program. Cheney said there was no doubt about it. Powell showed fake aerial photos at the UN.

Then they come up with zip, zero, zilch, nada.

Bupkis.

It’s got to be very disillusioning for you, we’ve had 130,000 troops roaming the country for 3 years and we haven’t found jack shit. Hence the clingy desperation. The unhinged gleeful tone (FUN!!!) The conspiracy theory that the real WMD story is getting suppressed by the liberal media.

Lets say it together:

[b]No

WMDs

in Iraq.[/b][/quote]

Hahahaha! Spin baby spin!!

Exibit “C” folks.

Bigflamer,

Thank you!!!

I was particularly interested in the fact that saddam was on tape talking in 2000 about plasma uranium weapons.

These two paragraphs are also very telling:

"We’ve been very impressed by the story told by Georges Sada, the former No. 2 in Iraq’s air force. He has written a book, “Saddam’s Secrets,” that details how the Iraqi dictator used trucks, commercial jets and ships to remove his WMD from the country. At the time, the move went largely undetected, because Iraq pretended the massive movement of materiel was to help Syrian flood victims.

Nor is Sada alone. Ali Ibrahim, another of Saddam’s former commanders, has largely corroborated Sada’s story."

After reading some of the responses to this information, I wanted to tell you that you are right. The lefties will drop “Bush lied, everyone died” and move on to something else. They can’t even admit that this new information is interesting.

Sad.

I’ve listened to Duefler’s response to these tapes. I find it interesting.

These tapes do prove the pattern of deception that Duefler discusses. However, if you recall, the scott ritters of the world were screaming their head off that saddam had no weapons in 1995. They were wrong.

Either Duefler has already translated these tapes or he is acting like a close-minded democrat.

The House Intelligence Committee has said that there are hundreds of hours left to translate. Either Duefler was there before them, or it might be wise to keep his mouth shut until they have been translated.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
"We’ve been very impressed by the story told by Georges Sada, the former No. 2 in Iraq’s air force. He has written a book, “Saddam’s Secrets,” that details how the Iraqi dictator used trucks, commercial jets and ships to remove his WMD from the country. [/quote]

This guy Sada got kicked out of Iraq way back in 1990. At best, he is not aware of Iraq’s actual weapons capabilities circa 2001, at worst he is a liar with a grudge against Saddam’s regime, and he’s trying to sell some books.

At the time of the invasion there were 2000 weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq, who all said there were no WMDs. Bush decided to invade anyway. The weapons inspectors were right, and Bush was wrong.

I know that is a bitter pill to swallow, since WMDs was the justification that was used to sell the war to the public. Who wants to admit that America went to war based on false pretenses… certainly not anyone with integrity.

bradley,

Were these the same inspectors that were screaming bloody murder that there were no weapons in 1995?

Hold on, your little assumptions are about to be rocked.

JeffR

Greetings!!!

Wanted to update the progress of the saddam documentation release:

From the Weekly Standard:

"On February 16, President George W. Bush assembled a small group of congressional Republicans for a briefing on Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley were there, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad participated via teleconference from Baghdad. As the meeting was beginning, Mike Pence spoke up. The Indiana Republican, a leader of conservatives in the House, was seated next to Bush.

“Yesterday, Mr. President, the war had its best night on the network news since the war ended,” Pence said.

“Is this the tapes thing?” Bush asked, referring to two ABC News reports that included excerpts of recordings Saddam Hussein made of meetings with his war cabinet in the years before the U.S. invasion. Bush had not seen the newscasts but had been briefed on them.

Pence framed his response as a question, quoting Abraham Lincoln: “One of your Republican predecessors said, ‘Give the people the facts and the Republic will be saved.’ There are 3,000 hours of Saddam tapes and millions of pages of other documents that we captured after the war. When will the American public get to see this information?”

Bush replied that he wanted the documents released. He turned to Hadley and asked for an update. Hadley explained that John Negroponte, Bush’s Director of National Intelligence, “owns the documents” and that DNI lawyers were deciding how they might be handled.

Bush extended his arms in exasperation and worried aloud that people who see the documents in 10 years will wonder why they weren’t released sooner. “If
I knew then what I know now,” Bush said in the voice of a war skeptic, “I would have been more supportive of the war.”

Bush told Hadley to expedite the release of the Iraq documents. “This stuff ought to be out. Put this stuff out.” The president would reiterate this point before the meeting adjourned. And as the briefing ended, he approached Pence, poked a finger in the congressman’s chest, and thanked him for raising the issue. When Pence began to restate his view that the documents should be released, Bush put his hand up, as if to say, “I hear you. It will be taken care of.”

It was not the first time Bush has made clear his desire to see the Iraq documents released. On November 30, 2005, he gave a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy. Four members of Congress attended: Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee; Sen. John Warner, the Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee; Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona; and Pence. After his speech, Bush visited with the lawmakers for 10 minutes in a holding room to the side of the stage. Hoekstra asked Bush about the documents and the president said he was pressing to have them released.

Says Pence: “I left both meetings with the unambiguous impression that the president of the United States wants these documents to reach the American people.”

Negroponte never got the message. Or he is choosing to ignore it. He has done nothing to expedite the exploitation of the documents. And he continues to block the growing congressional effort, led by Hoekstra, to have the documents released.

Officials involved with DOCEX–as the U.S. government’s document exploitation project is known to insiders–tell The Weekly Standard that only some 3 percent of the 2 million captured documents have been fully translated and analyzed. No one familiar with the project argues that exploiting these documents has been a priority of the U.S. intelligence community."

Fascinating. Three percent fully analyzed!!!

I’m looking forward to this.

JeffR

While not from the saddam tapes themselves (don’t want to start a new thread), this is interesting:

"Released Wednesday by the U.S. Government:

March 16, 2006 ? Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit’s summaries of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein’s government, which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday.

The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.

The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm.

Note: Document titles were added by ABC News.

“Osama bin Laden and the Taliban”

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who’s only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and “bin Laden’s group” agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden’s group turn out to be involved in “these destructive operations,” the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq’s relationship with “bin Laden’s group” while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing “the committee of intentions” about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear."

I’m interested. If ties with bin laden and hussein are unambiguously confirmed, will this change my liberal friends’ approach?

Will you be able to admit error?

Are you mature enough to read these articles? Are you man/woman enough to challenge your preconceived notions? Will you take the time to follow the link that I posted?

Or, is “Bush lied, God died” too ingrained?

Or, am I going to hear that no new information could possibly come to light?

JeffR

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who’s only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:
[/quote]

Big deal. You can find all kinds of people willing to tell you whatever you want to hear. That doesn’t mean they are credible. Was this guy being tortured when he said that? Was he just trying to suck up, to get a good job in the new government?

Look how bad Bush screwed up when he believed Chalabi and “Agent Curveball” about all the WMDs that Iraq supposedly had. Just because one guy says something, doesn’t mean jack shit.

The Bush administration has lost their credibility on the war, after lying to the public over and over (WMDs, it will be a cakewalk, Iraq pays for it’s own reconstruction, “Major combat operations are over”, Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, Look everybody we found a nuke- oops no we didn’t). Now it turns out that this Operation Swarmer is more bullshit… a supposedly major combat operation with Iraqi forces working side by side with US forces… except no shots were fired, no resistance was found, it was all just another PR stunt.

Don’t be so gullible.

bradley,

Thanks for your response. You show quite clearly that you are not capable of understanding that issues have two (or more sides).

By refusing to admit that YOU may be wrong, you cement your credentials as a card-carrying member of the anybody but Bush cabal.

It’s sad that you highlight errors/supposed errors/made up shit while refusing to give Bush credit for obvious successes: Three elections, etc.

It’s also telling that you summarily dismiss this report. It doesn’t say what you want to hear, therefore, it has no value.

Anyway, leaving bradley behind, I’d be interested to hear if any liberals on this board do any soul searching. Or, is it straight party line?

JeffR

Here is some translated text that was declassified.

You can find this on the site I linked above.

Dated March 23, 1997:

“Hiding Documents from the UN Team. A letter from the Iraqi intelligence service to directors and managers advising them to follow certain procedures in case of a search by the UN team including removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons. Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs, making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemicals or biological materials that were previously used or stored. Doing so through a committee which will decide whether to destroy the documents, and removing files from computers”

The inspections were not containing anyone or anything. There were obviously procedures in place in the Iraqi Government to deceive the inspectors.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Anyway, leaving bradley behind, I’d be interested to hear if any liberals on this board do any soul searching. Or, is it straight party line?

JeffR[/quote]

Ironic hearing this from Mr. Party Line himself. I don’t think you’ve had a thought on your own that hasn’t come from Limbaugh’s head.

little irish wrote:

“Ironic hearing this from Mr. Party Line himself. I don’t think you’ve had a thought on your own that hasn’t come from Limbaugh’s head.”

Great!!! Another in a long list of errors on your part!!!

Interesting. Out of curiosity, do you read Limbaugh?

I have to admit to reading susanestrich, the newyorktimes, cnn, and other liberal news outlets.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
little irish wrote:

“Ironic hearing this from Mr. Party Line himself. I don’t think you’ve had a thought on your own that hasn’t come from Limbaugh’s head.”

Great!!! Another in a long list of errors on your part!!!

Interesting. Out of curiosity, do you read Limbaugh?

I have to admit to reading susanestrich, the newyorktimes, cnn, and other liberal news outlets.

JeffR

[/quote]

Please provide examples of how the New York Times is a “liberal” media outlet.

Jerffy,

I swear dude, FAX this stuff to the White House immediately.

They have obviously overlooked what your astute powers of observation have unearthed.

If you could but only replace the incompetent fools they have placed in positions of authority in this matter, the world would be in much better hands.

Sigh. Maybe at some point you’ll learn the difference between what you want to be true, and what actually transpires in the world around you?

I’m not holding my breath…

[quote]harris447 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
little irish wrote:

“Ironic hearing this from Mr. Party Line himself. I don’t think you’ve had a thought on your own that hasn’t come from Limbaugh’s head.”

Great!!! Another in a long list of errors on your part!!!

Interesting. Out of curiosity, do you read Limbaugh?

I have to admit to reading susanestrich, the newyorktimes, cnn, and other liberal news outlets.

JeffR

Please provide examples of how the New York Times is a “liberal” media outlet.
[/quote]

harris,

You might want to ask the “public editor” of the NYT. He says it’s liberal.

Do you think he’s lying?

"Daniel Okrent, the Times “public editor” (what other newspapers would call an ombudsman) admitted the obvious in his Sunday Week in Review column, provocatively titled “Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”

Okrent answers his own question in the piece’s very first line: "Of course it is.

Okrent, who was the editor at large for Life magazine from 1999 to 2001, admitted his Democratic leanings in his very first column as ombudsman."

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0726.asp