The Verdict Is In
The New York Times Editorial
Thursday 07 October 2004
Sanctions worked. Weapons inspectors worked. That is the bottom
line of the long-awaited report on weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, written by President Bush's handpicked investigator.
In the 18 months since President Bush ordered the invasion of
Iraq, justifying the decision by saying that Saddam Hussein was "a
gathering threat" to the United States, Americans have come to realize
that Iraq had no chemical, nuclear or biological weapons. But the
report issued yesterday goes further. It says that Iraq had no
factories to produce illicit weapons and that its ability to resume
production was growing more feeble every year. While Mr. Hussein
retained dreams of someday getting back into the chemical warfare
business, his chosen target was Iran, not the United States.
The report shows that the international sanctions that Mr. Bush
dismissed and demeaned before the war - and still does - were
astonishingly effective. Mr. Hussein hoped to get out from under the
sanctions, and the report's author, Charles Duelfer, loyally told
Congress yesterday that he thought that could have happened. But his
report said the Iraqis lacked even a formal strategy or a plan to
reconstitute their weapons programs if it did.
For months, administration officials have tried to deflect charges
that they invaded Iraq under false pretenses and have urged critics to
wait for Mr. Duelfer's verdict on the weapons search. The
authoritative findings of his Iraq Survey Group have now left the
administration's rationale for war more tattered than ever. It turns
out that Iraq destroyed all stockpiles of illicit weapons more than a
decade ago and had no large-scale production facilities left after
1996, seven years before the invasion. This was a matter of choice by
Saddam Hussein, who desperately wanted an end to sanctions and feared
that any weapons programs, if discovered by inspectors, would only
keep them in place.
Even after U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, a period when
Western intelligence experts assumed the worst might be happening, the
Hussein regime made no active efforts to produce new weapons of mass
destruction. The much-feared nuclear threat - that looming mushroom
cloud conjured by the administration to stampede Congress into
authorizing an invasion - was a phantom. Mr. Duelfer found that even
if Iraq had tried to restart its defunct nuclear program in 2003, it
would have needed years to produce a nuclear weapon.
Since any objective observer should by now have digested the idea
that Iraq posed no imminent threat to anyone, let alone the United
States, it was disturbing to hear President Bush and Vice President
***** Cheney continue to try to justify the invasion this week on the
grounds that after Sept. 11, 2001, Iraq was clearly the most likely
place for terrorists to get illicit weapons. Even if Mr. Hussein had
wanted to arm groups he could not control - a very dubious notion- he
had nothing to give them.
Administration officials will no doubt point to sections of the
report citing evidence that front companies were supplying Iraq with
banned materials, and that Iraq had money and expertise that could be
used to make weapons. They will also point to Mr. Duelfer's
speculation that support for the sanctions was eroding. But nothing in
the voluminous record provides Mr. Bush with the justification he
wanted for a preventive war because the weapons programs did not
exist. And as the war continues to bog down, the power of nonviolent
international sanctions looks more muscular every day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to Original
U.S. Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms in 90's
By Douglas Jehl
The New York Times
Thursday 07 October 2004
Washington - Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpiles
within months after the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and its ability to
produce such weapons had significantly eroded by the time of the
American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector for Iraq said in
a report made public Wednesday.
The report by the inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, intended to offer
a near-final judgment about Iraq and its weapons, said Iraq, while
under pressure from the United Nations, had "essentially destroyed"
its illicit weapons ability by the end of 1991, with its last secret
factory, a biological weapons plant, eliminated in 1996.
Mr. Duelfer said that even during those years, Saddam Hussein had
aimed at "preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of
mass destruction when sanctions were lifted." But he said he had found
no evidence of any concerted effort by Iraq to restart the programs.
The findings uphold Iraq's prewar insistence that it did not
possess chemical or biological weapons. They also show the enormous
distance between the Bush administration's own prewar assertions,
based on reports by American intelligence agencies, and what a
15-month inquiry by American investigators found since the war.
Mr. Duelfer said he had concluded that between 1991 and 2003, Mr.
Hussein had in effect sacrificed Iraq's illicit weapons to the larger
goal of winning an end to United Nations sanctions. But he also argued
that Mr. Hussein had used the period to try to exploit avenues opened
by the sanctions, especially the oil-for-food program, to lay the
groundwork for a plan to resume weapons production if sanctions were
lifted.
In addition, the report concluded that Mr. Hussein had
deliberately sought to maintain ambiguity about whether it had illicit
weapons, mainly as a deterrent to Iran, its rival.
The American inspector presented his conclusions to Congress on
Wednesday, including highly charged public testimony before the Senate
Armed Services Committee.
With Iraq figuring prominently in the last dash toward the
presidential election, Democrats argued that the report had undermined
the administration's case for war, while the White House and its
Republican allies called attention to elements in the report that
highlighted potential dangers posed by Mr. Hussein's government.
"There is no doubt that Saddam was a threat to our nation, and
there is no doubt that he had W.M.D. capability, and the Duelfer
report is very clear on these points," said James Wilkinson, a White
House deputy national security adviser, using the abbreviation for
weapons of mass destruction.
The three-volume report, totaling 918 pages, represented the most
authoritative attempt so far to unravel the mystery posed by Iraq
between 1991 and 2003, beginning with the point after the Persian Gulf
war when Iraq still possessed chemical and biological weapons and an
active nuclear-weapons program. The conclusions suggest that the main
war aim cited by the White House in March 2003 - to disarm Iraq, which
American intelligence agencies said possessed chemical and biological
weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear program - was based on an
outdated view of Iraq's weapons stockpiles.
At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer said in the
report, Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons, was not
seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program, and was not making any
active effort to gain those abilities. Even if Iraq had sought to
restart its weapons programs in 2003, the report said, it could not
have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons
for at least a year, and it would have required years to produce a
nuclear weapon.
"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the
gulf war," Mr. Duelfer said in the report. It said American inspectors
in Iraq had "found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart
the program."
After a closed briefing by Mr. Duelfer to the Senate Intelligence
Committee, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top
Democrat on the committee, described the report as "a devastating
account."
"The administration would like the American public to believe that
Saddam's intention to build a weapons program, regardless of actual
weapons or the capability to produce weapons, justified invading
Iraq," Mr. Rockefeller said in a statement. "In fact, we invaded a
country, thousands of people have died, and Iraq never posed a grave
or growing danger."
In accounting for what happened beginning in 1991, Mr. Duelfer
said Mr. Hussein made a fundamental decision after the Persian Gulf
war to get rid of Iraq's illicit weapons and accept the destruction of
its weapons-producing facilities as part of an effort to win an end to
sanctions imposed by the United Nations to achieve those ends.
Although Mr. Duelfer concluded that Mr. Hussein had intended to
restart his programs, the report acknowledged that that conclusion was
based more on inference than solid evidence. "The regime had no formal
written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions,"
it said.
The report notes that its conclusions were drawn in part from
interrogation of Mr. Hussein in his prison cell outside Baghdad. Mr.
Duelfer, a special adviser to the director of central intelligence,
said he had concluded that Mr. Hussein had deliberately sought to
maintain ambiguity about whether Iraq possessed illicit weapons,
primarily as a deterrent to Iran, Iraq's adversary in an eight-year
war in the 1980's.
It was not until a series of meetings in late 2002, just months
before the American invasion, that Mr. Hussein finally acknowledged to
senior officers and officials of his government that Iraq did not
possess illicit weapons, Mr. Duelfer said.
The report said American investigators had found clandestine
laboratories in the Baghdad area used by the Iraqi Intelligence
Service between 1991 and 2003 to conduct research and to test various
chemicals and poisons, including ricin. As previously reported, it
said those efforts appeared to be intended primarily for use in
assassinations, not to inflict mass casualties.
Mr. Duelfer said in his report that Mr. Hussein never acknowledged
in the course of the interrogations what had become of Iraq's illicit
weapons. He said that American investigators had appealed to the
former Iraqi leader to be candid in order to shape his legacy, but
that Mr. Hussein had not been forthcoming.
The report said interviews with other former top Iraqi leaders had
made clear that Mr. Hussein had left many of his top deputies
uncertain until the eve of war about whether Iraq possessed illicit
weapons. It said he seemed to be most concerned about a possible new
attack by Iran, whose incursions into Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war of
1980-88 were fended off by Baghdad partly with the use of chemical
munitions.
Mr. Duelfer said Iraq had tried to maintain the knowledge base
necessary to restart an illicit weapons program. He said Iraq had
essentially put its biological program "on the shelf," after its last
production facility, Al Hakam, was destroyed by United Nations
inspectors in 1996, and could have begun to produce biological
questions in as little as a month if it had restarted its weapons
program in 2003.
But the report said there were "no indications" that Iraq was
pursuing such a course, and it reported "a complete absence of
discussion or even interest in biological weapons" at the level of Mr.
Hussein and his aides after the mid-1990's.
The report will almost certainly be the last complete assessment
by the team led by Mr. Duelfer, which is known as the Iraq Survey
Group. But he said he and the 1,200-member team would continue their
work in Iraq for the time being. He said the team had not completely
ruled out the possibility that some Iraqi weapons might have been
smuggled out of Iraq to a neighboring country, like Syria.
The report did revise several earlier judgments, including a
report by the Central Intelligence Agency in May 2003 that said
mysterious trailers found in Iraq after the American invasion in 2003
were intended for use in a biological warfare program. Mr. Duelfer
said that the trailers could not have been used for that purpose, and
that their manufacturers "almost certainly designed and built the
equipment exclusively for the generation of hydrogen," upholding
claims by Iraqi officials that linked the trailers to weather balloons
used for artillery practice.
-------
.
|
|
| User: "WarpedFrets" |
|
| Title: Re: No WMD? What a suprise!!!! |
08 Oct 2004 04:14:52 PM |
|
|
" ...Even after U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, a period when Western
intelligence experts assumed the worst might be happening the Hussein regime
made no active efforts to produce new weapons of mass destruction."
To bad the dipshit didn't let the world know what he was or wasn't up to. If
the western world feared he was doing so, he should have followed his
contractual obligations and kissed the inspectors asses instead of refusing to
deal in accordance with the resolutions.
"it was disturbing to hear President Bush and Vice President ***** Cheney
continue to try to justify the invasion this week on the grounds that after
Sept. 11, 2001, Iraq was clearly the most likely place for terrorists to get
illicit weapons."
Why's that? No one had any idea what was going on over there. Botched
intelligence? You betcha...
But either way, if Saddam destroyed the stuff he was obliged to record how,
when and where... he didn't. You can blame the US, but if Saddam just did what
he was supposed to do, none of this would have happened.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: No WMD? What a suprise!!!! |
08 Oct 2004 04:53:11 PM |
|
|
***** WarpedFrets.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/07/asb.01.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BROWN: Let me ask you to just venture a little bit into conjecture, but
it's in your area of expertise. Do you believe, sir, that if the
inspectors had been given more time before the run up to the war, they
or during the run up to the war, they could have determined, considering
the conditions they were working under which weren't optimal, I suppose,
whether there were weapons or not?
KAY: Aaron, I think under the conditions that Saddam imposed, the
inspections would have not had a definitive outcome. Remember, Hans Blix
in December of -- right before the war reported Iraq had not made a
clear determination to disarm. Iraq still was standing in the way of
inspections right up to the time of the war. Inspections could have
continued for another six months. I'm afraid we would still lack a
definitive conclusion as to what the status of Saddam's weapons program
was. We certainly wouldn't understand it as we do today.
As you see, the inspections would have had no effect. FURTHERMORE:
BROWN: And the point of that to me just seems to be that while hindsight
is terrific and it is, we all enjoy it, even the inspectors themselves
or the inspection process itself might not have led us to this
conclusion prior to the war. There were, I know in your mind, there were
concerns about the scientists and what the scientists might do, given
the conditions in Iraq that existed?
KAY: Absolutely. I said in January when I testified, I thought Iraq in
some ways was far more dangerous than the intelligence community had
assessed. That is, the corruption, the decay of the society itself was
leading scientists to be willing to do almost anything to support their
family. In a world where you've got a willing seller, you usually find a
willing buyer, in this case it would have been terrorism and our
intelligence was not good enough to pick up an individual scientist
selling to a terrorist network. Look at AQ Khan. For 18 years we missed
him selling to Iran and North Korea. It was only when he picked a very
bad customer, Libya, that we managed to roll that network up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.
WarpedFrets a écrit:
" ...Even after U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, a period when Western
intelligence experts assumed the worst might be happening the Hussein regime
made no active efforts to produce new weapons of mass destruction."
To bad the dipshit didn't let the world know what he was or wasn't up to. If
the western world feared he was doing so, he should have followed his
contractual obligations and kissed the inspectors asses instead of refusing to
deal in accordance with the resolutions.
"it was disturbing to hear President Bush and Vice President ***** Cheney
continue to try to justify the invasion this week on the grounds that after
Sept. 11, 2001, Iraq was clearly the most likely place for terrorists to get
illicit weapons."
Why's that? No one had any idea what was going on over there. Botched
intelligence? You betcha...
But either way, if Saddam destroyed the stuff he was obliged to record how,
when and where... he didn't. You can blame the US, but if Saddam just did what
he was supposed to do, none of this would have happened.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: No WMD? What a suprise!!!! |
09 Oct 2004 09:36:30 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:b%D9d.26$Ia5.18@edtnps89...
***** WarpedFrets.
Oh wow! You're right Jean ... It says right there that Saddam had WMD's and
that he was days away from handing them over to terrorists.
Guess you're never wrong!
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/07/asb.01.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BROWN: Let me ask you to just venture a little bit into conjecture, but
it's in your area of expertise. Do you believe, sir, that if the
inspectors had been given more time before the run up to the war, they
or during the run up to the war, they could have determined, considering
the conditions they were working under which weren't optimal, I suppose,
whether there were weapons or not?
KAY: Aaron, I think under the conditions that Saddam imposed, the
inspections would have not had a definitive outcome. Remember, Hans Blix
in December of -- right before the war reported Iraq had not made a
clear determination to disarm. Iraq still was standing in the way of
inspections right up to the time of the war. Inspections could have
continued for another six months. I'm afraid we would still lack a
definitive conclusion as to what the status of Saddam's weapons program
was. We certainly wouldn't understand it as we do today.
As you see, the inspections would have had no effect. FURTHERMORE:
BROWN: And the point of that to me just seems to be that while hindsight
is terrific and it is, we all enjoy it, even the inspectors themselves
or the inspection process itself might not have led us to this
conclusion prior to the war. There were, I know in your mind, there were
concerns about the scientists and what the scientists might do, given
the conditions in Iraq that existed?
KAY: Absolutely. I said in January when I testified, I thought Iraq in
some ways was far more dangerous than the intelligence community had
assessed. That is, the corruption, the decay of the society itself was
leading scientists to be willing to do almost anything to support their
family. In a world where you've got a willing seller, you usually find a
willing buyer, in this case it would have been terrorism and our
intelligence was not good enough to pick up an individual scientist
selling to a terrorist network. Look at AQ Khan. For 18 years we missed
him selling to Iran and North Korea. It was only when he picked a very
bad customer, Libya, that we managed to roll that network up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.
WarpedFrets a écrit:
" ...Even after U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, a period when Western
intelligence experts assumed the worst might be happening the Hussein
regime
made no active efforts to produce new weapons of mass destruction."
To bad the dipshit didn't let the world know what he was or wasn't up
to. If
the western world feared he was doing so, he should have followed his
contractual obligations and kissed the inspectors asses instead of
refusing to
deal in accordance with the resolutions.
"it was disturbing to hear President Bush and Vice President ***** Cheney
continue to try to justify the invasion this week on the grounds that
after
Sept. 11, 2001, Iraq was clearly the most likely place for terrorists to
get
illicit weapons."
Why's that? No one had any idea what was going on over there. Botched
intelligence? You betcha...
But either way, if Saddam destroyed the stuff he was obliged to record
how,
when and where... he didn't. You can blame the US, but if Saddam just
did what
he was supposed to do, none of this would have happened.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 9/28/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: No WMD? What a suprise!!!! |
09 Oct 2004 10:59:25 AM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:b%D9d.26$Ia5.18@edtnps89...
***** WarpedFrets.
Oh wow! You're right Jean ... It says right there that Saddam had WMD's and
that he was days away from handing them over to terrorists.
Guess you're never wrong!
Thank you very much.
Well, to be fair it happens that, sometimes, I make an error in the heat
of the moment, but never on purpose.
J.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/07/asb.01.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BROWN: Let me ask you to just venture a little bit into conjecture, but
it's in your area of expertise. Do you believe, sir, that if the
inspectors had been given more time before the run up to the war, they
or during the run up to the war, they could have determined, considering
the conditions they were working under which weren't optimal, I suppose,
whether there were weapons or not?
KAY: Aaron, I think under the conditions that Saddam imposed, the
inspections would have not had a definitive outcome. Remember, Hans Blix
in December of -- right before the war reported Iraq had not made a
clear determination to disarm. Iraq still was standing in the way of
inspections right up to the time of the war. Inspections could have
continued for another six months. I'm afraid we would still lack a
definitive conclusion as to what the status of Saddam's weapons program
was. We certainly wouldn't understand it as we do today.
As you see, the inspections would have had no effect. FURTHERMORE:
BROWN: And the point of that to me just seems to be that while hindsight
is terrific and it is, we all enjoy it, even the inspectors themselves
or the inspection process itself might not have led us to this
conclusion prior to the war. There were, I know in your mind, there were
concerns about the scientists and what the scientists might do, given
the conditions in Iraq that existed?
KAY: Absolutely. I said in January when I testified, I thought Iraq in
some ways was far more dangerous than the intelligence community had
assessed. That is, the corruption, the decay of the society itself was
leading scientists to be willing to do almost anything to support their
family. In a world where you've got a willing seller, you usually find a
willing buyer, in this case it would have been terrorism and our
intelligence was not good enough to pick up an individual scientist
selling to a terrorist network. Look at AQ Khan. For 18 years we missed
him selling to Iran and North Korea. It was only when he picked a very
bad customer, Libya, that we managed to roll that network up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.
WarpedFrets a écrit:
" ...Even after U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, a period when Western
intelligence experts assumed the worst might be happening the Hussein
regime
made no active efforts to produce new weapons of mass destruction."
To bad the dipshit didn't let the world know what he was or wasn't up
to. If
the western world feared he was doing so, he should have followed his
contractual obligations and kissed the inspectors asses instead of
refusing to
deal in accordance with the resolutions.
"it was disturbing to hear President Bush and Vice President ***** Cheney
continue to try to justify the invasion this week on the grounds that
after
Sept. 11, 2001, Iraq was clearly the most likely place for terrorists to
get
illicit weapons."
Why's that? No one had any idea what was going on over there. Botched
intelligence? You betcha...
But either way, if Saddam destroyed the stuff he was obliged to record
how,
when and where... he didn't. You can blame the US, but if Saddam just
did what
he was supposed to do, none of this would have happened.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 9/28/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: No WMD? What a suprise!!!! |
09 Oct 2004 01:06:05 PM |
|
|
In article <xVT9d.2129$Ia5.114@edtnps89>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:b%D9d.26$Ia5.18@edtnps89...
***** WarpedFrets.
Oh wow! You're right Jean ... It says right there that Saddam had WMD's and
that he was days away from handing them over to terrorists.
Guess you're never wrong!
Thank you very much.
Well, to be fair it happens that, sometimes, I make an error in the heat
of the moment, but never on purpose.
*stunned silence*
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: No WMD? What a suprise!!!! |
09 Oct 2004 03:07:07 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:hMV9d.145031$Kt5.14172@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <xVT9d.2129$Ia5.114@edtnps89>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:b%D9d.26$Ia5.18@edtnps89...
***** WarpedFrets.
Oh wow! You're right Jean ... It says right there that Saddam had WMD's
and
that he was days away from handing them over to terrorists.
Guess you're never wrong!
Thank you very much.
Well, to be fair it happens that, sometimes, I make an error in the heat
of the moment, but never on purpose.
*stunned silence*
Woods
RFLMAO .. I just found a new sig ...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 9/28/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: No WMD? What a suprise!!!! |
09 Oct 2004 02:08:41 PM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <xVT9d.2129$Ia5.114@edtnps89>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:b%D9d.26$Ia5.18@edtnps89...
***** WarpedFrets.
Oh wow! You're right Jean ... It says right there that Saddam had WMD's and
that he was days away from handing them over to terrorists.
Guess you're never wrong!
Thank you very much.
Well, to be fair it happens that, sometimes, I make an error in the heat
of the moment, but never on purpose.
*stunned silence*
Woods
Yeah yeah... Pretend to be galvanized after you snipped the parts where
it says that:
"I said in January when I testified, I thought Iraq in
some ways was far more dangerous than the intelligence community had
assessed. That is, the corruption, the decay of the society itself was
leading scientists to be willing to do almost anything to support their
family. In a world where you've got a willing seller, you usually find a
willing buyer, in this case it would have been terrorism and our
intelligence was not good enough to pick up an individual scientist
selling to a terrorist network. "
This is the terrorist part. Now the WMD part is not as clear. Sure
he also said in the same article "It's always possible to do a home brew
chemistry for small amounts, particularly when we are talking about
chemical and biological agents (...)"
But what I said in the post was simply the gist of the justification of
the invasion to find out, which you snipped too: "Remember, Hans Blix
in December of -- right before the war reported Iraq had not made a
clear determination to disarm. Iraq still was standing in the way of
inspections right up to the time of the war. Inspections could have
continued for another six months. I'm afraid we would still lack a
definitive conclusion as to what the status of Saddam's weapons program
was. We certainly wouldn't understand it as we do today."
What he said I said is something else. I don't give a ***** for his lie
about what I said. I still will acquiesce that I am always right when
debunking his sorry *****.
Resume stunning.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Robinson" |
|
| Title: Re: No WMD? What a suprise!!!! |
09 Oct 2004 02:34:34 PM |
|
|
The Fires burned in Europe.
Our Young men gathered round
They emptied out the cities and farms and country towns
We knew they were better men, we knew the'd serve us well
we choose our best and finest boys to die for us in hell.
And the Men from Nasby saw the angel of Mons.
The Boys from Nasgel bled into the Somme.
We will fight for home and freedom was their cry
As they sailed away to battle and to die.
Another Generation, Another Bloody War
The Sons of the survivors came from Omarau and Gore
They fought across the ocean on land and air and sea
they fought with muscle blood and bone to keep our country free
And as you go from town to town in this lovely land
proudly in the heart of town the soldiers statue stands
Memorial in granite stone which tears against the sky
around the base the names of sons and brothers who have died
There is no unknown soldier these are not forgotten men
they are fathers sons and neighbors
who will never laugh again
they will not be forgotten for the price they had to pay
for their children's children children will still march on ANZAC day.
This is the reason New Zealand should not get involved in other peoples
wars.
We have sacrificed too much and gained so little.
Daniel
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:xVT9d.2129$Ia5.114@edtnps89...
Marvin The Paranoid Android a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:b%D9d.26$Ia5.18@edtnps89...
***** WarpedFrets.
Oh wow! You're right Jean ... It says right there that Saddam had WMD's
and
that he was days away from handing them over to terrorists.
Guess you're never wrong!
Thank you very much.
Well, to be fair it happens that, sometimes, I make an error in the heat
of the moment, but never on purpose.
J.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/07/asb.01.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BROWN: Let me ask you to just venture a little bit into conjecture, but
it's in your area of expertise. Do you believe, sir, that if the
inspectors had been given more time before the run up to the war, they
or during the run up to the war, they could have determined, considering
the conditions they were working under which weren't optimal, I suppose,
whether there were weapons or not?
KAY: Aaron, I think under the conditions that Saddam imposed, the
inspections would have not had a definitive outcome. Remember, Hans Blix
in December of -- right before the war reported Iraq had not made a
clear determination to disarm. Iraq still was standing in the way of
inspections right up to the time of the war. Inspections could have
continued for another six months. I'm afraid we would still lack a
definitive conclusion as to what the status of Saddam's weapons program
was. We certainly wouldn't understand it as we do today.
As you see, the inspections would have had no effect. FURTHERMORE:
BROWN: And the point of that to me just seems to be that while hindsight
is terrific and it is, we all enjoy it, even the inspectors themselves
or the inspection process itself might not have led us to this
conclusion prior to the war. There were, I know in your mind, there were
concerns about the scientists and what the scientists might do, given
the conditions in Iraq that existed?
KAY: Absolutely. I said in January when I testified, I thought Iraq in
some ways was far more dangerous than the intelligence community had
assessed. That is, the corruption, the decay of the society itself was
leading scientists to be willing to do almost anything to support their
family. In a world where you've got a willing seller, you usually find a
willing buyer, in this case it would have been terrorism and our
intelligence was not good enough to pick up an individual scientist
selling to a terrorist network. Look at AQ Khan. For 18 years we missed
him selling to Iran and North Korea. It was only when he picked a very
bad customer, Libya, that we managed to roll that network up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.
WarpedFrets a écrit:
" ...Even after U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, a period when Western
intelligence experts assumed the worst might be happening the Hussein
regime
made no active efforts to produce new weapons of mass destruction."
To bad the dipshit didn't let the world know what he was or wasn't up
to. If
the western world feared he was doing so, he should have followed his
contractual obligations and kissed the inspectors asses instead of
refusing to
deal in accordance with the resolutions.
"it was disturbing to hear President Bush and Vice President ***** Cheney
continue to try to justify the invasion this week on the grounds that
after
Sept. 11, 2001, Iraq was clearly the most likely place for terrorists to
get
illicit weapons."
Why's that? No one had any idea what was going on over there. Botched
intelligence? You betcha...
But either way, if Saddam destroyed the stuff he was obliged to record
how,
when and where... he didn't. You can blame the US, but if Saddam just
did what
he was supposed to do, none of this would have happened.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 9/28/04
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 1/10/2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
