posted on April 18, 2003 04:00:17 PM new
Big - I have a rather sick and disturbing theory.....
I think they enjoy playing the victim.
Follow the middle east closely for a couple months. Damn near every time things calm down and there are no suicide bombers for a while Isreal does something so blatantly inflamatory that yourhave to wonder if they are trying to egg on an attack or if they are just functional idiots.
If Isreal lets loose with nukes, the guilt of the world over the holocaust is gone. There is nothing more for them to play off of. No country will continue to support them and unless they decide to blow up themselves up as well (which they have stated they will do if neccessary) they are screwed because if there is one thing that will bring every arab nation and entity together to fight as one, it is a nuclear or catastophic attack by Isreal on a fellow nation. Isreal can play tough but the reality is, they are in a no win situation. They share borders with 5 nations and none are their friends.
posted on April 19, 2003 12:23:54 AM new
kraftdinner - reply to your post, error by error:
"You're getting the issues mixed up fern."
No, I'm not, kraft.
"Whether Iraq has WOMD is a separate issue from whether Saddam was a bad man that needed to be removed - nobody denies that part."
I'm glad we all agree on that, kraft, but the topic of this thread and what I was responding to was mlecher's baseless claim that President Bush or his administration ever claimed to know exactly where the WoMD are.
"The U.S. went to war with Iraq because of the threat of WOMD coming from Iraq. Because that was the pretense, it's important for the world to see these weapons."
Agreed. I have no doubt that as soon as we find 'em, the world will see 'em.
"It has nothing to do with being right or left. If no weapons are found, it will make Bush's administration look like they had ulterier motives."
I can appreciate that viewpoint. Give the U.S. some time to find the WoMD.
I guess if new questions are allowed, I have one:
Where do you suppose the tons and tons of anthrax, vx, mustard gas, and other chem/bio weapons that Iraq never accounted for went?
Now that we've gotten to see what TOTAL FRICKIN" LIARS Saddam and his regime were (Thanks, Baghdad Bob), do you really think the Iraqis were being honest about WoMD?
posted on April 19, 2003 12:21:33 PM new
fern, Bush did say he/they knew where the WOMD were and they were going to find them and destroy them. I don't know if he said exact location but the implication from what he & Fleisher have said, makes it look that way. Because of those statements, the world is waiting to see the proof, that's all. I don't see my error in thinking this way.
posted on April 19, 2003 01:07:31 PM new
I have never read Bush saying he knew where they were. Only that he knows they have them. That's why I too was interested in seeing a link to where he said that. Just because something keeps being repeated....doesn't mean it was said.
Now, I have recently heard that the inspectors we are sending in have a list with approximate 1000 suspected hiding places for these weapons. They will be searching there.
But one of the things that bothers me is when statements like those are made....some people appear to me to be saying our President is the ONLY one who believes they have them, when in fact that's not true at all.
Here's a review dated Wednesday, March 12, 2003 from an article on Fox News....BUT taken from an American government online site. You can check it out yourself.
The following is the text of a State Department fact sheet summarizing findings of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) report on Unresolved Disarmament Issues relating to Iraq, presented to the U.N. Security Council on March 7, 2003:
This fact sheet carefully reviews UNMOVIC's report (the "Cluster Document" delivered on March 7, 2003 before the U.N. Security Council concerning the Iraqi government and its refusal to carry out full and complete disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction.
The report demonstrates that Iraq and its leadership have pursued a consistent strategy of concealing its weapons of mass destruction and deceiving inspectors in direct violation of its international obligations. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction remain a direct and active threat to their neighbors and to the international community.
History Repeats Itself: Iraq's Strategy To Deny, Deceive and Conceal Continues
If the WoMD are still in Iraq, which our government believe they are, they'll be found, KD. NOT planted there as you and others suggest. We're not the bad guys. Saddam and his regime WERE the bad guys.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 19, 2003 01:09:51 PM new
bear - Seeing you picture of Monica L.
reminds me that a couple of days ago I saw the preview of a new, upcoming, reality show. Guess who the hostess is????? Yep, our dear sweet Monica L.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 19, 2003 01:20:45 PM new
Linda, I didn't say they would plant evidence, only that it was a possibilty if nothing is found. Also, I didn't read it, I saw Bush (on TV) say he/they knew where the WOMD were and they were going to destroy them. Just suspecting Iraq had WOMD wasn't a good enough reason to go to war, so when he said this, it made me feel a bit more confident about the war.
Maybe I was dreaming, or misunderstood, but if that's true then a whole bunch of people have had the same dream.
posted on April 19, 2003 01:30:25 PM new
KD I think you're playing with words....maybe not...but that's how it's coming across.
To be clearer in what I'M saying.
Yes, President Bush has said he knows Iraq has WoMD.
I have never heard him say he knew exactly WHERE they were located.
I am NOT saying he said he SUSPECTED they had WoMD...that part I know he has said they do.
Hope we're clearer on what we're both saying now.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 19, 2003 02:09:22 PM new
Sorry, I'm not trying to play with words Linda. I know what you're saying but the way I interpreted Bush, was that they knew where the WOMD were, not just that they knew they were in Iraq. To be fair, I think Bush should have as much time to find them as the weapons inspectors did, so I'll do my best not to pass judgement just yet.
posted on April 19, 2003 02:13:44 PM new
kraftdinner (I have not been following this thread) but you said to be fair Bush hasn't had the time the inspectors had to find any WMD's well, will 10-12 years be fair to you, and can you wait and judge by that amount of time?
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on April 19, 2003 02:14:16 PM new
I think that's fair of you KD....12 years should be MORE than long enough.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 19, 2003 02:15:35 PM new
ROFL - NearTheSea...you beat me to it.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 19, 2003 02:22:25 PM new
See, you guys are ahead of me on the 12 year thing and I admit ignorance here. Have there been inspectors going to Iraq to find WOMD for 12 years?
posted on April 19, 2003 02:23:56 PM new
uh..... yep. I believe since after the first Gulf War, they may have taken 'breaks' in between, or kicked out here and there, but yes, about 12 or so years....
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on April 19, 2003 02:25:00 PM new
LOL Linda, now you guys got me reading some more here again.... I actually burnt EASTER EGGS (and these are for the 20 something KIDS of mine! )
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on April 19, 2003 02:30:19 PM new
KD - As you suggested fern do...maybe you could do a google search yourself.
The agreement at the end of the war, made with the UN, not the US was that they [Saddam/Iraq] would destroy these weapons.....for further updates, I'm sure google will be a great resource for you. You can go step by step, UN resolution after resolution and see Saddam's total and complete defiance to do as he agreed to do.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 19, 2003 02:35:16 PM new
NTS - 20 somthing kids???? WOW...you're brave. [and fertile too, I guess ] How did two adult girls turn into 20 kids?
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 19, 2003 02:47:46 PM new
ROTLMAO!! LINDA!
I meant, I am doing the whole Easter thing for my only 2--20 something kids, oh plus one fiance .... they still wanted BASKETS, did those, now the eggs, which you see what I did above then brunch tommorow.
(Oh heck no, even if I was that fertile or that Catholic there is NO WAY ON Gods Green earth I would even contemplate more than two! LOL Two was enough! )
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on April 19, 2003 02:51:03 PM new
NTS - I knew better....just trying to get a chuckle out of you. Happy Easter to you and yours.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 19, 2003 02:52:35 PM new
kraft, missed your question, when Linda thought I had 20 children LOL!
Well in the 12 years, they did find things, or things leading to things, got stonewalled, got thrown out... they really didn't get far with everytime an inspector(s) would go in, they had an Iraqi official by their side every second. I don't believe they were able to do the things that needed to be done to get a real inspection. In other words they didn't have the free range to look where they would think these things would be.
I need to go get more EASTER stuff for my TWO kids
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on April 19, 2003 04:07:41 PM new
NearTheSea
Well in the 12 years, they did find things, or things leading to things, got stonewalled, got thrown out... they really didn't get far with everytime an inspector(s) would go in, they had an Iraqi official by their side every second. I don't believe they were able to do the things that needed to be done to get a real inspection. In other words they didn't have the free range to look where they would think these things would be.
Not according to Blix, who said,
"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."
posted on April 19, 2003 04:44:27 PM new
You've made my point Helen.....side with one man, who's FULL statements you don't quote....like they weren't cooperating to the degree necessary...etc. How quickly you appear to have forgotten Blix's first UN report and what he said then.
And against THREE American presidents who have said Saddam was just playing games with the inspectors. THREE presidents who DO believe Saddam had/has WoMD.
oh yes....you're not blinding following anyone....least not on the American side of the fence.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 19, 2003 05:02:00 PM new
So what you're saying is that the U.S. knew (for 12 years) that Iraq had WOMD but couldn't do anything to enforse the decision that Iraq couldn't have WOMD made by the U.N. until the U.S. was attacked on 9/11. Am I close?
posted on April 19, 2003 05:11:21 PM new
KD - Who are you addressing?
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
My reply was directed to NearTheSea, who said that the UN did not have free range to inspect.
What in the world are you talking about.
You imply that I edited that statement to hide something. So, just for you, I'll post the entire article.
Have you considered the posibility that during the almost weekly bombing of Iraq throughout the last several years that weapons of mass destruction may have been destroyed?
The article from which my quote was taken...
Tuesday 15, April, 2003 / Last Updated: 12:16AM Doha time, 4:16PM GMT
The Evidence Gap
Glen Rangwala
The statement by US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the United Nations Security Council on 5 February 2003 has been presented by the Bush administration as its definitive case for military action against Iraq. Secretary Powell made - by my calculation - some 44 different claims about Iraq, ranging over issues as diverse as the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, the alleged support for Al-Qaeda and the human rights violations committed by the Iraqi regime.
How do these claims stand up, particularly in light of subsequent revelations about Iraq?
There are claims that are relatively uncontroversial. The Iraqi regime has tortured and killed its opponents, and its use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988 was an atrocity that should not be forgotten or excused. Furthermore, Iraq also sponsored Palestinian groups participating in the intifada - terrorists or the national resistance movement, depending on your standpoint. In those respects, at least, Powell's charges do stick.
However, these points were minor parts in Powell's speech. The majority of the speech was taken up with two sets of claims: firstly, that Iraq was not cooperating with weapons inspectors, rendering the whole inspections process futile; and secondly, that there is a "sinister nexus" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. It is on the success of these claims that the Secretary of State's speech either stands or falls.
Concealment
Powell began his speech by recalling Security Council Resolution 1441 that started the renewed inspections process, and making the claim that Iraq is making "no effort, no effort, to disarm". Instead, Iraq was engaged in attempts to conceal its weapons. Therefore, Secretary Powell argued that inspections were of no use. "What we see is a deliberate campaign to prevent any meaningful inspection work." The logical conclusion was that inspectors would not be able to disarm Iraq; only an invasion could do this.
Powell attempted to demonstrate concealment activities primarily through playing tape recordings of Iraqi officials he claimed were moving the weapons out of known chemical and biological facilities so that UN inspectors would not be able to find them. Iraqi officials are heard talking about moving a "modified vehicle" from a known weapons company before the visit of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But this story doesn't add up: the company, Al-Kindi, was involved in the production of missiles, the IAEA looks for nuclear material, and the only allegations about "modified vehicles" relate to biological weapons production.
In a second recording, officers are heard talking about "the possibility there is, by chance, forbidden ammo" in the "scrap areas". This recording was made just four days after inspectors found 16 empty rockets, an event that caught international headlines as being a possible "smoking gun" that would justify an invasion. From the recording it seemed more likely that the officers were making sure that they had disposed of any such items, not that they were hiding them from inspectors.
A third recording dwells on removing the "expression" of "nerve agents". It would appear that the individuals were discussing the wording of a document. The recording did not reveal that the Iraqis involved were actually attempting to move chemical weapons.
Furthermore, Powell claimed, Iraq may have been tipped off about which sites inspectors were planning to visit, enabling them to move their weapons around to hide them from the inspectors. This claim was directly addressed by the head of the UN weapons inspectors, Hans Blix, in his crucial statement to the Security Council nine days later:
"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."
Secretary Powell's allegation that Iraq was engaged in hiding its weapons therefore lacked the endorsement of the inspectors.
Access to scientists
Powell claimed that Iraq was not allowing inspectors to talk to the people engaged in the weapons programmes, either by not providing the names of the scientists to the inspectors or by preventing the inspectors from interviewing the scientists in private. However, Iraq had been informed by Dr Blix that it need only present the names of the former leaders of the weapons programmes to begin with. In this vein, Iraq provided the names of almost 400 individuals by the end of 2002.
Iraq continued to give the names of its weapons scientists to the inspectors until the US withdrew the inspectors. Around a dozen scientists talked to inspectors in private. It is unclear if the reluctance of Iraq's scientists to hold these conversations was due to the threats of the Iraqi regime or the fear of being misrepresented by the inspectors - as has happened in the past.
Inspections
If Powell's point is accepted, that Iraq was engaged in concealing its weapons facilities to some extent from the inspectors, it would be a violation of Security Council Resolution 1441. But would this have been a reason to invade Iraq? Secretary Powell did not make a convincing case that it would. A vital element of the inspectors' work was not just in finding existing weapons facilities, but also in deterring Iraq from building those facilities on a large scale. The Iraqi regime knew that its efforts would be found out, and so did not try to create chemical or biological weapons factories.
This in fact was what Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law who defected to Jordan in 1995, told the weapons inspectors. Iraq, he said, decided after the inspectors entered the country that they would not be able to continue their former weapons programmes. For that reason, Kamal stated, Iraq destroyed all remaining chemical, biological and nuclear stocks and its remaining missiles. If Kamal, who was assassinated in 1996 after returning to Iraq, is to be believed - and the US and UK have certainly taken his other testimony seriously - even though Iraq was not letting the inspectors do whatever they wanted inside Iraq, it did not mean that Iraq was holding or developing any prohibited weapons. Nothing in Powell's speech gave any plausible indication to the contrary.
Powell's second argument
Despite Powell's presentation, it was by no means clear that Iraq had engaged in systematic attempts to conceal weapons activities from inspectors. Also, it is far from obvious that even if Iraq was engaged in such concealment, that inspections would fail to be, in Colin Powell's term, "meaningful". In that context, Powell produced his second major argument: that Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda’s "terrorist network" by assisting a group called Ansar al-Islam, through a link man, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in northern Iraq.
Almost every major element of Powell's argument relating to Zarqawi has since come under question. German intelligence has long investigated Zarqawi's activities, and admits to not being able to show any links between him and the Iraqi regime. Furthermore, Ansar al-Islam has strongly denounced the Baghdad government, and has called for it to be overthrown. These are hardly the words of allies. The links between Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda are peripheral at best: Powell did not manage to show any direct connections, and did not even attempt to make the claim that Ansar al-Islam was in any way involved in the events of September 11, 2001.
Even the activities that Powell claimed Ansar al-Islam was engaged in from northern Iraq have since come under question. Powell presented a photograph of a "terrorist poison and explosives factory" in the village of Khurmal. That village is not even under the control of Ansar al-Islam: it is run by a group affiliated with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, who work closely with the US. Ansar al-Islam do run a camp in a nearby village of Sargat. Journalists who have visited that camp have stated that nothing within the small camp resembles facilities for the production of poisons. Despite the detailed material produced by Secretary Powell, the allegation that Baghdad has been in cahoots with Al-Qaeda remains no less implausible than it did before.
