Powell: Possible Iraq Had No Banned Arms

Yahoo! News - World - AP ^ | Sat, Jan 24, 2004 | By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer

[Henrietta]

Yeah, possibly they got rid of them once they knew we were coming.

[Bobby777]

yes, if they were moved out, Syria seems the prime choice as destination ... of course, Saddam sent some (never to return, LOL) MiG's and possibly F-1's to Iran (BION) during the Gulf War (I) ... Iran kept them ... just for fun ...

I would guess either location if "items" were "moved" ...

[biss5577]

What a spin by the libs. No stockpiles of WMDs!

[squidly]

I very strongly believe that the Iraqis didn't destroy any WMD that they had. And they DID have it, make no mistake.

[jpl]

If we hadn't just happened to find those old jet fighters buried out in the middle of the desert, that would have meant they didn't exist either.

[malia]

"Since then, the administration has been less categorical on the issue, contending that Saddam was actively pursuing banned weapons. The administration generally has avoided the issue of actual possession despite having spent at least $900 million in the weapons search. "

How true is that statement?

"We won't know until we've gotten through the process of interviewing all the people who were involved in those programs and an opportunity to inspect all the sites — until we've completed the efforts that Kay started and that somebody else now will have to finish," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

I'm tired of those who won't give their names. What was so secret about his statement that it was given "on condition of anonymity?"

Or could this be a new type of 'Novak and flamen Plume scandal' - you know, that FBI outing thing!

[Bobby777]

I cannot fathom why Saddam had those jets buried ... you would think there were other places they could have been hidden ... of course, they would have had to fly to get them somewhere and they wouldn't have lasted long in the sky ... but I don't even think the engines were covered ...

trippy dude that Saddam is ...

[RJCogburn]

I still do not understand how our surveillance and intelligence was so good as to allow Powell to pinpoint the location of WMDs precisely before the UN and then for none to be located.

How can that reasonably occur?

[Bobby777]

I don't recall what he said ... his speech to the U.N. pointed to development of such weapons but I'm not sure about location ...

but this issue is out there so that's why I posted the article ... Saddam has a history of WMD, and didn't comply with 1991 U.N. orders, so that history makes him suspect ...

as to what happened, I guess we'll have to stay tuned and see if some were moved out ... no doubt Syrian weapons found their way in during Gulf War II, so it's possible some things went out ... I don't know ...

[alnick]

I still do not understand how our surveillance and intelligence was so good as to allow Powell to pinpoint the location of WMDs precisely before the UN and then for none to be located. How can that reasonably occur?

I've read that the totality of the weapons cited could be stored in an ordinary garage.

If you were going to try to hide them or move them without detection over the course of several months, all you would have to do would be to transport one small box at a time in the trunk of a car or several cars.

Poof.

[alnick]

I still do not understand how our surveillance and intelligence was so good as to allow Powell to pinpoint the location of WMDs precisely before the UN and then for none to be located. How can that reasonably occur?

I've read that the totality of the weapons cited could be stored in an ordinary garage.

If you were going to try to hide them or move them without detection over the course of several months, all you would have to do would be to transport one small box at a time in the trunk of a car or several cars.

Poof.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I thought Cheney not only guaranteed us that there were WMD, he said that we knew exactly where they were.

Lots of people now seem to claim that Cheney, or Bush, or someone said this "we know exactly where they are" thing.

Honestly, I never heard anyone say that. (That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But it does mean that they couldn't possibly have "tricked" me into supporting the war by saying it, since I never heard it being said.)

If we had known "exactly where they are", we could've just told Blix to go get 'em. Thus, it was apparent regardless of what Cheney or anyone else said that we didn't know "exactly where they are". To me at least.

[af_vet_1981]

I very strongly believe that the Iraqis didn't destroy any WMD that they had. And they DID have it, make no mistake.

I agree. They hate Israel too much to destroy anything that they could use for genocide against the Jews. I think that the WMDs are hidden/dispersed to Iraq/Syria/???.

[Godfollow]

FRance, germany and Russia gave them plenty of stall time to get the stuff spirrited away somewhere... they'll be found someday...

[Godfollow]

FRance, germany and Russia gave them plenty of stall time to get the stuff spirrited away somewhere... they'll be found someday...

[Triple Word Score]

The neat thing about achieving something is that the achievement doesn't go away even if the motivation turns out to be bogus. :-)

And I don't think the motivation was bogus--Clinton says he believed they had these weapons, and only politics kept him from invading Iraq--the people wouldn't have been behind such a move.

Not that Clinton is an unimpeachable witness (cough) but frankly if he believed that Iraq had WMD, the onus gets put back one administration--why didn't he make the case and invade? The onus is no longer on Bush for possibly being wrong about the same belief.

[Morgan's Raider]

Powell: Possible Iraq Had No Banned Arms

Well, if Saddam didn't and he opted to play poker with a Texan, he lost. President Bush called his bluff, and Saddam didn't have the chips to stay in the game. Rake the pot.

[JasonC]

One, I don't think Cheney ever said any such thing. If he did, provide a link to the story about it. You underline something but it isn't a link.

Two, if we did know where something was it would not follow that we know where it is. Objects are not immobile, and the tense in the two statements is different.

Three, if they were just making it up beforehand because they were so willing to just lie about it, why aren't they just making it up now and saying they found XY and Z? Isn't their not finding anything evidence they aren't simply making things up? I mean, they might well have been wrong. But being wrong implies prior belief that something was so that wasn't, not lack thereof.

Four, suppose there were no WMD. How is the world a worse place for the removal of Saddam? I wrote before the whole affair, to doubters of the intel, that maybe they were right to doubt and there wasn't much or what there was wasn't a serious threat. What is the downside? We remove a murderous tyrant who deserves everything he could possible get and free 20 million people.

Five, before the war the opponents of it worried that the consequences would be catastrophic, that we'd lose, that the Arab world would explode, that governments would be toppled, that Israel would be attacked, that our troops would be gassed. None of it happened. If there was anything to set in the opposite side of the scales before the war, to weigh against the obvious upside of removing Saddam, what is there to complain about now?

So Saddam's removal wasn't "necessary" - it was just a great thing to do. So serious consequences "might" have resulted - they haven't resulted. What's the beef? Besides merely not liking the guys doing it - you know nine tenths of the opposition wouldn't care a lick if it had all happened on Clinton's watch. (See Kosovo if you doubt it).