Skip to comments.
IRAQ MINISTER SAYS SADDAM WMD CAREFULLY HIDDEN
Reuters ^
| 1/29/04
Posted on 01/29/2004 6:40:30 AM PST by areafiftyone
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 321-336 next last
To: areafiftyone
Comment #222 Removed by Moderator
To: Tricorn
I think he KNEW he was going to survive in 1991 because there was some global consensus he was better than chaos, and also because the Coalition wasn't in the mood for nation-building. And as such things usually happen in wars, there probably were some discreet and informal contacts between Iraq and the Coalition about keeping him in power.
IMHO, 2003 was different. This time the issue was not Saddam's entanglement in a foreign country, it was Saddam's survival. he had absolutely NO chance to stay in power, even though I'll grant you the madman could have believed he was going to.
Sending his air force to Iran was indeed something, but sending one's WMDs is a different thing - except if the WMDs are no more than chemical artillery shells, of course. If he had only chem warheads, I'd say you're probably right. If there were biological or nuclear weapons, then I still don't think he'd have given them to anybody.
To: Coop
I am not confusing the two, and your preaching to the choir
here. The intel was great during the war, it's the pre-war stuff that was not accurate, and it wasn't entirely the fault of the CIA. This was a big out of control truck screaming down the road for a long time. The 1st impact was 911, the 2nd was the WMD issue. This was years in the making, and we can thank our previous administration, and the subsequent Congress's for gutting our Agencies capabilities. They are the ones I lay the blame on. Not the agents in the field. The old adage "You get what you pay for" really sticks when it comes to this issue.
224
posted on
01/29/2004 9:12:11 AM PST
by
sean327
(9-1-1: Government Sponsored Dial-A-Prayer.)
To: dogbyte12
I am in the no WMD camp. Face it. A janitor in a WMD facility could become a very wealthy man right now by telling us where the stuff was buried. Then how come no one is coming forward, and telling us where Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri is so they can collect the $10 million dollar reward? Why did it take so long to find where Saddam was with a $25 million dollar reward? I don't think the reward for telling us where WMD's are is as large. I think your logic is flawed.
There were WMD and some are likely still there. Buried under the desert sand along with thousands of tons of conventional weapons. Why haven't we found all of the conventional weapons buried around Iraq yet? If Saddam buried so many conventional weapons why wouldn't he bury his WMD? Face it. They guy buried everything and it's going to take a long time to find them, but we will.
225
posted on
01/29/2004 9:13:02 AM PST
by
Smogger
To: whistle7
Welcome to the forum, troll. While you'll probably be banned, stick around and learn a few things. You've got some spare time now that your boy Dean has essentially been eliminated.
226
posted on
01/29/2004 9:13:18 AM PST
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: Atlantic Friend
If he had even tried to use them, we should know by now, there'd be some evidence of it : an aborted air mission, the firing of SCUDs at Coalition forces or at Israel in some desperate attempt to bring the other Arab nations in the war, etc. But there's just zilch. Did he have the weapons, and his commanders stole them to buy their safe passage to Syria ? You cite two issues: Missiles and the WMDs that refer to chemical and biological agents.
David Kay, the inspector whose report says that he thinks Saddam did not have stockpiles of the latter, has said missile production most definitely was up and running and they had missiles capable of going well beyond the proscribed limit and thus that is one aspect of violation that has been proven.
Good to see you again.
To: Constantine XIII
But when you've lost everything, why should you care about that ? Do you think Hitler would have hesitated to use the Bomb over Germany itself, if he had built it in 1945 ? Deterrence works when the other side still has something to lose. An enemy with nothing to lose won't be coyed into submission by such threats.
To: sean327
If the pre-war stuff was bad, then how could the intel during the war have been fine? Yes, you adjust to the battlefield and update your intel, but the combat plans are written with pre-war intel.
229
posted on
01/29/2004 9:15:05 AM PST
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: cyncooper
the WMDs that refer to chemical and biological agents. Don't forget nukes.
230
posted on
01/29/2004 9:16:25 AM PST
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: Atlantic Friend
But when you've lost everything, why should you care about that ? We've got to presume Hussein felt he was going to survive. He did often brag about his survival ability. And this presumption is somewhat backed up by the fact that he was still in Iraq. I really started to suspect he had fleed the country.
231
posted on
01/29/2004 9:18:22 AM PST
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: cyncooper
Thanks, Cyn, it's nice to see you too !
As you can read in this thread, I truly am flabbergasted by the WMD question ! This is turning in a "who killed JFK" issue, and I'm adding my two cents of speculation there.
Of course, the question of whether Saddam should have been toppled is, to me, an absolute no brainer. Deposing him was good enough a political objective.
To: Coop
This is where you are confusing the issue. It is the WMD intel that was lacking. Not the intel used to plan the war or the intell used in subsequent operations. They are two seperate issues, and two seperate intel packages. I can't see where you are tieing one wth the other. They are different animals.
233
posted on
01/29/2004 9:20:47 AM PST
by
sean327
(9-1-1: Government Sponsored Dial-A-Prayer.)
To: Coop
You and me both, Coop. When your boys dug him up, I really thought the guy was as stupid as demented. Frankly, staying in-country near his homeland !
So, as I said earlier, maybe I'm trying to put more sense in Saddam's actions that there ever was. A guy crazy enough to hide in a hole, hoping he would be restored to power, is certainly crazy enough to lose his WMDs.
To: Coop
Coop...you shown nothing from Kay's reports about the stockpiles talked about and referenced by Powell at the UN in your quotes.
But let's use Kay's own words...
"In the course of doing that, I had innumerable analysts who came to me in apology that the world that we were finding was not the world that they had thought existed and that they had estimated. Reality on the ground differed in advance."
Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.
Why is it so hard to understand that the pre-War intelligence specifically regarding stockpiles was wrong? Thus, in that instance, this was an Intelligence failure. Kay said that yesterday - in no uncertain terms!
In the recent months we have further examples of intelligence failures - the degree of Libya's Nuke program, the degree of Iran's nuke program - are two examples.
235
posted on
01/29/2004 9:25:27 AM PST
by
Solson
(Our work is the presentation of our capabilities. - Von Goethe)
To: sean327
It is the WMD intel that was lacking. Not the intel used to plan the war or the intell used in subsequent operations. They are two seperate issues, and two seperate intel packages. I can't see where you are tieing one wth the other. They are different animals. You're about the only one viewing them as different. The media and politicians, nor many around here, certainly aren't. But I still disagree. As I've pointed out more than once on this thread, the pre-war WMD intel was not wrong. Our folks correctly identified sites, players, equipment, front companies. But because the weapons aren't where dated intel said they'd be, you claim it's wrong? That's silly. Yeah, no chance the Iraqis would move the stuff, huh?
And what regime practicing denial, deception and obstruction is going to store banned weapons in large stockpiles? Answer: None.
236
posted on
01/29/2004 9:25:38 AM PST
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: Solson
What? Intel differed from reality on the ground?!? Why, that's unheard of! LOL.
Kay was talking to politicians. And your points about Iran and Libya - you mentioned degrees. In other words, we were aware of the WMD programs. Just didn't know all there was to know.
Welcome to the intelligence world. That's not a failure. But it won't stop politicians and decision makers from saying it is.
If the intel were a failure, we'd still be trying to figure out who the WMD players were. In other words, we'd be completely flabbergasted that they even had WMD programs.
237
posted on
01/29/2004 9:29:15 AM PST
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: ConservativeLawyer
I thought Dr. Kay's testimony was that the scientists were taking the money for the programs, but not actually making any weapons. And that all the Generals all thought some other General actually had the weapons, but none actually did. Maybe I missed something. Obviously, you missed the discussion of WMD related programs. The Antrhax simulent they used to advance their Antrhax capabilities, from liquid Antrhax to much more lethal "freeze dryed" Anthrax a la the Anthrax letters. The development of VX nerve gas precursors, from indiginous material. The decision to resurrect the delivery systems (ie. the al-Samoud missle) first as they considered them to be the most time consuming part of their WMD program.
All benign activities indeed. Did you watch the testimony?
238
posted on
01/29/2004 9:29:48 AM PST
by
Smogger
To: Solson
Coop...you shown nothing from Kay's reports about the stockpiles talked about and referenced by Powell at the UN in your quotes. Sorry, but I can't do everything. I've laid the resources at your feet.
239
posted on
01/29/2004 9:30:11 AM PST
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: Coop
And I've read the Kay reports.
Plain and simple. The stockpiles projected before the war have not surfaced and the available evidence points to these stockpiles not existing.
That is a very important intelligence failure due to Tenet's reliance upon UN inspectors, satellites, and intercepts and Tenet's failure to have folks on the ground.
240
posted on
01/29/2004 9:36:41 AM PST
by
Solson
(Our work is the presentation of our capabilities. - Von Goethe)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 321-336 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson