Posted on 02/04/2004 6:45:46 AM PST by fdsa2
A US-based Norwegian weapons inspector accuses the USA and Secretary of State Colin Powell with providing the United Nations Security Council with incorrect and misleading information about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), newspaper Dagbladet reports.
Joern Siljeholm, Ph.D. in environmental chemistry, risk analysis and toxicology, said that the USA's basis for going to war is thin indeed, and called it a slap in the face to the United Nations weapons inspectors. Siljeholm told Dagbladet that Colin Powell's report to the Security Council on how Iraq camouflaged their WMD program was full of holes.
"Much of what he said was wrong. It did not match up at all with our information. The entire speech was misleading," Siljeholm said.
Asked if the Americans lied, Siljeholm said: "Lie is a strong word - but yes, the information Powell presented about Iraq's nuclear program was simply incorrect," Siljeholm said.
"We received much incomplete and poor intelligence information from the Americans, and our cooperation developed accordingly. Much of what has been claimed about WMDs has proven to be sheer nonsense. From what I have seen they are going to war on very little," Siljeholm told Dagbladet.
After 100 days in Iraq, Siljeholm, now a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston, is on holiday in Florida with his family.
"I strongly doubt that the American will find anything at all. In any case I doubt that they will find WMDs that constitute a military threat," Siljeholm said.
Siljeholm said that his thoughts are now with the Iraqi people he met, and who cooperated with the inspectors.
"It is a weary country with many weary people. The people want peace," Siljeholm said.
...said that the USA's basis for going to war is thin indeed, and called it a slap in the face to the United Nations weapons inspectors.
How is this possible, since the weapons inspectors had been expelled from Iraq for several years prior to the threat of war?
Much of what has been claimed about WMDs has proven to be sheer nonsense.
Proven!? I have yet to see the poof that the evidence was nonsense. Saddam had the delivery systems (shells, rockets, and bombs, all found stockpiled but unfilled). The only missing item is the chem or bio toxins themselves. 95% of the Bush administrations claim has in fact been proven true. The development programs were ongoing, and delivery systems were in place.
I see. How convenient. The Swede gets a pass because, after all, he's a Swede. But everyone else is lying, you betcha.
Ih this what passes for Swedish nationalism in the wake of Bjorn Borg and Stefan Edberg retiring? Couldn't you find another cheesy disco band to rally around instead?
And that's exactly what we are giving them. And in addition we are also throwing in sovereignty, and freedom.
All we ask is for enough ground to bury our dead and all we get for their blood is a bunch of freaking ingrates griping and whining that Bush lied to them and complainng that Bush "squanderd the goodwill" gained from the 9/11 murders by not playing the victim for all it was worth. You idiots are prime candidates for watching by the authorities for Munchausen's syndrome by-proxy.
Americans as a whole don't play that sh#t. We greive for our dead and then we kick ass, often at the same time. I'll tell you what, just shut up and get the hell out of the way and let your betters keep your sorry butts free because you will certainly sell your freedom to the first tyrant who will promise you the absolute safety of slavery.
And just think where this "weary country" and its "weary people" would be if Saddam was still standing up in his balconey shooting his shotgun in the air........ They sure as hell wouldn't be living in peace (but it is coming if they want it), but still living in fear.
And sure, it's easy for this Siljeholm guy to say all this from his armchair in Boston, or from his vacation flat in Florida..... He can thank his lucky stars.
More over, there are the words of others here in the United States that I would trust before looking abroad.
Rumsfeld says W-M-D may still be found in Iraq
Capitol Hill-AP -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says it is too early to say Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction before the U-S invasion last year.
Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that U-S weapons inspectors need more time to reach a final conclusion about whether chemical and biological weapons existed in Iraq before the war.
Rumsfeld says he is confident that prewar intelligence was not manipulated by the administration to justify its war aims.
He offered several theories on why no weapons have been discovered, starting with the possibility that banned arms never existed. Rumsfeld called that "possible, but not likely."
Rumsfeld also said Iraq could have hidden some of the banned weapons. He told lawmakers that the hole in which Saddam Hussein was found "was big enough to hold biological weapons to kill thousands" of people.
He says such objects, "once buried, can stay buried."
My view is that the rationale for going to war was Saddam's non-compliance with resolution 1441, which warned Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate its obligations as spelled out in the resolution.
So, in essence, war was waged because the inspectors didn't find nor Saddam did reveal WMD that he didn't have. Am I interpreting your statement correctly?
I argue that the claims is not 95 percent true. And the missing bio and toxins are important. If stockpiles etc. are found I will admit I was wrong and shut up, but even Rice/Way etc. acknowlegdges that the claims might have been false (the reason is not the issue).
I am sorry, it is hard for me to understand your comments. It sounds like you are arguing with yourself and losing.
If I follow you correctly ...
On one hand, you acknowledge that Iraq had wmds, BUT on the other, you argue that Powell lied to the UN. YET you claim the missing bio and toxins are important and if found you will be quite BUT you point out that even Rice acknowledges that the claims might have been false AND the problem you see is that no one from the US dares to say, "ok so we were not completely wright in that respect but the war was just anyway."
That said...
While the UN resolutions place the burden on Iraq to prove that all of the wmds were destroyed, you would rather place the burden of proof of the existence of wmds on the United States and Britain. And if the United States and Britain cannot prove there are wmds, then they were lying all along. By that logic, that is akin to saying that for the period of time that we could not find him, saddam hussein did not exist. Moreover, to this day, bin laden does not exist because we have not found him.
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.