Powell Not Sure Iraq Trailers Were Labs

guardian ^ | 4/2/04

[archy]

Has anyone ever explained why the Iraqis buried trailers that were just used to produce hydrogen for weathe balloons?

To keep them from floating off?

[Dave Elias]

May be wrong but I don't think they were buried. They look pretty clean in the telly pictures

[Milligan]

I'm assuming you don't take this whole WMD seriously....

[Milligan]

Who is more credible? UN's intelligence or the Coalition's intelligence? By not getting UN approval over the Saddam's WMD is challenging the UN's authority as a whole. Why was the UN doing those inspections for 12 years? They thought they could contained Saddam? It was a shell game. Remember the last time UN wanted to do inspections, Saddam didn't want a U-2 to fly over Iraq to see what they were up to. Why all the stalling? Now the UN/CEIP are saying Saddam didn't have the WMD and they are mincing words now to say the US got things all wrong. It's a battle about who is more credible and reliable.

[Enduring Freedom]

The connection between the two events - one, releasing the Bin Laden family after 9/11, and two, blaming Clarke, is simple.

a. The Russians have figured out that terrorists are not ephemeral ghosts. They have families, they have assets, they have neighbors and they have states that harbor them. Think of them as a WAN - wide area network;

b. By strategically targeting the wider area network infrastructure of the terrorists, which is an easy mark, one can then extract confessions, intelligence information and outright surrenders very quickly;

(still following along?)

c. This discourages future collaboration and complicity, and self-regulation within communities. If one day your uncle Fazoo threatens the Americans, and you knew as a result you and yours would be ultimately destroyed, you would be motivated, not to load his suicide belt, but to slit his throat;

d. The Bin Laden family offered a treasure chest of information and leverage following the attacks of 9/11;

e. Dick authorized the Bin Ladens be released in the fog of the aftermath of 9/11.

(there, I think you get it now)

[archy]

I'm assuming you don't take this whole WMD seriously....

Two sides to the coin. One, sees it as a fairly light matter, since the much-feared bogeymen WMDs have not been fortyhcoming.

The other viewpoint is as a former battalion CBR NCO, with a very good detailed working knowledge of the effects and countermeasures necessary in weapons of that sort had come into play, or do yet.

But it is certain that the situation could be much, much worse than it appears to be, and that in itself is cause for letting a little of a whistle-past-the-graveyard attitude slip.

I ain't afraid of no ghosts. Lordy no; not me!

[Archangelsk]

The connection between the two events - one, releasing the Bin Laden family after 9/11, and two, blaming Clarke, is simple.

The hallmark of the non-professional is to call anything as complex as terrorism "simple". There are some folks, a couple of whom lurk and post here, who have been working this problem, both as analysts and operators, for decades and it would be wise to learn from their counsel. If you think the Russians have a better solution - really worked for them in Afghanistan, didn't it - then by all means subscribe to their tactics. The salient fact of the matter is that all the barbery employed by spetsnaz during that guerilla war got them nowhere except to beat a hasty exit out of that woebegone land. (On the other hand, we did things right by supplying the fedayeen with shoulder fired weapons to bring down the hulking MI-24s and by assisting them in other ways. Unfortunately, we didn't follow through which led to the rise of the Taliban and ultimately to the establishment of a sanctuary for bin Laden's troops).

Oh, by the way, there's a saying called, "put up or shut up." The CIA is still looking for operations officers and if you think your opinion and point-of-view could turn the tide of terrorism - after all you must be right and everyone else is wrong and it's just so simple - then step up to the plate. But until you do, and swoop down like an avenging angel saving us from the evildoers, I'll put my faith in the professionals that grind it out everyday.

[Cvengr]

I don't know why anybody in there right mind would believe if the WMD evidence exited, that the powers that controlled them would make it public knowledge.

The entire threat posed by Iraq wrt WMD was the ability to partition their production processes of WMD and decentralize the production as innocuous industry. Upon first threat of invasion, the critical components of such a process would have been spirited away to control the entire assemblage under the guise of normal logistical shipping.

Even if it didn't exist or where it does exist, revelation of our information is the last thing any responsible intel process would allow.

That's why the socialists are making it into an issue. No defense can be made to counter the accusation and remain responsible.

[VRWC For Truth]

I smell disinformation and they are trying to smoke someone out. If I had to bet, it is Wilson. The next 'Rat book of the month club due to come out.

[Jorge]

Blix believed in February 2003 that Iraq was qualitatively disarmed on WMD. It's all about what we knew to be factual on the eve of war. On the eve of war, Ritter, Blix, and others were right, apparently.

Nobody knew on the eve of war what was "factual", and in fact nearly everybody believed there were stockpiles of WMDs.
Blix was all over the map prior to the invasion, alternately claiming they were there and then saying he didn't believe they were there etc.

And forget Ritter. Nobody considered him an authority on anything, even if he did just happen to get one thing right.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Blix believed they had them before the last round of inspections when the US gave him places to visit. After that month or so, he believed they probably were disarmed. Kay now thinks that was probably the case, too.

[The Louiswu]

"Are you a Saddam supporter?"

I was almost with until you used this very lame line.

[Jorge]

"Are you a Saddam supporter?"

I was almost with until you used this very lame line.

Sure you were.
In any case you seem rather upset that Bush overthrew Saddam.
If you really cared one bit that Bush liberated Iraqis from that murdering tyrant who gassed entire towns and fill mass graves with 300,000 of them....would you be here bashing him over the Iraqi war?
I don't think so.