Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties

CNSNews ^ | October 4, 2004 | Scott Wheeler

[Lunatic Fringe]

I'm always skeptical of CNS news stories... they consistently get these blockbuster stories that turn out to be nothing.

If this were true, why hasn't Fox News received a copy of these documents?

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Why don't you read this and tell us how "concerned" you are that this was the wrong war to fight.

The sad truth is, the proof has always been there and it's always been irrefutable. Anyone who hasn't seen it to this point has made a conscience effort to not see it, and nothing will persuade them.

What it boils down to is, they hate the President more than they hate those who attacked us. That includes the libs as well as the Buchananites. There's no reaching any of them.

[Darksheare]

Oh, okers, understood now.

[doblin]

"Please, Saddam had no WMDs or terror ties. Haven't you been watching the news."

According to the news I watch, Saddam Hussein wasn't personally involved in flying planes into the WTC so deposing him was the wrong thing to do.

[GarySpFc]

ping

[NutCrackerBoy]

I'm always skeptical of CNS news stories...

If the leak is absolutely legitimate, why did they choose CNS? Is it because CBS (for example) would spike the story? Or maybe they already shopped the leak around to Big Media. Something doesn't add up ...

[christie]

.
Kerry had once supported removing Saddam Hussein from power but now "says it was all a mistake."

They connected the dots in 1998 but Senator Kerry and MSM can't seem to connect the dots in 2004.

Here is an easy to read chart of what the media was saying pre-911 (and after): Connect the Dots...Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Will add this article.

Lots of facts and quotes about the president-wannabe at the John F. Kerry Timeline.
.

[JesseJane]

REMEMBER THIS STORY FROM 2003??? Check out this excerpt: "The US protested in December 2002 when Iraq ordered large quantities of atropine through the UN Oil for Food Programme. Iraq said it needed the drug for medical use."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chemical weapon antidotes found in Iraqi base

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993554

17:44 26 March 03

NewScientist.com news service

US Marines say they have discovered drugs used by soldiers to counter chemical weapons and 3000 chemical protection suits at a hospital used by Iraqi forces in the town of An Nasariyah. The discovery has added to fears that Iraq might use chemical weapons against invading British and US troops.

In particular, General Vincent Brooks, at US Central Command in Doha, Qatar, said on Wednesday that Marines had confiscated "nerve agent antidote auto-injectors" at the hospital.

Chest containing atropine injectors reported by US Marines at An Nasariyah (Image: Capt. NV Taylor/US Marines/Getty Images) Many arms experts believe Iraq possesses nerve agents such as sarin and VX. These work by increasing levels of the neuromuscular transmitter acetylcholine, sending muscles into spasm. Atropine blocks acetylcholine.

US and UK troops, as well as Israeli civilians, carry purpose-made self-injectors. These are 18 centimetres long and contain atropine and other chemical antidotes, which a person can administer to the thigh even when incapacitated.

The US protested in December 2002 when Iraq ordered large quantities of atropine through the UN Oil for Food Programme. Iraq said it needed the drug for medical use.

Clouds of chemicals

The presence of chemical weapons defences in a forward battle position such as An Nasariyah suggests that Iraqi commanders were expecting nerve agents. They may have expected the US and UK forces to use them, however unlikely that idea appears to observers in those countries.

But because clouds of chemicals can move unpredictably - or be released prematurely if enemy bombardment strikes a chemical munitions dump - it seems more probable that Iraqi troops were seeking protection against their own weapons.

Any use of chemical weapons would graphically reveal Iraqi denials of their possession as lies, and justify the US and British reasons for their attack. But most weapons experts contacted by New Scientist expect that whatever weapons Iraq has will be used in any last-ditch defense of the regime.

Human waves

But how would they use them? Iraq first developed chemical weapons in order to counter "human wave" attacks during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Their use, which killed 20,000 Iranians, was "successful" because fewer than 15 per cent of Iranian troops had gas masks. But coalition troops carry full chemical protection.

Moreover, the Iranians were not highly mobile. The main US defence strategy for any large attack with chemical agent is to detect it, and then simply go around it.

So Iraq may not try such an attack, says Jonathan Tucker of the Institute of Peace, a Congressionally-funded think tank in Washington DC. "They would have to deliver literally tonnes of agent against the target for it to work," he says. "To do that they would need a massive artillery barrage, or aircraft." Coalition air power could easily destroy either before many chemical shells or rockets were fired.

Instead, says Tucker, Iraq may coat certain areas with persistent weapons such as VX, or mustard gas - for which there is no antidote - to force invading troops onto terrain of Iraq's choosing. It used this technique against Iran.

Worst of all, Tucker fears Saddam Hussein might direct a chemical attack on civilians to create a humanitarian emergency and distract his attackers. His regime released various chemical weapons against Kurdish towns in northern Iraq in the 1980s, killing thousands of civilians.

Debora MacKenzie

[petercooper]

Rush on this now.

[dynoman]

I've posted that article before and have thought the most interesting paragraphs in it are;

"It is critical to bear in mind that for the preceding decade and more, Qadhafi had consistently denied that he was engaged in WMD programs, denying also any links with Islamist terrorists or terrorists of any kind. This lie was accepted by the international policy community, and yet when Qadhafi admitted what GIS had long said was the case — that such Libyan WMD programs did, in fact, exist8 — he was greeted as a reformer by the UK Government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, and also by some US politicians. Equally significant is the fact that Qadhafi had ensured that, through the Lockerbie settlement, significant funds (up to $900-million) were to go to Washington and New York law firms, providing a pressure point on Washington policymakers of almost unprecedented levels. For many politicians, there was more to be gained by carefully assisting Qadhafi than in exposing him."

And the last one;

"For many career intelligence and diplomatic officials, acknowledgement of the Iraq-Libya-Egypt-Iran-DPRK linkages (but particularly Iraq-Libya), at this stage, would be embarrassing. These officials have chosen the approach that, if all goes well, the Libya “problem” will now go away, albeit leaving a considerable gap in the public knowledge which could be politically beneficial to the re-election of US Pres. George W. Bush."

These paragraphs might give the best clue as to why WMD information and the connections to Libya etc. may be getting buried. Is Bush just to gracious to let the information out in consideration for those it might embarrass?

[freestyle]

Rush on this now.

Nice... saying what we are saying.

[USA_Soccer]

btt

[freestyle]

Well, no one picked up that story either... I don't remember hearing the Administration mention it either.

[unspun]

selfping

But do your feel fulfilled, afterward?

[NutCrackerBoy]

Rush Limbaugh is reporting on this thread? But I am not even wearing my pajamas!

I've heard recently that the WH is reticent to make assertions about Saddam re WMDs and terrorist links because, whenever they do, they get undermined by leakers at the CIA. What is different about this strategy to get the information out? Is it that the counter-leaks won't hold as much sway if they are not directly refuting Administration assertions, but only other leaks?

[christie]

.
I've been searching for the work/article done by Shelia McVicars (ABC) about this - few years ago?

Here is the thread I posted on 9/28/04:1999 ABC News Report : The Osama - Hussein Connection

On that thread is an MP3 files with a clip from an ABC News show called Crime and Justice -- Target America: The Terrorist War, which aired January 14, 1999, with J. Miller, J. McWethy, Sheila Macvicar, and Cynthi McFadden.

I also have a complete transcript of the entire show, which I can get to you if you send me a FreepMail.

More at Connect the Dots . . . Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden
.

[HenryLeeII]

Don't you know that "THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ". It's true. John Kerry has told us so.

Yes, he told us there were no WMD after he told us there were WMD.

[M. Peach]

"I wish whoever translated these documents for CNS would tell us what is printed on the bottom of this mural our troops found in Iraq."

And that is why I prefer "Monicanudos" - the cigar for world leaders.

[Indie]

Ig the propaganda mouthpiece for the Communist Party USA [the MSM] doesn't report this, then its "exclusivity" is irrelevant.

/rant

[M. Peach]

"Don't forget the 30 mustard gas shells and teh Sarin binary chemical artillery shell that was rigged as an IED and promptly ignored by the main stream media."

I know what you're saying. I can't believe that Bush has taken the position he has. He should have never said there were no WMD there. What happened to the ones he had? There was never any proof he got rid of them. There is all kinds of evidence they were transported out of the country.

Then they were even used against us. He's criticized for not "connecting the dots" on 911 - then criticized for going into Iraq.

I don't know who is advising Bush - but he certainly could do a lot better.