Posted on 03/11/2005 6:36:52 PM PST by Stars&StripesNE
Saddam's $2m offer to WMD inspector By Francis Harris in Washington (Filed: 12/03/2005)
Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction
If you were fully human rather than a bot who copied his own prior posts, I would wish you would address my simple thought experiment. To remind, it goes like this. An object (say, a chemical shell) is in a box. The box is at point A. Then it is moved to point B. Then it is moved to point C. Please tell me what "residuals" are left at point B?
But I do hear what you're saying: Basically, according to your extensive research and knowledge, "residuals" can be cleaned up in 10 years but not 10 months. Scientifically, can you explain why that is? Why is it physically impossible to clean up "residuals" (whatever they are exactly - it's still not clear) in a time shorter than 10 months? Does it have to do with their half-life?
The Duelfer report actually says exactly what I have been saying in many regards - That we have found that Saddam had all the capabilities to produce WMDs in a somewhat short time frame....but we have found NONE in the end product state
False, apparently.
“Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered.” Why haven’t you heard that? Possibly because that information was buried on page 97 of Annex F of Volume 3 of the Duelfer Report.
I guess you haven't read the Duelfer Report.
Lastly the World knew about Saddam's late 80's WMD program
so?
we do know what happened to great amounts of it [Saddam's known WMD program]....but we aren't sure about all of it
That's right. We are not. Therefore, you should not act as if we are.
Lastly, going into Iraq in 2003 we were certain that Saddam had reactivated his WMD program - From the looks of things on the ground it appears he had not reactivate it (and surly did not reactivate to the levels
Who moved the goalposts to whether he had "reactivated" anything? If Saddam had WMDs, but didn't "reactivate" the WMD program... then Saddam had WMDs.
And then you bring up "levels" of reactivation! Just in case you have to move the goalposts even further, eh? Preparing yourself for arguing that he had reactivated the program 25% but not 50%? 50% but not 90%? Right?
Which brings one back to the CIA estimate of how much WMDs Saddam even had back in the late 80's (does it not).
Um, what? The CIA estimate of how much WMDs Saddam had in the late 80s is relevant to whether a UN inspector was offered a bribe?
By this point I don't know where the heck your goalposts are. Or why I should care. My previous tangle with you was about WMDs being moved to Syria. That charge stands (and looky here, the story has made it to the New York Times, so you better argue with them too!).
Meanwhile, this thread is about Saddam offering a bribe to a WMD inspector. That charge stands and you haven't even attempted to address it. But you can't weasel your way out of this sticky issue: it's difficult for anyone with a brain to understand why Saddam would feel the need to bribe UN inspectors if he had neither WMD programs nor WMDs.
First off it isn't that hard to understand why Saddam would bribe a UN Official - Saddam was breaking all sorts of obligations set after the first Gulf War outside of soley the WMD issue! - (What don't you understand about that?) -
From building Froger II type missiles that exceeding the km requirements, to buiding manless aerial vechicles, to stealing from the food for oil program (the list could go on and on) - Those UN inspectors had the possibility (if doing their jobs correctly) to discover some if not all of these infractions -
We you oddly suggest it could have only been "end product" WMDs Saddam was hiding is odd to me -
As for copy and pasting I don't do that - What is odd is you repeat the same things as well in each post to me (yet you don't hear me complaining....you see my explaining where you are wrong...big difference).
To remind, it goes like this. An object (say, a chemical shell) is in a box. The box is at point A. Then it is moved to point B. Then it is moved to point C. Please tell me what "residuals" are left at point B?
Okay - First off producing WMD's is not the equivalent of simply having a "box" at point A - But nevertheless - even in your scenario one would find residuals of the "human element" certainly (those that produced the box, bought the box, shipped the box, put items in the box, sealed the box, re-shipped the box, etc, etc) -
One would also find residuals of the paper-trail element - Being who bought the box, dimensions of the box needed, materials for building the box, prototypes of the box (or did they just get it right the first time!), disposal of boxes that didn't turn out right, etc, etc, etc -
Also you conveniently leave out that there would / could be residuals at point A as well as B (not just B) -
Now when you understand the complexities of producing WMDs over that of a "box"....the list of residuals grows immensely -
Again, what do you think we were looking for with regard to WMDs in Iraq - Do you seriously think the only thing we are looking for is the "end product" - Please. It works the opposite way - You look for a trail of residuals that lead you to the end product (unless you just happen to get lucky and find the end product to begin with).
As for the notion that why could an out of production / 10 year old program be cleaned up....by an active program cannot be cleaned up (perfectly residual free) in less than 10 months - Well, if you can't understand that.....you are simply being foolish (and wasting time).
One has to be willing to be intellectually honest...and with your above reasoning (10 year / 10 months) it is clear you are not willing to be intellectually honest and you simply look for facts to fit your preconceived notion (a terrible flaw to have).
True. But this was a WMD inspector.
you oddly suggest it could have only been "end product" WMDs Saddam was hiding is odd to me -
I guess you're right, WMD is not the "only" possible thing Saddam could have been attempting to hide through his attempted bribery of the WMD inspector. That he bribed the WMD inspector because he wanted to hide WMDs of one form or another, is, however, the most reasonable inference to draw. I claim no more and no less.
Okay - First off producing WMD's is not the equivalent of simply having a "box" at point A
True but in my example I am asking what residuals are left at point B, not point A. I am willing to stipulate that all sorts of icky gooey residuals are left at point A (from producing the WMD), but then it is moved to B, and then to C, and I am asking what residuals are left at B.
But nevertheless - even in your scenario one would find residuals of the "human element" certainly (those that produced the box, bought the box, shipped the box, put items in the box, sealed the box, re-shipped the box, etc, etc) -
LOL. So by "residuals" you mean, in some cases, "witnesses"?
And so what you're saying is that there were no WMDs in Iraq because no witnesses have copped to driving them around, moving them, etc.? That's it? That's what the entire "no WMD" claim is based on? Wow.
That's a much weaker argument than I'd thought you'd been attempting.
Suppose that a truck driver drove the box of WMDs from point B to point C, and point C is in Syria. The truck driver stays in Syria. (Maybe that's where he came from. Or, maybe he's a Russian who came from Russia to help with the move, and now he's in Russia.) Then we send our inspectors to Iraq. They will not find the "residual" truck driver in Iraq. They will declare that Iraq was free of WMDs on that basis, not having found anyone who will admit "Yes I drove them to Syria"?
Boy is that stupid.
And it doesn't answer my question. This "human element" need not remain at B after doing his thing. But I asked what "residuals" were left at B. Back to square one.
One would also find residuals of the paper-trail element
So all transactions involving illicit items leave paper-trails? Do you really believe that? I have to say, if this is really how our investigators think and operate, they're even dumber than I had imagined.
Also, even if they keep a paper trail of the transaction from A to B to C, it need not remain at B. It need not be at any of those locations. Paper trails can be burned. Shredded. You are speaking as if papers are permanent and stationary objects.
Also you conveniently leave out that there would / could be residuals at point A as well as B (not just B) -
Right but let's just say that the box was made pre-1991. Point A was therefore "cleared" of "residuals" since that time. (Boy I hate talking like this.) So it's only point B, and point C, in Syria. You: "No residuals at B means no WMDs were in B." Which is, of course, silly. That's my point.
Again, what do you think we were looking for with regard to WMDs in Iraq - Do you seriously think the only thing we are looking for is the "end product"
I assume that "we" were "looking for" all that you say. However, if some of the stuff we are looking for is in Syria, then we are not going to find it in Iraq, and looking in Iraq is a poor way to determine whether they existed.
And now it turns out that even many of the "residuals" you speak of - witnesses, paper trail - far from being stationary objects, can actually move around. Your mentality has us "inspect" a country, and say that because no witnesses talked to you and you couldn't find paper trails, "Therefore no WMD were in this country."
Truly. idiotic.
It works the opposite way - You look for a trail of residuals that lead you to the end product (unless you just happen to get lucky and find the end product to begin with).
Yes, ideally it works the opposite way and you don't have to rely on getting lucky. I am sure that is how a dream investigation would go. However, if you don't get lucky, and can't find a trail to follow, do you give Iraq a clean bill of health?
Idiotic.
As for the notion that why could an out of production / 10 year old program be cleaned up....by an active program cannot be cleaned up (perfectly residual free) in less than 10 months - Well, if you can't understand that.....you are simply being foolish (and wasting time).
LOL.
Nobody can understand it because you haven't described what the hell you are talking about with any specificity. What is magical about the 10-year time length? What is "too short" about the 10-month time length? What needs to happen that takes longer than 10 months? You can't describe or address these things because you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You are tossing out phrases you've apparently read somewhere such as "residual", "human element", "hex operations" etc. and hoping that we'll be impressed.
Tell me just one example of a "residual" that cannot possibly be moved or cleared away from our location A within a ten-month time-span. And tell me the physical laws that prevent moving/clearing this "residual" within 10 months. I dare you!
P.S. I hope you are not a native English speaker. Your writing suggests either horribly messed-up, illogical thought processes or English not being your native language, so I hope for your sake it's the latter.
P.P.S. You conveniently ignored that the Duelfer report states that we have found WMDs. How does that figure into your whole "we've found NO WMDs" thesis I wonder?
That's right. We are not. Therefore, you should not act as if we are.
But I don't act like I know - I simply state the facts of what we do know - It is you who keeps insisting that our Intel on the amounts of Saddam's late 80's WMD must have been accurate - It is you that keeps saying they were moved to Syria (or perhaps somewhere else) -
I have simply stated that there is no "hard Intel" to suggest any such thing - At least not more Intel than we had on Iraq prior to our invasion in 2003 (when our own CIA said it was a SLAM DUNK they knew where they were located) -
Well that Intel turned out to be wrong - Completely wrong - Yet you are now trying to suggest with even much less evidence (in fact no evidence outside of large convoys leaving Iraq before a war.....Oh my, who could imagine that?? - The notion that all sorts of things could have been in those convoys escapes you completely....no it had to be WMDs....that is just silly).
But again it is you that is assuming - You are assuming based on even less Intel that WMDs have been moved to Syria.
I mean could you imagine Powell going before the UN and saying "we saw convoys" and "this one ex-KGB guy says he thinks they are there" -
Powell gave a very detailed item by item reasoning for why we thought we knew Saddam had an active WMD program going - About how we thought we knew exact locations of "said" WMDs, etc, etc -
Yet even with all this Intel (as is the real world) it turned out not to be so - Yet again, you keep insisting that even with less Intel that surly they are in Syria. (they just have to be....because I believe it). Doesn't work in the real world.
No - those WMDs were from Saddam's late 80's development - There was nothing new there, we knew of these, (in fact some came from a buried site) -
But I never said there were no WMDs from the late 80's - the point was from an "active" WMD program (and you keep running to his late 80's program to try and make your case).
The bottom line is, if that is what we were looking for late 80's WMDs then why doesn't GWB just come out and declare "WE FOUND THEM" - Why hasn't VP Cheney -
Why didn't GWB do so in ONE debate with Kerry - Because he knows that is not the premise that was put forth prior to us going in -
GWB is an honest man , looking for honest answer regarding any active / current WMD program going on within Iraq (post his late 80's program).
That is what you cannot answer if your premise is correct - Why hasn't the WH declared "we found them!" - Why didn't GWB say this at all to the American public during an ENTIRE ELECTION -
Because he knows that isn't correct - (yet you somehow suggest it is...and you know better then President Bush...please).
Weaponized Anthrax, Weaponized Mustard Gas with both leave off an chemical residual that is traceable up to 12 to 18 months after it has been cleaned / removed.
Game...set ....match... You lose.
Weaponized Anthrax, Weaponized Mustard Gas with both leave off an chemical residual that is traceable up to 12 to 18 months after it has been cleaned / removed.
Game...set ....match... You lose.
Entire scientist's and staff (and family of both) cannot all reasonably be assumed to have just "left" - We have interviewed literally tens of thousands - We have offered "get out of jail free cards" to many if any can produce viable information with regard to an active WMD program.
The residuals (of the chemical element) cannot simply be removed easily once they are processed through to a weaponized state -
The list could go on and on as to why it would be virtually impossible for a third-rate Country like Iraq to have the ability to completely sweep away an active WMD program right before our eyes (America) and do so well enough that American technology couldn't find residuals of this production, post its removal (within a realistic time frame....say within a year or two).
Didn't the Duelfer report say that they had "seed stocks" of some WMD type material?
good find, sherm.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Marching Troops
They keep pinging me because I'm the guy with the hip waders. You seem to be spreading it rather thick.
Your post made me laugh, it was hilarious...
I do disagree on one thing, that I [and many others who FReepmailed me] feel he's a troll. If you look at #170 and some of our other recent posts (I'm sure you read them), but it's about more than just the WMDs. He said there are no sleeper cells here in America, that the muslim community in Dearborn is supportive of our efforts (that's a lie, it is a radical community), and that Putin is a "good man".
Shermy, your # 15 is very fine background to this story, brings home (again), why many of us here are admirers of C.Hitchens. And something else...related, that I'd like to mention:
All through the election process, left leaning talking heads, pundits, and media pukes made fun of Bush voters, who were so stupid, can you believe it? ..they actually continued to believe there were WMD, even though none had been found.
The New York Times finally acknowledges there were WMD, I'd sure like to hear an apology from the MSM. They owe it to the people they made fun of.
No. I'm saying it's a possibility, based on these reports we're hearing.
You're saying it's an impossibility, that you KNOW these reports don't describe WMD etc.
Hey, correct me if I'm wrong but that's what it sounds like you're saying.
The notion that all sorts of things could have been in those convoys escapes you completely....no it had to be WMDs....that is just silly
I'm not saying it "had to" be WMD. I'm saying it could have been. Do you disagree?
You are assuming based on even less Intel that WMDs have been moved to Syria.
I'm not "assuming". I'm drawing the most reasonable inference from the data at hand. What's your problem with that?
The only problem you could have with that would be if you claimed to KNOW that WMD were NOT moved to Syria. Is that what you're claiming? It sure seems like it.
[Duelfer report] No - those WMDs were from Saddam's late 80's development
Can you point out where it says that in the Duelfer report? Thanks.
Anyway, I suspect you're right, the shells found came from "old" development. SO WHAT? WMD are WMD. So you can't go around saying we've found "NO WMD". Capisce?
But I never said there were no WMDs from the late 80's - the point was from an "active" WMD program
First of all you DID say - repeatedly - that we've found "NO WMD". Now you admit this was wrong. Now you say that you only meant that we've found no WMD that were created after such and such magical date.
Second of all, who the heck cares when the WMD were created? Is that where your goalposts are?
That is what you cannot answer if your premise is correct - Why hasn't the WH declared "we found them!"
The Duelfer report does. It reports that we've found 53. That not good enough for you?
Why didn't GWB say this at all to the American public during an ENTIRE ELECTION -
Because he knew he could win without wading into this WMD mess? Anyway, this calls for speculation as to GWB's psychology. Has nothing to do with the material issue of whether WMDs were in Iraq. They were, and you admit as much.
Weaponized Anthrax, Weaponized Mustard Gas with both leave off an chemical residual that is traceable up to 12 to 18 months after it has been cleaned / removed.
If the anthrax is in some sort of applicator or container, in a warehouse - and then the container is moved - there will be "residuals" in the warehouse?
If the mustard gas is in some sort of shell, in a warehouse - and then the shell is moved - there will be "residuals" in the warehouse?
You know what? I don't think so. This gets back to my "A to B to C" thought experiment.
I agree there will be residuals in location A (where the stuff was created and loaded). But not at B. So, say we examine a suspected location B (where we think shells etc. were stored). We find no "residuals". But this tells us NOTHING if the weapons were manufactured at a site A that we don't know about, and then moved to a site C (e.g. Syria) we have no access to.
Entire scientist's and staff (and family of both) cannot all reasonably be assumed to have just "left"
Ok so this is back to saying that Iraq had no WMD programs because no witnesses have told us Iraq had WMD programs. In case it's not clear, I am... less than impressed with this reasoning. Your mileage may vary.
Anyway, you've admitted that Iraq had WMDs so I'm not sure why you think the goalposts need to be placed at Iraq having had "active programs". Whether one agrees with your or my interpretation, the fact remains that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution 1441. Beyond that, you and I can look at the data and draw different inferences.
Bye,
I don't know. Maybe "troll" has different meanings to me than to you. To me, just having misguided opinions doesn't make one a "troll".
Because he knew he could win without wading into this WMD mess?
This shows clearly where your opinion doesn't hold up - What mess is there if it is as clear and dry as you claim?? - There would be no mess - President GWB would have just addressed the Nation and won reelection very easily. Both GWB and Cheney would not have sat back and been grilled in TV shows to every WMD question if it were as clear and dry as you claim. That is just silly for you to suggest he didn't want to wade into the "WMD mess" - Just ridiculous.
Wait, it is because President GWB is an man of integrity and honesty - He knows that the World was well aware of Saddam's late 80's WMD production (and aware of much of its destruction) - He also knows the premise (regarding WMD) prior to going into Iraq in 2003 was based on the notion of Saddam having an "active" WMD program -
And that is where you can't stay consistent (or where you act like you know better than President Bush and VP Cheney).
The fact is the older WMD's we have found (shells basically) we know come from Saddam's late 80's production - They were not what President Bush had in mind when CIA director Tent told him finding an active WMD program within Iraq was a SLAM DUNK -
This is why President GWB never claimed "we found them" nor did VP Cheney - Because they know that is not being intellectually honest as to what were expecting to find -
As for the notion "could" some WMDs (if produced) have made their way to Syria - I have never said that is an impossibility (heck, they also could be right down the street from me as well) - The point is there is no concrete information suggesting such a thing - There isn't even adequate information suggesting such -
Again, do you remember the detailed list Sec State Powell provided to the UN (his speech was almost an hour long) - Yet much of this Intelligence turned out to be grossly wrong and or inaccurate -
So one willing to be intellectually honest must admit that even with all that Intel we thought we had....we still didn't have a clear picture of the WMD situation within Iraq - Yet, with not even 1/10th of that Intel you are still willing to act as if Syria is a viable (if not strongly viable) notion to where Iraqi WMDs from an active program went -
Lets just say I'm glad we have men like GWB, Cheney and Rumsfeld in office - Men who look at actual facts and reality and don't simply chase "what ifs" -
As for Saddam not abiding by UN 1441 - We are in complete agreement - I have said over and over removing Saddam from office was the right thing to do - The World is safer because of it - I have also stated we have fought the most successful unconventional war in history -
I can now state categorically that Scott Ritter took bribes from Saddam to lie about WMD's.
I have an incredible nose for trolls and this one ain't one.
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.