Posted on 11/15/2005 5:55:30 AM PST by conservativecorner
Bush officials have done such a poor job defending themselves against charges they lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that even their supporters seem to have forgotten about some of the most compelling WMD evidence.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, for instance, keeps apologizing for his speech to the United Nations on the eve of the Iraq war. But at least one chilling bit of evidence he introduced there has never been refuted.
Here's how Powell introduced his case on Feb. 5, 2003:
POWELL: Let me begin by playing a tape for you. What you're about to hear is a conversation that my government monitored. It takes place on November 26 [2002], on the day before United Nations teams resumed inspections in Iraq.
Story Continues Below
The conversation involves two senior officers, a colonel and a brigadier general, from Iraq's elite military unit, the Republican Guard. TAPE TRANSCRIPT:
IRAQI COLONEL : About this committee that is coming with [U.N. nuclear weapons inspector] Mohamed ElBaradei.
IRAQI GENERAL : Yeah, yeah.
COL: We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?
Liberal Democrats Rent, Republicans Own! New Stock Market Report - Limited Time Offer! The Coming Shock on Wall Street - Urgent Report Democrats Plotting Alito Filibuster?
GEN: You didn't get a modified... You don't have a modified... COL: By God, I have one.
GEN: Which? From the workshop...?
COL: From the al-Kindi Company
GEN: Yeah, yeah. I'll come to you in the morning. I have some comments. I'm worried you all have something left.
COL: We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left. [END OF POWELL TAPE EXCERPT]
What type of "modified vehicle" do Iraq war critics think Saddam's general was worried about? A souped-up 1967 Mustang?
And what, pray tell, do they think Saddam's colonel was referring to when he said, "We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left"?
Iraqi WMD and Delivery Development Being Undertaken in Libya
Iraqi WMD Debate and Intelligence: the links to Libya
I think Iraq, Libya, Iran, are playing games with us. Consider the logical pobability Iraq did move it's WMD programs to Libya. We know Libya rolled and supposedly gave up their WMDs, but look, who is close to a nuke now, Iran!! Do you suppose any of the Iraq/Libya WMD programs could have ended up in Iran before Libya rolled?
Libya giving up it's WMDs might have been a ploy to cover the movement of WMD programs to Iran.
We'll probably never know the truth.
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.
The current refusal to acknowledge the regional linkages which tie the Saddam Administration in closely with the actions of Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt and the Palestinian and other subsidiary subnational or transnational groups (including al-Qaida) is, to a large extent, governed in the US by the fact that there is strong pressure, not least from the US State Dept. and Secretary of State Colin Powell, not to “widen the war” in the face of international and domestic pressures. However, this position significantly hurts the incumbent US Bush Administration, which took a major political gamble by taking the war to Iraq based on an “intuitive” understanding of the threat which Saddam Hussein posed to regional and Western interests.
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..
Source; Iraqi WMD Debate and Intelligence: the Links to Libya
Tell you what. Why don't you review my posts over the past five years. Please point to one post where I have deviated from the Constitution and my love for said document. I hold the Framers, the document they wrote, and their intentions with relation to foreign policy (as outlined by men like Washington, Madison, and Jefferson) over any party or any partisanship. I'm about to the point I could care less who is in office. Neither party gives a damn about the document anyway. And if you say they do, you're only fooling yourself.
Many here have given you link after bloody link to counter your arguments and like a mind numb robot, you keep repeating the same disinformation presented by the leftists in this country to undermine our military and our country.
Lady, I'm as far right as you can get and still be on the map. I do not pander to Republican mantras or Democratic mantras. I definitely do not bother with johnny come latelys to the conservative movement men who write for the National Review or Weekly Standard. Bill Buckley himself has recanted some of his views on Iraq. Why don't you complain about him? Yet under latest management I wouldn't use the NR to cover the bottom of a bird cage.
By definition of the US Constitution this was a police action as every military action has been since the last Declaration of War in 1941. Unless you'll tell us next the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a declaration of war as well? Or that Vietnam was a war? Because it wasn't. It was an extended police action, the same as this
Go away..I am tired of playing with your stupidity.
LOL, you haven't addressed any of the concerns raised by many on the right. All you've done is provide links to magazines that parrot administration talking points. Contrary to those that worship Bush, he is not the conservative movement nor does he much represent it.
What you think?
bttt
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.
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.
Many people haven't seen this.
Believe me when I say I've probably read every single scrap of evidence ever presented on FR and probably even commented on about half of those threads on Iraq WMD.
There must have been a hundred or more individual pieces of "Here's the smoking gun", as our boys uncovered stuff, followed immediately by "Well no it isn't", from the administration/military staff. Almost like the information on the Clinton scandals.
Either there was or there wasn't. I don't know. Because all of it is like some vast conspiracy to cover it up. Which makes no sense whatsoever to me at all. I don't believe in conspiracies of that magnitude. So Rope-a-dope makes absolutely no sense at all. I feel like it's more like continual hope-a-dope. We're the dopes.
OK..I get it. You are a Pat Buchanan isolationist type who more than likely hates the Jews..so be it. You do have a long history here and one that the mods respect or else you would be gone. WE disagree and your 'argument' with me did not make sense to the topic at hand. It makes sense NOW..you are so wrapped up in your beliefs, there is no room anymore for reason and dialouge. You have bought into the whole leftist 'Neo-Con' time warp and entered some kind of unholy alliance with the left, whether you admit it or not. I have no doubt that I could learn much from you in time and come to respect your opinion, but right now, while u parrot the very things the left spews out in an attempt to bring this country to it's knees..NO WAY!! Good Day to You Sir!
Good post,dyno. I have always believed the WMDS were 'spirited' to Syria and that the whole sudden Libya deal and the admittancec of his 'wmd program' was involved somehow with Saddam's WMDS. I have watched the whole thing evolve since 911 with rapt attention. In fact, only a few days after 911, the LSM started writing articles about Saddam and WMDS and what was the administration going to DO ABOUT IT ...BLAHBLAHBLAH! They wrote articles like: 'Why Should we invade Afghanistan when Saddam has all the WMDS'....lol
They went on like that for two years, until Bush took out the Taliban and then turned his attention on Saddam. Then they started writing articles claiming Bush was jumping the gun and give Saddam MORE TIME..YADAYADAYADA!! INSANITY FROM THE MEDIA..and we fall for it everytime!!
Had you read the ISSA articles?
LOL, another slur that you will try to carry far. But no mind, if you have no argument so be it.
For the record, I have nothing against the Jewish people. As a matter of fact I would steer from Washington's warnings of alliances and foreign entanglements in only two cases. Support and defense of the United Kingdom and of Israel. One for love of my part of my heritage (Scotland) and one for love, and I feel commanded per the Bible, of God's people
Precisely. The Dem's and RINO's are playing games, if Bush had failed to act and the worst scenario occurred they'd be the first one's looking for the Presidents head on a stick. That is one we need to remember.
Hell, I knew I should have bought Chrysler stock when it was two dollars a share but I didn't know that then.
Sorry, I missed your post this morning. I am glad to hear you "have nothing against the Jewish people" and please accept my apology for wondering aloud if you did have something against them.
So, were you in favor of going to war with Iraq? If,as you say,that you are in favor of the support and defense of Israel, it would stand to reason that you would have been in favor of ousting Saddam from Iraq. Saddam called repeatedly for the destruction of Israel.
In fact, you might even be in favor of ousting the mullahs from Iran and the baathists from Syria, as they have all called on the destruction of Israel. Israel is a tiny country surrounded by enemies bent on it's destruction and if we wait until one of these countries gets a nuclear weapon or sends missiles loaded with chemical weapons at Tel Aviv, it will be too late.
I'm really curious, had you read the ISSA articles before now?
Yeah Pakistan. Letting him live has probably got something to do with quietly sweeping all this under the rug - re post 107 on this thread.
I'm really, really curious, had you read the ISSA articles before now?
Hey those are the exact same two countries Pat Buchanan supports defending if they attacked.
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.