Man Says He Has Proof Of Possible WMD's In Iraq

CBS11TV ^ | Jun 23, 2006 10:01 pm US/Central | Jack Fink

[SE Mom]

So many mysteries, theories and confusion surround the WMDs- and it makes no SENSE. One of the current ones that does make sense to me is General McInerney's...that the involvement of other members of the Security Council make it such a potential international scandal that the administration has chosen to take the "No WMDs" heat rather than force the world to confront itself...

[FreedomPoster]

>>... that haven't been useful for a decade.

Should we pop one in your neighborhood to test?

[FreedomPoster]

Horse manure.

An anonymous "senior Defense Department official" does *not* provide the "official administration response".

Rumsfeld, however, does.

Read up. Get informed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654193/posts

[FreedomPoster]

FYI, here's my thread on that comment from Rumsfeld, with the link to the transcript of the Pentagon press briefing in which it was made.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654193/posts

[halfright]

wanna open one in your living room?
Way too much stuff buried in the sand not to follow up.

[bcsco]

An article from January 2006, bbc/uk. It discusses how ordinance from WWI, still in the field, still poses risks to people today. The article also goes into how WMD from that era is still dangerous. This puts the lie to the argument that the WMD Santorum and Hoekstra reported isn't dangerous.

I would take the statement that "the chemical weapons were not in useable condititions" very cautiously. They may not have been 'artillery/aircraft friendly' but are still very deadly. Is this something you're comfortable with getting into the hands of the insurgents, or other anti-American governments?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654560/posts

[demkicker]

IMO, the big legs will come out in late September or October. I'm sure there is a lot of interesting stuff to make the Democrats look foolish that have been previously classified.. stuff the NYT's were even to scared to report!

I hope you're right. Let the drip, drip, dripping begin. Let's start with prosecuting whoever leaked the top secret national security information to the NY Times on how we track down terrorists moving their money around.

[Paul Ross]

I heard him interviewed on Hugh Hewitt back in February or January. Sounded pretty straightforward, and no-nonsense. Only one allusion cryptically to Duelfer's incompetence and "things he had to answer for."

I say give him a team, and just get it over with. This should not have to be a huge deal. If we don't find anything, which I expect because...heck, the ball HAS BEEN DROPPED....we might at least find out what residues imply was there. And if we find the bloody things, Duelfer gets a posthumous kick in the pants. Well deserved.

The fact that the Saudis may have had a hand in our military's "Amnesia" is pretty likely. As for the Washington Times spiking the story...that sounds like heat from Karl Rove. Why? I believe that he would do that. He must think this looks really inept on the part of CharlesDuelfer...and they are covering for him...which is insane. But they have done worse before. Look at how they kept Norman Mineta.

As for the way this guy interacted with Hoekstra and Weldon...two of our best defense hawks...his prickliness is to be expected. He has been getting the run-around from Duelfer and his subordinates right along.

And as for Weldon's prickliness about the military...heck, Gaubatz has no right to quibble. The military is infested with XLlintonites still...but beyond that, I have to agree something is not right in this administration either.

Rumsfeld himself never went out and made sure that Able Danger was released to the public like it clearly should have been. Shame on him. Shame on Rummy. And Shame on Bush for obviously issuing some sort of gag order to aid and abet the Xlintonites burial operation. Covering for them! So I don't doubt this was all running through Weldon's mind when he said "he didn't trust the military." When there is a coverup underway from someone in the organization...you can't. He's right.

The fact that "all" the IRAQI-originated classified reports is AWOL should have triggered a red alert that required all such reports to be reconstituted ASAP. They should all be resubmitted from personal files, etc. or regenerated if possible.

[Candor7]

Dave Gaubatz will keep this site until "all" WMD sites are inspected... My definition of all is not the same as Mr. Duelfers (which was 10%)

Tanslated: David Gaubatz will keep this site open until the Democrats elect a president of the United States. My definition of all ( WMD) is not the same as the Bush Administrations, but I say there are more, I know where they are, and encourage terrorists to look for them and use them against US forces. Here is my e-mail address.

[Paul Ross]

David Gaubatz will keep this site open until the Democrats elect a president

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this "translation".

There is major evidence that things are not being conducted in the open that should be.

Look what it took to even get the Administration to even release the info on the 500 rounds of Sarin and mustard gas we located. I have thought long and hard about the cover argument that we don't want to tip the terrorists off to the existence of massive unlocated stockpiles that they just have to persuade some Saddam military people into giving over...and 'oila, they have what we feared. Frankly, it is likely they knew already....because we have now found from troves of documents the tremendous degree of interaction between Iraqi intelligence and security forces and Al-Queda. It would be foolish to assume they never discussed the WMD stash available for use against the "common enemy." It would also explain in part, why Osama Bin Laden did follow through with his treaty with Saddam to join the war against the U.S. in Iraq. They know, they have to know, a lot of those WMDs are still there...just buried.

We need to get there first. Which I assume we agree on. This should not be left to chance.

And from what I have seen, if we actually do a serious inspection of the four sites, this guy's "embarassment factor" goes down a whole heck of a lot. But leaving him twisting there just makes it that much worse...for us. It makes it look like we never were seriously looking at all.

[Paul Ross]

Has Sabah Khodada been discredited on his reports about Salman Pak?

Not in the slightest from what I've seen.. Check out Deroy Murdocks' site Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror

Note how Khodada's drawing from memory pretty accurately depicted Salman Pak as shown by satellite photo:

Khodada's drawing from memory of the Salman Pak terrorist training

And then General Vincent Brooks, who briefed reporters throughout the initial phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom, had his own observations about Saddam Hussein's terrorist pedagogy.

Speaking at an April 6, 2003 press conference, General Brooks said:

“The nature of the work being done by some of those people that we captured, their inferences to the type of training that they received, all of these things give us the impression that there was terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak.”

And then there was this:

[Wiz]

ping

[april15Bendovr]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

"So did you find out what kind of training was going on?

I don't necessarily know what kind of training they do, but they were trained exactly at the same locations, and they were trained by the same teachers who were training ... [the fighters for] Saddam. Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities, sabotaging villages, sabotaging houses, assassinations.

And the training also included how to prepare for suicidal operations. For example, they will train them how to belt themselves around with explosives, and jump in a place and explode themselves out as part of the suicidal training. I think the trainings of the Arabs was much harsher, and much stricter, than the training of the Iraqis."

It would be a great find if we located these connections in the Harmony Database (Docex Project)

[Eagles6]

"... that haven't been useful for a decade.

Or so the enemy (dems and the msm) would have you believe.

[april15Bendovr]

The Liberals and drive by media are looking at the Duefler report as the final report.

Look at this article for example at CNN

Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

What year was the Duefler report released?

What the military has found and what Duefler has reported seem to be two very different things.

I wont hang my hat on what Duelfer or UNSCOM weapons inspectors have reported. They both lost the cat and mouse game in Iraq.

Anyone would be foolish to put all thier eggs in the same basket in any discovery of WMD's.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Well, I recall some Dems saying we shouldn't write off a source just because of a typewriter font or the use of an Abilene Kinko's...

[april15Bendovr]

Amazing that liberals can see our Constitution as a living breathing document but obviously not view the Duefler Report the same.

Duefler easily can be proved historically inaccurate and apparently has with Rick Santorum Reading Unclassified Versions over 500 Chemical WMDs Found plus the translations of the Harmony Database from good people like jveritas.

[april15Bendovr]

When I look at the drive by medias activism rather than journalism it makes me wonder why they are allowed in the business of hiding and treason. Giving away intelligence secrets and thwarting military efforts in the war on terrorism including Iraq isn't exactly patriotism.

How much more is the American public willing to tolerate. Can journalists continue to protect themselves behind the First Amendment when they themselves are acting like enemies of our nation.

[Candor7]

I suppose your interpretation could be right. It is difficult to understand why a bulldozer can't just be loaded on a flat bed and the sites checked, but I guess that it would involve the dedication of a batallion sized security team to accompany it.

Do you think that too many military commanders would have egg on their faces if they were indeed present where indicated, is this causing the inertia to ignore the information?

One would think that all of these sites had been examinied, especially if the CIA had interviewed him.

Well, lets go there , with pick and shovel and see what we can rustle up?

lol.

[MonroeDNA]

"I didn't see anything in there that says the sarin was in binary form. Sure, it's still dangerous to handle, but has any of it been useful since the Iraq/Iran war? Nothing I've read suggests that it was."

You say:

1. It is not binary.

2. It is dangerous to handle.

3. We don't know if it is "usefull."

Did I get that right?

So what is your point? Is it not harmful? Want a sniff? Is it not WMD?