Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee: News will break on Saddam's weapons program

You have to prove to me what logic there is not releasing some milligram of WMD.

Why? Because they aren't releasing information on your time schedule?

What difference does it make:
(a) what their actual logic/reason is for not releasing the info now?, and
(b) that they haven't yet released the info?

What's the big hurry? What difference does it make if they release the info last month, today, tomorrow, or a year from now? Why the big hurry?

If you already agree that WMD exist, then why are you questioning their reason for not spelling out every discovery in real time? Why do you care what their "reason" is?

It seems to me that you're just making reasons to fault-find. Lots of people on FR think the reason for not releasing the WMD info is politically motivated and related to the election and making the Democrats look like idiots, etc. I couldn't agree less, but they are entitled to that opinion and I'm not going to argue it with them because it is an unwinable argument for either side, since it is merely an opinion. And we all have an opinion. I am choosing to believe the reason is more practical, reasonable, and NOT political in nature. But I won't argue with anyone who debates me on my opinion because it's just an opinion... not a fact that can be debated.

So even though I don't see the point in your stressing about the "reason" behind not releasing WMD info, you are certainly entitled to dwell on it. I tried to answer your query about possible logic behind the decision to not release WMD info... you choose not to see/believe that logic. That is fine.

But the bottom line for me is "Who cares what the reason is??? I've got bigger fish to fry without worrying about the motivations behind every move the administration makes."

Exactly, exactly wrong. I proved that they will release evidence that violates all your rationalizations against doing so, then I proved that what they release w-a-s n-o-t W-M-D. Getting me to submit to your Conspiracy Theory is getting harder and harder the more we hash out your reasoning.,

No, you proved that unless the proof is full and complete there is no reason to release bits and pieces. As for what was released its quite possible that the press had independent knowledge of their existance - ie the mobile units and the document dump.

As for the nuclear parts in the rose garden if you read the details about that you would have seen that the press (CNN) was asked to withhold that information until they were given the OK. The scientist who released it expressed concern that others who were in a posistion to release data were arfaid for their lives.

As far as a straw man argument I don't think you understand what that is.

As far as conspiracy theories I think you are mistaken. The public information released by the president and other members of his admin, Tony Blair, and now the Head of the Senat intelligence committee have all said the same thing. Proof exists and it will be disclosed. If any one is buying into a conspiracy it would be the one who refuses to take the claer and unambiguos information from 3 separate political leaders and from an Iraqi scientist.

I guess i should stop warning you about childish logic skills.

I think they have the evidence, they are waiting for the right moment to release it.

Again with the Ad Homenim, you are putting alot of work into this, but not addressing what I'm saying. Are you really Sean Hannity? Just kidding...mostly.

I don't care what anyone on FR ever said. I said that to formulate a belief that the mystery is solved, based on rumor, and "they" are hiding it for whatever reason makes no sense and is wishful thinking. So even though I don't see the point in your stressing about the "reason" behind not releasing WMD info, you are certainly entitled to dwell on it

Are you having your own conversation over there? When did I say I was stressing about anything? I said I wasn't going to argue with the left based on this Conspiracy Theory, and that the logic of it all was similar to the Green Party members. Where all this other stuff came from you are argueing with, But the bottom line for me is "Who cares what the reason is??? [I said there was no reason to cover up all they've found so politics is somebody else's baby] it should be addressed to the person who said it.

Sounds like they are convinced since they now want to quit talking about WMD and start talking about rebuilding Iraq.

As far as a straw man argument I don't think you understand what that is

Never has a more hypocritical statement been addressed to me on FR. I never said there aren't WMD, I said that if we have found them, it makes utterly no logical sense not to release some example of it.

you proved that unless the proof is full and complete there is no reason to release bits and pieces

That was YOUR standpoint! How can you attribute that to me? Are you that confused or that desperate?

1. They have released bits and piece with evidence of the lab, which according to your reasoning will endanger...yada yada,

2. None of this was a microgram of WMD.

3. The Left can still effectively say, "where are all the WMDs."

I mean, this isn't even that HARD to understand, a nonpartisan child gets this. You keep railing with this long winded posts about all these unrelated points about how what they found relates to this, and this newspaper said that, and this politician said this. Who CARES!

I guess i should stop warning you about childish logic skills.

No, you should stop childishly ranting and show me the newsfootage of them declaring WMDs found or shut up already.

Never has a more hypocritical statement been addressed to me on FR. I never said there aren't WMD, I said that if we have found them, it makes utterly no logical sense not to release some example of it.

Of course it makes sense to release them. Right after the investigations are done. Before that it makes no sense.

That was YOUR standpoint! How can you attribute that to me? Are you that confused or that desperate?

You proved it by immediately discounting its importance.

1. They have released bits and piece with evidence of the lab, which according to your reasoning will endanger...yada yada,

Not my claim. The claim was made by the Iraqi scientist that disclosed what he hid in his rose garden.

I do however think its a logical reason to withhold information along with several other logical reasons why all investigations like this withhold information until the investigation is done.

I don't see how you can deny that information is being withheld when the Chairman of the SEnate Intelligence commitee and Tony Blair are both saying that such information is being withheld. Talk about conspiracy theories.

You:you proved that unless the proof is full and complete there is no reason to release bits and pieces

Me: That was YOUR standpoint! How can you attribute that to me? Are you that confused or that desperate?

You: You proved it by immediately discounting its importance.

What? Are you trying to speak in circles? That was your standpoint, that they aren't going to release anything until they can release everything. (I said they could release one case if they had it and put it to bed.) Are you trying to lie to me, or just forgetting what you are arguing. Probably not consciously lying, just that your hyperpartisan ears are incapable of listening to anything that outside your echo chamber.

Me: 1. They have released bits and piece with evidence of the lab, which according to your reasoning will endanger...yada yada,

You: Not my claim. The claim was made by the Iraqi scientist that disclosed what he hid in his rose garden.

No, I was talking about the weapons lab there, pretty obviously, and that by your "logic" (which is a bastardizing of the term) the releasing of the tapes of the Bio Lab endanger everyone that led to it being found, looters getting the weapons in the area, and causing them to not find anything else because they hadn't made a full case.

Basically, I hit your "logic" to delay outta the park. Also, the rose garden guy, hell he's dead now, by your reasoning, that's why they can't release the thousands of weapons they've found because whoever pointed those out can't be protected.

Chairman of the SEnate Intelligence commitee and Tony Blair are both saying that such information is being withheld.

and Bill Clinton said what when he was in trouble? Talk is cheap. So is your Conspiracy Theory.

I believe it was Colin Powell, or perhaps it was Cuba Gooding Jr who once screamed "Show me the money!"

What? No comeback about how childish I am for daring to disagree with your theory? Well this has become a bit tiresome anyways, you weren't thinking about what I read or at least paying attention. Go back and reread it if you have any issues, you'll understand then.

Take care and don't let "them" get you.

Lies. Lies. Lies. Saddam had no WMD. The liberals say he didn't. The socialist democrats have bashed the administration, made it up they say. It is lies, conservative, made-up lies by the administration and CIA to protect themselves from prosecution by the liberals!

There is no Sadaam.

Many thanks for the pig...I had missed it.

This is great news, yet something you and I and a few others suspected and wrote about here.We're so clever! :-)

Night bump

"I'm as sure as I can be that WMD were there when the war started"

I'm not. I'm sure they were there BEFORE. They had too much time to move them, and unless we go into Syria, Lebanon and Iran we may never find them. Or find a way to search the thousands of square miles of desert they could be buried in. I do think we'll eventually find more stuff, and we have found some already-mobile labs(for filling weather balloons, yeah right!), etc. I just wish we could find everything tomorrow so those morons would have to shut up.

It's possible that our Special Forces, operating in Iraq before the war began, had found and secured some WMD before they had a chance to hide them or take them to Syria. Our SOF guys were very active before the war, ensuring that missile sites near our troops and aimed at Israel were taken out. There were lots of things going on in the eastern desert areas that we never heard about. Managing the media by imbedding journalists with the Third ID... keeping all the talk on the huge convoy moving up from Kuwait... and then talk about the Kurds... all the while not mentioning a thing about what was happening to the east. Time will tell what was found over in that area. It will an interesting book to read someday.

Bump!

From 6-26-03

Abizaid sure Iraq arms will be found

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The incoming commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said yesterday that he expects stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and an illicit program to build nuclear arms to be uncovered in Iraq.

"I'm confident we will show that there was deception," Army Lt. Gen. John P. Abizaid said at a Senate hearing on his nomination to be chief of the U.S. Central Command. "And I am also confident that at some point it will lead us to actual weapons of mass destruction."

Gen. Abizaid, an American of Lebanese descent who speaks Arabic, also said the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in the face of intelligence about their existence is perplexing.

The search for Iraq's weapons includes looking at documents and talking to informants and detainees, he said.
"I believe that as we get on with the mission of continuing to look for weapons of mass destruction and piece together the evidence that is available within the country ... that we'll piece together the story that tells us what happened to the weapons of mass destruction somewhere between 1998 and 2003," he said.

The policy of containment of now-ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime for over a decade did not work, Gen. Abizaid said. "And I think that bringing this brutal regime down with as many of the hundreds of thousands of people that he killed was a good thing in its own right," he said.

Mass graves discovered in Iraq showed that Saddam's forces had murdered men, women and children by shooting them in the head and even burying them alive in pits, he said.

Gen. Abizaid said that U.S. troops prefer combat to the current mission of "constabulary duty" to stabilize postwar Iraq.
He described three types of opposition to the allied troops in Iraq: armed Ba'athist cells operating in Baghdad, Al Ramadi and Tikrit; radical anti-American Islamists from outside Iraq; and Iraqi criminals.

The foreign fighters were disrupted by a recent military strike on a camp in western Iraq.
Gen. Abizaid said coalition troops are taking the fight to the Ba'athists with the aim to "kill those who would try to kill us."

Gen. Abizaid said the coalition forces in Iraq are not sitting around waiting to be attacked. "In at least half of the actions that take place there, we are the folks that initiate the contact," he said.

The 145,000-strong U.S. troop presence in Iraq is not expected to increase, he said. "I think right now we have sufficient number of troops to deal with the tasks at hand that we are faced with militarily," Gen. Abizaid said.

Troop levels could decrease once the current phase of anti-guerrilla operations is finished at the end of the month, he said.
Gen. Abizaid praised the tactical intelligence data provided to U.S. forces during the conflict. But, he said, the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was "incomplete."

The general said he had expected Iraqi forces to use chemical or biological weapons against advancing coalition troops and had expected the latter to find illicit arms "early in the campaign."

"Fortunately, they did not use weapons of mass destruction against our troops," he said.
The intelligence supplied to the troops was "the most accurate that I've ever seen on the tactical level, probably the best I've ever seen on the operational level," Gen. Abizaid said.

U.S. intelligence provided an unprecedented "picture" of the Iraqi forces and their intentions, which helped speed the rapid drive of allied forces to Baghdad.

However, intelligence agencies provided information that was "perplexingly incomplete on the strategic level with regard to weapons of mass destruction."
Gen. Abizaid said he could not understand why no weapons of mass destruction were found "when the evidence was so pervasive" that they existed.

Coalition forces expected to intercept Iraq's chemical or biological arms before they were moved from storage depots to guns. "But we've looked at the depots, and they're not there," Gen. Abizaid said.

The weapons could have been moved, hidden or destroyed, he said.
Movement from weapons depots before the war was viewed by the United States as preparation by Iraqi forces to use weapons of mass destruction against coalition troops, he said.

However, in retrospect, the movement of arms may have been intended "to get rid of them," Gen. Abizaid said.
The discovery of Iraqi chemical warfare protective suits showed that the Iraqis had planned to use poison gas and would have attacked coalition troops with chemical weapons as they closed in on Baghdad, he said.

If confirmed by the Senate, Gen. Abizaid will replace the outgoing commander of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks.

A thousand sites to be inspected for banned weapons

Bump! The reasons for utilizing their time is wise my friend -g-

Oh, this is just a smokescreen. Democrats and the IAEA have already assured us that Iraq is a paper tiger, and we all know how serious they are about defeating threats to America's security. <\sarcasm>

"My guess is that they found it, but not in Iraq (I'm thinking Syria or Lebanon)."

Lets hope it doesn't all "spontaniously combust" like the bomb factory in the Iraqi Mosque last week......hint hint....nudge nudge....if you know what I mean.....