Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'No WMD in Iraq', source claims (Barf Alert - But consider the anti-american news source!)
BBC News ^ | 9/24/03

Posted on 09/24/2003 7:32:16 AM PDT by areafiftyone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: dogbyte12
You are correct.

Last week some intruiging information came out of Swiss banking circles. Saddam Hussein had lied about two things.

First, he lied about his weapons of mass destruction. He had gotten rid of them after the Gulf War I, but had lied about their existence to intimidate Israel and Iran -- and anybody else who wanted to believe his lies. That included us.

Second, he lied about his oil reserves. Iraq's reserves are less than half of what he said, and what the world thought. The wells are coming to the end of their useful lives and are spewing out large amounts of salt water. To use an oil man's expression, "Iraq's oil is on the other side of Hubbert's Peak." This means that Iraq's wells are on the downslope of the production curve.

While the first lie will now cause terrible political repercussions for Bush, it is the second lie that will cause the economic problems.

There are trillions of dollars (notional value) of derivatives out there based on oil price spreads. If this story gets out, world oil prices will skyrocket and trigger a derivative "neutron bomb" that will destabilize the world financial system. A lot of big players are exposed in this, and that is why the wraps are being kept on the story.

21 posted on 09/24/2003 8:33:55 AM PDT by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ijcr
Strategery

Yes! Exactly. I was heartened when Bush did not back off the WMD charge before the UN GenAssem. Howard Dean and most of the other dwarves will take a fall when the evidence is presented. Perhaps Dean will be the nominee at that time. Even Bill Klinton warned them.

22 posted on 09/24/2003 8:41:48 AM PDT by Poincare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Publius
OPEC is slashing production by 900,000 barrels a day. Even what we can pump in Iraq is being sabatoged by oil pipe lines being put up.

I don't think Wolfowitz was lying when he referred to the amount of oil revenue that would be generated in Iraq, he was just snookered. We will be lucky to pump out enough oil in Iraq in one year, to pay for a month of the war. It is that grim. With the rest of the world unwilling to send money, or troops other than the coalition in place, we are going to be holding the bag.

Oil futures jumped over $1 today. Prices are going to go back up at the pumps, making the economy suffer as a result. I just hope that we can find a way out of Iraq with our credibility and our checkbook still salvagable.

23 posted on 09/24/2003 8:45:27 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Could you link the story?
24 posted on 09/24/2003 8:45:28 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Dow is -62.82 based on oil futures rising $1 to $28.15 a barrel based on the OPEC production cut. They have us by the short hairs. They know that we aren't going to get the Iraqi oil on the market, know that the market was factoring in oil from Iraq, once the world knows how tapped out some of the Iraqi fields are, we might be heading over $30 a barrel very soon.
25 posted on 09/24/2003 8:54:46 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
OPEC is slashing production by 900,000 barrels a day. Even what we can pump in Iraq is being sabatoged by oil pipe lines being put up.

Yes, and that's because OPEC has the same information as the Swiss bankers. They may even have been the source of the info. They have us by the short-and-curlies, and now they are squeezing.

I don't think Wolfowitz was lying when he referred to the amount of oil revenue that would be generated in Iraq, he was just snookered. We will be lucky to pump out enough oil in Iraq in one year, to pay for a month of the war. It is that grim.

We were all snookered. Saddam, even after we find him and kill him, is going to have the last laugh.

With the rest of the world unwilling to send money, or troops other than the coalition in place, we are going to be holding the bag.

We can't afford to stay, but we can't afford to leave either.

Oil futures jumped over $1 today. Prices are going to go back up at the pumps, making the economy suffer as a result. I just hope that we can find a way out of Iraq with our credibility and our checkbook still salvagable.

That's why Bush is going to the UN. This one has gotten too big for us. We need them to shoulder much of the burden.

26 posted on 09/24/2003 9:21:40 AM PDT by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
More diversion. Perhaps some freepers owe an apology to Hans Blix who, unlike them, was apparently right on the money about WMD.

How about we wait for Kay's report?

27 posted on 09/24/2003 9:23:00 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright; Cronos
Perhaps some freepers owe an apology to Hans Blix who, unlike them, was apparently right on the money about WMD.

Actually, Blix agreed that Saddam effectively framed himself.

Hans Blix says it may all have been one big bluff by Iraq. The former chief U-N weapons inspector tells an Australian radio station he believes Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction ten years ago -- just as Iraq had claimed. But he says Baghdad may have kept up the appearance it still had the weapons -- to deter a military attack. In his words -- quote -- "you can put up a sign on your door 'Beware of Dog,' without having a dog."

28 posted on 09/24/2003 9:44:48 AM PDT by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jpl
And your quote indicates what? Everyone and I mean everyone has stated that Saddam had chemical weapons and active WMD programs in the 1990s.
29 posted on 09/24/2003 9:45:15 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
Funny. I remember all the pro-war freepers who belittled and made fun of Blix everytime there was a new WMD goose chase. Now....they are portraying him as prescient.

Peace is war and war is peace eh? Perhaps Blix's name will soon appear on the pro-war freeper honor role! Being a pro-war freeper seems never having to admit that you were wrong.

30 posted on 09/24/2003 9:47:49 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
I believed in the tooth fairy too, because I wanted the money to keep flowing.

You know comparing the tooth fairy to a brutal dictator(saddam) who used chemical weapons in the recent past, gives a new twist to the adage comparing apples to oranges.

31 posted on 09/24/2003 9:51:57 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
once the world knows how tapped out some of the Iraqi fields are, we might be heading over $30 a barrel very soon

Actually the oil fields aren't "tapped out". The infrastructure is "tapped out", due to saddams previous neglect and sporadic sabotage.

32 posted on 09/24/2003 9:54:58 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
And your quote indicates what? Everyone and I mean everyone has stated that Saddam had chemical weapons and active WMD programs in the 1990s.

I may need to go back and double-check this, but I'm pretty certain that Bill Clinton left office in 2001.

33 posted on 09/24/2003 10:48:15 AM PDT by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
This looks like a trial balloon in the foreign press to aid the Bush team in crafting their response for next month.

I suspect that like the Clinton Team, they will first try to lower expectations so perhaps this report paints to dark a picture.
34 posted on 09/24/2003 12:23:19 PM PDT by JohnGalt (More Todd Beamers, Fewer Ivy Leaguers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Austin Willard Wright: Funny. I remember all the pro-war freepers who belittled and made fun of Blix everytime there was a new WMD goose chase. Now....they are portraying him as prescient.

No, Blix made the "Beware of dog" claim recently, not before the war, so I imply no prescience with my quote.

I do not have much respect for Hans Blix. I was replying to the comment "Perhaps some freepers owe an apology to Hans Blix who, unlike them, was apparently right on the money about WMD." Perhaps you remember the comment, since you made it.

Blix's claim that Saddam has probably not had WMDs for 10 years also came in the last few weeks (same interview as the "Dog" quote), so it is absurd to say he was "right on the money," at least, unless you can find an unambiguous Blix quote preceding the war.

In short, I stand by my position, that if anti-Bush or anti-war debaters illogically use the Blix interview to discredit Bush (illogical because the worst one can take from the interview is that Bush, like Blix, was not omniscient), then it is a reasonable response to point out what else Blix said in the same interview (i.e., that Saddam probably framed himself).

35 posted on 09/24/2003 12:42:09 PM PDT by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Cronos: How do you make it that he framed himself?

First, he certainly lied and kept weapons more recently than 10 years ago; he was about to get a clean bill of health from the inspectors in 1995, until his sons-in-law defected to Jordan and spilled the beans. Given that history (and the absence of people willing to cross Saddam after he had his sons-in-law executed), it was natural that any inspection regime would be apt to be skeptical in the face of ambiguous information.

Despite this, Iraq obstructed inspectors, delayed inspections, refused to update the documents presented last year from those presented years earlier, and frightened scientists into not talking to the inspectors. In short, Iraq acted guilty, as even the favorite source for the Iraq apologists, Hans Blix, stated recently.

36 posted on 09/24/2003 12:51:11 PM PDT by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Saddam did want people to think he had a program still going though. Why? Machismo. Seriously.

Thank you, exactly. He didn't want to lose face among the other Middle Eastern nations. And all it's going to end up taking to prove it to the faithful in the war party is the about half a trillion dollars in US taxpayer money. Oh that and hundreds of brave men and women in the Armed Forces.

I think after this fiasco the party of FDR/Wilson needs to be put to bed once and for all.

37 posted on 09/24/2003 1:16:29 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson