Replies

What alternate universe are you from? Even Colin Powell admitted there were no WMDs...

LOL. Bush lied for the same reason Hillary voted for Iraq. Read Chirac’s memoirs for why Bush told him they needed to invade Iraq.

Even Colin Powell....Powell is a liberal jizz bag. What he says means nothing.

What alternate universe are you from? Even Colin Powell admitted there were no WMDs... LOL. Bush lied for the same reason Hillary voted for Iraq.

Russia and Iraqi WMDs

September 17, 2005

John Shaw, the former Deputy Undersecretary for International Technology Security, provides detailed information on Russia's role in first, helping Saddam acquire WMDs, and second, providing the means to transport them out of the country prior to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The report can be viewed here at Ryan Mauro's site WorldThreats.com. Ryan's soon—to—be—published book, Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq, will elaborate on Charles Smith's interview with Shaw and his assertions that Russian Spetsnatz moved WMDs and conventional explosives (remember the Al—Qaqaa imbroglio?) out of the country in accordance with an agreement Russia made with Saddam in 2001. According to Shaw, the Russian special forces teams moved the materials into Syria and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.

The reason Russia helped to get rid of the WMDs was, of course, not wanting to get caught by the UN weapons inspectors and the US:

Shaw's information also backs allegations by a wide variety of sources of Russia's direct involvement in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. One U.N. bioterrorism expert announced that Russia has been Iraq's "main supplier of the materials and know—how to weaponize anthrax, botulism and smallpox." ..."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2005/09/russia_and_iraqi_wmds.html

What alternate universe are you from? Even Colin Powell admitted there were no WMDs... LOL. Bush lied for the same reason Hillary voted for Iraq.

From the Washington Times:

Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms

October 28, 2004

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units." ..."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/oct/28/20041028-122637-6257r/print/

What alternate universe are you from? Even Colin Powell admitted there were no WMDs... LOL. Bush lied for the same reason Hillary voted for Iraq.

"After accusing Russian GRU of helping Saddam to remove his WMD, Shaw was asked to resign for "exceeding his authority" in disclosing the information, a charge he called "specious." Shaw was forced out of office when his position was eliminated on December 10, 2004.[3][4]

Shaw stated that he went public with his comments regarding Russia moving Iraq's WMD when he did to help George W. Bush who he felt was being "crucified" by the revelations that over 350 tons of explosives had gone missing in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion.[5] He said "If I had not had the openly hostile environment in [Pentagon public affairs], I would have moved the story differently. Getting the truth out instantly was more important than process." ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Shaw#Russia_and_Iraq

What alternate universe are you from? Even Colin Powell admitted there were no WMDs... LOL. Bush lied for the same reason Hillary voted for Iraq.

NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

By Thomas Lifson

February 16, 2015

President Bush "lied" about Iraq's WMDs - thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated by the likes of Ron Fournier and Jon Stewart as a kind of progressive catechism. Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.
The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States' acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein's Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its "lies" on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.

At the time of the invasion of Iraq, there was no way to know that:

These munitions were remnants of an Iraqi special weapons program that was abandoned long before the 2003 invasion,

But:

they turned up sporadically during the American occupation in buried caches, as part of improvised bombs or on black markets.

American Thinker reported on the WMD evidence found in Iraq 11 years ago.

The CIA's program appears to have put at risk soldiers who were not warned of the risks they faced in handling these potent weapons:

Not long after Operation Avarice had secured its 400th rocket, in 2006, American troops were exposed several times to other chemical weapons. Many of these veterans said that they had not been warned by their units about the risks posed by the chemical weapons and that their medical care and follow-up were substandard, in part because military doctors seemed unaware that chemical munitions remained in Iraq.
In some cases, victims of exposure said, officers forbade them to discuss what had occurred. The Pentagon now says hundreds of other veterans reported on health-screening forms that they believed they too had been exposed during the war.
Aaron Stein, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said the belated acknowledgment of a chemical-rocket purchases, as well as the potentially worrisome laboratory analysis of the related sarin samples, raised questions about the military's commitment to the well-being of those it sent to war.

We have been fed a line of bull over Saddam and WMDs.

President Bush "lied" about Iraq's WMDs - thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated by the likes of Ron Fournier and Jon Stewart as a kind of progressive catechism. Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.
The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States' acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein's Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its "lies" on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.

At the time of the invasion of Iraq, there was no way to know that:

These munitions were remnants of an Iraqi special weapons program that was abandoned long before the 2003 invasion,

But:

they turned up sporadically during the American occupation in buried caches, as part of improvised bombs or on black markets.

American Thinker reported on the WMD evidence found in Iraq 11 years ago.

The CIA's program appears to have put at risk soldiers who were not warned of the risks they faced in handling these potent weapons:

Not long after Operation Avarice had secured its 400th rocket, in 2006, American troops were exposed several times to other chemical weapons. Many of these veterans said that they had not been warned by their units about the risks posed by the chemical weapons and that their medical care and follow-up were substandard, in part because military doctors seemed unaware that chemical munitions remained in Iraq.
In some cases, victims of exposure said, officers forbade them to discuss what had occurred. The Pentagon now says hundreds of other veterans reported on health-screening forms that they believed they too had been exposed during the war.
Aaron Stein, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said the belated acknowledgment of a chemical-rocket purchases, as well as the potentially worrisome laboratory analysis of the related sarin samples, raised questions about the military's commitment to the well-being of those it sent to war.

We have been fed a line of bull over Saddam and WMDs.

source:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/ny_times_discovers_that_saddam_did_have_wmds_after_all.html

What alternate universe are you from? Even Colin Powell admitted there were no WMDs... LOL. Bush lied for the same reason Hillary voted for Iraq.

Pre-war quotes from "lying" House and Senate democrats...

"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record - Sen. Hillary Clinton
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10288&position=all

John Kerry: "I agree completely with this Administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq - Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." (July 2002)

John Kerry: "I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary."

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record - Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10174&position=all

John Kerry on the floor of the Senate
October 2002:

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question:

Why?

Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up?

Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community?

Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster?

Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke?

Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits?

Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously?

Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified?

Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002
Congressional Record - Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10171&position=all

John Kerry: "I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that--that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (October 2002)

John Kerry: "If You Don't Believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." (January 2003)

John Kerry: Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. (March 2003)

"The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002
Congressional Record - Sen. Ted Kennedy
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10090&dbname=2002_record

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more.

We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."..."Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002
Congressional Record â€“ Sen. John Edwards
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10325&position=all

"There is no doubt that since that time Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/011207/epf510.htm

"We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002
Online with Jim Lehrer - Public Broadcasting Service
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_12-10.html

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
Congressional Record - Robert Byrd
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S9874&position=all

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record â€“Sen. Jay Rockefeller

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Congressional Record - Rep. Henry Waxman

Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050405093734/http://www.americandaily.com/article/4694

What alternate universe are you from? Even Colin Powell admitted there were no WMDs... LOL. Bush lied for the same reason Hillary voted for Iraq.

Saddam’s WMD in Syria…Here We Go Again

Flopping Aces ^ | 04-07-17 | Scott

Let’s do a quick re-cap on the past 27yrs of America’s War in Iraq (1990-2017):

1990-Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world (about the size of Spain, Italy, France, and Britain combined). They had chemical, biological, and were working on making an atomic bomb (even had the bomb ready, but not the radioactive material).

1991-Iraq was invaded by a United Nations Coalition of forces, driven from Kuwait, and forced to agree to terms of surrender; terms which included getting rid of WMD.

What’s WMD? WMD stands for Weapon of Mass Destruction. It’s a term often used to describe chemical weapons, biological weapons like weaponized bacteria, radiological weapons like dirty bombs, and atomic bombs. It’s a lot easier for people in power to just say, “WMD” than all the rest. The United Nations calls them, “proscribed weapons;” meaning weapons that are too horrific to use because they kill 100% indiscriminately, their use almost certainly causes civilian casualties, and people don’t just die when they’re used…they die extra slowly and painfully.

This is where things get tricky. Just like war-wagers like generals, and U.N. diplomats prefer the acronym “WMD” to the long list of really bad weapons, so too do politicians, mass media, and people prefer to use it too. There’s a problem with that, however. In March 2003, after 6+ months of political and military buildup, the United States invaded Iraq, and unreported/hidden WMD in Iraq was one of the many reasons given for the invasion.

Politicians debated if there was a WMD threat. That meant the mass media would debate it, and the rest of us wind up debating it too. For 14yrs the debate about Iraq and WMD has continued. Kids who were 4 when the nation was invaded are 18 now and being sent into Iraq as soldiers, and the debate continues: did Saddam have WMD/was Iraq a WMD threat?

In late 2002, half a year before the invasion, the Bush administration claimed that Saddam was a WMD threat. They said there had been no U.N. WMD inspections in Iraq for 4 years (since Saddam kicked the U.N. out in December 1998). He was right on that. What he didn’t tell the world was that in those 4yrs the U.S. didn’t have a single spy inside Iraq-not one! The last thing anyone knew about Saddam’s WMD program (according to President Clinton) was that after the December 1998 American bombing campaign on Iraq, much of their WMD threat was reduced, but it was not 100% destroyed. Moreover, the Bush Administration showed satellite pictures of the WMD facilities that had been hit in 1998, and had been rebuilt by 2002. They didn’t know what was going on in the buildings because there were no U.N. inspectors and no U.S. spies in Iraq during those 4yrs.

The Bush Administration’s WMD-threat-argument was based on very limited information. His speeches reflected this. If you go back and read them you’ll see that not until the eve of the invasion did he really start saying, ‘Iraq has this WMD and that WMD.’ Instead it was always, ‘Iraq had this sort of WMD, and they haven’t accounted for it with the U.N. Most of the Bush administration claims were of missing or unaccounted for WMD; weapons that Iraq told the U.N. it had, but had not told the U.N. if or how they were destroyed.

A lot of people didn’t trust President Bush. He had come to power in a legal coin toss. He had lost the popular vote. He came to power after a politically divisive impeachment. He lacked the charisma that President Clinton had before him. The 911 attacks divided the country even more, and vengeance for those attacks was swift, but hadn’t satisfied the American people at the time; not with Bin Laden at large. People felt that one war was enough for America. People feared getting involved in the Middle East. People feared, period, and support for holding Iraq to account for such dangerous weapons was not supported. Oh, people supported sending in U.N. inspectors, but that was it, and that wasn’t enough. There was no reason for Iraq to comply with U.N. Any refusal on Iraq’s part in the past had only met with a few airstrikes as punishment, and they expected the same (Saddam said so himself). Bush may have been threatening invasion, but the popular opposition to an invasion reassured Saddam that he was safe. Opposition to the war destroyed the “credible threat of force” (as the U.N.’s chief inspector, Hans Blix, later said).

Given the political and cultural reluctance to believe the Bush administration might invade, many dismissed his casus belli one after another. The Bush administration’s list of WMD allegations and concerns was dismissed from 2002-2017 by many people. For that reason, let’s ignore what the American government’s Iraqi/WMD accusations were, and instead focus on the United Nations’ Iraqi/WMD concerns.

On March 6, 2003 the U.N. inspectors gave a report called, “Unresolved Disarmament Issues.” It’s a 175 page list of “proscribed weapons” (what we call WMD) Iraq had openly declared it possessed. After each “WMD” item, the U.N. explained several different ways that Iraq could resolve the “WMD” issue and remove any concerns the U.S.; remove that from the list of reasons for an invasion. Each of those ‘ways to resolve’ a “WMD” issue ended with the mere request for just an explanation. Iraq could have written a paragraph for each item and met the U.N.’s declared concern. Instead, undeterred by the Bush Administrations threat to invade, confident that popular support would compel any response to mere airstrikes, the Iraqis refused to explain what had happened to the WMD they once possessed.

Forget what the Americans claimed, here’s a short, partial list of what WMD the U.N. claimed Iraq still had just before the invasion:

Chemical weapons
VX nerve agent
Sarin nerve agent
Mustard gas
Major chemical processing equipment
Biological weapons
anthrax
botulinum toxin
ricin
bacterial agent production equipment
Ballistic missiles
SCUD ballistic missiles
FROG missiles (like the ones that were involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis)
new ballistic missile technology
certain munitions and other delivery means
warheads designed to mount chemical, biological, nuclear, or cluster bombs on ballistic missiles
bombs dropped from planes capable of carrying chemical or biological weapons
major (really big) aerial bombs
UAV, unmanned aerial vehicles
artillery rockets or artillery designed to carry chemical or biological weapons
spray devices for spraying chemical or biological agents from the air

There was a lot more, but these were the big ones. No one of them was worth invading Iraq and occupying it for 14yrs, but combined they were a large WMD threat, and the threat of terrorists like Al Queda or ISIS using those was very real (According to the November 1998 Indictment of Osama Bin Laden by the Clinton Administration, Iraq and Al Queda had reached an agreement to do just that. This threat was further explained by ABC News in early 1999 reporting as well as Newsweek in late 1998/early 1999).

When Saddam’s Iraqi government fell, a statue fell. There were cheering Iraqis in many places, not in all. The world watched TV and the image of success was looting. The American people, and the world, had come to expect some sort of footage of WMD; some sort of ‘ah-ha!’ moment. Lacking that, the debate continues to the day. Many political pundits still claim NO WMD was found, but that’s not entirely true. Not all the U.N. or Bush Administration WMD claims were true, but neither is it true they were all false.

(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...

What alternate universe are you from? Even Colin Powell admitted there were no WMDs... LOL. Bush lied for the same reason Hillary voted for Iraq.

A compelling theory explains the latest chemical attack in Syria

Business Insider ^ | 04/09/2018 | Daniel Brown

---SNIP-- They claimed Assad had no reason to use chemical weapons, and that the Syrian government was winning the fight against the main opposition group in the region, Jaysh al-Islam. Russia even called the allegations "fake news."

But Neil Hauer, an independent analyst focusing on Russia and Syria, tweeted a response to their claims, arguing that negotiations between the regime and Jaysh al-Islam, with Russia as a guarantor, broke down on Thursday.

(Excerpt) Read more at nordic.businessinsider.com ...

Even Colin Powell admitted there were no WMDs...

You mean the same Colin Powell who endorsed a communist for president?

Image result for Colin Powell obama endorse