Saddam Has Nukes, Ex-Weapons Inspector Says (reported on Hannity show)

NewsMax ^ | 12/06/02

[Mike Fieschko]

Anyone know if his scuds can reach Quatar(sp) or the area of the Persian Gulf where one of our carrier battle groups are likely to be operating from once the bombing starts?

Yes, they can reach Qatar, where we have a large air base under contruction, estimated finish in a week or so.

Iraqi Scuds: A Threat We Have to Respect.

Qatar base takes shape

[BikerNYC]

Saddam Has Nukes, Ex-Weapons Inspector Says

Now, all Saddam has to do is to admit he has nukes and he will be safe from a U.S. attack like North Korea is.

[Emile]

The question then would become, would the peoples of the region (excepting the Israelis) really be any worse off than they are now, living under repressive theocracies or brutal, murderous dictatorships, with no hope of bettering their lot, or even achieving any measure of freedom? I fail to see much qualitative difference between the two scenarios for the populace's quality of life.

[SteveTuck]

Nothing more than a hunch that Iraq has nukes...

[Dark Wing]

ping

[polemikos]

Saddam has any number of ways to get a nuke here and get it detonated

Unfortunately, Saddam doesn't even have to get it into the country. All he has to do is get close. There are plenty of targets on our borders.
- Detroit
- Cleveland
- Buffalo
- Rochester
- Boston
- New York
- Miami
- New Orleans
- Houston
- Corpus Christi
- El Paso/Ciudad Juarez
- San Diego/Tijuana
- El Lay
- Frisco
- Seattle
- even D.C.
Texas stands out as a target, as does NY and DC. Unfortunately, I doubt Canada and Mexico are devouting even a tenth of our pitiful effort to watch their borders and international shipping traffic.

[eno_]

Now, all Saddam has to do is to admit he has nukes and he will be safe from a U.S. attack like North Korea is.

No, because toppling Iraq is very do-able. North Korea is a whole other thing.

[eno_]

We probably use aircraft since there is no problem with permission to overfly our own terrirtory.

[Turbodog]

"One reason why is, during the 90's in the intelligence community, there was just a pathological risk aversion. The reason being was that our president at the time, Bill Clinton, fundamentally changed the purpose of the United States military from fighting and winning wars to crisis management and keeping his poll numbers up......Now, if you're not out to win, there's no need to take risks. And so what you found is people being very guarded about everything, every kind of assessment you could make."

The sooner we act on Saddam; the safer the world will be! The assessment that Saddam already has nukes is the reason the President is deciding to act. Information the previous administration was sitting on.

We know the previous administration repeatedly ignored the threat from bin Laden and his ilk until it was too late and the devastation was done. If they were still in power today, they would be continuing to ignore the threat coming from Saddam. Indeed, they would sit by in idle protest, as the UN would lift the remainder of the sanctions.

Imagine the aftermath, when the world and the American people finally learn the truth that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, and the Bush administration had the foresight and fortitude to act preemptively and decisively too remove the threat. The Bent One’s low place in history sinks even lower. While he was busy chasing interns and other aids in the White House, our enemies were busy planning for our destruction. The lesson should be: Can we afford to let the Dims and the Libs ever have the power of the White House again?

[BikerNYC]

No, because toppling Iraq is very do-able. North Korea is a whole other thing.

Are you saying we should attack North Korea but we won't because we can't easily win?

[eno_]

We should overthrow the government in North Korea and liberate the people because everyone, not least our security, would benefit. And we should do this without a war if possible.

One of the finest accomplishments of the elder Bush was rolling up the Communist governments in Eastern Europe, including, amazingly, the liberation of the Baltic nations with minimal bloodshed. I believe Iran is a similar project.

[bigfootbob]

My guess would be not much. 17 yrs. ago I worked for a company that won the contract to supply fire supression systems to Boeing Space new R & D building.

It was super high-tech for it's time and probably is still. I worked with the mechanical engineer's that installed the lead shielding and it was 3/8" thick.

I would bet the metallurgy advances has reduced the thickness and weight significantly. Even at 3/8" thickness a trawler could easily be outfitted to accommodate a "hot" cargo.

[crystalk]

It seems that Saddam has the same number of fairly sophisticated IRBM's [that is, five or six] as he does fairly sophisticated nuclear devices [Hiroshima size and quality or better].

Beyond that he has the SCUDS, and various "dirty bombs" that just spread radioactive waste and debris around the enemy's location after a conventional explosion.

IOW Saddam's nukes have most of Europe and much of Russia, plus all of the Mideast, under their guns.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Salute to Bill Tierney!!

The TRUTH stands on its own merits. God Bless him!!

[SteveTuck]

The TRUTH stands on its own merits. God Bless him!!

Truth? Tierney has no more than hunch that Iraq has nukes.

[DoughtyOne]

This is why I completely ignore the no-war-at-any-cost crowd. Once a bomb goes off, it's too late. Scott Ritter and his little pals in A.N.S.W.E.R. and other orgs should
be hunted down and deported to Iraq if one goes off here.

[DoughtyOne]

Close to the border my arse, we're about to allow Mexican trucks free reign in our nation. They can deliver the goods anywhere they like curtousy of our President and NAFTA. Up until now the Mexican gangs only facilitated drugs and illegals. We're about to gift them with a whole new line of goodies for disbursement into our nation.

[polemikos]

Too Late?

Bush opens border to Mexican trucks.

[Diddle E. Squat]

What are you talking about? Did you ever consider that Bush may be using these inspections to help narrow down where US forces will need to strike? Observing how the Iraqui's react and directing surveillance as a result. Why do a search with much higher casualties with our military if we can do much of the prepatory work using the UN dupes? If we don't know where the nukes are, yet we suspect that he has them, isn't it riskier to send troops in now rather than wait while we gather more intelligence?

Bush isn't a dope, and he's got a good team that know what they are doing. Don't take everything at face value.

[calenel]

Q: If Saddam uses a nuke on us, what should we do?

A: Respond with a carefully measures punitive strike... and send in the Army Corps of Engineers to drill for oil on the fused silica parking lot that's left.