Pentagon in 2002 Found `No Reliable' Iraq Arms Data

Bloomberg ^ | June 6, 2003 | Bloomberg

[ejdrapes]

June 6 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. Defense Department report in September 2002 found ``no reliable information'' proving that Iraq had chemical weapons, even as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was saying the country had amassed stockpiles of the banned arms.

The unreleased report said Iraq ``probably'' had stockpiles of banned chemicals, a more tentative conclusion than Rumsfeld was presenting in public remarks. Iraq has ``amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas,'' he told Congress on Sept. 19.

[faithincowboys]

Good. Let's say for instance that they hyped it. Do you believe that Clinton hyped the evidence in 1998? Surely, after Bubba's hysterically unserious bombardment (to rid Iraq of its WMD and ability to transfer weapons to terrorists)Saddam had no reason to destroy those weapons.

Does it bother you that media scrutiny in such areas is only leveled at Republican Presidents?

Also since Saddam used them against Iran and the Kurds and had no compelling reason to rid himself of the weapons, don't you think it is likely that he had the weapons?

Another interesting question-- if the intelligence was fabricated or hyped, who was the culprit? Did the Mossad hype the intelligence to get us to get rid of Saddam (their biggest security threat) and if so, should we stop aid and weapon transfers, and institute sanctions?

Right before the war, if you recall, the Israelis said the WMD had been moved to Syria-- either it was moved there or they said that to get us to oust another rival and to conceal the fact that Saddam had no WMD?

Also could the Intelligence services that blew 9-11 also have falsely believed Saddam had WMD?

The question is: who do we believe Saddam or our Government?

By the way, will Dubya's push to compel the Israelis to make concessions make it more likely for the media to embellish this scandal and get him into political hot water?

Good questions all!

[steve50]

I agree, good questions all. Now we need good answers to them all. Delayed, behind closed doors investigations ran by the usual suspects is not going to give us any.

Time to put partisan politics aside and demand honest answers from both political parties. Too much riding on this to address it like a high school sporting event, rooting for the home team and screaming kill the ump is not a legitimate political philsophy.jmho

[backhoe]

I added your excellent links to the Dark Underbelly, and there is this somewhat older information:

-IRAQ- some links to terror--

-All Terror, All the Time-- FR's links to NBC Warfare, Terror, and More...--

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Yes, it is certain that Iraq had banned weapons. They had them in 1998, and showeved no evidence that they were destroyed. The weapons are either still hidden somewhere in Iraq, or they were sent away to a sympathetic state such as Syria.

Absolutely!

Adding this to the list: IRAQ: Powell Defends Information He Used to Justify Iraq War

[kevkrom]

Freepr BilLies posted on a related thread:

I saw a press conference with Jacoby and Warner after the testimony/hearing and Jacoby wanted it made clear the reason they "could not verify" the existence of the weapons was because we did not have american personel on the ground in Iraq.

In other words, New York Times and Vanity Fair type reporting from Bloomberg here, taking statements out of context to portray exactly the opposite of what was actually said. A correct summary would have said that the Pentagon/DIA had no doubts as to the existence of chemical weapons, but that they did not have hard data on the precise locations of the weapons or facilities.

[arete]

Meaning....you will "trust" Dubya come hell or high water?

I'm with you on this. I said from day one that GW was lying to the American people in an effort to push his war agenda. If you are going to get American sons and daughters killed, you had better be basing it on more than a pack of fabricated evidence.

Richard W.

[snooker]

We haven't found Sadman so I say he doesn't exist. Now your job is to prove he did exist.

I trust people that earn that trust. Like Bush. I know a liar when I see one, like the Clintoons.

[sirchtruth]

Two measley labs....which may not even been used in years constitute "certainty" that Iraq currently has WMD?

...and why not? So Powell presents evidence that mobile labs exist and lo and behold mobile labs are found and when more stuff is found what are you going to bitch and moan about then?...I'm sorry you can't deal with it, but your gonna have too.

Why would Saddam hide something he did NOT have? Why did he not reveal or account for what was already discovered by UN inspectors years before? That was his responsiblity voted and affirmed by the WORLD!

That is what he had to do to avert his ouster.

It isn't even neccessary to find them and the American people agree, so I guess your point is meaningless.

[templar]

We haven't found Sadman so I say he doesn't exist. Now your job is to prove he did exist.

I hate to have to point it out, but that is an idiotic statement. I' suggest you think things through before publishing them. BTW, if Saddam didn't exist that would make Bush an all time liar, now wouldn't it? After all, Bush repeatedly said it was Saddam in charge there; Saddam who was the enemy.

I know a liar when I see one, like the Clintoons.

Clinton was a liar. The libs made him their god and ended up defending him to the point of absurdity in spite of his obvious lies. Bush will remain to be seen, but so far it isn't looking good for him. An example of a direct statement by him that is either made by a fool or a liar is "Islam is a religion of peace". Judge for yourself, but I'd suggest you not make him a god of him the way the liberals did Clinton or you may end up defending him the way the libs defended Clinton. Truth is what it is about. Just truth.

[Captain Kirk]

The truth is "meaningless" eh? Is that you Bill?

[sirchtruth]

The truth is "meaningless" eh? Is that you Bill?

When you don't have an argument, or you know the other side has the facts and can use them against you successfully, then must you resort to an vapid illogical fallicy, red herring, staw man?

...and Nooooo, this is Hillary!!!...The GREAT QUEEN OF THE WORLD!!!! Bwhahahahahah! (Trembelo violin/timpani drum, thunder claps and lightning flashes in background.)

[snooker]

Thanks for the advice ... Even though your comment was meant as mean spirited jab. I will choose what I want to put on the threads.

As I said since we haven't found sadman yet, I guess he doesn't exist. So prove me wrong.

The WMDs were there before the war, at least they were when the security council voted for res 1441. Didn't 1441 say there were WMDs in Iraq? Why yes it did. Blix said they were there. Blix said there were tons of chemicals unaccounted for. Just because I didn't see them, I assume that Blix knew what he was talking about when he layed out the tons of missing chem/bio WMDs in his report. I never heard Blix say the inspections were over, all the WMDs were found. I did hear him say he could find them all if given more time, like another 12 years, that ought to be enough time so everyone just forgets about it.

So let's see, that would make all the UN security council a bunch of liars, Blix a liar, Congress a liar, the British parliment a liar ... and Clintoon a liar since he attacked Iraq in 1998 and gave a speech to the nation that the WMDs was the reason for the attack, not Monica. Now that is an all time liars list.

Sadman was there, and now we haven't found him. So prove he was there. I fail to see the difference. Both lines of reasonong are equally idiotic. The left is trying to push idiocy on the public by conviently forgetting that it wasn't just Bush who backed the WMD claims. What are these congressional intelligence oversite committees for? I thought it was oversite. When the committee members come out after a briefing and say 'yep WMDs are there, no doubt about it'. What is the public to think.

Those WMD factories on wheels, isn't it humorous how the libs like to call them labs, as if they were some cute little experiment. Well they aren't labs, they are wheeled production facilities. Designed to mix and manufacturer WMD chemicals. Those libs are a hoot. Disguise what you see with cute words and have everyone repeat it until the public buys it. Right out of the NYTs.

I can't wait for the libs to get this one in the face like all the others. The libs are so blinded by their hatred of Bush that even the security of the country and the citizens lives can be tossed aside. I guess I make the mistaken assumption that libs ever did care about anything but their own power. Silly me.

Yes if it were proven to my satisfaction that Bush lied, I would be one of the first to vote him out of office. Bush is a man of character, that I am sure of.

... have a nice day.

[faithincowboys]

Well, clearly they covered up for Clinton and have been attack dogs on Bush. I don't think that is proper. By my lights, the year 1998 and what all went on in that year is relevant now. I will not allow partisan Democrats to obscure what they have done and steamroll my President. If that is your inclination-- splendid, but don't mind if I wouldn't want to get into a street fight with you on my side.

[mark502inf]

Guys, reserve judgment until you read the report--not what some news organizations are saying about the report. The excerpt I saw did not say there were no WMD or that there was no conclusive proof that there was WMD. After CNN's breathless take on this yesterday in the a.m., their reporters began backpedaling pretty fast later in the day; probably because they actually looked at the document and found that the part that was out yesterday actually was an intelligence judgment on current/ongoing Iraqi production & stockpiling, not what was there already. Having said that, I have not read the whole thing, which I believe will be released in the next day or two, but I suspect there is a lot less to this than is being made of it on this forum.

[Tunehead54]

Iraq itself declared that it had tons of WMD and never provided proof of its destruction. Since they had made it, admitted they had it, sarin, botulinim (sp), anthrax, etc. why is it that its pre-war existence is such a stretch?

---

Backhoe: If anyone has a link its got to be you? Can you help?

[templar]

snooker, I understand your postition and your loyalty to Bush. I'm just saying take everything with a grain of salt. Don't get yourself into the position of the Libs that ended up defending everything Clinton did and then adjusting their standards downward when confronted with evidence.

At this point it's pretty obvious that Saddam and his alleged WMD's were no where near the threat to us we were led to believe, if any threat at all. If he had any useable ones, he couldn't even use them to defend his country or even save his own life. (perhaps we should rename them Weapons of Minimum Danger) There seems to be no credible source anywhere that has seen them, in a lab, in the field, or in storage; only unconfirmed and unconfirmable rumors. Personally I think Bush may have been deliberately fed false intelligence data to manipulate our country into war with Iraq for the purposes and ends of some other power or party. If so, Bush needs to come clean about it and go to war with that power or party with as much vigor as he did with Iraq (otherwise he is just a part of the lie). If there is some organization or persons out ther that can manipulate our country at the highest levels, it is a much more serious threat to US than Iraq was ever portrayed to be.

Time will tell. All will be made known eventually, even if all will not accept the truth. Truth is what is is about. Lies will enslave men, truth will set them free.

[backhoe]

MizSterious's #13 is the same info I have.

[snooker]

" ... Don't get yourself into the position of the Libs that ended up defending everything Clinton "

Don't you worry about that. I judge character for myself.

" ... At this point it's pretty obvious that Saddam and his alleged WMD's were no where near the threat to us we were led to believ "

You are sure about that propaganda. All those chemical suits in the Iraqi foxholes convinced you of that right? and the nerve gas antidotes, why that was just for show. and the posters showing Iraqi troops what to do and how to use chemical weapons, just clippings from the NYTs.

" ... There seems to be no credible source anywhere that has seen them, in a lab, in the field, or in storage; only unconfirmed and unconfirmable rumors."

The UN isn't credible especially Hans Blix. Got to agree with you on that one.

" ... If there is some organization or persons out ther that can manipulate our country at the highest levels, it is a much more serious threat to US than Iraq was ever portrayed to be. "

Your foil hat is on too tight. Unless of course you are referring to the democrap party. Then I might agree.

Thanks for your concern, but your condescending arguments don't hold water.

[Captain Kirk]

You, not me, are the one who made the Clintonesque statement that the truth in this case is "meaningless." You obviously can't, our won't, defend your own words.

I remember when most Freepers (back when Clinton was president) rejected the theory that the means don't justify the ends. Now....I guess the rules have changed now that "their man" is in charge.

[Captain Kirk]

Hey....Dubya may, in fact, find WMD if the search continues though it seems to me that his statements of "certainty" before the war. FYI, I believed that Saddam probably had WMD before the war (though I still opposed it for other reasons).