billvon 3,107 #1 June 23, 2003 At last we've discovered what happened to all those tons of anthrax culture and sarin that Hussein was hiding - looters stole them! Apparently, pickpockets and petty theives made off with truckloads of chemical weapons agents and biological weapons cultures after we invaded but before we conquered Iraq. No doubt such things come in handy to people who make their living from petty theivery. From Bush's radio address on Saturday: "For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein went to great lengths to hide his weapons from the world," Bush said. "And in the regime's final days, documents and suspected weapons sites were looted and burned." And to think people doubted him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #2 June 23, 2003 The WMD situation concerns me in several aspects. Are our intelligence services producing good data? If these things existed-what the hell happened to them? etc. I think you took Bush out of context a bit - but rightfully so - he IS a politician after all. A few interesting quotes for you: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "In the four years since the inspectors left, 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 Qaeda 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 will continue to increase his capacity 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." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "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." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 "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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002 From the preceeding quotes, I conclude that if GWB lied about WMDs, so did a TON of other people (most of them Bush detractors as well). And finally, some articles of interest on the subject: http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2003/060403.htm http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20030622.shtml I love Ann Coulter to death, but agree more with George Will here. Beers to all, Vinny the Anvil Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #3 June 23, 2003 >From the preceeding quotes, I conclude that if GWB lied about > WMDs, so did a TON of other people (most of them Bush detractors > as well). No argument there. A lot of people (even his detractors) believed him and his staff when he claimed hard evidence for WMD's. Too bad we didn't listen to the experts. From the BBC, in a story about Hans Blix's last report before we invaded: ----------------------------------------- In his latest report - which covers the last three months - Mr Blix said his inspectors had found no evidence to show that former President Saddam Hussein had been running programmes to build weapons of mass destruction (WMD). . . . The report states that while UN inspectors were in Iraq they did not discover evidence of the continuation or resumption of WMD programmes. ---------------------------------------- A quote from March, from this very board: ---------------------------------------------------------- >they will have thier proof when we free Iraq . . . I doubt that. I think the same thing will happen in Iraq that happened in Afghanistan i.e. the initial objective will be to 'get' someone or something, which we will change retroactively to "hey, we're fighting a war of liberation; that's the important thing" when we can't find much in the way of WMD's (or Hussein himself, for that matter.) ----------------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #4 June 23, 2003 The hard part is proving any of it is theirs. It all says "Made in the USA" on it. We gave it to them back in the eighties, so they could use it on Iran. That's when Reagan sent his personal envoy DONALD RUMSFELD to meet with Saddam. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #5 June 24, 2003 For you "Left Coast" boys here is a great statement that hit the news a few weeks ago. It went something like this............ I'm willing to give Bush as long to find the WMD's as the UN gave Sadam to hide them. Nuff said. Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #6 June 24, 2003 QuoteI'm willing to give Bush as long to find the WMD's as the UN gave Sadam to hide them. like you say nuff said................... I think SH sent them to france to pick up later if needed. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #7 June 24, 2003 "I'm willing to give Bush as long to find the WMD's as the UN gave Sadam to hide them." Whats that then, 12 years? -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #8 June 24, 2003 Quote"I'm willing to give Bush as long to find the WMD's as the UN gave Sadam to hide them." Whats that then, 12 years? Or until Jeb's in office! -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThighMan 5 #9 June 24, 2003 QuoteQuote"I'm willing to give Bush as long to find the WMD's as the UN gave Sadam to hide them." Whats that then, 12 years? Or until Jeb's in office! And Jeb will be better than Willy.... 12 years is a long time to hide something. Remember as a kid trying to hide something from your parents... Yes, you also billvon. No one is perfect. AirborneAirborne Blue Skies, No Wind Feet and Knees Together Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #10 June 24, 2003 A couple of thoughts. 1. What are the chances that WMD have been taken by terrorist groups in the chaos that is the current Iraq? 2. Given that 1. is a possibility why are international experts not welcomed to speed up the search for weapons to prevent 1? I accept there is a degree of risk but they can be escorted now instead of facing the old regime and can interview scientists on the list that were reluctant to talk last time. 3. Why were rich intelligence sources i.e. The foreign ministry building not properly secured for their intelligence value but were picked over by journalists who took the intelligence materiel with them? David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #11 June 24, 2003 FYI...in press conference last night, GW said that our troops will be in Iraq for at least 5 years. He did clarify though that we're not occupiers or nation builders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #12 June 24, 2003 "He did clarify though that we're not occupiers or nation builders." Ah, tourists with guns then? I fear you guys will get bogged down in a policing role. Something I would strongly try and avoid. Look at the quagmire that we Brits got into in Northern Ireland.....-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #13 June 24, 2003 I think your paradigm applies for Iraq but not Afghanistan, as their leadership cadre had been sheltering bin Laden for years. Because of their immediate statement to the international press following the 11 Sep attacks I think they knew they had it coming. From a foreign policy perspective I think we would have been remiss NOT to destroy that regime in light of the results of their hiding OBL. It worries me a bit is the possibility that any WMDs that were there in Iraq were given to ne'er-do-wells - among other things that worry me. I've read that the amount of anthrax Saddam once admitted to posessing would only fill about 1/2 a tractor trailer if in powdered form. Fairly easy to transport that en masse clandestinely. Fairly easy to hide too, but that's another story. If the WMDs never existed in the first place, we've got some serious questions to ask about our intelligence gathering from ALL angles. And that worries me as well. Blah blah blah. Beers to all, Vinny the Anvil Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #14 June 24, 2003 QuoteI've read that the amount of anthrax Saddam once admitted to posessing would only fill about 1/2 a tractor trailer if in powdered form. Fairly easy to transport that en masse clandestinely. Fairly easy to hide too, but that's another story. Yes and no. The difficult part about shifting really really nasty stuff like anthrax around in a country that has been bombed to shit with a bunch of people that are not VERY well equipped and trained is there tend to be dead people left around as evidence. Yes, there are a lot of dead bodies in Iraq, but I tend to think we would notice a few anthrax cases or incidents of chemical weapons poisoning. So basically, I don't think the " ne'er-do-wells " have the stuff. It might be buried in the desert or sold to Syria, but I doubt it's gone to the terrorist groups.illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #15 June 24, 2003 I heared about that but that's nothing new. The length of stay of UK troops was debated prior to committing them and the lack of an exit strategy was pretty obvious. Even the plans for post war Iraq were vague at best. What I was suggesting was that the country is in a bit of a shambles right now and the possibility to acquire something in the chaos is there. It could always be buried and collected later after everyone leaves. Therefore, wouldn't it make sense to try and track it down ASAP with all means available? How long did the Russians have to fight in Afghanistan? How long have Hamas, PIRA, etc. been operating? Terrorist groups take a long term view and this could be a good chance to get hold of some WMD for later use so why not get everyone involved in finding them now instead of discovering that we missed a couple of tons later? Intelligence is of best use when it's fresh. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #16 June 24, 2003 QuoteI'm willing to give Bush as long to find the WMD's as the UN gave Sadam to hide them. The last time the UN had any evidence of WMD in Iraq was 1994 - 3 years after then end of Desert Storm. So - you're saying Dub'ya should have 3 years? Ok, thats pretty fair. In reality though, I think he'll only have 2 - until his next election. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #17 June 24, 2003 QuoteThe last time the UN had any evidence of WMD in Iraq was 1994 - 3 years after then end of Desert Storm. Before the war, we announced that anyone involved in building chemical/bio weapons would be treated as a war criminal. Is it surprising that no one has stepped forward and said "That's me. I'd like to be executed." To admit to knowledge is to sign yourself up for an extended Cuban vacation, or worse, maybe one in Yemen. Guys in Yemen or Pakistan aren't as kind when asking questions. If I had a 1000 square mile sandbox, I'd bury it and wait for the US to get tired of getting shot at and go home. Then, the successors of SH will be interested in knowing where all this stuff is. It is possible that in 1994, SH said "Well, the UN wants me to do this, so I'll destroy all this and the hidden stuff that they can't find. I'll cooperate with the UN inspectors too. Mr. Cooperation." Which scenario sounds probable? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #18 June 24, 2003 >I'm willing to give Bush as long to find the WMD's as the UN gave > Sadam to hide them. As we ignored the UN, I'm willing to give Bush as long as _he_ gave Saddam. Of course, we will forget all about the WMD's as soon as we start our next war, just like we're pretty much ignoring that the Taliban is coming back in Afghanistan, and that Al Qaeda is operating there again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #19 June 24, 2003 >I think SH sent them to france to pick up later if needed. Man, it must gall you to no end to consider that Blix, the UN, and France . . . were right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #20 June 24, 2003 >From a foreign policy perspective I think we would have been remiss >NOT to destroy that regime in light of the results of their hiding OBL. I agree; I think we were justified in going into Afghanistan, and taking out the Taliban when they (basically) got in the way. I was referring to the "revision of objectives" that seems to happen when we don't accomplish our objectives. Our #1 priority was to get Bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda; when that didn't happen we said essentially "Well, we don't really care about Bin Laden; it was the liberation of the Afghani people that was important." Now we can't find WMD's and we can't even find Hussein or his sons, so we will now hear about how great it is that we "liberated" the Iraqis. >It worries me a bit is the possibility that any WMDs that were there in >Iraq were given to ne'er-do-wells - among other things that worry me. It worries me a lot! They still haven't accounted for all the nuclear material that went missing after we opened that sealed vault in a lab in Iraq. It would really suck if, through our actions, we gave terrorists the means to harm us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #21 June 24, 2003 QuoteIt worries me a lot! They still haven't accounted for all the nuclear material that went missing after we opened that sealed vault in a lab in Iraq. Since there were able to remove and hide nuclear material from a sealed vault in a lab. It seems reasonable that they were able to effectively hide some drums of bio or chemical stuff also. Do you believe that the Iraqis have bio or chem weapons buried somewhere? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #22 June 24, 2003 >Since there were able to remove and hide nuclear material from a >sealed vault in a lab. They didn't do that until we opened it for them and then left. And at least some of the looters were stealing the drums, dumping out the contents (partially enriched uranium) and using them to store water, since the water was out. But if, say, terrorists had entered Iraq just as we did, posed as ordinary citizens, then got their hands on that stuff? Scary thought. >Do you believe that the Iraqis have bio or chem weapons buried >somewhere? Oh, I'll bet we find a few vials of dead anthrax or a leaking 55 gallon drum of what was once Sarin or something. Heck, we found vials of anthrax in Maryland a few weeks ago in a landfill! But I'll bet you we don't even find .1% of those "25,000 liters of deadly anthrax" that Powell said he suspected they had. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #23 June 24, 2003 Quote"Well, we don't really care about Bin Laden; it was the liberation of the Afghani people that was important." Could you ascribe that quote, please? FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robskydiv 0 #24 June 24, 2003 Unfortunately, I see your point Bill. It's all about the oil. Having said that, I strongly support our troops. I hope that the Pentagon will find a solution on how to protect them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #25 June 24, 2003 >Could you ascribe that quote, please? It wasn't a quote; hence the description "we said essentially." The quotes it was made from: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." George Bush 9/13/01 "So I don't know where he is. I just don't spend that much time on him . . . I truly am not that concerned about him." -George Bush, 3/13/02 "We want history ultimately to judge [the United States] as having been dedicated to liberation, not occupation" in Afghanistan, said Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. 6/26/02 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)