Iraq WMD Info

[GroundStrength]

Iraqi Officer (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105086,00.html)

Real or memorex?

[pgwenthold]

Of course, instead of asking the real question, they just took it for granted that he was telling the truth:

"So why weren't the weapons launched against the allied forces encroaching on Iraq? Al-Dabbagh said the majority of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam."

Before asking about why they weren't used, shouldn't we be asking, "So if they were there and were so readily accessible, why can't anyone find them?"

Before anyone is to believe that they had weapons that they could launch within 30 minutes, it is first going to have to be established that they any weapons in the first place. Sorry, Colonel, you are not very credible. Show us the weapons, and then you can tell us how fast you could deploy them.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
"So why weren't the weapons launched against the allied forces encroaching on Iraq? Al-Dabbagh said the majority of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam."

Before asking about why they weren't used, shouldn't we be asking, "So if they were there and were so readily accessible, why can't anyone find them?"

Before anyone is to believe that they had weapons that they could launch within 30 minutes, it is first going to have to be established that they any weapons in the first place. Sorry, Colonel, you are not very credible. Show us the weapons, and then you can tell us how fast you could deploy them.

Even though I supported the war, I have other doubts about the Colonel's statements... Not only can we not find the weapons that they would have had, you have to figure in an army as large as Saddam's was, there would be at least a few soldiers willing to fight for Saddam using WMD (even if most were not).

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that the coalition was wrong to invaded Iraq, or that they were wrong to believe that he had WMD (remember, many people against the war also made statements that there were unaccounted for materials in Iraq). Just that this particular soldier's statements were wrong.

[DrChinese]

Over 8 months of looking. None found yet.

That's none.

N o n e.

[Jim Lennox]

Here's a quote from and link to the Telegraph article. (Though you may need to be registered)

Although he gave details of Iraq's battlefield WMD capability, he said that he had no knowledge of any plans by Saddam to use missiles to attack British bases in Cyprus and other Nato targets.

In the build-up to the conflict, Tony Blair was criticised by intelligence officials for giving the impression that Saddam had developed ballistic missiles that could carry WMD warheads and hit targets such as Israel and Britain's military bases in Cyprus.

But Col al-Dabbagh said that he doubted that Iraq under Saddam had this capability. "I know nothing about this. My information was only about what we could do on the battlefield."



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F12%2F07%2Fwirq07.x ml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=175680

I thought we had already established any possible 45 minute deployment would only apply on the battlefield. We have yet to be shown how we were under threat of immediate attack.

[Aoidoi]

If we can't trust an Iraqi Colonel who can we trust? ;)

I suspect he's blowing smoke for the simple reason that we have no physical evidence to substantiate his claims. He might be the source of that intel, but he still appears to be wrong.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Over 8 months of looking. None found yet.

That's none.

N o n e.

You are correct. Any clue as to where the weapons that were unaccounted for went?

[Reginald]

How big does a weapon have to be before it is technically a WMD?

The use of "warhead" and the suggestion that they could be launched from an RPG launcher seems a little disproportionate to me.


Looking at the actual article from the Telegraph it says...


A senior Iraqi general in charge of air defences during the war, who was part of a committee that reported directly to Saddam on the supply and training of air defence units, said: "This lieutenant colonel wanted to scare the Western world."

The general, who would not give his name, conceded that authority may have been bypassed but said the frontline troops he visited were in a shambolic state and were unlikely to have received any additional weapons.

"We were very low on equipment," he said. "There certainly wasn't any talk of chemical warheads."


Now either chap could be bending the truth, but even though I supported the war, the lack of any of these "warheads" makes me think at this time that the Colonel's comments are as described in the above quote.

[Frostbite]

Leave it to Geraldo.

[Reginald]

Ah... to add.

It appears that the Lt Col. Was actually working for the Iraqi National Accord (INA), an exiled group based in London. I would suggest that he would have every reason to perhaps overstate the threat given this information. One would imagine in the hope of precipitating a conflict.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You are correct. Any clue as to where the weapons that were unaccounted for went?

Yes, I think there were at least TEN good theories which we had good agreement on. That would be our "Top 10" list of reasons no WMDs have been found thread, recapped below:

10. Four months is not long enough to find them - give them until after the election.
9. They were moved to Syria/Iran/the countryside/buried (this was done at night so we couldn't see it).
8. They have been returned to the French manufacturer for credit.
7. Did Bush say weapons? He meant weapons "programs".
6. According to the former Iraqi Information Minister, they were used to successfully defend against the infidel invaders.
5. Saddam destroyed them right before the war started, just to embarass Bush.
4. We did find them, you must not have read the news that day.
3. We found Chemical Ali, top scientists & many VIPs instead, and any day now they're gonna break - er - talk.
2. Who cares?
1. There weren't any!

[Supercharts]

"Survey: Saddam Killed 61,000 in Baghdad
1 hour, 6 minutes ago

By NIKO PRICE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq (news - web sites)'s Kurdish north and Shiite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality extended strongly into the capital as well.
The survey, which the polling firm planned to release on Tuesday, asked 1,178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 percent said yes.
The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population Ñ 6.39 million Ñ and average household size Ñ 6.9 people Ñ to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule. Past estimates were in the low tens of thousands. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.
The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&e=1&u=/ap/20031209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_executions

Oh well..it's wasn't a neutron bomb, or some other means of WMD. It was simply a bullet in the back of the head.
[This does not in any way imply Tony or GWB lied to us but rather the info they were given may have been a little too 'forceful' in their 'reasons' for invading Iraq.]
It's all statistics.
61,000 people are dead but not because of WMD.
Feel better Bunky?
"But..."

[peptoabysmal]

It can't be true, because it has already been proven that George W. Bush was lying about the danger of Saddam. :D

[dsm]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
It can't be true, because it has already been proven that George W. Bush was lying about the danger of Saddam. :D

No, no, no -- he was lying about the danger of Saddam's WMDs. :D

[dsm]

Originally posted by Supercharts
"But..."

Is there any timeline for when the 61,000 were killed during Saddam's rule? The natural inclination is to take 61,000 and divide by 23 (years Saddam ruled) and report that an average of ~2400 people were killed each year of Saddam's rule. However, would that be correct IF a timeline showed that most (all?) of the reported 61,000 were killed before (or near) the first Gulf War? In other words, although Saddam was a brutal dictator, this survey doesn't (yet) show that he required the immediate attention of the US.

[Jon_in_london]

To get back on topic:

I think there are two principal explainations for the apparent lying colonel:

1: He wanted to bring forward any invasion as he didnt like Saddam.

2: He knew an invasion was coming and wanted to get into the USUK's goodbooks.

I think it may be worth remembering that another senior Iraqi officer was feeding intel British forces outside Basra. Which is one reason why Basra was taken with so little blood shed.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by dsm


No, no, no -- he was lying about the danger of Saddam's WMDs. :D

Is that all you remember from Bush's state of the union address?

[dsm]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Is that all you remember from Bush's state of the union address?

You mean the one where Bush devoted 37 paragraphs to Iraq of which 1 spoke of Saddam Hussein's torture of Iraqis and 1 spoke of his use of WMDs against Iraqis while 25 paragraphs are devoted to the (as Dr. Chinese might say) "mythical" WMDs still in Iraq.

Yeah, he really had "humanitarian issues" on his mind... :rolleyes:

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Reginald
How big does a weapon have to be before it is technically a WMD?



some answers:


One trillionth of a solar mass

"That's no moon..."

A Texas mickey

Any of the many Steven Segal movies that were a bomb.

A weekend of pizza and beer, then more more pizza and beer on a holiday Monday.

http://www.filmsite.org/posters/kingk4.jpg"Kong, Kong, Kong."

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by dsm


You mean the one where Bush devoted 37 paragraphs to Iraq of which 1 spoke of Saddam Hussein's torture of Iraqis and 1 spoke of his use of WMDs against Iraqis while 25 paragraphs are devoted to the (as Dr. Chinese might say) "mythical" WMDs still in Iraq.

Yeah, he really had "humanitarian issues" on his mind... :rolleyes:

If the "he" you refer to is Saddam Hussein, I fully agree with the rolling eyes.

I am equally impressed by your analysis of the speech as I am of your reference to Dr. Chinese :rolleyes:.

Perhaps you should read it again, especially this part:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

[Ion]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

...
Perhaps you should read it again, especially this part...

I think that you should re-read that part and pit it against discoveries.

So that you don't 'justify' a fabricated war.

Then come back here.

To finally talk with some sense.

[dsm]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
If the "he" you refer to is Saddam Hussein, I fully agree with the rolling eyes.

To paraphrase Daffy Duck, "(I see you have) pronoun trouble!" :rolleyes:

I am equally impressed by your analysis of the speech as I am of your reference to Dr. Chinese :rolleyes:.

Just as I was equally impressed by your reference to the speech in the first place. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should read it again, especially this part:

Bush is evil (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/wfbuckley/wfb20030910.shtml)

Check the reference in your signature again and then you might realize that Buckley makes absolutely no point!

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by dsm



Bush is evil (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/wfbuckley/wfb20030910.shtml)

Check the reference in your signature again and then you might realize that Buckley makes absolutely no point!

Missed that too, eh?

George Bush could ease that problem for Dean by simply becoming evil. But that is not something Howard Dean can safely count upon.

[dsm]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

Missed that too, eh?


Oh I saw it. That one statement at the end of the article was the strangest statement in the whole article as there was nothing else in the article from which to draw that conclusion -- he simply states it as if that makes it so. In other words, just because said by William F. Buckley (a man who once said he would only fly to speak engagements if they provided him with a plane that had "two right wings"), doesn't make it so.

:p

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by dsm


Oh I saw it. That one statement at the end of the article was the strangest statement in the whole article as there was nothing else in the article from which to draw that conclusion -- he simply states it as if that makes it so. In other words, just because said by William F. Buckley (a man who once said he would only fly to speak engagements if they provided him with a plane that had "two right wings"), doesn't make it so.

:p

What Buckley is saying is that when push comes to shove, Dean is going to come off as being hateful and crazy in the eyes of most voters. He's painted himself into a corner where he can continue his present course and probably lose, like most anti-war candidates fighting an incumbent during wartime have; or he can make an about-face by becoming more moderate and trying to focus on how bad the recovering economy is and lose the voter base who got him the nomination. Either way, Dean is likely to lose.

That's the trouble with quoting Buckley, you end up having to 'splain it to yo homies. :D

[Ion]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


What Buckley is saying is that when push comes to shove, Dean is going to come off as being hateful and crazy in the eyes of most voters.
...

Really?

And Bush who fabricated a war for oil, is not "...hateful and crazy..."?

Think WMDs in Iraq.

I think that voters should consider this foremost.

[dsm]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

That's the trouble with quoting Buckley, you end up having to 'splain it to yo homies. :D

To quote another "well-known politician":

"Are you better off now then you were four years ago?"

:p

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Ion

Really?

And Bush who fabricated a war for oil, is not "...hateful and crazy..."?

Think WMDs in Iraq.

I think that voters should consider this foremost.

Dean's entire platform to date is "Bush is evil". It won't fly in a general election, there simply aren't enough left-wing crackpots in the general populace. Dean will have to work out another strategy.

The Democrats are living on Fantasy Island and all they keep saying is "The Plan! The Plan, Boss, The Plan!" Exactly where is this enlightened plan that is going to get us out of Iraq, straighten out the world's economy, make the French love us again and save the baby whales?

Could this be part of the "plan"?
With Dean in command, U.S. soldiers would be left high and dry (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4265219.html)

So what would you have us do, go back to the "plan" that failed so miserably for so many years and eventually allowed the US to be attacked on it's own soil?

Think Twin Towers ... again.

[Ion]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Dean's entire platform to date is "Bush is evil". It won't fly in a general election, there simply aren't enough left-wing crackpots in the general populace. Dean will have to work out another strategy.
...

Dean has a well-rounded strategy.

Based on healthcare coverage (like when he was in Vermont), jobs, no unnecessary wars like in Iraq, and no involvement of religion in politics.

He might run with general Clark as Vice-President, I don't know...

As for the Twin Towers, he might have implemented earlier Clinton's plan that Bush implemented too late, after September 11.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Ion

Dean has a well-rounded strategy.

Based on healthcare coverage (like when he was in Vermont), jobs, no unnecessary wars like in Iraq, and no involvement of religion in politics.

He might run with general Clark as Vice-President, I don't know...

As for the Twin Towers, he might have implemented earlier Clinton's plan that Bush implemented too late, after September 11.

You realize that his "universal" health care proposal only applies to persons with incomes lower than $16,613 per year? It doesn't get any more "universal" than that :p. He intends to pay for this program by repealing the Bush tax cuts.

His plan for jobs is to enact major federal legislation designed to protect labor unions.
There should be meaningful financial penalties available to federal regulators when an employer fails to negotiate in good faith with a union.

WTF is "good faith" and how do you define it in legal terms? Didn't give them everything they wanted? Well, you're in violation of the federal "good faith" laws.

My opposition to the war, however, is part of a comprehensive view of America’s role in the world that I presented to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25th (click here for full text). In that speech, I laid out four goals for American leadership in the world:

First, defeat the threat posed by terrorists, tyrants, and technologies of mass destruction.
Second, strengthen our alliances and ensure Russia and China are fully integrated into a stable international order.
Third, enlarge the circle of beneficiaries of the growing world economy.
And fourth, ensure that life on our fragile planet is sustainable.


He won't be able to achieve #1, will he? Get real...

#2 Kiss up to Russia and China? That should make our European allies feel real comfortable.

#3 Outsource more jobs overseas? Damn, I wish I'd thought of that.

#4 I think he gets foreign policy and ecology a bit mixed up, unless of course, he has plans to sign the Kyoto Treaty.

Originally posted by Ion
As for the Twin Towers, he might have implemented earlier Clinton's plan that Bush implemented too late, after September 11.

Which plan was that? The one where Clinton let Osama Bin Laden go free?

(The other quotes are off of
Howard Dean's Campaign Site (http://www.deanforamerica.com/))

[Jocko]

Originally posted by dsm


To quote another "well-known politician":

"Are you better off now then you were four years ago?"

:p

I might've been if someone didn't pooh-pooh Osama bin Laden on a platter... twice, IIRC.

[Ion]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


You realize that his "universal" health care proposal only applies to persons with incomes lower than $16,613 per year? It doesn't get any more "universal" than that :p. He intends to pay for this program by repealing the Bush tax cuts.

His plan for jobs is to enact major federal legislation designed to protect labor unions.
...
Which plan was that? The one where Clinton let Osama Bin Laden go free?
...

Most of my knowledge of Dean comes from his success in Vermont, and from his current stated positions on issues.

So I assume a lot.

Without knowing what he could do.

I notice that he is a brainy calculator of things:

.) he became endorsed by two unions;

.) he became endorsed by Gore;

(and he calculated this since the start of the race for Democrat nomination -unlike the other Democrats- by phoning Gore for advices)

.) he calculated from the beginning that the war in Iraq is a waste and it is wrong;

.) he tried to reach out to Southern racist rednecks.

As for Clinton's plan against terrorism that Bush delayed to implement and finally implemented after 2001, it is about a plan that Clinton drew and handed personally to Bush.

Now it is enacted as HomeSomething Security, and is headed by someone named Tom Ridge.

If Dean would have implemented this quicker than Bush, or if Dean would have a better idea about this security thing than Bush does, I don't know it.

I assume that Dean would do better than Bush, because everything under Bush (economy, war, security, diplomacy) goes awry, it cannot get much worse, and Dean appears to be pretty intelligent in contrast.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Ion

.) he became endorsed by two unions;

Dean has a history of campaign contributions from labor unions, some of which are no more than organized crime and now he wants to enact laws to provide protectionism for labor unions. No big shocker, he's another Gray Davis.

.) he became endorsed by Gore;

(and he calculated this since the start of the race for Democrat nomination -unlike the other Democrats- by phoning Gore for advices)

Here's a replay of the phone conversation:
Howie: Hello, Al?
Al:Yes?
Howie: Al, I hate Bush too. I'm not just talkin' politics here, I really, really hate Dubya.
Al: My man! Keepin' it real! I'll get my homeys and we'll go do some drive-bys on the G-O-P and get gone before the pO-lice show up.
Howie: Thanks, Al.
Al: Just be sure and mention that I won the popular vote, O.K.?
Howie: You got it!

.) he calculated from the beginning that the war in Iraq is a waste and it is wrong;
And Dean is wrong. Dean himself has a lot of tough talk about protecting the US and the world from terrorists. How does he propose to accomplish these goals? Close his eyes and wish really, really hard?

.) he tried to reach out to Southern racist rednecks.

And it cost him a lot, politically. Dean is a strange mix of pro-abortion and pro-gun. Can you say faux-pas?

As for Clinton's plan against terrorism that Bush delayed to implement and finally implemented after 2001, it is about a plan that Clinton drew and handed personally to Bush.

What color of crayons did Bill use? I have seen six year olds who can draw a better plan.
Now it is enacted as HomeSomething Security, and is headed by someone named Tom Ridge.
If Dean would have implemented this quicker than Bush, or if Dean would have a better idea about this security thing than Bush does, I don't know it.

I have a feeling that either one would have had to do the same exact thing under the circumstances.
I assume that Dean would do better than Bush, because everything under Bush (economy, war, security, diplomacy) goes awry, it cannot get much worse, and Dean appears to be pretty intelligent in contrast.
In case you haven't heard, the economy is recovering at a pretty good rate. Unless the economy makes a severe downturn during the election year, Dean will look like an idiot criticizing the economy. Dean will have to hammer on the national debt, which has been soaring since the Nixon days.

Bush led the US forces to win two wars in a very short time with a minimum of civilian casualties. Dean will have to concentrate on issues of "keeping the peace" in Afganistan and Iraq, rather than the war, unless Dean wishes to be made a fool out of. The Democrats blundered by playing the "where's the WMD?" card way too early ... nobody cares now. Getting rid of Saddam was a good idea, no matter how it got done. The end does justify the means, in politics anyway.

We haven't had one single attack on US soil since Homeland Security was put into place, not even another anthrax scare. Did those nasty terrorists decide to give us a break? Dean will have to concentrate on the perception of reduction of rights and personal freedoms in the US.

You want to see things get worse? Become one of the "Howard Empowered" and elect Dean.