Smoking Gun in Iraq

[Donutboy 0]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 - As American soldiers massed on the Iraqi border in March and diplomats argued about war, an influential adviser to the Pentagon received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal.

Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search.

Read the rest of the article

[aucorner 0]

too little, too late............................if Saddam was really serious, this would have happened long before we had troops massed at the border. Maybe what was really meant was, 'I have wiped my country clean of all illegal weapons now and you can come in and take a look.'

[Donutboy 0]

too little, too late............................if Saddam was really serious, this would have happened long before we had troops massed at the border. Maybe what was really meant was, 'I have wiped my country clean of all illegal weapons now and you can come in and take a look.'

Well-l-l-l-l-l, if he HAD cleaned his country of WMDs and he offered to allow our military to come in and verify it, wasn't our mission accomplished BEFORE we sent troops into a guerilla war that has been described by upper White House officials as a "slog" and a battle that might take decades to win? What kind of decison is that? You're clean but we're going to wage a long, deadly war on you anyway!?!?!?!?

[MDM4AU 336]

And we were supposed to believe this of Saddam because he had been so upfront and honest with us and the UN before!

Give it up, donuthole.

[rexbo 104]

...wasn't our mission accomplished BEFORE we sent troops into a guerilla war...

No, our mission was regime change, were you not listening to the President last Fall and Spring? And we have accomplished that part; democracy is beginning to take hold in Iraq after only 6 months, despite the best efforts of the Democrats and the Islamic terrorists...

You need to go back and study your history, Hitler proved to Chamberlin and the world that you do not negotiate with brutal dictators. Thankfully, our President is much more like Churchill than Chamberlin.

[Donutboy 0]

And we were supposed to believe this of Saddam because he had been so upfront and honest with us and the UN before!

Give it up, donuthole.

I've been very civil in my time here. Is there any reason that you feel the need to resort to name-calling? It's Donutboy, not Donuthole. If grade school discussion is what you want, clear it with the moderators and I can then call you doodyhole. Please, we don't need the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity demeanor in here. We're all adults and should treat each other as such, whether we agree on an issue or not!!

[Donutboy 0]

...wasn't our mission accomplished BEFORE we sent troops into a guerilla war...

No, our mission was regime change, were you not listening to the President last Fall and Spring? And we have accomplished that part; democracy is beginning to take hold in Iraq after only 6 months, despite the best efforts of the Democrats and the Islamic terrorists...

You need to go back and study your history, Hitler proved to Chamberlin and the world that you do not negotiate with brutal dictators. Thankfully, our President is much more like Churchill than Chamberlin.

No, our stated mission before the war was to rid Iraq of the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were an immient threat to our nation and our allies. Remember how Hussein had the capability of mobilizing them and striking us in 45 minutes time? Of course, since we've now learned that there were no WMDs, the Republicans have been in spin control overtime trying to re-write the reasons we went to war.

[Tigermike 3,052]

No, our stated mission before the war was to rid Iraq of the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were an immient threat to our nation and our allies. Remember how Hussein had the capability of mobilizing them and striking us in 45 minutes time? Of course, since we've now learned that there were no WMDs, the Republicans have been in spin control overtime trying to re-write the reasons we went to war.

Your assumption seems to be that since the WMD have not been found, that they do not now and also never existed. To which I would have to say BULLCRAP!

Saddam Hussien, Osama Ben Laden & Jimmy Hoffa have never been found either,

do they not exist?

Soddom only had TEN years to hide the darn things. When the US started going to the UN after 9/11 to form a coalition, he still had over a year to take them to God knows where.

[Donutboy 0]

No, our stated mission before the war was to rid Iraq of the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were an immient threat to our nation and our allies. Remember how Hussein had the capability of mobilizing them and striking us in 45 minutes time? Of course, since we've now learned that there were no WMDs, the Republicans have been in spin control overtime trying to re-write the reasons we went to war.

Your assumption seems to be that since the WMD have not been found, that they do not now and also never existed. To which I would have to say BULLCRAP!

Saddam Hussien, Osama Ben Laden & Jimmy Hoffa have never been found either,

do they not exist?

Soddom only had TEN years to hide the darn things. When the US started going to the UN after 9/11 to form a coalition, he still had over a year to take them to God knows where.

Colin Powell went to the UN and told that we had evidence that Saddam had these WMD. He provided satellite photos of what he referred to as mobile weapons units that they could move the weapons around daily before the weapons inspectors showed up. If we could track these mobile labs, why can't we find them now? How easy do you think it would be to hide weapons labs with the entire world watching your every move? How easy would it be to hide them when you knew the United States was watching from satellites?

We were assured before the war that after the war was over, the scientists would then be willing to talk freely about the WMD labs, their work making these weapons and provide details on where these labs could be found. So far, we have learned zilch from these "liberated" scientists.

I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein never had WMDs nor that he never poisoned his own citizens. We provided him with WMDs back in the eighties when we considered Iran to be our mortal enemy in the region. Hussein was a friend to the Reagan-Bush administration, even though we KNEW he was not only using the poison gas on Iran but also on the Kurds to the north of his own country.. That was acceptable at the time because we considered him our friend. An enemy of our enemy has to be a friend. That was the thinking then and is still the thinking today. Do the attrocities at "Chop-Chop Square" in Saudi Arabia concern Conservatives today? According to Amnesty Intenational, there are as many attrocities going on in Saudi Arabia as there ever were in Iraq. It's part of the culture in that part of the world.

Pardon me for getting of subject a bit, so.... back to the WMDs discussion. Yes, Iraq HAD WMDs. I've never denied it and I don't think you'll find any other liberal who denies that fact. Heck, we gave them to them. Of course, Reagan/Bush armed and trained Osama Bin Laden, too, but that's another story. Anyway, after the Gulf War, Iraq was forced to dismantle and destroy those weapons. There has never been any indication otherwise that Iraq was not fully in compliance with that order. The UN could find no evidence of WMD and neither has the US.

[Tigermike 3,052]

Colin Powell went to the UN and told that we had evidence that Saddam had these WMD.

And the world agreed with him! Even the French & Germans agreed, but then did all they could to stop the US. Why because they were making money hand over fist with Soddam.

He provided satellite photos of what he referred to as mobile weapons units that they could move the weapons around daily before the weapons inspectors showed up. If we could track these mobile labs, why can't we find them now?

Obviously if we can't find them they NEVER were there were they? Where is Jimmy Hoffa?

How easy do you think it would be to hide weapons labs with the entire world watching your every move? How easy would it be to hide them when you knew the United States was watching from satellites?

Let me think,,,,,,,,,,, Just suppose the trucks carrying, whatever, drove into a bunker & the "loads" were transferred to other trucks. Where would they go then? Of course, "if we can't find them, they never existed".

We were assured before the war that after the war was over, the scientists would then be willing to talk freely about the WMD labs, their work making these weapons and provide details on where these labs could be found. So far, we have learned zilch from these "liberated" scientists.

As their famlies are taken out of Iraq, there is mo

I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein never had WMDs nor that he never poisoned his own citizens. We provided him with WMDs back in the eighties when we considered Iran to be our mortal enemy in the region.

I still don't consider Iran a friend, do you?

Hussein was a friend to the Reagan-Bush administration, even though we KNEW he was not only using the poison gas on Iran but also on the Kurds to the north of his own country

..

We should take it as gospel that Jimmy Carter & Slick Willie Clinton never did?

Do the attrocities at "Chop-Chop Square" in Saudi Arabia concern Conservatives today? According to Amnesty Intenational, there are as many attrocities going on in Saudi Arabia as there ever were in Iraq. It's part of the culture in that part of the world.

So there are hundreds of mass graves, torture chambers, dungons in Saudi?

They are by no means democratic, but no one thinks they are on the same level as Soddom Hussin!

Anyway, after the Gulf War, Iraq was forced to dismantle and destroy those weapons. There has never been any indication otherwise that Iraq was not fully in compliance with that order. The UN could find no evidence of WMD and neither has the US.

And you know these WMD were dismantled how? They were not letting inspectors into Iraq, were we supposed to take their word they destroyed them. :roll:

[TrueTiger 0]

I agree. That is way too late. I think they still have wmd but they had them hid before we even thought about going over there.

WARR EAGLE

[Tiger Al 0]

The person responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Colin Powell, Greg Thielmann, says the Secretary of State misinformed Americans during his speech at the U.N. last winter. He said that at the time of Powell’s speech, Iraq didn’t pose an imminent threat to anyone – not even its own neighbors.

Yet, we were given very compelling reasons for invading Iraq due to its' dangerous and imminent threat to not only its' neighbors, but also to Israel and to the US itself.

Weapons of Mass Destruction-The Bush administration contended that Iraq had enormous stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, illegal missiles and were very close to achieving nuclear capability. If true, this would be a monumental reason to attack Iraq.

We were told that the al-Samoud II missile would travel 800 miles, over 700 miles further than was allowed. It was reported in February of this year that it only goes 108 miles, minus its' heavy guidance system. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

Iraq had attempted to purchase enriched uranium from Niger, said Bush. It was reported March 6 of this year by the UN's chief nuclear inspector that the documents were forged. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

We were told that U.S. intelligence indicated that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. According to top UN inspector Scott Ritter, this was the area of the inspections process that had the most profound impact by destroying Hussein's missile arsenal. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

Iraq also allegedly tried to import 81mm hardened aluminum tubes for gas centrifuges, used to enrich uranium. David Albright, a physicist and former UN weapons inspector said in October of last year that this purpose was unlikely and was most probably to be used for rockets. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

We were told of the thousands of tons of chemical weapons they possessed. This allegation didn't take into account weapons destroyed in the first Gulf War or by UNSCOM, according to a report dated June, 2000, by Scott Ritter. He also said that any unaccounted chemical agents would've deteriorated and been useless. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

Bush said Iraq had a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used in missions targeting the US. No such fleet ever existed. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

During the months of January-March of this year, due to threat of military action, UN weapons inspectors were given free reign over Iraq, including the Presidential palaces where the Bush administration claimed stockpiles of illegal weapons and mobile bio labs were located. Hussein allowed U2 spy planes to fly over Iraq. Inspectors went in with specific coordinates supplied by the US and found nothing. Surveillance photos purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found nothing. Within weeks, Bush ordered inspectors out of Iraq and began invasion.

Terrorism-The Bush administration asserted that Iraq had ties not only to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but, to 9/11 itself. Iraq was a training ground to the world's terrorists and, indeed, was funding, training and equipping them, the administration said. If true, there would be no doubt as to the magnitude of this threat or the speed with which it must be neutralized.

Condoleeza Rice said there were contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that could be documented. Unfortunately, they weren't. Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In fact, in an audio tape of bin Laden, he called Hussein's Ba'athist Party 'infidels.' According to an official British intelligence report written in January, 2003, "There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, there has been contact between the two in the past, but any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies." The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

According to Bush in Oct., 2002, "Iraq trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." The area in question was in the northern Iraq Kurdish province, separated from Hussein by the US no-fly zone. Had he wanted to aid or eliminate them, his reach did not extend that far. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted in February, at the UN, that Iraq supported other terrorist groups such as Ansar al-Islam. According to one of its' leaders, Majamuddin Fraraj Ahmad, in an interview with ABCNEWS February 5, 2003, "They are our enemy," adding that his group opposes Saddam Hussein because, unlike Osama bin Laden, Saddam is not a good Muslim. In fact, their leaders say they seek to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his government. The Bush administration knew this claim was false before we attacked, but did so anyway.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA chief of counter-terrrorism, says the Bush administration was putting fierce pressure on the CIA to produce evidence about the Iraq al-Qaeda link that it didn't have. "They are not getting it from the CIA because the CIA, to its credit, is telling it the way they see it, which is what they should be doing, describing the world as it is, not as policy-makers wish it to be, or hope it to be, but as it is." The Bush administration knew this before we attacked, but did so anyway.

Saddam Hussein the brutal dictator-There is no doubt that Hussein was a brutal, oppressive dictator. The case can be made that his sons were even worse. The gassing of Kurds, albeit in 1988, did happen. Political dissidents were imprisoned and tortured simply for disagreeing with the regime. Human rights was not high on Hussein's list of things to do. Had this been the argument to attack Iraq, it might've garnered more support in this country as well as the rest of the world. Maybe not. But, at least we would've been honest and not frittered away every ounce of goodwill the rest of the world poured on us following 9/11. Not working through the UN will be one of the biggest bugaboo's of this war, I believe. I think there will be long-term unrest because any government established will be viewed as an American puppet. I don't think that would've been the case had the UN been involved from the beginning. This will end up costing untold billions of dollars that I think could've been better spent rooting out legitimate terrorist groups elsewhere. As our attention was diverted toward Iraq, Taliban and al Qaeda members have begun re-infesting Afghanistan.

In the end, Saddam Hussein is gone, which is a good thing. I just don't think that end justified the means with which the Bush administration got there.

[Ranger12 46]

Bottom line is that this whole story is basically a feeble attempt from the liberals to discredit Bush. It was a story without the whole story. The last ditch efforts were bogus and not authorized by Saddam. Why should have anybody have been surprised if it would have been? Saddam had been playing that game since the first Gulf War and would have continued to jerk our chains if we would have kept letting him. An evil man has been taken out of power and why can't the liberals by happy with that instead of trying to be negative about it. I guess our national security and the world itself would be a better place if Saddam was still in power helping an financing terrorism huh? I get tired of hearing this sickening crap that tries to put a spin on the war to make it seem like Bush is a warlover and lied. Like I said before, if liberals would have had their way back in WWII, then we would all probably be speaking German or Japanese right now. We sure the hell know that Great Britian would be speaking German. Geez!!!

[rexbo 104]

Could you imagine if these "high level talks" went so high as to put Bush and Saddam in the same room to "negotiate the peace", as the Democrats would have hoped for? We would have ended up with Saddam still in power terrorizing, raping and killing his own people. Bush's name would go the same historical route as Chamberlin, and the USA would have NO credibility in standing up to brutal dictators. 20 years from now TigerAl would be writing about how the problems in the Middle East were because Bush was coddling up with the dictators in the Middle East instead of pushing for freedom and democracy...

All this information tells me is I am even more proud of our administration in standing up to this huge problem; not letting the strong outside political forces from France and the Democratic party, and now supposed high level negotiations being proposed, stear them from their end goal; the removal of a brutal dictator in the heart of the Middle East and a chance for true democracy in a part of the world desperate for the same chance we have.

[Donutboy 0]

TigerAl, that was a great synopsis. Unfortunately, it seems to fall on a lot of deaf ears on this forum. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Even when faced with the truth, the spin continues. This administration can do no wrong. Forget that we're losing American lives daily while the ones who attacked us on September 11th, 2001 are rebanding unmolested while our focus is on Bush's own personal Bogie Man. Forget that we're giving away billion$ of OUR monies while our nation faces the largest budget deficit ever; twice the size of Bush's father's last budget deficit. We even removed the amendment to the Iraqi gift that would have prosecuted any company screwing our government with this Iraqi gift. No need for it after it had served it's purpose and persuaded enough Democrats to vote for the gift. Forget that the Ken Lay's of the nation are fleecing their companies into bankruptcy and losing their employees life savings while giving themselves multi-billion dollar severance golden parachutes. They can actually look forward to an extra million or two in tax breaks from their friend Georgy Boy. Forget that the government can now search your property without a search warrant and not even let you know your home had been disturbed. If you ain't got nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind "Big Brother" coming in and checking you out. Right? Never mind that the government can now hold you for months on end without filing charges against you. You can always start your life over when they finally decide to release you. Who needs separation of powers when one party can control the congress, the White House and the Supreme Court. It makes it a lot easier to decide elections without counting all of those pesky ballots. If you're too dumb to make sure your ballot has no hanging chads, you're not smart enough to choose your own leader anyway. Right? They could actually make a movie about all of this but George Orwell's descendants would have a lawsuit. Ever read 1984? He only missed it a couple of decades!!

[Tiger Al 0]

Thanks, Donutboy. The regime change discussion has been a wonderful exercise in circular reasoning, to say the least. The story is that we invaded Iraq because Saddam had WMD's, he was harboring/aiding al Quada, he helped out with 9/11, he was 45 minutes from striking "us" with his nukes, he was a brutal dictator who killed his own people and as a result of all of this, it became necessary to remove him. We'll pretend that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice both said in 2001 that Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone. Sanctions had worked and he had no offensive military capabilities.

Piece by piece, this mountain of evidence began to crumble. The nuke stuff and the al Quada fraternity was a sham. Bush has even recognized that. So that leaves WMD's and brutal dictatorship as the reasons for regime change.

Seems to me that if he had all those WMD's that Powell and Rumsfeld were talking about and those folks knew exactly where they were, they said they did, then who made the monumental screw up to let them disappear? If he had all those WMD's and he saw our forces building up for the big attack, why didn't he use them? What was he saving them for? If he had all those WMD's, why would he, as many of the people here like to assert, send them to other countries like Iran who, I'm sure you remember Donutboy, kept all of the fighter jets he hid there in Desert Storm? Why were weapons inspectors running all over Iraq from Jan-Mar 2003 going to every location Rumsfeld told them to (because we knew EXACTLY where they were) only to come up with what one of them termed "garbage?" If he had all of those WMD's then why did the DOD and the NSA feel the need to manipulate intelligence? And now, six months after "Mission Accomplished" the only "WMD's" that have been found are the RPG's that shot down two helicopters and killed 22 soldiers. Reasonable and rational people have come to the conclusion that weapons inspections worked and there weren't any more WMD's in Iraq.

But, they say, he was a brutal dictator who gassed his own, so he had to go!!! Yes, he was that. But, fifteen years and three administrations later seems a little late for righteous indignation. Is the removal of bad guys a role the U.S. wants to play in the world? If so, make that argument to the world and not some lame B.S. that no one else but the Brits (who did their share of lying, too) were willing to buy.

Now, the final cry is that Bush said last year that there needed to be a regime change. Don't you remember, Donutboy? I do, too. Only, the regime change was predicated on the belief that all the other crap was true! It wasn't.

The 2003 State of the Union address should've read something like this:

Good evening fellow Americans. Because of the tragic events of 9/11 we are at a crossroads. Everything's changed, now. The economy is bad. People are losing jobs at a record clip. Wildfires will be raging when summer gets here. My first tax cuts didn't work, so, there'll be more. And the deficit will get larger. You see, the terrorists did this to us. They did it because they hate the idea of our freedom. That we can eat dinner in peace. They hate our liberties and our courage and they even hate our SUV's. They do. Many people think it's because we support Israel and let them do what they want, have all the nuclear weapons they want and support them no matter what they do or how much fence they put up. But, that's not it. It's our freedom and our democracy. That's what 9/11 was about.

The terrorizers know that we're dependent on fossil fuels because that's our right. They don't like rights. Especially ours. They know we could lead the world in creating alternatives, but we won't. Why should we? It's expensive and that's what they want, for us to spend money to reduce our dependence on overseas oil that we don't own. Well, that's going to change soon. You see, what the terriers might not know is that I've hired a bunch of my friends from many sectors of this great land. Diversity. I've got my oil friends, my PNAC friends, and they've got a plan. That's right, folks. See, because of 9/11 we've been working on a way that will ensure that our dependence on foreign oil will never be disrupted again. And the key is Iraq.

They are the weakest Middle Eastern country with the most oil and we're going to get it. To do this, though, it will take a massive military effort. The initial part will be easy. Too easy. That's because we'll divert two divisions that are fighting terroristism in Afghanistan and send in more from home. Because of 9/11, this action is imminent. And important. Imminent, because Saddam is nearly disarmed and sanctions could be lifted soon. He can sell that oil hisself. And, make the money. Important, because my family is depending on it. And others too. The Cheneys. A lot of others whose lives might be ruined if we don't take this brave and heroic endeavor. But, we were forced to do this. You see, 9/11 changed everything.

So, in the coming days, I'll explain to you what we'll do to continue this war against the terrorizers. Thank you and may God bless America.