WMD, They did too have them!

[Tigermike 3,058]

A former Lt. Colonel in the Iraqi Army, who apparently had been a spy for years and is now working for the Iraqi Governing Council, says that Iraq did too have weapons of mass destruction. He says he saw them, that they were designed to be launched by hand-held rockets, and were to be used only on the personal orders of Saddam Hussein.

http://www.theoptimate.com/2041/wrapper.js...ID=2041-120803A

[Tiger Al 0]

Mike, I applaud you for your loyalty. Misplaced as it is, I applaud you.

I've got a few problems with this article and what it says. Big surprise, huh!!! I found in the last paragraph an interesting train of thought:

Bringing stability and prosperity to Iraq and winning the war on terrorism remain, but the first requirement for their success is resolve. By focusing on the red herring of WMD's, and ignoring or attempting to discredit evidence such as that provided by al-Dabbagh (as they have also done with regard to evidence of Iraqi/al-Qaeda links), politicians and media establishments who have other agendas threaten that resolve and thus expose their lack of commitment to stability in the middle east and peace in the world.

The subject of WMD's was the very heart of this guy's article. WMD's were the primary reason Bush said we needed to invade Iraq. Look at the 2003 State of the Union Address if you don't believe it. WMD's in Iraq was the problem that Colin Powell addressed the UN about. Remember all of the little vials he held up saying that if this was such and such it could do this and that? He said that's why we needed to invade Iraq. WMD's are no 'red herring'. Rape rooms and 15 year old Kurdish gassings are the red herring. Terrible and horrendous, yes. But they were never the first, second or third reason that the administration pushed for war.

The Iraqi source in the article, Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh, was an admitted spy for the Iraqi National Accord, a London-based exile group. This is in the first paragraph of the INA's website:

The Iraqi National Accord (I.N.A) was established in 1990 to achieve a democratic pluralistic regime that respects human rights and lives peacefully with its citizens, neighbors and the whole world. (I.N.A) advocates the removal of Saddam's regime.

I would seriously question the accuracy of anything this guy said. Unless, of course, I was predisposed to want to believe anything he said. I'm not saying he's lying, just that he would seem to have great motivation to do so. An unnamed Iraqi General in the article also doubted the story, though the author didn't seem to give much credence to him.

More importantly, though, is the story itself. Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh said that the chemical or biological weapons were designed to be launched by hand-held rockets, or rocket propelled grenades (RPG's), and that these were what he was quoted as talking about when British intelligence, in September 2002, said that Iraq had WMD's that could be launched within 45 minutes. Yet, we were told that those weapons that could be launched and strike US and British targets were long range missiles. RPG's don't have a range of more than a few thousand meters at best. We were told of massive warheads with long range capabilities (hundreds of miles), not shoulder mounted weapons.

About the poison itself. Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh didn't know whether it was chemical or bio. If it was chemical, we should know for a fact that those weapons would be useless, as Iraq was unable to reconstitute chemical manufacturing, so the weapon would've been loaded with an inert substance. Bio, depending on what it was, would probably be useless as well.

Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh also said, "The only reason that these weapons were not used, said Col al-Dabbagh, was because the bulk of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam." So, why didn't the part of the army that chose to fight use them? They certainly could've used them. I remember watching on television during the war (the one that occurred before 5/1) and I would look for gas masks when they showed captured equipment from the field that Iraqi soldiers were carrying. I never saw any. They showed boxes of old ones in abandoned buildings, but I never saw any with the soldiers themselves. I found that curious for an army that was supposedly in possession of chem/bio weapons and prepared to use them.

It is now possible to understand why Saddam could not permit Blix the kind of access that would have given a firm and final answer to the question about WMD's. Consider, for example, Blix's request to search the Presidential Palaces.

UNMOVIC was given unfettered access for three months before Bush had them pulled so he could attack Iraq. For that three months they found nothing.

The sad truth is, UN inspections and sanctions had achieved the disarmament of Iraq by and large. Could some small, unaccounted for amount of chem or bio agent be discovered? Maybe. Further UN action could've taken care of that without the need for the war which has killed too many Americans and Iraqi's.

[Donutboy 0]

Mike, I applaud you for your loyalty. Misplaced as it is, I applaud you.

I've got a few problems with this article and what it says. Big surprise, huh!!! I found in the last paragraph an interesting train of thought:

Bringing stability and prosperity to Iraq and winning the war on terrorism remain, but the first requirement for their success is resolve. By focusing on the red herring of WMD's, and ignoring or attempting to discredit evidence such as that provided by al-Dabbagh (as they have also done with regard to evidence of Iraqi/al-Qaeda links), politicians and media establishments who have other agendas threaten that resolve and thus expose their lack of commitment to stability in the middle east and peace in the world.

The subject of WMD's was the very heart of this guy's article. WMD's were the primary reason Bush said we needed to invade Iraq. Look at the 2003 State of the Union Address if you don't believe it. WMD's in Iraq was the problem that Colin Powell addressed the UN about. Remember all of the little vials he held up saying that if this was such and such it could do this and that? He said that's why we needed to invade Iraq. WMD's are no 'red herring'. Rape rooms and 15 year old Kurdish gassings are the red herring. Terrible and horrendous, yes. But they were never the first, second or third reason that the administration pushed for war.

The Iraqi source in the article, Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh, was an admitted spy for the Iraqi National Accord, a London-based exile group. This is in the first paragraph of the INA's website:

The Iraqi National Accord (I.N.A) was established in 1990 to achieve a democratic pluralistic regime that respects human rights and lives peacefully with its citizens, neighbors and the whole world. (I.N.A) advocates the removal of Saddam's regime.

I would seriously question the accuracy of anything this guy said. Unless, of course, I was predisposed to want to believe anything he said. I'm not saying he's lying, just that he would seem to have great motivation to do so. An unnamed Iraqi General in the article also doubted the story, though the author didn't seem to give much credence to him.

More importantly, though, is the story itself. Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh said that the chemical or biological weapons were designed to be launched by hand-held rockets, or rocket propelled grenades (RPG's), and that these were what he was quoted as talking about when British intelligence, in September 2002, said that Iraq had WMD's that could be launched within 45 minutes. Yet, we were told that those weapons that could be launched and strike US and British targets were long range missiles. RPG's don't have a range of more than a few thousand meters at best. We were told of massive warheads with long range capabilities (hundreds of miles), not shoulder mounted weapons.

About the poison itself. Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh didn't know whether it was chemical or bio. If it was chemical, we should know for a fact that those weapons would be useless, as Iraq was unable to reconstitute chemical manufacturing, so the weapon would've been loaded with an inert substance. Bio, depending on what it was, would probably be useless as well.

Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh also said, "The only reason that these weapons were not used, said Col al-Dabbagh, was because the bulk of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam." So, why didn't the part of the army that chose to fight use them? They certainly could've used them. I remember watching on television during the war (the one that occurred before 5/1) and I would look for gas masks when they showed captured equipment from the field that Iraqi soldiers were carrying. I never saw any. They showed boxes of old ones in abandoned buildings, but I never saw any with the soldiers themselves. I found that curious for an army that was supposedly in possession of chem/bio weapons and prepared to use them.

It is now possible to understand why Saddam could not permit Blix the kind of access that would have given a firm and final answer to the question about WMD's. Consider, for example, Blix's request to search the Presidential Palaces.

UNMOVIC was given unfettered access for three months before Bush had them pulled so he could attack Iraq. For that three months they found nothing.

The sad truth is, UN inspections and sanctions had achieved the disarmament of Iraq by and large. Could some small, unaccounted for amount of chem or bio agent be discovered? Maybe. Further UN action could've taken care of that without the need for the war which has killed too many Americans and Iraqi's.

There you go again Al. Using logic and truth to discredit their stories. Of course, the irony is that we're supposed to believe that Iraq had these weapons because some enemy of Saddam's says, "but they really did", when we've been in occupation of their country since Springtime and haven't found even one shred of evidence that he did. It's amazing all of the evidence we could provide for the UN and the American citizens to sell this war when we had no access to their country but now that we control their country, we can't find anything!! We must have had the spy satellites turned off when Saddam was hiding all of his WMDs.

[Tigermike 3,058]

They haven't found Ossama ben Laden, or Sodam Hussein either, so I guess they never existed.

[Donutboy 0]

They haven't found Ossama ben Laden, or Sodam Hussein either, so I guess they never existed.

Actually, there is proof of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's existence. They've been seen and heard. No one's seen or heard of these mysterious WMDs. Just because they existed in George W.'s mind doesn't make them real.

[Tigermike 3,058]

. Just because they existed in George W.'s mind doesn't make them real.

And just because you follow the democratic party line about President Bush does not make it real either. Disagreement I can understand, but the rancor you people live with daily is unbelievable. I have come to believe you folks hope your maliciousness will be infectious, but it won't.

It would not be easy to conceive the passion, rancor, and malice of their tongues and hearts. --Burke.

[Donutboy 0]

. Just because they existed in George W.'s mind doesn't make them real.

And just because you follow the democratic party line about President Bush does not make it real either. Disagreement I can understand, but the rancor you people live with daily is unbelievable. I have come to believe you folks hope your maliciousness will be infectious, but it won't.

It would not be easy to conceive the passion, rancor, and malice of their tongues and hearts. --Burke.

It's not just the Democratic line. It was the Republican line. Iraq had WMDs. They could mobilize them in 45 minutes. They were seeking to buy enriched plutonium from Africa. Saddam Hussein was an "imminent threat" with his mid-to-long range missles. Once we overthrew Saddam, we'd find the WMDs and have all the proof the rest of the skeptical world didn't believe. We're still waiting!!

[AURainman 6]

Just because they existed in George W.'s mind doesn't make them real.

Okay, so now our president is a delusional mental patient. We launched wave after wave of attack on Saddam Hussein's Iraq because our president is delusional. Is that your stance?! If so, you should be campaigning for him to be institutionalized. Is that what you want?

[Donutboy 0]

Just because they existed in George W.'s mind doesn't make them real.

Okay, so now our president is a delusional mental patient. We launched wave after wave of attack on Saddam Hussein's Iraq because our president is delusional. Is that your stance?! If so, you should be campaigning for him to be institutionalized. Is that what you want?

No, but being honest for once in his life would be a nice start. How about a simple, I lead us into a war on poor information. From now on, I will only trust information that we can verify by our own intelligence sources, the CIA and the FBI. To those American families who have lost and will lose loved ones because of my mistake, I offer my most, heart-felt apology. No one can feel worse about these lost lives than I do. Good can come of this war and I promise that your sacrifices will not have been in vain.

That'd be nice to hear.

[Tiger Al 0]

They haven't found Ossama ben Laden, or Sodam Hussein either, so I guess they never existed. 

Mike, maybe I've made a general assumption about this that needs to be cleared up. The question isn't whether Iraq or Saddam ever, at any time, possessed WMD's. Everyone knows he did. That's not the question. The question is did he possess them at the time that Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rice said he did. Their assertion was that at the time they made their statements for the case to invade Iraq that Saddam was in possession of major caches of WMD's because the UN had failed to adequately disarm him and sanctions hadn't worked.

My belief, based on what I've read from actual inspectors that had worked in Iraq and other people such as CIA as well as Bush administration officials, is that Iraq did not have the weapons that the administration said they had. My belief is that the UN inspectors had sufficiently disarmed Iraq of WMD's. So, therefore, Iraq was not the imminent military danger that the Bush administration said they were.

I look at this somewhat mathematically. If A. WMD's + B. Al-Quaeda connections + C. Attempting to attain nuclear capabilities + D. Brutal dictator = E. WAR - Then what happens if A, B and C don't exist and you're left only with D.? The question then becomes, "Is D. a good enough reason to go to war?" If it is, then THAT should've been the case that was made to the world through the UN instead of fabricating A, B and C. If, after making the case for D., the rest of the world still isn't buying it then the question becomes, "Is the removal of dictators a role the US wants to unilaterally embark on and, if so, when, if ever, do we stop?" My belief is that this isn't a role we want to play, are able to play or should play. This is best left done to unified coalitions such as the UN or NATO. We are not Romans.

Bush seems to have acted on one of at least two options. When faced with the prospect of starting a war with another country he said we must go to war with Iraq, now find me some reasons to do it. And so Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and the rest went about finding reasons to do it, whether those reasons were founded on reliable information or not. This then begs the question that if the purported reasons were basically invalid, then what is the real reason for going to war? Many popular theories that I don't care to go into can be inserted here. At any rate, this isn't the kind of policy making that is in the best interests of this country.

Or, the administration honestly believed the bogus information that they were given, even in the face of facts that showed that information to be false, and acted anyway. That would then lead me to believe that this administration isn't capable of making sound decisions and that isn't in the best interest of this country, either.

[MDM4AU 336]

AL and Donutboy:

Are you two the basis for the new movie, "Stuck On You?"

(Movie Webpage Link )

I think it is hilarious how you answer each others posts so much. That is so cute!

[CShine 0]

This Jay Bryant article might actually have some credibility if it gave just one single quote from this Iraqi officer. When I see, say, ONE quote from the man then maybe I'll give it some serious consideration. But if Mr. Bryant can't even bother himself to give us ONE SUBSTANTIVE QUOTE from the guy, I don't see how any of us are supposed to take it seriously. Get back with us when you've actually got some direct quotes that we can look at with our own eyes.