Wmd In Iraq

[j2k4]

Originally posted by nikita69@21 October 2003 - 10:53
It took me 1 min and 1 source (from the horses mouth so there is no ????)

QUESTION: Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.

SOURCE

Q Do you think the American people are prepared for casualties in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that that presumes there's some kind of imminent war plan. As I said, I have no timetable. What I do believe the American people understand is that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of leaders such as Saddam Hussein are very dangerous for ourselves, our allies. They understand the concept of blackmail. They know that when we speak of making the world more safe, we do so not only in the context of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but nations that have proven themselves to be bad neighbors and bad actors.

SOURCE

SIMPLE QUESTIONS, SCIENCE ROCKET ANSWERS

THE PRESIDENT: Three questions. Fournier.

Q Sir, is North Korea an imminent threat to the United States and what consequences, if any, will it face for hiding its nuclear program from you?

THE PRESIDENT: One, we had a bit of troubling news when we discovered the fact that, contrary to what we had been led to believe, that they were enriching uranium with the idea of developing a nuclear weapon. I say troubling news, obviously, because we felt like they had given their word they weren't going to do this.

I view this as an opportunity to work with our friends in the region and work with other countries in the region to ally against proliferation of serious weapons and to convince Kim Chong-il that he must disarm. To this end, I'm going to be talking to Jiang Zemin at Crawford. I look forward to a good discussion with the President of China about how we can work together to take our relationship to a new level in dealing with the true threats of the 21st century.

I will see the leaders of Japan and South Korea and Russia the next day, in Mexico. I intend to make this an important topic of our discussions. This is a chance for people who love freedom and peace to work together to deal with a -- to deal with an emerging threat. I believe we can deal with this threat peacefully, particularly if we work together. So this is an opportunity to work together.

Q They're not an imminent threat, though?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, that's an operative word. We view this very seriously. It is a troubling discovery, and it's a discovery that we intend to work with our friends to deal with. I believe we can do it peacefully. I look forward to working with people to encourage them that we must convince Kim Chong-il to disarm for the sake of peace. And the people who have got the most at stake, of course, in this posture are the people who are his neighbors.

Arshad.

Q Mr. President, can you explain so the boys in Lubbock can understand --

THE PRESIDENT: Crawford or Lubbock?

Q Lubbock or Crawford, both --

THE PRESIDENT: Lubbock is a little more sophisticated than Crawford, Arshad. (Laughter.)

Q Crawford, then.

THE PRESIDENT: Or Scotland, for that matter.

Q Why --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Arshad.

Q Why you threaten military action against Iraq, but you believe that Korea's nuclear weapons program only merits diplomatic efforts?

THE PRESIDENT: Saddam Hussein is unique, in this sense: he has thumbed his nose at the world for 11 years. The United Nations has passed 16 resolutions to deal with this man, and the resolutions are all aimed at disarmament, amongst other things. And for 11 years, he said, no, I refuse to disarm.

Now, what makes him even more unique is the fact he's actually gassed his own people. He has used weapons of mass destruction on neighboring countries and he's used weapons of mass destruction on his own citizenry. He wants to have a nuclear weapon. He has made it very clear he hates the United States and, as importantly, he hates friends of ours.

We've tried diplomacy. We're trying it one more time. I believe the free world, if we make up our mind to, can disarm this man peacefully.

But, if not -- if not, there's -- we have the will and the desire, as do other nations, to disarm Saddam. It's up to him to make that decision and it's up to the United Nations. And we'll determine here soon whether the United Nations has got the will, and then it's up to Saddam to make the decision.

Stretch.

Q Mr. President, again, for the good people of Crawford --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. It's been a big day for Crawford.

Q If you can explain this in a way that they and the rest of us will understand. There is some hints over the weekend, the possibility that taking weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq is our goal, raising the possibility or the implication that he could somehow remain in power.

Can you say authoritatively and declaratively whether you can achieve -- if you can achieve your aims there in a way that leaves him still in office?

THE PRESIDENT: The stated policy of the United States is regime change because, for 11 years, Saddam Hussein has ignored the United Nations and the free world. For 11 years, he has -- he said, look, you passed all these resolutions; I could care less what you passed. And that's why the stated policy of our government, the previous administration and this administration, is regime change -- because we don't believe he is going to change.

However, if he were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I've described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed.

END 3:42 P.M. EDT

SOURCE

nikita69-

From the "horses mouth"?

I believe the horse in question goes by the name of Bush, not Fleischer.

All those who say "GWB said IMMINENT!!" are referring to the 2003 State of the Union address, the relevant passage of which is as follows:


With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

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.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.


See? he didn't say it. You have allowed yourself to be misled by the politicians, the media, and your own willingness to believe what you are told by them.

[nikita69]

To be technical about it, GWB may not have used this exact word "immenent", however, anyone that thinks that the president of the US is the one in control of the country and/or the direction it takes, then I suggest that person to do some research about the subject first.

The days where the president has full control/direction over the major issues in the US were over right after JFK. Since then, the holder of the Oval Office is more like a symbol than a "Leader". In addition, as a society, our expectations of such position has gone down. And that, is our fault. Voters tolerate all kinds of mistake levels in many countries.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by nikita69@21 October 2003 - 14:15
To be technical about it, GWB may not have used this exact word "immenent", however, anyone that thinks that the president of the US is the one in control of the country and/or the direction it takes, then I suggest that person to do some research about the subject first.

The days where the president has full control/direction over the major issues in the US were over right after JFK. Since then, the holder of the Oval Office is more like a symbol than a "Leader". In addition, as a society, our expectations of such position has gone down. And that, is our fault. Voters tolerate all kinds of mistake levels in many countries.

This is evasive, nikita-

If the president is nothing but a puppet, why are the democrats lined up over the hill to be next? Why is Hillary so focused on 2008?

Your statement that "..anyone who thinks the president......etc." is plain flat wrong.

You imply that everyone agrees with your supposition, which implication and supposition are both demonstrably false.

If you believe GWB is a figurehead with no real power, why are you so supportive of a state of paranoia as to what he might do?

Can you answer this last, specifically?

[Rat Faced]

GW Bush never said "Imminent Threat" he just said threat, however now that you've used the word, you can agree that he implied it quite strongly on numerous occasions.

He also never corrected anyone that said this, as it played right into his hands...ie he could use his own Policy of "1st Strike", if Iraq was an "Imminent Threat".

As to the rest of this.....he did say on numerous occasions that Iraq had Stockpiles of WMD. It was also said on numerous occasions that the location of said stockpiles was known.

If the Ammunition is unmarked, then that will make the job very much easier...as all conventional ammunition is marked, very clearly, to differentiate between the different types of Shell and Fuze, inc colour coding. All you need do is look for the unmarked ammunition....


A thought also occurs however....

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

Apart from the obvious "Is Assembling" in regard to Iraq......

Take away "The Dictator", and replace the words "Iraqi Refugee's" with "Palestinians" in the above quote....and you are talking about Israel.

Add that to another quote of GW's......

THE PRESIDENT: The stated policy of the United States is regime change because, for 11 years, Saddam Hussein has ignored the United Nations and the free world. For 11 years, he has -- he said, look, you passed all these resolutions; I could care less what you passed. And that's why the stated policy of our government, the previous administration and this administration, is regime change -- because we don't believe he is going to change.

Replace 11 years with 35 years and Saddam Hussain with Israel....


You wonder why the world, especially the Islamic world, talks about Hypocracy?

[nikita69]

@j2k4

If you believe GWB is a figurehead with no real power, why are you so supportive of a state of paranoia as to what he might do?

I never implied nor asserted to the "state of parania" part. Simply responding to the article.
[end]

In addition what has been said already, I suggest the following remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd:
Today I Weep for My Country - I was surprised not to find it on his official site, eventhough that where I originally read it from.
The Truth Will Emerge
The Emperor Has No Clothes
Follow the Money in Iraq
Tell the World the True Cost of War
American Rhetoric Over the Top
Caspian Oil and Natural Gas Export Route Options - This was during a speech for Dick Cheney back in late 80's, yet the original link ("www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/casproute.html") no longer exists. WHY?

[Biggles]

I have to confess I have at no point felt that Saddam was an imminent or even medium term threat to the UK (and at 65+ he did not have a long term). It was, I believe Tony Blair and his various dossiers that started this imminent stuff rather than George Bush.

[As a total aside what was that "Or Scotland for that matter" about. Was it simply word association on GW's part as Crawford is an old and noble Scottish name? - I will give him the benefit of the doubt ]

I have also been rather non-plussed by the term WMD. Iraq's chemical weapon programme was only marginally more advanced than that of WW1. He did release gas on the Iranians and on Kurds living on the Iran/Iraq border; who he was convinced were helping Iran. This was done with barely a murmur from the West in 1987/88 who were desperately hoping he would succeed in overthrowing the Islamic leaders of Iran. Although unpleasant weapons, they are hardly in the nuclear category and have never, to my knowledge, been anything other than an extremely blunt and clumsy battlefield tool. They are more a weapon of fear than destruction.

In my view, Iraq had simply become a thorn too irritating in an already troublesome Middle East. This war, for good or ill, is ultimately about securing a number of keys in that important area.

1) To enable the US to withdraw from Saudi Arabia, whose presence is one of the key recruiting factors for AQ

2) To loosen up some of the constraints in the political arena so that Israel might consider adopting a more conciliatory approach with the Palestinians (be it through a reworked Oslo type agreement or the Road Map) It also removes a key supporter of some of the Palestinian militant groups.

3) To stabilise the economics of a region which ultimately impacts on every economy - even N. Korea

I believe other factors, like liberating Iraqis and fighting terroism in this instance are purely secondary, perhaps even tertiary. Indeed Tony Blair has conceded that the Iraqi war may actually increase current global terrorism.

I do not equate the Afghanistan conflict with the Iraqi one as the background is totally different. After the World Trade centre the US and the World at large had no option but to try and deal with the threat posed by AQ. Afghanistan is very much a work in progress and if it slips from the World agenda will revert to its age old tribal conflicts as quickly as snow melts off a dyke in the spring sun. The fact that Russians and US companies would like to put a pipeline through the country is neither here nor there. The Taliban were considering the proposition themselves. Arguably there is less chance of that happening in the foreseeable future than at any point. It would take more resources than it is worth to guard such a pipeline in the current climate there.

So, to the nub, Saddam had chemical and biological programmes before 1991. The UN destroyed much but it could not have possibly destroyed everything. Saddam's scientists who, unless they suddenly developed amensia, were well versed in the programmes and still worked in Iraq. In short I will be surprised if they don't find anything. I am however, unconvinced by the hidden shells in the massive conventional stock piles. How would the Iraqis find such weapons if that were the case? Why did they not use them in defence of their country? At the end of the day the Ba'athists had nothing to lose.

To argue that the war was about a potential future threat, as Iraq could never unlearn what it already knew, is a bit weak to say the least.

WMD were, to my mind, merely a convenient device necessary to deal with a much grander ambition. Ultimately, too much emphasis was placed on the WMD by TB and GW.... far too much emphasis. This may have been because they were relying on information that was inaccurate and consequently were confident that such weapons would readily be found. However, the majority of the world community was unconvinced by the danger Saddam posed in this area and, to date, it is they who stand vindicated.

Of course this does not mean that I think Saddam's removal is a bad thing. His regime was brutal and corrupt and a number of the goals (as I view them) were/are worthy in themselves. Nevertheless, the outcome of this adventure is not necessarily going to improve the long term ME situation, as events unfold we can only keep our fingers crossed. I also hope, in an effort to extract ourselves, we do not fall into the old trap of supporting a "reliable" hard man to take over control.

[Incidentaly, the phials found in the fridge referred to above dated from 1991. The scientist was too frightened to dump them in case Saddam's men came back for them as Saddam tended to frown on that sort of thing. As to the Congo Crimean bug ??? a geographical oddity if ever there was one.]


I suppose, in summary, I consider the geopolitical impact of the war to be the main factor, WMD are a sideshow which TB and GW have trapped themselves into performing nightly and twice on Saturday. They are, I suspect, desperately looking for stand-ins as they have better roles to play.

Alas, another edit for typos and an inelegant phrase or two.

[bigboab]

Originally posted by Biggles@21 October 2003 - 21:36
and at 65+ he did not have a long term.

Sorry to stray from the topic Biggles, but thanks. I will sleep easy tonight knowing that.

[Biggles]

Ooops!

Apologies to any of the chronologically challenged out there. A tad insensitive of me.

[bigboab]

Its only Clocker that is that big word you said.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by nikita69@21 October 2003 - 15:57
@j2k4

If you believe GWB is a figurehead with no real power, why are you so supportive of a state of paranoia as to what he might do?

I never implied nor asserted to the "state of parania" part. Simply responding to the article.
[end]

In addition what has been said already, I suggest the following remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd:
Today I Weep for My Country - I was surprised not to find it on his official site, eventhough that where I originally read it from.
The Truth Will Emerge
The Emperor Has No Clothes
Follow the Money in Iraq
Tell the World the True Cost of War
American Rhetoric Over the Top
Caspian Oil and Natural Gas Export Route Options - This was during a speech for Dick Cheney back in late 80's, yet the original link ("www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/casproute.html") no longer exists. WHY?

I apologize for the "state of paranoia" remark.

Let me simplify, then:

Why is everyone concerned about ole' gunslinger GWB, if he's just a figurehead, with no power or control?

As to your links, I assume you know nothing more about the Hon. Robert C. Byrd than what you've chosen to read?

Should I assume you believe the last link to have been deviously removed by Cheney?

If he is the "vice-president" wouldn't he likewise be "vice-powerless"?

Do you smell a conspiracy?