|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: Going to war with Iraq was wrong, Australian Prime Minister |
 |
|
| Quote: |
All the arguments Australia marshalled to justify sending troops to fight in Iraq proved to be wrong, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said today, as the country's 550 combat soldiers headed home.
In an admission that will make uncomfortable reading in London and Washington, the Labour leader dismissed one-by-one the reasons used by his predecessor, John Howard, to join the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq five years ago.
"Have further terrorist attacks been prevented? No, they have not been, as the victims of the Madrid train bombing will attest," Mr Rudd told parliament.
"Has any evidence of a link between weapons of mass destruction and the former Iraqi regime and terrorists been found? No.
"Have the actions of rogue states like Iran been moderated? No ... Iran's nuclear ambitions remain a fundamental challenge.
"After five years, has the humanitarian crisis in Iraq been removed? No it has not."
Mr Rudd, whose campaign for election last November included a pledge to withdraw Australian combat forces from Iraq, said pre-war intelligence had been "abused" by the Howard government.
He said there had been a "failure to disclose to the Australian people the qualified nature of the intelligence - for example, the pre-war warning that an attack on Iraq would increase the terrorist threat, not decrease it".
Mr Rudd, a former diplomat, also dismissed his predecessor's argument that Australia had been obliged to send troops to Iraq because of its long-standing alliance with the United States.
He said while he valued the alliance highly, it did not mean that Canberra should automatically accede to US requests for military support.
His comments came a day after Australia's 550-strong combat force began leaving its base at Tallil, 185 miles south of Baghdad.
Mr Howard, who has kept a low profile since being ousted from office six months ago, said he was still convinced that being part of the 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified.
"I firmly believe it was the right thing to have done," he said, while acknowledging that it was the hardest decision he made as prime minister and that the cost of the war had been "very, very heavy and much greater than anybody would have liked".
His decision to send troops was deeply influenced by the fact that he was in the US on an official visit on September 11, 2001, when terrorists struck New York and Washington.
Mr Howard was one of four leaders who supported the US-led coalition but who are all now out of office: Tony Blair, Jose Maria Aznar of Spain and Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski.
One of Mr Howard's former senior officials said the government had been fully briefed on the fact that invading Iraq would damage US prestige, foster anti-Western sentiment, require a massive troop presence and destabilise the wider Middle East.
"All that was predictable and I don't think the benefits of the West going in were worth the cost," the official, who declined to be named, told the Sydney Morning Herald.
"That was my judgment at the time and that hasn't changed."
Australia will still have about 800 military personnel in and around Iraq, including a 110-strong diplomatic security detachment in Baghdad, sailors on board warships in the Persian Gulf and Royal Australian Air Force crew. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It has been shown that Saddam did support terrorists.
It has been shown that Saddam had items that he was not supposed to have.
case closed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
It has been shown that Saddam did support terrorists.
It has been shown that Saddam had items that he was not supposed to have.
case closed. |
So sorry Joo. The AQ-Saddam link did not exist. There were no WMD found. 
Last edited by catman on Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Also the 9-11 comission said that there in fact were contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda. |
The AQ-Saddam link did not exist. Even the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq concludes as much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Commission confirms links
By Stephen J. Hadley
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite is true. The staff report documents such links.
The staff report concludes that:
� Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan."
� "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."
� "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan."
Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."
Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.
President Bush and members of his administration have said all along that there were contacts and that those contacts raised troubling questions.
For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leader of a terrorist group that is responsible for a number of deadly attacks throughout Iraq. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaeda for years. Zarqawi's network helped establish and operate an explosives and poisons facility in northeast Iraq. Zarqawi and nearly two-dozen al-Qaeda associates were in Baghdad before the fall of Saddam's regime. In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good" and that Baghdad could be transited quickly.
It may be that all of the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda never resulted in joint terrorist attacks. But considering all that we knew, no responsible leader could take for granted that such a collaboration would never happen.
Saddam had threatened American interests for more than a decade, harbored and assisted other terrorists, and possessed and used weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda had declared war on America, and bin Laden had called the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction to attack Americans a "religious duty."
The president did not order the liberation of Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. He sent American troops to Iraq to remove a grave and gathering threat to America's security. Because he acted, Iraq is free, and America and the world are safer.
Stephen J. Hadley is deputy national security adviser to President Bush.
|
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-17-hadley_x.htm
And Saddam did support other terror groups as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
Commission confirms links
By Stephen J. Hadley
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite is true. The staff report documents such links.
The staff report concludes that:
� Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan."
� "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."
� "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan."
Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."
Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.
President Bush and members of his administration have said all along that there were contacts and that those contacts raised troubling questions.
For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leader of a terrorist group that is responsible for a number of deadly attacks throughout Iraq. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaeda for years. Zarqawi's network helped establish and operate an explosives and poisons facility in northeast Iraq. Zarqawi and nearly two-dozen al-Qaeda associates were in Baghdad before the fall of Saddam's regime. In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good" and that Baghdad could be transited quickly.
It may be that all of the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda never resulted in joint terrorist attacks. But considering all that we knew, no responsible leader could take for granted that such a collaboration would never happen.
Saddam had threatened American interests for more than a decade, harbored and assisted other terrorists, and possessed and used weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda had declared war on America, and bin Laden had called the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction to attack Americans a "religious duty."
The president did not order the liberation of Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. He sent American troops to Iraq to remove a grave and gathering threat to America's security. Because he acted, Iraq is free, and America and the world are safer.
Stephen J. Hadley is deputy national security adviser to President Bush.
|
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-17-hadley_x.htm
And Saddam did support other terror groups as well. |
So you post a 4 year old article from the deputy national security adviser to President Bush claiming that there were Saddam ties to AQ. 
From the same link I posted. Though you already know this:
| Quote: |
| The intelligence community (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc) view, confirmed by the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, is that there was not a cooperative effort between the two and that Saddam did not support the 9/11 attacks. According to this view, the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely.[6] The Senate Report discussed the possibility of Saddam offering al-Qaeda training and safe-haven, but confirmed the CIA's conclusion that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two. |
That is it Joo. The opinions of Bush admin staff don't matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.
President Bush and members of his administration have said all along that there were contacts and that those contacts raised troubling questions. |
what about the head of the 9-11 commission?
What were the contacts about? Were they to do something nice or not.
And Saddam did support terror. That is not in question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 2:59 am Post subject: Re: Going to war with Iraq was wrong, Australian Prime Minis |
|
|
| It's too bad he wasn't Prime Minister five years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: Senate Finds Pre-War Bush Claims Exaggerated, False |
|
|
Look here. Yet another congressional report shoots down pre-war claims of AQ links as false.
| Quote: |
Claims by U.S. President George W. Bush and other top administration officials before the 2003 invasion of Iraq regarding Baghdad�s ties to al Qaeda and its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programmes were generally not supported by the evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had at the time, according to a major new report by the Senate Intelligence Committee released Thursday.
The long-awaited report, the last in a series published over the past several years by the committee, found that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, in particular, frequently made assertions in the run-up to the war that key intelligence agencies could not substantiate or about which there was substantial disagreement within the intelligence community.
�In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent,� the Committee chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, said on releasing the 172-page report. �As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.�
�There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence,� he added. �But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.�
The new reports also tend to bolster the charges made in a new book by former White House spokesman Scott McClellan, a long-time Bush aide who was considered part of the president�s inner circle during the same period.
�Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East,� according to McClellan�s memoir, �What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington�s Culture of Deception�.
�Over that summer of 2002, top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war� in part through �innuendo and implication� and �intentional ignoring of intelligence� that contradicted or cast doubt on their justifications for going to war, McClellan wrote.
The book, which skyrocketed to the top of the best-seller list even before it was officially released, has drawn considerable media attention over the last two weeks.
The two new reports are the last to be issued by the Committee on the use of intelligence by the administration before the war. Last year, the same Committee issued a report on the administration�s failure to heed warnings by the intelligence community, including two major reports by the National Intelligence Council (NIC), that an invasion of Iraq and its subsequent occupation would likely benefit al Qaeda, boost political Islam throughout the region, and give rise to possibly violent conflict between various sectarian and ethnic groups within Iraq � all conclusions that were downplayed or ignored by senior administration officials at the time.
The latest report was focused on comparing statements made by top administration officials, particularly Bush and Cheney, between August 2002 and the actual invasion in March 2003 with intelligence reports that were available to them at the time.
It found that the White House consistently exaggerated ties between al Qaeda and Iraq by repeatedly suggesting or outright asserting that the two forged an operational relationship that included the provision of weapons training and possibly WMD expertise. The report found that these allegations �were not substantiated by the intelligence� at the time they were made.
The report also found that the intelligence also contradicted the White House�s assertions that Saddam Hussein �was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attack against the United States.�
And it said that the intelligence community never confirmed the allegation, made repeatedly by Cheney in particular, that one of the 9/11 organisers, Mohammed Atta, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague several months before the attack.
�The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (9/11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,� Rockefeller said. �Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises.�
The intelligence community, according to the report, was also considerably more sceptical about the state of Iraq�s chemical weapons programme and especially its alleged nuclear weapons programme than was indicated by top administration officials at the time. Testimony by then-Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Iraqi government hid WMD in facilities buried deep underground did not reflect any of the intelligence held by the intelligence community at the time.
|
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42680 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: Senate Finds Pre-War Bush Claims Exaggerated, False |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
Look here. Yet another congressional report shoots down pre-war claims of AQ links as false.
| Quote: |
Claims by U.S. President George W. Bush and other top administration officials before the 2003 invasion of Iraq regarding Baghdad�s ties to al Qaeda and its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programmes were generally not supported by the evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had at the time, according to a major new report by the Senate Intelligence Committee released Thursday.
The long-awaited report, the last in a series published over the past several years by the committee, found that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, in particular, frequently made assertions in the run-up to the war that key intelligence agencies could not substantiate or about which there was substantial disagreement within the intelligence community.
�In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent,� the Committee chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, said on releasing the 172-page report. �As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.�
�There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence,� he added. �But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.�
The new reports also tend to bolster the charges made in a new book by former White House spokesman Scott McClellan, a long-time Bush aide who was considered part of the president�s inner circle during the same period.
�Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East,� according to McClellan�s memoir, �What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington�s Culture of Deception�.
�Over that summer of 2002, top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war� in part through �innuendo and implication� and �intentional ignoring of intelligence� that contradicted or cast doubt on their justifications for going to war, McClellan wrote.
The book, which skyrocketed to the top of the best-seller list even before it was officially released, has drawn considerable media attention over the last two weeks.
The two new reports are the last to be issued by the Committee on the use of intelligence by the administration before the war. Last year, the same Committee issued a report on the administration�s failure to heed warnings by the intelligence community, including two major reports by the National Intelligence Council (NIC), that an invasion of Iraq and its subsequent occupation would likely benefit al Qaeda, boost political Islam throughout the region, and give rise to possibly violent conflict between various sectarian and ethnic groups within Iraq � all conclusions that were downplayed or ignored by senior administration officials at the time.
The latest report was focused on comparing statements made by top administration officials, particularly Bush and Cheney, between August 2002 and the actual invasion in March 2003 with intelligence reports that were available to them at the time.
It found that the White House consistently exaggerated ties between al Qaeda and Iraq by repeatedly suggesting or outright asserting that the two forged an operational relationship that included the provision of weapons training and possibly WMD expertise. The report found that these allegations �were not substantiated by the intelligence� at the time they were made.
The report also found that the intelligence also contradicted the White House�s assertions that Saddam Hussein �was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attack against the United States.�
And it said that the intelligence community never confirmed the allegation, made repeatedly by Cheney in particular, that one of the 9/11 organisers, Mohammed Atta, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague several months before the attack.
�The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (9/11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,� Rockefeller said. �Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises.�
The intelligence community, according to the report, was also considerably more sceptical about the state of Iraq�s chemical weapons programme and especially its alleged nuclear weapons programme than was indicated by top administration officials at the time. Testimony by then-Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Iraqi government hid WMD in facilities buried deep underground did not reflect any of the intelligence held by the intelligence community at the time.
|
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42680 |
there were contacts. If Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda had contacts then do you think it was to do something good?
In any case this is also true.
| Quote: |
At the very least the report should dispel the notion that outwardly "secular" Saddam would never consort with religious types like al Qaeda. A pan-Arab nationalist, Saddam viewed radical Islamists as potential allies, and they likewise. According to a 1993 memo, Saddam decided to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia," where al Qaeda was then working with warlords against U.S. humanitarian forces. Saddam also trained Sudanese fighters in Iraq.
The Pentagon report cites this as "a tactical example" of their cooperation. When Saddam "was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing." Saddam took an interest in "far-flung terrorist groups . . . to locate any organization whose services he might use in the future." The Harmony documents "reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term version."
For 20 years, such "support" included using Fedayeen Saddam training camps to school terrorists, especially Palestinians but also non-Iraqis "directly associated" with al Qaeda, continuing up to the fall of Baghdad. Saddam also provided financial support and weapons, amounting to "a state-directed program of significant scale." In July 2001, the regime began patronizing a terror cartel in Bahrain calling itself the Army of Muhammad, which, according to an Iraqi memo, "is under the wings of bin Laden." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:46 am Post subject: Re: Going to war with Iraq was wrong, Australian Prime Minis |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| It's too bad he wasn't Prime Minister five years ago. |
Yeah. I'm not at all offended by his opinion: it seems bourne out by the end-results. But hasn't he crossed the line here by evaluating a decision by his immediate predecessor? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Did you know that a wheel is round? Fish swim too. Capitan Obvious is alive and well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
WMD: Believe Iraq or Believe the Evidence?
WorldThreats.com ^ | November 16, 2003 | Ryan Mauro
Posted on 11/16/2003 8:43:24 AM PST by Blindboy16
�WMD: Believe Iraq or Believe the Evidence?�
Compiled By: Ryan Mauro
[email protected]
It has been only 7 months since the war in Iraq even began, but charges that the United States lied about Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction are seen in the press daily. This report will examine evidence of WMD independently gathered from the press, and where they presently are. Before going further, I wish to make the following points:
1) The intelligence communities of every major country were confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003. These include the United States, Canada, France, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, even Iran and a slew of others. It was a working assumption that such WMD was in Iraq, so much that I never heard accusations that it wasn�t true until the political war heated up in March, 2003.
2) Colin Powell�s presentation at the UN in February 2003 proved that Iraq was deceiving UN inspectors. What is there to hide?
3) In 1995, a high-ranking Iraqi defector proved Iraq was building WMD despite the UN restrictions. After this was revealed, Iraq admitted it had violated UN restrictions. Why should we believe Iraq was in compliance with the UN today, when Saddam hasn�t in the past?
4) As shown in the Kay interim report, there were thousands of items that Saddam had that could be used in WMD programs. These are usually dual-use items�items that have an apparently �civilian� use and are bought as such, but then when coupled with other items, can make WMD goods. If Saddam violated sanctions, as we know for a fact, why should we believe he had respect for other UN demands? And why would he violate such sanctions to gain such items?
5) As shown in the Kay interim report, why was such an enormous amount of material not declared as required by the UN?
6) Much of the suspected WMDs can fit in a package the size of a palm of a hand. Together, almost all of the WMDs could fit in a two-car parking garage. Why do people expect us to find such items already? Saddam has had 12 years to make programs to deceive Western intelligence, and 4 years to do so without ANY Western interference. And only recently, Coalition forces found fighter jets under the desert sand. If we just recently found huge fighter jets, how can people complain we haven�t found WMD yet?
7) After Iraq admitted producing a certain amount of WMD, disarmament by the UN began. How come a large portion was not disarmed by the UN and Iraq first admitted that it was not disarmed, only to later say they destroyed them �unilaterally�? Why didn�t the Saddam regime just destroy them with UN supervision like the rest of them?
 There has been lots of evidence that Iraq infiltrated UN inspection and intelligence teams. Why are people surprised the UN didn�t find any WMD?
9) The UN recognized that Iraq was engaged in illicit activity and was not disarming by passing 18 resolutions demanding that Iraq did so. Are we going to believe Saddam Hussein over the world community?
10) With extensive business interests in Iraq, why are people surprised that countries like Russia, France and Germany opposed war with Saddam Hussein�s regime?
11) Bill Clinton is the one who originally put the focus on Saddam Hussein�s WMD possession and links to terrorists. How come when he bombed Iraq in 1998 for four days, there wasn�t such a political outcry that he may be wrong about WMD?
12) It is obvious that weapons would be hidden in the Sunni triangle, the most loyal area to the regime. Today, this area is still not pacified to the extent that would allow a full-fledged search in civilian homes and such. Without the most suspect area fully pacified, why are people jumping to the conclusion that WMDs are a lie?
I would like readers to first read the Kay Interim Report, which should convince any open-minded person that at the very least, Iraq had a research and development effort for WMDs, and was waiting to produce them once inspectors left and/or sanctions were lifted. Scientists were hired that could be quickly transferred to weapons work at a moment�s notice. However, at least one scientist claimed he worked in a chemical/biological program right up to the moments before war. At which point, they could be produced en masse. The media has inadequately reported on the Kay Report, which has a massive amount of evidence against the regime. Among the information is that documents prove that Iraq signed a $10 million contract with North Korea to receive the technology and equipment to made intermediate-range ballistic missiles (the supplies never came). And on the subject of missiles, Kay proved that Iraq was preparing fuel in 2002 that can only be used in SCUD missiles. The Kay Interim Report can be viewed here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
Iraq�s WMD Efforts
Possible findings of WMDs in Iraq are reported here because it is possible the Administration is holding out on releasing such finds, so it can be presented all at once. Kay has hinted at a full report being released around June-July, 2004.
The United States took a moderate stance on the WMD efforts. It ignored reports of progress. Of these reports, several would conclude that Iraq was helping Sudan and Libya develop ballistic missiles.[1] Iraq�s primary missile research was devoted to improving its 50 Al-Hussein medium-range missiles. Israel�s National Security Council concluded these missiles were being hidden in Iraq, and was making progress. The regime hoped to eventually get UN sanctions lifted, at which point they could be upgraded to long-range missiles.[2] But then 9-11 happened. And as action had to be taken to limit this threat, the intensity of the accusations against Iraq was matched with the intensity of the accusations against the US and UK.
The accusations that the Bush Administration used 9-11 to make a lie about Iraq to cause war are ridiculous. Even before 9-11, the Administration was making such claims (as was the Clinton Administration beforehand). In fact, about a month prior to 9-11, the CIA concluded that Iraq was hiding dozens of Scuds with a range of 650 kilometers and rebuilt missile production facilities. The CIA concluded that by 2015 Iraq would have ICBMs that could reach the United States.[3] Assisting in this effort was North Korea. Using its massive oil revenue (most of which comes in violation of UN sanctions); the Iraqi regime was paying Korea to assist in medium-range missile and nuclear weapons technologies, according to Western intelligence. Former UN inspector Richard Butler raised concern over the cooperation.[4] Butler is also known for recently telling the press that he saw intelligence between 1997 and 1999 that Syria helped Iraq hide WMD, and that suspicious containers were seen being moved in and out.
In early 2001, an Iraqi defector claimed that two functional atomic bombs were in Iraq�s possession, minus the fissile core. He further proved credibility by saying that when UN inspectors were present until 1998, there were 47 nuclear program sites, and now there are 64, and more in progress.[5]
Saddam�s state press even confirmed soon after 9-11 that they had a nuclear program. Babil, owned by Uday, wrote that the heads of the Iraqi Nuclear Energy Authority would accelerate their work and dedicate it to the Iraqi nation and its leader, Saddam Hussein.[6] Throughout 2001, Western intelligence worked to stop Saddam�s efforts to buy stainless-steal tubes that are used in centrifuge programs. Several of which were intercepted.[7] Germany�s BND intelligence agency also reported that Iraqi agents were scouring Asia and Europe for illegal components, and that Iraq still pays thousands of technicians and scientists for illegal weapons programs.[8]
In December 2001, an Iraqi specialist named Adrian al-Haideri defected. He said he worked on secret WMD sites, and that mini-labs were being built in private homes. At the time he defected, 300 hidden sites were being used to conceal WMDs and the associated programs. Often, WMD goods were hidden in fake wells. He explained that in mid-2001, a new effort had begun to buy aluminum tubes for a centrifuge program using front companies. Most of the stuff Iraq needed and couldn�t legally purchase came via Syria.[9] Another defector also claimed to have worked on such secret sites, particularly ones in private wells and under a Baghdad hospital. He said he knew of at least 20 hidden WMD production sites.[10]
Despite the increasing pressure, Saddam Hussein continued his WMD efforts. According to Iraqi officials that defected to Europe in 2002, Iraq had ordered three shipments of Czech medium-range SCUDs, which the Czechs believed were headed to Syria and Yemen. Arriving via Syria, the first shipment had already arrived.[11]
Iraq�s concealment efforts around August, 2002 can also explain why we haven�t found their WMD as of yet. Defectors began providing new intelligence that Iraq was still continuing to receive WMD components and equipment through Syria, and that between June and August, Iraq had abandoned all the previous hidden WMD sites in order to thwart Western intelligence. The sites holding WMD transferred the weapons to mobile vans and new underground facilities.[12]
Just to add more to the idea of the concealment effort, let me pass some information along to you from a Center for Defense Information interview with Rear Admiral Stephen Baker. He explained that WMDs were sealed in wells drilled sixty feet deep, chemical weapons components were in residential basements, under man-made lakes, palace bunkers, and in mobile vans.[13] With this type of dispersal, how could anyone from the beginning think we�d find WMDs in just a few months? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An opinion piece from 2003? How lame.
I went to the website and I see the author claims to have solved the WMD mystery!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
