Saddam says terrorist attacks with WMD on USA and UK--to come

[newbie]

Oh, and as far as Saddam and links to terrorism, I trust the 911 commission that Bush initiated on that.

What the hell is the matter with you?

The 9/11 commission said that Saddam was unquestionably linked to terrorism. Good God, the entire planet--with the exception of you and Black Dog--knows that Saddam's Iraq was a haven for terrorists.

FFS, Saddam openly boasted about paying the families of displaced Arab (usually called Palestinian) suicide bombers!! Who is paying you to troll the internet? Billionaire George Soros?

Get it right Monty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

[GostHacked]

Oh, and as far as Saddam and links to terrorism, I trust the 911 commission that Bush initiated on that.

What the hell is the matter with you?

The 9/11 commission said that Saddam was unquestionably linked to terrorism. Good God, the entire planet--with the exception of you and Black Dog--knows that Saddam's Iraq was a haven for terrorists.

FFS, Saddam openly boasted about paying the families of displaced Arab (usually called Palestinian) suicide bombers!! Who is paying you to troll the internet? Billionaire George Soros?

Get it right Monty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

... wait for it. Monty will discredit that article somehow. Commie supporting rag ect. Kind of like how the CBC is run. Monty will keep throwing stuff up and holes are consistantly driven through it all. One thing I will give Monty , he is as consistend and bold pig headed as Mr. Bush himself. One track minded horse with the blinders on.

[newbie]

Yeah, Gost, I think you're right. I was in a vulnerable mood yesterday and forgot not to respond to Monty's rantings. Oh well, it's too late now.

[Black Dog]

The 9/11 commission said that Saddam was unquestionably linked to terrorism. Good God, the entire planet--with the exception of you and Black Dog--knows that Saddam's Iraq was a haven for terrorists.

Only an absoute pinhead would think that when the Bush admin talked about "ties to terrorism", they were referring to Islamic Jihad or some other regional organization.

[Montgomery Burns]

From tonight's ABC Nightline...

Saddam Hussien: "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."

I suppose you were faced with a bit of a dillema...sitting right in front of you was quote, a worthless quote. Because to accept it at face value meant that you had to accept the second half of the quote, also at face value. Or you could, and rightfully so I add, claim that Suddam was a tyrranical Dictator who couldn't be trusted but in doing so wirte off any value of the first half of the quote. So you were faced with a dillema and with all the integrety that you had rose to the occasion and did the right thing, and chopped off the second half of the quote, eliminating your dilema. And this dilema was two fold for someone who talks about ommisions from the MSM, because the full quote said this:

"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before Aug. 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop. "In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. "This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq."

Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes:

The FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" Wednesday night now says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments.

"What you heard on ABC News was their translation," former U.N. weapons inspector Bill Tierney told ABC Radio's Sean Hannity on Thursday. They came up with something different on a key element regarding terrorism in the United States," Tierney insisted.

In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack.

Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity.

In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?"

Once again Slavik44, newbie, Gosthacked, and Black Dog are left with egg on their faces.

And I am shocked - shocked! - to hear that ABC would lie about the translation.

Counting down the seconds till the lefties start discrediting Tierney, Hannity, and Newsmax as fascist neocon sources....5....4....3.....2....

[Montgomery Burns]

Saddam's uranium bombshell:

Tape recordings released over the weekend show that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons program at least as recently as 2000 - but the press has decided the bombshell development isn't newsworthy.

The MSM is ignoring something that makes Papa Hussein look guilty? Noooo

Speaking at the Intelligence Group Summit in Arlington, Va., Saddam tapes translator Bill Tierney revealed that in one recorded conversation, the Iraqi dictator can be heard discussing a plan to enrich uranium using a technique known as plasma separation.

[...]News that Saddam had an ongoing enrichment program comports with the account of Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, the nuclear physicist who ran Iraq's nuclear centrifuge program. After turning himself in to U.S. forces in July 2003, Dr. Obeidi revealed that he had successfully hidden centrifuge parts and blueprints from U.N. weapons inspectors on Saddam's orders.

Despite the staggering implications of the audiotaped uranium revelation, only one mainstream media outlet had covered the news as of Monday morning. Noting that Saddam's enrichment program was "totally unknown to U.N. weapons inspectors," the Washington Times editorialized on Monday: "It is apparent that the American public has much more to learn about . . . . precisely when Saddam's nuclear weapons programs actually stopped."

Lies lies LIES!!! Saddam's Iraq was a kite-flying utopia. Didn't any of these people watch Fahrenheit 9-11?

[Montgomery Burns]

Slavik44:

The Nader situation, You pointed out Clinton won because of a split vote, I merely pointed out that evidence would indicate bush won Florida by a couple hundred votes, I figure atleast a couple hundred peopel who voted nader would have been more likely to vote Democrat. So in that sense Bush himself like Clinton was able to take advantage of vote spliting to win an election that is what I said that is what I claim.

As Ronald Reagan would say: There you go again.

I stated that it was extremely doubtful that Clinton would have won in 1992 because Perot took 1/3 of the votes from Bush Sr. Indeed, Clinton only got 43% of the vote. Then you compared it to the 5% of the vote that Nader took from al-Gore in 2000.

Not.even.close.

[Black Dog]

Counting down the seconds till the lefties start discrediting Tierney, Hannity, and Newsmax as fascist neocon sources....5....4....3.....2....

This is just too easy!

Who is Bill Tierney? Well, he's the former UN weapons inspector who admited to spying for the U.S. while in Iraq. He's also the guy who claimed that he was able to locate hidden Iraqi weapons sites using the power of prayer and who says a friend's clairvoyent dream revealed the location of a secret underground bunker used for uranium enrichment (the bunker, despite Tierny's pinpoint directions, has not been found). When not appearing on talk shows to whip up hysteria over Iraq's WMDs (the same WMDs the United States has been unable to find any evidence of in three years in Iraq), Tierny enjoys light torture and God-bothering.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

Who is Bill Tierney? Well, he's the former UN weapons inspector who admited to spying for the U.S. while in Iraq.

There is a reason why BD never offered any proof of his claim. That's because the short blurb in a UK Mirror claims that Tierney was spying:

Tierney "confessed" to giving the Pentagon targets for military action when he was a member of an inspection team between 1996 and 1998.

He said: "What I did was identified those people who have sold their souls to keep Saddam in power.

"I made it my goal to find every place where they are."

Tierney wasn't supposed to do that!

Lesson learned: Always check BD's claims. He has a habit of taking things out of context and immediately swallowing whatever the anti-war media interprets. If Tierney was "spying" the media and the left would have been shouting this claim for months.

He's also the guy who claimed that he was able to locate hidden Iraqi weapons sites using the power of prayer and who says a friend's clairvoyent dream revealed the location of a secret underground bunker used for uranium enrichment (the bunker, despite Tierny's pinpoint directions, has not been found).

Actually the ISG refused to investigate.

When not appearing on talk shows to whip up hysteria over Iraq's WMDs (the same WMDs the United States has been unable to find any evidence of in three years in Iraq),

Keep on repeating your absurd claim and maybe you will eventually convince yourself.

Tierny enjoys light torture

From BD's link: ARLINGTON, Va. --''If I'm leaning a little to my left side, it's because I left my right mind at home,'' Bill Tierney told listeners gathered in a basement conference room of a Pentagon-area hotel earlier this week. He had just returned from eight months working as an interrogator for US forces in Baghdad, and had come to talk, on the record, about torture.

''The Brits came up with an expression - wog,'' Tierney said. ''That stands for Wily Oriental Gentleman. There's a lot of wiliness in that part of the world.'' And when it comes to interrogating wily insurgents, Tierney explained, he favors ''smarts over smack.''

''It's the amateur who resorts to violence,'' he said. ''There's always a mental lever to get them to do what you want them to do.''

Smarts over smacks = light torture? Freud had a term for this; he called it projection.

and God-bothering.

Again nothing in BD's link about "God-bothering". Perhaps BD is upset because Tierney is one of those Christians who believes in God. Or is it because he was against Terri Schiavo "dying with dignity", i.e., starve the b*tch and let her die (but we are against torture)?

The moral of the story? Always check BD's links.

[Black Dog]

Why am I not surprised that this is just the kind of kook Monty would go to bat for.

I also have to pull this bit for posterity:

If Tierney was "spying" the media and the left would have been shouting this claim for months.

Which is kinda like the claims Tierny is making: if there were substance to them (or any othe of MB's crackpot conspiracy theories about hollowed out 747s etc etc.), the Bush administration would be all over them. But the question remains: if there is legitimate and substansial evidence that Iraq had WMD, and so forth, why would the administration not push that line when they have so very much to gain?

Smarts over smacks = light torture? Freud had a term for this; he called it projection.

After explaining his various psychological tactics to the audience, interrogator Bill Tierney (a private contractor working with the Army) said, ''I tried to be nuanced and culturally aware. But the suspects didn't break.''

Suddenly Tierney's temper rose. ''They did not break!'' he shouted. ''I'm here to win. I'm here so our civilization beats theirs! Now what are you willing to do to win?'' he asked, pointing to a woman in the front row. ''You are the interrogators, you are the ones who have to get the information from the Iraqis. What do you do? That word 'torture'. You immediately think, 'That's not me.' But are we litigating this war or fighting it?''

Some listeners murmured in assent; others sat in rapt attention. In all the recent debates about the Bush administration's stance on torture, this voice, the voice of the interrogators themselves, has been almost entirely absent.

Asked about Abu Ghraib, Tierney said that for an interrogator, ''sadism is always right over the hill. You have to admit it. Don't fool yourself - there is a part of you that will say, 'This is fun.'''

Again nothing in BD's link about "God-bothering". Perhaps BD is upset because Tierney is one of those Christians who believes in God. Or is it because he was against Terri Schiavo "dying with dignity", i.e., starve the b*tch and let her die (but we are against torture)?

"Christians who belive in God": a bit of a redundancy, no?

"Dying with dignity"? I don't see what dignity and the SChiavo protesters have in common at all. Unless grown men and women with tape over their mouths or caterwauling to their invisible friend over a woman who, for all intents and purposes, died more than a decade before is somehow "dignified".

The moral of the story? Always check BD's links.

The moral of the story: Intellectualy, Mr. Burns doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.

[Montgomery Burns]

Me thinks that with all of BD's twisting and turning, his chiropracter must be making a fortune off BD.

Tierney is a Christian, ergo he is a liar. Saddam is the only one who we can trust for the Pure Truth.

[Montgomery Burns]

It's an article of faith on the left that Iraq had no WMD and had no intention to build them, despite all the evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed and used them many times. When the US only found small amounts of WMD, and didn't immediately uncover huge stockpiles of WMD, the left--and their allies in the media--pushed the meme that Saddam never had WMDs in the first place, or secretly disposed of them long ago, or that he was contained by UN sanctions. Even though Saddam knew about the US invasion over a year in advance, liberals refuse to even consider the possibility that Saddam moved or hid whatever WMD materials he had to prevent them from being discovered. The idea that every inch of Iraq has been examined and pronounced clean is asinine. Reports are still coming in of storage sites that were completely ignored by the Iraq Survey Group, which concentrated heavily on previously known WMD storage sites.Common sense would tell anyone that a place marked on every inspector's map "WMD Storage Facility" might not be the best place to hide your WMDs. Instead, something like buried and locked concrete bunkers not marked on any map might be a more likely location.

And whadda ya know...several such sites were reported to the ISG...and totally ignored.

1) David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, was assigned to intelligence research. He was shown 4 sealed underground concrete bunkers in southern Iraq with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. Sources told him that the facilities had contained stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. He filed reports with photographs, grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. But the ISG never unsealed the bunkers. "We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Gaubatz told the NY Sun. Yet the ISG ignored it.

2) Several sources (US officials, numerous intelligence agencies, and the UN) indicated that Saddam sent some WMDs and equipment related to chemical and biological weapons production to Syria and Lebanon in the months preceding the US invasion. In May 2003, Debkafile reported that "the relocation of Iraq's WMD systems took place between January 10 and March 10 and was completed just 10 days before the US-led offensive was launched against Iraq." CIA satellite imagery showed "convoys of Iraqi trucks that poured into Syria in February and March 2003." After Al Qaeda's foiled chemical act in Jordan, where Jordan said the chemicals came from Syria, the left blithely ignored it.

3) Every time evidence of illegal weapons (like the ricin in north Iraq) or dual-use material (like the so-called "pesticide" in south Iraq) was discovered, the left brushed it off. Even Dr. David Kay's reports of Iraq's undisclosed WMD research (including Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever) could not penetrate their thick skulls. As Paul Leventhal testified before the Senate in March 2000, "he was in charge when the IAEA totally missed Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program before the Gulf War and accepted unsubstantiated Iraqi disarmament claims after the war."

4) David Kay, original head of the ISG, reported: "we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program."

However some things were left behind as Kay reported finding a "clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses," and "a prison laboratory complex... that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN." The ISG's investigation revealed "new research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin."

Charles Duelfer, who replaced David Kay as head of the ISG, wrote in his final report that, "ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved... these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation." Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, even admitted that "there is some concern that shipments of WMD went to Syria."

5) As I previously posted--and linked to--on MLW, Hans Blix issued a report on March 6, 2003 (two weeks before the enforcement of the broken ceasefire) stating such things as "10,000 litres of anthrax are unaccounted for".

6) Then there is the recent report (someone else started a thread on MLW about this) that Russia helped Iraq moved WMD stockpiles to Syria and Lebanon.

7) And George Sada recently said that Iraq moved hundreds of tons of chemicals to Ba'athist Syria under the guise of humanitarian aid for Syrian flood victims.

Despite all this, the left stubbornly insists that there never were any WMD. After all, the US has not found any warehouses full of WMD stamped "WMD: Next stop, the Great Satan America!"

[Black Dog]

Just to be clear: Monty is claiming the Bush administration is ignoring an apparent mountain of "credible" evidence that would validate its prewar claims about Iraq's WMD capability (and thus restoring a huge degree of credibility to the war and the administration itself) and that this massive cover up is being facilitated by the anti-Bush mainstream press. And only a select few know the Truth.

If you can follow that one, then here's some more you might enjoy:

The 9-11 Attacks Were Perpetrated By Agents Of The U.S. And Israeli Governments

AIDS is a biological weapon

Moon landings were faked

Enjoy!

[Slavik44]

Slavik44:

The Nader situation, You pointed out Clinton won because of a split vote, I merely pointed out that evidence would indicate bush won Florida by a couple hundred votes, I figure atleast a couple hundred peopel who voted nader would have been more likely to vote Democrat. So in that sense Bush himself like Clinton was able to take advantage of vote spliting to win an election that is what I said that is what I claim.

As Ronald Reagan would say: There you go again.

I stated that it was extremely doubtful that Clinton would have won in 1992 because Perot took 1/3 of the votes from Bush Sr. Indeed, Clinton only got 43% of the vote. Then you compared it to the 5% of the vote that Nader took from al-Gore in 2000.

Not.even.close.

And I told you that if nader hadn't run it would have been extremley unlikely that Bush would have won the election, Bush won by a couple hundred votes in Florida. I am not trying to equate 5% to 18%. I am merely pointing out that both won the election because of vote spliting, nader's was much more localised/smaller but in the end it did the same thing. Would bush have won in 1992 probabley, would Gore have won in florida in 2000, probabley. I am not trying to say 5% equals 18% but the end result was the same. Kind of like Shooting a guy in the head with a shot gun and shooting a guy in the head with a little pistol, they both end up dead.

[newbie]

It's an article of faith on the left that Iraq had no WMD and had no intention to build them, despite all the evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed and used them many times. When the US only found small amounts of WMD, and didn't immediately uncover huge stockpiles of WMD, the left--and their allies in the media--pushed the meme that Saddam never had WMDs in the first place, or secretly disposed of them long ago, or that he was contained by UN sanctions. Even though Saddam knew about the US invasion over a year in advance, liberals refuse to even consider the possibility that Saddam moved or hid whatever WMD materials he had to prevent them from being discovered. The idea that every inch of Iraq has been examined and pronounced clean is asinine. Reports are still coming in of storage sites that were completely ignored by the Iraq Survey Group, which concentrated heavily on previously known WMD storage sites.Common sense would tell anyone that a place marked on every inspector's map "WMD Storage Facility" might not be the best place to hide your WMDs. Instead, something like buried and locked concrete bunkers not marked on any map might be a more likely location.

And whadda ya know...several such sites were reported to the ISG...and totally ignored.

1) David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, was assigned to intelligence research. He was shown 4 sealed underground concrete bunkers in southern Iraq with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. Sources told him that the facilities had contained stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. He filed reports with photographs, grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. But the ISG never unsealed the bunkers. "We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Gaubatz told the NY Sun. Yet the ISG ignored it.

2) Several sources (US officials, numerous intelligence agencies, and the UN) indicated that Saddam sent some WMDs and equipment related to chemical and biological weapons production to Syria and Lebanon in the months preceding the US invasion. In May 2003, Debkafile reported that "the relocation of Iraq's WMD systems took place between January 10 and March 10 and was completed just 10 days before the US-led offensive was launched against Iraq." CIA satellite imagery showed "convoys of Iraqi trucks that poured into Syria in February and March 2003." After Al Qaeda's foiled chemical act in Jordan, where Jordan said the chemicals came from Syria, the left blithely ignored it.

3) Every time evidence of illegal weapons (like the ricin in north Iraq) or dual-use material (like the so-called "pesticide" in south Iraq) was discovered, the left brushed it off. Even Dr. David Kay's reports of Iraq's undisclosed WMD research (including Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever) could not penetrate their thick skulls. As Paul Leventhal testified before the Senate in March 2000, "he was in charge when the IAEA totally missed Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program before the Gulf War and accepted unsubstantiated Iraqi disarmament claims after the war."

4) David Kay, original head of the ISG, reported: "we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program."

However some things were left behind as Kay reported finding a "clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses," and "a prison laboratory complex... that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN." The ISG's investigation revealed "new research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin."

Charles Duelfer, who replaced David Kay as head of the ISG, wrote in his final report that, "ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved... these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation." Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, even admitted that "there is some concern that shipments of WMD went to Syria."

5) As I previously posted--and linked to--on MLW, Hans Blix issued a report on March 6, 2003 (two weeks before the enforcement of the broken ceasefire) stating such things as "10,000 litres of anthrax are unaccounted for".

6) Then there is the recent report (someone else started a thread on MLW about this) that Russia helped Iraq moved WMD stockpiles to Syria and Lebanon.

7) And George Sada recently said that Iraq moved hundreds of tons of chemicals to Ba'athist Syria under the guise of humanitarian aid for Syrian flood victims.

Despite all this, the left stubbornly insists that there never were any WMD. After all, the US has not found any warehouses full of WMD stamped "WMD: Next stop, the Great Satan America!"

EDITED:

David Gaubatz makes a great statement with "he is sure if contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons." from your own source.

Debka - israel based net weekly is a bit short on actual names of "sources". For example DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence sources as having secretly disposed of Saddam Hussein’s weapons. Dr. Germ sounds like someone out of "Get Smart."

David Kay was in a conflict on interest and thus totally uncredible.

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2728

As for Charles Duelfer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...5-2004Oct6.html - Duefler

I concede Monty. No more talk from me on this topic. No one is convincing anybody here. When you won't even accept Bush's actual words on another thread, I give up.

[Montgomery Burns]

Slavik44:

The Nader situation, You pointed out Clinton won because of a split vote, I merely pointed out that evidence would indicate bush won Florida by a couple hundred votes, I figure atleast a couple hundred peopel who voted nader would have been more likely to vote Democrat. So in that sense Bush himself like Clinton was able to take advantage of vote spliting to win an election that is what I said that is what I claim.

As Ronald Reagan would say: There you go again.

I stated that it was extremely doubtful that Clinton would have won in 1992 because Perot took 1/3 of the votes from Bush Sr. Indeed, Clinton only got 43% of the vote. Then you compared it to the 5% of the vote that Nader took from al-Gore in 2000.

Not.even.close.

And I told you that if nader hadn't run it would have been extremley unlikely that Bush would have won the election, Bush won by a couple hundred votes in Florida. I am not trying to equate 5% to 18%. I am merely pointing out that both won the election because of vote spliting, nader's was much more localised/smaller but in the end it did the same thing. Would bush have won in 1992 probabley, would Gore have won in florida in 2000, probabley. I am not trying to say 5% equals 18% but the end result was the same. Kind of like Shooting a guy in the head with a shot gun and shooting a guy in the head with a little pistol, they both end up dead.

How did you arrive at 18%? Perot split the right by taking 34%, not 18%.

[Montgomery Burns]

General Sada, formerly Sadfam’s #2 Air Force commander, recently told the New York Sun that Saddam’s WMD were moved to Syria just 6 weeks before the US-led invasion. Then Ali Ibrahim, one of Saddam's commanders in northern Iraq came forward to confirm this.

Or you could have a look-see for yourself. Scroll down to the 3rd item.

Warning to liberals: Do NOT click on "General Thomas McInerney on Saddam's WMD Tapes". It takes you to a tape of McInerney being interviewed on Faux News' The O'Lielly Factor. Don't click that link! I do not want you to become blind(er) than usual.

I see that investors.com has reported this but the rest of the MSM is essentially ignoring these tapes from the source himself: Saddam Hussein (and his inner circle).

[Slavik44]

How did you arrive at 18%? Perot split the right by taking 34%, not 18%.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, however Ross Perot ran in two elections, in 1992 when he got 18.9% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992) of the vote and in 1996 when he got 8.4% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996) of the vote.

[Black Dog]

General Sada, formerly Sadfam’s #2 Air Force commander, recently told the New York Sun that Saddam’s WMD were moved to Syria just 6 weeks before the US-led invasion.

Correction:General Sada said he heard from some guy who said he flew the WMD to Syria. In other words he had no first hand knowledge of any such event. Now, you would think that even in a tightly closed beauracracy like Saddam's that the number two man in the air force would have some knowledge of such an operation beforehand.

Then Ali Ibrahim, one of Saddam's commanders in northern Iraq came forward to confirm this

Odd, given that Ali Ibrahim defected to the west before the 1991 Gulf War.

[gerryhatrick]

Who cares? What a waste of time threads like this are.

[geoffrey]

Who cares? What a waste of time threads like this are.

Well of course its a waste of time. It's not your 'troops all want US to leave ASAP thread.'

Come on, open your mind.

[GostHacked]

... It takes you to a tape of McInerney being interviewed on Faux News' The O'Lielly Factor. ......

You got me there, just about had milk out the damn nose. el oh f'n el

[Black Dog]

Interesting article in the NYT about Saddam's strategy during teh war. In addition to painting the picture of a clueless commander more concerned with internal unrest than invading armies, the article contains the following money quote:

The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense.

...

To ensure that Iraq would pass scrutiny by United Nations arms inspectors, Mr. Hussein ordered that they be given the access that they wanted. And he ordered a crash effort to scrub the country so the inspectors would not discover any vestiges of old unconventional weapons, no small concern in a nation that had once amassed an arsenal of chemical weapons, biological agents and Scud missiles, the Iraq survey group report said.

Mr. Hussein's compliance was not complete, though. Iraq's declarations to the United Nations covering what stocks of illicit weapons it had possessed and how it had disposed of them were old and had gaps. And Mr. Hussein would not allow his weapons scientists to leave the country, where United Nations officials could interview them outside the government's control.

Seeking to deter Iran and even enemies at home, the Iraqi dictator's goal was to cooperate with the inspectors while preserving some ambiguity about its unconventional weapons — a strategy General Hamdani, the Republican Guard commander, later dubbed in a television interview "deterrence by doubt."

[GostHacked]

From Monty

It's an article of faith on the left that Iraq had no WMD and had no intention to build them, despite all the evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed and used them many times. When the US only found small amounts of WMD, and didn't immediately uncover huge stockpiles of WMD, the left--and their allies in the media--pushed the meme that Saddam never had WMDs in the first place, or secretly disposed of them long ago, or that he was contained by UN sanctions. Even though Saddam knew about the US invasion over a year in advance,

Wait, he knew about it in advance? Who told him? Also, since he knew about the upcomming war, why would he send all his stuff to Syria or Lebanon and not use it on the invading US forces? He made so many threats that he would use them, then we all find out it was empty threats. Then you will probably claim he sent some stuff to Iran. Sigh. We all know how well Iraq and Iran have been getting along in the past few decades.

1) David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, was assigned to intelligence research. He was shown 4 sealed underground concrete bunkers in southern Iraq with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. Sources told him that the facilities had contained stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. He filed reports with photographs, grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. But the ISG never unsealed the bunkers. "We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Gaubatz told the NY Sun. Yet the ISG ignored it.

I agree, let's open those suckers up and see what is in them. Only one way to find out.

3) Every time evidence of illegal weapons (like the ricin in north Iraq) or dual-use material (like the so-called "pesticide" in south Iraq) was discovered, the left brushed it off. Even Dr. David Kay's reports of Iraq's undisclosed WMD research (including Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever) could not penetrate their thick skulls. As Paul Leventhal testified before the Senate in March 2000, "he was in charge when the IAEA totally missed Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program before the Gulf War and accepted unsubstantiated Iraqi disarmament claims after the war."

When the US uses it and sells it to people it is called pesticide, but if the same thing is used by a madman, it is poison.

5) As I previously posted--and linked to--on MLW, Hans Blix issued a report on March 6, 2003 (two weeks before the enforcement of the broken ceasefire) stating such things as "10,000 litres of anthrax are unaccounted for".

6) Then there is the recent report (someone else started a thread on MLW about this) that Russia helped Iraq moved WMD stockpiles to Syria and Lebanon.

Russia took some of the articles in question off everyones hands for safe keeping. That is to beleive that Russia moved the stuff in the first place. ' No problem, we can do it for, some good vodka, some anthrax and a few aluminum centrifuge tubes.

Despite all this, the left stubbornly insists that there never were any WMD. After all, the US has not found any warehouses full of WMD stamped "WMD: Next stop, the Great Satan America!"

Despite all this there has been no hard proof either to support your claim. We both lost this last one ok?