Yet More Reason For The Us In Iraq

Black Dog · November 18, 2003

a)What the DOD describes as being "inaccurate" are the news reports claiming the DOD "confirmed" "new" information linking Saddam to Al Qaida per the leaked classified annex. The DOD does not say the memo is inaccurate at all.

The report is not a conclusive analyisis, but simply a collection of reports concerning the possibility of any connection bewteen AQ and Iraq. Whether those reports are accurate or not is another story.

W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of the DIA, said yesterday that the Standard article "is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?"
-WashPost, Nov. 18

The only colnclucion that can be drawn is that the evidence of any relationship is, at best, inconclusive. Indeed, the Bush admin has done it's damndest to distance itself from drawing such a connmection, with Dubya himself stating rather unequivocably that there was no link.

KrustyKidd · November 18, 2003

Dear KK, and Sirriff,
Mr. Kay is doing what he is told to do. He is also doing nothing more than the UN inspectors did. I doubt that his timeframe for research indicates a resumption of open hostilities.

The CIA does not produce information for public opinion.

I believe the reports supplied by Mr. Kay are to :

1. supercede or 'replace' the exact same evidence as found by the UN, thus reducing the importance and influence of the UN in the eyes of the public

2. establish Mr. K as a 'truthful voice' which the public can believe(even though employed by the CIA)

The 'willful suspension of disbelief' can then move from Hollywood to the 'news' through the 'findings' of 'experts'.

Well then Lonius, if, in your opinion, finding all sorts of WMD, links to Al Queda and happy Iraqis is a forgone conclusion by a dishonest inspector I suppose you will be leaving this thread yawning in boredom. Scince in your belief there is an unproved conspriracy, until you can prove it your posts reffering to WMD belong in the "Conspiracy" thread.

BTW, just wondering, with all the stuff that the guys found in the nineties and Blix still found in 2002, didn't you see a pattern forming? You know, one that showed Saddam still kept hold of whatever he could get by the inspectors?

With all the reports from UN sources why does it seem unbelieveable to you that there might be WMD material in Iraq? This is the true mystery. Do you think that from the time that Blix left Iraq until Iraq Freedom began that the stuff flew out the hole in the ozone layer? It all must have gone somewhere as Kay in your opinion has found nothing. Where did it all go?

KrustyKidd · November 21, 2003

Still wondering why you guys figure that there is NOT WMD material in Iraq. I can wait. I'll keep bringing this to the head of the forum though. After all, you are the ones telling us that Kay is wrong in finding stuff.

Tell us why there is NOT ANY WND material there.

When did it leave? How did it leave? Or just tell me that Kay 'might' have found things relevent to this.

Craig Read · November 21, 2003

I have posted UNO reports on Al Qaeda having WMD. How did AQ receive WMD ? Where did they develop it ? Who funded it ? Who taught them how to mix and make the weapons material ?

Nation states and their govt's and agents of course including Iraq. Iraq-AQ links go back to the late 1980s and i have posted sources on this elsewhere.

WMD might have been sold to AQ or other groups, it might be buried, might be in Syria or other countries and part of it might have been destroyed.

Until the violence abates in Iraq we will not know for sure what happened to the WMD. I am still confident it will be found. 100 tonnes is easy to hide and until Iraq is secure it will be difficult to get Iraqi's to talk and help us find the holes or crates containing the WMD.

righturnonred · November 22, 2003

Report: Iranians Hinding bin Laden

You can take this "unimpeachable source" with a grain of salt if you want but if this lead is true, the US is in the perfect position in Iraq to ferret out these assholes.

Black Dog · November 24, 2003

You can take this "unimpeachable source" with a grain of salt if you want but if this lead is true, the US is in the perfect position in Iraq to ferret out these assholes.

How so? First, U.S. forces are already stretched thin in the area, so attacking Iran would essentially open up a third front in the "war on terror". Second, invading Iran would not exactly do much for winning the hearts and minds of the Arab world. Capturing bin Laden would no doubt be a very good thing as he is a criminal that needs to be brought to justice. However, starting yet another war would only make a bad situation worse.

righturnonred · November 25, 2003

First, U.S. forces are already stretched thin in the area, so attacking Iran would essentially open up a third front in the "war on terror". Second, invading Iran would not exactly do much for winning the hearts and minds of the Arab world.

God knows you're right. A war with Iran at this time is ill advised and essentially impossible.

I was speaking more in terms of political and military pressure to stimulate cooperation, covert operations, social influences, etc.

Craig Read · November 30, 2003

Well with free loading allies of course the US is stretched. The Canadians have 2000 men in Kabul, the EU about 5.000 in Afgh., the Brits about 30.000 in Iraq and the EU about 3.000 in total in Iraq and 4.000 Poles. Doing everyone elses job does strain one's resources. Invading Iran in 2 years time is feasible and should be kept open as an option. The last thing we need is some dolt like Clinton or Carter to tell everyone 'no problems we will NEVER invade it is okay.' This is what the State dept. and Liberals do best - give the green light to various dictators.

Iran should be held accountable for violating the AEC agreements they signed and the Nuclear Non proliferation pact they should flagrantly flounce. Invasion will mostly likely be necessary before they arm nuclear weapons. After that, it is too late.

And anyways Tiny bin laden is dead but AQ is still being nurtered by nation states and monied interests.

The UN states that AQ has chemical weapons. They got them from somewhere. Kay's report is pretty clear - the Iraqi's had every intention of building WMD and Kay intimates that much WMD will be found. The war was and is justified on moral, economic, political and security grounds.

9-11 happened - precisely because Bush Sr and the clown Clinton did not do what had to be done - which was a vigorous prosecution of a war that had been ongoing since at least 1983.

To requote what KK posted:

"We have discovered dozens of W.M.D.-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002," the statement said, referring to weapons of mass destruction.
"The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts has come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that I.S.G. has discovered that should have been declared to the U.N.," he said, referring to the Iraq Study Group by its initials.

Dr. Kay acknowledged, however, that his group had found very little evidence that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear program by the time of the war. The administration had argued before the war that Mr. Hussein was pursuing development of nuclear weapons, and that was a major reason Baghdad was said to pose an imminent threat to the national security of the United States.

"It clearly does not look like a massive, resurgent program, based on what we've discovered now," Dr. Kay said. "It is the program right now that we probably know the least about and have the least confidence in saying what it meant."

Dr. Kay said his group had found signs that Iraq was working hard to develop longer range and more effective missiles, including some that could travel up to 1,000 kilometers, or about 600 miles, far beyond the 150-kilometer range restriction imposed on Baghdad by the United Nations. The group has also come across evidence of clandestine attempts in recent years to obtain ballistic missile technology from North Korea.

In the biological weapons area, which was one of the areas of early focus by the Iraq Survey Group, Dr. Kay said there was evidence that Iraq's intelligence service was involved in retaining a covert research and development capacity. He added that debriefings of former Iraqi intelligence officials had "begun to unravel a clandestine network of laboratories and facilities within the security service apparatus."

These efforts were well hidden by Mr. Hussein's government, Dr. Kay reported. He noted that precursor biological agents are small and easily hidden, and that one example of an item that should have been reported last year was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B., from which a biological agent can be produced. This vial was hidden in the home of an Iraqi biological weapons scientist. Such remnants of biological agents could have allowed the Iraqis to produce biological weapons later, Dr. Kay observed.

Dr. Kay said his group had not reached a final determination about two trailers found in Iraq after the war, which the C.I.A. and Vice President male anatomy Cheney said were mobile germ weapon production units. "We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile B.W. production effort," Dr. Kay's statement said, referring to biological weapons.