12-18-2005, 09:35 AM #1
WMD: Never existed or Transferred?
"Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right"
"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," U.S. President George W. Bush said last week, prior to Thursday's parliamentary elections in Iraq, thus aligning himself with what America has considered an indisputable fact for some time now: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush believes that the offensive was justified despite this mistake.
The debate on this question is only beginning, but he already closed the argument about the intelligence failure: "As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."
And here is what he said about other intelligence services, including those of Israel: "When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction." Indeed, many top intelligence and army officials in Israel still insist: "We said this at the time and we were not mistaken. The Americans are the ones who are making the mistake now."
Here is an interesting version that does not worry the public in Israel, in the absence of a public debate over the war in Iraq. These senior officials, who are intimately familiar with Israeli intelligence material, still believe that Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction. Not nuclear weapons, of course. Israel never made this claim. The Americans indeed erred in inflating the insubstantial information on nuclear plans. But there were chemical and biological weapons. And if the Americans have decided otherwise, especially for political reasons, they are now making a second error on top of the first error.
Some of these officials have shared their views with their American contacts. "Why didn't we find the weaponry?" the Americans asked. The Israelis told them politely: because most of it was transferred to Syria before the war. Such suspicions have been openly published. All the intelligence services in the West are familiar with photographs of trucks sneaking across the border at night, accompanied by senior Iraqi officers. The problem is that the moment Israel turns an accusatory finger toward Syria, it is immediately suspected of ulterior, political motives.
"They can think whatever they want," an Israeli officer says. "Perhaps it is impossible to change their opinion, but it is also impossible to change the truth. Material was transferred to Syria in the dark of the night, on the very eve of the war. Therefore, the Americans did not find it." And this, as suggested above, is the more polite explanation.
The other explanation is expressed in more intimate circles in order to avoid irritating the American friend. But in the course of two weeks, I heard it from three different Israelis who were in positions that had access to intelligence during the war. Some of them are still serving in such positions.
"They simply don't know how to search properly," said one. "Do you know how they searched? The forces were sent to a certain location and went into the field without a serious intelligence escort. If there was nothing found under the rock at this location, they simply went home, without bothering to turn over the adjacent rock," another said.
Some of these materials are still hidden in Iraq, the Israeli sources believe. Perhaps they will be found in the future. Maybe not. It is also not completely clear who knows where they are and who is controlling them. The Americans did not find the material transferred to Syria because they did not search there, of course.
For many in the American defense establishment who opposed the war, it is very convenient that the material was not found. Thus they can take revenge against their rivals in the administration who disparaged them and ignored their recommendations during the months leading up to the war.
This all means one of two things: In Israel, in the absence of a comprehensive public discussion, the defense establishment is burying its head in the sand and refusing to admit a colossal mistake - a fundamentally wrong assessment of Iraq's non-conventional capabilities. Or, in the United States, due to troubling political circumstances, the public has formulated an opinion about the quality of intelligence material and has forced the administration to confess to an error that was much smaller than what the Americans had believed.
"It is already impossible to change the public's opinion in America, unless a giant amount of chemical weapons were to be found suddenly. And the problem is that no one can search for it now," says an Israeli source. President Bush's hands are tied. In the current political circumstances, it is inconceivable for him to order that searches be resumed. In any case, a true, renewed discussion on the quality of intelligence information on the eve of the war will only be possible sometime later in the future, if at all.
12-19-2005, 12:07 AM #2
I had seen this article earlier today, a good read indeed.
Logic clearly dictates that saddam had them transferred.
12-19-2005, 01:45 AM #3Originally Posted by kis55
12-19-2005, 06:42 AM #4Retired Vet
Originally Posted by kis55
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
Lets not mention North Korea
12-19-2005, 07:02 AM #5Originally Posted by BOUNCER
12-19-2005, 10:52 AM #6
I would believe maybe Russia. That where he wouldve have acquired help for getting the nukes. The russians have just as much interest ,if not more, in US getting "their" nukes.
Then again if THEY HAD any proof, they wouldve been watching where the nukes wouldve been transferred.
12-19-2005, 11:32 AM #7Originally Posted by Prada
12-19-2005, 12:35 PM #8
I know where they are
in Militia'guy's basement
12-19-2005, 12:41 PM #9Originally Posted by 3Vandoo
12-19-2005, 01:27 PM #10
Well theres no doubt they were trying to acquire them. Whether self-indigenous or not. Yet I find it difficult to believe Uncle Sam didnt have an eye on it. For fvucks sake you can type out your address and see your house on the net, dont tell me they cant see facilities,storage, labrotories, truck,cranes etc. Oh may I also add spies as well to the equation?
12-20-2005, 12:10 AM #11Originally Posted by BOUNCER
But I'm all for threats of force (credible threats that is) along with tough diplomacy. I really hate the idea of our (me being an American) precious troops fighting and dieing anywhere. Isn't that why we invented missles and bombs in the first place? hehehe
What I do believe is that there is no way in hell that sadamm decided on his own to destroy all his chem/bio weapons and nuke components, not tell anyone about it, and allow UN sanctions to continue. I can't think of any logical reason at all for that scenario.
ps, I just watched the movie about Michael Collins last night. Great flick!
12-20-2005, 04:28 AM #12
if sadam had them he surely would have used them in the war??
12-20-2005, 05:42 AM #13Originally Posted by johan
12-20-2005, 06:29 AM #14
But he must have known he was ****ed either way. He doesnt seem like the kind of guy that would go out without a fight...
12-20-2005, 06:39 AM #15Originally Posted by johan
No way. This way the whole international community can call Bush a liar etc..
12-20-2005, 07:20 AM #16
I bet he will like that when getting sentanced to death....Not like he would have had anything to lose by using them. I just dont se the logic in not using them for a man in the position he was.
12-20-2005, 07:23 AM #17Originally Posted by johan
12-20-2005, 07:34 AM #18
well I guess he might have been nutty enough to think that...
12-20-2005, 04:30 PM #19
confirmed that they existed... either not found... or transfered... FACT.
12-20-2005, 08:05 PM #20Originally Posted by roidattack
12-20-2005, 08:07 PM #21Originally Posted by AIZ
12-20-2005, 08:37 PM #22
Saddam is/was a smart guy. I agree that he wanted to prove Bush wrong and get world opinion against him. However people, citizens, statesman and stakeholders maybe dont realize yet that it was probably better to have Saddam there rather then some US puppet
12-20-2005, 09:22 PM #23Originally Posted by smokethedays
How can a country of 6.8 million defeat a country of 68 million? Of course we couldn't win on the battle field. Every crazy Muslim, trained or not, would run to JIHAD. No, I was implying that we own the sky. It's not a slam but simply a fact that the Israeli Airforce is the best in the region and one of the best in the world.
12-20-2005, 09:25 PM #24Originally Posted by Prada
I don't think that Iraqi Shiite and Iraqi Kurds would agree with you. America is blamed for the problems in Iraq when, in fact, the violence is coming from Sunni Arab and foreign fighters (mostly from Afghan camps). What noble cause do they carry with them that allows them to kill other Muslims...men, women, and children? No one wants to see it or talk about it but the reason that Iraq is a mess is because of Arab-Muslim terrorists...not Americans, Brits, etc.
12-23-2005, 01:22 AM #25
excellent points indeed
the irony about all of this is...the complaint is that we inhabit Middle Eastern territory.
well, if the dumbshits would stop blowing up crowds of children, we'd leave in a heartbeat. duh?
as for where the chemicals weapons are....some are in the ridiculously complex cave systems that dot the landscape of Iraq, and others were transferred to where Saddam's chief pricks are runnings ops from....Syria.
12-23-2005, 09:25 AM #26
Its funny that many Americans still belive WMD existed. It didnt, Saddam lied so that people would be scared to invade Iraq. WMD doesnt exist in Iraq, the world probably belived it existed, but Saddam didnt have it.
12-23-2005, 10:29 AM #27Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
12-23-2005, 10:32 AM #28Originally Posted by AIZ
12-23-2005, 10:39 AM #29Originally Posted by AIZ
It would be ironic if the US went there to get rid of the WMD, but instead, because of bad planning, let WMD slip to another nation, and maybe in the hand of terrorists right now, because of the war. Highly unlikely.
If the US even had a doubt it was transfered, the US would show it.
As Bush recenlty said "it was faulty intelligence."
The US has admited it, but the die hard brainwashed people, still havent.
12-23-2005, 11:03 AM #30Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
Germany, France, Italy, U.S., Israel, Britain...are these intel services all wrong? Notice even France confirmed. Also, the Head U.N. Weapons Inspector, Blix (who opposed the war) said Chemical weapons were found and do exist in Iraq...that was weeks before the invasion
12-23-2005, 11:06 AM #31Originally Posted by AIZ
You remember David Kay, who Bush himself appointed to investigate the claims of WMD. Here is what he said.
It was "fautly" intelligence, all the nations had it wrong. WMD does not exist, or was not transfered.
12-23-2005, 11:12 AM #32Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
12-23-2005, 11:12 AM #33Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
12-23-2005, 11:13 AM #34Originally Posted by AIZ
12-23-2005, 01:33 PM #35Originally Posted by smokethedays
I agree...save your breath. To many of us, he is a war hero. The State of Israel would not have survived without his leadership during 2 specific wars. You want to call him a murderer, war criminal, etc...feel free.
I think Clinton is also a war criminal for not lifting a finger during the Rwandan Genocide when daily CIA briefings informed him every morning of what was going on. The point being that people will not agree with me about Clinton...they'll just continue on calling him a hero of diplomacy.
12-23-2005, 02:10 PM #36
12-23-2005, 02:13 PM #37
The Kahan Commission investigating these massacres recommended in early 1983 the removal of Sharon from his post as Defense minister. In their recommendations and closing remarks, the commission stated:
We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense [Ariel Sharon] bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office - and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority under Section 21-A(a) of the Basic Law: the Government, according to which "the Prime Minister may, after informing the Cabinet of his intention to do so, remove a minister from office." In 1987, TIME magazine published a story implying Sharon was directly responsible for the massacres. Sharon sued Time for libel in American and Israeli courts. Time won the suit in the U.S. court because Sharon could not establish that Time had "acted out of malice", as required under the U.S. law, although the jury found the article false and defamatory.
12-23-2005, 02:14 PM #38
so in other words facts are facts, don't try to convience yourself otherwise, cause it's a fact.
i understand u somehow 'admire' the guy but he screwed up big time in his early life.
12-24-2005, 02:28 AM #39
Guess who told the saudis and syria wer were coming ahead of Time, Mr. Rockefellar.
"ROCKEFELLER: ... I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11"
The issue of prohibited items going to Syria before the 2003 invasion is a debated one, but David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, told the London Telegraph in January 2004 that he uncovered evidence that some WMD components may have been shipped to Syria before the attack. In addition, Charles Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee in October 2004 that he could not rule out that items may have been sent to Syria. "A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said.
"Bennett concludes his piece by hitting the nail on the head (emphasis mine):
"If Syria — or elements in Saudi Arabia — began acting on this information before we even went to war in Iraq (more than a year later), then Senator Rockefeller may have seriously harmed, impeded, and hindered our war efforts, our troops, and the entire operation in the Middle East. This should be investigated immediately; and perhaps Senator Rockefeller should step down from the Intelligence Committee until an investigation is complete."
"In light of the heavy spotlight on the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson episode, one can only imagine the "uproar" in the MSM if a pro-Iraq war Republican had done and said anything like Rockefeller did. I can already visualize the Larry King-Howard Dean interview."
My guess is that this was strategic, intentionally done, we are going to need a good reason to invade Syria. That is my guess, I dont think Rockefeller would make such a crucial mistake with out further plans and agreement with in the elite community.
By the way if you see the movie Syriana listen for one of the few factual names that is used near the beginning, Rockefeller is the name. (the family is founder of the Council on foreign relations, the Trilateral commision, the Bilderberg ((all elite of the elit societies))). I found this interesting, I noticed half way through the movie that it is one of the few factual names used, Rockfellar endorsed the film (rightly so) the name was used in a positive way (as the conerstone of Chicago University), pay attention to that part if you see the film. I found it very interesting.
Last edited by boots555; 12-24-2005 at 02:31 AM.
12-24-2005, 02:35 AM #40
Almost all intelligence agreed there were weopons there.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)