[spacefreak]

Iraqi Minister Says Saddam's WMD Carefully Hidden

Iraqi foreign minister Hoshiyar Zebari said Thursday Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction had been carefully hidden, but he was confident they could be discovered.

"I have every belief that some of these weapons could be found as we move forward," Zebari, an Iraqi Kurd, told a news conference in Sofia. "They have been hidden in certain areas. The system of hiding was very sophisticated."

Damn this guy...he was supposed to keep quiet until just before the November election.

[Logic]

Is this the Iraqi foreign minister that is now the Iraqi foreign minister thanks to the US-led invasion?

But it will be interesting to see how this turns out now when the one who led the US search has said that the US were wrong about the WMD's.

And isn't this part XXXXIIII

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
But it will be interesting to see how this turns out now when the one who led the US search has said that the US were wrong about the WMD's.

He said a lot more as well.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Iraqi Minister Says Saddam's WMD Carefully Hidden
Damn this guy...he was supposed to keep quiet until just before the November election.

Um, he's a member of the KDP. What the hell would he know about Saddam's WMD programs or stockpiles? He knows about as much as Ahmed Chalabi.

If you're going to put your trust in any expert opinion on the subject, I would stick with David Kay. He knows a lot more about it than just about anyone.

When he says there are were no stockpiles, that intelligence was bad, and that the programs were in disarray, I believe him.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If you're going to put your trust in any expert opinion on the subject, I would stick with David Kay. He knows a lot more about it than just about anyone.

When he says there are were no stockpiles, that intelligence was bad, and that the programs were in disarray, I believe him.

I'm glad you believe in Kay. I also think he knows just about more than anyone as well regarding Iraq's WMD situation.

Do you also believe it when he states "We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq...Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country — and no central control", or just the statements that support your point of view?

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm glad you believe in Kay. I also think he knows just about more than anyone as well regarding Iraq's WMD situation.

Do you also believe it when he states "We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq...Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country — and no central control", or just the statements that support your point of view?

Terrorists pass through Europe, Asia, and Africa as well. So that isn't something really important.

Now if there would be the slightest thread of evidence linking SH directly with A-Q that would be something worth discussing. Unfortunately for the US administration there isn't.

[maxelson]

I just want to ask you: how do you know who to believe? What dictates this decision on your part?
I cannot help but thinking that if this were a democrat in office, you'd be hollering pretty loudly.
What dictates your belief system on this? Trust in your party? Politicians? You can't know more than anyone else- we all have access to the same information and, as far as I can see, all of the information is suspect.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm glad you believe in Kay. I also think he knows just about more than anyone as well regarding Iraq's WMD situation.

Do you also believe it when he states "We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq...Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country — and no central control", or just the statements that support your point of view?

I believe him. But "passing through Iraq" is a pretty bland and open statement. Perhaps he was referring to the Kurdish terrorists groups? Like the one Zebari is associated with. Or Ansar-al-Islam, which we know had Al'Queda links, but operated in Kurdish territory out of Saddam's grasp or control?

Or maybe he meant Palestinian groups? Or Iranian groups like Mujaheddin-e Khalq? You know them, the US signed a truce with them shortly after the invasion of Iraq in a total act of appeasement to help secure the northern front for the peshmerga. Despite being on the US's list of terrorist organizations since 1985. I guess appeasement is not bad sometimes, eh?

But the issue remains that unknown amounts of potentially dangerous stuff was in Iraq under questionable security over the last few years. ARe you going to tell me that those stuffs are more secure now? We don't even know if they exist, where they might be and we have almost zero security outside of the Green Zone.

Are there more or fewer terrorists in Iraq today? Are the program-related activities under less security or more? Are the borders more secure?

So the threat to America before the war remains very very nebulous at best and utterly unsubstantiated other than our wild musings of what they might have and who they might give it to. Today, we still don't know what they might have and who they might give it to.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
Terrorists pass through Europe, Asia, and Africa as well. So that isn't something really important.

It's important if they're passing thorugh a corrupt state where scientists are under no central control.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Do you also believe it when he states "We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq...Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country — and no central control", or just the statements that support your point of view?

Why do you continue to bring up an irrelevant fact. As Logic said Islamic terrorists are "passing thru" the USA right now. Does that make the USA an Islamic Terrorist State?

And no I do not think that David Kay is an expert on terroism. He is a weapons inspector. And I now know that he is a mouthpiece for the establishment. It is obvious by the way he is deflecting attention from the Bush admin and blaming an intelligence community that repeatedly warned Bush's cabinet that the intelligence was thin! GET A MEMORY!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Top al-Qaeda, Ansar al Islam figures captured in Iraq

Yeah. They operated in Kurdish territory, out of Saddam's reach. After all, Saddam had a nasty habit of brutally killing Islamists, Kurds, and Persian insurrectionists. Ansar al'Islam was all three in one. Or do you think Iranian Kurdish Islamic Fundamentalist groups spent a lot of time in the Palace?

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

Dude! We know! This does not support your position. This is a development. There may be an A-Q group in every single country on the face of the Earth for all we know.

Pasting a link doesn't cut it. OK?

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's important if they're passing thorugh a corrupt state where scientists are under no central control.

How so?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
Why do you continue to bring up an irrelevant fact.

It's not irrelevant...it's a big part of the reason we went to war. Saddam + WMD + terrorists = no way.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's important if they're passing thorugh a corrupt state where scientists are under no central control.

Like Pakistan? India? North Korea? Columbia?

Better fire up the Draft Board, we've got a looooooong list of "grave and gathering dangers" to invade and occupy if that is your only criteria.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
How so?

Bush from the 2003 State of the Union:

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

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Like Pakistan? India? North Korea? Columbia?

Better fire up the Draft Board, we've got a looooooong list of "grave and gathering dangers" to invade and occupy if that is your only criteria.

Last I checked, we were talking about Iraq. If you want to talk about Pakista or India, start a thread.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's not irrelevant...it's a big part of the reason we went to war. Saddam + WMD + terrorists = no way.

Yes, that is the equation presented by Bush before the war.

Now Kay has effectively removed WMD from the equation so we are left with Saddam + terrorist = no way.

Except that not even the president claims to have evidence of Saddam + terrorists.

Which leaves us with Saddam = no way. And isn't that what Bush & Co have been saying for months now? You know, "liberation".

See, if they had just stuck to that argument from the beginning, they wouldn't have all this trouble or have to deal with all these pesky investigations.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's not irrelevant...it's a big part of the reason we went to war. Saddam + WMD + terrorists = no way.

Ok I didn't mean irrelevant in that way. Yes it was very relevant to the Bush Admin. And I understand the concern but this is the exact wrong way to go about stemming terrorism. Violence and war and unfair treatment and cultural misunderstandings are what created terrorists.

You absolutely CAN NOT stop terrorism with terrorism and war. It is a vicious cycle.

I know it is not realistic but the quickest way to stop a bully is to walk away. The quickest way to stop terrorism would be to remove our military and corporations from the rest of the world. Again this is hypothetical but so was Saddam + WMD + terrorists.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Which leaves us with Saddam = no way. And isn't that what Bush & Co have been saying for months now? You know, "liberation".

Well done.

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's not irrelevant...it's a big part of the reason we went to war.

Let's break it down, shall we?

Saddam

I'm glad he's gone but that was about 20-25 years too late. And as you saw, his military wasn't much of a threat.

+ WMD

That haven't been found and Kay now says probably didn't exist. And the worst thing, all the "evidence" the US provided have been proven false(I'm tempted to say lie).

+ terrorists

In Kurdish/UN/US controlled areas of Iraq where SH had absolutely no power at all. They were in the area the US had designated as a no-fly-zone. So you could argue that they were under US protection.


So let's take a look at it again:

I'm glad he's gone but that was about 20-25 years too late. And as you saw, his military wasn't much of a threat.

+

That haven't been found and Kay now says probably didn't exist. And the worst thing, all the "evidence" the US provided have been proven false(I'm tempted to say lie).

+

In Kurdish/UN/US controlled areas of Iraq where SH had absolutely no power at all. They were in the area the US had designated as a no-fly-zone. So you could argue that they were under US protection.

= absolutely no reason to invade.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Now Kay has effectively removed WMD from the equation so we are left with Saddam + terrorist = no way.

Except that Kay stated that WMD programs were undeniable ongoing, and that they had maintained the ability to produce.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Last I checked, we were talking about Iraq. If you want to talk about Pakista or India, start a thread.

His point is that the US cannot wage war against the world. And you can't isolate one country for discussion and ignore the rest while ignoring the real reasons that Iraq was singled out.

This is a plan that is destined to fail. Unless you are prepared for nuclear war. Then yes you could kill all the terrorists and everybody else for that matter.

[thunderous_funker]

Edited for new facts:
"Imagine those 19 hijackers with program-related activities and long term plans that might one day eventually or possibly get something that may or may not resemble a weapon that may or may not be particularly devastating because they'd lack a delivery mechanism...."

The questions remain:

Are the materials in question more secure now?
Are there fewer terrorists in Iraq now?
Are scientists in Iraq less likely to pimp their talents now?

Let's revisit the equation:

Saddam + WMD + terrorist = no way

Well, remove Saddam and you've got WMD + terrorists = no way

can't find the WMD so they might be more: x(WMD) + terrorists

the number of terrorists seems to have grown and be unknown so: x(WMD) + x(terrorists) = no way

And even if you take out WMD (because Kay says they probably don't exist even if the program-related activities were different than we thought) you have: x(terrorists) which still = no way

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
In Kurdish/UN/US controlled areas of Iraq where SH had absolutely no power at all. They were in the area the US had designated as a no-fly-zone. So you could argue that they were under US protection.
[/i]
= absolutely no reason to invade.

Husam al-Yemeni was taken into custody during an operation last week near the town of Fallujah, about 30 miles west of Baghdad.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Except that Kay stated that WMD programs were undeniable ongoing, and that they had maintained the ability to produce.

Your not using logic.

The same can be said about many countries including the United States.

Add to that the insidious threats posed by multinational corporations and the threat to rest of the world is very scary. it is no wonder you have terrorists.

[maxelson]

As far as I am concerned, blaming intelligence is academic. We have a commander in chief. The buck stops with him. Either he accepts responsibility or he doesn't. Not accepting the responsibility implies a lack of integrity.

Next. We whittle this down to one of four things:
Bad use of Good intelligence.
Good Use of Good intelligence
Bad use of Bad intelligence
Good use of bad intelligence.

Seems to me, the majority of folk here contend it was either good use of bad or bad use of bad.
Next comes down to who one believes is responsible. I got this "buck stops here" thing. If the CIC simply said "Intelligence was bad, but it was my decision to use it and for that, I am responsible", well, we could just pick up, move on, and Bush gets a point in my book.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Except that Kay stated that WMD programs were undeniable ongoing, and that they had maintained the ability to produce.

Nope. He said that the expertise and the intent to resume programs after sanctions were lifted was on-going.

He also reported that the programs were mostly bogus and utterly in disarray.

He also reported that Iraq was much further away from a nuke than we thought. And he says nothing happened on chemical and biological weapons for years, but that they might have eventually gotten to it the sanctions or inspections hadn't prevented them.

You're the one who is selectively reading the report.

[thunderous_funker]

He was captured in Fallujah because Iraq is less secure now than when Saddam was hunting Ansar al'Islam down.

Now they can do wherever they want. Back then, they were hiding out in a remote mountainous region in Iranian Kurdistan.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

If you really honestly try, which I think you are now, you will figure it out. You will find that eventually the finger points back at the US and Europe. We created this problem. Now we have to learn how to fix the problem without killing everybody. And the Bush Hawks have no realistic answers. It is like a bad movie where the smart guys at the top lose their minds and go wide eyed trying to stop the evil. [cut to shot of finger poised shakily over big red button]

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's important if they're passing thorugh a corrupt state where scientists are under no central control.

Are scientists in the US under central control?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Nope. He said that the expertise and the intent to resume programs after sanctions were lifted was on-going.

"The country had the technology, the ability to produce."

Regarding biological weapons, he said there was evidence that the Iraqis continued research and development "right up until the end" to improve their ability to produce ricin. "They were mostly researching better methods for weaponization," Dr. Kay said.

Dr. Kay said Iraq had also maintained an active ballistic missile program that was receiving significant foreign assistance until the start of the American invasion. He said it appeared that money was put back into the nuclear weapons program to restart the effort in part because the Iraqis realized they needed some kind of payload for their new rockets.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Are scientists in the US under central control?

Corporate control. Scary.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
He was captured in Fallujah because Iraq is less secure now than when Saddam was hunting Ansar al'Islam down.

Now they can do wherever they want. Back then, they were hiding out in a remote mountainous region in Iranian Kurdistan.

How do you know where they were pre-war? You're not trusting pre-war intelligence, are you?

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

Everything Kay said was just as true in the 1980's as it was in the 1990's. But back then Iran was the bad guy. Do you see what we are saying?

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
How do you know where they were pre-war? You're not trusting pre-war intelligence, are you?

The people you are talking about are enemies of Saddam. They weren't anywhere he could easily get to them. Funker is using logic. Powers of deduction from facts.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
How do you know where they were pre-war? You're not trusting pre-war intelligence, are you?

Everybody knew where they were. Even hippy, tree-hugging liberal peaceniks.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Husam al-Yemeni was taken into custody during an operation last week near the town of Fallujah, about 30 miles west of Baghdad.

By "last week", I assume you mean long after Saddam was removed from power and while Iraq is under US control?

[GG Allin]

Hey spacefreak you have gained my respect for sticking it out in here.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The country had the technology, the ability to produce."

Regarding biological weapons, he said there was evidence that the Iraqis continued research and development "right up until the end" to improve their ability to produce ricin. "They were mostly researching better methods for weaponization," Dr. Kay said.

Dr. Kay said Iraq had also maintained an active ballistic missile program that was receiving significant foreign assistance until the start of the American invasion. He said it appeared that money was put back into the nuclear weapons program to restart the effort in part because the Iraqis realized they needed some kind of payload for their new rockets.

Isn't that what I said? They retained expertise and intent. That is what "technology and ability" means.

Research and development are not the same as stockpiles or even successful programs. Alchemists conducted decades of R&D on turning base metals into gold.

If you think Iraq could destray America (or even significantly harm it) with ricin, you're delusional.

Remember the head of Iraq's nuclear program digging up his equipment from his rose bushes where it had been for 10 years? He still had expertise and ability. He might even have been doing R&D, reading, researching, whatever. But the fact remains he kept shyt buried in his yard waiting for the call from Bagdad to start up work again and it never came.

Besides, Cheney said on TV that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Powell told the UN they had massive stockpiles (Kay says he's wrong, even if R&D and technology remained), and Rummy told us that he even knew where the weapons were.

They. Were. Wrong. Period.

[thunderous_funker]

Dr. Kay said that based on his team's interviews with Iraqi scientists, reviews of Iraqi documents and examinations of facilities and other materials, the administration was also almost certainly wrong in its prewar belief that Iraq had any significant stockpiles of illicit weapons.

"I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction," Dr. Kay said. "We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on.

"I think they gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's, the large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated."

While it is possible Iraq kept developing "test amounts" of chemical weapons and was working on improved methods of production, he said, the evidence is strong that "they did not produce large amounts of chemical weapons throughout the 1990's."

Regarding biological weapons, he said there was evidence that the Iraqis continued research and development "right up until the end" to improve their ability to produce ricin. "They were mostly researching better methods for weaponization," Dr. Kay said. "They were maintaining an infrastructure, but they didn't have large-scale production under way."

He added that Iraq did make an effort to restart its nuclear weapons program in 2000 and 2001, but that the evidence suggested that the program was rudimentary at best and would have taken years to rebuild, after being largely abandoned in the 1990's. "There was a restart of the nuclear program," he said. "But the surprising thing is that if you compare it to what we now know about Iran and Libya, the Iraqi program was never as advanced," Dr. Kay said.

Um, you forgot some parts in your quotes.

[Logic]

What I find interesting is that Kay seems to think and believe that Iraq had small test samples and the capability to produce WMD's while he says that the evidence proves that Iraq had no massive amounts of WMD's etc....

Nice choice of words.

[boots]

Originally posted by maxelson:
As far as I am concerned, blaming intelligence is academic. We have a commander in chief. The buck stops with him. Either he accepts responsibility or he doesn't. Not accepting the responsibility implies a lack of integrity.

Next. We whittle this down to one of four things:
Bad use of Good intelligence.
Good Use of Good intelligence
Bad use of Bad intelligence
Good use of bad intelligence.

Seems to me, the majority of folk here contend it was either good use of bad or bad use of bad.
Next comes down to who one believes is responsible. I got this "buck stops here" thing. If the CIC simply said "Intelligence was bad, but it was my decision to use it and for that, I am responsible", well, we could just pick up, move on, and Bush gets a point in my book.

Ok, lets run with this for a second. Let us assume it was either bad use of bad intel or good use of bad intel (that way both sides can get passed the decision to attack. It's been made, no going back). If either are true, the intelligence used sucked. Why?

1) The intel was not properly analyzed.
2) The intel was not properly gathered.
3) properly gathered and analyzed intel was improperly portrayed.

Lets leave 3 out for the sake of argument. We've already gone round and round about being lied to, etc.

So, is the problem that intelligence community didn't do a good job? Or was the process circumvented?

We've had a number of links to "stovepiping" that didn't really raise any eyebrows. It hasn't been denied, but the impact on all of this hasn't been examined.

Is stovepiping legitimate use of intelligence? Does it allow the proper people to analyze the intelligence gathered?

What went wrong, here. If you want to turn your focus to the intelligence community, make sure you follow the entire stream, not just the source.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Are scientists in the US under central control?

Actually, I believe the US nuclear weapons labs are administered by the University of California and the scientists need US government clearance. Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by GG Allin:
His point is that the US cannot wage war against the world. And you can't isolate one country for discussion and ignore the rest while ignoring the real reasons that Iraq was singled out.

I'm not taking a side on this issue here, but I believe the idea is to set an example so that we won't have to fight wars against all the others.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by itai195:
Actually, I believe the US nuclear weapons labs are administered by the University of California and the scientists need US government clearance. Does that answer your question?

Not really. Are the scientists that work at US nuclear weapons labs the only scientists in the US? Re-read my post and the one I posted it in response to.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's important if they're passing thorugh a corrupt state where scientists are under no central control.

Like Pakistan?

Really, other than helping us out (kinda) with Al Qaeda, if there's one country that deserved reshaping in the region, it's Pakistan. Harbors terrorists, exports weapons of mass destruction, the whole gamut.

EDIT: whoops, t_f already made that point.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by boots:
Ok, lets run with this for a second. Let us assume it was either bad use of bad intel or good use of bad intel (that way both sides can get passed the decision to attack. It's been made, no going back). If either are true, the intelligence used sucked. Why?

1) The intel was not properly analyzed.
2) The intel was not properly gathered.
3) properly gathered and analyzed intel was improperly portrayed.

Lets leave 3 out for the sake of argument. We've already gone round and round about being lied to, etc.

So, is the problem that intelligence community didn't do a good job? Or was the process circumvented?

We've had a number of links to "stovepiping" that didn't really raise any eyebrows. It hasn't been denied, but the impact on all of this hasn't been examined.

Is stovepiping legitimate use of intelligence? Does it allow the proper people to analyze the intelligence gathered?

What went wrong, here. If you want to turn your focus to the intelligence community, make sure you follow the entire stream, not just the source.

Excellent questions, chem boy. Like 'em.

[zigzag]

The good-bad scenarios were raised the other day in an interview with Lt. Gen. William Odom, an intel expert at the Hudson Institute. Among other things, he was head of the National Security Agency under Reagan.

He was presented with all four scenarios and said it was "bad intelligence, badly used, unequivocally." Draw your own conclusions.

I think Dubya himself could come out and admit that they spun things a bit and there are those who would forever deny it. This happened even after he disavowed the Niger statement.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Excellent questions, chem boy. Like 'em.

Intuition vs. action. In the end you guys should just move to france where Saddam's bribery won the hearts and minds.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Not really. Are the scientists that work at US nuclear weapons labs the only scientists in the US? Re-read my post and the one I posted it in response to.

Are you just correcting him for being vague? It's clear from the topic that he's talking about weapons experts, not all scientists.