Saddam's Conveniently Forgotten WMD Confession

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drjones

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
2,803
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/10/11/145715.shtml


Saturday, Oct. 11, 2003 2:37 p.m. EDT

Saddam's Forgotten WMD Confession

The elite media continue to insist that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked in March, citing the scant evidence of any actual weapons finds by U.S. arms inspector David Kay.

But if it's true that Saddam Hussein was actually innocent on the WMD charge, then why did he confess in 1991 that his country had amassed huge stockpiles of highly toxic weaponized poisons - along with the delivery systems to take them beyond Iraq's borders?

That's right - lost in the debate over why U.S. weapons inspectors have yet to uncover the Iraqi version of the Manhattan Project is this salient fact: Not only did Saddam's regime admit to possessing thousands of tons of lethal chemical and biological agents - Baghdad also gave a detailed inventory of its WMD arsenal to the United Nations.

This week's Weekly Standard revisits Baghdad's 1991 WMD mea culpa - complete with a laundry list of the frightening weapons that the press continues to suggest were a figment of the Bush administration's imagination.

The magazine contended, "Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions."

Baghdad had produced and failed to account for

• at least 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve gas, along with 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

• 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

• 8,500 liters of anthrax.

• 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

• 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

• 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

• 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

• 25 missile warheads containing germ agents, including anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum.

Again, the above arsenal is NOT what U.S. or European intelligence suspected Baghdad had. These are the WMDs that Saddam himself admitted he had - and failed to account for despite repeated demands from the U.N. that he do so.

It's also worth noting that the overwhelming majority of the WMDs Saddam confessed to went completely undetected by U.N. weapons inspectors who combed Iraq for 12 years.


Still, thanks to the media's five-month-long campaign to discredit the Iraq war - not to mention the horrible job done by the White House public relations team - most Americans have no idea that questions about whether Iraq had WMDs have already been answered - by no less an authority than Saddam Hussein himself.
 
Still, thanks to the media's five-month-long campaign to discredit the Iraq war - not to mention the horrible job done by the White House public relations team - most Americans have no idea that questions about whether Iraq had WMDs have already been answered - by no less an authority than Saddam Hussein himself.

A few questions, if I may:

1: Is this simply a PR issue?
2: Could SH have been bluffing to try to avoid an attack?
3: Why do you believe SH for the purposes of this story, but at no time else?
4: It's the liberal media again, right?

So tired... :rolleyes:

Why is it so hard for these people to just admit that they're wrong, and that they've been wrong about this all along - and apologize to their loyal readers?

I think that "Most Americans" know very well what's going on here.

db
 
Wow, Dave...you knew in '98 that Saddam had voluntarily gotten rid of all WMD, then lied about it?

That's a pretty amazing claim. You prolly shoulda told the world.
 
Yeah, you already said that, and yes we do know what's going on.

Why don't you want to admit it and agree with us? Got a special place in your heart for saddamy?
 
Got a special place in your heart for saddamy?

Didn't the supremes strike down the tejas saddamy law?

db
 
You gotta feel for those whose hatred of Dubya is so great that they end up championing a pillar of the world community like Hussein.

Heads up Dave...It's a War on Terror. Hint: How much was Hussein paying the families of the jihadis blowing themselves up in the streets of Haifa?

"Poor Saddam...reduced to bluffing about his limited stockpile of WMD because of those bullying Americans."

Ridiculous...but entertaining.
 
Heads up Dave...It's a War on Terror.

OK.

Why aren't we occupying the country that sanctions Wahhabism, financed 9/11, and provided almost all of the hijackers?

db
 
Oh...so you're one of those selective terrorist hunters. I understand....

My answer is simple convenience. The Saudi royal family has so far been smart enough to go against their own people and not shake their fist at the Great Satan.

Here's an interesting question for you:

Do you agree that Afghanistan was the logical First Target?
 
Poor Saddam...reduced to bluffing about his limited stockpile of WMD because of those bullying Americans

I like a good debate, but you'll need to use actual facts - and at least give them some historical perspective - if you want to participate.

Read your history, starting at http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/overlord.aspx

The Deception - Operation Fortitude

Elaborate efforts were taken in order to deceive the Germans into thinking that a massive Allied force was concentrated in Kent - just opposite Pas de Calais. Command of the fake army (known as the US 1st Army Group) was given to General George S. Patton in order to lend validity to the Army Group. Radio traffic was faked, plywood and canvas installations were constructed, inflatable tanks and vehicles were used extensively in order to deceive the Germans. In all, the plan called Operation Fortitude, was considered a great success in keeping the German High Command guessing about where the real invasion would come from. It would be instrumental in causing the Germans to withhold units once D-Day began. On a side note, Patton would later take command of the US Third Army in Normandy after the landings and during the breakout phase of the campaign.


db
 
Do you agree that Afghanistan was the logical First Target?

Yes, I agree. The Taliban was an immediate threat to the US.

Where I part company with you is at the point when the Administration decides to invade Iraq, and lies about the threat to the US in order to get Congressional approval.

It is well documented that the people advising Bush had decided to invade Iraq as part of a geopolitical power play. 9/11 provided a plausable pretext.

The Saudi royal family has so far been smart enough to go against their own people and not shake their fist at the Great Satan.

But doesn't waiting until the threat is overt run counter to the Bush doctrine of premptive war? If we know that the Saudis are funding attacks on us, including 9/11, why wait to defend ourselves?

What are we waiting for?

db
 
I like a good debate, but you'll need to use actual facts - and at least give them some historical perspective - if you want to participate.

Oh...I apologize...Does being on the ground during Desert Storm give me enough "historical perspective" to participate?

I was involved in the debrief of EPWs in '91...how about that?

Oh, never mind...you have a 56k connection...I'll defer to you.
 
You gotta feel for those whose hatred of Dubya is so great that they end up championing a pillar of the world community like Hussein.

Right... Show me where I, or anyone else here, 'championed' Hussein.

You gotta feel for those whose reverence for Dubya is so great that they end up championing:

1: Wars of Aggression
2: The tanking of decades-old alliances
3: The squandering of world-wide sympathy and support after 9/11
4: Unconstitutional violations of civil liberties
5: War profiteering
6: Criminal violations of law (outing a CIA spy to punish her husband)
7: Lies upon lies upon lies
8: ...

db
 
Oh...I apologize...Does being on the ground during Desert Storm give me enough "historical perspective" to participate?
I was involved in the debrief of EPWs in '91...how about that?
Oh, never mind...you have a 56k connection...I'll defer to you.


You 'made a point' about how silly I was to think SH might try to bluff.

Do you play poker?

It's been done (successfully) before.

db
 
Poor guy; he was trying to avoid an attack.

Well, you can't win 'em all.

Perhaps he's got the 4805 tons of chemical agents buried in some functionary's back yard.

Under a rose bush. :D

db
 
You 'made a point' about how silly I was to think SH might try to bluff.

So your contention is that:

1.) He had and used WMD.

2.) Sometime pre-'98 he voluntarily disposed of them and kept it a secret (Makes a lot of sense to go ahead and dispose of trip aces, you know...so you can set up your bluff ) and then brilliantly...

3.) He LIED about it to avoid an attack.

Ok...
 
You guys have a pretty good (and High Road!) debate going on here.

I do take exception to two points (though I'm not a debater, just a point excepter:D ):

2: The tanking of decades-old alliances
3: The squandering of world-wide sympathy and support after 9/11

A lot of the decades old alliances were Cold War based and were gradually going away as nations' priorities changed (i.e France and Germany).

Also, I feel that while a lot of the sympathy expressed was genuine as far as the loss of life we experienced, I think behind the scenes a lot of the world hoped that our government would finally be knocked down a peg, and move a little closer to following the UN, trans-national point of view. Therefore, I am somewhat skeptical of #3.

Not sure if Iraq was the best next step in the WOT (I favored shutting down the borders, kicking out illegals, and drastically ramping up the military, THEN lets see who acts up), but I sure as heck don't care if we ever interact with the UN again...

just my .02.
 
Also, I feel that while a lot of the sympathy expressed was genuine as far as the loss of life we experienced, I think behind the scenes a lot of the world hoped that our government would finally be knocked down a peg, and move a little closer to following the UN, trans-national point of view. Therefore, I am somewhat skeptical of #3.

The only way I can justify #3 is that I've read countless articles discussing the worldwide reaction to 9/11 and, almost without exception, people saw the USA as the injured party. There was tremendous sympathy and affection for us among other countries' citizens - never mind their governments. That's all gone now.

We are no longer the flawed "Light of the World", but just another imperial power.

We're the newest big target.

I honestly believe an American president (literally, almost anybody) without Bush's personality traits and agenda could have delt with the identifiable BGs without, at the same time, terrifying and alienating everybody else on the planet. If America had found some way to terrify millitant Muslims without simultaneously terrifying everybody else outside of the UK, we would not be facing an escalating assymetrical war in Iraq BY OURSELVES.

Bush chose the 'might makes right' path, and our Congress was too gutless to curb him.

My children's children will be paying for this.

db
 
Great post Doc. Jones.

But don't forget Saddam Hussein according to his apologists had a sudden change of heart.

In the spirit of humanity he destored his WMD and didn't document it to the inspectors as he was required to because he was caught up in the auora of peace and love :rolleyes:
 
But if it's true that Saddam Hussein was actually innocent on the WMD charge, then why did he confess in 1991 that his country had amassed huge stockpiles of highly toxic weaponized poisons -

EVERYBODY knew he had them back then in 1991 because he used them in the war with Iran. The question is what he had when Bush attacked in 2003. It hinges on the phrase:

"These are the WMDs that Saddam himself admitted he had - and failed to account for despite repeated demands from the U.N. that he do so."

"Failed to account for" is the catch phrase Bush kept using because Iraq could not pony up stuff it no longer had. There is no doubt much of the "unaccounted for" stuff was used in the Iran war and simply accounted incorrectly when it was deployed. During a war, book keeping is not usually a high priority.

Mud flew on both sides, but the ultimate line came down to Hussein saying: "I don't have them and I can't give you what I don't have. You are simply using that as an excuse to attack my country and kill me."

Bush's position was: "We know you are hiding them and that's a breech so we can attack you."

Problem is, there are two huge points indicating Hussein's version was much closer to the truth:

1) If they had weaponized bios and chems, why did they not use them as our troops rolled through slaughetring their armed forces? They used them on Iran, so why would they not use them now? What's the worst we could have done to punish Hussein for using them.... attack his country and kill him? We were already in the process of doing that.

2) We have found nothing, despite claims by Powell as to knowing exactly where the "chemical bunkers" were.

There may be some stuff hidden in Iraq, but clearly they had nowhere near the stuff Bush claimed they did.... and trotting out 12 year old "confessions" looks pathetic and desparate. Bush should just step up and do a mia culpa and start moving forward with whatever credibility he can scrape together instead of defending a hopeless pack of BS he is dragging like bridal train.
 
The signatories to U.N. resolution 1441 also believed that SH still possessed those things which his loss in the first Gulf War prohibited him from possessing. So if Bush lied to people, then everybody else bought the lie too. The fact that they change their mind when the rubber hits the road is indicative of little more than their unwillingness to let their heretofor illegal associations with SH come to light.

I'd also like the naysayers to recognize the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. My mom had Christmas presents for me hidden in the house every year. Just because I couldn't find them didn't mean I thought I was going present-less at Christmas.

And finally, this WMD is but one of the reasons that the U.S. moved. To hinge all justification on this one issue is illogical.
 
The signatories to U.N. resolution 1441 also believed that SH still possessed those things which his loss in the first Gulf War prohibited him from possessing. So if Bush lied to people, then everybody else bought the lie too. The fact that they change their mind when the rubber hits the road is indicative of little more than their unwillingness to let their heretofor illegal associations with SH come to light.

That pretty succinctly articulates the real chasm that divides Bush followers from those who are not satisfied with his "story":

He claims that if he can catch Saddam in any lie, that proves he was right to go to war.... which is a clear non-sequitur. It may prove a technical breach of a UN resolution, but that is not a sufficient reason to spend US lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in our money for this war and occupation.

The point is (and this question has never changed) show us the reason where the US or her interests were threatened such that it justified war?

Some old chems from the Iran war ain't gonna do it.... 15 year old plans buried in somebody's garden ain't gonna do it... show us a nuclear program that was within spitting distance of having a bomb or show us evidenece that lethal chems were being supplied to Al Qaeada and I'll climb on. But, all we keep hearing about is how they have proof that Hussein was planning to build WMD's.... yeah, and I was planning to retire three years ago but somebody declared war on my 401k. Bottom line, Bush has not produced anything even 1/1000 valid enough to justify the cost and risk of this war and occupation, and all the rest is just noise.
 
Hello DaveB

"You gotta feel for those whose reverence for Dubya is so great that they end up championing:

1: Wars of Aggression
2: The tanking of decades-old alliances
3: The squandering of world-wide sympathy and support after 9/11
4: Unconstitutional violations of civil liberties
5: War profiteering
6: Criminal violations of law (outing a CIA spy to punish her husband)
7: Lies upon lies upon lies
8: ...

db"

I would have to ask that you back these assertions up with some fact. I will forewarn you that I can validate the opposing view to your every point and will provide all necessary sources and links as needed. Before I get started would you please be so kind as to prove your assertions for us all?

Thanks in advance,

DRC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top