NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm

Just more proof that we, the US, was wasting time trying to get the UN's approval.

They deduced this using that magic 8 ball of theirs again, didn't they? :D

The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.

Not proof is not proof...

The ISG is a 1,400-member team organized by the Pentagon and CIA to hunt for Saddam's suspected stockpiles of WMD, such as chemical and biological agents. So far, the search has failed to find such stockpiles, which were the main reason for President Bush ordering the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam.

So they are for Bush and will speculate anything for him... still it state its not proof but speculation.

There have been reports that Iraq moved WMDs to Syria for a while now. I think the first one I saw was from some UK newspaper that cited an Israeli intelligence report or something

From the article:

"I think personally that those below the senior leadership saw what was coming, and I think they went to some extraordinary lengths to dispose of the evidence," said Gen. Clapper, who heads the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. "I'll call it an 'educated hunch.' "
He added, "I think probably in the few months running up prior to the onset of combat that I think there was probably an intensive effort to disperse into private homes, move documentation and materials out of the country. I think there are any number of things that they would have done."
Of activity on the Syrian border, Gen. Clapper said, "There is no question that there was a lot of traffic, increase in traffic up to the immediate onset of combat and certainly during Iraqi Freedom. ... The obvious conclusion one draws is the sudden upturn, uptick in traffic which may have been people leaving the scene, fleeing Iraq and unquestionably, I'm sure, material as well."


Oh yeah.... people moving themselves AND their possessions out of the way of an approaching army. Gosh, that is SO hard to conceive of.

But let's all jump to the "the WMD were moved in this way too" theory without a shred of proof.... :rolleyes:



Oh yes, and while we're at it, what the hell does this have to do with the discussions with the UN? You were wrong to talk to the UN because..... of what exactly?

Your leap of logic is almost as vast as the one in the article...

On June 11, the United Nations was presented with findings by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission that concluded that Saddam Hussein had shipped WMD components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before during and after the 2003 war in Iraq.

Its findings also include the discovery of dismantled Iraqi facilities, where components to various weapons were smuggled into countries including Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

There have been reports that Iraq moved WMDs to Syria for a while now. I think the first one I saw was from some UK newspaper that cited an Israeli intelligence report or something More false speculation.

If this was happening, the US/UK would have known about it and acted by now.

This is not proof; this is setting up the next war. (Iran or Syria, place your bets...)

This doesn't even rise to the standard of evidence contained in Colin Powell's briefing to the UN, which has been thoroughly debunked.

One more thing - if, hypothetically, the invasion of Iraq caused Saddam to transfer his WMDs out of the country, where they've remained free for over a year - doesn't that mean the invasion was the wrong thing to do?

From the article:




Oh yeah.... people moving themselves AND their possessions out of the way of an approaching army. Gosh, that is SO hard to conceive of.

But let's all jump to the "the WMD were moved in this way too" theory without a shred of proof.... :rolleyes:



Oh yes, and while we're at it, what the hell does this have to do with the discussions with the UN? You were wrong to talk to the UN because..... of what exactly?

Your leap of logic is almost as vast as the one in the article... The Washington Times has been wrong time and again about Iraq's alleged WMD.

I wouldn't take this article seriously.

Conservatives just can't accept that one of the most dishonest US governments in recent history lied to them once again.

This is not proof; this is setting up the next war. (Iran or Syria, place your bets...)

This doesn't even rise to the standard of evidence contained in Colin Powell's briefing to the UN, which has been thoroughly debunked.

One more thing - if, hypothetically, the invasion of Iraq caused Saddam to transfer his WMDs out of the country, where they've remained free for over a year - doesn't that mean the invasion was the wrong thing to do?
I voted Syria but Iran does come before Syria in alphabet...

This will be all over FOX news as proof of weapons of mass destruction and there will be counteless threads on how Bush was right. And no matter how many times we discount it and ask for difinitive proof of WMD's they will point to this article.

So the Sattelites saw the truck traffic but they decided not to see where the traffic went? Is the US not allowed in Syria?

Nah you've got it wrong. It'll be iran, its nice and easy to invade because its name isn't too different from Iraq. So all they will have to do is change a few qs for ns and suddenly they've got permission to go to war. Also bear in mind many residents of the USA won't know the difference anyway.

As for the WMD thing, well if there were so many WMDs around before the war why could the UN inspection teams not find them? Also this is the best thing 1,500 intelligence experts could come up with after over a year? Some pathetic speculation the WMDs might be somewhere else. Its really sickening.

I say someone should write a UN resolution banning the Washington Post, on the grounds it is a shameless propaganda machine and thus breaches the ethics of news reporting. I.e. it should be impartial. While we are at it we could ban FOX news as well.

That'd cheer me up

Bush: Will there be a terrorist attack in November?
*Bush shakes Magic 8-ball*
Magic 8-ball: Cannot predict now
Bush: Damn..

Bush: Will there be a terrorist attack in November?
*Bush shakes Magic 8-ball*
Magic 8-ball: Cannot predict now
Bush: Damn..
Somehow I believe he does that with all his decisions, maybe its the "God" that tells him to do stuff?

On June 11, the United Nations was presented with findings by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission that concluded that Saddam Hussein had shipped WMD components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before during and after the 2003 war in Iraq.

Its findings also include the discovery of dismantled Iraqi facilities, where components to various weapons were smuggled into countries including Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html


Ummm, the components discussed that were "smuggled" into Jordan, the Netherlands, and Turkey were done so AFTER the war, AFTER the US had failed to properly secure sites, and AFTER these sites had been inspected.

From your article:
"The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags

Just because profiteers made cash selling known equipment for spare cash under the noses of the Americans who failed to secure facilities or properly moniter borders is NOT an indictment of Saddam. He wasn't in power at the time.

Somehow I believe he does that with all his decisions, maybe its the "God" that tells him to do stuff?
deux ex octo palinus (corect my latin)

So this 'evidence' is based on reports by Iraqis and on speculation as to what people and goods crossing the border ahead of an invasion might mean... and Bush supporters wonder why everyone else thinks they live in la-la land...

It is as simple as this. The quickest way to find weapons whose location you claim to know is to tell the inspectors who have been given free access to all locations where those weapons are. If you know where the weapons are and want them found and gotten rid of, you would tell the inspectors where the weapons were. Prior to the invasion the Bush regime insisted they knew the location of WMDs in Iraq, the weapons inspectors were in Iraq with free access and yet the Bush regime refused to say where the weapons were. So Bush's regime did not go to war to find and destroy the weapons as quickly as possible, since that was not the quickest way to find and destroy the weapons.

Bush and his regime insist they went to Iraq to get rid of the weapons, yet a quicker more efficient means of doing this was available. Why have nearly 1000 Americans being killed looking for weapons that the inspectors could have found if they existed? Why would the Bush regime refuse to tell the inspectors where to look for the WMDs if the regime knew where they were (a claim that they made prior to the war) and wanted them found and destroyed? Answer: they wouldnt, so either the Bush admin was lying when they said they knew where the weapons were, or they were lying about the entire reason for the war. Either way the Bush regime lied to drag Americans into a war.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm

Just more proof that we, the US, was wasting time trying to get the UN's approval.

The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition. [emphasis added]

Come back to us when you have proof.