NationStates Jolt Archive

Are in the hands of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

It would be interesting to see if they reveal anything, one way or another.
http://www.nysun.com/article/27110

If they validate the story of the Iraqi Air Force guy who said that WMD were sent to Syria, Syria will instantly be in trouble.

If they say nothing, and validate nothing, it results in more of the status quo.

Something tells me that the tapes have already been translated and listened to by analysts, and the Senate Intelligence Committee wouldn't be listening now unless there was something interesting to hear.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is studying 12 hours of audio recordings between Saddam Hussein and his top advisers that may provide clues to the whereabouts of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The committee has already confirmed through the intelligence community that the recordings of Saddam's voice are authentic, according to its chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, who would not go into detail about the nature of the conversations or their context. They were provided to his committee by a former federal prosecutor, John Loftus, who says he received them from a former American military intelligence analyst.

Mr. Loftus will make the recordings available to the public on February 17 at the annual meeting of the Intelligence Summit, of which he is president. On the organization's Web site, Mr. Loftus is quoted as promising that the recordings "will be able to provide a few definitive answers to some very important - and controversial - weapons of mass destruction questions." Contacted yesterday by The New York Sun, Mr. Loftus would only say that he delivered a CD of the recordings to a representative of the committee, and the following week the committee announced that it was reopening the investigation into weapons of mass destruction.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is studying 12 hours of audio recordings between Saddam Hussein and his top advisers that may provide clues to the whereabouts of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.what do they need tapes for, they have the guy. if they really wanted to find out, they could extract the information from saddam himself. i am an amateur, but even i could think of dozzens of ways, with which it wouldnt take 10 minutes before he'd be begging to tell me everything he knows. the americans just lack the will to find out, probably they dont believe this issue is important enough.

what do they need tapes for, they have the guy. if they really wanted to find out, they could extract the information from saddam himself. i am an amateur, but even i could think of dozzens of ways, with which it wouldnt take 10 minutes before he'd be begging to tell me everything he knows. the americans just lack the will to find out, probably they dont believe this issue is important enough.

Ah, but torture is illegal, isn't it. And the results of torture are inadmissable as evidence in court.

Since we want to give him a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging, we can't torture him.

Ah, but torture is illegal, isn't it. And the results of torture are inadmissable as evidence in court.

Since we want to give him a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging, we can't torture him.


Yeah-but what if he is found guilty on all charges and sentenced to death?

He might decide not to show up for his execution. He might decide to stay in his suite eating Doritos. Or he might show up and yell and gesture unrestrained til hes done.

I am having a hard time understanding how he continues to make decisions-how does he NOT appear in court, or walk out when he wants?

He should be bound and gagged for the trial with a catheter and colostomy to remove even his basic ability to chose when he'll relieve himself. Any time he tries to express himself, he should be backhanded across the face with a 3 day old flounder and have to appologize to the court before they continue.

It seems like the enormity of his crimes and crimes commited at his direction are slipping from people's memories already.

He should be bound and gagged for the trial with a catheter and colostomy to remove even his basic ability to chose when he'll relieve himself. Any time he tries to express himself, he should be backhanded across the face with a 3 day old flounder and have to appologize to the court before they continue.

It seems like the enormity of his crimes and crimes commited at his direction are slipping from people's memories already.


Call me a hidebound traditionalist if you like, but it seems like that quaint old concept of innocent until proven guilty also seems to have slipped from some people's minds, no?

Call me a hidebound traditionalist if you like, but it seems like that quaint old concept of innocent until proven guilty also seems to have slipped from some people's minds, no?
Well, I've already heard enough evidence so far in this first trial to convince me, if I was a juror.

Any further testimony is icing on the cake.

So Kimchi, I seem to recall that you used to keep pointing to the Sata testimony claiming that the destruction of the WMD happened without Saddam's approval or knowledge at an old airbase.

Pretty sure you said that this had been completely vindicated as accurate testimony by the WMD search teams who did soil sample tests. You stated that since even Saddam didn't know that he had no more WMD, the invasion was understandable because how could the American's be expected to know this either?

Now there is Sada claiming that these very same weapons were sent to Syria. which would be a neat trick to do - transport weapons already proven to have been destroyed...


So, which "iron-clad" intelligence are you going to cling to now?


The one where the WMD were destroyed - but because the CIA couldn't possibly know that it was understandable that they had everything all wrong?

Or the new intel that gives an excuse for a new war?


Just curious.

So Kimchi, I seem to recall that you used to keep pointing to the Sata testimony claiming that the destruction of the WMD happened without Saddam's approval or knowledge at an old airbase.

Pretty sure you said that this had been completely vindicated as accurate testimony by the WMD search teams who did soil sample tests. You stated that since even Saddam didn't know that he had no more WMD, the invasion was understandable because how could the American's be expected to know this either?

Now there is Sada claiming that these very same weapons were sent to Syria. which would be a neat trick to do - transport weapons already proven to have been destroyed...


So, which "iron-clad" intelligence are you going to cling to now?


The one where the WMD were destroyed - but because the CIA couldn't possibly know that it was understandable that they had everything all wrong?

Or the new intel that gives an excuse for a new war?


Just curious.


You are mixing up "Taha", a female biological scientists who ran Saddam's program, with Sada, an Iraqi Air Force Officer.

Besides, you must admit that even if President Assad stood in the middle of a pile of WMD on international television, and admitted having it, you would still not see that as justification for anything except a news story.

You are mixing up "Taha", a female biological scientists who ran Saddam's program, with Sada, an Iraqi Air Force Officer.

Besides, you must admit that even if President Assad stood in the middle of a pile of WMD on international television, and admitted having it, you would still not see that as justification for anything except a news story.

Nice straw man at the end, but let's keep the question where it belong shall we?

And sorry, you are indeed correct that I mis-stated "sata" instead of "Taha". But the point remains. You have used Taha's testimony in the past to excuse the intelligence failures, and that you have stated that her testimony has been verified. i.e., that it is totally ironclad that the WMD WERE destroyed.

Now you are touting Sada's testimony, but its premise is totally at odds with Taha's.


So, which testimony do you now choose to abandon?

Nice straw man at the end, but let's keep the question where it belong shall we?

And sorry, you are indeed correct that I mis-stated "sata" instead of "Taha". But the point remains. You have used Taha's testimony in the past to excuse the intelligence failures, and that you have stated that her testimony has been verified. i.e., that it is totally ironclad that the WMD WERE destroyed.

Now you are touting Sada's testimony, but its premise is totally at odds with Taha's.


So, which testimony do you now choose to abandon?


If you read my posts, I was talking about anthrax, not ALL of the WMD.

WMD could be chemical weapons, or other biologicals.

Since Taha was in charge of the biological production, it's not possible to say that she knew where the chemicals were.

And we know for a fact that Saddam had the knowhow, scientists, and means to produce chemical weapons.

The survey team didn't find any - except for a few old mustard-filled mortar shells and a few Sarin filled artillery shells - certainly not the volume we were expecting.

I know - you expect my arguments to cover the whole thing 100% - and I'm only covering the anthrax.

Sorry to disappoint you.

And this evidence on the CD is not the Air Force guy - it's apparently Saddam and his ministers talking in a way that confirms the Air Force guy's story.

Like I said, you'll never accept any evidence whatsoever about WMD. And even if it does turn up, you'll say it justifies nothing.

If you read my posts, I was talking about anthrax, not ALL of the WMD.

WMD could be chemical weapons, or other biologicals.

Since Taha was in charge of the biological production, it's not possible to say that she knew where the chemicals were.

And we know for a fact that Saddam had the knowhow, scientists, and means to produce chemical weapons.

The survey team didn't find any - except for a few old mustard-filled mortar shells and a few Sarin filled artillery shells - certainly not the volume we were expecting.

I know - you expect my arguments to cover the whole thing 100% - and I'm only covering the anthrax.

Sorry to disappoint you.

And this evidence on the CD is not the Air Force guy - it's apparently Saddam and his ministers talking in a way that confirms the Air Force guy's story.

Like I said, you'll never accept any evidence whatsoever about WMD. And even if it does turn up, you'll say it justifies nothing.

There have been almost five years of "Evidence" so far, without a shred of it it leading to anything physical beyond a few old Iran-Iraq war era artillery shells turning up. Excuse me for not holding my breath as the "latest and greatest" flights of fancy scroll past on the Newswire.

As to the rest of your assertions as to my feelings on any justification, feel free to put as many false words in my mouth as you like. Have a ball. Hey, while you're at it please tell everyone my opinions on music, hair styles, and that age-old connundrum: boxers vs briefs.


Of course, all it does is to reenforce my low opinion as to your level of honesty in debate.

There have been almost five years of "Evidence" so far, without a shred of it it leading to anything physical beyond a few old Iran-Iraq war era artillery shells turning up. Excuse me for not holding my breath as the "latest and greatest" flights of fancy scroll past on the Newswire.

As to the rest of your assertions as to my feelings on any justification, feel free to put as many false words in my mouth as you like. Have a ball. Hey, while you're at it please tell everyone my opinions on music, hair styles, and that age-old connundrum: boxers vs briefs.


Of course, all it does is to reenforce my low opinion as to your level of honesty in debate.


Obviously, the evidence is good enough to have the Senate Intelligence Committee reopen the WMD investigation.

It's not false so far - you've denied everything so far, even the testimony of Taha on what happened to the anthrax.

What if they say the WMDs are in the DNC!????


!!!!!!!!!

Obviously, the evidence is good enough to have the Senate Intelligence Committee reopen the WMD investigation.

It's not false so far - you've denied everything so far, even the testimony of Taha on what happened to the anthrax.


Actually, the article states that it is the House Commitee, not the Senate. And frankly, there hasn't been much of anything found to "deny" thus far.

Please let me know when something actually turns up so I CAN deny it exists ok? Because then maybe you'd have a legitimate point.

Oh, and that last paragraph in your news story I find most telling:


The chairman of the House intelligence panel said he is frustrated with the American intelligence community's lack of curiosity on following up these leads, particularly the story from Mr. Sada. "I talked to one person relatively high up in DNI, and I asked him about this and asked are they going to follow up, and he looked at me and said, 'No we don't think so.' At this point, I guess you guys don't get it.

"I am trying to find out if our postwar intelligence was as bad as our pre-war intelligence, " Mr. Hoekstra said.



Sounds like the intelligence community has as low an opinion of Mr. Sada's allegations as I do. But hey, at least Mr. Sada will make lots of money off his book deal.... so it's not a total loss.

You are mixing up "Taha", a female biological scientists who ran Saddam's program, with Sada, an Iraqi Air Force Officer.

Besides, you must admit that even if President Assad stood in the middle of a pile of WMD on international television, and admitted having it, you would still not see that as justification for anything except a news story.

And what would you see? After all, nobody has said that Syria cannot have WMD. (And we are not talking about nuclear weapons in this case.) It is also known at the present time that Syria has a large chemical and biological weapons stockpile, so it would hardly be a surprise.

Now, if all those weapons in your hypothetical situation said "made in Iraq", it wouldn't make much difference to Syria - it would only serve as a factor in the question of the existence of Iraqi WMD.

what do they need tapes for, they have the guy. if they really wanted to find out, they could extract the information from saddam himself. i am an amateur, but even i could think of dozzens of ways, with which it wouldnt take 10 minutes before he'd be begging to tell me everything he knows. the americans just lack the will to find out, probably they dont believe this issue is important enough.
Or, you can watch the tapes where would be impossible for Saddam to lie or change his story. I'm glad you rather torture some one to get questionable information than watch tapes containing concrete information.

You need Church.

Or, you can watch the tapes where would be impossible for Saddam to lie or change his story.


Watching audio recordings? Kewl.

Watching audio recordings? Kewl.
Have you never done that? It's fucking awesome watching the CD spin around and around.