NYTimes: Puncturing Another Weapons Myth

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Liman Jig Tacker

unread,
Apr 30, 2005, 5:00:43 PM4/30/05
to
April 30, 2005
EDITORIAL
Puncturing Another Weapons Myth

he last refuge of those who continue to insist that Saddam Hussein
must have had weapons of mass destruction was virtually eliminated by
the chief weapons inspector this week. Not willing to accept the
unpalatable truth that the search for W.M.D. in Iraq had come up
empty, die-hard supporters of the war had clung to the possibility
that Mr. Hussein might have shipped his weapons off to Syria to avoid
their capture. Never mind that American military leaders said that he
could not have pulled that off during the war, when his regime was
collapsing too fast to salvage much of anything, and that
reconnaissance craft had seen no major arms shipments at the borders.
Perhaps the wily dictator had spirited off the weapons before the war
began.

The final report of the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles Duelfer,
has now declared any mass transfer of illicit weapons improbable. That
judgment came in a 92-page addendum that was released this week to tie
up loose ends from the comprehensive no-weapons-found report issued by
the investigators last fall. The investigators acknowledged that they
had been unable to pursue reports that a Syrian officer had suggested
collaborating with Iraq on W.M.D., but they said that all the Iraqi
scientists interviewed had denied any knowledge of weapons' being
secreted in Syria. The team deemed it "unlikely" that any official
transfer of W.M.D. to Syria had taken place but could not rule out the
possibility that limited amounts of material had been transferred
unofficially. That's too slim a reed to save the die-hards. (Pookie)

The new report provides a salutary reminder that the sanctions and
weapons inspections imposed by the much-maligned United Nations had
already reduced Iraq's weapons programs to impotence before the war
was launched to eliminate them. Too bad John Bolton, the
administration's nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations, is
likely to continue underestimating the U.N.'s potential and to repeat
old errors of hyping weapons estimates.

In a recent Times article, Douglas Jehl reported that Mr. Bolton
repeatedly clashed with intelligence officials in 2002 and 2003
because they thought he was stretching the evidence as he sought to
deliver public warnings about Syria's pursuit of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons. Syria is clearly a bad actor that shipped military
and civilian material to Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions. But
policy makers need to keep the threat in perspective lest they be
sucked in again by their own exaggerations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/opinion/30sat2.html?th&emc=th

Charles Aulds

unread,
Apr 30, 2005, 6:30:55 PM4/30/05
to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:00:43 GMT, Liman Jig Tacker <Liman...@aol.com> wrote:

>April 30, 2005
>EDITORIAL
>Puncturing Another Weapons Myth
>

You know, even though I was a HUGE skeptic of the WMD lies at the time, and
wrote my first letter to the editor of a newspaper in October 2002 to question
the hysterical rush to war based on flimsy evidence, I actually fell into the
conventional mode of thinking that "everyone believe before the invasion that
Saddam had WMD."

No, that is NOT true. I did not, and millions of others, around the world did
not ... and we were right.

It is amazing to me to read my own notes from that timeframe and realize that
many people did know before the invasion of Iraq, or wisely suspect, that the
White House and Pentagon were telling us things that could not be proven and of
which wise people were justifiably suspicious.

Never believe the lie that support for this misbegotten war was virtually
universal before the invasion ... though it is true that most of our
Congresspersons didn't have the courage to stand up and question it.

Trust me, I wasn't saying things, then, that no one else was ... I was only
repeating the facts and the truth that were available to everyone at the time.

They knew, and a helluva lot of US knew, that they weren't telling the truth.

That's what makes Iraq a crime ...

Charles

Message has been deleted

steve

unread,
Apr 30, 2005, 8:39:07 PM4/30/05
to
Liman Jig Tacker wrote:

> But
> policy makers need to keep the threat in perspective lest they be
> sucked in again by their own exaggerations.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/opinion/30sat2.html?th&emc=th

Too kind to call these deliberate lies "exaggerations".

Rumsfeld was lying about Soviet weapons when he was Secretary of Defence in
the mid-70s.....and set up his own intelligence group THEN to provide
"alternative" intelligence to justify what the evidence available could not
justify.

When you lookinto the background of Bush's coterie of liars and
murderers....their crimes go a long way back.

"Exaggeration" is far too kind.

steve

unread,
Apr 30, 2005, 8:44:52 PM4/30/05
to
Charles Aulds wrote:

> No, that is NOT true.  I did not, and millions of others, around the world
> did not ... and we were right.

You certainly weren't alone. I was right there with you.

You were probably just as amazed as I was when the flimsy pretexts presented
at the UN on Feb 5th, 2003, by then Secretary of State, Colin Powell, were
trumpeted in the US media as a "strong case".

!!!!

It was nothing of the sort...and any HONEST person could see it. There was
nothing there that was PROOF of WMD.....and to go kill people, I DEMAND
proof.

Bush clearly HAD NO CASE.

That anyone thought he did is frankly.....amazing.


Charles Aulds

unread,
Apr 30, 2005, 8:59:18 PM4/30/05
to
On Sun, 01 May 2005 12:44:52 +1200, steve <st...@ohnomorenewstoread.org.nz>
wrote:

>
>You were probably just as amazed as I was when the flimsy pretexts presented
>at the UN on Feb 5th, 2003, by then Secretary of State, Colin Powell, were
>trumpeted in the US media as a "strong case".

Wanta know the truth? I watched that Security Council address by Colin Powell,
because I respected and I trusted him ... I was fully prepared, that day, to see
evidence that would prove me wrong, and I hoped I'd be relieved to discover that
my doubts were unfounded.

I watched, intently, and I realized, "oh my God ... they have NOTHING ... he's
bluffing ... he's lying!" I think it was the satellite photos ... if it was
true that they were able to monitor the removal of WMDs from the storage
facilities, with the benefit of that awesome technology, then it must certainly
be true that they KNOW WITHOUT DOUBT WHERE THOSE MATERIALS WENT.

In other words, they could show the UN weapons inspections to one single site
that contained those "awesome" weapons ... only ONE ... the existence of the
rest would be conceded ... yet, they couldn't do even that.

It was all a major con job.

And Colin Powell allowed a misplaced loyalty to his "Commander in Chief" to
outweigh the one thing that would have made him a real military leader ...
honor.

He lied for someone else; and in the middle of Chapter 3 of his biography, I set
the book down, and I haven't picked it up.

Charles

Bush Wax

unread,
Apr 30, 2005, 9:11:30 PM4/30/05
to
When Colin Powell had his chance to show the UN and the world what evidence
the U.S. had, I felt like he was putting on a third grade show-and-tell. It
was complete with pictures of model jets and mock-ups of what mobile
chemical labs might look like. Considering the U.S. has surveilance
equipment that can resolve a license plate from space, you would think more
realistic evidence could have been found.

In the end, the burden of starting a war is that of the President. His
burden of proof should have been 100% conclusive and irrefutable before
committing American lives and capital. It is mind-boggling that he does not
show the least bit of remorse or contrition for making such a horrible call.
I certainly am respectful of the difficulty in making such a difficult
decision. Now that the truth is out, there is still no strategy for ending
or winning this war or when there will be a pull-out of any kind. The plans
don't have to be specific, but at least the President needs to set
milestones: military tasks, exit criterior that must be met for troop
reductions to occur. Again, the President has no ambitions of either
insuring America wins this war. For this he should be faulted again. Yet
the majority still favor his policies especially when it comes to the Iraq
war. Mind you ther is another one that no one ever talks about too.

B. Wax

"Charles Aulds" <cau...@hiwaayX.net> wrote in message
news:qh1871hn9bcdgq9d7...@4ax.com...

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

A Brick in the Wall

unread,
Apr 30, 2005, 9:45:34 PM4/30/05
to

"Charles Aulds" <cau...@hiwaayX.net> wrote in message
news:qh1871hn9bcdgq9d7...@4ax.com...

Same here -- I no longer have contact with my uncle (NRA lifetime member --
right wing Clinton-hater) because I told him I thought the WMD issue was a
big lie & that Iraq & Bush would be a disaster --- his response after it all
came true --- we now no longer speak, which I suspect, is the only way he
can deal with the truth.


Ron O'Neal

unread,
May 1, 2005, 12:06:20 PM5/1/05
to
I agree with the general response on this post.

Bush, just after 9-11: 100% certainty that Iraq had WMDs.

Bush today: Zero percent knowledge of WHERE they were.

It does not "compute".

RO


"Charles Aulds" <cau...@hiwaayX.net> wrote in message
news:qh1871hn9bcdgq9d7...@4ax.com...

Pookie

unread,
May 1, 2005, 12:34:01 PM5/1/05
to

"Ron O'Neal" <ron...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:4274fdf5$0$25884$8b46...@news.nationwide.net...

> I agree with the general response on this post.
>
> Bush, just after 9-11: 100% certainty that Iraq had WMDs.

Don't know about the 100%, but several of the world's intelligence
agencies said so...


> Bush today: Zero percent knowledge of WHERE they were.

Where they WENT, e.g., Syria &/or Lebanon's Bekaa Valley...

A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq's WMD located in three Syrian sites.

Special report by DEBKAfile

January 8, 2004, 8:57 PM (GMT+02:00)

Nizar Najoef, a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to
Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said
in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper "De Telegraaf," that he
knows the three sites where Iraq's WMD are kept. The storage places are:

1. Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern
Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built
by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical
weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.

2. The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a
big Syrian airforce camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.

3. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of the
city Homs.

Najoef writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the
commanders of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard, including General
Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is
the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.

In February 2003, a month before America's invasion in Iraq, DEBKAfile and
DEBKA-Net-Weekly were the only media to report the movement of Iraqi WMD,
the efforts to bring them from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement
of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation.

Najoef, who has won prizes for journalistic integrity, says he wrote his
letter because he has terminal cancer.


http://www.debka.com/photos/764.jpg

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=764

Liman Jig Tacker

unread,
May 1, 2005, 2:59:48 PM5/1/05
to
On Sun, 1 May 2005 12:34:01 -0400, "Pookie"
<pooki...@optonline.net> wrote:

> Don't know about the 100%, but several of the world's intelligence
>agencies said so...
>
>
>> Bush today: Zero percent knowledge of WHERE they were.
>
> Where they WENT, e.g., Syria &/or Lebanon's Bekaa Valley...
>
>A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq's WMD located in three Syrian sites.
>
>Special report by DEBKAfile
>
>January 8, 2004, 8:57 PM (GMT+02:00)

I'm glad you're still posting this crap, shows everyone what a
Looney Tune you are.

Pookie

unread,
May 1, 2005, 4:10:46 PM5/1/05
to

"Liman Jig Tacker" <Liman...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3m9a71tsfv3b7lk01...@4ax.com...

Looney Tunes?! Let's see what one of 'em thinks of you...

http://www.thepocket.com/wavs/daffywarnerbrosdespicable.wav


Bush Wax

unread,
May 1, 2005, 11:40:05 PM5/1/05
to
Pookenstein and his ilk all the way up to the President have a hard time
admitting an error in beleifs and judgement. These people can not evaluate
evidence and are easily swayed by Faux Noise programs. Admitting a mistake
goes a long way towards establishing credibility. Yet somehow even when the
truth hits the WMD boogey man in the face, and after spending $100 million
per month searching for WMDs for the first 18 months of the Iraq war and
essentially every study conceding there are no WMDs, these right wing
Klingons still hang on to theories that are not provable or just plain
wrong. If the US had even the remotest suspicion that Iraq's WMD were moved
somewhere else, they would seek them out just to vindicate the mess we're in
now. The stakes are so high that the ends would justify the means,
including planting phoney evidence. Yet so far, NOTHING has been found
despite lots of boogey man theories that WMDs moved to Bekaal or Syria.
Theories without proof are just more of the same nonsense that the
Republican party has been very successful for making the gullible religious
wackos scared. What ever happened to the more or less monthly Orange terror
alerts? Did the those conditions miraculously get cleared up? No
terrorists were ever arrested as a result of those alerts and all of a
sudden, they stopped appearing. It's time the President stood up the plate,
admitted his mistake accepted responsibility and figured out a graceful exit
from Iraq. Anything short of that reveals this administration's criminal
intent.

B. Wax

"Liman Jig Tacker" <Liman...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3m9a71tsfv3b7lk01...@4ax.com...

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages