Countdown to Final ISG Report: Saddam lied, posed endless threat

[syzygy]

Final ISG report to be issued soon - early look .. .

thank you cnn ! countdown to final release. i suppose there is enough red meat to go
around - i just think my pile of bloody burger is infintely larger.

here is some spin correction courtesy of cnn. almost every paragraph pounds the
obvious home, exonerating the core premise pushed by neo-cons, certain libs,
historians like v.d. hanson and keegan, and many intel people the world over !

the report solidifies my defense that saddam could never be given enough time to
comply with u.n. resolutions when he had no desire to relinquish his dreams of WMD
glory. he posed a continuing threat that was made worse by feckless diplomacy.

Based in part on interviews with Saddam, the report from the CIA-led Iraq Survey
Group also will conclude that he wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction

The report also will find that Iraq made strenuous efforts to evade U.N. sanctions
and pursued an aggressive strategy to try to get them lifted, which included subverting
the U.N. oil-for-food program, the senior administration officials said -- adding that the
report will name names of individuals and countries that illegally did business with
Saddam.

the report from the Iraq Survey Group will cite evidence that Iraq's intelligence agency
used clandestine labs to manufacture small quantities of biological weapons in recent years,
although probably for use in assassinations, rather than mass casualty attacks.

Once U.N. sanctions were lifted, Saddam intended to reconstitute his WMD programs,
the report will conclude, according to the senior administration officials. To that end, the Iraqi
dictator bought illegal materials to better position the regime to restart those programs, the
report will say.

no duh.

As part of those efforts, the report will find that Saddam personally approved the
recipients of an oil voucher distribution system, which was designed to influence other
nations and individuals to lift the U.N. sanctions and help him import prohibited material,
the senior administration officials said.

The report will include names of individuals and countries that did business with the Iraqi
regime through the oil-for-food program, both legally and illegally.

awesome.

 

[tallest1]

saddam could never be given enough time to
comply with u.n. resolutions when he had no desire to relinquish his dreams of WMD
glory. he posed a continuing threat that was made worse by feckless diplomacy.

And how is the situation in Iraq worse than that of NK, Iran, and other dictorships again?

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: syzygy
Final ISG report to be issued soon - early look .. .

thank you cnn ! countdown to final release. i suppose there is enough red meat to go
around - i just think my pile of bloody burger is infintely larger.

here is some spin correction courtesy of cnn. almost every paragraph pounds the
obvious home, exonerating the core premise pushed by neo-cons, certain libs,
historians like v.d. hanson and keegan, and many intel people the world over !

the report solidifies my defense that saddam could never be given enough time to
comply with u.n. resolutions when he had no desire to relinquish his dreams of WMD
glory. he posed a continuing threat that was made worse by feckless diplomacy.

Based in part on interviews with Saddam, the report from the CIA-led Iraq Survey
Group also will conclude that he wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction

The report also will find that Iraq made strenuous efforts to evade U.N. sanctions
and pursued an aggressive strategy to try to get them lifted, which included subverting
the U.N. oil-for-food program, the senior administration officials said -- adding that the
report will name names of individuals and countries that illegally did business with
Saddam.

the report from the Iraq Survey Group will cite evidence that Iraq's intelligence agency
used clandestine labs to manufacture small quantities of biological weapons in recent years,
although probably for use in assassinations, rather than mass casualty attacks.

Once U.N. sanctions were lifted, Saddam intended to reconstitute his WMD programs,
the report will conclude, according to the senior administration officials. To that end, the Iraqi
dictator bought illegal materials to better position the regime to restart those programs, the
report will say.

no duh.

As part of those efforts, the report will find that Saddam personally approved the
recipients of an oil voucher distribution system, which was designed to influence other
nations and individuals to lift the U.N. sanctions and help him import prohibited material,
the senior administration officials said.

The report will include names of individuals and countries that did business with the Iraqi
regime through the oil-for-food program, both legally and illegally.

awesome.

LMAO!! The article doesn't even say close to what your title says. The headline is, "Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq" Nice try at yet again trying to spin the article.

How about this which you conveniently forgot to quote.

"Other U.S. officials confirmed to CNN Tuesday that the report from the Iraq Survey Group will cite evidence that Iraq's intelligence agency used clandestine labs to manufacture small quantities of biological weapons in recent years, although probably for use in assassinations, rather than mass casualty attacks."

"But the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said that before the war "we were told about mushroom clouds and stockpiles. Stockpiles. If we are told about traces (of weapons) and intentions, that's not what we were told before the war.""

So the suggestions that he might've reinstated his weapons programs in the future continue. I don't want suggestions. I want CERTAINTY. I want papers where it states Saddam said we need Biological weapons by 2007 or 2015. Even then we weren't in the immidiate danger the administration told us. You don't go to war because you think you are in danger. You go to war because you KNOW for CERTAIN you are in danger. You don't risk our soldier's lives because you guessed Iraq had WMD or you thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11. This is more inferences, guesses, and theories. I want EVIDENCE and PROOF that we were in "Imminent Danger!!!!" and mushroom clouds were minutes away.

Sadly that will never come since the evidence never existed.

 

[oldman420]

The report can be read any way you want to read it.
Pick the parts you like.
Other facts from the report
no bio weapons no bio program
decaying nuclear program
no strong ties to alquida
no connection to 9/11

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: tallest1

saddam could never be given enough time to
comply with u.n. resolutions when he had no desire to relinquish his dreams of WMD
glory. he posed a continuing threat that was made worse by feckless diplomacy.

And how is the situation in Iraq worse than that of NK, Iran, and other dictorships again?

Saddam has used the WMD's and many other points that any RBH's will fail to see or care to understand.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: tallest1

saddam could never be given enough time to
comply with u.n. resolutions when he had no desire to relinquish his dreams of WMD
glory. he posed a continuing threat that was made worse by feckless diplomacy.

And how is the situation in Iraq worse than that of NK, Iran, and other dictorships again?

two aggresive wars, 17 broken u.n. resolutions, saddam's desire for wmd, sponsored and
harbored terrorists for 30 years . .. yadda yadda . .

iran possesses a fair election system, with some governmental transparency and
accountability. their populace has a legitimate voice, albeit one that does not trump
their cadre of mullahs. but all this is more than saddam's 99% election returns and
his known history.

north korea isn't amenable to unilateral intervention when you have another large
regional power (china) who shares american concerns. north korea, geopolitically,
is far more isolated, their leadership has no int'l constituency, they have never used
wmd in combat, their last aggresive military action happened 50 years ago, and they
have even displayed a certain induced willingness to disarm (during clinton's term).

 

[conjur]

The fact of the matter is that, yes, Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with. The question is, was Saddam an imminent threat that needed to be immediately removed from power? The answer to that is a resounding, NO!

 

[oldman420]

Originally posted by: conjur
The fact of the matter is that, yes, Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with. The question is, was Saddam an imminent threat that needed to be immediately removed from power? The answer to that is a resounding, NO!

:beer:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjur
The fact of the matter is that, yes, Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with. The question is, was Saddam an imminent threat that needed to be immediately removed from power? The answer to that is a resounding, NO!

Should you stop him before he becomes an imminent threat. At what point should the line be drawn.
IF you can not keep track of what he is doing and he circumvents all reasonible options, where does one stand.

Giving him the benifit of the doubt never worked.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: conjur
The fact of the matter is that, yes, Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with. The question is, was Saddam an imminent threat that needed to be immediately removed from power? The answer to that is a resounding, NO!

:beer:

 

[chess9]

EagleKeeper:

Well, how many years away from obtaining serious WMD do you suppose he was? 5, 10?

This "lust in his heart for WMD" argument is sheer nonsense as well. So fuscking what? I want a new Porsche, but the distance between me and another Porsche is very long indeed inasmuch as my wife thinks my having owned one once was enough.

We commit men and sacrifice their lives for REAL danger not illusory maybes. I'm sorry, but Conjur is dead right.

-Robert

 

[Todd33]

Wow, no WMDs and no connections to al Qaeda, but at least you guys can still bash France. Must suck to be grasping at straws because everything you were ever told was a lie.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Predicting the actions of countries years down the road is like trying to figure out if it's going to rain on your birthday party several years hence.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: tallest1

saddam could never be given enough time to
comply with u.n. resolutions when he had no desire to relinquish his dreams of WMD
glory. he posed a continuing threat that was made worse by feckless diplomacy.

And how is the situation in Iraq worse than that of NK, Iran, and other dictorships again?

strawman!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: chess9
EagleKeeper:

Well, how many years away from obtaining serious WMD do you suppose he was? 5, 10?

This "lust in his heart for WMD" argument is sheer nonsense as well. So fuscking what? I want a new Porsche, but the distance between me and another Porsche is very long indeed inasmuch as my wife thinks my having owned one once was enough.

We commit men and sacrifice their lives for REAL danger not illusory maybes. I'm sorry, but Conjur is dead right.

-Robert

He had the means to obtain nuclear weapons.
He had the production capabilites for biological weapons and demonstrated use of them.

He had shown that he was capable of using missles. How difficult would it have been for him to make the chemical with the missles. Accuracy is not important, just the result.

Note that Iran is thought to have nukes - courtesy of Pakistan.

Given the proliferation of nuclear technology to the highest bidder, why should he not chase it. He developed nuclear technology once and was within 6 months of implimenting it.

N Korea would have been happy to send him knowledge/technology in exchange for oil. That way both countries end up in a win-win situation.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Saddam would not be called an imminent threat,

until a mushroom cloud marred sunset.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Saddam would not be called an imminent threat,

until a mushroom cloud marred sunset.

Thanks Condi.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjur
The fact of the matter is that, yes, Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with. The question is, was Saddam an imminent threat that needed to be immediately removed from power? The answer to that is a resounding, NO!

Should you stop him before he becomes an imminent threat. At what point should the line be drawn.
IF you can not keep track of what he is doing and he circumvents all reasonible options, where does one stand.

Giving him the benifit of the doubt never worked.

No one was ever saying give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. Certainly, Saddam needed to be stopped before he became an imminent threat and that's what modified sanctions and a continued weapons inspection would have accomplished.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Saddam would not be called an imminent threat,

until a mushroom cloud marred sunset.

Thanks Condi.

That's Ms. Arroz to you.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjur
The fact of the matter is that, yes, Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with. The question is, was Saddam an imminent threat that needed to be immediately removed from power? The answer to that is a resounding, NO!

Should you stop him before he becomes an imminent threat. At what point should the line be drawn.
IF you can not keep track of what he is doing and he circumvents all reasonible options, where does one stand.

Giving him the benifit of the doubt never worked.

No one was ever saying give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. Certainly, Saddam needed to be stopped before he became an imminent threat and that's what modified sanctions and a continued weapons inspection would have accomplished.

We saw what the sanctions were doing. Creating an outcry from the world softies that it was penalizing the Iraqi people. Saddam did not care about the sanctions. He has been shown to easily bypass them including with assistance from the UN.

The inspections were only working when the threat of military intervention was immenent. How many times were the inspectors kicked out of Iraq. Any why were they re-allowed back in.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: tallest1

saddam could never be given enough time to
comply with u.n. resolutions when he had no desire to relinquish his dreams of WMD
glory. he posed a continuing threat that was made worse by feckless diplomacy.

And how is the situation in Iraq worse than that of NK, Iran, and other dictorships again?

two aggresive wars, 17 broken u.n. resolutions, saddam's desire for wmd, sponsored and
harbored terrorists for 30 years . .. yadda yadda . .

iran possesses a fair election system, with some governmental transparency and
accountability. their populace has a legitimate voice, albeit one that does not trump
their cadre of mullahs. but all this is more than saddam's 99% election returns and
his known history.

north korea isn't amenable to unilateral intervention when you have another large
regional power (china) who shares american concerns. north korea, geopolitically,
is far more isolated, their leadership has no int'l constituency, they have never used
wmd in combat, their last aggresive military action happened 50 years ago, and they
have even displayed a certain induced willingness to disarm (during clinton's term).

If Iraq, out of all countries in the world were the most dangerous, wouldn't that be a good thing? I mean, after complete inspections and all, I'm sure we could've handily kicked their ass any day of the week. And if you were to put "Kick Iraq's ass" on your planner, you'd certainly place it after "Fix the economy", or even "Destroy Al Queda" don'tcha think?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjur
The fact of the matter is that, yes, Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with. The question is, was Saddam an imminent threat that needed to be immediately removed from power? The answer to that is a resounding, NO!

Should you stop him before he becomes an imminent threat. At what point should the line be drawn.
IF you can not keep track of what he is doing and he circumvents all reasonible options, where does one stand.

Giving him the benifit of the doubt never worked.

No one was ever saying give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. Certainly, Saddam needed to be stopped before he became an imminent threat and that's what modified sanctions and a continued weapons inspection would have accomplished.

We saw what the sanctions were doing. Creating an outcry from the world softies that it was penalizing the Iraqi people. Saddam did not care about the sanctions. He has been shown to easily bypass them including with assistance from the UN.

The inspections were only working when the threat of military intervention was immenent. How many times were the inspectors kicked out of Iraq. Any why were they re-allowed back in.

That's why I said modified sanctions. There are plenty of experts on the record stating that the sanctions, prior inspections, 1991 Gulf War, and the bombings by Clinton had destroyed most, if not all, of Saddam's WMDs and his WMD-related programs.

And, yes, inspections were working when there was a threat of actual military action. That's why Sens. Kerry and Edwards voted the way they did to authorize the use of force, if necessary.

And, go pick up a dictionary. It's "imminent", not "immenent".

 

[conjur]

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/041006/ap/d85i8c002.html

At a Senate hearing, Duelfer was asked why _ if Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion _ he did not simply comply with U.S. and U.N. demands in an attempt to avert the war. Duelfer said Saddam's instincts were always to negotiate _ to seek something in return before giving something up.

"He had not realized the nature of the ground shift in the international community," after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer said.

Until the end, Saddam saw himself as a great leader of a great nation, the report says. With an eye to history, he had bricks made for use in the historic city of Babylon molded with the phrase, "Made in the era of Saddam Hussein," mimicking the ancient bricks there.

"This narcissism characterizes his actions," the report says. "And while it is not always visible, it is always there."

 

[conjur]

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam?s belief in the
value of WMD. In Saddam?s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during
the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks
on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred
Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role
in crushing the Shi?a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

Hmm..sooo...the support the U.S. gave Saddam (or at least the non-tacit approval of Saddam's use of WMDs against Iran) is what bolstered Saddam in wanting to continue his WMD programs.

 

[dahunan]

Name the last UN Resolution that ISRAEL has complied with?