Is it negligent to go to war based on five year old intelligence?

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

I can see if i can dig up 6month old links. last time i checked the telegraph is not a tabloid....If it has become one, my mistake.

So, they found an empty "production facility", as you put it. It had a general there and barbed wire right? Sounds pretty solid man...sort of like those mobile labs that turned out to just be hydrogen producers..right? Was it an empty milk production facility? How about maybe an old Willy Wonka chocolate factory that had been outsourced to India? What exactly was "produced" there?

Like i said, we can only speculate what was there.
But how often do you see milk factories with a general and barbed wire....

Fair enough. Here's the thing though, if this was indeed a chemical weapons or other WMD production facility, or even may hve been used as such, don't you think we would hear about it? Don't you think a possible WMD production facility, albeit empty, would be something this administration would be pointing as evidence of Saddams alleged programs?

This is an excellent point. Has anyone mentioned this? Did Tenet mention it? Has Bush mentioned it? Has Powell...or anyone else? Don't you think, if you believe this story, that it would've been cited countless trimes in the past months...especially when our leaders have been, imo, scrambling to justify the intel?

 

[tnitsuj]

Charrison likes to point out wild ass speculative things that if they had any real basis would have been shouted out from the mountaintops by the administration.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

I can see if i can dig up 6month old links. last time i checked the telegraph is not a tabloid....If it has become one, my mistake.

So, they found an empty "production facility", as you put it. It had a general there and barbed wire right? Sounds pretty solid man...sort of like those mobile labs that turned out to just be hydrogen producers..right? Was it an empty milk production facility? How about maybe an old Willy Wonka chocolate factory that had been outsourced to India? What exactly was "produced" there?

Like i said, we can only speculate what was there.
But how often do you see milk factories with a general and barbed wire....

Fair enough. Here's the thing though, if this was indeed a chemical weapons or other WMD production facility, or even may hve been used as such, don't you think we would hear about it? Don't you think a possible WMD production facility, albeit empty, would be something this administration would be pointing as evidence of Saddams alleged programs?

This is an excellent point. Has anyone mentioned this? Did Tenet mention it? Has Bush mentioned it? Has Powell...or anyone else? Don't you think, if you believe this story, that it would've been cited countless trimes in the past months...especially when our leaders have been, imo, scrambling to justify the intel?

Any comments?

 

[Shad0hawK]

i had forgot about this thread.


it seems the "well it could be used for legitimate purposes" syndrome is still rampant...

if i remember right the facility had been freshly cleaned, i guess the iraqi general had nothing to do but clean an "abandoned" facilty...

and we do hear about it, it just gets poo-poohed away by statements beginning with "well it could be..." then ignored by those with thier head in the sand and thier arse in the air.


this was the whole straegy behind "dual use" facilities, it's seems saddam is smarter than the average lib.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

I can see if i can dig up 6month old links. last time i checked the telegraph is not a tabloid....If it has become one, my mistake.

So, they found an empty "production facility", as you put it. It had a general there and barbed wire right? Sounds pretty solid man...sort of like those mobile labs that turned out to just be hydrogen producers..right? Was it an empty milk production facility? How about maybe an old Willy Wonka chocolate factory that had been outsourced to India? What exactly was "produced" there?

Like i said, we can only speculate what was there.
But how often do you see milk factories with a general and barbed wire....

Fair enough. Here's the thing though, if this was indeed a chemical weapons or other WMD production facility, or even may hve been used as such, don't you think we would hear about it? Don't you think a possible WMD production facility, albeit empty, would be something this administration would be pointing as evidence of Saddams alleged programs?

This is an excellent point. Has anyone mentioned this? Did Tenet mention it? Has Bush mentioned it? Has Powell...or anyone else? Don't you think, if you believe this story, that it would've been cited countless trimes in the past months...especially when our leaders have been, imo, scrambling to justify the intel?

Any comments?

I managed to find a couple of articles


initial report

100-acre, camouflaged facility
overtaken 90 miles south of Baghdad

...

At least 30 Iraqi troops, including a general, surrendered today to troops with the 3rd Infantry Division within minutes of U.S. forces entering the area to capture the sheet metal-lined chemical weapons production facility.

One U.S. soldier was wounded when a booby-trapped explosive went off at the 100-acre complex, which is surrounded by an electrical fence.

...

The Post states the surrounding barracks resemble an abandoned slum and the facility was camouflaged in sand-cast walls to make it look like the surrounding desert, in an apparent attempt to keep it from being photographed aerially.

From the description of the facility, I think it is safe to say this is a military location.

report a few days later

linkage

U.S. troops have so far found no chemical or biological weapons at a captured ammunition storage site near the Iraqi town of Najaf, which was initially suspected of being a chemical weapons plant, weapons experts and military officers said yesterday (see GSN, March 26).

The site remains suspicious, however, because of indications that chemical or biological weapons might once have been stored at the site, officials said. For example, an Iraqi general who was captured when U.S. troops took control of the site has told military intelligence analysts that there were special bunkers and underground tunnels at the facility that he and other senior staff were not allowed to enter, they said.

A U.S. military site survey team inspecting the facility has also found a biological hazard sign with a crate in one bunker at the site and found crate markings in another bunker indicating ?CN-1,? which is sometimes used to identify riot control agents, according to the New York Times. The team also found wax on the surface of artillery shell discovered at the site, a substance sometimes used on chemical munitions, the Times reported.

So the question remains, why was a general located at an empty facility? Why was this facility not reported the UN? Was anything stored there recently? Lots of questions....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
i had forgot about this thread.


it seems the "well it could be used for legitimate purposes" syndrome is still rampant...

if i remember right the facility had been freshly cleaned, i guess the iraqi general had nothing to do but clean an "abandoned" facilty...

and we do hear about it, it just gets poo-poohed away by statements beginning with "well it could be..." then ignored by those with thier head in the sand and thier arse in the air.


this was the whole straegy behind "dual use" facilities, it's seems saddam is smarter than the average lib.

I assume you have a degree or training in either biology or chemistry sufficient such that would allow you to make an assesment as to the feasibility of cleaning an entire facility beyond the point of our technology to detect? Obviously you do, since you are smarter than the average lib, don't you think, or don't you?

 

[Gaard]

charrison, you're last article is from March of last year. Do you remember anything more recent? Don't you think this would've been mentioned if it was thought to be anything...after all, those trucks were mentioned a few hundred times and they were never sure about those (or were they?)

I think this story must've really been poo-poohed pretty good because I can't remember anything about it.

Shad0hawk, do you remember anything specific like where or when you heard/read about this?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
i had forgot about this thread.


it seems the "well it could be used for legitimate purposes" syndrome is still rampant...

if i remember right the facility had been freshly cleaned, i guess the iraqi general had nothing to do but clean an "abandoned" facilty...

and we do hear about it, it just gets poo-poohed away by statements beginning with "well it could be..." then ignored by those with thier head in the sand and thier arse in the air.


this was the whole straegy behind "dual use" facilities, it's seems saddam is smarter than the average lib.

I assume you have a degree or training in either biology or chemistry sufficient such that would allow you to make an assesment as to the feasibility of cleaning an entire facility beyond the point of our technology to detect? Obviously you do, since you are smarter than the average lib, don't you think, or don't you?

actually i do have training in NBC operations, plus in the use of various types of explosives and bridgebuilding as well. thank you for asking!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
i had forgot about this thread.


it seems the "well it could be used for legitimate purposes" syndrome is still rampant...

if i remember right the facility had been freshly cleaned, i guess the iraqi general had nothing to do but clean an "abandoned" facilty...

and we do hear about it, it just gets poo-poohed away by statements beginning with "well it could be..." then ignored by those with thier head in the sand and thier arse in the air.


this was the whole straegy behind "dual use" facilities, it's seems saddam is smarter than the average lib.

I assume you have a degree or training in either biology or chemistry sufficient such that would allow you to make an assesment as to the feasibility of cleaning an entire facility beyond the point of our technology to detect? Obviously you do, since you are smarter than the average lib, don't you think, or don't you?

actually i do have training in NBC operations, plus in the use of various types of explosives and bridgebuilding as well. thank you for asking!

Then you know it is virtually impossible to remove all traces from a functional facility.

 

[Shad0hawK]

oh BTW and they were not "beyond the point of our technology to detect" evidence of components of various blister and nerve agents were detected in many places, but they get the usual "well they could have been used for legitimate puposes" treatment.

just like 7 pounds of cyanide salts "could be used for legitimate research" and in fact are. but while many companies use it for such purposes, many of us except the incredibly stupid know the average terrorist is not going to use such things for legitmate research...

do you really think a mobile chem lab designed with secret compartments and hidden away is used to simply make hydrogen?

i think many realize saddam was not really on the up-and-up but are simply playing politics.

virtually impossible? in some cases yes, but you would actually be surprised how easy it is in many cases. especially in the case of a complex chemical compound where evidence of an actual agent would not be detectable until final the final solution is formed. without that you will find evidence of the componets, but without the final product we are only left with things that "could have been used for legitimate purposes" but conversly could also have NOT been.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What I KNOW is that claims were made on certainties that were not. Hell, Saddam was not a saint, but he was contained. If Bush had made the primary focus of the war a humanitarian issue, then at least he would have had some credibility. You know that was far from the main thrust. You also know the whole goal was to get rid of Saddam from the beginning. WMDs were an excuse that backfired. Saddam had no desire to attack beyond his borders after he got his ass kicked last time, and there is no connection to terrorists threatening the US and Saddam.

The fact is that Bush (and by extension his die hard supporters) have backed themselves into a corner, where they can no longer claim that the main focus of the war was more than a cluster fsck. They drag in Clinton, say it was always about programs and potentialities and that what was sold to us was something other than what was said.

The best thing Bushies could say is that they screwed up, and then try to figure out how to get out of Iraq without the whole place collapsing.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
What I KNOW is that claims were made on certainties that were not. Hell, Saddam was not a saint, but he was contained. If Bush had made the primary focus of the war a humanitarian issue, then at least he would have had some credibility. You know that was far from the main thrust. You also know the whole goal was to get rid of Saddam from the beginning. WMDs were an excuse that backfired. Saddam had no desire to attack beyond his borders after he got his ass kicked last time, and there is no connection to terrorists threatening the US and Saddam.

The fact is that Bush (and by extension his die hard supporters) have backed themselves into a corner, where they can no longer claim that the main focus of the war was more than a cluster fsck. They drag in Clinton, say it was always about programs and potentialities and that what was sold to us was something other than what was said.

The best thing Bushies could say is that they screwed up, and then try to figure out how to get out of Iraq without the whole place collapsing.

he did raise the humanitarian issue, and got shouted down by france, germany and russia who were owed huge sums of money by saddam and wanted to collect. the UN did not really care as long the staus quo was kept. i would say that he was partially contained. and i disagree he had no desire to attack past his borders, he has been real pissed at america since 1991 and someone like him just does not let things go. in the overall war on terror he was a state sponsor of terrorism basically financing terrorist bombings in israel, and while the fact members of his government met with members of al qeuda, that as everything else is poo-poohed away. maybe it was not directly related to 911, but the fact they were meeting is significant in and of itself.

just for discussions sake, what kind/amount of a WMD find would change your mind? and if a finished WMD product is found, do you think many would simply take is as planted evidence, which brings another question, if bush's intent was to realy decieve america, wouldnt planted evidence being "found" a few weeks after the war have been a much better deception? i know many dems like to portray bush as stupid, but let me assure you the man is not. no one gets to be president by being stupid. not even clinton!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
What I KNOW is that claims were made on certainties that were not. Hell, Saddam was not a saint, but he was contained. If Bush had made the primary focus of the war a humanitarian issue, then at least he would have had some credibility. You know that was far from the main thrust. You also know the whole goal was to get rid of Saddam from the beginning. WMDs were an excuse that backfired. Saddam had no desire to attack beyond his borders after he got his ass kicked last time, and there is no connection to terrorists threatening the US and Saddam.

The fact is that Bush (and by extension his die hard supporters) have backed themselves into a corner, where they can no longer claim that the main focus of the war was more than a cluster fsck. They drag in Clinton, say it was always about programs and potentialities and that what was sold to us was something other than what was said.

The best thing Bushies could say is that they screwed up, and then try to figure out how to get out of Iraq without the whole place collapsing.

he did raise the humanitarian issue, and got shouted down by france, germany and russia who were owed huge sums of money by saddam and wanted to collect. the UN did not really care as long the staus quo was kept. i would say that he was partially contained. and i disagree he had no desire to attack past his borders, he has been real pissed at america since 1991 and someone like him just does not let things go. in the overall war on terror he was a state sponsor of terrorism basically financing terrorist bombings in israel, and while the fact members of his government met with members of al qeuda, that as everything else is poo-poohed away. maybe it was not directly related to 911, but the fact they were meeting is significant in and of itself.

just for discussions sake, what kind/amount of a WMD find would change your mind? and if a finished WMD product is found, do you think many would simply take is as planted evidence, which brings another question, if bush's intent was to realy decieve america, wouldnt planted evidence being "found" a few weeks after the war have been a much better deception? i know many dems like to portray bush as stupid, but let me assure you the man is not. no one gets to be president by being stupid. not even clinton!

What would satisfy me is if a President was sure of his facts before engaging the full might of the armed forces, then found what he said he was certain of, then displayed it to the world in order to prove that he was correct. Guessing and hoping to get lucky, or getting lucky after the fact is NOT sufficient.

Bush knew what, where, and when.

Show me. Now.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard
charrison, you're last article is from March of last year. Do you remember anything more recent? Don't you think this would've been mentioned if it was thought to be anything...after all, those trucks were mentioned a few hundred times and they were never sure about those (or were they?)

I think this story must've really been poo-poohed pretty good because I can't remember anything about it.

Shad0hawk, do you remember anything specific like where or when you heard/read about this?

I have not heard anything about it more recent. I an certain that the 2nd link has correct information. The fact remains, this site did exist, that general was captured and the UN was clueless about this site existing.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
charrison, you're last article is from March of last year. Do you remember anything more recent? Don't you think this would've been mentioned if it was thought to be anything...after all, those trucks were mentioned a few hundred times and they were never sure about those (or were they?)

I think this story must've really been poo-poohed pretty good because I can't remember anything about it.

Shad0hawk, do you remember anything specific like where or when you heard/read about this?

I have not heard anything about it more recent. I an certain that the 2nd link has correct information. The fact remains, this site did exist, that general was captured and the UN was clueless about this site existing.

Why are you certain?

Maybe those are facts. But does it say anything when it is combined with the fact that it hasn't been mentioned by anyone?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
charrison, you're last article is from March of last year. Do you remember anything more recent? Don't you think this would've been mentioned if it was thought to be anything...after all, those trucks were mentioned a few hundred times and they were never sure about those (or were they?)

I think this story must've really been poo-poohed pretty good because I can't remember anything about it.

Shad0hawk, do you remember anything specific like where or when you heard/read about this?

I have not heard anything about it more recent. I an certain that the 2nd link has correct information. The fact remains, this site did exist, that general was captured and the UN was clueless about this site existing.

Why are you certain?

Maybe those are facts. But does it say anything when it is combined with the fact that it hasn't been mentioned by anyone?

There are many news references to this at the time of its discovery, including releasing from centcom about the capture of this facility, and the UN claiming it did not know about this facility.

Why has there been no reports since march of last year about this facility, i dont know. It would be nice to know what was there....

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
charrison, you're last article is from March of last year. Do you remember anything more recent? Don't you think this would've been mentioned if it was thought to be anything...after all, those trucks were mentioned a few hundred times and they were never sure about those (or were they?)

I think this story must've really been poo-poohed pretty good because I can't remember anything about it.

Shad0hawk, do you remember anything specific like where or when you heard/read about this?

I have not heard anything about it more recent. I an certain that the 2nd link has correct information. The fact remains, this site did exist, that general was captured and the UN was clueless about this site existing.

Why are you certain?

Maybe those are facts. But does it say anything when it is combined with the fact that it hasn't been mentioned by anyone?

it sure is buried deep


CNN

FOX

SMH(australia)

Houston Chronicle

there were also barrrels of componets for nerve and blister agents found there, i am looking for more links on those but most are the usual "could be used for legitimate purposes" schpiel.

here are a couple

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Charlston Courrier

it is interesting that the insecticide angle is what was spun ,the fact these agents were found with military hardware shows the iraqi's were serious about thier pest control i guess.

more digging...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
charrison, you're last article is from March of last year. Do you remember anything more recent? Don't you think this would've been mentioned if it was thought to be anything...after all, those trucks were mentioned a few hundred times and they were never sure about those (or were they?)

I think this story must've really been poo-poohed pretty good because I can't remember anything about it.

Shad0hawk, do you remember anything specific like where or when you heard/read about this?

I have not heard anything about it more recent. I an certain that the 2nd link has correct information. The fact remains, this site did exist, that general was captured and the UN was clueless about this site existing.

Why are you certain?

Maybe those are facts. But does it say anything when it is combined with the fact that it hasn't been mentioned by anyone?

it sure is buried deep


CNN

FOX

SMH(australia)

Houston Chronicle

there were also barrrels of componets for nerve and blister agents found there, i am looking for more links on those but most are the usual "could be used for legitimate purposes" schpiel.

here are a couple

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Charlston Courrier

it is interesting that the insecticide angle is what was spun ,the fact these agents were found with military hardware shows the iraqi's were serious about thier pest control i guess.

more digging...

These were discarded a long time ago, simply because there was nothing to get excited about.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
charrison, you're last article is from March of last year. Do you remember anything more recent? Don't you think this would've been mentioned if it was thought to be anything...after all, those trucks were mentioned a few hundred times and they were never sure about those (or were they?)

I think this story must've really been poo-poohed pretty good because I can't remember anything about it.

Shad0hawk, do you remember anything specific like where or when you heard/read about this?

I have not heard anything about it more recent. I an certain that the 2nd link has correct information. The fact remains, this site did exist, that general was captured and the UN was clueless about this site existing.

Why are you certain?

Maybe those are facts. But does it say anything when it is combined with the fact that it hasn't been mentioned by anyone?

it sure is buried deep


CNN

FOX

SMH(australia)

Houston Chronicle

there were also barrrels of componets for nerve and blister agents found there, i am looking for more links on those but most are the usual "could be used for legitimate purposes" schpiel.

here are a couple

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Charlston Courrier

it is interesting that the insecticide angle is what was spun ,the fact these agents were found with military hardware shows the iraqi's were serious about thier pest control i guess.

more digging...

These were discarded a long time ago, simply because there was nothing to get excited about.

But what was at this facility? Why did the UN not know about it?

 

[Gaard]

March 2003 dude. That's my point.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison
I have not heard anything about it more recent. I an certain that the 2nd link has correct information. The fact remains, this site did exist, that general was captured and the UN was clueless about this site existing.

Why are you certain?

Maybe those are facts. But does it say anything when it is combined with the fact that it hasn't been mentioned by anyone?

it sure is buried deep

CNN

FOX

SMH(australia)

Houston Chronicle

there were also barrrels of componets for nerve and blister agents found there, i am looking for more links on those but most are the usual "could be used for legitimate purposes" schpiel.

here are a couple

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Charlston Courrier

it is interesting that the insecticide angle is what was spun ,the fact these agents were found with military hardware shows the iraqi's were serious about thier pest control i guess.

more digging...

These were discarded a long time ago, simply because there was nothing to get excited about.

But what was at this facility? Why did the UN not know about it?

I am also pretty sure this report was later discounted as one of the first of many false alarms. One would assume the U.N. didn't know about it because there was nothing to know about, but that's only speculation. I think it's safe to assume that if there were anything significant there, it would have been referenced in Kay's report.

Also note that the second set of links above refers to a different location and different time than the first (based on the links I checked, I did not try them all). The first set is dated late March, 2003, and refers to a site in southern Iraq, about 90 miles south of Baghdad. The second links are dated late April, 2003, and refer to a site about 25 miles north of Tikrit.