Saddam's WMDs?

[Jhhnn]

"The political leaders actually felt that we wouldbe treated like we were in Europe and planned accordingly."

Like I said, they ignored the lessons of history. The Ottoman Turks ruled the region by stint of ongoing brutality, and the British went so far as to use mustard gas on Kurdish villages in the 20's, and to ruthlessly subdue near continuous uprisings...

Sumyungai's assertion that the region would plunge into chaos no matter how many troops were employed may well be correct, which begs the question- why was that obvious consideration ignored in the rush to invade?

Simply because that decision was utterly irrational in the first place. Instead of freedom, we've brought chaos. Instead of a better life for Iraqis and ourselves, we've only created profit opportunities for a very few from the misery of millions.

Heckuva job, Georgie.

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Right now Saddam's word is more plausable than what the American government is trying to accuse him of.

That says loads for the credibility lost by the American government under the disasterous Bush administration.

there goes your santiy and credibility?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Right now Saddam's word is more plausable than what the American government is trying to accuse him of.

That says loads for the credibility lost by the American government under the disasterous Bush administration.

there goes your santiy and credibility?

Not quite.

Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details(No WMD's)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856

In the period before the Iraq war, the CIA and the Bush administration erroneously believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding major programs for weapons of mass destruction. Now NBC News has learned that for a short time the CIA had contact with a secret source at the highest levels within Saddam Hussein?s government, who gave them information far more accurate than what they believed. It is a spy story that has never been told before, and raises new questions about prewar intelligence.

What makes the story significant is the high rank of the source. His name, officials tell NBC News, was Naji Sabri, Iraq?s foreign minister under Saddam. Although Sabri was in Saddam's inner circle, his cosmopolitan ways also helped him fit into diplomatic circles.

In September 2002, at a meeting of the U.N.?s General Assembly, Sabri came to New York to represent Saddam. In front of the assembled diplomats, he read a letter from the Iraqi leader. "The United States administration is acting on behalf of Zionism," he said. He announced that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the U.S. planned war in Iraq because it wanted the country?s oil.

But on that very trip, there was also a secret contact made. The contact was brokered by the French intelligence service, sources say. Intelligence sources say that in a New York hotel room, CIA officers met with an intermediary who represented Sabri. All discussions between Sabri and the CIA were conducted through a "cutout," or third party. Through the intermediary, intelligence sources say, the CIA paid Sabri more than $100,000 in what was, essentially, "good-faith money." And for his part, Sabri, again through the intermediary, relayed information about Saddam?s actual capabilities.

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.

The sources say Sabri?s answers were much more accurate than his proclamations to the United Nations, where he demonized the U.S. and defended Saddam. At the same time, they also were closer to reality than the CIA's estimates, as spelled out in its October 2002 intelligence estimate.

For example, consider biological weapons, a key concern before the war. The CIA said Saddam had an "active" program for "R&D, production and weaponization" for biological agents such as anthrax. Intelligence sources say Sabri indicated Saddam had no significant, active biological weapons program. Sabri was right. After the war, it became clear that there was no program.

Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in "several months to a year." Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate.

On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong.

CONTINUED: Why didn't the CIA act on the intelligence?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: Corn
That "linky" in no way shape or form substantiates Jhhnn's assertion that GWB said "Find Me A Way" as implied prior to 9/11. It is a matter of historical record that Bush wanted to pin 9/11 on Saddam, that's not what I was arguing. :roll:

Paul O'Neill is the man your looking for

A year ago, Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

?From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,? says O?Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ?Go find me a way to do this,?" says O?Neill. ?For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.?

Bush Sought ?Way? To Invade Iraq?

Linking Saddam with Al Qaeda (and intimating involvement in 9/11)
(Video)