Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Just_Observing who wrote (14418)	3/1/2003 6:02:41 PM
From: Just_Observing	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Deceived by the warhawks Posted: March 1, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern Now, thanks to a dynamite expose by WorldNetDaily's Sherrie Gossett, we know that the warhawks and their media sycophants have been deceiving us about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction programs for at least the last seven years. Gen. Hussein Kamal, director of Saddam's WMD programs [and also Saddam's son-in-law] defected to Jordan in 1995, whereupon he was extensively debriefed by the CIA and the Brits. Separately, Kamal was interviewed by Rolf Ekeus, chairman of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq and Chief Inspector Maurizio Zifferero of the International Atomic Energy Action Team, both established by the U.N. Security Council to implement UNSC disarmament resolutions. Newsweek has obtained the U.N. document, verified its authenticity and reports in its current issue that Kamal told the same story to the CIA and to the Brits. Immediately after the Gulf War ceasefire, but before the U.N. inspectors had arrived in Iraq, Kamal said he ordered the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them. According to Newsweek, Kamal was "a gold mine of information. He had a good memory and, piece by piece, he laid out the main personnel, sites and progress of each WMD program." A military aide who defected with Kamal supported Kamal's assertions. By 1995, of course, UNSCOM and the IAEA already knew most of it, but now they were having it confirmed by the Iraqi general actually in charge of Iraq's WMD programs. But, UNSCOM had to certify to the UNSC that the Iraqi WMD production and destruction books balanced. So, according to Newsweek, Kamal's revelations about the destruction in 1990 and 1991 of all Iraq's WMD stocks were kept secret. Ekeus hoped he could bluff Saddam into providing the necessary documentation. But Saddam – even with warhawk guns at his head – has not yet provided that documentation. The Iraqis claim it doesn't exist, now, and perhaps never did. In any case, there is no reason to keep Kamal's revelations secret any longer. Especially since the warhawks continue to allude to them as their justification for invading Iraq. So, WorldNetDaily has gone far beyond Newsweek, actually publishing excerpts from the "sensitive" UNSCOM-IAEA interviews. Guess what. The UNSCOM-IAEA inspectors – and hence all U.N. Security Council members – have known for at least four years that, as best the U.N. inspectors could subsequently discover, Kamal did tell the truth, when, in response to the question posed by UNSCOM inspector Nikita Smidovich: Smidovich: Were weapons and agents destroyed? Kamal: Nothing remained. Smidovich: Was it before or after inspections started? Kamal: After visits of inspection teams. You have an important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq. So, according to Kamal, himself, not only were all chembio "weapons and agents destroyed", but U.N. inspectors had been "very effective" in ferreting out what the Iraqis had done. What have the warhawks been telling us? That Saddam's chembio weapons and agents were not destroyed and that U.N. agencies have been completely ineffective. Furthermore, Saddam is such a smart donkey that U.N. inspectors will never find his WMD, no matter how long they search. Not content to simply trash and discredit U.N. agencies, the warhawks have stooped to character assassination. The attacks on Hans Blix – until 1997 the IAEA director general and now chairman of the U.N. Monitoring and Verification Commission – have been especially vicious. Why? In 1997, U.N. Security Council members had been informed by then IAEA Director Gen. Blix that Iraq had never had nukes or the fissile material to make nukes and no longer had the capability to even produce weapon-usable fissile material. Bummer. If Saddam doesn't have nukes, how can the warhawks ever convince you that Saddam is going to nuke you in your jammies? Well, trot out Khidir Hamza – who Richard Perle wants you to believe had directed Saddam's nuke program – and have him charge on television and before Congress that Blix is incompetent. Have him claim that Saddam's nuke program has never ended. What did Kamal have to say about Hamza and his charges? He is a professional liar. He worked with us, but he was useless and was always looking for promotions. He consulted with me but could not deliver anything. Yes, his original name is Khidir, but we called him Hazem. He went to Baghdad University then left Iraq. He is very bad. Hamza may have been useless to Saddam, but he has been very useful to Richard Perle. worldnetdaily.com © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.

To: Just_Observing who wrote (14418)	3/1/2003 6:40:58 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

That is amazing that the White House would criticiae the kind of American press it's been getting. That Bush has any support at all for this war comes from two places: His own political base that would follow him off the edge of a cliff, and the manner by which the American media has reported the war, which has enabled him to draw a sliver from the middle ranks of those concerned. It seems clear to me that anybody whose really thinking about the broadbased implications from this war, those folks are opposing it.