>>>All I know is I heard the tapes Powell playe<<<
What is the Arabic translation for "OK, buddy."
It might also be prudent to note there were no dates assigned to those tapes. And, in fact, there was a period of time when Iraq was moving stuff around. Given other denoted and verified fabrications of evidence, convenient deletions of evidence, the misinterpretation of evidence together with a reliance upon decade-old plagerized evidence, makes me wonder if we're not today seeing a replay of the Gulf of Tompkin.
>>>I have seen interviews with Hamsi (his former chief nuclear scientist)<<<
Then you must have noted he wasn't really Iraq's chief nuclear scientist and that resumes he's put forward do not withstand scrutiny. Don't believe me? Then ask Imad Khadduri, Ph.d, who worked with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 until 1998 and today lives in Canada.
Consider this, for example:
>>>>>>As the Bush administration looks toward, and encourages more defectors that support their view, the defector's own agendas must also be considered. Khidhir Hamza, for example, author of Saddam's Bombmaker, has written that Saddam may have up to three nuclear weapons and so must be removed from power. However, Khadduri, mentioned above, has written claiming Hamza to be lying. Khadduri claims that Hamza was not a high level nuclear scientist in the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, as he claimed, but a low-level official, as Khadduri knew him quite well.
Responding to Colin Powell's presentation on February 5, 2003 to the United Nations Security Council of supposed evidence, the Washington Post (February 6, 2003), noted that Jonathan Tucker, a former weapons inspector and currently a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace said that "the sources apparently were defectors, who have not always been reliable or credible" and as the article title had highlighted, "despite defectors' accounts, evidence remains anecdotal."<<<<<<
globalissues.com
>>> Saddam's own son-in-law described his nuclear program<<<
Indeed, his son-in-law did awaken UN weapons inspectors, and British and US intelligence to Saddam's nuclear program and for the first time we learned how close he actually got to such weaponry. But it never happened and this aspect of Saddam's program was completely destroyed by the UN weaspons inspectors.
Congress, in fact, relied upon the Bush Administration's assertions that documents showed Iraqi agents were negotiating with the uranium-mining government of Niger to procure uranium. This document has since been proven fabricated and the FBI is now investigating how this happened. How did this happen? Further, what was alleged as Iraq's buying a specific kind of aluminum tubing, fit for centrifuging in a nuclear program, was proven false, that these materials were bought for other reasons.
Had the Dem-controlled US Senate Intelligence Committee been provided accurate information (did they get the plagerized info, as well?) perhaps it never would have stamped approval for the full Senate to join the GOP-controlled US House in giving Bush his resolution for a preemptive war strategy on Iraq, and elsewhere. Sadly, this issue was debated pre-congressional election and politics played a greater role than did prudency. The GOPside then got control of the Senate and zero hours have been spent debating the critical issue of preemptive war.
>>>the UN inspection teams in the past listed the amounts of anthrax and chem agents that are unaccounted for, they have used them in the past.<<<
If Saddam's son-in-law's statement is good enough to prove Saddam was close to proving he nearly had a nuclear bomb, then that same information should be good enough for proving that he buried most of his checical and biological agents in 1991. See this link:
msnbc.com
What's really tragic is the UN weapons inspectors were in the process of analyzing the site, where this burial supposedly took place, at the precise moment that Bush decided to bomb and invade. Why?
>>>From my understanding the nuclear program was close. but Clinton's bombs accidently knocked out a key centrafuge.<<<
And that bombing also was the only reason why the UN weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq. Bush lied when he stated that Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors, as did most in his administration who emparted that false party line into the heads of the talking head tv analysts into the heads of every day citizens. Indeed, the chief inspector at the time, Richard Butler, without consulting the UN Security Council, withdrew the inspectors in advance of the bombing.
>>>I don't know why the chem weapons haven't been used.
Could be
1) the generals that had them have defected
2) Saddam could be dead
3) Iraq knows if they use them then the whole world
would turn against them.<<<
I don't think they've been used because he doesn't have a lot of them. It remains my gut suspicion, and a very worrying one, that he's holding some back for defense of Baghdad. My understanding of the history of his using such materials is he's used these weapons twice: a) to repel Iranian attacks which had overun Iraqi positions; and, b) in an Iranian-Kurd battle in the north where if a key town had fallen, the road into Baghdad would have become easy. That's what I've read about those incidents.
Is the above true? I don't know. Should he have used them? Never. Such weapons should be prohibited. Is the US taking the lead to make sure such weapons never get used? You might wish to read the writing of Stephen Pelletier, a former CIA analyst and current professor at the US Army College.
>>>Interesting to me that many people here aren't posting that they are happy that the wmds aren't being used, but are using the good fortune to bash the US policies.<<<
Bush went into this war with only fear and speculation as a justification. His action violates international law and is immoral. The UN is opposed to it, religious leaders worldwide are opposed to it, the vast majority of the world's political leaders are opposed to it and the vast majority of the people from all over the world are opposed to it.
There is more fact to the just cause reason to protest than there is to a just cause proposition that this war was necessary. The war is a prime example of diplomatic failure and an arrogant attitude on the part of the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, America's sons and daughers now hang in the balance. May God bless not only them, but the innocent Iraqi citizens who also have become victims to the US-British policy. |
