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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	10/7/2004 11:12:02 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

More on the ISG Report Powerline I've barely had time to dip into the Iraq Survey Group's report, but it's apparent that the report is a treasure trove of information. No one could read even a small portion of the report and conclude that "Iraq had no WMDs" is a fair summary of its contents. Here are just a few tidbits I noted: <<<Senior military officers and former Regime officials were uncertain about the existence of WMD during the sanctions period and the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom because Saddam sent mixed messages. Early on, Saddam sought to foster the impression with his generals that Iraq could resist a Coalition ground attack using WMD. Then, in a series of meetings in late 2002, Saddam appears to have reversed course and advised various groups of senior officers and officials that Iraq in fact did not have WMD. His admissions persuaded top commanders that they really would have to fight the United States without recourse to WMD. In March 2003, Saddam created further confusion when he implied to his ministers and senior officers that he had some kind of secret weapon.>>> No wonder it was hard for our intelligence agencies, and other countries', to get accurate information about Iraq's weapons. Even Iraq's own military commanders didn't know whether the WMDs existed or not. A major theme of the ISG report is Saddam's continuing determination to acquire WMDs. This passage is typical: <<<Saddam asked in 1999 how long it would take to build a production line for CW [chemical weapons] agents, according to the former Minister of Military Industrialization. Huwaysh investigated and responded that experts could readily prepare a production line for mustard, which could be produced within six months. VX and Sarin production was more complicated and would take longer. Huwaysh relayed this answer to Saddam, who never requested follow-up information. An Iraqi CW expert separately estimated Iraq would require only a few days to start producing mustard—if it was prepared to sacrifice the production equipment. Imad Husayn ‘Ali Al ‘Ani, closely tied to Iraq’s VX program, alleged that Saddam had been looking for chemical weapons scientists in 2000 to begin production in a second location, according to reporting.>>>> If Saddam could produce mustard gas within a few days, or at most a few months, then the existence or non-existence of stockpiles is a moot point. This item is tantalizing: <<<[D]uring the mid-to-late 1990s Saddam issued a presidential decree directing the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to recruit UNSCOM inspectors, especially American inspectors. To entice their cooperation, the IIS was to offer the inspectors preferential treatment for future business dealings with Iraq, once they completed their duties with the United Nations. Tariq ‘Aziz and an Iraqi-American were specifically tasked by the IIS to focus on a particular American inspector.>>> I can't see that the report ever says whether the Iraqis were successful in bribing the American weapons inspector. The obvious candidate, of course, is Scott Ritter. We do know that Saddam succeeded in penetrating the U.N.'s inspection teams, so that he had advance knowledge of the inspectors' intentions: <<<IIS personnel were directed to contact facilities and personnel in advance of UNMOVIC site inspections, according to foreign government information. Former Regime officials state that the IIS developed penetrations within the UN and basic surveillance in country to learn future inspection plans.>>> Keep that in mind next time someone tells you the inspections were working. We'll continue posting excerpts from the report as we have more time to go through it. UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds argues that the ISG report represents "the complete collapse of John Kerry's foreign policy case." I can't help but think that, for Kerry, every war is Vietnam. And if he's President, I'm afraid that might turn out to be the case. The "Global Test" bit looks kind of bad, in this light. But it looks even worse when you consider the other revelations of the Iraq Survey Group -- namely, that most of the opposition to the war came from people who were being bribed by Saddam... It's hard to pass the "Global Test" when the people grading it are being bribed to administer a failing grade.>>>> HERE'S MORE on mustard gas: Reader Harrison Colter writes: <<<In 1979 I was doing synthetic organic research as an undergraduate. One of the projects I worked on used mustard gas as a precursor. I think it took an hour or two to cook it up. Of course, I was working in 600ml beaker conditions, not production environments, but as I remember, the stuff is so easy to make that if you had the containers and raw materials, ramp up could take all afternoon. The raw materials are very common stuff useful for all kinds of legitimate purposes. In 6 months, the sky would be the limit on production (assuming storage facilities exist). Not that Saddam would have actually done such a thing, of course. Posted by Hindrocket powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	10/8/2004 12:23:12 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Jehl Break When it comes to Charles Duelfer, the New York Times's motto is "All the News We See Fit to Print." by Matthew Continetti Weekly Standard WALTER PINCUS, the veteran Washington Post reporter, is by no means an ally of George W. Bush. In fact, it's safe to say that, over the last few years, in his reportage on intelligence issues and in public appearances, he's done more than any other national security reporter to scrutinize the Bush administration's claims about Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities. And so it was odd, to say the least, to visit WashingtonPost.com on Wednesday afternoon, click on Pincus's write-up of the Iraq Survey Group's final report on Iraqi WMD, and read, well . . . a remarkably nuanced and evenhanded presentation of the ISG's findings. One can't say the same thing about New York Times national security reporter Douglas Jehl. If you had visited Nytimes.com yesterday afternoon, maybe after reading Pincus's article, you would have read a completely different interpretation of the ISG report. "Iraq had essentially destroyed its illicit weapons capability within months after the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, and its capacity to produce such weapons had eroded even further by the time of the American invasion in 2003," writes Jehl. What's more, Jehl continues, the report adds new weight to what is already a widely accepted view that the most fundamental prewar assertions made by American intelligence agencies about Iraq--that it possessed chemical and biological weapons, and was reconstituting its nuclear program--bore no resemblance to the truth. But what resemblance does Jehl's article have to Pincus's, or, for that matter, the ISG's report? Not much. For example, nowhere in his piece does Jehl report that "the former Iraqi dictator had intentions to restart his program." Pincus does. Nowhere does Jehl report that Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said <<<a threat remains that chemical weapons could be used against U.S. and coalition forces, noting information from earlier this year that Iraqi scientists had linked up with foreign terrorists in Iraq. A series of raids beginning last March, Duelfer said, prevented the problem from 'becoming a major threat.'>>> Pincus does. And nowhere does Jehl write that "Hussein's government retained data and personnel knowledgeable about weapons, and used funds from the Oil for Food relief program to upgrade his chemical industry so that weapons materials could be produced once sanctions ended." Pincus does. HERE'S A QUESTION: Does Jehl report that "the former Iraqi leader tried to keep knowledgeable scientists together" so that he'd be prepared for the day when the sanctions regime against him fell, as Pincus reports? Actually, in this case, the answer is yes: "Mr. Duelfer said in the report that Iraq had made a conscious effort to maintain the knowledge base necessary to restart an illicit weapons program," Jehl writes. But that's it. Turn once again to Pincus, and you discover that Duelfer believes "reconstitution" of Saddam's bioweapons program "'could be accomplished quite quickly'" because the dictator still retained his top scientists. "Quite quickly" must mean something different to Douglas Jehl, because he says Duelfer concluded that even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon. You'll notice that Jehl doesn't include biological weapons in that list. Why? Because, he reports a little later, Iraq "could have begun to produce biological [weapons] in as little as a month if it had restarted its weapons programs in 2003." What does Duelfer say? He told Pincus that both "the 'CW [chemical warheads] and BW [biological warheads] put on Iraqi missiles in 1990 and 1991, for example, were built in months.'" Now it should be said that there's one thing Jehl reports which isn't in Pincus's piece. According to Jehl, Charles Duelfer said that American investigators had found clandestine laboratories in the Baghdad area used by the Iraqi Intelligence Service to conduct research and to test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for secret assassinations rather than to inflict mass casualties. Which seems like the sort of thing that would lead one to believe Saddam Hussein "had intentions to restart" his weapons program--as Pincus reports, but Jehl does not. Wouldn't it? Matthew Continetti is a reporter at The Weekly Standard. © Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	10/8/2004 2:56:50 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Duelfer Report Shows Kerry Doctrine to be a Sham LGF Here is the Duelfer Report, all 1000+ pages of it. cia.gov The report contains a stunning (but not surprising) accusation that the former head of the $60 billion UN oil-for-food program accepted bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales from Saddam Hussein’s government. (Hat tip: Nancy Block.) <<<The report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, alleges the Iraqi government manipulated the U.N. program from 1996 to 2003 in order to acquire billions of dollars in illicit gains and to import illegal goods, including acquiring parts for missile systems. The alleged schemes included an Iraqi system for allocating lucrative oil vouchers, which permitted recipients to purchase certain amounts of oil at a profit. Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received the vouchers, according to the report, which said Saddam personally approved the list. The secret voucher program was dominated by Russian, French and Chinese recipients, in that order, with Saddam spreading the wealth widely to prominent business men, politicians, foreign government ministries and political parties, the report said. The report names former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri, and the Russian radical political figure Vladimir Zhirinovsky as voucher recipients, for example, and other foreign governments range from Yemen to Namibia. The governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt did a brisk illicit oil trade with Iraq as well — more than $8 billion from 1991 until 2003, the report said. “These governments were full parties to all aspects of Iraq’s unauthorized oil exports and imports,” it said.>>>> As I wrote yesterday, the really important news in this report is that UN sanctions were disintegrating—and as soon as they did, Saddam Hussein was planning to restart his weapons programs. How quickly could he have done this? We have an answer to this question too, because last month Saddam’s former nuclear chief, Mahdi Obeidi, wrote a piece for the New York Times saying that the Iraqi nuclear weapons programs could have been reconstituted within months. <<<Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein’s fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran’s current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation. Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980’s, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.>>>> The Duelfer Report is a huge vindication for the Bush administration’s decision to remove Saddam Hussein. There can be no more doubt that Saddam was a serious threat to the security of the United States and the world, and that our so-called “allies,” specifically the United Nations, France and Russia, were rotten to the core with corruption and bribery. There’s no mystery why these entities were opposed to our plans. They were getting fat and rich off the misery of the Iraqi people. The report is also a damning indictment of John Kerry’s appeasement-oriented, willfully blind foreign policy. Kerry knows the UN and our “allies” who refused to help in Iraq were involved in massive corruption and bribery, yet he still insists they deserve to have a more important role in the decisions of the United States. Mainstream media is universally spinning the Duelfer Report against George Bush, but the report is far more damaging to John Kerry. by Charles littlegreenfootballs.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	10/8/2004 3:26:26 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Black soap. By Ann Althouse Kausfiles writes: If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that? Why doesn't Bush make that argument--talking about Saddam's actions in the years before the U.S. invasion instead of Saddam's "intent" to have WMDs at some point in the future?

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	10/8/2004 4:28:30 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Scotsman: Saddam Crazy Like A Fox Captain Ed The Scotsman today publishes an analysis of Saddam Hussein's use of the Oil-For-Food program and the UN system to bolster his security and his ability to re-arm his military in the face of so-called "global" sanctions. Far from keeping Saddam in his box, as critics of the war claim, the Duelfer report from the Iraq Survey Group shows how the same nations from whom Kerry craves approval happily supported Saddam's regime: <<<<SADDAM Hussein believed that the United Nations system was so corrupt that it would protect his dictatorship from American aggression and allow him to complete quickly his quest for weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Detail from the full Iraq Survey Group report - compiled from scores of former Iraqi officials and captured intelligence documents - shows that Saddam was intending to resume his WMD programme as soon as UN sanctions were dropped. His officials believed they could make WMD within two years - but the only flaw in their strategy was to think that Tony Blair and President George Bush would not invade Iraq without explicit UN permission.>>>> In fact, former foreign minister and Saddam confidante Tariq Aziz asserted to Duelfer's group that the Iraqis could have built a nuclear weapon withing two years of the collapse of the sanctions regime. Dr. Mahdi Obeidi had the relevant research and prototype parts buried in his yard for that purpose, as Obeidi reveals in his book, The Bomb In My Garden. Other estimates in the ISG's report and Duelfer's testimony to Congress is that chemical WMD production could have started immediately and weapons like nerve gas could have been produced in months, mustard gas even sooner than that. But the UN and all that diplomacy Kerry proclaimed yesterday would have stopped Saddam, right? Not quite. Saddam quickly analyzed the situation after the defection of his son-in-law in 1995 (which he would avenge shortly afterwards) and decided to burrow into the global community to destroy its will to oppose him. He selected the three countries besides the US and UK with veto power on the UN Security Council to ensnare them with boundless oil profits to ensure that they supported his regime: <<<<Given that only 15 of Iraq’s 73 proven oilfields were being developed, Saddam’s officials started to offer lucrative deals to Russian and French oil companies, while personally targeting politicians considered corrupt. Jacques Chirac, the president of France, was top of the list. Some 11 million oil-for-food vouchers were allocated to a businessmen named Patrick Maugein, who was "considered a conduit to Chirac", according to the report. It also claims that Saddam’s officials paid the equivalent of £600,000 to the ruling French Socialist Party - and that Baghdad’s then ambassador to Paris handed the money to Pierre Joxe, the then French defence minister. Russia, another of the five countries with the power to veto war under the UN system, was heavily courted. Saddam’s officials dealt directly with the oil companies, who he deduced were quickly assuming political power. "Iraqi attempts to use oil gifts to influence Russian policy-makers were on a lavish and almost indiscriminate scale," it says. He targeted a "new oligarch class" and also bribed Lukoil, the oil giant, with oil-for-food vouchers worth $10 million. Peter Rodinov, Russia’s energy minister, went to Baghdad in 1997 to discuss a $12 billion oil deal. Two years later, Russian experts travelled to Iraq to provide advice on missile-guidance systems.>>>> Oddly, Saddam apparently never connected with Putin or any of his close political associates, but he guessed correctly at the time that the Russian oil barons would wield considerable influence. Those missile-guidance systems, by the way, made perfect sense for a country that was subject to hostile overflights on a daily basis -- as the US and UK enforced the no-fly zone designed to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shi'a in the south. They also violated the sanctions that supposedly kept Saddam in his box. Nor were they the only weapons assistance Saddam got from a UNSC permanent member: <<<<China, which also holds a UN veto, featured heavily in Iraqi contracts. Its companies supplied rocket guidance electronics to Iraq, "disguised as children’s computer software".>>>> That's quite an effective cover story for a nation whose children were starving to death, while Saddam converted the oil profits from UNSCAM to these weapons systems. And what did Saddam think about the risks of such brinksmanship? <<<<Saddam argued that WMD was the cornerstone of his national security policy - shoring up his own authority among would-be insurgents - and dissuading Iran from making common cause with the Shiites in southern Iraq. Primarily, he "believed that possession and willingness to use WMD contributed substantially to deterring the United States from going to Baghdad" after the first Gulf War. It was for this reason that Saddam considered it so important to have the world believe that he still owned the weapons, even if he did not. The ISG report says this was kept a secret from his own army. ... Saddam, the report says, considered that the Desert Fox bombings of February 1998 would be the "worst he could expect from Western military pressure", because the UN system would stop the US carrying out any other action.>>>> Of course that's what Saddam believed, because firing a few missiles at aspirin factories and an odd assortment of camels' butts had been the sum-total of our response to direct attacks, let alone Saddam's continual violation of the terms of the cease-fire and even attacks on our aircraft in the no-fly zone. America had never shown the will to break free of the shackles imposed by the corrupt permanent members of the UN Security Council until 2003, and it wasn't just Saddam who thought he could defy the US with impunity as a result. Other people, like Osama bin Laden, had reached the same conclusion in the 1990s and had begun to attack American interests around the globe, culminating in the 9/11 attacks. Read the entire analysis. Unfortunately, the American media has focused so closely on the no-WMD angle that they have completely ignored the rest of the Duelfer report. Once again, they have abdicated their responsibility to report the news to their cross-Atlantic brethren. Posted by Captain Ed captainsquartersblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	10/8/2004 7:20:57 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Remember October 7th The release of the Duelfer report is actually bad news for Kerry. by Stephen F. Hayes 10/08/2004 2:30:00 PM ON NOVEMBER 3, we may look back at October 7 as a very good day--even a turning point--for the Bush campaign. This was the day that news reports, one after another, reminded us that we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Most of the accounts I saw included side-by-side comparisons of language from the Duelfer report and prewar claims made by top Bush administration officials. And nowhere did I see even a mention that John Kerry, John Edwards, and even French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin talked about Iraq's WMD with much the same certitude as Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and even Donald Rumsfeld. Daily reporters aren't good at context. How, then, was this a good day for Bush? Two reasons. First, John Kerry made the dumbest comment of the campaign so far. Second, the Duelfer report reveals Kerry's would-be "allies" as the true coalition of the "coerced and the bribed." Kerry yesterday claimed that the Bush administration "fictionalized" the threat from Saddam Hussein. That is, they made it up. The statement violates one of the cardinal rules of politics: when your opponent is having a bad day, get out of the way. Kerry didn't do that. It was, to coin a phrase, a colossal error of judgment. The notion that Saddam Hussein was an invented threat--not merely an exaggerated one--has been seeping out of the Kerry campaign for weeks. On September 9, Kerry's chief spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter, claimed, "there was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." Soon after, on September 22, Teresa Heinz Kerry declared, "Iraq and terrorism had nothing with one another. Zero." The claims are preposterous. Leave aside the Bush administration's well-founded claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, many of which have been seconded by prominent Democrats such as Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, and Evan Bayh. And leave aside Kerry's own claims that Saddam was a "real threat" and Edwards's assertion that he was "an imminent threat." Iraq had been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror for more than a decade--most of that time under President Bill Clinton. Saddam Hussein boasted openly about funding Palestinian suicide bombers. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, that panel member John Edwards approved, confirmed this state sponsorship. His regime gave safe haven to notorious terrorists Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal, and welcomed home Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who admitted on national television in the United States to mixing the chemicals for the first World Trade Center bombing. And the CIA assessed, again according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, that Iraq had actually increased its terrorist plotting against the United States "throughout 2002." Is this what Kerry meant by fictionalized? The Duelfer report's revelations about the conduct of our allies before the war is similarly damaging to Kerry. The Massachusetts senator has long argued that if we had only conducted more and better diplomacy we might have persuaded intransigents like France, Germany, Russia, and China to support the war. And one of the key elements of his much-touted "plan" to fix Iraq is that a President Kerry could secure more help from these allies. The U.N. report reveals these claims as pipe dreams. Those blocking our efforts to disarm Saddam were in many cases the ones doing business with him. According to the report this list may include a former French Interior Minister and aides to French President Jacques Chirac, as well as associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The U.N. official in charge of the corrupt Oil-for-Food program, Benon Sevan, may have helped himself to the money. The goal of the French and the Russians--they stated it publicly in the late 1990s--was that the sanctions on Saddam Hussein's Iraq be lifted. Are these the allies who will save the day in Iraq? Are these the nations who might administer John Kerry's "global test?" Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard weeklystandard.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	10/8/2004 7:37:08 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Inspections + Verification The focus is on the Duelfer report, it's important to remember that the U.N. inspection regime was about providing positive evidence of Saddam's disarmament. by Daniel McKivergan 10/07/2004 2:13:00 PM WITH THE RELEASE of the Duelfer report on Iraq's weapons programs, now is a good time to review what role the international inspections had in verifying Iraq's disarmament--a role Senator Kerry and others appear to have confusion about. The inspection regime established by the U.N. Security Council in the wake of the Gulf War was never about the number of inspections conducted or, for that matter, whether U.N. inspectors could independently determine the status of Iraq's weapons programs. It was about verifying that Saddam Hussein actively engaged in disarmament, and providing positive evidence of that disarmament to the U.N. team. Given Iraq's history of successfully hiding its illicit weapons activities in a country the size of California, there could be no certainty that Saddam Hussein had disarmed unless and until Iraq fully cooperated in documenting its disarmament. As Clinton administration Defense Secretary William Cohen put it in November of 1998: <<<<[Inspectors] have to find documents, computer discs, production points, ammunition areas in an area that size. Hussein has said, "We have no program now." We're saying, "Prove it." He says he has destroyed all his nerve agent. [W]e're asking "where, when and how?" . . . The onus for this is firmly on Saddam Hussein.>>>> President Clinton stated that "it is incontestable that on the day I left office [in January 2001], there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons [in Iraq]." In fact, Saddam never met his obligation to account for them. On January 27, 2003, head U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, stated the following to the UN Security Council: <<<<Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance--not even today--of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace. As we know, the twin operation "declare and verify," which was prescribed in resolution 687 (1991), too often turned into a game of 'hide and seek'. Rather than just verifying declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programmes and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations.>>>> On February 14, 2003, Blix told the Security Council that: <<<<If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament--under resolution 687 (1991)--could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.>>>> And again, in its February 28, 2003 report, UNMOVIC informed the Security Council that: "During the period of time covered by the present report, Iraq could have made greater efforts to find any remaining proscribed items or provide credible evidence showing the absence of such items." On March 6, 2003, UNMOVIC--confronted with the same list of unaccounted for weapons and weapons-related material that President Clinton had cited in explaining the reason behind his 1998 bombing of Iraq--reported to the Security Council that: "The onus is clearly on Iraq to provide the requisite information or devise other ways in which UNMOVIC can gain confidence that Iraq's declarations are correct and comprehensive. . . ." In April, 2003, Secretary Cohen flatly stated that he believed that Saddam had weapons: <<<"I am convinced that he has them. I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out. I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. We will find them.">>>> And in its first post-war (May 30, 2003) report to the Security Council, UNMOVIC acknowledged: "The long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation." To the contrary, as UNMOVIC also reported in its May 30 report: <<<<Iraq was required to declare the import of dual-use items and supply UNMOVIC with details as to their origin. However, Iraq's recent semi-annual monitoring declarations, starting with the "backlog" of declarations since 1998 supplied to UNMOVIC in October 2002, showed a trend of withholding pertinent information. . . . The biological imports were of a slightly more significant kind, and included the import of a dozen autoclaves, half a dozen centrifuges and a number of laminar flow cabinets. Missile imports, however, were more substantial and could have contributed significantly to any missile development programme. One example was the importation of 380 Volga engines that Iraq planned to use in the production of the Al Samoud 2 missile, a missile system UNMOVIC later determined to be prohibited since its range exceeded 150 km. In its declaration of 7 December 2002, Iraq declared that it had imported 131 such engines but failed to supply any information about their origin (suppliers, exporting countries) until inspectors observed 231 such engines at an Al Samoud production facility. A trend that was especially pronounced in the missile area (but to a lesser extent also present in the biological and chemical fields) was the use of the term "local market" to classify the import of some very sophisticated pieces of equipment. . . . UNMOVIC came to understand that Iraq used the term "local market" when an Iraqi import company imported a commodity and then sold or transferred it to a government facility, which suggested that Iraq was trying to conceal the extent of its import activities and to preserve its importing networks.">>>> Daniel McKivergan is deputy director of The Project for the New American Century. weeklystandard.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	10/9/2004 2:23:37 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Report That Nails Saddam By DAVID BROOKS The New York Times Saddam Hussein saw his life as an unfolding epic narrative, with retreats and advances, but always the same ending. He would go down in history as the glorious Arab leader, as the Saladin of his day. One thousand years from now, schoolchildren would look back and marvel at the life of The Struggler, the great leader whose life was one of incessant strife, but who restored the greatness of the Arab nation. They would look back and see the man who lived by his saying: "We will never lower our heads as long as we live, even if we have to destroy everybody." Charles Duelfer opened his report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction with those words. For a humiliated people, Saddam would restore pride by any means. Saddam knew the tools he would need to reshape history and establish his glory: weapons of mass destruction. These weapons had what Duelfer and his team called a "totemic" importance to him. With these weapons, Saddam had defeated the evil Persians. With these weapons he had crushed his internal opponents. With these weapons he would deter what he called the "Zionist octopus" in both Israel and America. But in the 1990's, the world was arrayed against him to deprive him of these weapons. So Saddam, the clever one, The Struggler, undertook a tactical retreat. He would destroy the weapons while preserving his capacities to make them later. He would foil the inspectors and divide the international community. He would induce it to end the sanctions it had imposed to pen him in. Then, when the sanctions were lifted, he would reconstitute his weapons and emerge greater and mightier than before. The world lacked what Saddam had: the long perspective. Saddam understood that what others see as a defeat or a setback can really be a glorious victory if it is seen in the context of the longer epic. Saddam worked patiently to undermine the sanctions. He stored the corpses of babies in great piles, and then unveiled them all at once in great processions to illustrate the great humanitarian horrors of the sanctions. Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal. It was all working. He acquired about $11 billion through illicit trading. He used the oil-for-food billions to build palaces. His oil minister was treated as a "rock star," as the report put it, at international events, so thick was the lust to trade with Iraq. France, Russia, China and other nations lobbied to lift sanctions. Saddam was, as the Duelfer report noted, "palpably close" to ending sanctions. With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem." And that is where Duelfer's story ends. Duelfer makes clear on the very first page of his report that it is a story. It is a mistake and a distortion, he writes, to pick out a single frame of the movie and isolate it from the rest of the tale. But that is exactly what has happened. I have never in my life seen a government report so distorted by partisan passions. The fact that Saddam had no W.M.D. in 2001 has been amply reported, but it's been isolated from the more important and complicated fact of Saddam's nature and intent. But we know where things were headed. Sanctions would have been lifted. Saddam, rich, triumphant and unbalanced, would have reconstituted his W.M.D. Perhaps he would have joined a nuclear arms race with Iran. Perhaps he would have left it all to his pathological heir Qusay. We can argue about what would have been the best way to depose Saddam, but this report makes it crystal clear that this insatiable tyrant needed to be deposed. He was the menace, and, as the world dithered, he was winning his struggle. He was on the verge of greatness. We would all now be living in his nightmare. E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	10/10/2004 1:58:59 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Instapundit MICHAEL BARONE joins with David Brooks in writing that media headlines are underplaying the Duelfer report: <<<<But these headlines conceal the real news in the report of Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer. For the report makes it plain that George W. Bush had good reason to go to war in Iraq and end the regime of Saddam Hussein. . . . Duelfer also reported that Saddam asked subordinates how long it would take to develop chemical weapons once sanctions ended. One Iraqi chemical weapons expert said it would require only a few days to develop mustard gas. Former Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz said that Iraq could have had a WMD capacity within two years after the end of sanctions. If the weapons inspectors had been given more time to conduct inspections, as John Kerry has on occasion advocated, we now know they would not have found any WMDs. Nor does it seem possible that they would have uncovered Saddam's attempts to maintain WMD capability. There would have been heavy pressure then from France, Russia, and China-whose companies were given kickbacks and windfall profits from the Saddam-administered U.N. Oil for Food program, Duelfer reports-to disband U.S. military forces in the Middle East and to end sanctions. And once sanctions were gone, there would have been nothing to stop Saddam from developing WMDs. In other words, we were facing a brutal dictator with the capability to develop WMDs and the proven willingness to use them. A dictator whose regime had had, as the 9/11 Commission has documented, frequent contacts with al Qaeda. We have no conclusive evidence that he collaborated with al Qaeda on 9/11-but also no conclusive evidence that he did not. Under those circumstances, George W. Bush acted prudently in deciding to remove this regime. He would have been imprudent not to have done so.>>>> Indeed. usnews.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	10/29/2004 10:02:01 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Links to WMD & terrorism evidence against Saddam. dev.siliconinvestor.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	11/29/2004 3:27:16 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Yes, this war is legal dev.siliconinvestor.com theage.com.au

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	1/3/2005 5:21:51 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35834

Uh huh, It's always been about "stockpiles" of WMD's & absolutely nothing else........ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ President Discusses Growing Danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Regime September 14, 2002 ....He has broken every pledge he made to the United Nations and the world since his invasion of Kuwait was rolled back in 1991. Sixteen times the United Nations Security Council has passed resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. Saddam Hussein has violated every one of these 16 resolutions -- not once, but many times. Saddam Hussein's regime continues to support terrorist groups and to oppress its civilian population. It refuses to account for missing Gulf War personnel, or to end illicit trade outside the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. And although the regime agreed in 1991 to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, it has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge..... whitehouse.gov Saddam Hussein’s Deception and Defiance We’ve heard “unconditional” before September 17, 2002 The following timeline details the Iraqi regimes repeated pattern of accepting inspections "without conditions" and then demanding conditions, often at gunpoint. This information is derived from an October 1998 UNSCOM report and excerpted from cns.miis.edu. whitehouse.gov President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders September 26, 2002 .... The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq..... .... For more than a decade, the regime has answered Security Council resolutions with defiance, bad faith and deception. We know that the Iraqi regime is led by a dangerous and brutal man. We know he's actively seeking the destructive technologies to match is hatred..... Iraq has already used weapons of mass death against -- against other countries and against her own citizens. The Iraqi regime practices the rape of women as a method of intimidation; and the torture of dissenters and their children..... whitehouse.gov President Stresses Need for Strong Iraq Resolution October 1, 2002 .... THE PRESIDENT: What I won't accept is something that allows Saddam Hussein to continue to lie, deceive the world. He's been doing that for 11 years. For 11 years, he's told the United Nations Security Council, don't worry, I accept your resolution; then he doesn't follow through. And I'm just not going to accept something that is weak. It is not worth it. It's -- the United Nations must show its backbone. And we will work with members of the Security Council to put a little calcium there, put calcium in the backbone, so this organization is able to more likely keep the peace as we go down the road. Question: Are you suggesting the French proposal is weak? THE PRESIDENT: I'm suggesting that the same old stuff isn't going to work, John. And we won't accept the status quo. There needs to be a strong new resolution in order for us to make it clear to the world -- and to Saddam Hussein, more importantly -- that you must disarm..... whitehouse.gov President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution October 2, 2002 .... On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. We know the treacherous history of the regime. It has waged a war against its neighbors; it has sponsored and sheltered terrorists; it has developed weapons of mass death; it has used them against innocent men, women and children. We know the designs of the Iraqi regime. In defiance of pledges to the U.N., it has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons. It is rebuilding the facilities used to make those weapons.... .... We also know the nature of Iraq's dictator. On his orders, opponents have been decapitated and their heads displayed outside their homes. Women have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation. Political prisoners are made to watch their own children being tortured. The dictator is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet, within his own army, even within his own family. We will not leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man..... .... In accepting this responsibility, we also serve the interests and the hopes of the Iraqi people. They are a great and gifted people, with an ancient and admirable culture, and they would not choose to be ruled by violence and terror. The people of Iraq are the daily victims of Saddam Hussein's oppression. They will be the first to benefit when the world's demands are met. Americans believe all men and women deserve to be free. And as we saw in the fall of the Taliban, men and women celebrate freedom's arrival..... .... Countering Iraq's threat is also a central commitment on the war on terror. We know Saddam Hussein has longstanding and ongoing ties to international terrorists. With the support and shelter of a regime, terror groups become far more lethal. Aided by a terrorist network, an outlaw regime can launch attacks while concealing its involvement. Even a dictator is not suicidal, but he can make use of men who are. We must confront both terror cells and terror states, because they are different faces of the same evil..... whitehouse.gov President: Iraqi Regime Danger to America is "Grave and Growing" October 5, 2002 .... Iraq has longstanding ties to terrorist groups, which are capable of and willing to deliver weapons of mass death. And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents..... whitehouse.gov President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat October 7, 2002 .... Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations..... It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith..... .... And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace. We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints. Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network. Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both..... .... And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown..... .... The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family. On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured. America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin..... whitehouse.gov President Signs Iraq Resolution October 16, 2002 .... The same dictator has a history of mass murder, striking other nations without warning; of intense hatred for America; and of contempt for the demands of the civilized world..... .... In 1991, Iraq was given 15 days to fully disclose all weapons of mass destruction. The dictator has successfully defied that obligation for 4,199 days..... .... In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq, in accordance with U.N. Security Council demands, must end its support for terrorism. As the U.N. demands, Iraq must cease the persecution of its civilian population. As the U.N. demands, Iraq must stop all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. Iraq must also release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot whose fate is still unknown. The United States takes the resolutions of the Security Council seriously. We urge other nations to do the same. We're working to build the broadest possible coalition to enforce the demands of the world on the Iraqi regime.... .... To shrink from this threat would bring a false sense of temporary peace, leading to a future in which millions live or die at the discretion of a brutal dictator. That's not true peace, and we won't accept it. The terrorist attacks of last year put our country on notice. We're not immune from the dangers and hatreds of the world. In the events of September the 11th, we resolved as a nation to oppose every threat from any source that could bring sudden tragedy to the American people. This nation will not live at the mercy of any foreign power or plot. Confronting grave dangers is the surest path to peace and security. This is the expectation of the American people, and the decision of their elected representatives..... whitehouse.gov President Delivers "State of the Union" January 28, 2003 .... Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.) The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.) And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.) The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies..... whitehouse.gov Excerpts on Iraq From Grand Rapids Speech January 29, 2003 The war on terror is not confined strictly to the al Qaeda that we're chasing. The war on terror extends beyond just a shadowy terrorist network. The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein and his willingness to terrorize himself. Saddam Hussein has terrorized his own people. He's terrorized his own neighborhood. He is a danger not only to countries in the region, but as I explained last night, because of al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he's a danger to the American people. And we've got to deal with him. We've got to deal with him before it is too late. (Applause.).... .... There's a reason why the world asked Saddam Hussein to disarm -- for 12 years. (Laughter.) And the reason why is because he's dangerous. He's used them. He tortures his own people. He's gassed his own people. He's attacked people in the neighborhood. What's changed for America -- besides the fact that he's still dangerous and can create havoc with friends in the neighborhood -- is that there's now a shadowy terrorist network which he could use as a forward army, attacking his worst enemy and never leave a fingerprint behind, with deadly, deadly weapons. And that's what's changed. We're having an honest debate in this country, and we should, about peace and how to achieve the peace. It should be clear to you now, though, that in my judgment you don't contain Saddam Hussein. You don't hope that therapy will somehow change his evil mind -- (laughter) -- that you deal with Saddam Hussein. I hope we can do this peacefully..... whitehouse.gov President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment" February 6, 2003 .... The Secretary of State has now briefed the United Nations Security Council on Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons, and its links to terrorist groups. I want to thank Secretary Powell for his careful and powerful presentation of the facts..... .... One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists, who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been operating in Baghdad for more than eight months. The same terrorist network operating out of Iraq is responsible for the murder, the recent murder, of an American citizen, an American diplomat, Laurence Foley. The same network has plotted terrorism against France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Republic of Georgia, and Russia, and was caught producing poisons in London. The danger Saddam Hussein poses reaches across the world. This is the situation as we find it. Twelve years after Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm, and 90 days after the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote, Saddam Hussein was required to make a full declaration of his weapons programs. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was required to fully cooperate in the disarmament of his regime; he has not done so. Saddam Hussein was given a final chance; he is throwing that chance away. The dictator of Iraq is making his choice. Now the nations of the Security Council must make their own. On November 8th, by demanding the immediate disarmament of Iraq, the United Nations Security Council spoke with clarity and authority. Now the Security Council will show whether its words have any meaning. Having made its demands, the Security Council must not back down, when those demands are defied and mocked by a dictator..... .... Saddam Hussein has made Iraq into a prison, a poison factory, and a torture chamber for patriots and dissidents. Saddam Hussein has the motive and the means and the recklessness and the hatred to threaten the American people. Saddam Hussein will be stopped. whitehouse.gov War on Terror March 8, 2003 .... Second, the Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector reported yesterday to the Security Council on his efforts to verify Saddam Hussein's compliance with Resolution 1441. This resolution requires Iraq to fully and unconditionally disarm itself of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons materials, as well as the prohibited missiles that could be used to deliver them. Unfortunately, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm. Iraqi's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a few prohibited missiles. Yet, our intelligence shows that even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles. Iraqi operatives continue to play a shell game with inspectors, moving suspected prohibited materials to different locations every 12 to 24 hours. And Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate in interviews with U.N. inspectors. These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it -- because we would see it; Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors and destroyed. Inspection teams do not need more time, or more personnel -- all they need is what they have never received, the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime. The only acceptable outcome is the outcome already demanded by a unanimous vote of the Security Council: total disarmament. Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. The attacks of September the 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force. Across the world, and in every part of America, people of goodwill are hoping and praying for peace. Our goal is peace -- for our own nation, for our friends, for our allies and for all the peoples of the Middle East. People of goodwill must also recognize that allowing a dangerous dictator to defy the world and build an arsenal for conquest and mass murder is not peace at all; it is pretense. The cause of peace will be advanced only when the terrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector, and when the dictator is fully and finally disarmed. whitehouse.gov President Bush: Monday "Moment of Truth" for World on Iraq March 16, 2003 .... On this very day 15 years ago, Saddam Hussein launched a chemical weapons attack on the Iraqi village of Halabja. With a single order the Iraqi regime killed thousands of men and women and children, without mercy or without shame. Saddam Hussein has proven he is capable of any crime. We must not permit his crimes to reach across the world. Saddam Hussein has a history of mass murder. He possesses the weapons of mass murder. He agrees -- he agreed to disarm Iraq of these weapons as a condition for ending the Gulf War over a decade ago. The United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1441, has declared Iraq in material breach of its longstanding obligations, demanding once again Iraq's full and immediate disarmament, and promised serious consequences if the regime refused to comply. That resolution was passed unanimously and its logic is inescapable; the Iraqi regime will disarm itself, or the Iraqi regime will be disarmed by force. And the regime has not disarmed itself. Action to remove the threat from Iraq would also allow the Iraqi people to build a better future for their society. And Iraq's liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people..... .... Resolution 1441, which was unanimously approved, that said Saddam Hussein would unconditionally disarm, and if he didn't, there would be serious consequences. The United Nations Security Council looked at the issue four and a half months ago and voted unanimously to say: Disarm immediately and unconditionally, and if you don't, there are going to be serious consequences. The world has spoken. And it did it in a unified voice..... ....Q Vote or not? PRESIDENT BUSH: I was the guy that said they ought to vote. And one country voted -- at least showed their cards, I believe. It's an old Texas expression, show your cards, when you're playing poker. France showed their cards. After I said what I said, they said they were going to veto anything that held Saddam to account. So cards have been played. And we'll just have to take an assessment after tomorrow to determine what that card meant. Let me say something about the U.N. It's a very important organization. That's why I went there on September the 12th, 2002, to give the speech, the speech that called the U.N. into account, that said if you're going to pass resolutions, let's make sure your words mean something. Because I understand the wars of the 21st century are going to require incredible international cooperation. We're going to have to cooperate to cut the money of the terrorists, and the ability for nations, dictators who have weapons of mass destruction to provide training and perhaps weapons to terrorist organizations. We need to cooperate, and we are. Our countries up here are cooperating incredibly well. And the U.N. must mean something. Remember Rwanda, or Kosovo. The U.N. didn't do its job. And we hope tomorrow the U.N. will do its job. If not, all of us need to step back and try to figure out how to make the U.N. work better as we head into the 21st century. Perhaps one way will be, if we use military force, in the post-Saddam Iraq the U.N. will definitely need to have a role. And that way it can begin to get its legs, legs of responsibility back. But it's important for the U.N. to be able to function well if we're going to keep the peace. And I will work hard to see to it that at least from our perspective, that the U.N. is able to be -- able to be a responsibility body, and when it says something, it means it, for the sake of peace and for the sake of the security, for the capacity to win the war of -- the first war of the 21st century, which is the war against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of dictators..... whitehouse.gov

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	2/11/2005 7:12:35 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 35834

Message 21041048 Bolstered by the increases in Oil-for-Food revenues that Annan negotiated, Saddam booted the weapons inspectors out of the country in 1998. Oil-for-Food became, increasingly, "Oil-for-Arms." "Saddam was using ... some of the Oil-for-Food money, basically to re-stock," Spertzel said, adding that the money the United Nations was supposed to be controlling and overseeing was being "siphoned off" by the former Iraqi dictator so he could buy weapons. After Operation Iraqi Freedom — the second Gulf War waged in 2003 — Spertzel returned to Iraq as part of the CIA's Iraqi Survey Group, led by former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay, then later by Charles Duelfer. The group was sent to determine what happened to the weapons of mass destruction Saddam admitted he had years ago, which he used to gas his own people, the Kurds. CIA investigators recovered no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. But it was only part of the story. "Baghdad exploited the mechanism for executing the Oil-for-Food program," Duelfer said. Getting much less attention was the Duelfer report's lengthy and detailed analysis of how Oil-for-Food gave Saddam the resources and opportunity to re-arm with the help of foreign governments. Romania, North Korea, Belarus and even U.N. Security Council members like Russia and France were just some of the countries that sold Saddam everything from military spare parts to surface-to-air missile launchers. Also under the guise of Oil-for-Food, Saddam was able to build underground bunkers so hardened that even dozens of missile strikes to palaces above them didn't do much damage. The Iraqi Survey Group also found that supposed "humanitarian" imports under Oil-for-Food gave Saddam the ability to restart his biological and chemical warfare programs at a moment's notice. Spertzel said what scared him the most in Iraq was the discovery of secret labs to make deadly weapons like the nerve agent, sarin, and the biological poison, ricin, in spray form. "If that were released in a closed [area], such as Madison Square Garden or, even some, some of your smaller closed malls, shopping malls, it would have a devastating effect … killing hundreds or thousands," Spertzel said. But Spertzel believes Saddam was cooking up an even more sinister plan — putting the poisons on department store shelves across the United States and Europe. He said that plan was "actively pursued" as late as March 2003. And that plan was at least, in part, funded by Saddam's corrupt Oil-for-Food activities. "Some of the photographs that were obtained from this same laboratory had multiple different shapes of glass spray bottles, perfume spray bottles — presumably to mimic different brand names," Spertzel said. "Can you imagine somebody going into Macy's department store and spray a little bit of a perfume to see whether they like the scent, only instead of perfume they're getting a face full of sarin? "That would kill within, within a few minutes. If this were to appear at a couple different locations, imagine the economic impact in the U.S. — people would be afraid to buy anything." Spertzel said the United Nations and the secretary-general could have done more to stop Saddam from acquiring deadly weapons and to oversee the program more efficiently. "The two are tied together," he said. "They let the world down. No question about that." FOX News' Jonathan Hunt, Per Carlson, Brian Gaffney, George Russell, Grace Cutler and Betsy Petrick contributed to this report. foxnews.com ****

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	6/3/2005 5:56:47 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

UN: Nonexistent WMD Equipment Missing Little Green Footballs I don’t get it. How can WMD material be missing from Iraq, when it never really existed? (Hat tip: LGF readers.) <<< UN: Weapons Equipment Missing in Iraq UNITED NATIONS - U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday. U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003 so they have been using satellite photos to see what happened to the sites that were subject to U.N. monitoring because their equipment had both civilian and military uses. In the report to the U.N. Security Council, acting chief weapons inspector Demetrius Perricos said he’s reached no conclusions about who removed the items or where they went. He said it could have been moved elsewhere in Iraq, sold as scrap, melted down or purchased. He said the missing material can be used for legitimate purposes. “However, they can also be utilized for prohibited purposes if in a good state of repair.” He said imagery analysts have identified 109 sites that have been emptied of equipment to varying degrees, up from 90 reported in March. >>> More than a hundred sites! That’s a lot of storage space for something that never existed. littlegreenfootballs.com news.yahoo.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	6/7/2005 1:03:07 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The UN Lied. People Died. Or Not. By jkelly Irish Pennants Without a hint of irony, Edith Lederer of the Associated Press reports today that: <<< U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday. >>> So UN weapons inspectors think there were (at least) 109 places in Iraq where Saddam Hussein could have whipped up weapons of mass destruction. But we've been told, over and over again, that Bush Lied! when he gave the dangers of WMD in Saddam's hands as one of the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Was the UN lying, too? Is the UN lying now? irishpennants.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5576)	4/13/2007 10:29:06 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

Shoplifting Secrets By Peter B. Martin American Thinker This is not a guide to shoplifting, but about the wholesale theft of U.S. strategic material and its consequences. Increasingly, American classified information and material is being compromised, either through espionage, outright theft or though negligence creating a serious breach in Western security. What seems amazing is that all this is hardly making any impression on those in charge of U.S. strategic security. For example, in an article only briefly noted on April 2, 2007, under the banner: Computers missing at anti-spy agency: 20 desktop computers, at least 14 of which contained classified material on nuclear weapons design, are unaccounted for, and one computer reported destroyed is still in use, while others in operation are not even listed in their inventory. What makes this report doubly disconcerting is that this is the 13th time in just over four years an audit has shown that the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology has lost computers used for nuclear bomb designs. Ever wonder what became of the notorious 2001 anthrax letters attacks that occurred in the United States? The culprit to date has never been found, or for some unfathomable diplomatic reason has not been divulged. The anthrax spores underwent a thorough analysis, principally by the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and were proven to have been weaponized by silica gel, that drying substance found in shipments of optics and other goods subject to humidity. The silica made the spores easier to aerosolize, thus more susceptible to being inhaled by the maximum of victims. More intriguing, it was later discovered that the minute silica particles in the Sen. Leahy sample were individually coated with polymerized glass and then bound to the anthrax spores to make a more resilient weapon. Such treatment of weaponized anthrax was never before seen in the United States. Iraq and al-Qaeda, teamed together, are now the principal suspects. Through skillful espionage operations and ingenious trial and error research they were able to obtain the necessary know-how to concoct some very sophisticated weapon-grade anthrax. Back in the 1980s Iraq bought some provisions for their al-Hakam biological research laboratory, where they were researching weaponized anthrax, from a Denmark firm called Niro Atomizer that included several spray dryers and silica gel; the anthrax spores came from Russia. The former chief U.S. weapons inspector, Dr. David Kay was quoted as saying: "...the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying anthrax - techniques that were far superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world." Additionally, Iraqi tapes from the 1990s, that recently came to light, indicate Saddam's intentions to use bio-terrorism against the United States. Computed together with the first Twin Towers attack, the hypothesis that Iraq and al-Qaeda were involved in terrorist activities against America is indisputably enhanced. The reason for the indecisiveness in uncovering this, and the shortage of information on other terrorist campaigns, is that former presidents, Congress and the Senate in effect emasculated the U.S. intelligence community into impotency by limiting and restricting human-resources collection, aka human intelligence (HUMINT), thereby undermining counterintelligence to the point of despair. This led to an excessive dependence on electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT), in particular the intercepts of communications in order to have an "early-warning" of an intended terrorist attack, which in turn created an uproar among the civil-liberties contingent, further weakening intelligence gathering. Numerous hysterical activities against the intelligence community again diminished America's ability to defend itself from terrorist attacks, leaving it with no more than a reactive approach to terrorism. Urgent, significant reform is crucial to tomorrow's successful counterterrorism operations. Owing to the fact that U.S. counterintelligence efforts are still so ineffectual, because they are not sufficiently aggressive, doors remain opened to terrorist infiltrating agents into government defense ministries, laboratories, army installations and countless other strategic sites. Unreasonable restrictions on counterintelligence agencies are counter-productive and self-defeating. If Western agents can't get into the enemy's base camp, due to ill-advised restrictions, and find out what is being planned, if the United States doesn't conduct counterintelligence investigations within its own agencies, on account of a fraternity mind-set, the nation is wide open to another major terrorist attack. americanthinker.com