WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

  • searchfothetruth
    searchfothetruth

    Rem,

    Very good point...where is he, and why couldn't the US find him?

    A very similar situation to Bin Laden.

    With all the technology that the US has, for example Global Hawk which can not only read a number plate from 56,000 feet, but can even sense the heat on a runway from a plane that has already taken off, and they can't find Bin Laden in a desolate country?

    Where is Saddam now? I read an article from PRAVDa, but never posted it because it's Russian and some of you won't read it because it's OBVIOUSLY biased (unlike American news) that stated that he had been given free passage out of the country before the war even started, but of course, no one knows for sure, do they.

    It just seems inconcievable to think that these former CIA allies could go missing at the same point, namely, once American interests were fulfilled

  • dubla
    dubla
    Rem,

    Very good point...where is he

    probably at the bottom of a "bunker buster" heap.

    aa

  • Pleasuredome
    Pleasuredome
    the real world doesnt stack up to the fantasy world when it comes to excitement.

    oh yes, sorry, you must have been in orgasms when 6,000 people were being blown apart in iraq, it must excite you tremendously.

    funny that you seem to think that i live in a fantasy world when i take apart part of the official story of 9/11, not to convince you that i'm right, but to suggest that the story is worthy of more investigation, you dont even bother investigating it for yours elf (probably 'cos your $hit scared of having to take on another opinion of what happened).

    yes, i am indeed guilty of actually backing up my opinions with other sources .

    and what are those sources usually? politicians conjecture, hearsay and unprovable BS.

  • Pleasuredome
    Pleasuredome
    I read an article from PRAVDa, but never posted it because it's Russian and some of you won't read it because it's OBVIOUSLY biased (unlike American news)

    DONT MENTION THE RUSSIANS!!!! those commy lying bastards! i'd much rather watch CNN(criminal network news). by the way, did CNN win an award for their coverage of the hijackers passport found a few blocks away from the WTC?

  • searchfothetruth
    searchfothetruth

    PD,

    Do you mean the passport that the FBI did a press conference on saying it had been found, and then a year later saying it was just a rumour?

  • dubla
    dubla

    pleasure-

    oh yes, sorry, you must have been in orgasms when 6,000 people were being blown apart in iraq, it must excite you tremendously.

    like i said, the real world isnt as exciting as the fantasy world.....you were the one claiming boredom, not me. the reality of war is far from exciting.

    funny that you seem to think that i live in a fantasy world when i take apart part of the official story of 9/11, not to convince you that i'm right, but to suggest that the story is worthy of more investigation, you dont even bother investigating it for yourself (probably 'cos your $hit scared of having to take on another opinion of what happened).

    actually i read everything you presented on the subject.....it amounted to what you would call "unprovable bs".

    politicians conjecture, hearsay and unprovable BS.

    expert opinions (such as the ones given on the weapons declaration) do count in the real world....have you ever noticed how experts are called in during court cases? why do you think that is? ill admit though that my "unprovable bs" doesnt exactly stack up to the rock solid proof youve provided to back up your ramblings on the issue .

    aa

  • Pleasuredome
    Pleasuredome
    ill admit though that my "unprovable bs" doesnt exactly stack up to the rock solid proof youve provided to back up your ramblings on the issue .

    oh, at last you've noticed have you?

    yes that's right, i'm just as full of $hit as you are. finally we're getting somewhere

  • William Penwell
    William Penwell

    Pleasuredome,

    Bush lied. People died because of the lie. Cheney, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, Blair, and the mainstream media helped sell the lie.

  • searchfothetruth
    searchfothetruth

    Why America is Waking Up
    To The Truth About WMD
    By Marion McKeone in New York
    The Sunday Herald - UK
    6-9-3

    The leak of part of a Department of Defence report has added fuel to the firestorm over Bush administration claims about the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The top-secret report by the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) last September concluded that it could find no evidence of chemical weapons activity in Iraq. 'There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons,'its one-page summary said.
    The leak has put the White House on the defensive as controversy over the non-discovery of WMD grows.
    Hours after the report summary -- written by Defence Department in-house intelligence experts -- was leaked, the head of the DIA was dispatched to deny it contradicted the Bush administration's warnings of a dire, imminent threat to the US from Iraqi chemical weapons.
    DIA Director Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby said the report showed his agency 'could not specifically pin down individual facilities operating as part of the WMD programs'. Pressed to explain the discrepancies between the report and administration claims, he said the report was 'not in any way intended to portray the fact that we had doubts that any programme existed, that such a programme was active, or that such a programme was part of the Iraqi WMD infrastructure'.
    The leak appeared to catch the White House by surprise. One official said: 'Look, we are not the only people who claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The rest of the world, including the UN Security Council, believed it too. The only person who claimed that Saddam didn't have weapons was Saddam.'
    But the belief Saddam had stockpiled weapons -- and the imminent threat they posed -- was the core reason cited by Bush during his historic address to the UN last September. He cited evidence of a massive WMD programme, which he said was based on US intelligence and laid down an ultimatum to the UN: either disarm Saddam, or the US will. Asked whether Bush was aware of the DIA report when he warned the UN about the threat , the official declined to comment, saying it was 'unclear' whether Bush or any senior members of the administration had seen the report. It would, however, be unusual if Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one of the most vigorous supporters of the war, had not read a report issued by his own in-house intelligence agency on the very issue upon which the war was predicated.
    The alacrity of the White House response to the leak suggests it now believes the issue is a political danger for the President . Bush faces increasing pressure from influential lawmakers like Democratic senators Robert Byrd and Bob Graham who demand to know whether the administration manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.
    That doubts about Iraqi weapons existed as far back as a year ago raises a number of unanswered questions . There is growing unease on Capitol Hill, as even Republican lawmakers feel the issue is a symptom of the massive increase in power Rumsfeld has awarded himself at the expense of the CIA and the Department of State.
    'The basic problem here is that the office of the secretary of defence has become too powerful,'Patrick Lang, a former senior official in the DIA told the Senate. Others, including retired CIA analyst Larry Johnson, have publicly criticised CIA director George Tenet for allowing Rumsfeld to annex the CIA's role. 'Tenet sided with the defence crowd and cut the legs out from under his own analysts,'Johnson said.
    Senior CIA officials have distanced themselves from Rumsfeld's claims that WMD posed an imminent threat. They say these claims are based on information passed directly to Rumsfeld's office by Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress and a Pentagon favourite to become the next Iraqi leader. But the CIA regarded his sources as deeply suspect and said his claims were largely based on hearsay from other defectors with vested interests in regime change.
    The big question now is: was Bush was duped himself, or did he dupe the people into believing war was necessary? Some Democrats, sniffing blood, are poised to attack. Bob Graham, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has claimed that before the war the administration embarked on 'a pattern of hiding information'. Classified evidence that supported its claims about weapons was made public, he said. 'But as a member of the Intelligence Committee I saw much evidence that didn't support its case,' he added. 'That evidence was never declassified. '
    Tracey Schmitt, a Republican spokeswoman, dismissed Graham's comments. 'Senator Graham sounds increasingly more like a conspiracy theorist than a presidential candidate,'she said.
    But even as CIA and Senate investigations into the quality of intelligence used in the build up the war in Iraq get under way, officials are denying that top members of the Bush administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, pressured the CIA into coming up with intelligence that would bolster the administration's case. It has been claimed by CIA officials that Cheney made repeated visits to the CIA to discuss intelligence about Iraq -- a highly unusual move for a vice-president. 'The vice president values the hard work of the intelligence community, but his office has a practice of declining to comment on the specifics of his intelligence briefings,' his public affairs director responded.
    <http://www.sundayherald.com/34463>http://www.sundayherald.com/34463

  • searchfothetruth
    searchfothetruth

    Dubla,

    Why don't you have a go at answering the following questions:

    1.) How is it that if the administration knew that the order had been given to deploy chemical weapons, they did not know where these WMD would be stored?

    When the US bribed senior military officers not to defend Baghdad and gave them safe passage out of Iraq, why was the location of these chemical weapons not provided to the US as part of the payoff plan? Could the Iraqi officers deploy WMD without knowing where to go and get them? And remember, it has been reported that Iraq had the capability of deploying WMD within 45 minutes of that command. Someone had to know where to go to obey that command. Didn't they?

    2.) If the Collin Powell telephone intercepts presented to the UN were authentic, why couldn't the intelligence community trace the location of these intercepts and secure those sites after the invasion of Iraq? And whatever happened to those big missiles he showed us?

    3.) How is it that the administration was able to know the whereabouts of Saddam and launch the initial bunker attack that started the war, and yet this "source" within the inner circle of power never provided WMD location data that was crucial not only to safety of the world but to the safety of our military personnel who were about to invade Iraq?

    4.) The administration said that the UN could not resume inspections because the threat was imminent and delay was dangerous. Now this same administration says we must be patient because it will take time to find these WMD that they used to know the whereabouts of, but must now guess and search. How is that possible?

    Ahmed Chalabi and other sources insist that Saddam Hussein is still alive and hiding in Iraq. It seems to me if that is true, then surely he and his surviving supporters know where to get the remaining WMD and use them against the occupying forces. Or hasn't that occurred to anyone but me? Are our soldiers in danger?

    5.) How is it that a nuclear waste site was left unguarded and subject to looting without regard to possible contamination, even as the US military previously found and guessed this site was part of the "secret" nuclear weapons program?

    6.) After the capture of various Iraqi high officials and scientists, how is it that no WMD locations have been revealed thus far? Are these officials so uncooperative and able to resist all interrogation that there is no hope of getting answers?

    7.) If as Rumsfeld now claims, Iraq may have destroyed the WMD at the last possible moment in order to embarrass the US, how is it that satellite photos and other intelligence technology failed to notice such large scale efforts? Wouldn't it take major activity and trailers, and Lord knows what else, to destroy the vast quantities of chemical weapons supposedly in stock? And how were these destroyed? Burned and incinerated? Would not the air quality samples around Iraq reflect these chemicals and toxic substances? What about soil and water samples? Didn't we have air sensors deployed with our troops to detect and warn about poisons in the air?

    8.) Why is the US not interested in casualty statistics in Iraq?

    It would seem to me that the large numbers of Iraqi military personnel unaccounted for would be of prime interest in the occupation - I mean- reconstruction of Iraq. Knowing how many dead soldiers subtracted from the initial troop strength reports should provide an idea of the size of possible resistance to the proposed US interim government. It might also indicate the length of continued US involvement and the necessary troops needed to maintain the peace. But I could be wrong.

    Like I said in the beginning, I'm no brain, just a guy with questions. And who knows, maybe the really smart guys like Rove and Rumsfeld will explain everything at the GOP convention. By then I'm sure they will have their act together.

    Still, I have to ask: If we knew where it was, why don't we know where it is?

    These shouldn't be that hard to explain to a stupid conspiracy theorist like me....should they?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit