Senators Told Iraq Had WOMD & Delivery Capability

by Satanus 85 Replies latest social current

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryN1216NELSON.htm

    U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.

    Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.

    Nelson said he couldn't reveal who in the administration gave the briefing.

    The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense. Defense officials had no comment on Nelson's claim.

    Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.

    I haven't used the 'i' word (imminent), but it will be interesting if more info comes out on this. Anybody wanna bet on how long it takes before nelson is either marginalised/scandalised, his plane crashes, or he suicides? Or, is he a lying bas#ard?

    SS

  • freeman
    freeman

    Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.

    Exactly what is your point? Did Saddam have drones modified to carry WMD such as anthrax? Yes that was known long ago, the Iraqis even made videotapes of drone practice runs and related experiments; this is not exactly breaking news, so what?s the point??

    Could he hit East coast cities? I guess so but first you have to bring the drones here don?t you, and why just the east coast, I thought we had cities on the west coast too? Sounds a bit hokey if you ask me.

    Freeman

  • Simon
    Simon

    Well by that reasoning, anyone has the capability of hitting US cities ... they just need to get nuclear weapons, planes, etc...

    It just ties in with the whole "sexing up" of the 'threat' in order to get backing for the war.

  • Euphemism
    Euphemism

    Freeman... I think that's precisely the point. Saddam couldn't hit the East Coast. If this report is true, it means that the Bush Administration deceived the US Senate so as to get approval for the war.

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed

    DEMOCRAT COMMENTS ON IRAQI WEAPONS

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

    "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

    "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

    "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

    "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...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." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

    "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

    "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

    "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

    "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Saddam?s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq?s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration?s policy towards Iraq, I don?t think there can be any question about Saddam?s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

  • imallgrowedup
    imallgrowedup

    Here is my question: If Saddam didn't have WMD or had made a decision to not persue WMD, why did he throw the first group of Weapons Inspectors out of the country?

    growedup

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Yeru pointed out, it appears, correctly, that the bush administration never publicly claimed that saddam was an imminent threat. The above news report points out that at least 75 senstors were briefed by the bush administration behind closed doors to the effect that iraq was indeed an imminent threat to continental united states. This, at a time which would give bush the go ahead for his invasion.

    SS

  • Euphemism
    Euphemism

    DakotaRed... like many of those Democrats you quoted, I would have fully favored the Iraq war if it had been approved by UN resolution.

    As it is, I still favored the war because I believed the Bush administration had strong intelligence to suggest that WMDs were a serious threat. When that turned out not to be the case, I wondered why our elected representatives had not told us that.

    Now, it seems that they, too, may have been lied to by the President.

    If Saddam didn't have WMD or had made a decision to not persue WMD, why did he throw the first group of Weapons Inspectors out of the country?
    Good question, growedup. The best guess I've heard is that he believed that the US would try to depose him for geopolitical and economic reasons, and he figured that making the US think that he had WMDs was his best deterrent against an invasion. A serious miscalculation, of course.
  • imallgrowedup
    imallgrowedup

    Euph -

    If Saddam didn't have WMD or had made a decision to not persue WMD, why did he throw the first group of Weapons Inspectors out of the country?
    Good question, growedup. The best guess I've heard is that he believed that the US would try to depose him for geopolitical and economic reasons, and he figured that making the US think that he had WMDs was his best deterrent against an invasion. A serious miscalculation, of course.

    Since you didn't voice this opinion, you just passed it along, I feel comfortable in saying that this sounds pretty lame to me. If he really wanted the "peace and security" that having WMD affords, he'd have been telling everyone he had them - he wouldn't have been denying it. In fact, I think he would have gloated about it even if saying he had them was a bald-faced lie. I think his silence on the matter says to me that he DID have them, and he didn't want anyone to know about them so that everyone would think he was weak and helpless and not a threat. The fact that his supplies might immediately dry up was probably another factor in his silence. In light of the fact that he kept declaring public building after public building "Presidential Palaces," and therefore exempt from inspections, I would even be willing to bet that perhaps Saddam had a close call with being caught by the inspectors, and that is when he decided to go on the offensive. To the best of my recollection, by the time he threw out the first group of inspectors, there were 20 (give or take) UN resolutions that had been enacted in regards to him, (which we can't forget that our "allies" endorsed as well). During that time, he learned that if he simply ignored them - nothing would ever happen - because nothing of consequence ever DID happen when he ignored them! Therefore, I honestly believe that he knew he could get away with making WMD while thumbing his nose at the rest of the world because he knew the UN would never do anything about it! I also think he was counting on the UN to restrain the US, whom he knew WOULD enforce it if push came to shove. He took a bad gamble.

    The other point I want to make is that just because we have not found WMD yet, does not mean they will not be found. I see so many people expecting our troops and/or our country to do everything in the blink of an eye, including finding the WMD! Things don't happen that quickly in the real world. I specifically remember our troops finding a terrorist training camp in Iraq with a gutted American airplane. There is a REASON it was there. Someone had to intentionally erect shelters and eating facilities, as well as get that airplane there. Why was it there under those conditions? Based on just that one piece of evidence alone, I think people should be cautious before declaring that Saddam did NOT have WMD, or that he had nothing to do with 9/11. IMHO, the jury is still out.

    SS -

    This news points out that at least 75 senstors were briefed by the bush administration behind closed doors to the effect that iraq was indeed an imminent threat to continental united states. This, at a time which would give bush the go ahead for his invasion.

    Well, unless this Senator is lying. Naaaa - that would never happen, would it? Hmmm ... where are the other 74 senators who conspicuously are not backing him up?

    :-)

    growedup

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed

    Not that some can actually grasp it, but here is an article outlining the efforts of David Kay and his discoveries on Iraqs WoMDs.

    http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=533

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit