DC09 Posted July 21, 2004 #1 Share Posted July 21, 2004 WASHINGTON - An upcoming report will contain "a good deal of new information" backing up the Bush administration's contention that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass destruction, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said Tuesday. The administration cited Saddam's hunger for such weapons as a main reason to invade Iraq last year. "I'm not suggesting dramatic discoveries," Warner told reporters, but "bits and pieces that Saddam Hussein was clearly defying" international restrictions, "and he and his government had a continuing interest in maintaining the potential to shift to production of various types of weapons of mass destruction in a short period of time." The report is by the civilian head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, who reports to the CIA director. Initially the report was expected to be done this summer, but instead it will come out in September, Warner said. Warner said the new information covers "some weapons that predate the first Gulf War that are still around and were used at the time Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Iranians" as well as "remnants of what he was doing himself here in the last several years." He would not elaborate, saying he didn't want to pre-empt the report. The senator made the comments after a closed briefing by Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, who updated the panel on the Iraq Survey Group's progress. Dayton returned from Iraq last month after giving up his post as the military head of the hunt for weapons as part of a routine rotation. Marine Brig. Gen. Joseph J. McMenamin became director of the Iraq Survey Group on June 12. The intelligence community, meanwhile, hopes the trials and interrogations of "high-level detainees" by the new Iraqi government could yield more information about Saddam's weapons programs, Warner said. Full Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffybunny Posted July 21, 2004 #2 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I look forward to seeing what they come up with, but I'm not holding my breath. I doubt that since it isn't plastered all over the news that they haven't located "stockpiles" of WMD that were an immenant threat to the USA. I know that there were a few leftover shells that were found, although all but two or three were inert from the long storage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted July 21, 2004 #3 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I doubt that since it isn't plastered all over the news that they haven't located "stockpiles" of WMD that were an immenant threat to the USA. Just a question sir: Do you think Saddam should still be in power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffybunny Posted July 21, 2004 #4 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I think our priority was al-queda. Iraq was a diversion of resources away from an immenant ongoing threat. Was Saddam a bad guy? Yes. Did I hate him in 1991 when I was actually in Iraq? Yes. Did I wish him dead then? Yes. Would Iraq have been better off with another leader? I don't know. Should we be in Iraq now? No Is Iraq better off now without Saddam? We will have to see. I doubt it. She we be shouldering the burden to remove him? No. The World should. Were we right to invade? No. Were there "Stockpiles" of WMD? Nope. Am I glad that Saddam was caught? Yes Was It worth it? Not even close. Should Saddam still be in power? Probably not, but it isn't our job to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted July 21, 2004 #5 Share Posted July 21, 2004 The issue, whether or not saddam should still be in power, is irrelevent to the topic. We went to war on the premise that Iraq had a deployable WMD system, that could be ready to fire in 45 minutes. Not that he was just "pursuing" them. Did they have them? NO we have not found them. Could they be deployed in 45 minutes? NO he did not have them. Were their mobile chemical/biological labs? NO there were none. All i see are lies apon lies....and hardly any shred of evidence to support there reasons for going to war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted July 21, 2004 #6 Share Posted July 21, 2004 The issue, whether or not saddam should still be in power, is irrelevent to the topic. We went to war on the premise that Iraq had a deployable WMD system, that could be ready to fire in 45 minutes. Not that he was just "pursuing" them. Did they have them? NO we have not found them. Could they be deployed in 45 minutes? NO he did not have them. Were their mobile chemical/biological labs? NO there were none. All i see are lies apon lies....and hardly any shred of evidence to support there reasons for going to war We went to Iraq on the premise that Saddam was a 'grave and gathering danger'. You see lies because you want to see lies. That's what you do...you look for conspiracies.... It is possible that Al Queda already has weapons from Saddam. As far as 'hardly any shred of evidence': The UN sure thought there was.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted July 21, 2004 #7 Share Posted July 21, 2004 We went to Iraq on the premise that Saddam was a 'grave and gathering danger'. No. We went to war because the US said he had weapons of mass destruction, that was deployable in 45 minutes. You see lies because you want to see lies. That's what you do...you look for conspiracies.... We all saw the lies. Because WE WERE LIED TO. Where are the WMDs joc? WHERE ARE THEY? It is possible that Al Queda already has weapons from Saddam. Thats irrelevent speculation. And has no evidence either. As far as 'hardly any shred of evidence': The UN sure thought there was.... NO the UN did not think that. Unless it escaped your notice, the USA attacked WITHOUT UN backing. UN weapon inspecters were in Iraq looking for them, as asked to by the USA. They found NONE. Because the US attacked without UN backing, the war is therefore illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamford Posted July 21, 2004 #8 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I couldn't have put it better myself fluffy and blood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted July 21, 2004 #9 Share Posted July 21, 2004 NO the UN did not think that. Unless it escaped your notice, the USA attacked WITHOUT UN backing. UN weapon inspecters were in Iraq looking for them, as asked to by the USA. They found NONE. Because the US attacked without UN backing, the war is therefore illegal. Read This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted July 21, 2004 #10 Share Posted July 21, 2004 We went to war on the premise that Iraq had a deployable WMD system, that could be ready to fire in 45 minutes. Not that he was just "pursuing" them. No. That was *one* of the reasons to go to war. Did they have them? NO we have not found them. Could they be deployed in 45 minutes? NO he did not have them. Were their mobile chemical/biological labs? NO there were none. Did they have them? Could have. Could they be deployed in 45 min? A captured Iraqi leader said they could and they were going to, until the last minutes when Saddam called it off. Gas masks were found with the troops though. Chem/Bio labs? Could have been. Saddam could have easily shipped them to Syria like one of the inspectors said was a great possibility because of a large amount of trucks spotted heading from Iraq to Syria right before the invasion. We went to Iraq on the premise that Saddam was a 'grave and gathering danger'. Wrong. Again, thats just 1 of the reasons. It is possible that Al Queda already has weapons from Saddam. It is possible, but thats not evidence. As far as 'hardly any shred of evidence': The UN sure thought there was.... True. Opposing nations and even the UN believed that Saddam had WMDs. And it makes sense believing it too. Think about it, Saddam knew that the world wanted him to disarm. Then finally when he is threatened, he says "Well, I did disarm... I just didnt tell you people. Oh and I have no proof of it neither." We all saw the lies. Because WE WERE LIED TO. Where are the WMDs joc? WHERE ARE THEY? We can all give you possibilities. NO the UN did not think that. Unless it escaped your notice, the USA attacked WITHOUT UN backing. UN weapon inspecters were in Iraq looking for them, as asked to by the USA. They found NONE. Because the US attacked without UN backing, the war is therefore illegal. I dont think you should be arguing this since you obviously dont know much about the situation. the UN and opposing nations DID believe he had WMDs. THe UN inspectors however didnt find any and wanted inspectors to be kept in Iraq longer rather than the US invading. Iraq was also in clear violation of resolution 1441 and the UN didnt want to do anything about it, the war therefor can not be considered illegal. I couldn't have put it better myself fluffy and blood! I know you probably couldnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon Posted July 21, 2004 #11 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I agree with Blood Angel for the most part. However, I think there's a good chance he did have WMD (not one's which can be fired at us in 45 mins though ), only they're now burried in the desert somewhere. We'll probably find them in about 70 years when their casings begin to degrade and toxic waste starts seeping into the environment. .... god humans are a cancer on nature's green Earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now