Who Is Lying About Iraq?

[Gringao]

So, he did have a premonition of Gulf War I at the time of the war with Iran?

Who knows? What does it matter?

 

[Pookie]

After he was dead maybe. With all the oil Iraq had it wasn't exactly hard for Saddam to keep the cash flow coming.

But not while he was alive, huh? You know, to keep the world off his back about how many chemical weapons he might have really used when it was discovered that he had used them?

 

[Sean]

I think you mean Iran. No, according to Kenneth Pollack (Bill Clinton's top Iraq policy advisor), Saddam always thought there would be a US military response to his invasion of Kuwait, but he sincerely thought he could win it.

Typo. Sorry.

These would be the same intelligence analysts who told us about the WMD's?

 

[SleepingWarrior]

But not while he was alive, huh? You know, to keep the world off his back about how many chemical weapons he might have really used when it was discovered that he had used them?

The world already knew he used them at least once, they just turned a blind eye because he was "contained".

 

[Pookie]

Who knows? What does it matter?

You claimed he didn't expect to lose Gulf War I as the reason he wouldn't have cooked the books for the Iran war. I just wanted to see if you still thought that made sense is all.

 

[Gringao]

Typo. Sorry.

These would be the same intelligence analysts who told us about the WMD's?

Pollack was one of just a tiny handful of Mideast analysts who predicted that Saddam's military buildup on the Kuwaiti border in 1990 was not a bluff and that he was going to actually invade Iraq.

 

[Pookie]

The world already knew he used them at least once, they just turned a blind eye because he was "contained".

When did the world find out he used them? When he was using them?

 

[SleepingWarrior]

When did the world find out he used them? When he was using them?

I'm reasonably sure they knew before or right after DS1 that he had used them on the Kurds.

 

[Sean]

When did the world find out he used them? When he was using them?

ooh, below the belt

 

[Gringao]

You claimed he didn't expect to lose Gulf War I as the reason he wouldn't have cooked the books for the Iran war. I just wanted to see if you still thought that made sense is all.

First of all, it wasn't Saddam in some office scribbling numbers into a journal. I'm sure there were a few he hadn't jammed into tree chippers yet that were charged with actually keeping inventories up to date.

Second, if you're going to cook books on chemical weapons to show the conquering Crusader later on, wouldn't you cook them to show you didn't have the weapons, instead of cooking them to show that you did so he'd go away?

 

[Pookie]

First of all, it wasn't Saddam in some office scribbling numbers into a journal. I'm sure there were a few he hadn't jammed into tree chippers yet that were charged with actually keeping inventories up to date.

I never said it was Saddam himself. When I say "Saddam", I mean the Iraqi Government that Saddam controlled. You know, the one that everyone claims was so deceptive about accounting for chemical weapons?

Second, if you're going to cook books on chemical weapons to show the conquering Crusader later on, wouldn't you cook them to show you didn't have the weapons, instead of cooking them to show that you did so he'd go away?

It didn't have to be a conquering crusader. Also, why would he be worried about showing the world he didn't have them during that time period? It was obvious he did. He reported that he did. I'm just raising the very logical possibility that he might have wanted to have something to show that he didn't use any more chemical weapons on the Iran war than he claimed. Seems quite logical to me, given the outrage he had to know he was going to face from the world.

 

[Pookie]

ooh, below the belt

I'm a meanie liberal terrorist chica.

 

[Gringao]

It didn't have to be a conquering crusader. Also, why would he be worried about showing the world he didn't have them during that time period? It was obvious he did. He reported that he did. I'm just raising the very logical possibility that he might have wanted to have something to show that he didn't use any more chemical weapons on the Iran war than he claimed. Seems quite logical to me, given the outrage he had to know he was going to face from the world.

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Some Moron]

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

But with all the bellyaching about those weapons, are they legal?

 

[Gringao]

But with all the bellyaching about those weapons, are they legal?

Not according to UNSCR 687.

 

[Pookie]

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

That Saddam wouldn't want to hide something from the world at that time? The same guy that everyone claims has been deceptive about so much? LOL. Whatever, dude. There has been intelligence obtained that supports this possibility I mention. Your points against my possibility haven't made sense, especially when you consider the timeframe. Unless you really believe Saddam had a premonition of Gulf War I, your points just don't discount my possibility much, if any at all.

 

[Gringao]

That Saddam wouldn't want to hide something from the world at that time? The same guy that everyone claims has been deceptive about so much? LOL. Whatever, dude. There has been intelligence obtained that supports this possibility I mention. Your points against my possibility haven't made sense, especially when you consider the timeframe. Unless you really believe Saddam had a premonition of Gulf War I, your points just don't discount my possibility much, if any at all.

I'm talking about as a matter of English and logic they make no sense. Let's do this as a Q&A:

1. Did Saddam tell the truth, understate or overstate the amount of WMD he had manufactured prior to the Iran/Iraq war? Why?

2. Did Saddam tell the truth, understate or overstate the amount of WMD he used in the Iran/Iraq war? Why?

3. Did Saddam tell the truth, understate or overstate the amount of WMD destroyed in the 1991 war? Why?

4. Did Saddam tell the truth, understate or overstate the amount of WMD he destroyed unilaterally? Why?

 

[Slowlane]

Did you read the article in the New Yorker about the changes in the process for vetting information that Bush and co. changed?

I finally go t around to reading the article. The author quotes some really wonderful sources.

One intelligence officer told me.
Present and former intelligence officials
Some senior administration people.
A retired C.I.A. officer.

The rest of it is a bunch of he said, she said, third party hearsay.

It was an interesting read, but nothing more.

 

[zipman]

What a coincidence!


The democRats are playing Washington Duck as they try to get out of that vote tonight!

Before you run out Zippy be sure to call your congressman and DEMAND he vote tonight!

Bon Appatite!

Let me know when you stop channeling busybody.

 

[zipman]

Yes but Zippy and the rest KNOW things are just as bad now as when Saddam and his boys were running amouk!

They know this because to admit otherwise complicates their "Bush Lies" mantra.

Where did I say that?

Like I said, you are posting more and more like busybody which means you make no sense and think that whatever you say is the gospel.

Thankfully, even republicans are tired of the false reports.

 

[phrodeau]

I'm talking about as a matter of English and logic they make no sense. Let's do this as a Q&A:

1. Did Saddam tell the truth, understate or overstate the amount of WMD he had manufactured prior to the Iran/Iraq war? Why?

2. Did Saddam tell the truth, understate or overstate the amount of WMD he used in the Iran/Iraq war? Why?

3. Did Saddam tell the truth, understate or overstate the amount of WMD destroyed in the 1991 war? Why?

4. Did Saddam tell the truth, understate or overstate the amount of WMD he destroyed unilaterally? Why?

Here's another: Did Saddam's staff give him accurate information about his WMD's?

And one possible answer: Saddam overstated his WMD capacity because he wanted to seem more powerful than he was.

 

[landslider2000]

It seems likely that Saddam derived "security" by encouraging the belief that he had all sorts of weapons he lacked.

Too bad we didn't topple Saddam and leave 3 weeks later.

 

[Pookie]

Here's another: Did Saddam's staff give him accurate information about his WMD's?

And one possible answer: Saddam overstated his WMD capacity because he wanted to seem more powerful than he was.

Or, he wanted to hide that he used thousands more chemical weapons during the Iran war than he told the UN.

I just find it just a bit humorous that some people don't trust Saddam's reporting before the US invasion. Yet, they don't seem to have a problem with his reporting from the Iran war. It would be quite logical for a paranoid man like Saddam to want to hide the possiblity that he used thousand more chemical weapons than he claimed. No one at the time knew for sure what he had used. It's a very logical and plausible possibility. There was no way to know if the documentation that was found wasn't cooked, or even represented everything if it wasn't.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

And you wouldn't want to be the one to tell him there were no weapons when he believed he had them.

Of course, we did find jets buried in the desert...

 

[Ishmael]

Here's another: Did Saddam's staff give him accurate information about his WMD's?

And one possible answer: Saddam overstated his WMD capacity because he wanted to seem more powerful than he was.

That's one-half of the David Kay explanation as given to congress. Saddam actually believed he had them and the minions fostered the notion because no one wanted to tell him he didn't have them anymore. This also explains the "cooking" of the books.

The other half of the Kay scenario is/was Syria. An option that is still open and bears investigation.

There are still the millions, literally millions, of documents that have been recovered that need to be translated. That process is ongoing and some interesting tidbits have come to light regarding CBR weaponry.

Ishmael