Reply With Quote
He had bad intel. Isn't that absolution?Damn, sucks to be John Kerry.
Talk about blowing up in your face...
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1
So, basically the IAEA posits that at the most there was 239 tons of explosives, and that there very well could have been just *3*.The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.
But the confidential IAEA do ents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.
The IAEA do ents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the start of the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.
The IAEA do ents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX explosives thought to be stored at Al-Qaqaa, but they do raise another disturbing possibility.
The do ents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.
Damn, sucks to be John Kerry.
He had bad intel. Isn't that absolution?Damn, sucks to be John Kerry.
Touche.
Of course, conceding that as a valid excuse basically invalidates Kerry's entire position on the war.He had bad intel. Isn't that absolution?
Details, details, details. There were still tons of the more dangerous HMX explosives at the facility.The IAEA do ents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX explosives
Note the date assmunch. Also its funny how you seem to miss the point that Saddam Hussein was in possession of hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives prior to the invasion.
Did you miss this part...Details, details, details. There were still tons of the more dangerous HMX explosives at the facility.
They basically acknowledged that their own sanction methods could easily be cir vented.The do ents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.
The date on this was also in January, a few months prior to the US invasion. Between this report and the story on the Russian troops, think it doesnt's take much to figure out where the rest went.
I just wonder when Nbadanallah and the rest of the world are going to realize that France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. were involved in a huge scandal involving aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein throughout the past 10 years...
If there's a conspiracy afoot is them trying to bring down Bush so they don't have their dirty laundry aired -- which, I'm certain would happen in a second Bush term.
So what, it doesn't prove that they weren't there after the U.S. invaded.Note the date assmunch.
These materials, while restricted by the I.A.E.A., where not anything that Saddam had failed to claim to possess under U.N. Security Council Guidelines and the armstices with the U.S. after GW1.Also its funny how you seem to miss the point that Saddam Hussein was in possession of hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives prior to the invasion.
Then prove it and quit making wild conjunctures.The date on this was also in January, a few months prior to the US invasion. Between this report and the story on the Russian troops, think it doesnt's take much to figure out where the rest went
The U.S. (Duelfer) had been imploring the U.N. to force the destruction of these very explosives since 1995.
Really, Nbadanallah, to what extent are you willing to go to defend these bas s? You're one sick puppy.
It doesn't prove that those weapons were there when the US invaded, and that is your argument.
Yes of course he had the materials. But he wasn't supposed to have them per those agreements.These materials, while restricted by the I.A.E.A., where not anything that Saddam had failed to claim to possess under U.N. Security Council Guidelines and the armstices with the U.S. after GW1.
The U.S. was doing the same thing. In fact, we supplied Saddam with chemical and biological cultures to help create is WMD arsenal. U.S. companies were also cir venting the Food-for-oil program with vouchers from the Iraqi Government that were traded like currency on the open market.I just wonder when Nbadanallah and the rest of the world are going to realize that France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. were involved in a huge scandal involving aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein throughout the past 10 years...
If there's a conspiracy afoot is them trying to bring down Bush so they don't have their dirty laundry aired -- which, I'm certain would happen in a second Bush term.
These materials have been used to attack coalition troops more than once. Where do you suppose they came from?It doesn't prove that those weapons were there when the US invaded, and that is your argument
That's nice but it didn't seem to buy Hussein protection from having his country invaded and him locked up.
There is no proof that those specific 'missing' materials have been used to attack coalition troops.
As for Iraqi weaponry in general, sure, some of it has been used. What's the preferred alternative, having it end up in the middle of NY or Chicago?
...and for what? A Islamic republic? What the U.S. did what get rid of the only deterent that was keeping Iran in check in the region. With Saddam gone, Iran has free reign to do whatever it wants.That's nice but it didn't seem to buy Hussein protection from having his country invaded and him locked up.
That is the truely disturbing part of all this. There may have been hundreds of sites that contained the same nasty stuff all over Iraq, but since Rummy wanted to keep this war on the cheap, there weren't enough troops in the initial invasion to secure all these sites.There is no proof that those specific 'missing' materials have been used to attack coalition troops.
That would be nice if Hussein wasn't buying his way out of the UN sanctions and planning on starting up his WMD programs. Your scenario makes no sense because Hussein clearly had it in for the United States and he had ties to Islamic terrorism and he himself was positioning himself as a much more vocal supporter of Islam in general as well as militant Islam in particular....and for what? A Islamic republic? What the U.S. did what get rid of the only deterent that was keeping Iran in check in the region. With Saddam gone, Iran has free reign to do whatever it wants.
Also it should be noted that just about every intel agency in the world believed he had WMDs on hand back in 2002. Only you could try to make a Hussein in power out to be a good thing because you like John F'in Kerry.
And Kerry himself regarded a Hussein in possession of WMDs as a clear threat to the US and a significant part of the War on Terror back in the aftermath of 9/11.
But that was before he started running for the presidency and voted for the $87 Billion before he voted against it.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 10-28-2004 at 01:07 AM.
...but Hussein had it secured so that was preferable? Come on.That is the truely disturbing part of all this. There may have been hundreds of sites that contained the same nasty stuff all over Iraq, but since Rummy wanted to keep this war on the cheap, there weren't enough troops in the initial invasion to secure all these sites.
That was in the 80s dumbass. You're just like Kerry, living way in the past.The U.S. was doing the same thing. In fact, we supplied Saddam with chemical and biological cultures to help create is WMD arsenal.
Who's going to keep Iran in check?
Where do you think they'll go?
Pakistan? Nope, nuclear weapons.
Iraq? Nope, already hates them (civil war), would have US backing)
Turkey? Can you say U.S. ally?
North into Ajerbaijan? o Turkey, o Russia.
Afghanistan? Again, U.S. backing.
Where else is left? Caspian Sea? Persian Gulf? If the U.S. has a continued presence in Iraq, lran is basically landlocked by the U.S., U.S. allies, or water.
And if they really act up in any way, Israel's a short F-16 hop away.
Saddam was a secularist who loathed Islamic fundamentalist. He even murdered two prominent Shiite Mullahs who he thought were organizing Shiite rebellion against him. Now that hardly sounds like a man who was trying to cozy up to Al-Queda or the Islamic Jihadists, doesn't it?That would be nice if Hussein wasn't buying his way out of the UN sanctions and planning on starting up his WMD programs. Your scenario makes no sense because Hussein clearly had it in for the United States and he had ties to Islamic terrorism and he himself was positioning himself as a much more vocal supporter of Islam in general as well as militant Islam in particular.
Cheney thought keeping Saddam in power after the first Gulf War was a smart thing to do also, and not because keeping Saddam was a good thing, but because they speculated that what would happen is what has happened. By getting rid of Iran's biggest enemy in the region we have opened the door for radical Islamists to spread into Iraq and beyond.Also it should be noted that just about every intel agency in the world believed he had WMDs on hand back in 2002. Only you could try to make a Hussein in power out to be a good thing because you like John F'in Kerry
Had Kerry gotten more of his fellow Senators to agree that more of the Iraqi aid should have been as loans and not unrepayable grants, as W wanted, it would have been W who voted against the $87 billion dollar Iraq give-away.But that was before he started running for the presidency and voted for the $87 Billion before he voted against it.
The I.A.E.A. had it secured. Saddam was living up to his confirmation obligations up to March of 2003, when the U.S. kicked out I.A.E.A inspectors immediately before invading....but Hussein had it secured so that was preferable? Come on.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
