Smoking Gun on Manipulation of Iraq Intelligence?

[Max Power]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001434737

Ever since the Democrats briefly closed the U.S. Senate from view earlier this week, to protest alleged Republican foot-dragging in probing Bush administration pre-war manipulation of intelligence, the press has been asking: So what new evidence do the Democrats have in this matter?

Tomorrow, in its print edition, The New York Times starts to answer the question, with reporter Douglas Jehl disclosing the contents of a newly declassified memo apparently passed to him by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

It shows that an al-Qaeda official held by the Americans was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the basis for its claims that Iraq trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to this Defense Intelligence Agency document from February 2002.

It declared that it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally misleading the debriefers" in making claims about Iraqi support for al-Qaeda's work with illicit weapons, Jehl reports.

“The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi's credibility,” Jehl writes. “Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi's information as ‘credible’ evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

 

[insein]

thats a smoking gun?

Thats a cause for doubt. Thats a reason to investigate further. Thats a reason to confer with other nations as to what they think on the matter. Thats a reason to ask the UN for support and to goto Congress and ask them to look into the evidence and decide whether they want to declare war.

Thats all of the above. Thats NOT a smoking gun. Im sorry Max, but this "chasing your tail" routine the democrats are doing isn't helping anyone least of all themselves.

 

[Max Power]

Kamel Hussien was Saddam's son in law and head of Iraq's WMD program.

He defected in the mid 90's and sang like a bird spilling every detail of Iraq's WMD program to the IAEA in hopes we would overthrow Saddam and install him as dictator.

A portion of his interview was used in Colin Powell's speech, the climax to be exact.

Powell told us about the lethality of weaponized VX, and that Iraq had weaponized VX.


He kinda left out an important part of Hussien's interview...

That being that Iraq had weaponized VX back in the 1980's, and that the program was terminated.

This is very good reading for anyone actually interested in the " What happened to the WMD's?" issue. This guy had nothing to lie about, and if anything, he had reason to overstate Iraq's WMD program.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf

Anyone who doubts his honesty should know that Saddam had him killed upon his return to Iraq.
--
FYI, I did not write that.

 

[007]

A "smoking gun"? Hardly... "needs power". If anyone was duped, it was the democraps.... or so it would seem...


Democrat Quotes on Saddam Hussein's WMD Before the War


October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US 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."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."


Al Gore > December 16, 1998

If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."


John Kerry > January 23, 2003

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."


Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998

"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."


Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002

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


Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002

"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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. 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."


Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."


Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."


Al Gore > September 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."


Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."


Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."


Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002

"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."


Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002

"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."


Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003

"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."


John Kerry > January 31, 2003

"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn't vote for me."


Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002

"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."


Al Gore > September 23, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."


Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998

"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."



Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998

"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."


Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."


Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."


Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."


Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998

"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."


Al Gore > September 23, 2002

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."


John Kerry > October 9, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."


Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002

"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."


Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002

Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."


Jane Harman > August 27, 2002

"I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."


Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999

"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."


Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002

"[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So at some point, we might have to act precipitously."


Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002

"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."


Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002

"I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."


Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."


Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003

"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."


Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003

"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."


Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 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."


John Kerry > February 23, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/stacks/democrat.guest.html

 

[Max Power]

A "smoking gun"? Hardly... "needs power". If anyone was duped, it was the democraps.... or so it would seem...

Ever hear the old adage, two wrongs don't make a right?

Well, two sides lying don't make a truth.

 

[007]

Ever hear the old adage, two wrongs don't make a right?

Well, two sides lying don't make a truth.

I never said they did.

But you haven't proved Bush lied about anything either.

 

[insein]

Ever hear the old adage, two wrongs don't make a right?

Well, two sides lying don't make a truth.

I wouldnt call it lying. I would call it bad intelligence if what you said was true. However there is alot of solid evidence that shows that the prewar analysis is correct. Many Intelligence agencies around the world including Germany, France, Russia, England and our own have staked pretty heacy claims that Saddam did possess the weapons and the means to make them. Could they all be wrong? Yes but highly unlikely. If they ALL were wrong, then they all need to worry about their intelligence gathering methods.

I think what we have here is a media war. A hard campaign of misinformation to confuse the public and to sway public opinion. This isnt just here. This is around the world. A minority in the media have been hell bent against this president from day one. Every hypocracy thats been pointed out has been swept aside as "avoiding the issue at hand." Every shred of evidence brought for has been dismissed as "lies used to start a war." After all, its not the nature of the evidence. Its the seriousness of the charge. If you label someone a liar long enough, you eventual hope it sticks no matter how many times your proven wrong. (BTW, "you" is a metaphor speaking about anyone who tries to misinform and not particularly you, max).

 

[Avatar4321]

Ever hear the old adage, two wrongs don't make a right?

Well, two sides lying don't make a truth.

Let's think about this logically.

Both Republican and Democrat officials who get to see specifics on national security information found evidence to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to acquire more weapons the second the opportunity arose.

Now the fringe anti war movement is trying to make the claim there was never any WMDs. Ignoring the fact that they simultaneously blame America for giving Iraq Weapons of Mass destruction, who do you think knows more, the fringe of the Democrat party or the leaders in both parties who have seen all the classified intelligence information?

Also remember, Democrats would have used every opportunity to hit prior to the election as they could. If these intelligence evidence of WMDs in Iraq didn't exist, the Democrat politicians would have had no scuples using the lack of such information against the President. But the fact is the people who had access to verify the information was running to back the President because they knew the truth.

In order to be a Democrat today you have to somehow believe there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that America gave them these nonexistant WMDS which Saddam used to kill thousands of people. On top of that Bush apparently made up this "lie" about WMDs and he managed to get Democrats to start pushing it on the American people two years before he got into office in order to sell his war.

 

[Max Power]

George Bush in October 2002
"we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases."

We had known since February 2002 that this was PROBABLY not true.

Therefore, George Bush was not being honest... he didn't even give the slightest hint of doubt in his statement.
And IMO, something that has such a degree of uncertainty should never be uttered by the president to justify a war.

 

[Max Power]

Now the fringe anti war movement is trying to make the claim there was never any WMDs. Ignoring the fact that they simultaneously blame America for giving Iraq Weapons of Mass destruction, who do you think knows more, the fringe of the Democrat party or the leaders in both parties who have seen all the classified intelligence information?

So, if you're for a war, you have seen classified intelligence, and if you're against the war, you haven't?
Hmmm.... Haha.

Anyway, if you want to play the "Who do you think knows more" game, see my second post in this thread about Kamel Hussein. Or just go ahead and read the Duelfer report. There were no WMD's. And, FWIW, they concluded that there was no information that supports the possibility that the weapons were moved prior to the war (to Syria or otherwise).

 

[Annie]

So, if you're for a war, you have seen classified intelligence, and if you're against the war, you haven't?
Hmmm.... Haha.

Anyway, if you want to play the "Who do you think knows more" game, see my second post in this thread about Kamel Hussein. Or just go ahead and read the Duelfer report. There were no WMD's. And, FWIW, they concluded that there was no information that supports the possibility that the weapons were moved prior to the war (to Syria or otherwise).

I did read the Duelfer Report, did you? Sounds more like you read only the headlines of the MSM...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12830&highlight=Duelfer+report

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20387&highlight=Duelfer+report

There are more, just search for 'Duelfer Report'...

 

[Max Power]

I did read the Duelfer Report, did you? Sounds more like you read only the headlines of the MSM...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12830&highlight=Duelfer+report

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20387&highlight=Duelfer+report

There are more, just search for 'Duelfer Report'...

Trying to change the topic, are we?


Well, IIRC, the Duelfer report concluded that there were no WMD's, but that Saddam had plans to resume his WMD programs if sanctions were lifted and conditions were "favorable."
In other words, the sanctions were working.
But, I'm sure that you'll construe that to mean "Saddam had plans on resuming WMD programs, therefore war was justified," despite the fact that there was a peaceful solution already in place.

And regarding Syria, didn't he conclude that he couldn't rule out the possibility, but there was no evidence that to support that the weapons were moved to Syria.
OMG COULDN'T RULE IT OUT! THAT'S A SMOKING GUN RIGHT THERE!

 

[Gunny]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001434737

The New York Times? Oh, this ought to be impartial as Hell.

Do I see in yon statement an acknowlegement to there being Iraq-trained AQ terrorists?

Please point out what new evidence exists? I believe the fact that Bush had erroneous information is pretty-much well-known and been beat far beyond death.

 

[Annie]

Trying to change the topic, are we?


Well, IIRC, the Duelfer report concluded that there were no WMD's, but that Saddam had plans to resume his WMD programs if sanctions were lifted and conditions were "favorable."
In other words, the sanctions were working.
But, I'm sure that you'll construe that to mean "Saddam had plans on resuming WMD programs, therefore war was justified," despite the fact that there was a peaceful solution already in place.

And regarding Syria, didn't he conclude that he couldn't rule out the possibility, but there was no evidence that to support that the weapons were moved to Syria.
OMG COULDN'T RULE IT OUT! THAT'S A SMOKING GUN RIGHT THERE!

You were the one admonishing folks to read the report, which you have probably not done yourself.

Failure to produce them, after the lead up to war, is NOT the same as 'he never had them.' That was the point. The report had serious doubts to whether or not they had failed to locate the WMD's. You are spinning and it's clear.

 

[Max Power]

You were the one admonishing folks to read the report, which you have probably not done yourself.

Failure to produce them, after the lead up to war, is NOT the same as 'he never had them.' That was the point. The report had serious doubts to whether or not they had failed to locate the WMD's. You are spinning and it's clear.

The report had serious doubts?

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

You're the one who's spinning, Kath.

 

[Max Power]

Do I see in yon statement an acknowlegement to there being Iraq-trained AQ terrorists?

Please point out what new evidence exists? I believe the fact that Bush had erroneous information is pretty-much well-known and been beat far beyond death.

No, that acknowledgement is not in my statement, rather the acknowledgement is that the evidence that Iraq trained AQ terrorists was determined to be, most likely, a lie.

The new evidence is the February 2002 DIA document.

 

[Gunny]

No, that acknowledgement is not in my statement, rather the acknowledgement is that the evidence that Iraq trained AQ terrorists was determined to be, most likely, a lie.

The new evidence is the February 2002 DIA document.

Dude, AQ had a training compound in Northern Iraq. I don't think that is the issue. The issue is: did Saddam support it, just as he gave millions to Hezbollah?

The issue is moot to me. Saddam and his government were the terrorist organization in Iraq. About as simple as it gets.

 

[Annie]

The report had serious doubts?

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

You're the one who's spinning, Kath.

Wrong again, at least in part. Threads keep being found. In the following, it's obvious these do not predate the inspections, but where do they come from? Where were the precursors? Links at site

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/08/will_discovery_.html

Will Discovery of Mosul Chem Weapons Factory Reopen Debate Over Saddam's WMD? (UPDATED 8-14)

I know it's too early to go out on a limb, but the discovery of a chemical weapons factory in Mosul with 1,500 gallons of chemicals (updated Washington Post link, free registration) might reignite the debate over whether Saddam Hussein possessed a storehouse of chemical weapons ready for use in war. (UPDATE 8-14: DOD press release states, "Early results suggest that some chemicals are accelerants used in explosive devices.") Mosul was Saddam's backyard - his sons were killed there - and the story reports that the military is trying to determine "whether the expertise came from foreign fighters or members of Saddam Hussein's former security apparatus." Although the operation is apparently new and did not exist before the U.S. liberation, I personally find it very hard to believe that those who built the factory were rookies. After all, let's recall the testimony about Saddam's chemical weapons program by Charles Duelfer, leader of the Iraq Survey Group, before Congress on March 30, 2004:

"The ISG has developed new information regarding Iraq’s dual-use facilities and ongoing research suitable for a capability to produce biological or chemical agents on short notice. Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons. It had plans to improve and expand and even build new facilities.

For example, the Tuwaitha Agricultural and Biological Research Center has equipment suitable for the production of biological agents. While it conducts civilian research, ISG has also determined that it was conducting research that would be important for a biological weapons program. For example, we are continuing to examine research on Bacillus thuringiensis that was conducted until March 2003. This material is a commercial biopesticide, but it also can be used as a surrogate for the anthrax bacterium for production and weapons development purposes. Work continued on single cell proteins at Tuwaitha as well. Single cell protein research previously had been used as the cover activity for BW production at al-Hakam. We are now focusing on what such activities meant.

With respect to chemical production, Iraq was working up to March 2003 to construct new facilities for the production of chemicals. There were plans under the direction of a leading nuclear scientist/WMD program manager to construct plants capable of making a variety of chemicals and producing a year’s supply of any chemical in a month. This was a crash program. Most of the chemicals specified in this program were conventional commercial chemicals, but a few are considered “dual use.” One we are examining, commonly called DCC (N,N-Dicyclohexyl carbodiimide), was used by Iraq before 1991 as a stabilizing agent for the nerve agent VX. Iraq had plans before OIF for large-scale production of this chemical. Again, what do these activities mean?"

Posted by Andrew Cochran at 03:53 PM

 

[Max Power]

Dude, AQ had a training compound in Northern Iraq. I don't think that is the issue. The issue is: did Saddam support it, just as he gave millions to Hezbollah?

The issue is moot to me. Saddam and his government were the terrorist organization in Iraq. About as simple as it gets.

You're talking about where al-Zarqawi was? I believe that was not under Saddam's control.

Well, the issue is whether or not Bush, Cheney, Powell, et al, were honest with us in 2002 - 2003.
It's clear they weren't.

 

[Max Power]

Wrong again, at least in part. Threads keep being found. In the following, it's obvious these do not predate the inspections, but where do they come from? Where were the precursors? Links at site

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/08/will_discovery_.html

Still trying to sidestep the issue.

Not to mention, "Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. "... not exactly a justification for war if it wasn't built until after the war.