Iraq destroyed it's WMD

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/876128.asp

 

KAMEL WAS SADDAM Hussein’s son-in-law and had direct knowledge of what he claimed: for 10 years he had run Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs. Kamel told his Western interrogators that he hoped his revelations would trigger Saddam’s overthrow. But after six months in exile in Jordan, Kamel realized the United States would not support his dream of becoming Iraq’s ruler after Saddam’s demise. He chose to return to Iraq—where he was promptly killed.

Kamel’s revelations about the destruction of Iraq’s WMD stocks were hushed up by the U.N. inspectors, sources say, for two reasons. Saddam did not know how much Kamel had revealed, and the inspectors hoped to bluff Saddam into disclosing still more. And Iraq has never shown the documentation to support Kamel’s story. Still, the defector’s tale raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist.

Kamel said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions. The stocks had been destroyed to hide the programs from the U.N. inspectors, but Iraq had retained the design and engineering details of these weapons. Kamel talked of hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches and even missile-warhead molds. “People who work in MIC [iraq’s Military Industrial Commission, which oversaw the country’s WMD programs] were asked to take documents to their houses,” he said. Why preserve this technical material? Said Kamel: “It is the first step to return to production” after U.N. inspections wind down.

Kamel was interrogated in separate sessions by the CIA, Britain’s M.I.6 and a trio from the United Nations, led by the inspection team’s head, Rolf Ekeus. NEWSWEEK has obtained the notes of Kamel’s U.N. debrief, and verified that the document is authentic. NEWSWEEK has also learned that Kamel told the same story to the CIA and M.I.6. (The CIA did not respond to a request for comment.)

 

 

 

The notes of the U.N. interrogation—a three-hour stretch one August evening in 1995— show that Kamel was a gold mine of information. He had a good memory and, piece by piece, he laid out the main personnel, sites and progress of each WMD program. Kamel was a manager—not a scientist or engineer—and, sources say, some of his technical assertions were later found to be faulty. (A military aide who defected with Kamel was apparently a more reliable source of tech-nical data. This aide backed Kamel’s assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks.) But, overall, Kamel’s information was “almost embarrass-ing, it was so extensive,” Ekeus recalled—including the fact that Ekeus’s own Arabic translator, a Syrian, was, according to Kamel, an Iraqi agent who had been reporting to Kamel himself all along.

 

I caught this in Newsweek, I am shocked it hasn't been picked up as a major story yet. This seems like a believable course of action for Iraq to have taken, if it were true would it be enough for hawks, or is having blueprints and know how enough of a cause for war?

[Guest Mad Dog]

He needs to completely comply with the inspectors to not have the U.S. attack.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

You can't see how it shows it also shows that our own fucking government has been actively lying and misdirecting us against a country that isn't really all that in the wrong. Some conventional short rage missiles which can go 22 KM further than allowed and a dozen empty multipurpose warheads just isn't a call to arms.

 

This sort of revelation completely and utterly casts into light the pure folly and maliciousness of the concept of a pre-emptive attack. We would kill a shitload of people and waste a huge amount of money and accomplish nothing more than stiffening or outright destroying our relations with anyone in the middle east. Why is this so hard for people to grasp? Why is this so hard for people in charge to grasp? The sheer ignorance and impetuousness of such a program is astounding.

[cawthon777 0]

You can't see how it shows it also shows that our own fucking government has been actively lying and misdirecting us against a country that isn't really all that in the wrong. Some conventional short rage missiles which can go 22 KM further than allowed and a dozen empty multipurpose warheads just isn't a call to arms.

 

This sort of revelation completely and utterly casts into light the pure folly and maliciousness of the concept of a pre-emptive attack. We would kill a shitload of people and waste a huge amount of money and accomplish nothing more than stiffening or outright destroying our relations with anyone in the middle east. Why is this so hard for people to grasp? Why is this so hard for people in charge to grasp? The sheer ignorance and impetuousness of such a program is astounding.

Rant much?

 

The future of Iraq is in Saddam's hands. He knows that. All he has to do is comply. Let the inspectors go and see whatever they want. If he doesn't, he faces the consequences of our country beating his ass and putting a bullet in his head.

 

But he doesn't comply. He risks the well being of both his military and his people and he does not care. He mocks the UN resolutions and pulls bullshit PR tactics like that debate with Bush (that, sadly, several of these posters completely buy into).

 

Saddam needs to die. He has since 1990. His death = happy me and safer world.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I really do want to see a Bush/Hussein televised debate. I don't see why that's sad. It's must-see-TV.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Rant much?

 

The future of Iraq is in Saddam's hands.  He knows that.  All he has to do is comply.  Let the inspectors go and see whatever they want.  If he doesn't, he faces the consequences of our country beating his ass and putting a bullet in his head.

 

But he doesn't comply.  He risks the well being of both his military and his people and he does not care.  He mocks the UN resolutions and pulls bullshit PR tactics like that debate with Bush (that, sadly, several of these posters completely buy into).

 

Saddam needs to die.  He has since 1990.  His death = happy me and safer world.

Seriously, I seriously doubt the use of any offensive action against Iraq more and more everyday. What threat do they really pose to us? What's the point?

 

edit: edit: This is not to say I'm not for the war. Yes, Dead Saddam = Safer World, but I still don't believe he poses a thread. You can say it's safer in the long run, and hopefully it will work out better for the Iraqi people. It's just that I'd be pissed off if anyone actually paid much attention to this stuff.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I wouldn't be shocked if Hussein wanted those missiles discovered. It's already causing more strain in the U.N. That's exactly what he wants.

[Guest cartman]

Dead Saddam does NOT = Safer World. There are a hundred other guys over there that could step up and do the same supposed stuff he is doing now. There's alot of countries over there that don't like us very much because we BUTT into their buisness all the time.

[cawthon777 0]

Dead Saddam does NOT = Safer World. There are a hundred other guys over there that could step up and do the same supposed stuff he is doing now. There's alot of countries over there that don't like us very much because we BUTT into their buisness all the time.

To paraphrase Dennis Miller on Leno...

 

America is the only super power. Everyone else either loves us or hates us - which kinda makes us a lot like Frank Sinatra. But Sinatra didn't get to where he was by taking advice from the schmo that couldn't even get in the club.

 

Saddam = safer world. And that's my final answer.