When Saad Tawfiq watched Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations on February 5 2003 he shed bitter tears as he realised he had risked his life and those of his loved ones for nothing.
As one of Saddam Hussein’s most gifted engineers, Tawfiq knew that the Iraqi dictator had shut down his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes in 1995 — and he had told his handlers in US intelligence just that.
And yet here was the then US secretary of state — Tawfiq’s television was able to received international news through a link pirated from Saddam’s spies next door — waving a vial of white powder and telling the UN Security Council a story about Iraqi germ labs.
“When I saw Colin Powell I started crying. Immediately. I knew I had tried and lost,” Tawfiq told AFP five years later in the Jordanian capital Amman.
Now in his fifties, a round-faced man with a small moustache and lively eyes behind delicate spectacles, Tawfiq described how the CIA set up an elaborate operation to recruit Iraqi weapons scientists and then ignored the results.
When you realize our government’s idea of diplomacy is – how big a bomb should we use – you shouldn’t be surprised over tales like this.
And, remind me again why we still have the CIA? They missed 9/11, that “Oops! Sorry, our bad.” should have been the ultimate dooming blow to the “We know everything about nothing” smart boys and girls spy club.
#1, Because feeling safe is almost as good as being safe.
Its a good thing our government is nothing but Keystone cops else wise we would be screwed.
The CIA is powerless if the president WANTS a war. That is true for every other government organization.
The most powerful organization in the US is the Internal revenue Service and even that is exploited by the president.
Almost all of what the intellegence agencies dig up is lies told to confuse them by people who know what intellegence agencies are inclined to believe, so they are doing good if they wrong most of the time instead of all the time.
Notice though that 1995 is before Clinton made some statements about Saddam having WMDs, so the error is long standing.
We don’t hear about what the CIA does right because part of doing their job right means not letting anyone who will blab know what’s going on. (Oops. That includes the politicians they have to report to… Hmmm, “Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.)
This is all part of an elaborate plan. The false intelligence touted by the Bush administration (some of which was even at odds with best available CIA info) has lulled the world into believing that we are completely inept. We are so very clever, and now we have our enemies right where we want them… with their guard down.
*****************
#3 Mister Uncle Ben, here’s one more “protective agency,” just so you can have a full Top-Ten list. As the most Christian nation on earth, our first line of defense should be God himself. His omniscience replaces all intelligence gathering, and his omnipotence replaces all weaponry and weapons research. If he ever fails to protect us, it’s only because we don’t deserve his protection, and attempting to protect ourselves would then be tantamount to circumventing God’s will.
In real life, though, God only seems to protect those who take extraordinary measures to protect themselves. Funny how that works đ
Peace is bad for business, and war is a good distraction from domestic economic crisis and scandals. Cold war ending had alot of powerful people worrying about their investments, so they scoff their feet on the terrorism problem until it finally hits home 9/11.
They got their war back, their budgets are safe, and business is booming (for those who sell weapons).
Heck it’s nothing new, I know, just seems to me more money could be spent solving domestic problems, or going to space, or financing pure research, or , or, or,…
Pardon my rant!
Mister Uncle Ben, you may have good per capita data (hats off to you), but surely America can pick up some extra points for the sheer zeal that drives some of our faithful. We really need an accurate “God’s Good Graces” scale to accurately assess and compare our Christian performance to that of other nations. After all, we want to be number one in this most critical category đ
[Message deleted – Violation of Posting Guidelines. – ed.]
#11 Mister Uncle Ben, I can only reply…
“I wish I’d said that!” đ
#9 Mister Uncle Ben –
“…the jews suffered slavery under the Egyptians…”
That has historically been contested but I do agree that as far as god ‘saving’ anyone it has been a piss poor showing. Even Jesus, after 2000 years you would think things would be better…shit!
“(Jews)…never having a homeland…”
Judea? There were many Jewish sects, the Essenes, the Nazarenes, the Sadducee et al and not all wandered the desert and did not have a homeland. However I am too tired right now – brain mush – its late where I am but later I will post that particular sect that the bible speaks of as “The Chosen Ones” who after a while no doubt prayed “Oye vey, Lord you want to ‘choose’ someone else for a change already?”
I agree if what you are saying is find a deity that gets the job done. I like the Sun…or Joe Pesci. đ
Cheers
Silly liberals. Your opinions don’t matter.
0. “Tawfiq knew that the Iraqi dictator had shut down his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes in 1995”
In 1995, UNSCOM’s principal weapons inspector, … showed the Iraqi government had just purchased 10 tons of growth medium … Iraq’s hospital consumption of growth medium was just 200 kg a year; yet in 1988, Iraq imported 39 tons of it. Shown this evidence by UNSCOM, Taha admitted to the inspectors that she had grown 19,000 litres of botulism toxin 8,000 litres of anthrax; 2,000 litres of aflatoxins, which can cause liver failure; Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium that can cause gas gangrene; and ricin, a castor-bean derivative which can kill by impeding circulation.”
‘”Iraq is not disarming”, Ritter said on August 27, 1998’
“In 2002, Scott Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90â95% of Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed.”
“In 2001 Saddam stated that “we are not at all seeking to build up weapons or look for the most harmful weapons . . . however, we will never hesitate to possess the weapons to defend Iraq and the Arab nation”.”
“Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had “not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm.”
Wikipedia for sources
But then, maybe those guys don’t have “lively eyes behind delicate spectacles.”
And who wouldn’t trust Iraq just because of one little invasion boo-boo?
RBG
Doesn’t anyone understand that Saddam would have restarted his weapon programs if we had not over thrown him? This Iraq War, as sucky as it is, was inevitable.
Do anyone really think that he could be contained? The British PM Neville Chamberlain once believed that same thing about Hitler. Look how well that turned out.
Saddam was an out-of-control, megalomaniac, blood thirsty dictator with a large army and lots of oil revenue at his disposal. No matter what the US did, it was going to end badly or Iraq and the US.
Because Iraq could no longer contain Saddam’s ambitions, he became a serious threat to the Middle East. He had to be taken out. The alternative was worse.
Saddam was a classic dilemma. Despite what the peaceniks and Micheal Moore believe, sometimes the choices are only sucky option 1 or sucky option 2.
Also, don’t forget that our own leader’s prophecies of doom, whose nearest fulfillment was several years in the future (though he claimed it could be imminent), could easily have been derailed by any number of events. That’s the thing — no matter how good your prophetic skills, reality has a way of intervening before your predictions come true.
In the meantime, any foreign nation is now emboldened to follow our example and make similar predictions of their own, and then use military actions to preempt those perceived threats before they materialize. How can we speak out with any moral authority against another country that uses faulty intelligence as a basis to predict future threats to their safety, and then start a war?
At least Alan Greenspan had enough integrity to acknowledge the war’s underlying motivations as economic. Historians may someday take the same course.
Gary, most historians have already agreed with your last paragraph. Just the politicians – and those willing to send off someone else’s kid as cannon fodder still quibble.
#9, Mister Uncle Ben,
Ha ha ha, excellent post. I have to remember that one. Also, you forgot the part where he didn’t have enough life jackets to go around when he allowed it to rain for over a month.
#16, RBG,
Although of coarse you won’t cite any of what you posted out of context.
Iraqâs hospital consumption of growth medium was just 200 kg a year; yet in 1988, Iraq imported 39 tons of it.
Well, yup. Iraq is real bad. Consider,:
France built Iraqâs Osirak nuclear reactor in the late 1970s.
France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons.
Italy gave Iraq plutonium extraction facilities that advanced Iraqâs nuclear weapon program.
75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy.
Between 1979 and 1982 Italy gave depleted, natural, and low-enriched uranium.
Swiss companies aided in Iraqâs nuclear weapons development in the form of specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines, electrical discharge machines, and equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade.
Brazil secretly aided the Iraqi nuclear weapon program by supplying natural uranium dioxide between 1981 and 1982 without notifying the IAEA.
About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.
The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq [including computers used in their nuclear program]
The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989, … included anthrax, West Nile virus, botulism,[…] Brucella melitensis, and clostridium perfringens, … Some of these materials were used for Iraq’s biological weapons research program,
The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas
The [British Government] secretly gave the arms company Matrix Churchill permission to supply parts for the Iraqi supergun,
An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. … [as well as] heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure
Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses
The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses
Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors … and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions
India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses
Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors
Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraqâs chemical warfare program
China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.
Portugal provided yellowcake between 1980 and 1982.
Niger provided yellowcake in 1981.
So do you really think that 39 tons of precursors or medium is significant? Please also note,:
In November 1980, two months into the Iran-Iraq War, the first reported use of chemical weapons took place when Tehran radio reported a poison gas attack on Susangerd by Iraqi forces.
But another point you missed, the legal use of precursors and mediums to produce agricultural products. That part is understandable.
What isn’t is why the CDC would be sending anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, brucella melitensis, and clostridium perfringens, to a country KNOWN to be using chemical weapons. Hey, who was President in 1989?
#16, RBG,
ââIraq is not disarmingâ, Ritter said on August 27, 1998â˛
âIn 2002, Scott Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90â95% of Iraqâs nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed.â
Let’s add some more to that.
âWe have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesnât necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesnât amount to much, but which is still prohibited… But simultaneously, we canât reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.â
âIf Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, weâd have proof, pure and simple.â
â[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.â
2002 interview with Williams Rivers Pitt.
***
Lets see, on August 26 1998, Ritter had resigned from the UN Inspections. What wasn’t mentioned at the time was he was also working for the CIA. Ritter acknowledged Iraq’s complaint that the inspections were mostly to find military targets. The same targets as were attacked in 1998’s Desert Fox campaign. Remember that one? All the Republicans were against it.
Less than two years later Ritter wrote and directed a video documentary In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq. In it Ritter argues that Iraq is a “defanged tiger” and that the inspections were successful in eliminating significant Iraqi WMD capabilities.
#16, RBG,
âHans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had ânot genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm.â
BUT, if you expand his comments a little
Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said in January 2003 that “access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect” and Iraq had “cooperated rather well” in that regard, although “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament.”
Also, On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix’s last report to the UN security Council prior to the US led invasion of Iraq, described Iraq as actively and proactively cooperating with UNMOVIC, though not necessarily in all areas of relevance and had been frequently uncooperative in the past, but that it was within months of resolving key remaining disarmament tasks.
Yup. Just quoting a few words can take the entire comment out of context.
I like this fun statistic:
Direct cost of Damage to NYC as a result of 911==$27.2 Billion.
If GOUSA weren’t a nation of sheep driven by Fear and a shameless coke fiend, that would be about the total cost.
Cost of War in Afghanistan and Iraq to date==$492 Billion.
Thats not proportionate. Even if invading those countries was the right and moral thing to do, a responsible country would have found a cheaper alternative.
Sure am glad Cheney figured out how to stick the bill to our children rather than to ourselves.
Bush lied us into illegally invading another country.
Bush lied us into illegally invading another country.
Bush lied us into illegally invading another country.
Repeat until it sinks in. That is his legacy. That is what has ruined us. That is what has cost this country our status, reputation and future.
This is the original image of Powell and caption…
http://tinyurl.com/33a35j
Cheers
As another oldie song has said ..” where do we go from here..?”
With everything that Bush has done to the US, Americans and other countries he was bound to leave one these lying around… đ
http://tinyurl.com/yvbrar
(Caution some might find this too ‘blunt’)
Cheers
#17 Mister Uncle Ben –
Yep, Sun worship, Sol Invictus is what I had in mind as it should not be too hard for Christians to convert as Paul (Saul) and Constantine grafted many aspects onto the story of Jesus – Born of a virgin on Dec 25th et al for easier acceptance by Sun worshipers then. Seemed only right to flip it back around. đ
I also thought praying to Joe Pesci would be a good second choice as he seems to be the kind of god that would get things done! (Casino)
Cheers
23. MC.
“Well, yup. Iraq is real bad.”
Agreed. My list pales. But I’m sure it was all in support of innocuous Japanese whale research instead of a desire for mass destruction later needing 100% destruction verification.
24. “In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.â
2002 (Ritter)interview with Williams Rivers Pitt.
Well, given your little list, “a lot of evidence” should be everything anyone could ever want. Not.
So you say in 2000 Ritter states “Iraq is a âdefanged tigerâ and that the inspections were successful in eliminating significant Iraqi WMD capabilities.”
Is “significant” WMDs like “a lot of evidence?”
Or is it like: âIn 2002, Scott Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90â95% of Iraqâs nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed.â
“We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesnât necessarily constitute a threat…” In fact he guesses what the *missing* WMD are. Good enough for government work, I suppose.
Seems to me Ritter’s not a very good CIA agent.
25. âcooperated rather wellâ hardly invalidates the alarming âIraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmamentâ in any context when dealing with weapons of mass destruction. In fact, “access” and “cooperation” are invalidated when there is no “genuine acceptance” and up to 10% of WMDs missing.
RBG
#32, RBG,
There is stupid and then there is stupid. In your earlier comment you only quoted a few words of several people. This gave the impression that they were saying something quite different.
I’m just going to go on one point right now simply because you don’t rate more effort.
âWe have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesnât necessarily constitute a threatâŚâ In fact he guesses what the *missing* WMD are. Good enough for government work, I suppose.
Seems to me Ritterâs not a very good CIA agent.
Do you remember writing that? What you didn’t read, or just ignored, is Ritter’s clarification.
… [the missing material] constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesnât amount to much, but which is still prohibited⌠But simultaneously, we canât reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.â
Good enough for government work? I don’t know. It is obvious, however, that you have a difficult time comprehending what you complain about.
Disagree with me if you want. I have no problem with an intelligent discussion. Quoting out of context and then turning around and blaming the author because YOU can’t fucking understand polysyllabic linguistic communication. Like I said, there is stupid and then there is stupid. Then there are the morans like yourself.
How come the president never asks Americans to vote on wars?
Because if he did that, we never would have any, thats why.
33 MC. I think you’re missing the forest for the trees.
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No one seems to disagree. Certainly not Ritter.
It invaded its next door neighbor, an American ally.
It has demonstrated genocidal tendencies when killing Kurds. Not exactly a fan of Israel either.
They retain the knowledge to build WMDs.
And Ritter has found “in its totality doesnât amount to much, but which is still prohibited.”
You can “de-facto” all you want but “We canât give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we canât close the book on their weapons of mass destruction.” (Oh yeah, that last quote is the part you replaced with “…” in your “clarification.”)
If you and Ritter can ignore the strict letter of the disarmament agreement based upon someone’s subjective view of what is “worthy of war” then, I suppose, so can anyone, including Bush when he looks at the bigger picture above.
The Iraqis were in breach. Do you understand that part? That’s the end of it. Ritter says, not so seriously. Others say, seriously. Now which side shall we err on?
RBG
Geez, you are one funny guy. I guess you were walking along and tripped such that you were just unable to write the words Ritter said literally just before “constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much…”
“We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesnât necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes…”