WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz

WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz

he did you guys understand this latest spin on the war....

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=410730

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine.

The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found.

The failure to find a single example of the weapons that London and Washington said were inside Iraq only makes the embarrassment more acute. Voices are increasingly being raised in the US _ and Britain _ demanding an explanation for why nothing has been found.

Most striking is the fact that these latest remarks come from Mr Wolfowitz, recognised widely as the leader of the hawks' camp in Washington most responsible for urging President George Bush to use military might in Iraq. The magazine article reveals that Mr Wolfowitz was even pushing Mr Bush to attack Iraq immediately after the 11 September attacks in the US, instead of invading Afghanistan.

There have long been suspicions that Mr Wolfowitz has essentially been running a shadow administration out of his Pentagon office, ensuring that the right-wing views of himself and his followers find their way into the practice of American foreign policy. He is best known as the author of the policy of first-strike pre-emption in world affairs that was adopted by Mr Bush shortly after the al-Qa'ida attacks.

In asserting that weapons of mass destruction gave a rationale for attacking Iraq that was acceptable to everyone, Mr Wolfowitz was presumably referring in particular to the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell. He was the last senior member of the administration to agree to the push earlier this year to persuade the rest of the world that removing Saddam by force was the only remaining viable option.

The conversion of Mr Powell was on full view in the UN Security Council in February when he made a forceful presentation of evidence that allegedly proved that Saddam was concealing weapons of mass destruction.

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51355-2003May28.html?nav=hptop_ts

whoops...I guess they did lie.....

 

.....maybe they didn't....

Monterey Institute of International Studies


http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm

IRAQ
Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Missile Capabilities and Programs[1]
Nuclear[2] With sufficient black-market uranium or plutonium, Iraq probably could fabricate a nuclear weapon.
If undetected and unobstructed, could produce weapons-grade fissile material within several years.
Engaged in clandestine procurement of special nuclear weapon-related equipment.
Retains large and experienced pool of nuclear scientists and technicians.
Retains nuclear weapons design, and may retain related components and software.
Repeatedly violated its obligations under the NPT, which Iraq ratified on 10/29/69.
Repeatedly violated its obligations under United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 687, which mandates destruction of Iraq's nuclear weapon capabilities.
Until halted by Coalition air attacks and UNSCOM disarmament efforts, Iraq had an extensive nuclear weapon development program that began in 1972, involved 10,000 personnel, and had a multi-year budget totaling approximately $10 billion.
In 1990, Iraq also launched a crash program to divert reactor fuel under IAEA safeguards to produce nuclear weapons.
Considered two delivery options for nuclear weapons: either using unmodified al-Hussein ballistic missile with 300km range, or producing Al-Hussein derivative with 650km range.
In 1987, Iraq reportedly field tested a radiological bomb.

Biological[3] May retain stockpile of biological weapon (BW) munitions, including over 150 R-400 aerial bombs, and 25 or more special chemical/biological Al-Hussein ballistic missile warheads.
May retain biological weapon sprayers for Mirage F-1 aircraft.
May retain mobile production facility with capacity to produce "dry" biological agents (i.e., with long shelf life and optimized for dissemination).
Has not accounted for 17 metric tonnes of BW growth media.
May possess smallpox virus; tested camelpox prior to Gulf War.
Maintains technical expertise and equipment to resume production of Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax), botulinum toxin, aflatoxin, and Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene).
Prepared BW munitions for missile and aircraft delivery in 1990-1991 Gulf War; this included loading al-Hussein ballistic missile warheads and R-400 aerial bombs with Bacillis anthracis.
Conducted research on BW dissemination using unmanned aerial vehicles.
Repeatedly violated its obligations under UNSC Resolution 687, which mandates destruction of Iraq's biological weapon capabilities.
Ratified the BTWC on 4/18/91, as required by the Gulf War cease-fire agreement.

Chemical[4] May retain stockpile of chemical weapon (CW) munitions, including 25 or more special chemical/biological al-Hussein ballistic missile warheads, 2,000 aerial bombs, 15,000-25,000 rockets, and 15,000 artillery shells.
Believed to possess sufficient precursor chemicals to produce hundreds of tons of mustard gas, VX, and other nerve agents.
Reconstructing former dual-use CW production facilities that were destroyed by U.S. bombing.
Retains sufficient technical expertise to revive CW programs within months.
Repeatedly used CW against Iraqi Kurds in 1988 and against Iran in 1983-1988 during the Iran-Iraq war.
An extensive CW arsenal–including 38,537 munitions, 690 tons of CW agents, and over 3,000 tons of CW precursor chemicals–has been destroyed by UNSCOM.
Repeatedly violated its obligations under UNSC Resolution 687, which mandates destruction of Iraq's chemical weapon capabilities.
Not a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Ballistic missiles[5] May retain several al-Hussein (modified Scud-B) missiles with 650km range and 500kg payload.
May retain components for dozens of Scud-B and al-Hussein missiles, as well as indigenously produced Scud missile engines.
Maintains clandestine procurement network to import missile components.
Reconstructing missile production facilities destroyed in 1998 by U.S. bombing.
May possess several hundred tons of propellant for Scud missiles.
If undetected and unobstructed, could resume production of al-Hussein missiles; could develop 3,000km-range missiles within five years; could develop ICBM within 15 years.
Launched 331 Scud-B missiles at Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, and 189 al-Hussein missiles at Iranian cities during the 1988 "War of the Cities."
Developing Ababil-100 with 150km range and 300kg payload, flight-testing al-Samoud with 140km range and 300kg payload, and producing Ababil-50 with 50km range and 95kg payload.

Cruise missiles[6] C-601/Nisa 28 and HY-2 Silkworm with 95km range and 513kg payload.
SS-N-2c Styx with 80km range and 513kg payload.
Exocet AM-39 with 50km range and 165kg payload.
YJ-1/C-801 with 40km range and 165kg payload.

Other delivery systems[7] Reportedly converting L-29 jet trainers to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for delivery of BW or CW.
May possess spraying equipment for BW dissemination by helicopter.
Experimented with MIG-21 as unmanned delivery vehicle for BW.
Fighter and ground attack forces may total 300 fixed-wing aircraft, including Su-25, Su-24MK, Su-20, Su-7, MiG-29, MiG-25, MiG-23BN, MiG-21, Mirage F1EQ5, and F-7.
Ground systems include artillery and rocket launchers, notably 500+ FROG-7 artillery rockets and 12-15 launchers, with 70km range and 450kg payload.



Sources:

[1] This chart summarizes data available from public sources. Precise assessment of a Iraq's capabilities is difficult because most weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs remain secret and cannot be verified independently. Although inspections by UNSCOM and the IAEA's Iraq Action Team provided detailed information about past Iraqi programs, assessing Iraq's current capabilities is difficult due to its policies of denial and deception, and to its expulsion of UNSCOM inspectors in November 1998.

On Iraq's deception and denial policies, see: Khidhir Hamza with Jeff Stein, Saddam's Bombmaker (New York: Scribner, 2000). David Albright, "Masters of Deception," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 54:3 (May/June 1998). Barton Gellman, "A Futile Game of Hide and Seek," Washington Post, 10/11/98. Barton Gellman, "Arms Inspectors ‘Shake the Tree," Washington Post, 10/12/98.

On UNSCOM's efforts to disarm Iraq of WMD, see Robert Einhorn, Robert Gallucci, Dimitri Perricos, Jere Nichols, Gary Dillon, Ephraim Asculai, and Michael Eisenstadt, 6/14-15/01, transcripts from a conference, "Understanding the Lessons of Nuclear Inspections and Monitoring in Iraq: A Ten-Year Review," Washington, DC. Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). <http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/index.html>. Richard Butler, The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Growing Crisis in Global Security, (New York: Public Affairs, 2000). Tim Trevan, Saddam's Secrets-The Hunt for Iraq's Hidden Weapons, (New York: Harper Collins, 1999).

[2] IAEA Action Team on Iraq, 7/13/01, "Fact Sheet: Iraq's Nuclear Weapon Programme," International Atomic Energy Agency, <http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html>. Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Proliferation: Threat and Response, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001). Kelly Motz, undated [accessed 9/12/01] "What Has Iraq Been Doing Since Inspectors Left? What Is On Its Shopping List?" Iraq Watch, <http://www.iraqwatch.org/updates/update.asp?id=wpn200107231601>. William J. Broad, "Document Reveals 1987 Bomb Test by Iraq," New York Times, 4/29/01, p. 16. David Albright, "Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program: Past, Present, and Future Challenges," PolicyWatch #301, 2/18/98, <http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch1998/301.htm>. U.S. Government White Paper, "Iraq Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs," 2/13/98, <http://www.state.gov/www/regions/nea/iraq_white_paper.html>. Steven Dolley, 5/12/98, "Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program: Unresolved Issues," Nuclear Control Institute, <http://www.nci.org/iraq/iraq511.htm>. Steven Dolley, 2/19/98, "Iraq and the Bomb: The Nuclear Threat Continues," Nuclear Control Institute, <http://www.nci.org/i/ib21998.htm>. Anthony H. Cordesman, Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East: Regional Trends, National Forces, Warfighting Capabilities, Delivery Options, and Weapons Effects, Center for Strategic and International Studies, June 2001, <http://www.csis.org/burke/mb/me_wmd_mideast.pdf>, pp. 85-86. David Albright, "A Special Case: Iraq," Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1996: World Inventories, Capabilities, and Policies, (Oxford: Oxford University Press/SIPRI, 1997), pp. 309-50.


September 2001 update by Michael Barletta and Jeffrey Fields.
November 1998 original by Michael Barletta and Erik Jorgensen.
© Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Monterey Institute of International Studies

 

Re: .....maybe they didn't....

So could Wal-Mart.

This could be characterized as a PR problem?

 

Re: .....maybe they didn't....

We'd better commence bombing Libya, Pakistan, North Korea, et. al. right away.

Time to buy stock in Halliburton.

 

I find it interesting that these vehicles for speculation disguised as news articles get such play.

 

Re: Re: .....maybe they didn't....

Why buy stock in Halliburton? Halliburton is an energy company, with a huge division specializing in building and maintaining oil production equipment. Of the three countries you named, only one is a member of OPEC, and none of them produce any truly noticeable amounts of oil.

So - please explain yourself - why buy stock in Halliburton?

 

Re: Re: Re: .....maybe they didn't....

The next country that we 'go into' will have to be rebuilt by someone, no?

I doubt that you could tell me that you'd be surprised to find out that Halliburton would be awarded rebuilding contracts in, say, Libya. (Halliburton has a long history of operations in Libya, continuing even after we placed sanctions on that country.) Considering the scope of Halliburton's current involvement in Iraq, the cozy arrangement they have with the current administration, and the billions in corporate welfare they've received in the past ten years, I conclude that conflict with any Middle Eastern country would be profitable for Halliburton.

You are welcome to conclude differently.

 

OK, I understand you now - you are pontificating.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I don't think he is the pope, I just think he is talking out his ass without any proof!

David

 

Just in case they don't get it, Tex....

pon·tif·i·cat·ing (intr.v.):

To express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way.

dog·mat·ic (adj.):

Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.

 

From my reply over at: www.davekdoesntgivearatsassanymore.thewarisoverandtheliberalslost.suuuucccckkkkkkkaaaaaa.com


Long rant rabble rabble. another long rant that says about as much as the BS posted above: Not a god damn thing worth reading. rant rant rant rant rant. blow my own horn 'cause I'm smarter then everyone else. rant rant rabble rabble. who really gives a rats ass. If it's on the net, it must be true.......


Oh yeah..... SUUUCCCKKKKKAAAAAA!

 

Maybe this has been discussed here before. I don't know, I haven't been around much. But maybe some of you can answer questions I have.
#1. Who should have nuclear weapons?
#2. Who should not?
#3. Why?
#4. Who should decide?
#5. See No. 3

Thank you for the input.

 

Papa, to answer all your questions except #2:

Me (but I'd loan you one if you want). Why? 'cause then I'll show 'em all who's Boss. I'll start by Idaho. Man do I hate potatoes.

To answer #2: Everyone else irregardless of creed, color, religious orientation or political stance.

 

rant

My post was intended to show that you can find support for any position you want on the internet, through studies, the news media, etc...... It's all a bunch of crap and anyone who's takes any of it as the truth is naive.

 

1. Us, as in the USA.
2. Any two-bit dictatorship or state that supports terrorism.
3. Because we said so. Since we're the biggest MF'er on the block, that's all the reason we need.
4. Us, as in the USA.
5. See 3, above.

Oh yeah, Dave, your web page doesn't seem to be working.

 

Damnit! No, I am not talking to myself .... again. I just f'd my joke.

 

As I understand from what I hear is in the full unedited interview from Vanity Fair, the three main reasons to invade Iraq were to eliminate WMD's (Damn, that term is getting boring!), to eliminate Iraq as a possible supporter and staging area for terrorism, and to end the suffering of the Iraqi people (Read this week's Time magazine article about Saddam's boys, "The Sum Of Two Evils". Or is Time Magazine too right wing to be credible? )
So Wolfowitz boiled it down to a simple message for those with short attention spans. Big deal. I suppose that after all that has transpired in the past that we were going to find this stuff right away? Those afflicted with Political ADS will remain in denial until there is a big pile of chemicals, germs and cooties left on their front lawns! The whole infrastructure to make the stuff was in place and that's good enough for me!
All major discoveries in the past came from tips from insiders. I suspect that the sight of Saddam, Uday and Qusay strung up on meathooks like Mussolini will finally give informers the courage to direct coalition forces to all the of stashes! They are still feared too much at the moment.

 

What he said..

 

I guess everyone was ASLEEP, when the British
secret service, told they had proof, that over
time , the weapons had been sent to Sadam's cousin
in Syria and finished the shipments just before
we went in to kick ass.
( I think this is true. Plus, we destroyed a-hell-of a lot
in the bunker issue. Who is to say, some where in one
of the " Deep" bunkers weren't some of these weapons.
Give it time. They will be found. )

 

Kevin, the problem is the British have been caught fabricating reports. So when they present uncorroborated 'proof' you'll forgive the laughter.