What I described is completely different. Not Ahmad Chalabi's accounts.

Honestly, unless Iran does get nuclear weapons they aren't that powerful. Our air superiority would demolish them. Now, if after wiping them out we decide to occupy them for ten years.....

Sure they did. 500 munitions were found containing Mustard gas and Sarin Nerve gas. This was released in a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center in 2006. According to the report "it was thought" that these were pre-1991 weapons that were degraded. But they were WMD's nonetheless.

Can you prove that? There was a lot of desinformation, espacially from the secret services. Obviously they found not enough arms to reason the Iraq War.

President Bush regretted in 2008 in an interview with ABC, that he was informed wrongly about mass destruction weapons in Iraq. I've found an artricle in Germanies biggest and best weakly political magazine about that:



George W. Bush denoted the wrong statements about mass destruction weapons as the biggest mistake of his tenure. " During my presidency the failure of the secret services in Iraq is mostly to regret." A lot of people adventured their reputation and said the mass destruction weapons were a reason to disempower Saddam Hussein. I wished the information from the secret services would have been different.

I know my translation is not perfect, but the message should be understandable.

Spiegel: Bush regrets statements about Iraqian mass destruction weapons

How much evidence would one really need to justify attacking a country that hasn't actually attacked you yet?

I've always believed that if we wanted Saddam gone after '91, we really should have found some way to execute him for crimes against humanity Nuremberg-style. Surely there is enough evidence for a conviction.

I can prove it just as much as you can prove there were not. This is just a drop in the proverbial bucket.


http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1658167/posts
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

I have also read a summary of the 2006 Intelligence symposium in London, provided by the individual I mentioned in my first post. The Administration downplayed the findings with a clever bit of backpedaling:

"Well, yes, they were found, and yes, they were -- though degraded -- weapons of mass destruction, but they were not the weapons of mass destruction that we believed were there.' [my italics]

This shows that A) Saddam lied when he said 'everything' had been destroyed, and B) Bush did not know the location of 'every' weapons facility in Iraq as he claimed. There are also tapes of Saddam and his aides discussion ongoing nuclear research in 2000, after Iraqi research had been supposedly halted.

In fact, the WMDs were removed prior to the invasion by Russian Spetnaz and GRU troops under Generals Vladislau Archatov and Igor Maltsev in a classic Spetnaz operation known as Sarandar or "emergency exit". The Russians knew that a US invasion was imminent and passed along their intel to Iraq, just as they had done in 1991. The Russians had their own interests at stake in not wanting the Iraqi weapons to be seized by the US.

Both Russian generals then received medals from Saddam, which they declined to discuss. When interviewed by a reporter, Archatov said smugly, 'Well, I didn't go to Baghdad to drink coffee!" With the help of Spetnaz in civilian clothes, the munitions were A) dumped in the Indian ocean, and B) transferred to Syria, first to the basements of hospitals and later to the Bekka valley. Which, as we know, is one of the most heavily defended spots in the world. This was confirmed by US undersecretary of defense John Shaw (who was later blackballed and forced to resign by his superiors); Ukrainian intelligence; British operatives in Syria; former Iraqi employees of al-muthana chemical industries; and former Iraqi soldiers who participated. The Syrians were in close contact with North Korea, and planned to use the munitions with the aid of North Korea technicians

Why did Bush go along with the "no WMDs" reports? First, he failed, and missed the WMD's. They got away from him. Second, he did not want to provoke a war with Syria during the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. Third, he did not wish to alienate the Russians, whose support he badly needed, or the multinational corporations who helped fund the programs. Fourth, the US did not want the public to realize how much more dangerous the situation is with the munitions being dispersed.

Yes, there has been much disinformation. Chief among this is the assertion that there "were no WMD's in Iraq". It worked admirably. The public read the initial headlines in the media and never asked any further questions. The media puffed up with pride at having "broken the story" (which in fact came from the CIA) and embarrassed the Bush administration. Bush was let off the hook for creating an even more dangerous situation by the dispersal of the WMDs, possibly into the hands of terrorists.

I sincerely hope that the pundits are right about "no WMD's". In that case, it's all hunky-dory, morning glory. But I doubt it.

A comment from Wikipedia:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

I addressed this is my post. I suggest that you re-read it.

I also suggest that you do much more research.

It seems pretty useless to try to give you more details, but to wit: In 2007, Jordan confiscated 20 tons of chemical munitions from an Al-Qaeda cell. When interrogated, some of the members indicated that this material had come from Iraq. A Syrian journalist who was dying of cancer told a British journalist that his colleagues told him they knew exactly where the WMD's secreted out of Iraq were located in Syria.

Read the CIA's report on WMD's in 2004. This is a huge document that basically supports the "official" position, but a careful and knowledgeable reader can spot inconsistencies and anomalies, particularly in the interrogation of Saddam Hussein.


Believe the Mainstream media at your own risk.

Postscript: I'd like to add that in the beginning, I believed the media and their yadda-yadda "no WMD's" line. I accepted the disparate rationales: Bush was misled by his intelligence, Bush was just lying, etc. Why did Saddam try to thwart the UN Inspection teams if there were no WMDs? I bought the standard media "explanations": Saddam was too egotistical, Saddam was misled by his own ministers, Sadam was just a nut, etc. (Many of the "stock" answers are contradictory.) But the deeper I dug, the less and less the stock media stories made sense. The 2006 intelligence revelations combined with, the history of the intelligence services, and the history of Russia's relationship with Iraq; and the workings of Saddam's regime, etc. It makes much more sense. It is the only explanation that fits all of the evidence.

I first began researching the Middle East as a young soldier during the Iran hostage crisis. Our AO (area of responsibility) stretched from the US West Coast to the Middle East. After thirty years of research, one thing I have discovered is that we won't find the truth on the front pages of the newspapers, or in the first "hit" on a computer search.

President Bush regretted 2008 that he believed this reports you've mentioned, although he was under fire because he reasoned Iraq war with them. I think there are still some secret service stories about hidden arms but there isn't any evicence any more. It's just a question of logic. I don't care about Saddam Hussein but I wished the internatonal laws would be respected in a better way.

No, Bush did not "believe the reports mentioned", because these were released after the war started. Mostly in 2006, but again, the CIA report was released in 2004. They had nothing to do with Bush's decisions to invade. If he [i]had "believed" them, he would have known that most of the munitions were gone by March 2003. They were in Syria or the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

In the 2008 interview, Bush says that "the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq" and then laments that he wishes "the intelligence had been different", but he never said he would not have gone to war if he knew he would not find any WMD's.

I repeat: i]he never said he would not have gone to war if he knew he would not find any WMD's. [/i]

What he actually said was: "You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate." He carefully avoids the issue.

He's absolutely right: there was an intelligence failure: we did not realize the Russians had removed the bulk of the remaining munitions before the US invasion. You have shown nothing to refute any of the specific information I have provided.

And in fact, as I have demonstrated, we did find WMD's. Just not in the quantities or the form that the government expected. In addition to everything else IO have mentioned, see the massive 2010 documents dump released on Wiki-leaks relating to the Iraq War. Further, in 2008 we shipped 500 metric tons of uranium out of Iraq in what was described as "the last remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program".

But your whole position that Bush's decision to invade War Iraq was solely due to WMD's is incorrect. As Mitchell Bard said about the interview:

"For example, in discussing the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush claimed: "I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess." He makes it sound as if he was a passive receiver of the reports on the subject, and that the existence of WMDs was the real reason he started the war in Iraq. We know now that neither of those claims are true; that the president cherry-picked intelligence information to make his case for war in Iraq, and that the weapons of mass destruction were merely a pretense for that war."

First, I can't verify those secret service reports. Witnesses might lie. The renegade which was interrogated by the BND in Germany before the Iraq war was a liar, who lived very good from the tax payers money for a few years. The BND made some fundamental faults. So he was interrogated always by the same person for example. The German government didn't believe him. Despite of that his information became a part of a CIA report. Bush and Blair reasoned the war with it. The central arguements to break the international law were, a) The war against terrorism and b) The existence of WMD's in Iraq.
c) President Bush was under heavy fire in the last years of his presidency, because there were no WMDs found. Not enough, to resaon the war with at least. He didn't explain that these WMDs were secretly moved away from Iraq by the russian secret service. Why?



That's for sure. In the eyes of many European whatchers it was irrational. Newspapers speculates about ideological, psychological and mass psychological reasons. But the main reason was the Iraqian oil, I suppose.

Because being forever remembered as a dumbass by your people is the responsible move when the alternative is war with Russia.

Absolutely! Very concisely and simply put. (This is an admirable trait. One of my fault is that I tend to provide too much detail.) I'll add what I had said in a previous post, which demon17 apparently did not read:

"First, he failed, and missed the WMD's. They got away from him. Second, he did not want to provoke a war with Syria during the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. Third, he did not wish to alienate the Russians, whose support he badly needed, or the multinational corporations who helped fund the programs. Fourth, the US did not want the public to realize how much more dangerous the situation is with the munitions being dispersed."

Another sources for the transfer of Munitions before the US invasion is John Keegan, one of the foremost military historians in the world, in his book 'The Iraq War". As Keegan recounts, David Kay, the former American UN inspector, reported in 2004 that he had evidence of the transfers to Syria. This was ignored by the press, who chose instead to headline his remarks that he did not think "large stocks" of WMD's would be found in Iraq.

Yossef Bodsansky, in his book "The Secret History of the Iraq War" also provides details of how Iraqi chemical warheads, ballistic missiles, and missile components were hidden in Al-Baida, a North Korean built complex not far from Syria's SCUD misile factories. He also recounts that vital parts of Iraq WMD's were placed in another Syrian munitions factory near the village of Tal Sinan. (pp.212-213)

Given Syria's close relationship with Russia, going after Syria was out of the question. And Israel next door to boot? Much, much better to eat the "No WMDs" pudding and be seen as a dumbass, as Arquinsiel said, than get involved in that sort of fiasco. Plus, by then it was a moot point. We had invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam Hussein, which was our goal. (And there was also some sort of feud going on involving the CIA, DIA, and State department, but that would be like trying to discuss one of my family's holiday dinners...)

Last, but not least, we certainly could not expect the mainstream media to revisit the issue after they had said "no WMD's". Have they ever done it before? No. From the Tet Offensive to Columbine, one pronounced, it stays.

Wasn't this a story told by former Iraqi general Georges Sada, who had a book deal (Saddam's Secrets)? Additionally, Sada was contradicted by the findings of the Duelfer Report. I'm sorry, but this really sounds like the stuff of conspiracy theories.

And as for Bush not wanting to "alienate the Russians," that didn't bother him when he sent a U.S. military ship to Georgia in the summer of '08.

-- Nephele

Sending a ship to Georgia in 2011 was vastly different from invading Syria, a Soviet Client state, in 2003 over WMD's.

I am not referring to Sada's account. He claimed that WMD's were flown out of Iraq in converted airliners in 2002, which I have not seen this collaborated so I do not use him as a source.

For the Spetnaz operation, see the sources that I have cited in previous posts. As I have stated several times before, much of this information came out in 2006 (two years after the Duelfer Report). See my earlier statement regarding David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group. The Pentagon even released satellite photos of truck convoys lined up at Iraqi weapons munitions. John Shaw, the undersecretary of defense, who released information on the transfers as early as Dec. 2004, was asked to resign for 'exceeding his authority' in releasing the information, but his report was not denied by his superiors.

I have provided a great deal of information. I welcome anyone who can effectively refute the specific sources I have listed.

I have the very strong feeling that people somehow construe any questioning of the "No WMDs in Iraq" as being some sort of defense of George Bush and the US invasion. Not at all. As I have stated before, I consider it to be irrelevant to any discussion of the legitimacy of the Invasion. Any transfer of weapons actually makes Bush look WORSE. Go figure.

This situation should be no shock. The same sort of thing happened after WWII. After Vietnam. After Watergate, etc. Information always come to light to challenge the conventional media "truths". There are documents from WWII and Vietnam that are still not declassified. They, along, no doubt, with documents from Iraq, will not be declassified in our lifetimes.