"no credible evidence"

T4 - if ever there was a time to bring out the tin hat :screwy:













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

so yogs why aren't you out there fighting for your country. the US has a lack soldiers right. so why aren't all you bush supporters jumping in to help out.

or is it one thing to support him, another to die for him

There is no lack of soldiers and I don't think it is necessary that a man above 30 should have to serve his country when there are plenty of young men out there willing to fight. Especially fathers. If you're going to try to chastise Yogs, send those scoldings my way instead, as I am of a perfect age. Some people's lives may be difficult enough without having to worry about some stranger questioning them on an internet message board with no idea of who they are or what they have been through.

Well if you were fighting for our president, at least you'd have less time to pester us... besides I'm sure that you would strike the deepest terror into the hearts of terrorists once they got to know who you are! :)

There is no lack of soldiers and I don't think it is necessary that a man above 30 should have to serve his country when there are plenty of young men out there willing to fight. Especially fathers. If you're going to try to chastise Yogs, send those scoldings my way instead, as I am of a perfect age. Some people's lives may be difficult enough without having to worry about some stranger questioning them on an internet message board with no idea of who they are or what they have been through.


first my Father is over 50 and still does tours. second you defend bush with your words but would you give your life for his beliefs.

T4 - if ever there was a time to bring out the tin hat :screwy:Hmmph! A rather disappointing sidestep in comparison to your previous effort. :sunglasse

so yogs why aren't you out there fighting for your country. the US has a lack soldiers right. so why aren't all you bush supporters jumping in to help out.

or is it one thing to support him, another to die for him

Feel free to grow up any time.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Here's another article detailing Iraq-Al Qaeda connections. I've bolded some of the more important parts for you libs that were educated in gov't schools. http://uselessjunk.net/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hayes22jun22,1,7907284,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hayes22jun22,1,7907284,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)

Al Qaeda Link Exists, Despite the Fog
By Stephen F. Hayes

June 22, 2004

Last Wednesday, the Sept. 11 commission issued a staff "statement" that further complicated an already confusing issue: the nature of the relationship between the former Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda.

On the one hand, the statement confirmed several contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda terrorists, including a face-to-face meeting between a senior Iraqi intelligence official and Osama bin Laden in 1994. Then, calling into question its own findings, the statement reported that two Al Qaeda terrorists denied the existence of any ties whatsoever. Finally, in very sloppy language, the statement seemed to conclude that there had been "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The media took that nuanced and self-contradictory analysis — which, by the way, constituted only one paragraph in a 12-page report — and found certainty where none existed. "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie," blared a four-column headline in the New York Times. An editorial flatly declared that the commission had "refuted" any connection.

Nonsense. The staff statement was a model of muddle, but this much is clear: There is nothing in it that reliably or categorically "refutes" a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. What's more, in the days since its release, members of the 9/11 commission — including co-chairmen Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean — have appeared eager to distance themselves from the statement issued by their staff.

"Members do not get involved in staff reports," Kean cautioned, promising more on the subject in the commission's final report.

So was there or wasn't there a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

CIA Director George Tenet certainly believes so. "Credible reporting states that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities," he wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 7, 2002. "The reporting also stated that Iraq had provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." When Tenet testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 12, 2003, he said that although his agency could not show "command and control" between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime — something the Bush administration never claimed — it could demonstrate "contacts, training and safe haven."

Top Clinton administration officials also suggested a "collaborative" relationship. On Aug. 7, 1998, Al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing 257 people — including 12 Americans. The Clinton administration struck back 13 days later, hitting a pharmaceutical plant, an Al Qaeda-linked facility in Sudan. On Aug. 24, 1998, a "senior intelligence official" made available by the White House told reporters that U.S. intelligence had found "strong ties between the plant and Iraq." Among that evidence: telephone intercepts between top officials at the plant and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program. In all, six top Clinton administration officials argued that Iraq had provided the chemical weapon know-how to the plant demolished in response to the Al Qaeda attacks.

Today, top Clinton officials are still not backing down from these claims. William Cohen, former secretary of Defense, defended the strikes as recently as March 23, 2004, in testimony before the Sept. 11 commission. Cohen said an executive from the Sudanese plant had "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of [Iraq's] VX [nerve gas] program."

Other recent intelligence, including communications intercepts and interviews with Iraqi intelligence detainees, indicates that Iraq provided funding and weapons to Ansar al Islam, an Al Qaeda affiliate in northern Iraq.

These connections seem pretty compelling — Tenet's testimony, the intelligence surrounding the 1998 Sudan strikes and the Iraqi support for Ansar al Islam. But the Sept. 11 commission's staff statement didn't deal with any of them.

The Sept. 11 commission cannot be expected to write the definitive history of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But having contributed greatly to the confusion with one paragraph in Staff Statement 15, the commissioners owe it to the American people to give it a thorough and sober examination in their final report.

of course iraqi intell officials met with al-queda, thats their job. to gather intelligence.

whether or not they trained al-queda is still up in the air. it appears that noone knows for sure. what our government claimed to be a terrorist training facility in northern iraq, turned out to be an anti terrorism training camp for iraqi police. not saying they havent trained them, but noone is really certain, its all speculation.

and that iraq funded them... so did we. in fact, if im not mistaken, quite a few of our allies did too.

contacts between terrorist organization and national governments are not a rare thing.

contacts between terrorist organization and national governments are not a rare thing.For example, militant Kurds in Iraq are called freedom fighters while in Turkey they are classified as terrorists.

that brings up another good point (perhaps for the philosophy forum) of the definition of terrorism and terrorist. consider the IRA and the PLO

first my Father is over 50 and still does tours. second you defend bush with your words but would you give your life for his beliefs.
I would have to say that no soldier, first of all, is out there individually fighting for George Bush, that is just retarded. Secondly, ask any soldier why they are over in Iraq, and I'd be willing to bet that most all of them will say they are just doing their job. Its not about fighting for the beliefs of one man. If you think that these guys are leaving their families and wives, GF's, whatever, to fight for Bush, I think you need to sit down and have a talk with your father and he needs to slap you.

Defending allegations against the president on an internet message board is light years away from fighting for the man in combat. YOu got a lot of growing up to do if you thing those two acts aren't night and day.

Lastly, to answer your question, no I would not fight exclusively and personally for the man, and I'd be damn impressed if you could find someone who's sole reason for going to a war is what you mentioned.

There is no lack of soldiers and I don't think it is necessary that a man above 30 should have to serve his country when there are plenty of young men out there willing to fight. Especially fathers. If you're going to try to chastise Yogs, send those scoldings my way instead, as I am of a perfect age. Some people's lives may be difficult enough without having to worry about some stranger questioning them on an internet message board with no idea of who they are or what they have been through.
A right wing badass patriot??...... :icon16:

j/k.......I wish...... :(

That was for Yogs.I thought I said that at the beginning of my post but it must have been overlooked. Sorry you had to see it. So your thoughts on it's relevance is not a concern of mine.

What hypocritical bullshit, disguised as a smart remark. Please.

If it was really for Yogs, and only for Yogs, you would have PM'ed it to him.

Let me guess, you thought you brought out the trump card, but when told you actually have a joker, you got irritated?

Yogs,

This is for you. Not that you need it I just thought you would like it.




Let me guess, you thought you brought out the trump card, but when told you actually have a joker, you got irritated?
It WAS for Yogs in his support and for his info. If it WAS truly a joker.....YOU would not have gotten so irritated!

I would have to say that no soldier, first of all, is out there individually fighting for George Bush, that is just retarded. Secondly, ask any soldier why they are over in Iraq, and I'd be willing to bet that most all of them will say they are just doing their job. Its not about fighting for the beliefs of one man. If you think that these guys are leaving their families and wives, GF's, whatever, to fight for Bush, I think you need to sit down and have a talk with your father and he needs to slap you.

Defending allegations against the president on an internet message board is light years away from fighting for the man in combat. YOu got a lot of growing up to do if you thing those two acts aren't night and day.

Lastly, to answer your question, no I would not fight exclusively and personally for the man, and I'd be damn impressed if you could find someone who's sole reason for going to a war is what you mentioned.

:werd:

that is quite possibly the most intellegent post i have ever seen out of you

here here

of course iraqi intell officials met with al-queda, thats their job. to gather intelligence.


I think you are blinded by your emotions here. That makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Hello Al-queda this is the iraq intell lets sit down and talk about what you want to blow up, who you want to kill. Who the fuck is going to sit down and talk about thier future plans. They have meetings to discuss plans together. Name one free country that sat down with Al-Queda for the purpose of gathering intell.

so yogs why aren't you out there fighting for your country. the US has a lack soldiers right. so why aren't all you bush supporters jumping in to help out.

or is it one thing to support him, another to die for him
No. 1 I don't think there is a lack of military personnel.
No. 2 I do my part....do YOU?

What hypocritical bullshit, disguised as a smart remark. Please.

If it was really for Yogs, and only for Yogs, you would have PM'ed it to him.

Let me guess, you thought you brought out the trump card, but when told you actually have a joker, you got irritated?

1) I never get irritated by anything you post.
2) It was for Yogs whether you want to accept it or not.It's Irrelivant to me.
3) Never call me a hyprocrite.
4) There was no trying to disguise anything. I thought it was quite openly a smart remark.

^I'm glad you posted it, Im glad to have seen it :thumbsup:

Name one free country that sat down with Al-Queda for the purpose of gathering intell.

America
----------------------------------------------------------

A Continuum of Terror: From Mujahedeen to al-Qaeda

By Tom Turnipseed

November 28, 2001 Counterpunch.

A native of Egypt, Ali Abdelsoud Mohamed rose to the rank of major in Egypt's special forces before being forced out of Egypt's military in 1984 because he was considered a religious extremist. Much later he was identified as a secret member of the Islamic Jihad movement that assassinated Egypt's President Sadat in 1981. According to an amazing front page story in the Wall Street Journal on November 26 headlined The Infiltrator, "Ali Mohamed Served In the U.S. Army--And bin Laden's Inner Circle," it is implicit that the FBI and the CIA would have had to have knowledge of Mohamed's chameleon-like lifestyle. Mohamed was able to obtain a visa, marry an American woman, become a U.S. citizen, settle in California and somehow become a U.S. Army sergeant by 1986. Until 1989, he was a supply sergeant and lecturer on Mid-east culture at the U.S. Army's special warfare school at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, a place where he had studied earlier as an Egyptian officer.

Even though the U.S.. Army and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency declined to comment to Journal reporters, Mr. Mohamed's new friends in California took it for granted that he was working for the CIA in their proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The CIA helped recruit, organize and finance the mujahedeen in an anti-Soviet Jihad throughout the Muslim world. Ali Zaki, a San Jose obstetrician and close friend of Mr. Mohamed, told the Journal that "Everyone in the community knew he was working as a liaison between the CIA and the Afghan cause." Mr. Mohamed brought Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader Dr. Ayman Zawahri, who is now thought to be bin Laden's right hand man, with him to California in the early 1990s on a fund-raising trip, ostensibly for the Kuwaiti Red Crescent. Mr. Mohamed was also deeply involved with a group in New York headed by a "fiery blind imam," Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. They set up the Kitah Refugee Center in Brooklyn, established to help the mujahedeen in the anti-Soviet Jihad, but by the 1990s it began turning into an al-Queda front. The group was implicated in the assassination of the extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York as well as the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the F.B.I. questioned Mr. Mohamed in 1993 and he told them Mr. Bin Laden was running a group called al-Queda "and was building an army". Many of the mujahedeen liberation fighters who fought with bin Laden in Afghanistan became al-Queda members under bin Laden's leadership. It was not until 1998, following the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, that Mohamed was arrested. He pled guilty to the East African bombings and is awaiting sentencing in federal prison. Nabil Sharef, a former Egyptian intelligence officer, told the Journal, "For five years he was moving back and forth between the U.S. and Afghanistan. It's impossible the CIA thought he was going there as a tourist." Like Dr. Frankenstein's creation, the CIA's invention of the marvelous mujahedeen to rid Afghanistan of the Soviets has turned into the "evil-doing" al-Queda that attacked America.

The latest news from the war in Afghanistan has a bitterly ironic, but interesting, story on the continuum of terror from the mujahedeen to al-Queda. Like the Saudi Arabian leader, bin Laden, the mujahedeen were recruited by the CIA from across the Arab world to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Many of those same Arabs are now Taliban or al-Queda, and U.S. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has proclaimed they cannot leave Afghanistan alive. Rumsfeld wants them either killed or made prisoners, but not allowed to go home to Saudi Arabia or Egypt or wherever they were recruited from in the Arab world.

There are news reports of the summary executions by the Northern Alliance of several hundred prisoners of war including "foreigners" among the Taliban and more killings of "foreign Arabs" in a controversial "prison revolt" in the Northern Alliance controlled city of Mazar-e-Sharif. The U.S.'s Persian Gulf allies, led by Saudi Arabia, are calling for the repatriation of the "foreign" fighters. Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz told reporters, "We hope that all people who are of Arab or Islamic origin in Afghanistan can return to their country of origin.... We hope that no one will be subject to injustice."

Given the miserable human rights record of many elements of the Northern Alliance who now occupy the Afghan capitol of Kabul, where they raped, murdered and pillaged as recently as 1996, human rights advocates have an overwhelming sense of foreboding about the future of the strife-ridden land. The Northern Alliance seems to have the upper hand in forming a new government as remnants of the Taliban and al-Queda are either destroyed or dissolve into the caves and barren countryside. Meanwhile, back in the laboratories of Washington, D.C., is Dr. Frankenstein concocting another invention that will extend the continuum of terror?

Tom Turnipseed is an attorney, writer and civil rights activist in Columbia, SC. http://www.turnipseed.net

Also see :

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1994/afghan_war_vetrans.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

anything else you would like me to clarify?

Yes in Turnnipseed's opinion the CIA funded a group of people to fight the Russians, I agree with that but were does it say the Americans sat down with Al-Queda to gather intell. The CIA helped the Mujahedeen which morped into Al-Queda so show me the money!

follow the bold parts....mohamed was a part of bin ladens inner circle...US sat down with mohamed and interrogated him about bin laden and al queda

thats us, sitting down with a terrorist, to gather intel on al qeuda.

thats enough to get iraq attacked, but i guess we'll just split hairs when it comes to the american government?

and its not really turnipseed's oppinion, more like the wall street journal....

The US has a lack soldiers right. so why aren't all you bush supporters jumping in to help out.

If my knee was in better shape I'd still be in the Marines, still in a Force Recon unit (2/5), and DEFINITELY jumping in and helping out in Iraq!!!

Feel free to grow up any time.

Feel free to sidestep the question at any time. :iceslolan

Yogs has done quite well for himself in life, gone to school, gotten a good job etc, why would he throw all of that away to actually do something to support his ideals with his actions? :icon16:


Al Qaeda Link Exists, Despite the Fog
By Stephen F. Hayes

June 22, 2004

Last Wednesday, the Sept. 11 commission issued a staff "statement" that further complicated an already confusing issue: the nature of the relationship between the former Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda.

On the one hand, the statement confirmed several contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda terrorists, including a face-to-face meeting between a senior Iraqi intelligence official and Osama bin Laden in 1994. Then, calling into question its own findings, the statement reported that two Al Qaeda terrorists denied the existence of any ties whatsoever. Finally, in very sloppy language, the statement seemed to conclude that there had been "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The media took that nuanced and self-contradictory analysis — which, by the way, constituted only one paragraph in a 12-page report — and found certainty where none existed. "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie," blared a four-column headline in the New York Times. An editorial flatly declared that the commission had "refuted" any connection.


Damned that left wing media eh? They'll just spin anything so that it hurts Bush! :rolleyes:

I think what they meant by "no collaborative relationship" was that Iraq was in no way helping Al Qaeda, in essence, the relationship between the two involved no collaboration towards any common goal. :rolleyes:


So was there or wasn't there a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

CIA Director George Tenet certainly believes so. "Credible reporting states that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities," he wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 7, 2002. "The reporting also stated that Iraq had provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."


Wait, is this the same Tenet who gained fame recently for massive intelligence failures? Oct 2002, hmmmm... What was happening in fall of '02... Oh yes, that's right, the Bush administration was chomping at the bit to invade Iraq, and was doing anything and everything they could to get Congress to buy it!


When Tenet testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 12, 2003, he said that although his agency could not show "command and control" between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime — something the Bush administration never claimed — it could demonstrate "contacts, training and safe haven."


Oh, and as I recall, they could also demonstrate that Iraq had massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Amazing how things can change in a year, eh?


Top Clinton administration officials also suggested a "collaborative" relationship. On Aug. 7, 1998, Al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing 257 people — including 12 Americans. The Clinton administration struck back 13 days later, hitting a pharmaceutical plant, an Al Qaeda-linked facility in Sudan. On Aug. 24, 1998, a "senior intelligence official" made available by the White House told reporters that U.S. intelligence had found "strong ties between the plant and Iraq." Among that evidence: telephone intercepts between top officials at the plant and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program. In all, six top Clinton administration officials argued that Iraq had provided the chemical weapon know-how to the plant demolished in response to the Al Qaeda attacks.


Hmm, let's recall what was happening in the late summer of '98... Ah yes, the Clinton administration was rattling the saber at Iraq, as a distraction for what Clinton was doing at home.

http://www.doublestandards.org/sudan.html


Today, top Clinton officials are still not backing down from these claims. William Cohen, former secretary of Defense, defended the strikes as recently as March 23, 2004, in testimony before the Sept. 11 commission. Cohen said an executive from the Sudanese plant had "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of [Iraq's] VX [nerve gas] program."


Of course, because we know that they're just dying to admit that they blew up the largest provider of prescription medication in Africa, one that was directly competing with their own domestic pharmaceutical companies, based on claims that there were links to terrorist organizations, which were bogus.

As I recall, Cohen was also famous for making these claims without providing any evidence to back them up. Is that a requirement for the job?


Other recent intelligence, including communications intercepts and interviews with Iraqi intelligence detainees, indicates that Iraq provided funding and weapons to Ansar al Islam, an Al Qaeda affiliate in northern Iraq.


Hmmm, let's see... US and British enforced No Fly Zones, warplanes that attack any military convoy in those areas, so Hussein is virtually powerless to combat Kurdish terrorists in the north, and you chastise him for supporting a rival organization that is fighting the Kurds?

Do you remember the '80s, when the US was funding and supplying the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union? Same thing, but at least Hussein was doing it in his own country, because he couldn't use his own military to do it.


These connections seem pretty compelling — Tenet's testimony, the intelligence surrounding the 1998 Sudan strikes and the Iraqi support for Ansar al Islam. But the Sept. 11 commission's staff statement didn't deal with any of them.


All pretty compelling, until they're subjected to close scrutiny, and they turn out to be all based on hearsay and conjecture... There's a reason these things wouldn't hold up in any court of law...


The Sept. 11 commission cannot be expected to write the definitive history of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But having contributed greatly to the confusion with one paragraph in Staff Statement 15, the commissioners owe it to the American people to give it a thorough and sober examination in their final report.

I'm sure they will, and I'm sure that it will be nothing that the Bush administration wants to hear. I doubt the left wing will want to hear it either, but regardless, we all await with open ears.

I bet if I went over to Saddam and pulled a WMD out of his ass you guys would still doubt it! Their is no use in discussions with you once you have made your mind up no matter what the facts are, no matter what the edvince shows.

I bet if I went over to Saddam and pulled a WMD out of his ass you guys would still doubt it! Their is no use in discussions with you once you have made your mind up no matter what the facts are, no matter what the edvince shows.

Well, considering we've been scouring Iraq for damn near a year now, and found not a bean (except for two balloon inflators and some shell fragments from the Iran-Iraq war) -- maybe we should grab a flashlight and take a peek in there.

Erm - the 'edvince' shows nothing... I mean, the guy Bush personally sent in to find these WMD after the war (David Kay of the Iraq Survey Group) says there are NO WMD there (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3778987.stm) and to think differently is a, quote, "delusion," unquote. Give 'er a read!

Their is no use in discussions with you once you have made your mind up no matter what the facts are, no matter what the edvince shows.

Actually, the people who argue with you have only asked for evidence, all along. What has been provided is far from evidence, we have hearsay from exiles and defectors, most of which has already been disproven, much of which had been disproven BEFORE the election. Remember the thousands of kilograms of anthrax they had? The constant efforts to obtain uranium in Africa? The construction of UAVs to attack the US with, etc?

We have conjecture, based on half truths and shakey intelligence. Apparently, Iraq funded a militant organization in the north, apparently, this organization has ties to Al Qaeda, so therefore, Iraq was collaborating with and supporting Al Qaeda! There was a senior Al Qaeda official in Baghdad, seeking support, so that means he definately got it, and that Iraq and Al Qaeda were working hand in hand! He once had weapons of mass destruction, so he definately has them now. He has the means to produce them, therefore he must be producing them!

That's not evidence. Try using "evidence" like that to convict someone of a crime, and you'll be laughed out of court. Perhaps before you start using the word evidence, you should research it's definition.

C-Bass, if he had them during the Gulf War, was told to disarm, and never knowingly destroyed them, then where are they? They don't just dissapear into thin air.

C-Bass, if he had them during the Gulf War, was told to disarm, and never knowingly destroyed them, then where are they? They don't just dissapear into thin air.


Evidence,pick....it's in the dictionary.

PROVE that he had them.
PROVE that he didn't destroy them.
PROVE that they were present in Iraq at the time that Bush claimed them to be.

No evidence exists to back your claims,much as ground forces, intelligence units and sattelite surveillance tried to find it.

Such lack of evidence,coupled with a total absence of any manufacturing capacity,can be taken as an indicator that something does not exist.Excuses like 'we need more time' and 'he musta moved it' are getting embarrassing.It's time to admit that the Emporor Bush is wearing no clothes.

One thing I don't understand. If Saddam did destroy those weapons after the first gulf war wouldn't you think he would have kept a record of it? Taken pictures of them doing it? Brought someone from the UN to witness it? He had to have known someone was going to ask about them eventually. What purpose did it serve to destroy them in secret? Perhaps he doesn't have them now but what happened to them? Was there a going out of buisness sale that no one in the world knew about? Possibly if they do know about it they aren't talking. Something just doesn't add up.

Clearly,he wanted to retain the deterrent value of the idea that he still had them.The Middle East is an unstable region,any sign that Saddam was weakening would be a signal for civil war or renewed Iranian attacks.

Then why destroy them if he wanted a deterrent factor? Why destroy something you have if you want to make people believe you have it?

Then why destroy them if he wanted a deterrent factor? Why destroy something you have if you want to make people believe you have it?

one of those your damned if you do your damned if don't things.

Then why not keep records? You aren't damned for that as long as you keep them hidden until you need them.
Something isn't kosher.

its one of those "something isnt kosher" on both sides.

even if saddam has WMD stashed somewhere, its infuriating to me that when we said we were going in, we said were so sure of exactly where these stockpiles were, and how many he had. and yet, over a year later....nothing.

One thing I don't understand. If Saddam did destroy those weapons after the first gulf war wouldn't you think he would have kept a record of it? Taken pictures of them doing it? Brought someone from the UN to witness it? He had to have known someone was going to ask about them eventually. What purpose did it serve to destroy them in secret? Perhaps he doesn't have them now but what happened to them? Was there a going out of buisness sale that no one in the world knew about? Possibly if they do know about it they aren't talking. Something just doesn't add up.

If you go to the UN website and go through the old UNSCOM reports, you'll see that they oversaw the destruction of the vast majority of Iraq's WMD's, and that they were still overseeing the destruction when Butler pulled them out of the country.

Iraq did keep records of the destruction of the rest of it's chemical and biological weapons, and they were submitted to the UN during the saber rattling prior to the war. Remember, the whole "hand over the documents!" threat? The US claimed that since there were no inspectors present to verify the destruction, that it was flatly a lie, and that Iraq still possessed WMD's.

That's why the weapons issue the US tried to argue in front of the UN, unsuccessfully I might add, was the issue of medium range missiles exceeding their maximum permissable range by 10 kms or so, when they had no warhead.

I understood that even after those reports it still didn't account for everything.
Anyway... Hopefully they did all get destroyed and not stolen, sold or smuggled out.