Iraq and WMDs

For those that claim Saddam was not involved with WMDs, new audio tape translations seem to indicate that he was trying to play a waiting game with us.

(Mods - not sure if this is the right forum for this. Please feel free to move as needed.)

Moving the goalposts again, Clothy? The Iraq war was based on the premise that Saddam had WMD in his possession, and was an imminent threat to the US and his neighbors. No one has ever denied that he was wet dreaming about them.

Next question?

Big fucking deal.

You’d have to be a complete naif to think that Saddam didn’t want to have WMD. The question is- did he have any*, and if he did- did he have enough and powerful enough weapons to be a “clear and present danger” to the USA? (And only a naif could think that Saddam wasn’t evil enough to use what he had- that’s doubtless.

Personally, I think he had already made a start on re-building his WMD arsenal, but only a small amount, and what little there was was moved to Syria (there is solid Intel that lots of *something * was moved to Syria after GWB’s ultimatum but before the invasion.)

However, Saddam was NOT a “clear and present danger” to the USA, and what’s more, I think the Bush Admin knew this. And that’s the critical thing. Plans to re-build and even a few WMD already re-built is NOT the same thing as the 'clear & present danger" that Saddam was made out to be.

*He has plenty before Desert Storm I, sure, but *at least * 90% of that was destroyed right afterwards.

I don’t think goalposts are involved.


I’m going to knock over the bank down the street as soon as the guards go away and they leave the vault open.

You can arrest me now.

Tierney extrapolates quite more from his translations than is supported by the texts he presents.
He tilts at windmills.

Tierney is the Pro-War equivalent of the Looney Left.

God told Tierney that Hussein had an underground uranium enrichment facility. Tierney had this confirmed by his friend’s clairvoyant dream. If GOd tells you something, why do you need to have it verified?

Tierney says there’s a conspiracy in the USG to cover up a multitude of things including, but not limited to:

  1. Iraq’s involvement w/ the OKC bombing
  2. Russia’s involvement w/ Hussein’s WMD
  3. Hussein’s nuclear bomb

Here’s a bit about the presentation he made at the “2006 Intelligence Summit”:

The Saddam Tapes and the 2006 Intelligence Summit

Of note:
Here’s a bit about the speaker Bill Tierney as featured on the hit radio show Coast to Coast AM:

Iraq: The Smoking Gun?

Bill Tierney, a former weapons inspector who worked with UNSCOM in Iraq in the late 1990s ... ... believes that Iraq has nuclear capability and the intention to use such weapons. ... claims that he has [pinpointed a hidden location in Iraq]( ... where there is a uranium enriching processing facility.

Tierney's methods of ascertaining this location ... "I would ask God and just get a sense if something was valid or not, and then know if I needed to pursue it," he said. His assessments through prayer were then confirmed to him by a friend's clairvoyant dream, where he was able to find the location on a map. "Everything she said lined up."

Well at least he got verification. It would have been sheer nuttery not to verify the divinely inspired, uranium enrichment facility homing ability with a friend’s “clairvoyant dream.”

I have audio files of the presentation available for those who wish to hear them.

Generally I’d like to see some corroberating evidence before I beleive the authenticy of these tapes (quoted as they are in conservative paper owned by a Korean cult but even if they are authenic they what exactly do they say:

Ummm ‘factories remain in the MIND’. Personally WMD factories in the mind don’t bother me that much. It also does nothing but undermine the reasons for war, Saddam DID NOT have WMD, and the reason he did not was the inspectors and the other international attention given to his regime.

No-one who knew the regime is suggesting that if we had withdrawn the whole host of techniques we were using to keep saddam in check (sanctions, no-fly-zones, and after 2002 inspectors), he might not have returned to his old ways. But that doesn’t alter the fact he was weak and isolated and possed not threat to us or our allies (unlike the current terrorist play-ground in Iraq which certainly is).

AFICT, the tapes are legit.

It’s just Tierney’s analyses of the conversations there on that are questionable.

For example, Tierney uses from this snippet as evidence that Hussein had a nuke:

“Yes, care with all the shibabish. I mean, if actually, there is going to be destruction, I think our position is not going to be strong.”

I don’t speak Arabic, but, istm that this is really, really, really reading a whole hell of a lot into the comment.

Remember how much Colin Powell read into those tapes of the two Iraqi soldiers discussing nerve gas deployment? He sure convinced a lot of people we needed to invade with that interpretation.

I’m having trouble finding the first question. What is being debated here?

Not to be repetitive, but so effing what?

I seriously doubt that more than a handful of people on this board have ever claimed Saddam was not “involved” (a rather vague term) with “WMD” (equally vague). Thus, if you are posing an argument at all, you are posing one that only a very few people might be on the other side of.

A much more important question is, did Saddam have a realistic chance of developing and using nuclear or other unconventional weapons against the US? This is the primary basis on which the invasion was sold to the American people, and only if the answer is “yes” would I, personally, consider the invasion justified under the premises given by the Bush administration.

Your link, unfortunately for your argument, does not appear to do much of anything to bolster the administration’s case. The article clearly states that the US government itself found there were no significant stocks of nuclear, chamical or biological weapons in Iraq at the time of the invasion, provides nothing but hearsay as to whether any such weapons ever did exist, and quotes a few rather obtuse statements taped by Saddam as the bulk of its evidence for his intention to deploy and use these weapons. Sorry, no sale.

As a side note, I object to your use of the term “WMD” as unnecessarily vague. Please state clearly whether you believe there was an immediate Iraqi threat from use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Each has different possibilities for construction, deployment, and likelihood of use.

I can only assume the OP thought there was a significant amount of people against the Iraq war because they not only thought that Saddam didn’t have WMDs, but that he didn’t even want them.

I don’t recall hearing that argument, but maybe Clothahump has. I’d be interesting in a cite, or a correction of my interpretaion of the OP.

Of course, I meant intrested in a cite.

Good luck. In true **Clothahump ** fashion, he posts a provocative, inflammatory OP, then never darkens its door again.

Isn’t this actually a step back from Saddam Hussein having “WMD program related activities”? Now we have uncovered evidence that he was thinking about starting up, hopefully sometime in the not-too-distant future, some WMD program related activities.

Pretty scary stuff!

Here’s a good link to some actual source documents and tapes:

Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center

There is some interesting stuff there. for example, have a read of this document: Description of the Iraqi Intelligence Services

Note the activities of Directorate 8:

Then there’s Directorate 9:

But maybe the most interesting is Office 16:

Sam, I’m sorry, but I was under the impression that Iraq was supposed to possess weapons of mass destruction, not orbats of mass destruction.

Are you suggesting Iraq was going to fling a sarin-laced office building at someone?

Jesus, man, even you must see how absurd this straw-grabbing is getting. You said three years ago you would be willing to admit you’d been had if the WMDs didn’t show up. They didn’t show up.

These describe facilities that most intelligence services would have (eg: or, particularly a brutal secret police like the Mukhabarat. They don’t come close to describing “weapons of mass destructions”. No one has ever denied the saddam was an evil leader of brutal repressive regime. Unlike the neocons who seem to have only come to this conculsion post-1991 most people had come to this conclusion years earlier, while the likes of Donald Rumsfeld were still glad-handing Saddam.