WMDs in 45 Minutes or Your Money Back - Blair Lied & I Want My Money Back

[jaunty]

Nothing like an Iraq thread to drag the neo-con "libertarian" troglodytes out of their caves. Lets see how this one fares.

From one of the best papers on the planet: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpo...131973,00.html

Originally Posted by The Guardian

Iraqi who gave MI6 45-minute claim says it was untrue

David Leigh and Richard Norton-Taylor
Tuesday January 27, 2004
The Guardian

The government's dogged insistence that Saddam Hussein was able to deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of the order being given suffered two serious blows yesterday as ministers braced themselves for the findings of the Hutton inquiry.

As the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, was once again forced to defend the justification for going to war, the Iraqi exile group in London which claims to have supplied MI6 with the intelligence about Saddam's 45-minute capability admitted that the information might have been completely untrue.

Nick Theros, the Washington representative of Iyad Allawi, who headed the Iraqi National Accord in exile, said it was raw intelligence from a single source, part of a large amount of information passed on by the INA to MI6.

He told the Guardian: "We were passing it on in good faith. It was for the intelligence services to verify it."

The admission came as David Kay, who resigned as the coalition's chief weapons inspector in Iraq on Friday, accused the intelligence agencies of failing to detect that Saddam's weapons programme was in disarray as a result of corruption and increasingly erratic leadership.

Mr Straw admitted that it was "disappointing" that the inspectors had not found evidence of the weapons, but said the war with Iraq was more justified today than it had been when MPs voted for the invasion.

"We were never saying that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United Kingdom... The serious and current threat [was] to the world, and that was absolutely true, and I remain convinced it was," he told the BBC Radio 4 programme Today.

The claim that Saddam could deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes was highlighted by Tony Blair's preface to the dossier issued by the government in September 2002 in the run-up to the war.

It was also at the heart of the row between Downing Street and the BBC after doubt was cast on its accuracy by the government weapons scientist David Kelly.

But Mr Theros said the information now seemed to be a "crock of shit". "Clearly we have not found WMD," he said.

Mr Theros works with his father, a former US ambassador, to promote the political affairs of Mr Allawi, who is now a member of the Iraqi governing council in Baghdad.

He said the Iraqi officer who claims to have been the original source of the intelligence had in fact never seen inside the purported chemical weapons crates upon which his 45-minute claim was based.

The former INA spy, who calls himself Lieutenant Colonel al-Dabbagh, although this is not his full name, is now said to be "in hiding".

At the time, he says, he commanded a frontline unit.

He told the Sunday Telegraph and NBC television that before the September 2002 dossier was published he smuggled out sketchy intelligence about WMD to MI6 via a general in Baghdad working for the INA.

He said one of Saddam's senior officials told a meeting of air defence commanders "probably sometime in the spring" that an arsenal of unspecified secret weapons would be used for battlefield defence against US invaders.

"They told us that [coalition troops] cannot pass across Iraq because we will use everything from the knife to nuclear weapons to defend ourselves."

The colonel says his unit later took delivery of an unspecified number of crates which appeared to contain short-range weapons, such as rocket-propelled grenades.

They were supposedly to be fired from civilian jeeps as a last-ditch defence by Saddam loyalists wearing gas masks.

Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, did not deny in evidence to the Hutton inquiry that the intelligence for the 45-minute WMD claim came second-hand from a single source who was a senior Iraqi army officer.

Further damage to Downing Street's case for going to war came from Dr Kay, who said yesterday that the CIA and other intelligence agencies had failed to recognise that Iraq had all but abandoned its efforts to produce large quantities of chemical or biological weapons after the first Gulf war.

He told the New York Times that his team discovered that Iraq had plunged into what he called a "vortex of corruption" around 1997 and 1998.

Iraqi scientists realised that they could go to Saddam and present plans for weapons programmes and receive large amounts of money, without making good their promises.

So there you have it. Yet more conveniently shoddy intelligence work. But hey, we found Saddam's WMD and now he can't use them on anybody so I guess the whole war was justif... oh wait.

[anaemic]

but jaunty dont you see, wasnt it worth the war so that just for one day the women of iraq could be free from oppression from thei... oh wait

[DarkBls]

Stop being naive.
War are for money/power. NOTHING else.

The irak campaign was an investiment for the future.
If you will talk about the France position in this thread, let me give you an early answer: We didn't have the money to follow.

[jaunty]

Sarcasm, motherfucker. Do you speak it?

[Wolf Being]

Classic.

[SaraP]

Originally Posted by DarkBls

Stop being naive.
War are for money/power. NOTHING else.

The irak campaign was an investiment for the future.
If you will talk about the France position in this thread, let me give you an early answer: We didn't have the money to follow.

No, you didn't because Saddam bribed you.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-brea...94014-7323r.htm

[Wolf Being]

Your link is dynamic SaraP, but I suppose you meant this:

Arabs, Westerners Deny Bribe Allegations

By JAMAL HALABY
Associated Press Writer

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) -- Arabs and Westerners accused by Iraqis of receiving Iraqi oil proceeds in exchange for supporting Saddam Hussein denied Tuesday they had accepted bribes or participated in illicit deals.

The accusations surfaced this week in a report by one of the dozens of new newspapers that have begun publishing in Iraq since Saddam was ousted last March. Since, members of the new provisional Iraqi government and Saddam opponents have distributed a list of the accused, based on documents from the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

About 270 former Cabinet officials, legislators, political activists and journalists from 46 countries are on the list, suspected of profiting from Iraqi oil sales that Saddam had allegedly offered them in exchange for cultivating political and popular support in their countries.

In Jordan, former parliament member Toujan Faisal, who is on the list, said she never took Iraqi bribes, but had served as an intermediary between the Iraqi government and a Jordan-based oil dealer.

"I wanted to help this dealer who happened to be a good of friend of mine do business in Iraq," she told The Associated Press.

Mrs. Faisal, suspected in the selling of 3 million barrels of Iraqi oil, said the deal was brokered in late 2001 and her friend sold 1 million barrels for a commission that didn't exceed 3 cents for each barrel.

"I had nothing to do with this," said the former lawmaker, who visited Iraq several times after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and who was known for her support of the Saddam regime. A framed portrait of Saddam hangs in the living room of her Amman apartment. She once told an AP reporter that the Iraqi leader gave the photograph to her daughter.

Former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, among Europeans on the list, on Tuesday denied receiving bribes from Saddam.

"That's far-fetched," said the conservative hard-liner who headed France's Interior Ministry in the late 1980s and early 1990s. "First, I was never interested in oil. Second, I am not a friend of Saddam Hussein and I do not see how my name came to be in this," he told Europe-1 radio.

In Baghdad, Iraqi Oil Ministry Undersecretary Abdul-Sahib Salman Qutub said the provisional government found documents proving the alleged bribes. He threatened to "sue those who stole the money of the Iraqi people."

"These documents show that the former regime spent lavishly Iraq's wealth here and there on persons, politicians, head of parties and journalists who were backing its corruption," he said.

Iraqi National Congress spokesman Entifad Qanbar, speaking to reporters in Baghdad, said his party had the list of people allegedly bribed with Iraqi oil in return for support to Saddam.

"We have thousands of pages of Iraqi intelligence documentation which back up those lists. What you are seeing in those lists is only the iceberg of what you are going to see in the future," he said.

Qutub, the Iraqi oil ministry undersecretary, said some of the documents had been stolen to "avoid any condemnation to persons who were collaborating with (Saddam's) regime."

The documents, as published in the Iraqi Al-Mada newspaper, showed people who allegedly received Saddam's graft came from 46 countries, including Arab states, Europe, Asia, Africa, and North and South America.

U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric in New York said he wasn't aware of any investigation related to the U.N. oil-for-food program, which had allowed the Saddam regime to sell limited quantities of oil to raise funds to help the Iraqi population. The program ended three months ago.

"The oil-for-food program has been repeatedly audited by internal and external auditors. It has been satisfactorily audited both internally and externally," he said.

Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zreiqat, who's on the list of accused, told AP he had sold Iraqi oil for five years starting in 1998. But he said all his deals were conducted under the U.N. oil-for-food program.

"Selling Iraqi oil is a legitimate business, it's not like selling drugs," he said. "All my deals were done with the approval of the United Nations and the money I received was from international firms I had sold the oil to and not from Iraq."

He said his profit was marginal and did not exceed 10 cents per barrel. He declined to say how many barrels he had sold.

In Cairo, Abdel Adhim Manaf, editor in chief of Sawt al-Arab newspaper, an Egyptian newspaper published in Cyprus, told AP: "I have official letters from Iraqis offering me this issue (oil), but I turned them down and I have documents to prove that."

"Even if I had received (oil), what's the problem?" he asked. "The Iraqis are saying the Arab oil is for all Arabs. This is not a crime, this is not forbidden. I have always supported Saddam and believed in him, and I still do. I will never backtrack."

---

AP reporter Salah Nasrawi in Cairo contributed to this report.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Oh dear. What a total surprise that is.


This is fun. Instead of arguing, let's all just collect our favorite wire-service reports.

[Doc_EDo]

So now the

Iraqi scientists realised that they could go to Saddam and present plans for weapons programmes and receive large amounts of money, without making good their promises.

theory is the current propaganda?

That's a stupid theory simply because Iraqi scientists said they didnt have weapons after AND before the war. Also who would dare to lie to Saddam? All scientists were watched and spied on by Saddam's loyalists. Whoever did that got killed and his family got life in jail. There's no chance they would DARE to lie to Saddam. Get real. Stop listening to Bush's lies.

It was Saddam himself who decided to destroy the WMD's so no one would use them against him, but at the same time kept appearance of having them so his enemies would be affraid of him.

[jaunty]

Prove that or shutup.

[jaunty]

Originally Posted by SaraP

No, you didn't because Saddam bribed you.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-brea...94014-7323r.htm

I've gotta sit and wonder about what's worse. On the one hand, there's taking a bribe to stay out of a war, or even campaign to stop a war. On the flipside, there's the war profiteering from the US a couple of decades ago which created the pretext for the war now, which is being used to profiteer.

Bribe to stop war... War to profiteer.

No war. War for money.

I think I know which one is worse.

[Harry_C]

No, you didn't because Saddam bribed you.

Saddam didn't bribe DarkBls, or myself ...
You are generalizing the fact that a former french minister might (not proven yet) have been bribed by a dictator in order to gain some political support.
Which, if true, is not very surprizing (at least from my point of view).

And the rest may be true too.

The documents [...], showed people who allegedly received Saddam's graft came from 46 countries, including Arab states [...] and North and South America.

Greed is not a feature you can attach to a country.

[masamax]

I don't think any government that has been involved with Iraq over the past 20 years can claim any sort of moral high ground. The USA provided money, Europe provided money, hell, probably even Canada provided some money. Governments on a whole can be trusted to be completely untrustable, so it's not like this is some epiphany.

I just wish some of the people on this board would start realizing the difference between someone who lives in a country and the government of that country. Apparently we are all responsible for the shady dealings of our governments.

[Nightmare]

Originally Posted by masamax

Apparently we are all responsible for the shady dealings of our governments.

Someone has to be responsible. If the politicians aren't responsible for their actions then who is? Perhaps it's their employers, the people, for not making sure the greedy bastards stay honest?

It is an idea we use already when dealing with certain 3rd world countries. Embargoes punish ordinary people for the actions of their leaders, who are seldom democratically elected. So what's to make citizens in a democracy LESS responsible for what their leaders do?

Yeah, yeah, I'm just being contrary.

[SaraP]

Originally Posted by Harry_C

You are generalizing the fact that a former french minister might (not proven yet) have been bribed by a dictator in order to gain some political support.
Which, if true, is not very surprizing (at least from my point of view).

As a general rule, it's safe to assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. Besides, something's fishy when the French stand up for anything instead of just whining.

[DamienW]

Originally Posted by SaraP

As a general rule, it's safe to assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. Besides, something's fishy when the French stand up for anything instead of just whining.

**** you, bitch.

[SaraP]

Originally Posted by DamienW

**** you, bitch.

No thanks, I only date within my own species.

[Keganator]

Stow the personal insults. This is a forum for debate, not for flaming. If you have a point, prove it. ( The rest is for IRC )

[DarkBls]

Originally Posted by SaraP

No thanks, I only date within my own species.

I though bestiality was forbidden in your country ? o_O


Keg is right. This thread lead nowhere.
I think this thread will be closed in an immediate future.

[masamax]

Sara P, you aren't winning any points by being a bitch. Instead of trying to further your own anti-francophone agenda in every post regarding international matters, try to add to it, non?

In any case, people should be responsible to a degree to what their politicians do, but many of the worst things don't come out till after said politician's career is over, buried under miles of red tape and beauracracy. Unfortunately, the only method people have to deal with these people is in elections, and those only come around after a period of several years. Although it's hypocritical of some western nations to be holding the people of a country accountable through things like sanctions, I find it repulsive the attitude of some people who take an ultra-nationalistic stance on anything their country does. Some of the things SaraP says, among others (including non-americans) is INCREDIBLY racist. I don't understand how anyone of their right mind can make comments that are so disgustingly broad that they encompass every person in a nation. I could say EVERY american is a racist because of my experience with SaraP, but I know better. In fact, from the way SaraP acts I am fairly certain her attitudes are just rhetoric that she is repeating; things she was taught, because I know lots of french people and anyone who has anything more then a passing relationship with more then a few people of race can hardly make themselves qualified to make statements about that entire race. I have met french *******s, and french nice people. There are a few things I'd like to say about certain french people (ever been to Montreal, damn some of the service you get there is the ****!) but I won't even say that. Even by saying "Montrealers are *******s" is complete BS. Have I met every person in Montreal? No.

Just for the love of god stop making yourselves look like complete morons. I have seen smarter arguments at an elementary school.

[DamienW]

That's basically what i wanted to say, Masamax. to you. But since SaraP has already shown that elaborate arguments are wasted on her, i just went to the point. She likes when things are simple and to the point, if i remember correctly.