'Dead Wrong' -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown

Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life'

A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

Intelligence Meltdown

 

How does something that doesn't exist get removed?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158470,00.html

How does something that doesn't exist get looted?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html

How does someone based in Iraq come up with 20 tons of chemical WMD in a location where they didn't exist?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/27/164917.shtml

Twenty tons of chemical WMD in a plot by zarqawi that was uncovered before it could be carried out. Zaraqawi was in Iraq prior to the invasion.


How does something that doesn't exist turn into a chemical wmd lab?

http://www.boston.com/news/world/ar...d_chemical_weapons_factory_uncovered_in_iraq/
Sunday, August 14, 2005

*Note - except the Jordan WMD plot, the other sources are recent events. One within the last week, the others within the past few months.

 

Colin Powell's "lowest point of his life"?

Auhhhh, poor baby! Did he lose any family members as a result of his lies? He should be tried as a criminal just like the rest of 'em!

I'm going to watch that CNN program tonight. I'm sure it'll be pretty soft and apologetic...but we'll see.

 

Does that mean these people lied and should be tried as criminals also?

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

 

Some of them most certainly should be.

 

Such as? And for what?

 

Bill Clinton, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Sand burger, Joe Lieberman, Wesley Clark, Colin Powell,......

May be that is the reason it is called "Intelligence meltdown". Some one made a environment of mass hysteria that caused every body in USA jump on the same bandwagon while the rest of the world was wondering what is wrong with these people. From the historical point of view it will be interesting if one day we find out who were the people behind feeding the society false information to cause the intelligence meltdown.

 

How does something that doesn't exist get removed?

How does someone based in Iraq come up with 20 tons of chemical WMD in a location where they didn't exist?

How does something that doesn't exist turn into a chemical wmd lab last week?

 

an unidentified man was planning to blow up 20 ton of an unidentified chemical 2 years later and that is the proof that WMD existed.
Very reliable information. you can blow up 20 ton of any household chemical or plastic and you will have a lot of poisons gas but I don't think it qualifies as what WMD suppose to be or the reason to go to war for it.

 

Deceptive, but an inaccurate observation. There were 13 Al-Qaida and Al-Zarqawi loyalists involved and 10 of them were put on trial in May/June, 2005. They are all identified.

It was estimated that the 20 tons of chemical wmd could have killed 80,000 people. Authorities captured the chemical weapons coming into Jordan through Syria.

What were the 20 tons of chemicals? VX nerve agent. Worth noting, that Syria does not produce VX, however, saddam did.

Zarqawi has taken credit for the plot, in addition to members of the group who claimed they worked with Zarqawi in Iraq on the plan.

But that's just one of the three above. 20 tons of VX Nerve Agent is a lot of chemical wmd. So are the 1500 gallons discovered last week in Iraq. Not to mention the looting of something that doesn't exist.

 

Basis of going to war: 45 minute claim in the UK dossier. Imminent danger

Untrue.

Weapons inspectors were not allowed to complete their jobs.

Secret (but obvious) objective: Get saddam.

Arms to Iraq - Who makes these bits and pieces you need to build this weaponary? There are only very few countries. ( i dont know if Ive said this before but Africans dont get shot by Swaziland 38s or by a Kenyan made shotgun).

 

It has still yet to be proven that there was any VX, even still it was not '20 tons of VX Nerve Agent'

No body that I see is disputing what was looted, of which from what I've read the UN knew what was there, it was inventoried and made either inoperable, under seal, and or allowed to have by the UN.

 

It should have been 20 tons of chemical wmd, including VX. I've pointed out where that came from in the past.

Oddly enough, you have still not proven there wasn't any VX. Do you have new information to add?

 

Wait, I thought it was just mouthwash and hair dye? Nothing to see here, move along

 

Oddly enough you are using the proof that it's vx by ONE supposed expert who had no first hand knowledge and used his best guess it was VX. I honestly would not think there is a need to disprove it as there is absolutely no proof it was VX, have you found something to back it up with any rationale it was?

 

As I recall in the other thread where we carried this on for quite some time, you needed "absolute proof." Or was that before any action was taken against Iran?

I don't take issue with the WMD expert I've previously quoted. Are you saying you do?

 

Iran we had pretty much the same stance, you however appeared to jump at speculation to back your points, something you always claim not to use when it does not back your points.

I do not take issue with the expert, he however is guessing and it is far from proof. It is 'speculation' there is no way to argue it is fact. Show proof it was VX and I'll believe you, but an expert guessing it's VX because i believe it was the 'safest to mix in the field' I forget the exact quote is a bit less than proof. No first hand knowledge, no testing, only an assumption that it was VX. Especially using his own statement if he's basing it off of safety in the field, do you realy believe a terrorist on a suicide mission is going to be worried about safety? All he/she would care about is that they live long enough to detonate the device.

 

You are assuming he is guessing. That's your opinion. Lacking though, as usual, is any proof to discredit his claim. Do you have anything that can discredit his expertise as a WMD expert?

I don't care if you believe the position I take or not. I don't seek your approval!

In which case, safety would be of the most concern to prevent premature detonation.

I present a source. You present...opinion and speculation. That works!

 

I know you don't seek my approval, you however are using 'speculation' for your proof.

You present a source that is 'speculating' no first hand knowledge. Still no proof, pure speculation, but if fits with your agenda so go ahead use it. I however will call you on it every time as it is not actual evidence, factual, or anything of the sort, as I've stated in the past.

 

So you admit you have nothing to discredit the WMD expert's analysis? Other than your opinion?

Speaking of agendas, you resurrected this old post, of which this discussion was gone into for many, many pages in another topic since this post, why?

And I will call you on your speculation every time, until you come up with some that says otherwise. But that isn't going to happen, is it?