Iraqi WMDs Revisited - The Redux

[The Avon Lady]

I ask that the moderators control this thread by tossing out the completely OT posts, rather than by locking the thread like they did the last time.

Here we go:

Melanie Phillips: ‘I found Saddam’s WMD bunkers’.

[down and out]

Does he not have copies of his own reports filed ?

Onwards to Syria I guess

[Skybird]

Worth to keep an eye on what this leads to.

However, nobody denies that Saddam has had WMD in the past. Question is, what past: one year ago, or ten years ago, or more. Gaubatz found sites - but when was it that they had been filled with something?

The most interesting part is about the centrifuges in Syria. Independent verification on that info? Goggle only showed plenty of accusations made by this or that people, but no evidence, photo, whatever.

It also does not excuse the war, which was launched on claims of already having solid information about Saddam having WMDs. But Gaubatz's conclusions obviously were not available back then, and thus were not considered.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by down and out

Does he not have copies of his own reports filed ?

I'm sure there are standard regulations not allowing classified files to be copied anywhere else.

[UglyMowgli]

They were 5 other agents with him why none of them speaks and only this guy? why the media never look themfor interview?

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by MSgalileo

They were 5 other agents with him why none of them speaks and only this guy? why the media never look themfor interview?

Good questions. Some more reading from Melanie Phillips (hot off the Internet):

The questions that need to be asked about those WMD.

EDIT: She answers your 2nd question:

But when it comes to Iraq, the western media behave collectively out of character. There is no openness to any facts that challenge the ‘line’. There is a mindset, so powerful as to amount to a kind of collective brainwashing, that it is been ‘proved’ that there were no WMD in Saddam’s Iraq. Any claim to the contrary, however authoritative or persuasive, is therefore brushed aside. Even the brief public appearance on an official US website of the Saddam tape transcripts referred to in the memorandum above — in one of which Saddam could be heard talking in 2002-2003 about his ongoing nuclear programme — was referred to only in passing by the New York Times in a report whose incoherence managed to bury this explosive revelation altogether. The docile US media, dependent as it is on government sources and handouts, is all too easily intimidated or bought off by pressure from a myriad different sources which all have their own conflicting reasons to suppress such politically damaging revelations. Too many important reputations in the media now rest on the ruthless suppression of the faintest possibility that they might have been wrong.

[UglyMowgli]

So it is an another conspiracy, but him (Gaubatz) why he didn't aks his collegues to corroborate what he saw? He look like David Vincent who saw the invader but nobody trust him.

[Skybird]

Well, if the american policy which led to the war wouldn't have manipulated information so masisvely, told lies and sold all credibility thta was left, people today wouldn't be so aversive against trusting something said by America again. Things like the Uran-Niger-Deal, the Al Quaeda-Saddam-axis, mobile ultra-modern C- and B-weapon labs on trucks, "solid information of Saddam actually having WMDs", and Blair's missile-memo did not helpt to build trustworthiness. as a result nobody believes america anything anymore.

As for me, I will always criticise the war for having been launched as part of a longterm strategic agenda that had nothing to do with WMD and Saddam, and by maniuplating and teling lies to the public. however, I am no dogmatic. I am willing to keep listening to what comes of this story Gaubatz is telling, and on that part concerning Syria, and Iran's distracting role. That I attacked Bush and still do so does not mean that I am in love with the Un or the europeans.

All I demand is solid evidence and reasonable conclusions concernign why it is needed to go to war - and I want this BEFORE declaring war, not a roulette-type game of play: first bomb them, and then hope we find something. I can't move on the street and stab the first person I meet, and when the body is searched it is found it was an explosive belt under the coat - although I prevented a terror attack BY CHANCE, I still would be brought to trial for murder - because at the time of my attack I did not know that it was a terrorist.

War always means death, destruction, and suffering on incredible scale. The highest standards to judge if it is needed or not is just good enough. Let's not repeat the mistakes Bush has made and mess up all credibilitx and trustworthiness again. Longterm support of public opinion can only be secured if it is beyond any doubt that the target of that war effort is as guilty as can be. And only then we can claim the morally superior argument. before any war, we also need to clean pur credibility with regard to our choosen "allies". As long as we call Saudi Arabia and Pakistan "freinds", we are not talking serious, but babble only. We also need to strengthen what in martial arts would be called our "stand": standing on good, solid ground, still being able to move with flexibility. As long as we (and our war machine) depends on Muhameddan oil, we accept an unacceptable ammount of vulnerability. the many econoimical, private and plutocratic ties between western, especially American, oligarchs, and Arab representatoves of the rhich elite, also need to be stopped, for it corrupts parts of our leadership and make these persons act against our own interests.

So, that agent has found "sites". No weapons. He cannot say what was stored there, and when. He made conclusions from that and from resident's witnessing, but this do not replace solid information. I checked the first seven pages in google when entering that man'S name, he does not seem to be a cheater. That he is critical of Islam does not reduce his competence. So my conclusion: the issue is worth to be investigated, and with priority.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by MSgalileo

So it is an another conspiracy,

Well, you've got someone giving direct testimony as to the events he witnessesed that are relevant to his job position. So conspiracy doesn't sound like the right word.

but him (Gaubatz) why he didn't aks his collegues to corroborate what he saw?

It's too soon to tell. This has just come out. Fear, perhaps? Or possibly disagreement with Gaubatz's assessments and/or conclusions? Stay tuned................

[baggygreen]

I was nearly hung drawn and quartered at the ANU for suggesting that the different events in Iran and NK are most likely linked and part of an international push against the west for a bomb to be developed. I of course had no idea about centrifuges operating in Syria and would like it to be verified a touch more, personally. But i always suspected much (most?) of Iraqs technology went to Syria.

Huntington's clash of civilisations draws a step nearer.

[OddjobXL]

I think the first step to making sense of this story is getting a sense of the source, Melanie Phillips. I hadn't heard of her before so I did some research. She's another former lefty turned neoconservative though she followed her own path to get there. Also she's the author of a book called "Londinistan," from the sounds of it a raving screed against Muslims and a British government which is "transfixed by the artificial division it has erected between those who actively espouse violence and those who do not." This gets much praise from the Daniel Pipes end of the spectrum but not so much from elsewhere.

She's adopted the popular mantra in those circles that anyone who questions Likudnik Israeli policy or the neoconservative agenda is, by default, anti-semetic.

My assessment of Gaubatz is a bit more gentle. I think he really believes someone who told him something was right. But he didn't actually see anything - which is why he was lobbying so hard for people to go look. If I had to make the call, I'd say go do the digging and find out if anything's there. My instinct says that there are plenty of other professionals who were working the same beat and they may well have discovered other informers or evidence that discounted these sites as worthwhile. But if he's right, that's a big if, it's still too important to ignore.

And while my instincts are feeling chatty, I'd also tend to discount Ms. Phillip's suspicion that Bush's people are protecting him from embarrasement by not following up Gaubatz's claims. If I were them I'd be hot on the heels of any leads to prove Bush right. Even if the trail led to Syria it would be a great distraction for Americans from the other problems besetting the administration right now. "See, the Syrians are very bad people! Airstrikes all around!" And, in this instance, I might even agree with them. She also claims the "New York Times" article dismisses Gaubatz as a die-hard WMD nut but, frankly, it was that very article which got me thinking he genuinely believes what he's saying.

Judge for yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/us...erland&emc=rss

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Well, you've got someone giving direct testimony as to the events he witnessesed that are relevant to his job position. So conspiracy doesn't sound like the right word.

It's too soon to tell. This has just come out. Fear, perhaps? Or possibly disagreement with Gaubatz's assessments and/or conclusions? Stay tuned................

There is also something to be said for the fact that his collegues don't discount what he says either. This guy is their boss, so maybe they think he is the person to put the facts on the line? Maybe if someone investigated, then they would be compelled to step forward. Right now, nothing looks like it is going anywhere.

-S

[Heibges]

The facts seem to be:

1. There were large well hidden storage areas in Irag.

2. There were gasmasks present at some of these locations.

3. There were atropine auto-injectors present at some of these locations.

4. There were missile imprints present at some of these locations.

The United States knew Saddam had Biological and Chemical weapons because we had the receipts from when we sold them to him.

[geetrue]

Humans have eyes and ears (CIA), satellites have eyes and ears (NSA) ...

What do you think God has? He knows all ... It's our simple trust in Him that
blesses the believer and the unbeliver in us all. WMD's have the ability to ruin someones day ...
I pray it's not the good ole USA's.

If this is OT ... I suspect the OP will tell me so ...

[Ishmael]

I rerefer you to my reply of 6/26 on the revisited thread & Dave DeBatto finding chem shells supplied to Iraq by the US government & the Carlyle group:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...ght=Iraqi+WMDs