Iraqi defector now admits to lying about WMD's in IRAQ

[Freiwillige]

As if we didn't know by now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecut...out-wmd-claims

[August]

So why did al-Janabi do it? In interviews with the Guardian newspaper, al-Janabi spoke about how he sought asylum in Germany and wanted to see an end to Hussein's brutal regime in his homeland.
"Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," al-Janabi said in his exclusive interview with The Guardian newspaper. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Iraq[/COLOR][/COLOR] the margin of democracy."

That just can't be right. It was just because Bush hates Muslims.

[Takeda Shingen]

But what about the mustard gas? And the yellowcake? Shock and awe!

[Freiwillige]

Personally I think this guy deserves a pat on the back and then a boot in the backside from Germany. Mission accomplished Saddam is gone and so is the reason for your asylum.....Enjoy the new Iraq.

[Armistead]

This is how stupid Bush was, all the real evidence by real Americans ignored, choosing crap.

Bring democracy to Iraq...right. When we leave it will go the way of Iran or into total chaos or we stay and spend a few trillion more until we get the next Saddam to dictate for us.

Guys should be shot, along with Bush for the murder of so many. Stand them back to back and save one bullet.

[gimpy117]

Right. All the stuff we used we didn't "make up" but it was wrong intelligence either made up by somebody else or just we never bothered to check because we wanted a war.

[August]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Guys should be shot, along with Bush for the murder of so many. Stand them back to back and save one bullet.

As long as you stand in the front of the line pal.

[Ducimus]

I saw this linked the other day on Fark. I found myself thinking:
"The story on how one man tricked the mightiest nation on the planet into a war it didn't need."

As if we didn't know by now.

Some people don't, look at the current Iraq topic.

You can see why Powell is so vexed, it was bad enough presenting evidence to people who already knew it was crap, but to have your own people knowing it was crap and still getting you to sell it to people they knew already knew it was crap is really something else.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I saw this linked the other day on Fark. I found myself thinking:
"The story on how one man tricked the mightiest nation on the planet into a war it didn't need."

He didn't.

The war was already decided when Bush got elected. The guy here just offered himself for abuse and he got abused as a welcomed foul excuse to give additional "justification" why the war that was wanted from beginning on indeed should have been "needed".

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The war was already decided when Bush got elected.

Long before that if you can believe the rhetoric:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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 ... 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."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... 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 ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Skybird]

^ Basing on hear-say and driven by rethorics.

I refer to Wolfowitz' paper declaring regime change in Iraq a neocon top priority for strategic US policies already in I think 1993 or 1994 - no matter whether WMDs are present in Iraq or not. A position that very prominently was voiced to the public then by Richard Perle (who 2 or 3 years ago expressed cautious and hesitent regret over his role in it all).

Thus I claim time and again that Bush would have attacked Iraq anyway, no matter WMDs, 9/11 and Al Quaeda claims. These were just used to deceive the American public and make it war-willing. The Americans would not have cheered for the war if Buish had based it just on a politcal paper and the business interests of his political buddies who had close and profitable ties to Haliburton and Carlysle ( damn, I will never learn how to spell the latter correctly).

Regarding WMD, while Iraq has had huge stocks of chemicals in the 80s, it got rid of them and had no usable quantities of them anymore in the years before the 2003 war. Anmd so, only traces for former storeages of chemicals in earlier years were found - but all of them old and being traces only, no find there was hinting at mobile chemical factories or usable military weapons or stockpiled agents to produce them on the fly. They found empty tubes of quzite some age, and chemcial traces indicasting that years ago somehwere were stored some chemical weapons. Oh myx - when you clean your appartement, here and there some traces of dust and the former disorder of items and books are likely to stay - and so it was in Iraq, too. When the Bush adminstration said - and others echoied in the chorus - that "we klnow he has WMDs, and we know where they are", he was and they were lying. It was rethorics, to boost the people's war mood. Like the London missile meo was, too. Propaganda. Deception - of the own people.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

^ Basing on hear-say and driven by rethorics.

No, those statements were based on reports from the same Federal government intelligence agencies that all Administrations use. Estimates never forget that were encouraged and abetted by Saddam himself.

But all that is what it is, personally I do not regret the decision to remove Saddam from power. I firmly believe that however bad things really are, they'd be far worse both for us and for the Iraqis if he, or one of his sons, still ran Iraq.

No, those statements were based on reports from the same Federal government intelligence agencies that all Administrations use.

And you can find the same statements from previous administrations with US politicians of both parties based on reports their intelligence agencies were getting from the same sources, the fact was their sources were unreliable and they knew they were unreliable yet still parroted the unreliable sources "evidence" and continued to pay them to produce more "evidence".

The funny thing though is that it turns out that some Iraqi sources being paid by the US for "evidence" were really working for the Iranians all along and America went to war against Irans enemy based on "evidence" the US had in effect paid Iran to supply.
It does suggest that ever since the gulf war and the US funding of its Iraqi sources succesive US administrations have been complete muppets and have been not only doing the bidding of what they consider their worst enemy in the region but they have been paying top dollar for the honour of doing their enemies work for them.

But I suppose the funniest thing is that some people will still support being taken for mugs and support having their government wasting their tax dollars in being taken for mugs and some will even go as far as still insisting all the lies were really true.

[Skybird]

On the way poltiics interfered with the unwanted results from intel, I again refer to "No end in sight". Intel was messed up by political will like from 2000 on Rumsfeld has messed up the US military's advise and planning, mobbing those not agreeing with his ideas, and ignoring input that was not in line with what he wanted to hear. Reality was not observed and analysed, but the wanted version of it was fabricated - last but not least by order of highest political authorities. This was not Bush's fault, who lacked the competence and education to understand such a task and often gave his visitors the impression to have no clue about what they were talking about. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle where the driving names behind this. Bush - I always considered to be just a strawman. Which does not relieve him of his moral responsibility, of course. But he hung on strings handled by other puppet players.