BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,Wesley
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 09:25 PM

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 10:04 AM

Teribus,

Be so good as to produce for us the January 1999 UN document alleging that Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. It is you saying it exists so show us--prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 02:21 AM

"Unaccounted for" does ***not*** = "posession"..."

Very true, and completely irrelevant with regard to Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687 and 1441. And with the mandate given to UNSCOM and latterly to UNMOVIC.

One person and one person alone put Iraq in the position of having to prove a negative to the international community - that person's name was Saddam Hussein.

One person and one person alone could have single-handedly prevented the invasion in March 2003 - that person's name was Saddam Hussein.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,292RA
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 07:41 PM

Teribus,

Do you know the difference between a report that says that it is possible Iraq could have such and such weapons and a report that says Iraq actually does have those weapons?

You have consistently posted documents showing why the inspectors wanted to go into Iraq again. If they knew Iraq had these weapons, there would be no need for inspections. No one knew for certain if they had them or not, hence the inspections. And if Bush really cared, why did he cut the inspections off by invading?

What I am asking you for and which you have failed utterly to produce is the January 1999 UN document stating that Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. According to you, this report exists and was authored by Blix and Ritter. So far, you have failed to produce it despite telling us to check it out. This makes you a liar. You referred us to a document you obviously have never seen because it doesn't appear to exist.

When someone bothered to check it out, your lies quickly became apparent. Your response was to post UN documents going over what Iraq could possibly still have and for which the inspectors would make a concerted effort to get answers. At the time of the invasion, nothing had been found and after the invasion, new teams of searchers also found nothing.

That means the documents you posted were answered--Iraq did not appear to have any of the things inspectors feared that they might. So those documents were obsolete by the time the invasion went down. Or at least as far as we know since Dickhead cut the inspections off like a petulant, stupid child. But then no one found anything after the invasion either so all the points raised in your documents are moot.

So, once again, be so good as to produce for us the January 1999 UN document alleging that Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. It is you saying it exists so show us--prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 06:09 PM

"Unaccounted for" does ***not*** = "posession"...

As 282RA, Ron, myself and others have pointed out going back 5 years... That is why the inspectors were sent...

Now, here is my question to both BB and T-zer: Why did Bush pull the plug on the inspectors just as Dr. Blix was reporting that Iraq was cooperating in letting the inspectors do their job???

And can either of you just state your answers without writing reems and reems... Just answer the friggin' question in as a direct manner that it is being put to you, please!!!

I mean, if you think that Bush had information that Saddam was getting ready ti invade the US then just say it... I'd respect both of you if you would just speak clearly here without the Hillary Clinton gooble-dee-gook, por favor...

I mean, this ain't a tough question...

Why did Bush pull the plug???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 05:07 PM

Hey HA, here's the other one for you:

Amorim Report S/1999/356 of March 1999:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/Amorim%20Report.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 04:53 PM

Amazingly easy, this is the UNSCOM Report 25th January 1999, the one that details the "unaccounted for" bits and pieces of Iraq's WMD:

"Letter dated 25 January 1999 from the Executive Chairman of the

Special Commission established by the Secretary-General pursuant

to paragraph 9 (b) (i) of Security Council resolution 687 (1991)

addressed to the President of the Security Council



With this note, I have the honour to forward to you two reports drawn up by the Special Commission: one on the current state of affairs with respect to the disarmament of Iraq's proscribed weapons; the other on ongoing monitoring and verification in Iraq. It is thought that these materials may be useful to members of the Council.



(Signed) Richard BUTLER

(Pages 3-280 are offset)

Enclosure 1

REPORT : DISARMAMENT

1.    The present report is intended to address those disarmament issues under relevant Security Council resolutions for which the Special Commission is responsible. It comprises four main parts:

            record and methodology;

            priority issues in disarmament;

            three annexes providing the status of verification of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes; and



            an annex on actions by Iraq to obstruct disarmament;"

Who was it said that the Iraqi's did not obstruct disarmament. Oh Yes Scott Ritter, maybe he can explain how his boss has got a whole section on it.

Whole report here if anyone wants to read through it. For some it might be quite horrifying as some of your most dearly held myths are blown sky high.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s99-94.htm

This, by the bye, is where the figures came from, they were not invented or made up by George W Bush, or Tony Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 02:27 PM

Let's examine the pertinent part of SOTU 03:

"Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened."

This statement is loaded. It states Iraq HAD "banned weapons" and was refusing to disarm. The inspectors were NOT there to see if Iraq was in the process of disarming but that Iraq had disarmed completely as it had reported in 1995. The answer appears to have been yes. It is disingenuous of Bush to talk about Iraq not complying with inspectors when he would cut their inspections off and order an invasion two months later specifically to avoid hearing the UN's conclusion that Iraq had not rearmed.

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."

The United Nations concluded no such thing. Anyone with proof to the contrary please produce it.

"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."

The United Nations concluded no such thing. Anyone with proof to the contrary please produce it.

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

Which intelligence officials estimated this and what did they base it on? Nothing like has turned up in any way, shape or form.

"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

Which US intelligence indicated this and what was it based on? Nothing like has turned up in any way, shape or form. So it makes sense that Saddam gave no indication he's destroyed them--he would have had to lie to do so.

"From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs."

A lie. No such mobile labs were ever found. The equipment identified as mobile labs were merely filling stations for weather balloons. This info came from one of these three "defectors"--Curveball--who has since been thoroughly discredited and who was not believed by anyone other than the Bush administration. None of these three defectors were credible. Anyone with evidence to the contrary, please produce it.

"These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.<<

Once again, he cannot produce such evidence without lying because he definitely never had any such mobile labs. He never disclosed them for the same reason. Anyone with evidence to the contrary, please produce it.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."

A lie. Hans Blix's own notes and memos to the UN secretary-general and to the IAEA in 1997 prove unequivocally that nobody other than the Bush administration and their blind loyalists believed that Iraq had a viable nuclear program in the 1990s.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The infamous 16 words--a lie is so blatant that even the normally compliant George Tenet of the CIA tried to persuade Bush not to include that statement in SOTU and Bush ignored him. We now know that the British govt learned no such thing and that the rumors did not even originate with Britain. They originated in Italy when a guy named Rocco Martino offered to sell Nigerian documents composed in French to reporter Elizabeth Burba which alleged that Iraq was attempting to procure an enormous amount of uranium secretly. Burba turned the documents over to the CIA chief in Rome who filed them through proper channels but nobody put any stock in it. When a report of these documents (now called "the Italian Letters") was included in an NIE that went to the White House, officials there liked it and decided to use it as propaganda to convince the world of the need to invade Iraq despite the fact that no one believed it for the simple fact that Iraq could not possibly keep such a procurement secret and no intelligence agency in the world had ever heard of this attempt by Iraq. It was a lie.

Bush's address to the American people was composed entirely of lies with regard to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 01:55 PM

>>And I have yet to see either of you answer T.' questions, with anything remotely like supporting evidence ( quotes, refernces to UN reports, facts that are proven and not opinion, etc.<<

Are you talking about this apparently spurious January 1999 UN report prepared by Hans Blix and Scott Ritter that specifically stated that Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin? I'm still waiting for either you or Teribus to furnish me with a link because I certainly would like to read it.

Teribus provided me with facts and figures, yes, but was presenting them as "this is proof of what Iraq had and here is the UN saying so" but all he furnished was the mop-up questions that still existed ever since Iraq had disarmed by 90-95%. They were not saying Iraq had any of that stuff, they were saying there hangs a question of whether Iraq still had that stuff or if they ever really had it or in what quantities--they wanted to and needed to investiagte as per paragraph 7 of Resolution 687.

That was what the inspections were set up for--to find what else may have been left in order to determine how much of the accusations leveled at Iraq in Resolution 1441 were true. The inspectors had found nothing at the time Bush ordered the invasion which put an end to the inspections.

Since that time, nothing further has turned up. A few people like Rick Santorum tried the same tack you and Teribus are taking now and were shot down not by liberals, dems and antiwar terrorist sympathizers but by the State Dept itself. The bottom line is nothing has been found that vindicates the Bush administration's charges until which time they shall remain falsehoods.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 12:23 PM

Or if you think Teribus has answered the question, exactly which UN resolution was it?

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 12:21 PM

OK BB, since you supposedly have answered the question, surely you wouldn't mind helping out your old buddy Teribus, who, it seems, can only shoot himself in the foot. And no doubt you can specify exactly the UN resolution which authorized Bush to invade Iraq. I've already pointed out exactly why 1441 does not fit the bill.

Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 12:04 PM

Actually, Bobert and Ron D, T. has answered YOUR question, several time. YOU may not like his answer, but you have NOT addressed what he has said- just what YOU want to discuss.

And I have yet to see either of you answer T.' questions, with anything remotely like supporting evidence ( quotes, refernces to UN reports, facts that are proven and not opinion, etc.



And who of those opposed to the war demanded that Saddam COMPLY with UNR1441, instead of just demanding that Bush NOT make any effort to force his compliance???

Please give names, quotes, and dates.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 11:57 AM

Well, Ron, I'm not a betting man but if I were I'd say it's safe bet that T will respond with another signiture "War and Peace" lenght post that is a rehash of the same old hask that he's been slinging for 5 years now and that nowhere in that rehashing will he answer either your question or mine...

Yeah, that's a safe bet 'cause T is a one-trick-pony...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 10:05 AM

And please, Teribus, don't forget to tell us exactly which UN resolution authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Since your 1441 idea has crashed and burned.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 10:03 AM

The main quesdtion that many of us have asked T-zer over and over and over that he somehow has no answer for is why Bush pulled the plug on the inspections???

This is really the crux of the discussion... The rest is purdy much just smoke and mirrors...

So, T, why did Bush pull the plug on them???

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 09:52 AM

The Iraq war is however by far the most powerful argument for impeachment--and conviction, which is essential.

And to do that, as I said earlier, the general public needs to be guided through the despicable propaganda campaign which the Bush team engaged in to hoodwink the electorate into supporting his planned war. This can only be done through in-depth investigation and hearings. And it must be done before the major push for impeachment. Otherwise you put the cart before the horse--and you condemn your campaign to disaster--and alienation of the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 04:44 AM

The war is hardly the only reason for impeachment. Bush and Cheney have committed numerous impeachable offenses here at home as well.

But in the long run, it really doesn't matter what Teribus thinks or believes about anything, since impeachment can just as easily be driven by the voters as by anyone else. If the voters want the president impeached, he will very likely be impeached. And if the members of the Senate perceive that it is in their interests to convict, they will probably convict. Since removal from office is a political act rather than a judicial one, the voters can decide what constitutes sufficient reason to remove a sitting president or vice president from office, if they apply enough pressure to their elected representatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 02:21 AM

Disagree entirely anonymous Guest (22 Nov 07 - 12:29 AM). The Subject of the Thread is impeachment on the grounds that Vice President Dick Cheney lied to Congress in order to start a war in Iraq. If that is so, then the source of evidence needs to be looked at very closely.

My understanding and recollection of events, all of which can be substantiated, is as follows:

1. Iraq was identified as posing a threat to the United States of America, the interests of the United States of America and the allies of the United States of America, not by President George W Bush, or his Administration, but by the Joint House Security Committee and the combined security and intelligence agencies of the United States of America.

2. The stocks of WMD suspected of being held by Iraq that might be supplied to an international terrorist group in order to carry-out an "Axis of Evil" type attack were taken from UNSCOM document S/1999/94 of January 1999 and from the Amorim Report S/1999/356 of March 1999.

3. In 1998 and again in 2002, the intelligence and security agencies of the United States of America fully believed that Iraq did possess these weapons. The UNSCOM view was that Iraq MAY possess these weapons. From a security analysis and evaluation point of view, in the wake of the attacks of 911, the worst case scenario was quite rightly selected.

4. The US addressed its concerns to the Security Council of the United Nations and demanded action on their part to enforce Iraqi compliance with regard to outstanding UNSC Resolution 687. As a result of this UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed and entirely due to US efforts Iraq invited the UNMOVIC inspection teams to return late 2002.

5. UNSC Resolution 1441 called for full pro-active co-operation from on the part of Iraq and for full and transparent disclosure. In his report of 27th January 2003 the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix referred to this as the key requirement of co-operation and Iraq's response to it. He described the co-operation required as being in two equally important parts, what he termed substance and process. In his subsequent reports to the UNSC he reported co-operation with regard to one and an unco-operative attitude and reluctance with regard to the other.

6. With regard to UNSC Resolution 1441 there were all in all seven "material breaches" of its terms and conditions. The UK prepared a second Resolution which President Chirac of France said he would veto unread. The second draft resolution was never tabled. The US had made it clear to the UN from the outset that they viewed their concerns (i.e. whether Iraq possessed these weapons or not had to be established once and for all, and if Iraq did possess them Iraq had to be disarmed) as justified and that if the UN failed to act, the US would resolve the matter independently.

7. From the US perspective Iraq had not honoured its obligations under the terms of the Safwan cease-fire agreement and was in material breach of UNSC Resolution 1441. The US advised the UNMOVIC Inspectors to leave Iraq, gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to quit the country or the US and her coalition partners drawn from 43 different countries would invade in order for them to remove Saddam and his Ba'athist regime from power and guarantee Iraqi disarmament. As a signatory to the Safwan cease-fire agreement the USA required no prior approval from the United Nations to resume hostilities and enforce the terms of the cease-fire.

8. The President and his Administration put matters before Congress. I do not believe that they purposefully lied, or knowingly misrepresented, the situation on the evidence or intelligence information available at that time. Both Senate and House of Representatives gave their approval.

Counter to the title of this thread, I do not believe that any action for impeachment warranted or needed, quickly or otherwise, I do not believe that the grounds exist for it. Additionally, with a Presidential election less than 12 months away, I do not believe that, with US troops engaged in hostile operations in two countries, the presidential hopefuls, or their parties, will want to get caught up in a process that can only damage their chances.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 10:13 PM

So, Teribus, now that your theory that UN Resolution 1441 authorized Bush to invade Iraq lies a smoking wreck, what's your next brilliant idea to ensure that you and Bush can hide behind the skirts of the UN--and you can preserve your amazingly fragile ego?

Inquiring minds need to know.

Or do you finally realize the UN never gave its blessing to Bush's invasion?

I don't really expect you to give a direct answer--you never do.

But that's OK--I've learned that patience--a lot of patience--is required when dealing with you.

And I will eventually squeeze a direct answer out of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 09:04 PM

>>>(The two reports he referring to here are the UNSCOM Reports that detailed the "unaccounted" items that formed the intelligence for the WMD that Iraq was suspected of holding on to - the items listed were not made up by George W Bush or by Tony Blair - here Blix is saying that UNSCOM reporting of those "unresolved" issues was justified<<

Right. There were questions of what Iraq could still have left. That was why inspections were necessary. According to Ritter, Iraqis were very compliant except in certain areas for security reasons. He explains it carefully--read the link.

>>- But wait a minute Scott Ritter's contention is that Iraq had no WMD or prohibited items in 1995, these reports were dated 1999, so which one of these tossers is lying, or was Ritter just hard at work selling a book)<<

Well, then, you didn't read it closely. Ritter said that no one could say for certain if Iraq had fully disarmed but that 90-95% of Iraq's weapons were dismantled or destroyed. There was still a 5-10% not accounted for. That's what the UN inspectors wanted to check on. Ritter said there was no capacity for large WMD caches in Iraq after the inspections. But there could still be some nasty weapons still around. That was what the inspectors were trying to find out.

What rankled Bush about the inspections was that they were conducted from the outset as already discounting that Iraq had a large number of WMD and were only looking for whatever might still be left around--it wouldn't be much but it might still be pretty lethal. So the UN wasn't taking Bush's assertions seriously--they already knew what Iraq's weapons capacity was and they knew it wasn't anything like what Bush was pushing. So Bush didn't much care for the inspections anyway. There was no chance their findings would support him and he knew it. If he allowed the inspectors to finish, the conclusion would be that Iraq was not rearming and had no viable WMD systems and his international support would have dwindled to nothing pretty quickly. So he did the only thing he could do if he wanted to get his invasion going--invade before the inspectors could finish. And that's what happened. The whole thing was driven, as usual, by politics and politics only.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 07:56 PM

Okay, so you don't have a 1999 UN report prepared by Blix and Ritter stating that Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, etc.

The only thing you've shown me in response to my repeated requests to read this document is something from 2003 showing why inspections were necessary and which were, in fact, being carried out until Bush interrupted them permanently and quite deliberately.

Yes, inspectors had legitimate concerns about what Iraq might still have in their arsenals but apparently Bush didn't because he cut the inspections short in a way that proves he placed no weight on them at all and didn't care about them one wit.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 05:51 PM

Some reading for you HA:

Notes for briefing the Security Council regarding inspections in Iraq and a preliminary assessment of Iraq's declaration under paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002) Dr Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC
19 December 2002:

During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated.

Such was the situation at the end of 1998, when inspectors left Iraq. The many question marks are documented in a report to the Council early in 1999 (S/1999/94) and in the so-called Amorim Report (S/1999/356). To these question marks, nearly four years without any inspection activity have been added.

I now turn to some inconsistencies and issues that will need clarification. In the biological area, Iraq previously provided, in its submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999, a table concerning the additional import of bacterial growth media. Growth media was used by Iraq in the production of anthrax and other biological warfare agents. This table has been omitted from the current Declaration and the reasons for the omission need to be explained.

In the civilian chemical area, Iraq has declared that it has repaired and installed equipment that had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, under Council resolution 687 (1991). The equipment is now at a civilian chemical plant and used for the production of chlorine and other chemicals.

An UNMOVIC team has recently inspected both the plant and the equipment. Consideration will now need to be given to the fate of this equipment, as well as other equipment, which was presumed destroyed.

As there is little new substantive information in the weapons part of Iraq's Declaration, or new supporting documentation, the issues that were identified as unanswered in the Amorim report (S/1999/356) and in UNSCOM's report (S/1999/94) remain unresolved. In most cases, the issues are outstanding not because there is information that contradicts Iraq's account, but simply because there is a lack of supporting evidence.

The issues that have previously been identified include the unilateral destruction of indigenously produced "training" missile engines, the accounting for 50 conventional warheads declared to be unilaterally destroyed but not recovered, 550 mustard gas shells declared lost after the Gulf War, declarations concerning the production and weaponization of the nerve agent VX, the declared unilateral destruction of biological warfare agents and Iraq's declaration concerning the material balance of bacterial growth media.

While in most cases issues are outstanding because there is a lack of supporting evidence, in a few cases, there is information in our possession that would appear to contradict Iraq's account. At this point, I will only mention that there are indications suggesting that Iraq's account of its production and unilateral destruction of anthrax during the period between 1988 and 1991, may not be accurate.

NOTES FOR BRIEFING THE SECURITY COUNCIL
Dr. Hans Blix, Executive Chairman, UNMOVIC
9 January 2003

Comparisons between the Iraqi Declaration and earlier full, final and complete declarations have shown several cases of inconsistencies in terms of numbers declared.

The so-called Air Force document, which was provided separately from the Declaration, relates to the consumption of chemical munitions in the Iraq/Iran war. It was hoped that the submission of this document would help verify material balances regarding special munitions. After having analysed the document, we have concluded that it will in fact not contribute to resolving this issue. There remains therefore, a significant discrepancy concerning the numbers of special munitions.

I will also note that Iraq, in the Declaration, has declared the import of missile engines and raw material for the production of solid missile fuel. This import has taken place in violation of the relevant resolutions regulating import and export to Iraq. Inspections have confirmed the presence of a relatively large number of missile engines, some imported as late as 2002. We have yet to determine the significance of these illegal imports relating to the specific WMD-mandate of UNMOVIC.

Another outstanding issue regards the chemical agent VX. We have found no additional information in the Declaration that would help to resolve this issue. Instead, it contains information that is contradicted by documents previously found by UNSCOM. Iraq will have to further clarify the matter.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
(AS DELIVERED)
Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix

While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current "unresolved disarmament issues" and "key remaining disarmament tasks" in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports (UNSCOM document S/1999/94 of January1999 and the so-called Amorim Report of March 1999 (S/1999/356) as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. (The two reports he referring to here are the UNSCOM Reports that detailed the "unaccounted" items that formed the intelligence for the WMD that Iraq was suspected of holding on to - the items listed were not made up by George W Bush or by Tony Blair - here Blix is saying that UNSCOM reporting of those "unresolved" issues was justified - But wait a minute Scott Ritter's contention is that Iraq had no WMD or prohibited items in 1995, these reports were dated 1999, so which one of these tossers is lying, or was Ritter just hard at work selling a book)

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders (Can't be right, Scott Ritter says that there was no interference with the UNSCOM Inspections). It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. (For all those left wingers who insist that the US supplied Saddam with all his chemical weapons pay attention to the dates 1983 to 1988 - Rumsfeld handshake was just before Christmas 1984, ties not established until November 1985 - anybody see any mismatch in the time-line there)

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 04:42 PM

>>"UN weapons inspector Blix expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said. "There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence, or you can't find it, I simply say, 'Sorry, I don't find any evidence,' and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence.""<<

That was pre-1995 when Iraq DID hide evidence of a weapons program. But by '95 everything was on the table because the inspectors rooted it out.

I've already provided a link showing Blix's notes to the UN in 1997 stating there was no evidence of a nuclear program in Iraq.

Ready to throw in the towel yet?

And also, could you PLEASE provide the 1999 UN document authored by Blix and Ritter that stated Iraq had huge caches of anthrax, botulism, sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents and munitions capable of delivering chemical weapons?

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 04:36 PM

>>Saddam DID have prohibited items before 1999. KNOW FACT- See UN reports.<<

Please show them to us because I can't find them. When I looked for them, I found the links I gave you that prove unequivocally that neither Blix nor Ritter ever believed that Iraq had rearmed. I tried to find this 1999 UN report you mentioned but nothing comes up. Could you PLEASE show it to us?? I've asked you several times now.

>>SADDAM could not provide the proof that he had destroyed it, as he claimed.<<

He did provide the proof and Ritter affirms that. Read the link.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 04:29 PM

>>If that were indeed the case there would have been traces, plus the blatantly obvious, if it was buried it could be exhumed - True?, as nothing was found in this manner Ritter's contention above does not appear so convincing.<<

As usual, you're not paying attention. They found plenty of dismantled weapons. Soldiers even found an IED that was an old military bomb wired to explode. The problem was that it was filled with sarin and could never have exploded like a conventional weapon. Whoever wired it up obvioulsy did not know what was in it. How did he get it? Obviously, it was sold off after a weapons system was dismantled.

And remember Bush invaded before teh inspectors could finish their jobs so your point is once again blunted.

>>If that were the case why was this clear unequivocal statement not made by UNSCOM, of which Scott Ritter was a part in 1995.<<

They did. Blix had stated unequivocally that they had found nothing. What were you watching during the run-up to the war? Old reruns of The Avengers?? The UN inspectors protested that they needed more time and had not found any evidence of any WMD program in progress.

>>If indeed UNSCOM was "monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control." How come they were continually baulked by Iraq's deception and intimidation measures. I find it rather odd that Ritter does not mention those.<<

What deception and intimidation measures?? Read the link, buddy. Ritter answers every concern you're raised albeit not in the manner you want to read so that's why you won't read it. There were no intimidation or deceptive measures and he makes clear that Saddam never booted out the inspectors but that Clinton did. This man was there and one of the chief in charge, I think he knows something of what he's talking about. Unlike you.

>>Greatest threat to United States of America identified as an attack mounted by an international terrorist group, with the covert backing of a rogue state with access to actual WMD, WMD technology, WMD material.<<

Which had nothing to do with Iraq.

>>I would disagree with Scott Ritter when he states that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction.<<

And, of course, you're so much more an expert than Scott Ritter.

>>Please refer to my opening paragraph. By 2004 Blix is calling blah, blah, blah....... What a great pity the stupid dithering bastard couldn't have been a bit more forthcoming about that earlier then wasn't it.<<

A few posts before you were telling me to check out what this stupid dithering bastard said about WMD in Iraq believing it would support your contentions. Unfortunately for you, I did check them out and they do not support you and so now, the men you were citing to me as an authority whose findings could not be argued with is suddenly a stupid dithering bastard and Scott Ritter is just so wrong.

Where i come from, we call that back pedaling.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 02:21 PM

But the Anti-bush folks had their own reasons for not believing that Saddam was not in compliance, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 02:19 PM

"No one is saying that Dr. Blix said that Iraq didn't have any WMD's...

What we are saying is that Blix said the Iraqi's were cooperating in letting the inspectors do their jobs..."

"UN weapons inspector Blix expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said. "There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence, or you can't find it, I simply say, 'Sorry, I don't find any evidence,' and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence.""

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 02:14 PM

SADDAM could not provide the proof that he had destroyed it, as he claimed.

That's what the UMOVIC inspections were for; they should have been allowed to continue.

And their results accepted.

But the neocons had their own reasons for not doing either.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 02:09 PM

YOU miss the point that

1. Saddam DID have prohibited items before 1999. KNOW FACT- See UN reports.

2. SADDAM could not provide the proof that he had destroyed it, as he claimed.

The burden of proof is on SADDAM to prove that he destroyed it.


Thus, your arguement is of no validity to this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 11:53 AM

BB- your insistence that the burden to prove that he *did not* have W's of MD fell upon Saddam Hussein is a perfect example of the logical fallacy of "argumentum ad ignorantiam". See Example (i) below.

With full credit to Dr. Stephen Downe:

*********************************************************************
Fallacies of Distraction

Each of these fallacies is characterized by the illegitimate use of a logical operator in order to distract the reader from the apparent falsity of a certain proposition.
.
.
.
Argument From Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Definition: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must ether be known to be true or known to be false.)
As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

Examples:
(i) Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.
(ii) Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't.
(iii) Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.

Proof: Identify the proposition in question. Argue that it may be true even though we don't know whether it is or isn't.
Reference: (Copi and Cohen: 93, Davis: 59)
.
.
.
*********************************************************************

from:

< http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm >

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 08:33 AM

You still are confused, T...

No one is saying that Dr. Blix said that Iraq didn't have any WMD's...

What we are saying is that Blix said the Iraqi's were cooperating in letting the inspectors do their jobs...

Is that simple enough fir ya, T??? If not, maybe someone else can make it simpler so that you can keep up with the discussion...

Geeze...

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 03:36 AM

Guess what, I cannot find anything anywhere where the good Doctor Blix says that Iraq possess no WMD, no WMD Agents, no R&D programme. Nowhere, absoutely nowhere. The man was part of the inspection programme from the outset and was in charge of UNMOVIC and at no time does he categorically state that Iraq was in compliance with any of UN Resolutions relating to WMD in Iraq. Al-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, on the other hand was far more definite and stated that he was ALMOST certain that Iraq no longer had a viable nuclear weapons programme, He did however admit that the technical knowledge to recreate one still existed within the country.

GUEST,282RA your post of 20 Nov 07 - 11:00 PM, is complete and utter nonsense.

"Saddam Hussein intended to retain a strategic deterrent capability, not only to take care of Iran, but also to focus on Israel." - Scott Ritter.

This I believe.

"..we pushed him so hard that by the summer of 1991, in the same way that a drug dealer who has police knocking at his door flushes drugs down a toilet to get rid of his stash so that he can tell the cops, "I don't have any drugs," the Iraqis, not wanting to admit that they lied, flushed their stash down the toilet. They blew up all of their weapons and buried it in the desert, and then tried to maintain the fiction that they had told the truth." - Scott Ritter

If that were indeed the case there would have been traces, plus the blatantly obvious, if it was buried it could be exhumed - True?, as nothing was found in this manner Ritter's contention above does not appear so convincing.

"But the bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq, because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control." - Scott Ritter

"But they definitely knew that the Iraqi capability regarding W.M.D. had been reduced to as near to zero as you could bring it and that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction." - Scott Ritter

If that were the case why was this clear unequivocal statement not made by UNSCOM, of which Scott Ritter was a part in 1995. If indeed UNSCOM was "monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control." How come they were continually baulked by Iraq's deception and intimidation measures. I find it rather odd that Ritter does not mention those.

Recent reports from Saddam's liason officer while in captivity states that Saddam Hussein deliberately fostered and encouraged the belief that Iraq still possessed WMD to counter Iran.

The amounts referred to in the list constituted the amounts of WMD that UNSCOM could not account for, that list having been constructed from purchase orders, shipping records, import records, manufacturing data, etc, etc, seized by UNSCOM and submitted by the Iraqi Authorities themselves.

Greatest threat to United States of America identified as an attack mounted by an international terrorist group, with the covert backing of a rogue state with access to actual WMD, WMD technology, WMD material. I would disagree with Scott Ritter when he states that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction.

And this one is absolutely priceless:
"three years later, 9-11 goes down but Blix and Ritter are dismissing claims that Iraq had rearmed and by 2004, Blix is calling the so-called material breach of 687 as stipulated in 1441 "baseless."

Please refer to my opening paragraph. By 2004 Blix is calling blah, blah, blah....... What a great pity the stupid dithering bastard couldn't have been a bit more forthcoming about that earlier then wasn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 03:01 AM

After 4 yrs they are still no where to be found, who fucked up?????

BB, can you prove that you don't have a wife hidden some where?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:32 PM

What Mr. Ritter's words tell us, Bruce, is that we did not know what Hussein had after 1995. We couldn't say with certainty that he had completely disarmed but we knew his weapon production and storage capacity was effectively reduced to zero. If we knew what he had then we could say for certain whether he was armed or not. It's only because we are unsure that we cannot say what he has if anything.

Now, think about that. By 1995, there are no WMD in Iraq nor any possibility for them. By 1997, Blix was saying that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program and when they dismantled it, the UN received an accurate accounting of all their material. This info is in those links in the very words of those men.

Then somehow, according to you and Teribus, Iraq suddenly had 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent and 30,000 munitions for delivery of chemical agents along with mobile weapon labs and trips to Africa to get uranium. And they get this expensive, expansive, ambitious, sophisticated, thoroughly professional, efficient, diabolical weapons system having nothing two years before while being closely watched and while suffering under severe sanctions--amazing!!

Then, three years later, 9-11 goes down but Blix and Ritter are dismissing claims that Iraq had rearmed and by 2004, Blix is calling the so-called material breach of 687 as stipulated in 1441 "baseless."

So apparently Iraq went from a nation with WMD capability to a nation with no WMD capability but then mysteriously regained it very suddenly but then lost it again a couple of years later so completely that neither Blix nor Ritter even think to suppose they could have had anything to do with 9-11.

Something's wrong with that picture and that something is the assertion that Blix and Ritter stated that Iraq had rearmed to alarming proportions in 1999. Could we see what document you refer to? If you remove this anomaly, you get a smooth record of Blix and Ritter never believing the rearming stories.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:11 PM

Teribus--

From your own brilliant analysis of the immediate pre-war Iraq period:

"To the UN it was put in extremely stark terms, you act or we will. No room for doubt there. The UN chose not to act."

Exactly right.

In other words, the UN did not act against Iraq, but Bush did.

Without UN authorization--you have just admitted it.

Furthermore, the invasion was also against the US' own position as stated by John Negroponte---which gives the lie to your attempted justification of the war by UN authorization of Bush.

Negroponte 8 November 2002--Explanation of Vote on Resolution 1441:    "This resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with regard to use of force".

That is, he recognizes 1441 does not authorize the use of force by the US.

He continues: "If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12 (2)"

Not "the matter will return to the Council or Mr. Bush, whoever wants to attack Iraq first."--which seems to be your interpretation.

You may assail the UN for its impotence, since that seems to make your tiny heart beat a little faster. And you can be sure we recognize that--and above all else, we want you to be happy.

But the bedrock fact remains: 1441, as admitted by the US ambassador to the UN, did not authorize US use of force against Iraq.

Nor did any other UN resolution.

As usual, your ship is sunk--with barnacles growing on it. Don't you ever ask yourself why you always lash yourself to the mast of sinking ships?

But let me compliment you on the amazing creativity you show in shooting yourself in the foot in so many varied ways, on so many topics. And I'd like to say I stand in awe of your status as a medical marvel, since you have indeed shot yourself in the foot so many times--you must at least be alternating feet-- that it's truly amazing you can hobble at all, much less walk.

Please, don't ever change. I can't begin to tell you how bereft we'd be without you. And I assure you it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you always present such a nice fat juicy target for all and sundry.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:00 PM

>>I have to disagree, Bobert. Saddam was KNOWN to have certain prohibited material ( from previous inspections, purchase records and his own stated inventories. The UN Inspection teams were there to see to the destruction of those materials: Saddam could not produce them, nor any proof that they had been destroyed. Nor did he allow the access that the UNR called for to facilities or personnel.<<

Here's what Scott Ritter says:

"Look, let's be honest. The Iraqis were obligated in 1991 to submit a full declaration listing the totality of their holdings of W.M.D., and they didn't do this. They lied. They failed to declare a nuclear weapons program. They failed to declare a biological weapons program, and they under-declared their chemical and ballistic missile capabilities.

"Saddam Hussein intended to retain a strategic deterrent capability, not only to take care of Iran, but also to focus on Israel. What he didn't count on was the tenacity of the inspectors. And very rapidly by June 1991 we had compelled him into acknowledging that he had a nuclear weapons program, and we pushed him so hard that by the summer of 1991, in the same way that a drug dealer who has police knocking at his door flushes drugs down a toilet to get rid of his stash so that he can tell the cops, "I don't have any drugs," the Iraqis, not wanting to admit that they lied, flushed their stash down the toilet. They blew up all of their weapons and buried it in the desert, and then tried to maintain the fiction that they had told the truth.

"And by 1992 they were compelled again because of the tenacity of inspectors to come clean. People say why didn't Saddam Hussein admit being disarmed? In 1992 they submitted a declaration that said everything's been destroyed, we have nothing left. In 1995 they turned over the totality of their document cache. Again, not willingly, it took years of inspections to pressure them. But the bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq, because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control.

"And we knew that while we couldn't account for everything that the Iraqis said they had destroyed, we could only account for ninety to ninety-five percent, we knew that: (a) we had no evidence of a retained capability and, (b) no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting. And furthermore, the C.I.A. knew this. The British intelligence knew this; Israeli intelligence knew this; German intelligence. The whole world knew this. They weren't going to say that Iraq was disarmed, because nobody could say that. But they definitely knew that the Iraqi capability regarding W.M.D. had been reduced to as near to zero as you could bring it and that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction."

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:49 PM

Bush sidestepping the burden of proof doesn't necessarily mean that Hussein had no weapons. That only proves Bush is an idiot rather than a statesman. The testimony of Blix and Ritter, however, cinch that Hussein had no WMD. That exposes Bush's pose. He only demanded Hussein disarm PRECISELY BECAUSE he knew Hussein had no WMD.

If Bush knew that Iraq had no WMD programs or hardware, then he was definitely lying when he took us into war. That is an impeachable defense.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:41 PM

I have to disagree, Bobert. Saddam was KNOWN to have certain prohibited material ( from previous inspections, purchase records and his own stated inventories. The UN Inspection teams were there to see to the destruction of those materials: Saddam could not produce them, nor any proof that they had been destroyed. Nor did he allow the access that the UNR called for to facilities or personnel.

If I see you sometime with a weapon, the presumption is that after that time, if you cannot show that you have gotten rid of the weapon you are considered armed and dangerous.

NOT that the police have to prove you have a weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 09:32 PM

Exact point I was tryin' to make, 282RA...

Doesn't matter if it was Blix or Ritter, Bush had the burden of proof but sidestepped it and ordered up the war...

Saddam was powerless to prove he didn't have the stuff...

That is the case... No reason to complicate it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 09:05 PM

>>The WMD referred to HAD been proven to exist: It was the DESTRUCTION that Saddam had to verify, and did not. Try reading what was written instead of making invalid comparisons.<<

No, I have just proven that neither Blix nor Ritter EVER made any such accusation that Iraq had WMD. Their own words prove that they never gave any such assertions credit. If they made these accusations in 1999 as you and Teribus insist, please show us the relevant document. I can't find it and neither Blix nor Ritter ever believed Iraq was in any "material breach" of 687. THEIR OWN WORDS PROVE THIS! Read those links and weep!

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:56 PM

I very highly suggest to everyone to read every word of those links I provided in my last two posts. They are phenomenal, shocking, eye-popping revelations.

Blix called the accusations made in 1441 "baseless" and that Powell was denouncing Iraq's written proof of disarming as being recycled pap from earlier sources before most of material had been translated. Blix stated that 500 to 600 pages had yet to be translated when Powell made his assertions. Powell's assertion could only have been a lie. And it was. Iraq had disarmed.

Ritter states that disarming Iraq was never the objective. Regime change was the objective. Bush I had made the mistake of pronouncing Saddam another Hitler and was therefore obliged to take him out. He and James Baker announced that even if Iraq met with all the provisions laid out by the UN, which promised the ending of sanctions, the sanctions would not be lifted. Only the removal of Hussein would lift them. Yet the Gulf War fell through and Saddam held onto power. The CIA announced that sanctions would be so crippling that Saddam would fall within 6 months but Saddam held on. He became an embarrassment and the govt wanted him gone. When Clinton took over in 92, he at first tried to lift the sanctions and get Iraq back on its feet but Congressmen, both dem and pub, became extremely upset because they had painted him as Hitler to their constituents and promised his immediate removal. Clinton reversed himself and started talking about Saddam rearming. It wasn't true and Ritter knew for a fact Iraq had no missile system by 92 but Clinton was making accusations after that. Neither Ritter nor Blix ever believed a word of it.

It's very fascinating reading!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:28 PM

Sorry, I meant Ritter didn't submit anything in 1999 because he had left in 1998. And here's what Blix had to say about Iraq's weapons in 1997:

Hans Blix, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, writes in a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan that there is no evidence that Iraq has an active nuclear weapons program. Blix says that the agency now has a "technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear program," despite some missing evidence and gaps in knowledge. He states with certainty the following: (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997)

"There are no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq's explanation of its progress towards the finalization of a workable design for its nuclear weapons is considered to be consistent with the resources and time scale indicated by the available program documentation. However, no documentation or other evidence is available to show the actual status of the weapon design when the program was interrupted." (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997)

"Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of HEU [high-enriched uranium] through the EMIS [electromagnetic isotope separation] process, the production and pilot cascading of single-cylinder sub-critical gas centrifuge machines, and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon." (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997)

"There are no indications to suggest that Iraq had produced more that a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material (HEU or separated plutonium) through its indigenous processes, all of which has been removed from Iraq." (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997)

"There are no indications that Iraq otherwise acquired weapon-usable nuclear material." (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997)

"All of the safeguarded research reactor fuel, including the HEU fuel that Iraq had planned to divert to its 'crash program,' was verified and fully accounted for by the IAEA and removed from Iraq." (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997)

"There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 10/6/1997)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=hans_blix&printerfriendly=true

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:26 PM

>>If you want to see a list just like it go and read the Report that Dr. Hans Blix and Scott Ritter submitted for presentation to the Security Council of the United Nations in January 1999. So are you telling us that UNSCOM lied? If so why? Job protection perhaps? I'd like to see your substantiation for that.<<

I can't find any such report. Ritter didn't submit anything in 1998 because he had left the year before.

What does Ritter say about all this?

SCOTT RITTER: Well, first of all, the reason that we're there. They think that this was an accident, that this was a noble cause, that people like the President, like Bill Clinton before him, like their respective administrations, journalists like Judith Miller just honestly got it wrong. And I don't think – you know, here we are today in Iraq, and it's a disaster. I don't think anybody's going to debate that statement. Some people say though, 'We're working towards a continuation of this noble objective. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. That's a good thing. And now we're going to try to build on that good.' And I'm not going to debate whether or not getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a good thing or not. But, you know, if you embrace the notion of the ends justify the means, that's about as un-American a notion as you can possibly get into.
We're talking about solving a problem. We have yet to define the problem. And the problem isn't just what's happening in Iraq but it's the whole process that took place in the United States leading up to the war, this dishonest process of deliberately deceiving the American public. And it's not just George W. Bush. For eight years of the Clinton administration, that administration said the same things. The C.I.A. knew, since 1992, that significant aspects of the Iraqi weapons programs had been completely eliminated, but this was never about disarmament.

They knew it, (a) because of their own access to intelligence information, and (b) because of the work of the weapons inspectors. In October of 1992, I personally confronted the C.I.A. on the reality that we had accounted for all of Iraq's ballistic missile programs. That same year they had an Iraqi defector who had laid out the totality of the Iraqi biological weapons program and had acknowledged that all of the weapons had been destroyed. The C.I.A. knew this.

But, see, the policy wasn't disarmament. The policy was regime change. And disarmament was only useful insofar as it facilitated regime change. And that's what people need to understand, that this was not about getting rid of weapons that threatened international peace and security. This has been about, since 1991, solving a domestic political embarrassment. And that is the continued survival of Saddam Hussein, a man who in March 1990 was labeled as a true friend of the American people and then in October 1990 in a dramatic flip-flop was called the Middle East equivalent of Adolf Hitler.

JUAN GONZALEZ: You were involved for quite a long time with UNSCOM. At what point did you, as you were working for the United Nations, reach the conclusion that regime change really was the intent of the program that – well, the United States intent behind the program that you were involved with?

SCOTT RITTER: It wasn't a matter of reaching a conclusion. When I joined in September of 1991, that was already the stated policy of the United States government. I outlined this in the book. The fact that in April 1991, the United States helps draft and then votes in favor of a Chapter 7, Resolution 687, that creates the weapons inspections, call upon Iraq to disarm and in Paragraph 14 says if Iraq complies, economic sanctions will be lifted. This is the law.
A few months later, the President, George Herbert Walker Bush, and hia Secretary of State say economic sanctions will never be lifted against Iraq, even if they comply with their obligation to disarm, until which time Saddam Hussein is removed from power. It's the stated policy of the United States government. What we weren't quite aware of is just to what extreme they would go in undermining the credibility and integrity of the United Nations inspection process to achieve this objective.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:23 PM

>>>Bush's accusation? Hows about this, taken from United Nations Security Council resolution 1441:

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);<<<

That's why there were UN inspections going on at the very time 1441 was sponsored (by the US and Britain) in November 2002, they were trying to ascertain if Iraq was complying with 687 and, as far as they could see, they were complying. All the evidence pointed to Iraq as having disarmed. Bush got mad about it and threatened to invade and Blix begged for 3 more months to complete the inspections and Bush said no and ordered the invasion--if he'd waited he would have lost his international support.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:21 PM

How exactly does one go about proving they don't have something, bb???

He allowed imspectors to come in search... What more would you suggest he could have done to prove he didn't have them???

Yeah, I'll be really intersted in your response, just as I was during the mad-dash-to-Iraq when I posed the same question and got no answer...

Yeah, I got long (no, make that very long) recitals about this or that which really didn't have anything to do with how one proves that don't have something...

So, bb, let's say that I accuse you8 of havin' WMD... Convince me that you don't...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:13 PM

The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim that items previously known to be in his possesion were no longer there.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:11 PM

" I had heard it was old munitions and much of it was past its shelf life."

Not the prohibited items found that I referred to.


"Bush needed to prove Hussein had WMD"

The WMD referred to HAD been proven to exist: It was the DESTRUCTION that Saddam had to verify, and did not. Try reading what was written instead of making invalid comparisons.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:39 PM

Hey there HA

"Bush's accusation that 687 had been breached"???

Bush's accusation? Hows about this, taken from United Nations Security Council resolution 1441:

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

Oh and all that stuff you referred to when you came out with:

"When Bush tried to say Saddam violated 687, he was referring to the incredible pack of lies in his SOTU address in 2003:"

If you want to see a list just like it go and read the Report that Dr. Hans Blix and Scott Ritter submitted for presentation to the Security Council of the United Nations in January 1999. So are you telling us that UNSCOM lied? If so why? Job protection perhaps? I'd like to see your substantiation for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:15 PM

>>Since the UN report states these as fact ( Saddam gave NO EVIDENCE that he destroyed the items/facilities in question) I fail to see how any thinking person could state that the restatement ( OF THE UN REPORT) was an "incredible pack of lies<<

The man couldn't have very well produced evidence of destroying what he didn't have. That's why people keep asking you if you are still beating your wife. Even if you say you don't have a wife, all the other person has to say is "prove it." You can't. Hussein was left trying to prove a negative whioh can't be done.

I can't prove god doesn't exist even though I don't believe. But I'm not supposed to be the one to prove it. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim that god does exist. Bush needed to prove Hussein had WMD and it was totally disingenuous to threaten Hussein to prove the negative or else. Bush had the burden of proof and all he did was offer accusations which have since proven themselves tragically false.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 06:55 PM

>>1. The fact tah we knew about it was not the same as allowing his posession: The UN was derilict in failing to insist on the destruction of prohibited material.<<

But the State Department said it was NOT what they were looking for. So it had nothing to do with Bush's accusation that 687 had been breached. He could not have been talking about that stuff--whatever it was. I had heard it was old munitions and much of it was past its shelf life. They knew about it and it was not an issue. It was not what the US govt was looking for or talking about during the run-up of the war.

It's a non-issue, guy.

>>Pray tell me what of the list you gave have ever been proven to be wrong? IN ALL CASES Saddam failed to show credible evidence that the prohibited items had been destroyed.<<

According the CIA, he was failing to show he had any to destroy and they attached memos to that effect on the NIE that Bush & Cheney used to concoct their invasion. The UN NEVER endorsed Bush's decision to invade. He invaded when it became obvious the UN would not endorse it once the inspections were complete. The UN obviously never believed Hussein possessed all that weaponry or they wouldn't have made clear that 1441 did not give the US the right to invade Iraq. The UN obviously never thought an invasion, occupation or war was necessary. Bush muttered out a pack of lies at SOTU 03 designed to scare the public and intimidate Congress into falling in line with him. It is an impeachable offense.

>>Fine. I will acknowledge that YOU have declared Bush to be vindicated by the discovery of those prohibited missiles and weapons systems.<<

I don't know that they found any missiles at all. I have no idea what they found. But I know very well what they didn't find. They didn't find 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical weapons and this is apart from the tragically sad belief in Saddam's mobile weapons labs. And we know the 16 words are a blatant lie based on the already-debunked "Italian Letters" just as we know Mohammed Atta did not meet with Iraqi agents in Prague. In short, they found nothing.

It was such an incredible case of wishful thinking that I am convinced Bush is not rooted in reality very firmly. He walked us into this shithole situation based on propaganda and deception from the likes of Curveball, Ahmad Chalabi and the INC. He believed his own propaganda. One of their informants mentioned by Bush in his speech couldn't locate the secret plant where he claimed to have worked when he was taken back to Iraq in 2005 to verify his story. There was nothing.