WASHINGTON — The final U.S. intelligence report on weapons of mass destruction (search) in Iraq is expected to address whether the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started.

Top Bush administration officials have speculated publicly that chemical, biological or radiological weapons may have been smuggled out, and the question is one of the unresolved issues on WMD. The report is due next month. Intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never "a piece," said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

The administration acknowledged last week that the search for banned weapons is largely over. The Iraq Survey Group's (search) chief, Charles Duelfer, is expected to submit the final installments of his report in February. A small number of the organization's experts will remain on the job in case new intelligence on Iraqi WMD is unearthed.

But the officials familiar with the search say U.S. authorities have found no evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (search) transferred WMD or related equipment out of Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144623,00.html

, at least the fact based (not the leading quotes from the liars), says NO NO NO NO. They wrapped so much ;-) and regurgitation of the implied maybes that the fact that the anwer is NO gets lost.

Anybody paying attention knew prior to the war that Saddam was not a threat to his weakest neighbor.

Pretty simple to me.

That denial overcoat must be getting awfully heavy.

Ouch, poor freeps, that's gotta hurt.

You should see their "Saddam Hussein" flow chart, which links him to everything from the assasination of Abraham Lincoln to shooting JR on Dallas -- and it's all the delusion of this one neocon hack (can't think of what her name is) that was totally discredited like forever ago.

Another layer of denial, indeed.

Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin?

Left of Cool

comes to mind. She always viewed Saddam as an incarnation of Satan. Judith Miller of the NYT used to recycle stories from the Iraqi exiles, but Mylroie was on an entirely different level.

What is amusing to me is that I even actually used to believe some of it, but I have not believed Saddam was anything other than a BFEE stooge who got cross-ways with Poppy in some business deal (as I recall, it was their mutual agreement to shake down the Saudi royals--typical protection racket stuff) for at least 15 years.

It also proves the power of the mass media that at least half the American public will always believe the Mylroie writings no matter what comes out to the contrary. When the "lib'rul" (sarcasm) media get you in their sights, you are finished. They really can create another reality out of thin air (time).

Sorry for the RW wacko link but that is where you have to go to read what the freepers believe!


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200410%5CSPE20041004a.html

~snip~

Laurie Mylroie, who authored the book, "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America," and advised Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represent "the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism" against the U.S.

Mylroie has long maintained that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States. The documents obtained by CNSNews.com , she said, include "correspondence back and forth between Saddam's office and Iraqi Mukhabarat (intelligence agency). They make sense. This is what one would think Saddam was doing at the time."

Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA official who specialized in counter-terrorism and had extensive experience dealing with Iraq, said that "based on available, unclassified and open source information, the details in these documents are accurate ..."

The former UNSCOM inspector zeroed in on the signatures on the documents and "the names of some of the people who sign off on these things.

"This is fairly typical of that time era. were meticulous record keepers," added the former U.N. official, who spoke with CNSNews.com on the condition of anonymity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1254072,00.html


Did one woman's obsession take America to war?

She is a conspiracy theorist whose political conceits have consistently been proved wrong. So why were Bush and his aides so keen to swallow Laurie Mylroie's theories on Saddam and terrorism? By Peter Bergen

Monday July 5, 2004
The Guardian

Americans supported the war in Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator - they knew that - but because President Bush made the case that Saddam might hand weapons of mass destruction to his terrorist allies to wreak havoc on the United States. In the absence of any evidence for that theory, it's fair to ask: where did the administration's conviction come from? It was at the American Enterprise Institute - a conservative Washington DC thinktank - that the idea took shape that overthrowing Saddam should be a goal. Among those associated with AEI is Richard Perle, a key architect of the president's get-tough-on-Iraq policy, and Paul Wolfowitz, now the number-two official at the Pentagon. But none of the thinkers at AEI was in any real way an expert on Iraq. For that they relied on someone you probably have never heard of: a woman named Laurie Mylroie.
Mylroie has credentials as an expert on the Middle East, national security and, above all, Iraq, having held faculty positions at Harvard and the US Naval War College. During the 1980s she was an apologist for Saddam's regime, but became anti-Saddam around the time of his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. In the run-up to that Gulf war, with New York Times reporter Judith Miller, Mylroie wrote Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf, a well-reviewed bestseller.

~snip~

Mylroie believes that Saddam was behind every anti-American terrorist incident of note in the past decade, from the levelling of the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 to September 11 itself. She is, in short, a cranky conspiracist - but her neoconservative friends believed her theories, bringing her on as a terrorism consultant at the Pentagon.

The extent of Mylroie's influence is shown in the new book Against All Enemies, by the veteran counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, in which he recounts a senior-level meeting on terrorism months before September 11. During that meeting Clarke quotes Wolfowitz as saying: "You give Bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist." Clarke writes: "I could hardly believe it, but Wolfowitz was spouting the Laurie Mylroie theory that Iraq was behind the 1993 truck bomb at the World Trade Centre, a theory that had been investigated for years and found to be totally untrue."

and the rest of us are said to be wacko?

In his threadbare "Freedom is on the March" thong.

"What I can tell you is that I believe we know a lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria. There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points," he said. "But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."

How do I stay on-message in the face of facts

Let me count the ways:
I believe
materials
traffic
WMD related
I cannot say

You have to read the entire article to get the "total" story, even the total story Fux is choosing to tell. How many of Fux's audience CAN read that much?

Why, whoever heard of such a thing. Perhaps after being told by a clearly deranged asshole who stole an election that he was going to bomb the SHIT of your country, you MIGHT have some motivation to LEAVE the country.

Assholes. Assholes. Lying assholes.

There has yet to be any demonstration whatsoever that Iraq had any significant chemical, biological or radiological weapons capability of any kind. Even more significantly, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Iraq had the capability to produce such weapons, leaving open the question of where such minor, if any, capability that may have existed at one time might have come from.

It beggars the imagination to even try to conceive of a nation, anywhere nearly as 'dangerous' as Iraq is purported to have been, that wouldn't have used such weaponry, if they had it, when invaded in the "first Gulf War."

The sole significant findings had to do with "precursors" - materials which could conceivably be employed in the production of such weapons. Yet no significant industrial capacity for their production or the disposal of by-products of such production has ever been identified.

there there's no evidence they ever existed. But FOX can't bring themselves to state such a blunt fact. The reason for going to war was all a fantasy that they helped create.
And to think that they have the nerve to make fun of DUers for a few off the wall posts.

BTW, this is now front page material. You are right about FOX being a RW hole, but they do have to answer to FCC guidelines every now and then. They can't take on the whole world, not yet.

between "Saddam May Not Have Moved WMD" and "U.S. intelligence found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq."

Pathetic bastards. They're too evil and greedy to register a sense of shame. Even in defeat, they're still cheating!

the non-existent.

We argued right after the invasion about WMDs. I said there wasn't any, she said there was.

Now, a couple of weeks ago, we spoke and I asked her about the newly released report that showed NO WMDs. She haphazardly described her thoughts about them possibly being moved out of the country. I sensed she didn't really believe it herself.

But c'mon! Look at the POSOTUS (Piece of Shit of the United States) "laundry list" of WMDs from the 2003 SOTU address:

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 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.

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.

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.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent? That's 1 million pounds! So Saddam had material to make 1 million pounds of this stuff?

And are they telling me that, with all our billion-dollar spy satellites and technology capable of photographing a matchbook on the ground, the US couldn't come up with one photo of all this shit being transported? Especially material to make 1 million pounds of deadly agents? How many men? How many trucks? How many days? weeks? months? I think anyone would be hard-pressed to move material to make 1 million pounds of anything without being detected! And material for these agents is only ONE item on the WMD list...

George W. Bush is a f*cking liar and he needs to be arrested, tried, and, if found guilty, sentenced for war crimes and crimes against humanity!!!

No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it!

Didn't we do that with satellites?

If we were so sure that he had this MASSIVE amount which is not easily moved (if it is movable at all) why weren't we training our satellites to look for them?

Even their excuse don't make sense.

of WMD that bush* said he had. Spy satellites (of several countries) have been continuously aimed at Iraq since before the first Gulf War. Every square inch of Iraq has been photographed and analyzed ad naseum. The satellite data has *NEVER* showed Iraq in possession of either large amounts of WMD or the infrastructure to produce and manage said WMDs. In fact, several of our allies and friends with their own satellite access have stopped just short of calling the bush* administration liars. There were no weapons of mass destruction, period. They didn't have to be moved, because they didn't exist.

And here's something to consider: during the first Gulf War, we knew exactly how much and what kind of WMD saddam possessed. Why? Because we sold them to him.

Nothing moved anywhere in that country without it being seen. And we know that there was no way they had what Powell said they had no way.

Paris Hilton. If it had been there, someone else on the planet would have said so.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

It's a reasoned report.

Jeebus f*cking cripes already.

now, can you?

And made no sense to anyone smarter than a box of rocks.

In the run-up to the inevitable war, Iraq wasn't the most-watched, most-surveyed country on the planet. Satellites, spy planes, drones, SpecOps on the ground...pretty much around-the-clock surveillance, not only watching for displacement/deployment of WMDs but specifically for war planning.

Anything being moved would have been seen, and anything spotted that could even be construed as of a suspicious nature would have been trumped up by BushCo as proof of WMD's existence.

They got nothing.

How can he move something he never had?

If we didn't find any WMD, and he didn't move them, then he didn't have them in the first place. This needs to be stated as such. The headline is bullshit.

It's like the police coming to your house on a tip that you had drugs, then going back to the chief and saying "we couldn't find any and drugs and we don't have any evidence of them ever existing, but we arrested them anyways."

This is a sure sign that the media is on the propoganda. It couldn't be anymore in your face.

Your final lifeline has been used---please produce your promised apology and unwillingness to ever trust the Bush Administration again....

And oh yeah, I heard your tape on Franken's show this morning, you know, about you having been "in combat" and all. Please follow your own advice and

SHUT UP!!!

Thanks Bill.

just curious

which explains where everything went...

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.pdf

Summary can be viewed here...

http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/rangwala-kamel-022703.htm

Folks this is another golden opportunity to try to expose these lies for what they are, LIES!!!!!!!!!!

:think:Instead of debating these liers, Now is the time to start making counter accusations and suggestions other than, "You knew they didn't have them!" (that would be very hard to prove), or, "we all knew they were never there," that makes all the Freeper types, feel stupid. :dunce:

Even though we know they ARE stupid, making fun of them or ridiculing them, only makes them MORE angry and willing to lash out at us.

What we need to do now, is start to pose NEW questions, (in no particular order, and with full knowledge that the weapon's were never there after 1998) like:

1)"Ya think that the WMD's were taken by the Looters? :shrug:

You know, the Looters that stole everything "...after the bombing of civilian life and facilities..." "...to systematically destroy Iraq's infrastructure, leaving it in a PREINDUSTRIAL CONDITION?!?!" :wow:as they say in the 1992 report "International War Crimes Tribunal United States War Crimes Against Iraq." <http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm>

And,

2)If the WMD's WERE taken by the Looters, Do you think any of those Looters, who now DO have the WMD's that you didn't find, but you said you were absolutely sure, were there BEFORE the Invasion, do you think any of those Looters, were TERRORISTS? :shrug:

and

3) If not, could any of those Looters, who took the WMD's that you said were there before the invasion, but never found, could they have sold those WMD's to TERRORIST? :shrug:

Then ask one of these "Bush Apologists" (to steal one of the right's favorite labels for Democrats) this:

4)Why didn't we have enough troops to stop the Looters, who took the WMD's and SOLD them to the TERRORISTS? :shrug:

You know, those "Freedom Hating" Terrorist, who DIDN'T have WMD's BEFORE the invasion, but DO now?

The questions could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea. Use the "Bush Apologist" own words to ask leading questions that imply guilt in the question. This is NOT a court of law people! We CAN ask leading questions in and of the MSM, and hopefully, raise the level of fear, or at least doubt, in the "Red(neck) States."

They will probably never directly admit these mistakes, but if you can plant the answer and the a frightening posable reality, in the question, that could be enough to start a revolt among GOP sheep and maybe even get the Freepers :tinfoilhat:to start asking these type of questions to their beloved leaders.

So typical of the last 4 years, keep creating lies until they come up with one that satisfies the brainwashed.

Doesn't Andrew Card remind you of the Iraqi information minister during the invasion? How can he do this with a straight face?