posted March 19, 2004 06:03 PM              

What he documents from other Inspectors, Iraqi Government/Military persons and from his own testimony all point to the falseness of what happened in Iraq, and how gullible the American people are.

posted April 27, 2004 04:55 PM            

Tuesday, Apr. 27, 2004 04:40 PM EDT
Jordan WMD Plotter Confesses to Iraqi Involvement

At least one of the al Qaida plotters arrested in Jordan earlier this month as part of a weapons of mass destruction plot that Jordanian officials say could have killed 80,000 people revealed on Monday that he was trained in Iraq before the U.S. invaded in March 2003.

In a confession broadcast on Jordanian television, the unnamed WMD conspirator revealed, "In Iraq, I started training in explosives and poisons. I gave my complete obedience to [Abu Musab al] Zarqawi," the al Qaeda WMD specialist whose base of operations was in Iraq.

Excerpts from the WMD conspirator's confession broadcast by ABC's "Nightline" late Monday show that the WMD plot was planned and trained for in Iraq more than a year before the U.S. invasion.

"After the fall of Afghanistan," the WMD plotter said, "I met Zarqawi again in Iraq." U.S. forces vanquished the Taliban government in Kabul in Dec. 2001 - 15 months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"Some of the details appear to be fairly significant in terms of the planning," reported "Nightline's" Chris Bury. "$170,000, a lot of meetings, getting instructions from people in Iraq, people inside Syria."

"This doesn't appear to be a mom and pop operation," he added.

Al-Zarqawi, who also ran a camp for Jordanian recruits in Afghanistan, has been linked to a series of terrorist plots, including the attack in Madrid last month, the bombing of the UN compound in Baghdad last summer, and the 2002 killing of an American diplomat in Jordan.

On Monday al-Zarqawi took credit for the attacks on Iraq's oil terminals in Basra over the weekend, "Nightline" said. The attack, though interrupted before it could do maximum damage, killed three U.S. soldiers.

The Jordan chem-bomb plot was to be executed in three stages, according to a video reenactment released by Jordanian officials.

The first stage was to involve a car carrying several al Qaeda operatives who would approach the gates of the Jordanian Security Service in Amman and gun down the facility's armed guards.

The car would be quickly followed by a specially equipped track laden with conventional explosives that would break through the Security Services gate and crash into the main building.

In the third stage, the plot called for three tanker trucks to follow the breakthrough vehicle, loaded with a combined total of 20 tons of chemical weapons laced with conventional explosives. One truck was to crash into the security headquarters, another, the U.S. embassy nearby. A third was to hit building within a few hundred yards of the other two targets, the Jordanian video showed.

The ensuing cloud of poison gas could have killed 80,000 people, Jordanian officials said, an estimate that was revised upwards from an anticipated death toll of 20,000 last week.

In film footage broadcast by "Nightline," Jordanian television showed hundreds of plastic containers that had been removed from the trucks that Jordanian officials said were filled with chemical weapons.

Jordan's King Abdullah said last week that the five trucks originated from Syria, and were intercepted just 75 miles from the Syrian border. Syria has long been suspected as a repository of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

posted April 27, 2004 06:20 PM              

uno - if we had such good surveillance going over iraq how and when did all these big WMDs make it over the border into syria? (and why don't we invade north korea for their WMDs... oops - taboo subject )

dos - training in WMD use and having WMDs is different. when we're debating war rationale it is the second that the President claimed was the case and used as the basis for the invasion.

tres - (for jw) as hussein was US/CIA trained and supported for so many years, do you think the government is so sure they know the WMDs he allegedly had because we're the ones who sold them to him?

posted April 27, 2004 08:46 PM            

uno
Large convoys of trucks were observed crossing the border on the way to Syria in the days and weeks immediately prior to the start of the war. Suspicion then was that Saddam was moving weapons systems out of the country.

We didn't attack N. Korea because 1. they have or are thought to have nuclear weapons 2. N. Korea has artillery close enough to Seoul, S. Korea to shell the city, a city full of civilians 3. N. Korea is being handled, prodded to give up their nuclear weapons 4. N. Korea never attacked anyone with biological or chemical weapons.

dos
The prewar training in Iraq was described by the captured terrorist. The Chemical weapons were on the way to Jordan to be used in an attack. Did you read the story? Or did you read the story and don't believe it?
BTW, it isn't our story, it's the King of Jordan making that announcement.
According to the King, these WMD's are the real McCoy and they didn't just suddenly spring full blown out of nowhere.

tres
I've heard all the stuff before that the US supplied the chemical weapons Iraq used on Iran. It's been denied by Cap Weinburger who was in a position to know. According to his account, laboratory grade chemicals and cultures in small amounts were supplied to Iraq for medical research and they were not weaponized versions. The only reason he even knew about it was because allegations forced him to check to find out. These exchanges between countries are/were common, routine and didn't involve high level officials. I think that's changed and if not, it sure should be.

posted April 30, 2004 11:05 AM              

and personally, my problem is with the fact that having WMDs is a reason to be invaded at all. if the US has the right to invade any country on suspicion of having WMDs i feel that sets a dangerous precedent - what if china or russia started invading other countries on such "suspicions"?

posted April 30, 2004 11:48 AM              

about the Jordanian bust... it looks like al Qaeda was planning a gas attack on Amman. Jordan is a target, I assume, because it deals with the US. thank god they DID catch these wackos - sounds like this terrorist act would have been the worst yet. i've seen Queen Noor speak a couple times and the projects they are trying to institute in Jordan are very interesting, especially their work with women.

i've read the chemical of which they found the greatest quantity was sulphuric acid. was that on the list of suspected WMDs? i don't know. even thought it's a dangerous chemical i don't think it's a top secret recipe. but i wouldn't want to bathe in it, that's for sure.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3635381.stm http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

here's a quote from one of the articles above:

quote:

---

Jordanian authorities said the attack would have mixed a combination of 71 lethal chemicals, which they said has never been done before, including blistering agents to cause third-degree burns, nerve gas and choking agents.

---

i dunno, as dangerous as it is, i could probably mix up a pretty lethal cocktail with the cleaning agents most people keep in their homes in this country. the WMDs that we were told iraq was harboring included: enriched uranium, "more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons" (quote from Bush), "stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents" (also Bush), anthrax, botulinum toxin... nasty sounding stuff.

again, my problem with the invasion of iraq is the precedent it sets - invading on suspicion - that no weapons have yet been found is just icing on the cake. i believe targeting al Qaeda cells worldwide would have been a much better use of our tax money than invading iraq. i know you say "all the terrorists are coming to us" but what of the new terrorists this invasion has created? or do you not think there are any recent converts in the middle east and other muslim countries? (i never thought thailand would see the violence that happened this week...)

again, on the Jordanian raid, from one of the articles above:

quote:

---

"The aim, Azmi told me, was to execute an operation to strike Jordan and the Hashemite Royal family, a war against the crusaders and infidels," Sharif said. "Azmi told me that this will be the first chemical attack that al Qaeda will execute."

---

i still don't see the link to hussein. iraq has most definitely BECOME a center of activity for al Qaeda, but as far as I've been able to discover, bin Laden despised Hussein.

here's an interesting chart stating the pros and cons of invading iraq - it must have been put up before the war: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_pro-con.htm

and here's an article from ireland that says al qaeda denies the story (in a scary kind of way): http://breaking.examiner.ie/2004/04/30/story145285.html

also one from yahoo news with similar info: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040430/wl_nm/security_jordan_zarqawi_dc_4

how do you know what to believe? events can be spun oh so many ways...

posted April 30, 2004 02:35 PM            

Has the US invaded neighbors Canada and Mexico? No
Has the US used chemical weapons on Canada or Mexico? No
Has the US used chemical weapons on American citizens? No

Has Saddam Hussein done all those things in relation to Iran, Kuwait and Iraqi citizens? Yes

Are chemical and biological weapons in the hands of Saddam a danger to his neighbors? Yes

Is there a likelihood Saddam would transfer his chemical and biological weapons to terrorists? Yes, and it appears that's what he did by transferring them to Syria.

Attempting to draw a moral equivalence between the US and Saddam Hussein's Iraq is insulting in the extreme.

Actually the UN inspectors did not say they had not found any WMD in Iraq, quite the opposite. Further, Hans Blix indicated Saddam was being less than forthcoming with the details of the destruction of WMD Iraq claimed to have destroyed. They found missiles, they found buried WMD bombs and did not get the documents they believed Saddam should have to document the destruction of the "unaccounted for" tons of Anthrax, VX and other agents Saddam had the capability of making from the invoices detailing purchase quantities of the components from which those WMD are made.

This from the Hans Blix report to the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003.

Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq's Declaration of 7 December did not bring new documentary evidence. I hope that efforts in this respect, including the appointment of a governmental commission, will give significant results. When proscribed items are deemed unaccounted for it is above all credible accounts that is needed - or the proscribed items, if they exist.

The first is that with such detailed information existing regarding those who took part in the unilateral destruction, surely there must also remain records regarding the quantities and other data concerning the various items destroyed.

As of today, there is more. While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion.

A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=414&sID=6

I only posted the Blix report because you said UN inspectors said they found no WMD in Iraq. It should be further noted that the only reason UN inspectors were allowed back in Iraq was the fact that about 200,000 coalition forces were camped out on his border.

There was much more than a suspicion that Saddam still had WMD and the missiles, bombs, mortar shells and other delivery systems to deliver them. That "suspicion" as you term it, was shared by the intelligence services of the world.

Yes, the President has made joking references to the "missing" WMD. Note also, the President didn't say "non-existent."

You may have a problem with nations who have WMD being invaded on suspicion or otherwise but the terms of the ceasefire agreement in 1991 required Saddam to destroy "all" WMD among other things. He didn't in the face of at least 16 further UN Resolutions for him to do so. Finally, Resolution 1441 threatened "serious consequences" and he still continued to play a cat and mouse game with the Blix inspection team. Saddam made the ceasefire agreement null and void by non compliance with the ceasefire terms so, Iraq wasn't just a nation with WMD. Iraq was a nation under 'restrictions' imposed by a UN ceasefire agreement.

Lastly, it was not the duty of the inspectors to go looking for Saddam's remaining WMD in a nation the size of California. It was Saddam's responsibility to document that they all had been destroyed or to lead the inspectors to where they were.

posted May 02, 2004 03:17 AM            

quote:

---

Has the US used chemical weapons on American citizens? No

---

Well.. actually I, along with several hundreds of other people were assaulted with chemical weapons supplied by the U.S. federal gov't to the police forces of Miami and surrounding areas.

Now, I realize that it's rather a disporportionate comparison to make against what Saddam did to the people of his country. However I feel the need to express my fear that crude statements, which are not entirely accurate, like the one I quoted could lull people into feeling safer than they may actually be in this country.

posted May 13, 2004 01:51 PM            

Last week, John S. Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, delivered a lecture during "Ethics Week" of the Society of Professional Journalists. The speaker has not yet been announced for "Abstinence Week" of the Society of Professional ****** .------
http://www.anncoulter.com/

posted May 13, 2004 02:24 PM            

Speaking of which, you know, I had several teachers call me at the paper anonymously and tell me how they thought my articles rocked, (not because I'm some stellar writer, but because of the issues I discussed), and that they were sick of the complete left-bias that was usually present (on campus and in the school paper). Unfortunately they were also too scared to reveal their identities to me for fear of reprisals from the administration and their vehemently liberal peers.

Ann Coulter is Da Man If John Kerry was HALF the man she is, he might actually have a chance at the Presidency.

posted May 14, 2004 12:26 PM              

quote:

---

It looks like a lot of words will have to be eaten by the left but I don't think anyone on that side is big enough to say they were wrong. All the left seems capable of doing is run their mouths. It would be helpful if once in a while they actually knew what the hell they were talking about.

---

As I understood it, we weren't supposed to be hurling insults at one and other in this forum?

Hm... apparently some people think they're exempt to that rule.

posted May 14, 2004 01:07 PM            

quote:

---

As I understood it, we weren't supposed to be hurling insults at one and other in this forum?

Hm... apparently some people think they're exempt to that rule.

---

Hmmmm, I don't see any member named in my comment---which BTW, I stand by.

Curiosity, does that alleged rule you cite extend to those who refer to conservatives as right wing fundamentalist nut cases? Or is it only my generalization you find objectionable

posted May 14, 2004 01:12 PM              

Not ALL of anyone is anything. If that makes any sense at all.

posted May 14, 2004 01:20 PM            

Everything is chemical. Everything is toxic in varying amounts.

People use firehoses to wash down protestors, water is a chemical H20..so is that the use of a chemical weapon?

I have a somewhat allergic reaction to various pollen - to the point that when I first moved here they thought I had allergy induced asthma..does that mean the chemical composition of pollen was used on me by the state of Maryland? LOL

No...Mustard gas and tear gas are not the same. One is used to outright kill a group of people, the other is used to "detain / detour" a group of people.

A gun is a weapon - but a shoe can also be a weapon if used to knock someone over the head with..so which is the real weapon?

posted May 14, 2004 01:36 PM            

Technically, this thread is about WMD, technically, those weapons designed to kill on purpose.

In reality, tear gas is not intended to kill, even the more potent CS variety. Nor is it intended to incapacitate. The average citizen is at more risk crossing the street at rush hour that dying from exposure to tear gas out in the open.

I guess my question to you Harpyr is why you always put the most extreme construction possible on everything that interferes with what you consider your right to protest? No matter what form that protest takes, no matter if the protest is outside the bounds of the permit issued by the city, no matter if protesters are destroying private property, assaulting police officers and trespassing on others property and rights.

The conflict you see between calling chemical weapons designed to kill, WMD and tear gas, designed to disperse people, something other than WMD is telling and it's not a matter of degree. It's a matter of designed purpose. One is WMD and the other is not.

jwhop

posted May 14, 2004 01:53 PM            

quote:

---

Of course it goes for them too. Generalizing is ignorant. Period.
Left or Right. If you're generalizing, you're making an incorrect and ignorant statement.

---