Saddam's Christian henchman spills the beans: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55022-2003Nov2.html NO WMDs, or even WMD programs for that matter. However, Saddam was not compliant with UN Res. 687. wrt missle range. The French and Russians are negatively implicated as well!
Just a few points: 1) Info from this interrogation is from US authorities, so if you are a liberal you have to believe it is all lies, since that is what you always say. 2) Saddam even had his own generals thinking the guy next to him had WMD. He was supposedly bluffing out all of the Arab nations that he had WMD which means it is concievable that he bluffed our intelligence. 3) You pointed this out as well, but how bad does Russia look in this! We already know that France was worried about losing contracts they had with Saddam, but what was Russias deal? I assume military contracts. 4) The article mentions that he had "grown estranged from Hussien" and that it is possible that he would not have been told if they were making WMD and that they would not exactly trust what he says because of "Aziz's long history of deceit and opportunism." 5) Saddam seems to have had some screws loosining very quickly (i.e. he was losing his mind), which means we were probably better off going after him now then waiting for him to do something. This is another article that is supposed to be definitive, but is not if you really look at the whole thing. I will not pass judgement on WMD until things have calmed down in Iraq and a thorough search can be done.
Re: Re: Tariq Aziz Speaks No it's not. This is you discrediting the source. From the article I have to ask again, did you read the article? Because this quote here ("fragmentary," "uncorroborated") contradicts your characterization.
Re: Re: Re: Tariq Aziz Speaks Dave,Dave,Dave, did I read the article, well if you read my post you would know that I did. The quotes and specific things I discussed make that pretty obvious. My "characterization" comes from the original posts use of bold type clearly meant to imply that this was proof, which has been done before on this board.
Oh. In that case I agree with you; the original post mischaracterized the article. In fairness to me, your quote reads like you're referring to the article, not the post. Second, the first point you make doesn't exactly set up your post as an openminded discussion of the issues.
I was not posting this article as difinitive proof of anything other than one more Iraq ex-militart/scientist/gov't official saying they didn't have WMDs. I would like to know more about the pre-war roles of the French and Russians!
That's cool, just with the bold it looked like one of those posts screaming "see they didn't have any." I am more interested in the Russian side. Everyone knows France had business interests and that was all they were concerned with. I know the Iraqi military used a lot of Russian equipment, but was this the only reason? Was there something going on in the background? That's what really interests me.
Someone (I don't remember who, probably Spejic)posted on here right after the fall of Baghdad that Condi Rice was supposed to have worked out Saddam's exile in Russia (explaining her absence at the time from the Sunday Talk circuit and why Baghdad intially fell so quietly). I HAVE NO IDEA why the Russians would give a rat's ass about Saddam Hussein. They have their own oil deposits, etc. But maybe they were in the loop to get the Halliburton/Bechtel type contracts when and if the UN sanctions were lifted? I personally don't think Saddam had WMDs, but I also don't think he was UN compliant which was more than enough to legally topple him. This article does not definitive prove either, but it points in that direction.
Let's just put it this way. We better start drilling the snot outta Alaska for oil as soon as possible.
> I HAVE NO IDEA why the Russians would give a > rat's ass about Saddam Hussein. They have their > own oil deposits, etc. This is like wondering why a rich person would want to keep getting more money. Not that Russia is that rich anyway - their proven reserves are quite limited.
You oughta be! Hey, I do my part. I took public transportation after getting rid of my car two years ago. Since the MTA strike, I bought a 55 mpg scooter. What are you driving "super"?
A Chevy Beretta. Why is that so important you had to bump the thread? Was the in the original post too subtle for you?
I love how you throw up some smilie face and everything is all right. Just wanted an answer. I believe that the future of Iraq's oil has a lot more to do with future world events than we all probably even know. Therefore, I believe that while I am doing my part to conserve oil, I want us to drill the snot out of Alaska ASAP. Any politician against it is not looking out for our national security closely enough.