|
Iraqi WMD trucks turn out to be hydrogen-production facilities
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: |
LONDON (AFP) Jun 15, 2003
A British inquiry into two trailers found in northern Iraq has found they are not mobile germ warfare labs, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, the Observer reported Sunday.
The London-based weekly newspaper said the conclusion by biological weapons experts was an embarrassment for Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has claimed the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.
A British scientist and biological weapons expert, who examined the trailers in Iraq, told the Observer: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories.
"You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons."
Blair has for weeks been forced to defend himself against allegations by the media that his office embellished intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to beef up the case for war.
Last week he said he would not appear before a parliamentary foreign affairs committee probing the claims, but confirmed he would cooperate with a separate inquiry by parliament's joint intelligence and security committee -- which meets behind closed doors, and whose reports are subject to censorship by Downing Street.
|
Hmm, so much for Colin Powell's evidence about the mobile WMD factories... |
|
|
| Wurm |
| It is everyone's duty to make this a credibility issue in the current US gov't in order to force a change in the PCG. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
The time is NOW!
Powell, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, Blair, Aznar.. and everyone else.. yall screwed!:toothless |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
Izzy..Yoepus.....why are you not replying to these posts?
I recal that you beleived Powells presentation infront of the UN was "proof" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
The U.K. and the U.S. just got
 |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
The U.K. and the U.S. just got
|
Nah nah, more like  :D
But seriously, this is another reason why the U.S. government can't be trusted. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| So,what else is new? |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
So,what else is new? |
:haha: |
|
|
| Shakka |
Before you go laying all of the blame on a single administration:
| quote: | By Alex Keto
A Dow Jones Newswires Analysis
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Faced with a potential threat from Iraq, U.S.
President George W. Bush launched a preemptive strike, and he is now using the
same approach with Democrats who question his assertion that the then-Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the war began.
Perhaps with one eye on the travails of embattled U.K. Prime Minister Tony
Blair, who is facing sharp questions at home about whether he misled the public
about Iraq's weapons programs, Bush and White House officials have shifted
their tactics from simply asserting that Saddam had the weapons to a much more
aggressive approach.
For the second day in a row Tuesday, Bush said that anyone who seeks to make
political hay out of the failure to uncover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
so far would be well advised to exercise caution, and is engaged in nothing
less than "revisionist history."
"We made it clear to the dictator of Iraq that he must disarm. We asked other
nations to join us in seeing to it that he would disarm, and he chose not to do
so, so we disarmed him. And I know there's a lot of revisionist history now
going on, but one thing is certain, he is no longer a threat to the free world,
and the people of Iraq are free," Bush said.
On Monday, Bush said that Iraq posed a clear threat to the security of the
U.S. in 1991, 1998 and 2003, and in all cases, the U.S. acted.
The dates correspond to the first Persian Gulf War, the military strikes
launched by former President Bill Clinton after Saddam kicked out weapons
inspectors and the most recent war against Iraq.
The point, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, is that U.S. concerns
over Iraq's weapons programs didn't begin with the current administration and
haven't been solely a Republican concern. Both Republican and Democratic
administrations have been highly worried about Saddam's weapons programs for
over a decade.
In fact, during the Clinton administration, former Secretary of Defense
William Cohen held up a five-pound bag of sugar during a television interview
and said that a similar amount of anthrax could devastate a U.S. city. Cohen
made the remarks when the Clinton administration was trying to build support
for military action against Iraq in 1998.
While Cohen and other Clinton administration officials may be out of office,
a number of potential critics in the House and the Senate are not. However,
Fleischer indicated the administration is not worried about it.
"I would suggest to you, go back and read any number of speeches given by
members of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, in 1998 when the Congress
passed, wisely passed, the Regime Change Act for Iraq, and you'll find floor
speech after floor speech that talks about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass
destruction," Fleischer said.
Any lawmakers who want to criticize the current administration's reading of
the intelligence material should first make sure they didn't claim in 1998 that
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, Fleischer said.
"Members of Congress said it was certainty then. The previous administration
said it was certainty then. And unless somebody thinks again that Saddam
Hussein threw out the weapons inspectors, and after he threw out the weapons
inspectors he got rid of his weapons of mass destruction and didn't tell
anybody... Saddam Hussein did, indeed, have weapons of mass destruction leading
up to the war," Fleischer said.
The fact that such weapons have proven elusive in the two months since the
war ended proves nothing, Fleischer said, adding the president has confidence
the weapons not only exist but also they will be found at some point.
"Nothing's changed. You heard the president say it many, many times. Yes,
that's what the president said then. It's what he believes now, of course,"
Fleischer said.
Despite the aggressive stance of the White House, Fleischer insisted the
administration has no objection to congressional hearings into what
administration officials knew about Saddam's weapons.
"The president has welcomed these hearings," Fleischer said. |
|
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| That article is such a piece of crap. Yes, the Clinton administration was worried because Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction. Notice the past tense here. WMDs are not very stable substances and can't be kept functional for long, at least not in Iraqi conditions. Regardless of that, the worry of the american government about Iraqi possessed WMDs is not the issue at all. The real issue is the fact US attacked a sovereign country for no direct reason, at the same time lied to the public and presented people with false information, and destroyed any hope for a truly united and multilatteral world. It destroyed 50 years of attempts of global cooperation and reduced the UN to what League of Nations has become during Hitler. Are you forgetting Iraq agreed to allow the UN inspectors unlimited access to all of its facilities? Are you forgetting Hans Blix graded Iraqi cooperation as 4/5? Are you forgetting that the US refused franco-german proposal that called for tripling the number of the UN inspectors? It is normal for the US to worry about weapons possessed by countries that are not in favor of America, but what the US has done surpasses that by far. If the WMDs were the real concern, the US could simply have sent its inspectors through the UN, as Clinton has done, and it could send as much inspectors as it wanted. Saddam Hussein did agree to those conditions. It became obvious then that the WMDs were not a concern at all. It was clear then that the US knew Saddam didn't have any real weapons, and that he was selected because he was an easy target. His regime already suffered much damage from sanctions and his military and technology development was controlled by the US and Britain. On the other hand, his country had vast natural resources combined with an excellent strategical position in the very heart of the middle east. You have to be blind not to see what the real intentions of the US were. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
This is indeed a valuable piece of news because it now looks like Bush, Powell and Blair don't have any evidence of Saddam's acute WMD threat. |
Wait, they NEVER had evidence..... |
|
|
|
|
