Saddam's Nuclear Bomb Maker Speaks...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/

Khidhir HAMZA:
"Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear,
biological and chemical. The nuclear program is his primary weapon, and that
would give him the ability to use the biological and chemical better.
According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three
nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window (actually, he's being careful right
now), will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive
with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons.
Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll
use them more aggressively then. There could also be the angle of him using
nuclear weapons through surrogates also, if he can achieve it."

HAMZA:
"I think there are several links between Osama and Saddam. The Iraqi
ambassador in Turkey, Hajazi, visited Afghanistan, and met with Osama and
his associates. He's a powerful figure in Iraq. There are several reported
meetings between him and Osama's associates. Osama was sighted in an Iraqi
hotel in 1996, by the lawyer for Arkan, the Serbian leader. [Regarding] the
reported sighting by the Czech intelligence of Mohammed Atta, and the Iraqi
intelligence agent -- to do this meeting, Atta had to drive from Germany and
Czechoslovakia, a long drive, meet him, and go back. Which means it was an
important meeting for supplies, coordination. It couldn't have been by
accident".

This part is mainly for Andy B that backs up the claim that Israel was
indeed a target...
Khidhir Hamza doesn't address it in the link below but he did say it on the
history channel that he thought Saddam would target Israel with the nuclear
weapon that he was ordered to make... when the war head proved to be to
large for a Scud missile a ship was planned to float the nuke into a Israeli
harbor...
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/

Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/
http://www.fox302.com/index.pl?s=vg&user=netters2

 

And exactly how many nuclear bombs did we find in Iraq? How much
progress did Duelfer conclude was being made these last ten years?

Al Moore
DoD 734

 

Actually Al, if I remember correctly the 911 comission found that the
information supplied by Iraqi defectors in trade for US citizenship (not
visas or green cards) and amnesty from prosecution to all be suspect.
And if you need another laugh check out
http://www.pbs.org/avoidingarmageddon/learnTheFacts/learn_01_02d.html

 

.... geez Larry, what's happened ?
..

 

Larry, I wasn't denying that Israel was a target; they were clearly a
target during the Gulf war and it's no stretch to think they continued to
be. The statement of yours that I took issue with was the assertion that
Saddam had nukes. He didn't, regardless of how much he may have wanted
them.

ab

 

Let's resolve to give this and all politics a rest - ok? This and other
bike fora should be a brotherhood of riders. The last election in the US
tore us apart and this type of post will not re-unite us.

So again, how about we all take the pledge to give it a rest here. OK?

-paul

 

The problem is Larry doesn't ride much anymore. So he has to pollute
three newsgroups with political posts. It'd be nice if he kept it to
reeky, where this sort of thing is expected and the norm.

 

OK I see now...

The statement of yours that I took issue with was the assertion that

My assertion was based on Khidhir statement that "Saddam has a whole range
of weapons of mass destruction, nulcear, biological and chemical"
But we now know that Saddan was so crazy for nukes that he kept up the
appearance that he indeed had them to deter a military attack from Iran...
to bad that strategy failed to take into account his other neighbors and
especially post 9/11 America...

At what point were you sure Saddam was clean of WMD??? for me that day was
when he was interrogated in prison...

Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/
http://www.fox302.com/index.pl?s=vg&user=netters2

 

I was highly confident from about 1999 onwards, and certain when he
let the Blix team in. My confidence was shared by former arms
inspectors, including Jay Davis, who supervised the first un-announced
inspection in the wake of Gulf War I, and who uncovered (and put an
end to) Saddam's nuclear ambitions in the first place.

Al Moore
DoD 734

 

The problem is your inclination to lend credence to this fellow because
his assertions support your position. This is dangerous as a matter
of intelligence and policy.

The decision to go to war in Iraq was made independent of the stated
reasons. That's well-supported by the known facts, as well as
Wesley Clark's account of conversations in the Pentagon in the months
leading up to the troop buildup in Qatar and elsewhere.

That's not to say that the real reasons aren't good -- but the sales
job to the American people was a fraud, and the estimates of the costs --
direct costs, indirect economic costs, and the effects on how other
nations will act going forward -- were not carefully considered.

And, on a related subject -- creating a special legal class that
enables prisoners to be held without due process and indefinitely
is morally repugnant. Think Abu Ghraib was an anomaly? It's a
result of what's happening at GTMO. Why treat prisoners well?
Not because they DESERVE it, certainly not. Because we want our
troops treated humanely.

Will we see Cambone and Wolfowitz indicted in the Hague?

 

I was going to say something like this. The intelligence was not the
reason for the invasion, the invasion was wanted for other reasons,
and then the claims of WMD and nukes were made to support it.

And my question has always been: If there -were- genuine, good
justifications for invading Iraq, how come Bush had to make up so many
phoney ones?

A large majority of Republicans today apparently still believe that
Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Many of these people believe we
-did- find WMD and/or evidence of a large nuclear program, and the
evidence is being suppressed by the 'liberal' media. This is just the
triumph of wishful thinking among American conservatives. These are
the same people who still believe that we can balance the budget by
spending more and taxing less, even though this program has failed
abysmally under the last three Republican presidents.

To these people, it's not about facts at all! They love President
Bush not because he is right, or even because he knows what he's
talking about, but because he is absolutely sure of himself.

It's a great disgrace. But just another example of Bush's absolute
certainty, feeling it is acceptable to put America above the law, and
that he is justified in whatever he feels he needs to do.

Only the losers get indicted. Otherwise Henry Kissinger would be in
jail now.

 

Saddam ordered KH to build a nuke... that counts as pretty close to the
source as CNN is concerned...

The reason was to separate one proven mad man from the worlds supply of
nuclear material...

Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/
http://www.fox302.com/index.pl?s=vg&user=netters2

 

Yes, but this doesn't explain the tendency of some folks to
pile up facts and then reach conclusions unjustified by them.

Nonsense and rubbish. Saddam is not mad, he was a rational actor.
Much more so than the dynasty of kooks in N Korea, for example.

You're easily taken in -- retraining indicated. Start here:

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm
Thomas P.M. Barnett :: The Pentagon's New Map (Esquire)

IT EXPLAINS WHY WE’RE GOING TO WAR,
AND WHY WE’LL KEEP GOING TO WAR.

"When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will
not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of
illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. Our next war in the
Gulf will mark a historical tipping point—the moment when Washington takes
real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization."

Moto content -- does Barnett ride?

 

Negative... Saddam doesn't play fair with his neighbors and can't be trusted
with sub atomic particles... that N Korea Kook is prisoner of his own regime
and can't be bothered with attacking his neighbors...

Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/
http://www.fox302.com/index.pl?s=vg&user=netters2