Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Isaiah538 · 11-01-2006, 12:11 AM

I looked for a thread that was about what I wanted to say but, couldn't find one. Hope you don't mind me jumping right in. This is my first tilted post. Should I use all tilted italics?

In March of 2005 Charles Duelfer added an Addendum to his final report on Iraqs WMD. Please notice the use of the word 'evidence' by Duelfer...

After saying Syria had already been "involved in transactions and shipments of military and other material to Iraq incontravention of the UN sanctions.", Duelfer says, "There was evidence of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG recieved information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgement of the working group these reports were sufficently credible to merit further investigation."

After pointing out that no one has admitted to this in interviews, he says...

"Nevertheless given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime, ISG believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation." To date unfortunately, they could not complete it due to violence. ( Duelfer's Addendum to the Comprehensive Report, March, 2005. See CIA website)

Did you also notice how he said "and ISG recieved information..."? So there were TWO SOURCES of WMD movement.

Certainly this at the very least gives reasonable doubt to the assertion that there were no WMD. Why is that so hard to give up? Shouldn't we set aside partisanship on such an important matter of national security and reputation?

And does this not vindicate the Clinton administration who said WMD were there in 1998?

(We left the "stockpiles" alone in Operation Desert Fox so as not to cause mass collateral casualties, though we did hit eleven "WMD industry and production" targets, and killed 1600 Iraqis as well, in December of 1998. See Wikipedia on Operation Desert Fox.)

11-01-2006, 12:11 AM	#1 (permalink)
Isaiah538 Upright	WMD Movement "Evidence" from Duelfer I looked for a thread that was about what I wanted to say but, couldn't find one. Hope you don't mind me jumping right in. This is my first tilted post. Should I use all tilted italics? In March of 2005 Charles Duelfer added an Addendum to his final report on Iraqs WMD. Please notice the use of the word 'evidence' by Duelfer... After saying Syria had already been "involved in transactions and shipments of military and other material to Iraq incontravention of the UN sanctions.", Duelfer says, "There was evidence of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG recieved information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgement of the working group these reports were sufficently credible to merit further investigation." After pointing out that no one has admitted to this in interviews, he says... "Nevertheless given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime, ISG believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation." To date unfortunately, they could not complete it due to violence. ( Duelfer's Addendum to the Comprehensive Report, March, 2005. See CIA website) Did you also notice how he said "and ISG recieved information..."? So there were TWO SOURCES of WMD movement. Certainly this at the very least gives reasonable doubt to the assertion that there were no WMD. Why is that so hard to give up? Shouldn't we set aside partisanship on such an important matter of national security and reputation? And does this not vindicate the Clinton administration who said WMD were there in 1998? (We left the "stockpiles" alone in Operation Desert Fox so as not to cause mass collateral casualties, though we did hit eleven "WMD industry and production" targets, and killed 1600 Iraqis as well, in December of 1998. See Wikipedia on Operation Desert Fox.)