Are you guys watching the Daily Show?

[grEnAlEins]

The former advisor to Saddam Huessien in the Iraqi Air Force just wrote a book and is explaining exactly how Saddam and the Bathests moved the WMD's that they did have "to Syria by air and by ground."

So Bush is off the hook now, we went to get the WMD's, but Saddam moved them to Syria. Wow, riveting stuff. Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, France, Germany, Russia, et. al. Bush is waiting for an apology... As are the American people....

[kosmo]

If thats the real issue, go get Syria. And Pakistan. And Iran. And north Korea.

I dunno, but from my point of view, if we screwed up and missed getting the "WMD's", in addition to screwing up so much else so badly, then that makes this whole thing even more of a failure.

[Dharma punk]

I haven't read the book yet, but from what I have heard and read about it I don't believe it. He apparently has no sources or concrete proof for any of the things he says in the book. Just because someone writes a book doesn't make the contents true by default.

[grEnAlEins]

I haven't read the book yet, but from what I have heard and read about it I don't believe it. He apparently has no sources or concrete proof for any of the things he says in the book. Just because someone writes a book doesn't make the contents true by default.

True, but examine what he is saying. He was the Iraqi Air Force Advisor to Huessien. The WMDs were supposedly moved by air and ground. It sounds like this gentleman would be an authority on the operations of the Iraqi Air Force, who I am sure took part in the transportation if it occured. He claims that he witnessed it first hand, discussed it with other military people and Bathest officials, and had seen the papers proving that this happened. These are sources, right? Witnessing things first hand, he had primary sources. This is the very best kind. As for concrete proof, what the heck do want from him? Maybe we should politely ask Saddam or the Syrians who is lying, :rofl:. Do you want to see the supposed papers that authorized this? They were probably either destroyed by Saddam or his military (to rid of evidence), or destroyed when we bombed military targets (because I bet that they store Military doccuments in Military buildings). As far as his expertise, it is there, you cannot even question that. Is he creditable, I believe so. He has no reason to lie. He also seemed to support his argument logically when John Stewart interviewed him. And by the way, I know that idiots write stupidities and untrueths in books, however this in no way is true of all books.

"if we screwed up and missed getting the "WMD's"...then that makes this whole thing even more of a failure." ~kosmo

This true in my eyes and it isn't at the same time. If the WMDs were there, then our intelligence operations proved to be a success, and our justification for pre-emption is there. But if the WMDs did "escape," then it would suggest that we made a serious error in tactics. It seems to me that the first thing to de would have been to secure the boarders to Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, and then attack from Kuwait. I could be wrong as I have never served in the Military. But, it seems that securing the border(s) would be dang near impossible for two reasons. 1) Getting to the border without the cooperation of Iraq or any of the other nations (e.g. Turkey or Iran) would be difficult. 2) We cannot even secure our borders, how the heck could we secure theirs? But again, I could be wrong, I have never been in the Military. It seems that intercepting these WMDs while on the move would be extremely difficult, maybe even impossible too. That is by no fault of the US Military or the administration in office, so calling this particular situation a failure would be erronious, unless we had the oportunity to monitor the borders via Iran and Syria's invitation (did not happen to my knowledge).

[Pacifist_Farmer]

Hahaha.

I trust him about as far as I trust Bush.

[bleachit]

well considering Saddam moved some of his air force out of country before/during the first war, Im not surprised..

[quik]

I love how even though there is solid proof via the advisor, but still nobody wants to believe it.

[MarkM]

I love how even though there is solid proof via the advisor, but still nobody wants to believe it.

Book or no book the show that the interview was on is hardly the right place for people to actually believe what they are seeing. It is a satire show with very loose basis on facts as most all of its content is presented in a comic style albeit very well done. A rather extreme parallel is Jerry Springer....that began as a serious magazine program but the pantomime it is now is just for entertainment value unless you believe all trailer parks are full of hillbillys married to their half sister pre op tranvestites

[grEnAlEins]

Book or no book the show that the interview was on is hardly the right place for people to actually believe what they are seeing.

On the contrary, the interviews are done in a serious way, especially with a guest of this type. Yes the "journalism" of the show is a satire of the American way of life and American Journalism, but that in know way translates to the interviews. Some tell me they watched the interview and saw how serious this matter was. With the exception of a few bits of comic relief (e.g. "So you would say that he (Huessien) was a tough boss?" or "Yes, we Americans are nice people...we make great sandwiches...we have ice cream...great people") the interview was very serious.

As far as argument and believability go, I take the word of the Advisor over anyone here (even MarkM ) as he does has extensive expertese and experience within this situation . Any idiot can call BS and say "I do not believe it," but untill you demonstrate that this mans assertions are poor, fallicious, or unbelievable, he has the superioir argument/assertion. Do you have evidence that this man is being untruthful, if so, I would very much like to see it. Untill then he has legitimate expert power. As mentioned above, the Iraqis did move a large part of their air force out of country preceding the US invasion, this is not a smart step for an Iraq that is preparing for war. I must ask what else could the air force have been doing, and a former Iraqi Air Force Advisor answers this. While this is in no way proof, it is more logical to believe him untill someone else provides proof that he is lying that they are more qualified to make an assertion spacific to this situation.

unless you believe trailer parks are full of hillbillys married to their half sister pre op tranvestites

:rofl: If sigs ever come back, this quote would be in mine. "Brilliant!"

[kosmo]

As I seem to remember it, the reason for attacking Iraq was that they were supporting terrorism and that the possibility existed that their weapons of mass destruction could find their way into jihadists hands. Oh my, what a doozy of a theory. First off, we will address the complete and miserable failure that was the attempt to solve that problem. Where are the weapons now? Uh, we dont know, but apparently they could be in Syria. Oh, well thats good. Because Syria in no way shape or form supports terrorism specifically targeting Americans. Oh wait, yes they do. Second, the theory was flawed in the first place. The weapons were in the hands of a government that was pretty darned entrenched, and the weapons were obviously secure enough to keep them out of our hands. Then you add in the fact that the Baathist government was lead by a sectarian dictator, much more concerned with the behavior of his own citizens and the possibility of being invaded by the Shiite Iranians than how many virgins smuggling an anthrax bomb into NYC would net him, and you have a down right boneheaded move by the US government. Prior to attacking Iraq, they were killing approximately 0 Americans, with 0 legitimate plans to kill Americans.

Since it is my job to study and contemplate such things, I will present my proffesional opinion that the reason we invaded Iraq had to have been this: It is obvious that the WMD's werent the real target because they failed so miserably in getting them, but our goal was a new democratic foothold in the middle east. What would this accomplish? Well the obvious answer is oil, but the more meaningful answer that underlies this is that Iran is in our way. There is a fairly decent sized democratic movement in Iran, and if Iraq was turned into a successful democratic country, it would send a huge message to the Iranians, as well as give us a much better position to pressure Iran politically and subversively. But why would we want to do that? Well Iran is one heck of a thorn in our side. They support terrorism on a huge level , they are developing nukes, OBL is probably there, and they are just too strong politically, economically, and militarily to justify a war to the American people. But if we could have them change themselves from within, that opens a door to get real work done. And what real work would that be? Wipe the freakin planet of those jerks, the blasted Syrians. We cant really go after them with a big mean Iran and its associated abilities staring at us, but Syria is probably the #1 source of active terrorism in the middle east (Pakistan isnt in the middle east, but thats a different issue, one we cant deal with until we stabilize the middle east so they dont go even more wacko on us for "taking sides" in the Kashmir conflict). We can handle it if Syrias allies get a little ticked at us for invading them, with the exception of Iran. So in short, Iraq was to be the sly little nudge that toppled the Iranian regime, allowing us to nail Syria. Problem is, they didnt think it through and realize that maybe the Iraqi people arent capable of having the kind of peaceful and successful democracy that would tell Iranians that its a good idea to be like us. And then they missed the WMDs, which may or may not have gotten to Syria, which is the one we wanted to blow to smithereens all along.

[Steelrat]

I like how eager people are to discredit intelligence sources that give them information they don't like, but quickly embrace those who tell them what they want to hear.

[kosmo]

Yeah, but I get it from the horses mouth.

/midnight in Afghanistan

[MarkM]

The show however well researched is still not the cutting edge of what is real or believable unfortunately. The infomation from this source could well be held up as accurate but a poor choice of show to appear on if you want people to actually believe the claims made....rather than that you are on a book promoting tour. In this country I could name shows that WOULD stand up as being believable but for the US I wouldn't know the names of the simliar shows.

Politically I have totally sat on the fence about the rights or wrongs of what happened/was decided. I do however have a pretty set in stone view of the events but I will not post them as whichever side I happen to be on the "other" side will attempt a flame war (however well intended the posts) Such is the way of politically motivated threads as unless a total lie or mis-quote is used both sides will always dissagree.

This appearance might well be forgotten about despite the revalations it contained in much the same way as many many years ago the flatmates of the about to become Princess of Wales were interviewed and they revealed that Diana had told her flatmates that not to worry about her as she will never become queen.....she had already decided to basically provide an heir or two and then get the hell out (money) but leading up to her tragic death the media had finally cottoned on to her little publicity game and then following her death went all mushy....this old tv interview with the flatmates conviently forgotten....look for any coverage now current books etc etc and you will not find this little gem about her intentions just how she was badly treated from within the family etc etc so the parallel with this TV appearence (thread subject) is relevent due to the bombshell (truth??)
Will it be remembered? Doubtful as the current media is still full of "There were no WMD"
Were there? Was there ever? If there were some (or many) where did they go? According to this source the answers are Yes, Yes and Syria. Will this be remembered or believed long term...very doubtful. Saddam is the one who knows for sure and you really think he is about to admit it or deny it with proof...he says he has no recognition of the court he is being tried by so using that arguement he won't prove he never had the weapons not will he disprove the charges as if he was to do either that would mean he then recognised the courts authority...Catch 22

[kosmo]

I still find it funny that the whole wmd controversy is still even going on. Thousands of Americans have died in Iraq by non wmds, but in contrast wmds have not claimed a single life.

Its like a doctor distracting a little kid by holding a lollypop in front of him while he gives him a vaccine, and then a couple years later after screwing up the vaccine and the kids arm falls off, the kid still complains that he didnt get the lollypop.

[CaptaiN_JacK]

His options:

1. Write a book explaining how Saddam moved his WMDs to Syria, and make lots of money.

2. Write a book about there not being any WMDs and not make any money.


Money rules the world, not truth and justice.