Saddam feeding us intel???

**Epidemic** · October 2nd, 2003, 05:38 PM

interesting tid bit. don't ask for the source I am really not sure. I heard it on the radio last night or tv well somewhere.

Saddam officials did send communications to the troops allowing them to deploy and use chemical weapons. apparently this was a communication designed to demoralize our troops. Oooops that was a mistake.

This was in keeping with what we heard during the beginning days of the war.

Just never heard how they heard it. apparently it was an intercepted communication.

Just makes you wonder if he did not have the weapons did he feed the intelligence community the info for some reason.

If he did feed the intel to us does that not make reasonable suspicion?

after all if someone says they have a gun dont you treat them as if they have a gun.

**ClubMed** · October 2nd, 2003, 05:40 PM

Oh come on, now that they can't find any WMD's in Iraq they're going to blame it on the Iraqis??

Typical

**daveleau** · October 2nd, 2003, 05:48 PM

ClubMed,
I find it interesting that you are so sure, when you know nothing but what the news tells you.

It was reported that Saddam gave the order to his Rep Guard to use a chemical attack on our troops if we got near Baghdad. I don't believe Saddam would give us intel to invoke an invasion like this. I still believe the arms were smuggled to Syria (the Regime's safe haven) or are buried in the desert like the Iraqis buried their fighter jets. (They buried their fighters under sand this time instead of sending them to Iran or putting them in the air against our forces. They found that both Desert Storm practices resulted in 100% loses) I heard a report yesterday that the Kuwaiti papers were reporting that a large shipment of smuggled WMD were stopped leaving Iraq. The source said the AP was reporting on this as well, but I have seen nothing to confirm either.

**Epidemic** · October 2nd, 2003, 05:54 PM

As likely as bush and blair both risking their political carreers on a known fabrication of intel.

**shahani** · October 2nd, 2003, 06:05 PM

I'd give as much credence to what Saddam says as I would to what Bush says.

**ClubMed** · October 2nd, 2003, 06:24 PM

*

**crouse** · October 2nd, 2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by shahani
I'd give as much credence to what Saddam says as I would to what Bush says.

Oh please......

**Blood_Luster** · October 2nd, 2003, 10:01 PM

Well, shahani does have a point. Bush didn't really tell us everything that should have been said. You can argue this back and forth, it is a thought, granted. Saddam never used these WMD he 'had'. And if you think about it Saddam could have very well given false info as a scare tactic.

"I find it interesting that you are so sure, when you know nothing but what the news tells you."

Errr... how else is would someone find out info on things like this? Go talk to a general? Explain, you have me lost.

**Mike** · October 2nd, 2003, 10:15 PM

I still find it kind of odd that I don't hear Bush and company saying "weapons of mass destruction" as much as they used to.

**crouse** · October 2nd, 2003, 10:47 PM

Oh please I am so FREAKING sick of the liberal media hammering the President and using Iraq for a soap box for their politcal gain..........

We publically announced we were going to go to Iraq and kick this guys butt....... he had almost an ENTIRE year to get prepared........ last time he tried, we took out almost everything he had....... this time he decides to hide it (a smarter approach for him) ......... The UN knew he had weapons that weren't accounted for...... just because blind blitzen couldn't find anything means exactly squat in my book.....

And a slight refresher JUST in case some of you have forgotten things said in the past by your "democrat" party !
---------------------
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D,
CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen.
Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,
NY), Oct 10, 2002

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

**super gerbil** · October 2nd, 2003, 10:55 PM

I completly agree with crouse and daveleau

**Blood_Luster** · October 3rd, 2003, 02:24 AM

Well, I guess you did show me up, in your mind that is. I read the first few sentences of your post, got rather bored and decided to write my half-arsed reply. You got me, gj, go bush! War RULES!

Did I mention Bush was never really elected as president? Oh, what's that? You still support a lier and a cheater because he brought war onto the TV you like to sit down and watch everday, because of your very own blood lust? that may be true, prolly isn't it. But my point is, I really don't give a damn anymore, America was built off greed, always will be greedy, and IMO it's quite sad.

And to Super, I'm glad you agree fully with them, and didn't want to enlighten US with any of YOUR OWN opinions, they couldn't have said everything you believe in, could they? If so, I think you could have been brainwashed, my good man.

**Whir** · October 3rd, 2003, 02:29 AM

Wow. Nice post, Crouse!

**nunyadam** · October 3rd, 2003, 03:39 AM

so did all of our mis-information come from the democrats? j/k
but it is funny the dems are all over the misinformation thing now.

Well, I guess you did show me up, in your mind that is. I read the first few sentences of your post, got rather bored and decided to write my half-arsed reply.

kinda tells me your mind is already made up and will never even look at the other sides argument. can't be very well informed is you don't look at all sides of an issue. which also leaves you open to be blindsided by your enemy.
the best way to win a debate is to argue it from the oponents side first and find his every weakness.