Ah Jocko, Jocko, Jocko...you silly boy, are you just a liar or just ignorant? I suspect an unattractive combination of the two.
You state quite catagorically that:
"...in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq..."
and that Blix...
"...the UN security council, 99% of the planet's intelligence communities"
believed that there was "a nuclear threat developing in Iraq"
As "proof" of your silly claim, you offer one paltry link from "The Guardian". Bravo.
Ok, where to begin?
The quotations from "The Guardian" in your post shows that neithert Hans Blix or the UN was believed that there was a nuclear threat from Iraq. The report does show that he was concerned that Iraq was not cooperating fully but that is very far from the false interpretation you're making...that of a "nuclear threat"
According to the IAEA on March 7th 2003, a little more authoratitive than "The Guardian":
"'...in the area of nuclear weapons - the most lethal weapons of mass destruction - inspections in Iraq are moving forward. Since the resumption of inspections a little over three months ago - and particularly during the three weeks since my last oral report to the Council - the IAEA has made important progress in identifying what nuclear-related capabilities remain in Iraq, and in its assessment of whether Iraq has made any efforts to revive its past nuclear programme during the intervening four years since inspections were brought to a halt. At this stage, the following can be stated:
* There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.
* There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.
* There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.
* Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme."
In sum:
"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."
"7 March 2003 Statement to the United Nations Security Council The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei' http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/State...2003n006.shtml
I also refer you to this CIA statement from Feburary 2003:
"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340723 /
The US and UK Government claimed that they had intelligence but every time this was investigated by UNMOVIC or IAEA, they found nothing. Indeed, Hans Blix conplained about the poor quality of the information he was getting. To quote the San Francisco Chronicle of March 8 2003:
"On the eve of a possible war in Iraq, a question looms increasingly large: If U.S. intelligence is so good, why are United Nations experts still unable to confirm that Saddam Hussein is actively concealing and producing illegal weapons?"
This also quotes Blix: "I would rather have twice the amount of high quality information about sites to inspect than twice the number of expert inspectors to send"
The report continues:
"Bush administration officials insist that they are providing all relevant information to the U.N. teams. But some officials privately concede that both the quality and quantity of intelligence is surprisingly thin.
"We have some information, not a lot," said one U.S. official who is familiar with the CIA's daily "packages" of material it delivers to a Canadian official who handles intelligence issues for Blix at the United Nations.
"Although U.N. teams have conducted nearly 600 inspections of about 350 locations since November, only 44 were of new sites based on fresh tips. '
...
"Doubts about both claims began to emerge shortly after U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq in November.
"In early December, the IAEA began an intensive investigation of the aluminum tubes, which Iraq had tried for two years to purchase by the tens of thousands from China and at least one other country. Certain types of high- strength aluminum tubes can be used to build centrifuges, which enrich uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial power plants.
"By early January, the IAEA had reached a preliminary conclusion: The 81mm tubes sought by Iraq were "not directly suitable" for centrifuges, but appeared intended for use as conventional artillery rockets, as Iraq had claimed."
("U.S. information wanting Intelligence disappoints inspectors" San Francisco Chronicle, March 8 2003 at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/MN120855.DTL )
Like I said, there was plenty of assertion by politicians but the evidence simply was not there. At most, there was a belief in some quarters that they might possibly find something -perhaps a few remnants from pre-1991 but they had "no direct evidence" even of that, let alone a "NUCLEAR THREAT" as you claim.
The plain fact is that there never was plausible evidence that Iraq was developing WMD -there was merely cherry picked assertion from partisan outfits like Chalabi's pals and his document factory and suspicion based on past behaviour. Much of the time, the intelligence services were simply refusing to rule the possibility out. What there was a distinct absence of, was positive evidence. Certainly there was NO consensus that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. Your claim is a lie and just to expose your lie even further I`ll include the followin:.
Vladimir Putin: September 2002:
"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse...810612,00.html
"Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?"
President Chirac: "Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that… It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of. As for weapons of mass destruction, bacteriological, biological, chemical, we don’t know. And that is precisely what the inspectors’ mandate is all about. But rushing into war, rushing into battle today is clearly a disproportionate response.
Interview with CBS 16th March 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in544161.shtml
"According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…"
http://www.isis-online.org/publicati...allieswmd.html)
"The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." US Department of Energy. http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/n...tellreport.pdf
There's plenty more but you get the idea...well probably you don`t.
Now you can get back to talking your similar nonsense about Iran.
I think anyone reading this will agree that your lies/ignorance about the "fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq..." and that "99% of the planet's intelligence communities" and the UN also believed this have been thoroughly exposed and debunked. That goes to the two nodding donkeys (BPSCG and Marksman) that have kept you company in this thread too.
And just to add, I gave you all that without me even having to draw on the testimony of the highest ever ranking Iraqi defector Hussein Kamel, who knew a thing or two about Iraq`s weapons, being the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation.
Out of my depth? I can`t put it better than you on that score:
"Ah well, can't say I never throw a bone to the more challenged intellects"
PS. May your buildings be safe LOL
You state quite catagorically that:
"...in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq..."
and that Blix...
"...the UN security council, 99% of the planet's intelligence communities"
believed that there was "a nuclear threat developing in Iraq"
As "proof" of your silly claim, you offer one paltry link from "The Guardian". Bravo.
Ok, where to begin?
The quotations from "The Guardian" in your post shows that neithert Hans Blix or the UN was believed that there was a nuclear threat from Iraq. The report does show that he was concerned that Iraq was not cooperating fully but that is very far from the false interpretation you're making...that of a "nuclear threat"
According to the IAEA on March 7th 2003, a little more authoratitive than "The Guardian":
"'...in the area of nuclear weapons - the most lethal weapons of mass destruction - inspections in Iraq are moving forward. Since the resumption of inspections a little over three months ago - and particularly during the three weeks since my last oral report to the Council - the IAEA has made important progress in identifying what nuclear-related capabilities remain in Iraq, and in its assessment of whether Iraq has made any efforts to revive its past nuclear programme during the intervening four years since inspections were brought to a halt. At this stage, the following can be stated:
* There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.
* There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.
* There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.
* Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme."
In sum:
"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."
"7 March 2003 Statement to the United Nations Security Council The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei' http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/State...2003n006.shtml
I also refer you to this CIA statement from Feburary 2003:
"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340723 /
The US and UK Government claimed that they had intelligence but every time this was investigated by UNMOVIC or IAEA, they found nothing. Indeed, Hans Blix conplained about the poor quality of the information he was getting. To quote the San Francisco Chronicle of March 8 2003:
"On the eve of a possible war in Iraq, a question looms increasingly large: If U.S. intelligence is so good, why are United Nations experts still unable to confirm that Saddam Hussein is actively concealing and producing illegal weapons?"
This also quotes Blix: "I would rather have twice the amount of high quality information about sites to inspect than twice the number of expert inspectors to send"
The report continues:
"Bush administration officials insist that they are providing all relevant information to the U.N. teams. But some officials privately concede that both the quality and quantity of intelligence is surprisingly thin.
"We have some information, not a lot," said one U.S. official who is familiar with the CIA's daily "packages" of material it delivers to a Canadian official who handles intelligence issues for Blix at the United Nations.
"Although U.N. teams have conducted nearly 600 inspections of about 350 locations since November, only 44 were of new sites based on fresh tips. '
...
"Doubts about both claims began to emerge shortly after U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq in November.
"In early December, the IAEA began an intensive investigation of the aluminum tubes, which Iraq had tried for two years to purchase by the tens of thousands from China and at least one other country. Certain types of high- strength aluminum tubes can be used to build centrifuges, which enrich uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial power plants.
"By early January, the IAEA had reached a preliminary conclusion: The 81mm tubes sought by Iraq were "not directly suitable" for centrifuges, but appeared intended for use as conventional artillery rockets, as Iraq had claimed."
("U.S. information wanting Intelligence disappoints inspectors" San Francisco Chronicle, March 8 2003 at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/MN120855.DTL )
Like I said, there was plenty of assertion by politicians but the evidence simply was not there. At most, there was a belief in some quarters that they might possibly find something -perhaps a few remnants from pre-1991 but they had "no direct evidence" even of that, let alone a "NUCLEAR THREAT" as you claim.
The plain fact is that there never was plausible evidence that Iraq was developing WMD -there was merely cherry picked assertion from partisan outfits like Chalabi's pals and his document factory and suspicion based on past behaviour. Much of the time, the intelligence services were simply refusing to rule the possibility out. What there was a distinct absence of, was positive evidence. Certainly there was NO consensus that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. Your claim is a lie and just to expose your lie even further I`ll include the followin:.
Vladimir Putin: September 2002:
"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse...810612,00.html
"Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?"
President Chirac: "Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that… It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of. As for weapons of mass destruction, bacteriological, biological, chemical, we don’t know. And that is precisely what the inspectors’ mandate is all about. But rushing into war, rushing into battle today is clearly a disproportionate response.
Interview with CBS 16th March 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in544161.shtml
"According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…"
http://www.isis-online.org/publicati...allieswmd.html)
"The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." US Department of Energy. http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/n...tellreport.pdf
There's plenty more but you get the idea...well probably you don`t.
Now you can get back to talking your similar nonsense about Iran.
I think anyone reading this will agree that your lies/ignorance about the "fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq..." and that "99% of the planet's intelligence communities" and the UN also believed this have been thoroughly exposed and debunked. That goes to the two nodding donkeys (BPSCG and Marksman) that have kept you company in this thread too.
And just to add, I gave you all that without me even having to draw on the testimony of the highest ever ranking Iraqi defector Hussein Kamel, who knew a thing or two about Iraq`s weapons, being the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation.
Out of my depth? I can`t put it better than you on that score:
"Ah well, can't say I never throw a bone to the more challenged intellects"
PS. May your buildings be safe LOL
