Denmark reveals Iraq arms secrets

[Liberty]

Denmark has declassified intelligence reports compiled before the Iraq war which show officials thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
In one report, Iraq was thought to have both chemical and biological weapons, as well as an active nuclear programme.

The extracts appear to contradict claims leaked to a newspaper that there was no evidence to back up the theory.

Former intelligence officer Major Frank Soeholm Grevil has been charged with breaching the official information act.

The major told reporters at the Berlingske Tidende newspaper he had sent 10 reports to the prime minister which concluded that the coalition was unlikely to find weapons of mass destruction.

Source


Oops. :eek:

How long before someone accuses the Danes of lying?

[Mr. Ray]

So, are we to assume that WE are not the only one's that were possibly wrong or misinformed about the WMD's in Iraq? Did Bush make-up their intel. briefs too?

[sonnyhouse]

We all thought they had the weapons. Even Saddam probably thought he had them. No one was lying except maybe some Iraqi scientists that wanted to keep their jobs and/or heads.

[Mr. Ray]

I was being sarcastic in my earlier post if you are wondering.

I seem to remember Saddam even threatening using the WMD's on us when we were driving toward Baghdad. (literally)

[Rawhide2611]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Hans Blix the great U.N. inspector from Denmark? I wonder if he knew about this.

[curious]

From the above article:

Mr Olesen said the documents were based on information gathered by the United Nations and Nato but the reports warned that "any evaluation is subject to uncertainties".

Mr Fogh Rasmussen said the documents were proof that neither he nor anyone else in government had tried to mislead parliament. "The released documents remove any insistence of claims that the government could have misused, twisted or suppressed information received from the DDIS," he told reporters.

But AP news agency says a Danish intelligence report dated 7 March, 2003, concluded that there was no "certain information that Iraq has operative weapons of mass destruction".

----

The point from opoponents of this war is that we were told how certain it was -- with no possible doubt -- that Sadaam had massive stockpiles of WMD.

Many critics did not deny that it was a possibility -- but they called for investigating to get va better idea than shadowy inconclusive reports before launching an all out invasion. Hans Blix's team went to many of the sites where he was told by the US they "knew" there were WMD facilities, and they were not.

That was the point. And that is why words like "lie" and "misled" are being used. Suspicion and "one can only assume" is not the same thing as "knowing without any doubt." Especially when you are talking about going to war.

[Mr. Ray]

Many critics did not deny that it was a possibility -- but they called for investigating to get va better idea than shadowy inconclusive reports before launching an all out invasion. Hans Blix's team went to many of the sites where he was told by the US they "knew" there were WMD facilities, and they were not.

Blix's teams found no weapons in places that they were initially denied access to, also. There were also times that the team showed up and found weapons. Saddam NEVER complied with the sanctions. Why should we have believed him about anything?

Personally, I didn't even need the WMD issue as a reason to go to war with Iraq. I thought that we (including the UN) should have been back in Iraq at least by '98. He started trying to rebuild his military the day that we left, and antagonized--not only the US, but everyone in the region. Just an opinion.

[bscott03]

Originally posted by curious:
From the above article:

Mr Olesen said the documents were based on information gathered by the United Nations and Nato but the reports warned that "any evaluation is subject to uncertainties".

Mr Fogh Rasmussen said the documents were proof that neither he nor anyone else in government had tried to mislead parliament. "The released documents remove any insistence of claims that the government could have misused, twisted or suppressed information received from the DDIS," he told reporters.

But AP news agency says a Danish intelligence report dated 7 March, 2003, concluded that there was no "certain information that Iraq has operative weapons of mass destruction".

----

The point from opoponents of this war is that we were told how certain it was -- with no possible doubt -- that Sadaam had massive stockpiles of WMD.

Many critics did not deny that it was a possibility -- but they called for investigating to get va better idea than shadowy inconclusive reports before launching an all out invasion. Hans Blix's team went to many of the sites where he was told by the US they "knew" there were WMD facilities, and they were not.

That was the point. And that is why words like "lie" and "misled" are being used. Suspicion and "one can only assume" is not the same thing as "knowing without any doubt." Especially when you are talking about going to war.

According to 1441 it was SH's responsibility to produce the weapons or prove the destruction, not Blix's job to find them.

[TXNavy]

Originally posted by curious:
From the above article:

Mr Olesen said the documents were based on information gathered by the United Nations and Nato but the reports warned that "any evaluation is subject to uncertainties".

Well no kidding. Since you felt this was an important statement, care to re-evaluate your position on Kerry's comment that Bush "misled" the nation on WMD? [img]graemlins/popcorn.gif[/img]

Mr Fogh Rasmussen said the documents were proof that neither he nor anyone else in government had tried to mislead parliament. "The released documents remove any insistence of claims that the government could have misused, twisted or suppressed information received from the DDIS," he told reporters.

But AP news agency says a Danish intelligence report dated 7 March, 2003, concluded that there was no "certain information that Iraq has operative weapons of mass destruction".

A box is sitting here on my desk...what's in the box?

The point from opoponents of this war is that we were told how certain it was -- with no possible doubt -- that Sadaam had massive stockpiles of WMD.

"No possible doubt?" Find that phrase somewhere for me, and no, I'm not talking about what you "felt" like you were being told.

Many critics did not deny that it was a possibility -- but they called for investigating to get va better idea than shadowy inconclusive reports before launching an all out invasion. Hans Blix's team went to many of the sites where he was told by the US they "knew" there were WMD facilities, and they were not.

He was denied access to the vast majority of them. Are we getting back to the mythical full inspections that never happened?

That was the point. And that is why words like "lie" and "misled" are being used.

What, because people "felt" like they were being misled, or because of what the Administration actually said? Other people's listening and reading comprehension are not my problem. Nor are people who ignore the reality of the world.

Suspicion and "one can only assume" is not the same thing as "knowing without any doubt." Especially when you are talking about going to war.

There will never, ever be a war that is 100% certain to be "necessary" if you put some kind of silly litmus test like "is there any possible way to avoid it?" Paraphrasing Reagan, there's always at least one way to have peace right now. Surrender. Give in. Let Hussein continue.

That's the easy way out, but idiotic considering the ties uncovered between him and various terror factions throughout the world.

Drop your fixation on "there was no WMD." That's not what HJR 114 said was the sole factor - you should know that by now.

[Liberty]

Guess who...

Where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq....It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge.

"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."

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."