Monday, March 18, 2013

Blast From the Past: Freepers on WMD

Newsweek Notices that Iraq has no WMD. In 2003. Freepers Go Nuts!

In March, 2003, Newsweek published a story entitled "The Defector's Secrets" wherein they described the testimony of one Hussein Kamel, the son-in-law of Saddam Hussein and the man who ran Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. He told the CIA and MI6 and the U.N. that Iraq had destroyed their stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, as well as the missiles to deliver them. He told them this in 1995, and his information was verified separately by his aide.

You may recall that we found no weapons of mass destruction when we invaded Iraq.

Now, hearken back to those halcyon days of 2003 for a trip to the alternate reality of the right wing. In particular, set the time machine for The Free Republic, March 3, 2003. Below, reprinted without permission, is the discussion concerning the Newsweek article. Here's a direct link if you'd like to read it at the source.

Exclusive: The Defector’s Secrets (Newsweek claims it was right)
Newsweek ^ | March 3, 2003 | John Barry 
Posted on 3/3/2003 9:52:02 AM by liberal whiner
March 3 issue — Hussein Kamel, the highest-ranking Iraqi official ever to defect from Saddam Hussein’s inner circle, told CIA and British intelligence officers and U.N. inspectors in the summer of 1995 that after the gulf war, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them.
...NEWSWEEK has obtained the notes of Kamel’s U.N. debrief, and verified that the document is authentic. NEWSWEEK has also learned that Kamel told the same story to the CIA and M.I.6. (The CIA did not respond to a request for comment.)...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Foreign AffairsNews/Current Events
KEYWORDS: husseinkameliraqkamelwarlistwmd
Newsweek claimed to have information that Iraq had destroyed most of its WMD. They were accused of lying. See another FR post. But they claim that they have proof. 
1 posted on 3/3/2003 9:52:02 AM by liberal whiner

To: liberal whiner
I suppose it is beyond Newsweeks ability to realize this guy is an Iraqi intelligence agent? 
2 posted on 3/3/2003 9:57:00 AM by The Vast Right Wing (Some drink from the fountain of knowledge, the French and Germans only gargle)

To: liberal whiner
But they claim that they have proof.Dear Newsweek: Cough it up or shut up. 
3 posted on 3/3/2003 9:57:12 AM by TADSLOS (Gunner, Target!)

To: liberal whiner
This is so stupid. If it were true, Iraq would have revealed it in their disclosures, and would have taken the inspectors to the disposal sites long ago. 
4 posted on 3/3/2003 9:59:58 AM by lady lawyer

To: liberal whiner
Let's see...can you spell DISINFORMATION? 
5 posted on 3/3/2003 10:08:04 AM by expatpat

To: liberal whiner
I have read that the CIA refused Kamel's demand that they overthrow Saddam and put Kamel in charge instead.

Also, this genius then returned to Iraq, on his own, along w/his brother-in-law. Both were executed. If they were telling the truth, why did Saddam kill them instead of calling them envoys of peace and going even further to publicly disarm?

Newsweek is not on the side of the Bush Administration. 
6 posted on 3/3/2003 10:23:01 AM by reformedliberal

To: expatpat
> Let's see...can you spell DISINFORMATION?

Disinformation by whom?

Newsweek? I don't believe they would go as far as lying about owning a U.N. debrief. Not after being openly accused of lying on the same subject.

The U.N.? I don't believe the U.N. would lie about the interview they did with Hussein Kamel. That was 8 years ago when there was pure harmony between the USA and the U.N. about Iraq.

Hussein Kamel? What should have been his reason to disinform the U.N. and CIA? Being an Iraqi spy? Sounds unlikely because he got killed after he returned to Iraq from his "successful mission". And if he was lying to make his information seem more important it would have been in the other direction: Exaggerating the danger by WMD.  
7 posted on 3/3/2003 10:27:43 AM by liberal whiner

To: reformedliberal
> Both were executed. If they were telling the truth, why did
> Saddam kill them instead of calling them envoys of peace
> and going even further to publicly disarm?

They defected from his regime, tried to overthrow him with the help of the USA and gave away many Iraqi national secrets to the CIA and U.N. 
8 posted on 3/3/2003 10:31:57 AM by liberal whiner

To: liberal whiner
Let's see, one Iraqi defector says, "no need to worry, my father-in-law destroyed all the WMD's, but didn't show the US or UN." Therefore, according to Liberal Whiner Newsweek, we can just trust to faith that there are no more WMD's, even though Saddam subsequently kicked all the UN inspectors out of Iraq, and has never shown the UN where he supposedly got rid of the stuff, or shown the UN the written records reflecting his disposal. Makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure our troops can now have complete confidence that Saddam won't use chemical or biological warfare against them. (sarcasm, for those with any doubts) 
9 posted on 3/3/2003 10:42:15 AM by Avid Coug

To: *war_list
10 posted on 3/3/2003 10:45:00 AM by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)

To: Avid Coug
I wonder, do those Al Samoud missles that travel further than the cease-fire agreement allowed, can they carry bio and chem weapons? Doesn't that prove this liar lied to Newsweek? 
11 posted on 3/3/2003 10:45:04 AM by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)

To: liberal whiner
Let's see--You signed up TODAY- 3/3/2003!! And you believe Newsweek! ( I bet you are against GW -- am I right?)
12 posted on 3/3/2003 10:46:06 AM by BobFromNJ

To: liberal whiner
Not a very high standard of proof--the word of one unverifiable defector. That's why it has always been customary to destroy weapons in the presence of credible witnesses chosen by the opposing party. 
13 posted on 3/3/2003 10:53:58 AM by Cicero

To: liberal whiner
Disinformation by Sadam and Kamel. The fact that he went back suggests his heart was still with Sadam; the fact that he was killed just reflects Sadam's paranoia -- he couldn't be sure that Kamel hadn't been 'turned' by the CIA, which is standard practice.Now one or two for you: (i)Why would Sadam destroy his WMD's when the pressure to do so had lessened, and (ii) why would he do it without getting brownie points from having it recorded by the UN? 
14 posted on 3/3/2003 11:40:05 AM by expatpat