Saddam ordered chemical attack, inspector will report ( David Kay)

So this is going to be the big revelation. No actual WMD found, but proof that Saddam ordered a chemical attack. Even though the attack didn't actually happen?

Which reminds me of something that I always found odd, and was never explained. Remember when our troops took Baghdad, remember that for some unknown reason they took off all their protective gear? WTF?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1016856,00.html

The former UN inspector hired by the Bush administration to find evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction will claim in a report next month that Iraqi forces were ordered to fire chemical shells at invading coalition troops, according to US reports.
But David Kay, who heads the 1,400-strong Iraq Survey Group, has admitted he has found no trace of the weapons themselves, and cannot explain why they were never used.

One possibility is that the orders were part of an elaborate bluff, in the hope that they would be intercepted by the US and deter an attack.

<snip>

"They have found evidence that an order was given," a senior intelligence official said, adding there was no explanation of why the weapons were not used.

more...

I wonder how 'old' this 'order' is

But the US Media will report with a straight face that Kay has found the smoking gun.

Some in the media will note that it does not pass the laugh test - but they will get little time/space and be ignored - the way they are now.

Hell - the ABCNote rarely gives Krugman a dozen words - and Alterman, Pitt, Joe, Greg and all the others are never mentioned - while the MSNBC right wing bloggers get into the Note on a regular basis.

damn liberal media.

:-(

sigh

:-)

until they come up with a plan.

That is all they found from their exhaustive search and from the 7 miles of paper? How very sad.

According to Novak's column Kay was going to reveal real evidence of WMDs. What a piece of crap.

than UNSCOM and we kicked them out for not finding WMD....we lost our patience.....go figure

One theory is that there were no chemical weapons. Hussein simply ordered them to be used in hopes that the orders would be overheard by American and British troops, effectively scaring them away.

:evilgrin:

Now we have proof Saddam Hussein is a lier.

David Kay can now join the cirle jerk. He's earned it, by golly

is anyone going to believe a god damned word this clown has to say ?

no evidence, no problem, just manufacture some :eyes:

from the invasion. I seem to remember as well that the US had, so called, intelligence that Saddam would use CB weapons, hence the US forces were suited up for CB when the invasion began.

There was some other funny stuff going on at that time.

If his army didn't do what he told them to do......

and didn't have the weapons to use.

If it is true. If it was genuine orders, maybe it was just Saddam being a madman. We certainly heard enough that he was a madman like Hitler. At the end of WWII Hitler ordered divisions all over the map in the war room in Berlin, divisions that the Generals knew NO LONGER existed. This would be like digging up those old orders of Hitler, claiming they were a genuine threat to our troops, when the fact of the matter was they NO LONGER EXISTED.

luckily all US troops are issued rings of invincibility so the Iraqis magic had no effect on them… or maybe the Iraqis just didn't have enough spell points to cast anything worthwhile.

LOL!

Unfortunately for Saddam (and fortunately for the US), Godzilla was nowhere to be found either.

:hi:

Yes, that David Kay.

Born liar, administration shill.

I thought we already knew that.

Battlefield chemical weapons, according to most experts, aren't 'weapons of mass destruction.' Due to their nature, they only affect a small area and disperse fairly quickly, depending on prevailing winds. If this is all they have... it's pretty damn weak.

a nerve agent unleashed in a subway could be devastating, much more than the Sarin gas those cult hacks in Japan used.

We're talking about battlefield chem. weapons--shells tipped with chemical warheads.

EVERYONE finds it very IRREGULAR that they didn't defend themselfs while under attack and supposedly in possesion of such weapons.

peace

To my mind, that they were not used is sufficient proof they do not exist. This "order" is of no signifigancel as has been suggested above, if it does exist, it was a bluff and nothing more, like a hand and pen in a pocket proclaimed to be a gun by an amatuer stick-up man.

If they can produce an "order" from "Saddam," that could be used to convince most people that they were right about the potential threat from WMD. Just like your analogy: if I hold up a bank with a pointed finger in my pocket, I can still be arrested for armed robbery. And if I rapidly turn towards a cop with that finger in my pocket now pointing at him, he can shoot me dead and it will be considered justified.

Having said this, I don't believe the Bushies ever legitimately believed that Saddam was an actual threat -- I'm just pointing out the inevitable spin that will be used.

Bluff is a mug's game in most instances, and will get you into trouble you cannot get out of. Few people, though, will take the order as serious proof of the weapon's existance, absent use, or discovery. We are in complete agreement on your last point: indeed, to my view, the mere fact of invasion is sufficient indication the "threat" of such weapons was known to be false by the administration. If it was considered real, the chance of exposing great numbers of soldiers to such attack would never have been taken. There would at a minimum have been no great concentration up against the Iraqi border, and a months' long aerial bombardment would have been undertaken before soldiers moved in on the ground.

I can't wait to see the circus side show when they present this one. Who are they going to get to do it? Powell's been burned once. Rove wouldn't let Bush touch this thing with a 10 foot pole and rubber gloves on. Cheney's pacemaker would probably fail in the middle of the presentation from the strain of him trying to keep a straight face. That leaves Rumsfeld and Rice. My money is on Rice -- whore the black woman Stanford Provost, whereas Rumsfeld is just another gray man in a suit. Ought to be high entertainment -- I might actually tune in to see this one.

then Bush could say "British intelligence says etc. etc."

The more I think about this, the more I think they will get a relative nobody to do it. They can't afford someone high up to be tainted again, so they get some faceless boob to do it. Less chance of political fallout that way. Maybe Kay himself, since he has nothing to lose from a credibility standpoint. They just pump him up by praising his weapons inspections credentials, then turn him loose to lie his ass off. There are lots of Americans who will buy it, and all he has to do is present a decent argument, and Bush is off the hook.

he's the most experienced liar/fabricator/prevaracator in the Administration.

He's good at intimidating the press and baffling them with bullshit. And this..this my friends is the mother load of all bullshit.

left in the trunk of a car registered to "Mother Ovall Battles" at the Baghdad Airport.

Both equally believable.

According to Paul "can't find reality with both hands and a map" Wolfowitz on Charlie Rose.

What sane military commander wouldn't issue such an order just to make sure that the troops he was fighting would be encased in hot plastic.

""They have found evidence that an order was given," a senior intelligence official said, adding there was no explanation of why the weapons were not used."

This makes it sound as though there were weapons there. *The* weapons. But wasn't there a report from the army guy leading the initial WMD hunt (or one of the front line officers - I forget) that they hadn't found anything of a WMD (or battlefield chemical weapon nature) either at positions held by the Iraqis or depots where their ammunition was stored for despatch to the front?

And yes, the troops stopped wearing protective suits very early on, judging by the pictures sent back...strange that.

Welcome to DU :hi:

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

That's all I have to say...

Yes, the orders were something like this:

Saddam: "General, you know those special weapons?"
General: "yes, you mean the ones we destroyed 10 years ago?"
Saddam: "I want you to launch them."
General: "The ones that don't exist?"
Saddam: "Precisely. Launch them."
General: "But we destroyed them."
Saddam: "Launch them anyway."
General: "But Sir. . . "
Saddam: "I don't want your excuses, I want you to launch those weapons!"
General: "yes sir, Would you like me to coat them with pixie dust while I'm at it?"
Saddam: "Sure, and paint our national crest on them in Unicorn blood too."

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Much appreciated.

"They have found evidence that an order was given," a senior intelligence official said, adding there was no explanation of why the weapons were not used.

Funny, I can think of two explanations right off the top of my head: 1) it's not true; 2) the weapons didn't exist.

rocknation

but that doesn't make it so now does it?

The worst part is that the American people will buy it. The news media reports what Bush tells them to and so the truth doesn't stand a chance.

Here's my prediction for what the news media will do next year. The candidate who can be torn apart the easiest will be promoted by the news media. The Democrats caught up in thinking they'll win, will be oblivious to what their candidate stands for and go for someone they think is electable. Then Bush will jump in and destroy the guy. But wait, we will later learn that our candidate is Bush's pick and that Bush got the news media and cross registers to make this guy our candidate. The only kind of candidate he can really destroy is one who can be caught in falshoods. The war itself is old news and character will be the deciding factor. So I suggest everyone watch the candidates to figure out who Bush's pick is. Also, watch who the news media promotes. If you check the registrations of the owners of the major magazines and stations, you'll discover they are not Democrat.

the order to use WMD's that they didn't have. The posters above have it right, A GIANT FUCKING BLUFF YOU IDIOTS!

they CAN'T find the WMD's??? You know why Saddam didn't use them??? Because he never had them!!! The reminants of the program were removed in 1998!!! Remember Bushie??????

Saddam: "Two big macs and a large Coke please."

:)

So, he had the intent to use WMD, he just didn't have any?

Can it possibly get any weirder than this?

But, on further thought, this give them plausible deniability. "Hey, we intercepted these transmissions. That means we thought they had them. So we invaded."

Aide: Saddam Did Get Rid of Iraq WMD
Fri Aug 1, 8:24 PM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030802/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_s_bluff_4

By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A close aide to Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) says
the Iraqi dictator did in fact get rid of his weapons of mass
destruction but deliberately kept the world guessing about it in an
effort to divide the international community and stave off a U.S.
invasion.

I espoused this theory prior to the war, and since nothing has been found by troops or the non-scientifically trained David Kay, it seems to have more plausibility.