Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Biological Laboratories Captured (May 29, 2003): Not True (Today)

Old 04-12-06, 12:20 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,451
Biological Laboratories Captured (May 29, 2003): Not True (Today)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12275328/


On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

ADVERTISEMENT (WE MUST BOMB AND INVADE IRAN NOW! WE MUST LIBERATE THE <s>IRAQIS</s> IRANIANS)

Report shelved while claim went forth
The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.


• More Iraq coverage

None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized. Their accounts were verified by other current and former government officials knowledgeable about the mission. The contents of the final report, "Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers," remains classified. But interviews reveal that the technical team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons. Those interviewed took care not to discuss the classified portions of their work.

"There was no connection to anything biological," said one expert who studied the trailers. Another recalled an epithet that came to be associated with the trailers: "the biggest sand toilets in the world."

Primary piece of evidence
The story of the technical team and its reports adds a new dimension to the debate over the U.S. government's handling of intelligence related to banned Iraqi weapons programs. The trailers -- along with aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq for what was believed to be a nuclear weapons program -- were primary pieces of evidence offered by the Bush administration before the war to support its contention that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction.

Intelligence officials and the White House have repeatedly denied allegations that intelligence was hyped or manipulated in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. But officials familiar with the technical team's reports are questioning anew whether intelligence agencies played down or dismissed postwar evidence that contradicted the administration's public views about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Last year, a presidential commission on intelligence failures criticized U.S. spy agencies for discounting evidence that contradicted the official line about banned weapons in Iraq, both before and after the invasion.

Spokesmen for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency both declined to comment on the specific findings of the technical report because it remains classified. A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The survey group's final report in September 2004 -- 15 months after the technical report was written -- said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.

"Whether the information was offered to others in the political realm I cannot say," said the DIA official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

Others thought trailers had weapons use
Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

The technical team's findings had no apparent impact on the intelligence agencies' public statements on the trailers. A day after the team's report was transmitted to Washington -- May 28, 2003 -- the CIA publicly released its first formal assessment of the trailers, reflecting the views of its Washington analysts. That white paper, which also bore the DIA seal, contended that U.S. officials were "confident" that the trailers were used for "mobile biological weapons production."

Throughout the summer and fall of 2003, the trailers became simply "mobile biological laboratories" in speeches and press statements by administration officials. In late June, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell declared that the "confidence level is increasing" that the trailers were intended for biowarfare. In September, Vice President Cheney pronounced the trailers to be "mobile biological facilities," and said they could have been used to produce anthrax or smallpox.

====

The story goes on. For those who need more evidence the Bush Administration twists and manipulates events to claim the war in Iraq is a success?

If the Iraq War is so easily explained, then why is Bush continually twisting evidence? It's pathetic. And we'll hear about hundreds of other "little lies" in the future.

I feel sorry for the Iraqi people now.

Last edited by DVD Polizei; 04-12-06 at 12:23 AM.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 01:09 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
C'mon, you expect me to care about this when no one will care about the damning stuff on the Saddam tapes? I don't think any of this matters at this point, just like it doesn't matter that Saddam confirmed most everything we feared.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 08:00 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101888.html
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 08:12 AM
  #4  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,522
This is a shocking development I tell you...shocking!
VinVega is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 08:17 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
It's meaningless because we all know why we really went to war - to bring democracy to the Middle East. And that was the reason our president gave right from the beginning. I don't even remember him mentioning WMDs.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 08:52 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wilmington DE
Posts: 2,651
You actually had me agreeing with you for most of your statement, but then you say something as ignorant as this:

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
[url]
I feel sorry for the Iraqi people now.
We'll send you on another mission... go to Iraq and asked them what they like more. Sadaam rule... or post Sadaam Rule...

Last edited by Sominex; 04-12-06 at 08:55 AM.
Sominex is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 08:53 AM
  #7  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,829
I need more proof.
Groucho is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 08:57 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wilmington DE
Posts: 2,651
Originally Posted by kvrdave
C'mon, you expect me to care about this when no one will care about the damning stuff on the Saddam tapes? I don't think any of this matters at this point, just like it doesn't matter that Saddam confirmed most everything we feared.

And we won't see much of that on the media, or hear it from the 'Left'.

God forbid they give both sides of the story for once.

In fact do you have a link to info about those tapes, or the new security documents we got a hold of?
Sominex is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 08:59 AM
  #9  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,795
Originally Posted by Sominex
We'll send you on another mission... go to Iraq and asked them what they like more. Sadaam rule... or post Sadaam Rule...
I imagine responses would vary widely.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 09:07 AM
  #10  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,795
Originally Posted by Sominex
And we won't see much of that on the media, or hear it from the 'Left'.

God forbid they give both sides of the story for once.
You're wrong, at least about the media. They are no more or less consistent in their reporting of the Iraq war than they are with anything else - good news is taken for granted, and bad news is reported. Do you expect reporters to interview commuters who got to and from work safely? No, they write stories about multiple car accidents and the number of traffic fatalities. To expect anything different from "the media" is to display an awe-inspiring level of naivete or bias.

In the Sunday <i>Times</i> there was an article, and accompanying graphic, dealing with the conditions in Iraq based on various criteria - fatalities from attack, level of services such as police protection and access to electricity, etc. It was quite balanced. I'd suggest you seek it out, but doing so would probably burst that safe little bubble in which you've ensconced yourself, and we certainly wouldn't want that.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 09:13 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by Sominex
You actually had me agreeing with you for most of your statement, but then you say something as ignorant as this:



We'll send you on another mission... go to Iraq and asked them what they like more. Sadaam rule... or post Sadaam Rule...
Have you read the polls in Iraq?

The last one I saw showed an overwhelming number of Iraqis favored U. S. withdrawal.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 09:40 AM
  #12  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
And an overwhelming number say they are better off with Saddam gone.
bhk is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 09:46 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by bhk
And an overwhelming number say they are better off with Saddam gone.
Well, that's shocking since most of the people who believe that weren't the people in power - the ones that didn't have the goodies.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 09:50 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wilmington DE
Posts: 2,651
Originally Posted by wendersfan
You're wrong, at least about the media. They are no more or less consistent in their reporting of the Iraq war than they are with anything else - good news is taken for granted, and bad news is reported. Do you expect reporters to interview commuters who got to and from work safely? No, they write stories about multiple car accidents and the number of traffic fatalities. To expect anything different from "the media" is to display an awe-inspiring level of naivete or bias.

In the Sunday <i>Times</i> there was an article, and accompanying graphic, dealing with the conditions in Iraq based on various criteria - fatalities from attack, level of services such as police protection and access to electricity, etc. It was quite balanced. I'd suggest you seek it out, but doing so would probably burst that safe little bubble in which you've ensconced yourself, and we certainly wouldn't want that.
You brought it up...

Lets see the article.


When is the last time you heard about the imrpvoed infrastructure in Iraq? When is the last time you heard about the neighborhoods that HAVE been cleared of terrorist garbage?

If YOU really think the media reports on both sides, then YOU are in a bubble.

Again, I have talked to people right off the plane when they have gotten back from Iraq. They paint a VERY different picture of the war then the media does.

Is their bloodshed? Yes

Is their senseless kissing? Yes

Are Amerians still being killed? Yes... sadly enough

Has the killing gone down? Yes...

Do people now have cell phones? Yes

Can people now get free newspapers and outside media? Yes...

Do people still have to hide in dirt holes and inside the walls of houses anymore? No...

Can people now travel freely through out the country.. Yes


All the things people here take for granted, they now have there. For the first time in decades. What is that worth to you?

I suggest you try living in Iran for a month then come back and tell us, ok?


The list goes on and on...


So if I lived in your bubble, sure.. I will believe everything the media force feeds me. Again, given their coverage of "Freedom Fighters", "Insugents" and "Warriors"... and then their coverage of the Abu Grave incident I can clearly see the unbalanced nature of the press.

If you can not... well, those are your issues to deal with


Since I can actually think for myself... I choose to believe the military and personnel who have actually been there and done the work over the Media.

Last edited by Sominex; 04-12-06 at 09:53 AM.
Sominex is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 09:51 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wilmington DE
Posts: 2,651
Originally Posted by classicman2
Have you read the polls in Iraq?

The last one I saw showed an overwhelming number of Iraqis favored U. S. withdrawal.

Oh... you mean the poll that said "Do you like having a US Occupation force in your country?"

Sure... those questions aren't slanted at all

If you show me another poll, I'd love to see it, where it was asked, who answered it, and how it was conducted.
Sominex is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 09:52 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by Sominex
If you show me another poll, I'd love to see it, where it was asked, who answered it, and how it was conducted.
and one that would be agreement with what you want to hear
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 09:54 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wilmington DE
Posts: 2,651
Originally Posted by classicman2
and one that would be agreement with what you want to hear
Ok.. I forgot how I need to word question with you C-Man...


YES or NO?

Can you please provide with the actual wording of the poll and how it was conducted please?


Just a Yes or No response please... We'll go from there
Sominex is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 10:07 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...t=165&lb=hmpg2
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 10:11 AM
  #19  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,795
Originally Posted by Sominex
When is the last time you heard about the neighborhoods that HAVE been cleared of terrorist garbage?
I don't have time to respond to every point in your lengthy (and largely incoherent) post, but the following story was reported by all major media sources, including <i>The New York Times</i> and CBS News:

<a href = "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/09/ap/world/mainD8GSC4680.shtml">U.S. Troops Kill 8 Suspected Insurgents</a>
wendersfan is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 10:16 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
I'm starting to think that Iraq is a sucky place to be right now.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 10:19 AM
  #21  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,731
That the trailers were probably used to generate hydrogen was all over the media about a week after the trailers were found and inspected.
X is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 10:20 AM
  #22  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,795
Originally Posted by Thor Simpson
I'm starting to think that Iraq is a sucky place to be right now.
I don't know that it ever much of a bed of roses.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 10:23 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Any place where people are shooting at you and trying their very best to do you harm, is not a bed of roses.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 10:26 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wilmington DE
Posts: 2,651
Originally Posted by wendersfan
I don't have time to respond to every point in your lengthy (and largely incoherent) post, but the following story was reported by all major media sources, including <i>The New York Times</i> and CBS News:

<a href = "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/09/ap/world/mainD8GSC4680.shtml">U.S. Troops Kill 8 Suspected Insurgents</a>

Hmmm.... you made a claim the Media was unbiased... I pointed out how it was not. Sorry if that is "incoherent" for you.


Gingrich pointed this out yesterday... It's AMAZING how the Left says "We want more specific info... stop giving short answers" Then we get things like "I don't have time to respond to every point in your lengthy (and largely incoherent) post"

So which is it? Can you handle long posts? Or no? Pick one or the other, k?

Other then misspellings, what exactly is incoherent about it?

You made a statement, I rebutted and responded, and left a closing.

Enlighten me...


As for my original question you ducked (as many on the left often do), could you please post that "unbiased chart/article" you saw in the Times?

Great research on the "terrorist clearing" article... now how many of those do you see in the paper?
Sominex is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 10:28 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
If you mean by bias that a majority of the meeting is opposed to the war - I would agree with you.

Will you agree that a majority of Americans are opposed to the war?
classicman2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.