This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
New Smoking Gun: U.S. and UK KNEW Saddam Did NOT Possess WMDs
We've reported again and again and again and again and again that everyone knew that Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
Indeed, the architects of the Iraq war admitted that it was illegal ... and really fought for oil (and Israel).
Today, a new smoking gun has been disclosed. The Guardian notes:
Tony Blair went to war in Iraq despite a report by South African experts with unique knowledge of the country that showed it did not possess weapons of mass destruction, according to a book published on Sunday.
God, Spies and Lies, by South African journalist John Matisonn, describes how then president Thabo Mbeki tried in vain to convince both Blair and President George W Bush that toppling Saddam Hussein in 2003 would be a terrible mistake.
Mbeki’s predecessor, Nelson Mandela, also tried to convince the American leader, but was left fuming that “President Bush doesn’t know how to think”.
***
The claim was this week supported by Mbeki’s office, which confirmed that he pleaded with both leaders to heed the WMD experts and even offered to become their intermediary with Saddam in a bid to maintain peace.
South Africa had a special insight into Iraq’s potential for WMD because the apartheid government’s own biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programme in the 1980s led the countries to collaborate. The programme was abandoned after the end of white minority rule in 1994 but the expert team, known as Project Coast, was put back together by Mbeki to investigate the US and UK assertion that Saddam had WMD – the central premise for mounting an invasion.
Mbeki, who enjoyed positive relations with both Blair and Saddam, asked for the team to be granted access.
“Saddam agreed, and gave the South African team the freedom to roam unfettered throughout Iraq,” writes Matisonn, who says he drew on sources in Whitehall and the South African cabinet. “They had access to UN intelligence on possible WMD sites. The US, UK and UN were kept informed of the mission and its progress.”
The experts put their prior knowledge of the facilities to good use, Matisonn writes. “They already knew the terrain, because they had travelled there as welcome guests of Saddam when both countries were building WMD.”
On their return, they reported that there were no WMDs in Iraq. “They knew where the sites in Iraq had been, and what they needed to look like. But there were now none in Iraq.”
In January 2003, Mbeki, who succeeded Mandela as president, sent a team to Washington to explain the findings, but with little success. Mbeki himself then met Blair for three hours at Chequers on 1 February, the book relates.
He warned that the wholesale removal of Saddam’s Ba’ath party could lead to a national resistance to the occupying coalition forces. But with huge military deployments already under way, Blair’s mind was clearly made up. When Frank Chikane, director-general in the president’s office, realised that the South Africans would be ignored, it was “one of the greatest shocks of my life”, he later wrote in a memoir.
Matisonn adds: “Mandela, now retired, had tried as well. On Iraq, if not other issues, Mandela and Mbeki were on the same page. Mandela phoned the White House and asked for Bush. Bush fobbed him off to [Condoleezza] Rice. Undeterred, Mandela called former President Bush Sr, and Bush Sr called his son the president to advise him to take Mandela’s call. Mandela had no impact. He was so incensed he gave an uncomfortable comment to the cameras: ‘President Bush doesn’t know how to think,’ he said with visible anger.”
***
Mbeki’s spokesman, Mukoni Ratshitanga, confirmed that Mbeki met Blair at Chequers to advise against the war and the UK’s involvement in it. Blair disagreed, Ratshitanga said, insisting that he would side with Bush.
“President Mbeki informed the prime minister that the South African government was about to send its own experts to assist and encourage the Iraqis to extend full cooperation to the UN weapons inspector, Dr Hans Blix,” Ratshitanga said. “He urged the prime minister to await the report of the SA experts before making any final commitment about going to war against Iraq.
***
Mbeki also had a phone conversation with Bush in 2003 and tried to discourage him from going to war, the spokesman said. “President Bush said he would rather not go to war but needed a clear and convincing signal that the Iraqis did not have WMDs to enable him to avoid the invasion of Iraq.
“President Mbeki informed him about the report of the SA experts which by then had already been sent to the UN secretary general, Dr Hans Blix and the UN security council. He informed President Bush that the report of the SA experts said Iraq had no WMDs. President Bush said he did not know about the report but would obtain a copy from the US ambassador at the UN, New York.”
It is not known whether Bush did obtain a copy of the report.
Mbeki later contacted Blair to ask him to find out from the US president what would constitute a “convincing signal” from Saddam, promising that he would contact Saddam to persuade him to send such a signal, according to Ratshitanga. “President
Mbeki understood from his sources and was convinced that Prime Minister Blair received his message as reported above, but did not convey it to President Bush.”
Blair’s office did not deny the meeting with Mbeki or the specifics of what was said.
But the U.S. and UK wanted war ... not peace. They even rejected an offer from Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq and allow in weapons inspectors.
Obama and Clinton did the same thing in Libya and Syria. They also falsely blamed those regimes of using WMDS or the like, and supported Islamic terrorists in both Libya and Syria.
Related ... Research Paper: ISIS-Turkey List
- advertisements -


tony blair is related to george orwell. He probably looked at 1984, animal farm, all of Orwell's letters etc and figured it was an explanation of how to gain power. Similar to how Bill Clinton learned from his professor Carrol Quigley about the round table and how you can get a rhodes scholarship to gain valuable connections.
no way it was all just an honest mistake plus saddam was evil anyway!!! clearly not about oil and israel.
Of course Bush and Blair knew the truth, they just chose to ignore and pervert it to their own ends.
Iraq was to them a necessary stepping stone to the real prize,Syria, and the mega mega bucks generating pipeline, which has as an added bonus if it ever gets built will destroy the Russian economy and leave Iran unprotected.
But Bush and Blair had their own personal agendas, Bush wanted to emerge from the shadow of his father, and go down in history as a better President; Blair of course true to his avaricious nature was in it purely for the money, the deal was: Blair supports Bush in the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, and when Blair retires as Prime Minister Bush supports Blair`s bid to become the M.E special peace envoy, a fancy sounding title, the job description being, stuff your Swiss bank accounts with as much money as you can milk from the position while not doing anything at all to promote peace in the M.E.
After all, as the famous Wall St Icon said: instability in the Middle East is good for business.
Any day soon we will get a report that Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney ordered the False Flag attack on the World Trade Centers and still Fox, CNN and MSNCB News will continue to report that we were attacked by the masked bandits from the Middle East.
Any day soon we will get a report that Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney ordered the False Flag attack on the World Trade Centers and still Fox, CNN and MSNCB News will continue to report that we were attacked by the masked bandits from the Middle East.
Any day soon we will get a report that Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney ordered the False Flag attack on the World Trade Centers and still Fox, CNN and MSNCB News will continue to report that we were attacked by the masked bandits from the Middle East.
It`s amazing that considering that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were blamed for that biggest and most evil of atrocities that, to my knowledge, no actual and known members of that scumbag organisation domiciled in the USA were ever arrested, and if the word of the security services is to be believed there are hundreds of sleeper terrorists in the USA.
What did happen however,and immidiately after the attack, the FBI rounded up, and placed on a plane bound for Saudi Arabia several Saudi nationals, strange.
Something else which has never been explained after the destruction of the twin towers is, what the hell happened to all the GOLD stored in the vaults beneath the towers ?.
Best linkI could find to the stuff was really there and left unsecured
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
Sadthough that soldiers and Marines came upon unsecured bunkers of chemical weapons long after the 2003 attack and got contaminated an told NOT to report the contaminations, not to detail what they came upon and not to seek medical treatment for obvious chemical contamination. Some got some heavy doses of sarin and mustard agents. These bunkers may have been left unsecured for al Quida and later ISIS to use much later.
This adds to the case against HRH Tony Blair & GW Bush.
The net is closing in, irrefutable evidence is piling up.
No wonder the British Chilcot Inquiry has yet to surface; the British Establishment is in full damage limitation mode.
Blair & Bush need to be arrested and taken to The Hague.
The Hague is a Kangaroo Court controlled by the same type of people, unfortunately.
OK. Forget The Hague, let's just go for a plain kangaroo court :-)
Zionism's Master Plan for World Power
Documented and Dated
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/zionisms_master_plan.htm
The Kuwati oil fires were Saddam's death sentence. It doesn't matter what excuse Rumsfeld came up with 12 years later. The idiot probably forgot about them. The fires were enough to take out all of Iraq at the time they were set off...but we waited 10 years for some unknown reason. Good riddance. Saddam and Iraq got way less than they deserved.
He did not, but Sadam was not a friend of the US
.
what we did to those people in return seems to be counterinsurgency
.
modern war left to anyone but us, thats our money
.
economic thinking put your ass in a seat
Saddam was a US ally and check on Iran for the whole of the 70s and 80s.
We then stabbed Saddam in the back on ridiculous pretexts, capitalizing on the public fear and confusion after 9/11.
Saddam was not a nice guy, but he was a hell of a lot better than what has come after him (ISIS, warlordism.) Same for Qaddafi. And if they take down Assad in Syria, it will be the same.
We put Saddam in power. We only turned on him when he threatened to sell oil in something other than dollars. Our attack and indeed 911 was about protecting the petrodollar, protecting Israhell and bringing in the NWO.
Saddam fought the war with Iran with the US blessing and intelligence support. After the war he was broke, the Arab allies he fought the war for calling for the repayment of the cash they lent him pissing him off, and the belief Kuwait was drilling into his oil fields, led Saddam to invade Kuwait. Before the invasion, with his tanks at the border, he appealed to the US for aid. He got nothing but a vague message that the US, which knew the invasion was imminent, could care less what he did. That, not 9/11 is where the US stabbed him in the back. If the US had given him a fraction of the cash that was spent on the Gulf War, and a warning to leave Kuwait alone, the war would never have happened and those hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's would not have died, their cities and economies destroyed, under the bombing and draconian sanctions put on them by the US. Bush and Cheney invaded in 2003 to show the world they had big dicks and anything else is conjecture. The real reason the US didn't go to Baghdad in 1990 is that Saudi Arabia and friends wanted Saddam left in place as a bulwark against Iranian weapons and personnel flooding into their area.
"Saddam was not a nice guy, ...."
No shit, but then, do you think a 'nice guy' could keep a lid on the powder keg that is/was Iraq?
He was and still is what is needed there.
Again, you need to think like a psychopath to understand.
What is happening now is better, more uncertainty, more guns, more debt, moar, moar,...the jews love it! They own the weapons companies, they own the banks that issue the debt, moar, moar, moar....
Squid
What is this incoherent stream of words?
Really!!! You mean they knew they were lying at the same time we knew they were lying?
The Germans knew it too. They tried to keep the CIA (or some such like) away from Curveball, an Iraqi asylum seeker in Germany. He was the one who made the little drawings of mobile rocket launchers and invented the facilities for WMD. But the Americans pushed and thus got their 'smoking guns'.
The French knew it, too. Their oil company elf Aquitaine had a new contract with Saddam's Iraq, oil for € not $, starting 1st April 2003, hence the invasion in March, often described as hasty. Chirac is still alive, but has kept silent, was probably intimidated.
Old men waging war, young men dieing. Will anybody ever learn?
I remember when Saddam said they would stop accepting US dollars for their oil. I knew his goose was gonna get cooked soon thereafter.
There's nothing to "learn." We already know it.
You probably meant to ask whether anything will ever _change_.
The only thing that there is to change is human nature, and the answer is a resounding NO. It will never change.
If we are ever ruled by non-human intelligences, we may see something better.
Wow, and here I believed that ISIS was the J.V. team.
I knew it too.
The Republicans went nuts.
Royal Ops doesn't give a rats-ass if Iraq had WMD and the sheeple just need to take it like they always take it. Amerika is an imperial lapdog.
So many fallacies, so little time...
I tracked a lot of this through the SIPRI databases. Sorry kids, the US wasn't Iraq's chemical weapons supplier... Look to France and Germany for that particular shit-show in history. As well as the necessary clean rooms and containment facilites. This website is closer to my recollection of events... http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/2007/01/where-did-saddam-get-his-che... (Key takeaway here is - The simple fact is that Iraq received less than 1% of its military imports from the US - true statement)
The other thing a lot of people overlook how rapidly one can produce chemical weapons. With the right equipment, it takes only days to produce something lethal in quantity no less.
Standard Disclaimer: Wake me up when the US finally gets rid of their remaining stockpiles.
From Wikipedia and referenced above...
The U.S. armed and supported Iraq after it invaded Iran and engaged in a long, bloody war which included the use of chemical weapons. Here is former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, several months after Saddam had used chemical weapons in a massacre:
Weak George, very weak... Yes, Saddam used chemical weapons...a given, but who provided them? I just gave you a list.
But the worst part is you are now contradicting yourself and the premise of your article with this post...
Compare and contrast:
Headline for article: New Smoking Gun: U.S. and UK KNEW Saddam Did NOT Possess WMDs
And then you turn around and write this:
"engaged in a long, bloody war which included the use of chemical weapons."
It can't be one or the other... Now if you had given specific time frames, as in Saddam had chemical weapons from years 19xx to 19yy, but got rid of them in year 20xx, I'd give your article a lot more credence.
Standard Disclaimer:
Almost as bad as this...
http://conservativewatchnews.org/?p=34788
you, wizard, say: Now if you had given specific time frames, as in Saddam had chemical weapons from years 19xx to 19yy, but got rid of them in year 20xx, I'd give your article a lot more credence.
but isn't the citation by g.w. of the earlier cooperation of iraq with south africa in the manufacture of wmd's followed by the vain search for then current programs by the south african participants precisely that?
No one says Saddam never had chemical weapons. The U.S. - and as you point out - other countries GAVE them to him decades before.
But the U.S. and UK falsely alleged - as justification for the Iraq war - that Saddam still had an active chem weapons program. That was a knowingly false claim.
That's splitting cunt hairs, just like Cheech was. However, Cheech didn't title his post to imply that he could prove a negative... which can be done only under very limited circumstances, and this case would require either documentation or testimony of participants that they "knew" what they could not have actually known.
What's actually troubling about this disclosure is that it is the second time in recent weeks that Dubya's labradoodle Condoleeza Rice has been exposed as culpably, grossly, and criminally negligent in her official duties.
I believe my source said it best almost 13 years ago, "the WMD case is no slam dunk" - the strong implication being that I didn't need to worry about it. Taking a colorful internal debate and reducing it to black and white for the retard sheeple is exactly what Dick Cheney and his minions did.
GW let it go..the wmd issue was always window dressing, most of the world knows that. The ME war was ordered for other reasons is also understood by most of us on ZH. claims of attempts to kill bush's dad, revenge by the bush clan? or just the ol' "war is a racket" profits to the elites?
I sometimes think the simple reason was the fall of Monolith communist USSR..and the need to replace the USSR with the muslim terrorist to keep the MIC spending going..simple evil reason as always: MONEY.
Learn to use this tool...
http://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers/armstransfers
Quite handy in finding who ships what to whom...
The fact that Bush didn't know how to think straight was entirely irrelevant, because the whole WMD claim was always pure rationalization and PR.
For all neocons, even when the truth will work fine, a lie is much preferred. Which gives a whole new [reverse, and even more corrupt] meaning to the phrase, "they can't handle the truth".
Rationalization is the substitution of belief for knowledge. They wanted to invade Iraq; all else was rationalization. An argument over beliefs is for the stupid. They wanted to believe in WMD in Iraq and they believed.
I want a just and logical world. Who or what god cares about my wants. To expect logic to win arguments is delusion. To expect any regime of justice to exist is delusion. All desire for justice or honest rulers is folly.
not "just as bad" but
"worse for the wear".
"Mbeki's spokesman, Mukoni Ratshitanga, confirmed that... "
What do ya figger his nickname is?
Well now, there's a whole string of fukkerz that need to be drawn and quartered for war crimes.
Statute of Limitations MUST be in effect. Right? I know it doesn't apply to murder but maybe waging an illegal war with massive death is too common to even take note of. ?
It’s NOT Too Late to Try Bush, Cheney and Obama for War Crimes
What about Kissinger? Isn't that mofo still alive?
He sure is ... he's in his 90's.
good enough for Pinochet, good enough for Mr. K
and mr. o.
he's actually young enough to have to worry. it's hard to say just where a fourth turning will end up.
Of the USSA - what can be said in its defence? Nothing.
Ditto "Perfidious Albion".
Both these ZIO-Goon States - now insanely intent on even greater Middle East mayhem to instigate their WW3 - stand convicted... and devoid of legitimacy.
yes, and no smoking gun.
Saddam hunted Al Qaida like roaches and was Anti Communist too.