Did anybody else see this on TV last night? We ought to be very worried. Saddam needs to be removed yesterday. A former U.N. weapons inspector who was renowned for his ability to ferret out Iraqi weapons violations during the late 1990's charged point blank on Thursday that Saddam Hussein now has nuclear weapons. "I have no doubt that he has nukes," Bill Tierney told nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity. "He's going to use non-persistent chemicals against his own people to put down an insurrection," the ace inspector predicted, before adding chillingly, "He'll use bio and nukes against us." Stunned by the revelation, the radio host pressed for confirmation: HANNITY: You have no doubt that he has nukes? Or he's close (to getting them)? TIERNEY: I have no doubt that he has nukes. HANNITY: You think he has nuclear weapons. TIERNEY: Yes. HANNITY: Why are you the only (former weapons inspector) saying that? TIERNEY: Well, there's a few more. One reason why is, during the 90's in the intelligence community, there was just a pathological risk aversion. The reason being was that our president at the time, Bill Clinton, fundamentally changed the purpose of the United States military from fighting and winning wars to crisis management and keeping his poll numbers up. Now, if you're not out to win, there's no need to take risks. And so what you found is people being very guarded about everything, every kind of assessment you could make. (End of Excerpt) Before he ran afoul of the system Tierney had built a powerful reputation for credibility, prompting the U.N. to personally recruit him in 1996 for the task of inspecting some of Saddam's most sensitive suspected weapons facilities. But he was forced to resign two years later amidst charges he was spying for the U.S. Tierney now says he was locked out for doing what he figured was his job - giving the Pentagon targets for military action. "What I did was identified those people who have sold their souls to keep Saddam in power. I made it my goal to find every place where they are," Tierney told the London's Daily Mirror in October. Still, his aggressive pursuit of Saddam's weapons violations won him more than a few fans at U.S. Central Command, where Tierney's boss, Army Brig. Gen. Keith Alexander, wrote in one of his job evaluations: "His ability to consistently seek and identify priority target intelligence information is uncanny and is the characteristic that separates him from his contemporaries." Tierney told Hannity that a 1997 inspection he attempted to conduct at Saddam's Jabal Makhul presidential palace lead him to suspect that the Iraqi dictator already had the bomb. "Certain things convinced me that they had proscribed items at this presidential site. That led to the inspection in September 1997 where we were locked out. There was something about that. The just came up and said, 'There will be no inspection. Good Day.' And they walked off." Tierney said the rebuff was "completely different" from other inspections of sensitive sites, where some sort of compromise was always worked out. Another sign of sinister activity: As Tierney and his team were being turned away, a U.N. helicopter attempting to overfly Jabal Makhul nearly crashed when an Iraqi official on board lunged at the controls. "That was a distraction to keep that helicopter from going over to the other side of the mountain to see what they were doing" at the facility, said Tierney. He described Jabal Makhul as a "gigantic" complex of warehouses and underground tunnels, before noting that last year the London Times reported Saddam was storing nuclear weapons in bunkers in and around the Hamrin Mountains. "There is only one heavily guarded place in the Hamrin Mountains," Tierney told Hannity. "And that's where we were, Jabal Makhul." Still, despite efforts by Iraqi officials to keep inspectors away from Jabal Makhul, U.N. officials continued to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt, he complained. "If you had ambiguous reporting; it could mean he has the nukes, it could mean that he doesn't." he said. "Normally the call would be, 'Oh well, that doesn't confirm so therefore he's still developing. He doesn't have it,'" Tierney said he was told. The ex-inspector predicted that Saddam would likely use his nukes, "maybe (in) Israel, maybe here." Calling the current inspections "a complete total waste of time," Tierney warned, "You have a leader of a country who's bent on stealing, killing and destroying. And it is time to resolve the issue and solve it. Crisis management is over." "There's way too much at stake," he added. "We could lose millions more of our citizens unless we wake up and take care of this."
The whole world know that he have WMD, but can anyone prove it existence is the million dollars question. My guess is that he master the art of mobile WMD hide and seek game and thus just completely humiliated the US and UK, and maybe force our allies into lifting the sanction all together :-(
We already have intelligence proving he has WMD. We are going through the UN due to political expediency and to give him a chance to disarm. When he files his report stating that he has nothing and the weapons inspectors can't find anything, we will break out our intelligence and say: "Oh yeah...what about this?" That will be the endgame to this situation.
Actually, ref, from what I have heard, that will present the US with a dilema...What if the UN inspectors find nothing to validate their 'intelligence' findings? According the the CNN discussion group I was just watching on this very subject, there are 2 minds about this in Washington, even among those who place their faith in this latest rumour about 'intelligence'. Whether to let the UN inspectors continue to search and hope they find something which supports the report, or force the issue and hope that others will assume that this report is better than the one earlier saying that he (Saddam) didn't have any, or other past erroneous ones. It would be a tough sell, I should think, especially if it flies in the face of the UN findings...
Yep, the prime directive of the UN inspection team was to spy on Saddam. Looking at all of Saddam's military targets was not the mission of UN inspection teams. I guess this did not stop the Pentagon from abusing the inspections. And we wonder why Saddam and the Iraqis eventually stop putting up with the inspections. Futhermore, Tierney is more of a a self admitted spy than a qualified weapons inspectors (ie a scientist). All in all, totally content free article. thanks t4651965.
What did you think this was, a tea party? If you don't utilize some "devious" methods Saddam will move his stuff around and you'll never find it. This is not a situation where you can afford to be duped. Tierney did no such thing. He identified those targets where WMD development and storage was taking place. He sure did...even before they really began. It's kind of like if you have a stash of p*rn hidden in the closet, and you tell your wife: "I have no p*rn...you can look all over the house...except THAT CLOSET!!!" If you aren't part weapons expert and part spy...you'll never find what he has. Saddam has set the rules to the game via his methodology of hiding and obfuscation. If we don't play by his rules we will be certain to lose. Whether you agree with Tierney's methods or not...he has knowledge of what Saddam has. In this article he expressed his knowledge. You may not like the guy...but this is relevant content. As an aside I heard the radio interview as it happened. Mr. Tierney answered questions regarding his methodology in a concise and adept manner.
I couldnt help but giggle a lil when I read this. Makes it sound like some sort of Perry Mason movie.
Please reread the article: "What I did was identified those people who have sold their souls to keep Saddam in power. I made it my goal to find every place where they are," Tierney told the London's Daily Mirror in October. Also "Certain things convinced me that they had proscribed items at this presidential site. That led to the inspection in September 1997 where we were locked out. There was something about that. The just came up and said, 'There will be no inspection. Good Day.' And they walked off." Tierney said the rebuff was "completely different" from other inspections of sensitive sites, where some sort of compromise was always worked out. Another sign of sinister activity: As Tierney and his team were being turned away, a U.N. helicopter attempting to overfly Jabal Makhul nearly crashed when an Iraqi official on board lunged at the controls. Wow, this so convincing that Saddam has nukes!!! Nuff said.
Isn't he implying that it is all based on supposition from an obviously compromised source without a shred of evidence to backup his biased and self-serving claims? Maybe it's just me....
I am amazed how so many people want to give Saddam the benefit of our collective doubt. Tierney is just one more educated voice telling us that millions are in danger if we don't stop Saddam from giving weapons to terrorists. Considering that Iraqi defectors have also told of their work on a nuclear weapons program, the mounting evidence should get us very worried. http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/ The first time that we may have certain proof that Saddam has a nuclear weapon could be when New York or Tel Aviv disappears in a mushroom cloud. Those who would risk this possibility are fools.
You are easily amazed. Why don't you just admit that this article, while lacking in persuasive evidence, is just a puff piece to prop up the Bush Admin's Iraqi agenda.
Why don't you admit that maybe...just maybe Bush has legitimate reason for worry rather than just an agenda. t brings up a good point. Nuclear scientists who have defected from Iraq have TOLD us that Saddam has had a continuing nuclear program. I think that's pretty telling...coming from the people who were tasked with working on it.
I'm not saying that this is a very definitive or reliable bit of information, but it does seem like some people need a nuke to drop on their head before they consider it a likelihood that SH has, or soon will have, nukes. I hope for all of us that they're right, but I don't think so.
This is the problem. If there isn't a neon sign that can be seen from the space shuttle reading "WE'VE GOT NUKES," then people are just willing to kid themselves that he doesn't have any. This just seems all too familiar...kind of like when people said that terrorism could never happen on US soil. How arrogant we are to think that this stuff simply can't be real.
This may sound like a stupid question, but If he had a nuclear weapon, wouldn't he have told everyone he has it? That's the power of having one.
This statement discounts everything he has to say, no president can change the purpose of the United States military in 8 years. Particularly when you consider the "war" in Kosovo which was basically a test bed for every new weapon guidance system now being used. Unless Iraq has purchased nukes from a former Soviet Republic, there are no nuclear weapons in Iraq. If there are old Soviet nukes in Iraq the only way they can be delievered is either smuggled on to a ship headed for a target or a truck headed across the desert towards Israel or Saudi Arabia. Does this guy have a book coming out soon?
I'm drooling over the prospects of Iraqi oil being made available to the world market once regime change has been implemented. We will more than recoup the costs of the war with the added economic benefit of $10/bbl oil.
