US tried to plant WMDs, failed

A disturbing report I read today. . .

[quote]According to a stunning report posted by a retired Navy Lt Commander and 28-year veteran of the Defense Department (DoD), the Bush administration?s assurance about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to ?plant? WMDs inside the country. Nelda Rogers, the Pentagon whistleblower, claims the plan failed when the secret mission was mistakenly taken out by ?friendly fire?, the Environmentalists Against War report.

Nelda Rogers is a 28-year veteran debriefer for the DoD. She has become so concerned for her safety that she decided to tell the story about this latest CIA-military fiasco in Iraq. According to Al Martin, ?Ms Rogers is number two in the chain of command within this DoD special intelligence office. This is a ten-person debriefing unit within the central debriefing office for the Department of Defense.?

The information that is being leaked out is information ?obtained while she was in Germany heading up the debriefing of returning service personnel, involved in intelligence work in Iraq for the DoD and/or the CIA. ?According to Ms Rogers, there was a covert military operation that took place both preceding and during the hostilities in Iraq,? reports Al Martin, an online subscriber-based news/analysis service which provides ?Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence?.

Al Martin is a retired Lt Commander (US Navy), the author of a memoir called ?The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider,? and is considered one of America?s foremost experts on corporate and government fraud. Ms Rogers reports that this particular covert operation team was manned by former military personnel and ?the unit was paid through the Department of Agriculture in order to hide it, which is also very commonplace?.

According to Al Martin, ?the Agriculture Department has often been used as a paymaster on behalf of the CIA, DIA, NSA and others?. According to the Al Martin story, another aspect of Ms Rogers? report concerns a covert operation which was to locate the assets of Saddam Hussein and his family, including cash, gold bullion, jewelry and assorted valuable antiquities. The problem became evident when ?the operation in Iraq involved 100 people, all of whom apparently are now dead, having succumbed to so-called ?friendly fire?. The scope of this operation included the penetration of the Central Bank of Iraq, other large commercial banks in Baghdad, the Iraqi National Museum and certain presidential palaces where monies and bullion were secreted.?

?They identified about $2 billion in cash, another $150 million in Euros, in physical banknotes, and about another $100 million in sundry foreign currencies ranging from Yen to British Pounds,? reports Al Martin.

?These people died, mostly in the same place in Baghdad, supposedly from a stray cruise missile or a combination of missiles and bombs that went astray,? Martin continues. ?There were supposedly 76 who died there and the other 24 died through a variety of ?friendly fire?, ?mistaken identity? and some of them?their whereabouts are simply unknown.? Ms Rogers? story sounds like an updated 21st-century version of Treasure Island meets Ali Baba and the Bush Cabal Thieves, writes Martin.

?This was a contingent of CIA/ DoD operatives, but it was really the CIA that bungled it,? Ms Rogers said. ?They were relying on the CIA?s ability to organise an effort to seize these assets and to be able to extract these assets because the CIA claimed it had resources on the ground within the Iraqi army and the Iraqi government who had been paid. That turned out to be completely bogus. As usual.?

?CIA people were supposed to be handling it,? Martin continues. ?They had a special ?black? aircraft to fly it out. But none of that happened because the regular US Army showed up, stumbled onto it and everyone involved had to scramble. These new Iraqi ?asset seizures? go directly to the New US Ruling Junta. The US Viceroy in Iraq Paul Bremer is reportedly drinking Saddam?s $2000 a bottle Napoleon-era brandy, smoking his expensive Davidoff cigars and he has even furnished his office with Saddam?s Napoleon-era furniture.

Get a fucking life. Some people will believe and repost anything they read. where did you get that? paknews dot com.

My Mother always used to say “paper refuses no ink”.

You have got to be the…Roy, you certainly are batty if you believe this.

Go lift some weights!!!

Hey its a T-man challenge!

prove that report false,
find some WMD

and you’ll get 87 billion!

…well… minus the 10 bill going to Turkey

Jus’ tink, all the biotest you can ingest :slight_smile:

Roy post a link please or at least tell where you found that. :slight_smile:


Roy go do some squats on a swiss ball or something.

Good one you ignorant slut :slight_smile:

For a link try FOX News… er,
Daily Times Monitor (not sure of the address)

“…claims the plan failed when the secret mission was mistakenly taken out by ?friendly fire?, the Environmentalists Against War report.”

Oh my GOd!!! The Environmentalists Against War reported this!!! Gasp! It must be true!

Funny how they had some ‘black aircraft’. They dont know what TYPE of aircraft it was, but god do they know its color.

Also, how interesting that:

  1. the whole unit was killed by friendly fire, especially considering that… odds of getting struck by a stray missile that was supposed to go somewhere else are…almost nil!!! But lo and behold most of the unit was hit by stray missiles. Gasp.

  2. If the government was steadfast on accomplishing the mission, the mission would be accomplished. If 100 died, 100 would replace them believe that.

  3. How the fuck do you suppose they would infiltrate WMDs in Iraq? Care to share how they were going to get a Nuke in Iraq without being caught? Remember, if they’re caught the Bush administration is fried, impeached, and more than likely a war against the US would be waged.
    Believe it, nobody is that stupid.

Also, what is with this whole ‘greed’ thing? The Bush administration has all the money they need. What the fuck do they want more for? To buy another yacht? They’re set for life, just like Clinton is. My personaly opinino is they are trying to do something good that will carry into the future. If you dont need the money, why would you go throughh such commotion and risk to get more of what you dont need?

I mean, come on people.

C’mon guys, this could be true!


Or not.

If they were going to be planted, they would have been planted. Would Bush have only tried once and then give up? How hard could it be? The most advanced military on Earth can’t plant a few WMD?

Now, can anyone explain why there cannot be a rational political discussion? I can fully understand if people say they were against military action, or have problems with a certain political party, or person. But why do people have to keep coming up with all of these conspiracy theories?

Whenever I get into these discussions, people can’t just stay with a logical point by stating reasons as to why this was such a bad idea. I know people seemed to get annoyed with me mentioning the illuminati, and aliens, but nobody got the joke.

Here is the true conspiracy: Both parties will say anything to get elected, and to influence the elections of their party members.

So far we have Schwarzenegger meeting with Enron execs 2 years ago with the psychic knowledge that he was going to win the recall election. Unfortunately people forget that it was attempted to link the Enron problems on Republicans until it was found out that a large contingency of Clinton employees took jobs at Enron after the 2000 election.

Then we have the “NEO-conservatives” who planned the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq before 9/11, which could only mean that 9/11 was known ahead of time by Dick Cheney. And Dick Cheney allowed this to happen because he knew that it would mean Halliburton would get contracts, and then foolishly got the military to prevent the fires thereby causing Halliburton to lose out on billions in firefighting money.

If any of this was true, and the information was so available that we all know about it, then obviously investigations are going to result in some prison time for some people. If the proof is actually out there then this is the result. Democrats could easily get an investigation under way. If not then you have to question their statements if they are making accusations.

Did anyone catch the Democrat debates? Did anyone see the one where one of the Presidential candidates said that they should quit attacking each other, because it is “Bush who is the enemy”?

He specifically stated that Bush was the “enemy.” Anyone understand what this means? The state of mind of the people involved?

Skeptics often say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” I hear so many conspiracy theories here with no proof. Too often I find people linking to an opinion by a politically biased person as proof. Or links to web sites run by some nut, or group of nuts. (Mostly cashews.)

Does anyone understand what I am saying? It is one thing to make political beliefs and opinions known, but to bring up unsubstantiated rumor and gossip as fact, especially when there are people out there trying to get these rumors started to facilitate their political positions.

Blindly accepting these ideas only because they support your political opinions brings a lack of credibility to the arguments associated with the rumor. (Say that four times fast.)

point well taken. Personally the idea seems far-fetched, but I like posting stuff like that in here because it always riles people up!

In terms of the “neo-cons” plans to re-engineer" the middle east, this is not a secret, nor is it part of some elaborate conspiracy theory. In fact the very TERM “neo-conservative” is what they call themselves, not some libral hate title. Surely you of all people are familiar with the “project for a New American Century.”

You can visit their website at and while you are there, do a little bit of reading. Here is an excerpt from there statement of principles:

[quote]Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

? we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

? we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

? we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

? we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz


If you are really in the mood to do some reading, go to this link which can also be found on the PNAC website:

Pay special attention to the quote on page 51, which is probably the cause of much of the speculation from critics who think that there was a plan from early on to invade Iraq. Interpret this document however you want, but don’t criticise me for finding it somewhat prophetic and chilling.

There is a lot to read at that site, and I am sure that you will nod your head in agreement with everything you read there, but I still highly recommend it if you have the time.

I agree with you Mage that blind acceptance of anything is inherently dangerous (I don’t take this planting piece too seriously).

Which is precisely why I take most of what mainstream media says rather lightly. In graduate school I researched ways in which media often frames issues so as to enforce dominant positions (i.e. white, upper-middle/upper class), or outright miss the boat entirely on most issues.

This tendency has increased following 9/11 - I refer here to the thread I started (by the Air Force Colonel now analyst) regarding White House hiring of PR firms who’s job was to influence & distort whats reported.

Mage, your point on the “two” political parties and foolishness of the Dem candidates is on the money.

That said, your going a bit far in the 9/11/Afghan arguement. Following Roy’s point it is a fact, as stated by the PNAC itself, that members of the current administration are subscribers to a stance that boils down to American imperialism.


The only place I have seen the term “neoconservative” has been here or on liberal websites. After the all knowing Lumpy stated that The New American Century website called themselves neoconservatives I did a Google search limited to that website. It found only two web pages that used the term.

I have now went to the site and did a site search using their search engine, and came up with the exact same two pages. I keep getting the impression that it is all over the place there, but it does not seem to be.

Now I never said that there weren’t people trying to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Clinton even mentioned that it would be a good course of action in 1997. I have heard conservatives state publicly that they believe he took advantage of America’s political mood after 9/11 to get rid of Saddam Hussein. My biggest problem is with people trying to come up with ulterior motives, when it might be blatantly obvious that they just wanted to get rid of this man and regime.

Now as far as page 51, I downloaded the pdf file and on page 51 they talk about the navy, and a more strategic use of navel resources. I am not sure what quote you are talking about. Please clarify.

Also which of the principles you quoted do you disagree with?


I disagree with your proposition that the media tends to enforce white, upper middle to upper class positions. They are very often “politically correct” which is a very liberal position. But the media is very screwed up. It can be seen every time they mention how dangerous protein is. They seem to be switching on this issue recently, in support of the recent popularity of Atkins, but I still see the protein danger articles.

As far as the White House hiring a pr firm, this is normal. Have you not heard about spin doctors? Politicians probably spend more on pr firms then Hollywood.

Now how do you define imperialism? Trying to keep America as the most powerful country? I don’t see a problem with this. The attempt to spread Democracy? Nothing wrong with that either.

I don’t see intended imperialism, but an interest in maintaining, and improving America’s self interests. And this does not mean the domination of other countries, but just looking out for ourselves first. Also making sure that nuts like Hussein don’t become to powerful.

America maintaining it’s dominant position in the world is no different then McDonalds attempting to maintain their dominant position in fast food. Dominant does not mean to dominate in these instances.

Halle Barry:

Yes I am available for a midnight rendezvous.

Check this out Roy & anyone else (Michael Meacher is one of Tony Blair’s cabinet ministers who quit in disgust over the Iraq thing) I thought it was appropriate because Roy mentioned PNAC.

Excerpt from: This war on terrorism is bogus–The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination. By Michael Meacher, Saturday September 6, 2003, The Guardian:

"Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush’s younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC)…"

The rest is here: This war on terrorism is bogus | Michael Meacher | The Guardian or here:

& here’s the site for Project for the New American Century:

From the mission statement: “Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? …We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge.”

This explains the preemptive-strike doctrine of the National Security Strategy available here:

(actually here:

I think the NMD thing that came up earlier this year isn’t really for ‘defence;’ it’s for offence as part of the preemptive-strike doctrine. PS - this National Security Strategy was condemned even by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences which doesn’t usually get involved in current affairs or politics.