WMD - which is it?

“The more time passes, the clearer things get:

There are two major possibilities regarding “the facts and conclusions based on solid evidence” that Powell – and others in the Bush administration presented about the danger provided by Iraq’s nuclear program and Iraq's preparedness to use the thousands of tons of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons they said it had.

Either:

1) These facts and conclusions based on solid evidence were false. The facts weren’t facts, and the conclusions weren’t based on solid evidence.

2) The stuff really was there and we have no idea of what happened to it. Saddam and his gang now have nothing to lose – and the invasion was a serious miscalculation. What we were told about the precision of US intelligence and the ability of the US to contain and control what happened to the material was totally over-hyped.

In other words, either Bush and his administration told us they knew stuff for certain and it was not true, or they were reckless we have no idea as to whether or not we let stuff loose that is a bigger danger to us than ever before.

If #1 is true, then we can ask if they were lying, just wrong or some combination of the two.

If #2 is true, the possibilities are very scary.”

“Oooop's, my bad.....”

“The press is not hounding this issue the way they should.”

“The Press has been turned into Bush's B!tch.

The administration was/is full of lies. WMD's were as contrived as the Lynch rescue with the media collaborating in the propaganda.”

“lol Steve!

If the Bush folks believe their own claims, you would think they would be really worried about the danger from those weapons and you'd think there would be massive mobilization aimed at containing and finding them.”

“... and OJ is still out there looking for "the real killer"...”

“They haven't found Saddam either. Does that mean he doesn't exist?”

“Ultra - is that a mantra you use to stop from thinking about the situation? What do you have to say about the logic of the circumstances?

1) This thread hasn't been about Iraqi wmd not existing - its saying, if they do exist in the quantities Bush said (1000 of tons, many many missles, etc.) then we are in big trouble because Saddam has nothing to lose and we have no idea where they are.

2) The fact that we don't know where Sadam is, does suggest that there probably aren't 1000 tons of him.

3) Everyone knew there has been some wmd in Iraq, the question is if there ever were the quantities and risk that Bush claimed.

4) The fact they haven't been found doesn't prove they don't exist - but it does prove that either our intelligence wasn't as great as Bush said - or they didn't exist in anywhere near the quantities Bush claimed.”

“I've thought about the situation alot actually. One warhead of chemicals was enough to engage Saddam in a war in my opinion. Whether or not Iraq possessed tons of WMD taking out the regime was well passed due. No intelligence is 100% accurate. My MOS in the Army was 98J (military intelligence) alot of times we had to give our best guess and use experience to give good intelligence reports and even then they were less than perfect.

I doubt Bush and his administration sat around in the White House and said, Why don't we just make the whole thing up? We have nothing better to do than get American Soldiers killed. It will really help our chances in the 04 elections to see lots of Americans killed over nothing.”

“Face it, the kid went in to finish a job his father should have completed years before. Going in he had the CIA and the military behind him because they've been wanting more since the first go round. I gotta tell ya I don't care if they ever find any proof, it's finally over, Saddam is out of there, the sick bastard that he is/was. We finally finished what we started. My only question is what took us so long...........oh yeah those damn democrates again.”

“We haven't found Osma Bin Laden
We haven't found WMD
We haven't found Sadam Hussein



That would be 0 for 3”

“1) The intelligence (if you can call it that) wasn't just a little off.

As for "damn democrates:" it was a republican administration that gave Saddam Hussein intelligence on Iranian troop movements while Hussein was using chemical weapons against them. It was a Republican president who urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Hussein and then watched those Iraqi people get slaughtered. The Democrats aren't any great piece of work..... but the Republicans have got a pattern: tolerate Husseings use of chemical weapons if we think it will help us strategically, leave Hussein in power if we think it helps us strategically, lie about Hussein's wmd it we think it will help us strategically. Each immoral deed is justified by immediate interests and each rebounds negatively.

Who helped set Bin Laden up with a great terror infrastructure? The US under a republican administration.

Who ignored Afghanistan banonded it, like Bush I abandonded the Iraqis, after the Soviets were gone? A republican administration.”

“LOL you are toooooo easy Dave”

“We haven't found Osma Bin Laden
We haven't found WMD
We haven't found Sadam Hussein



That would be 0 for 3"
mtnsteve
06:39:40 PM
06/15/03

Osama hasn't attacked US cities or ships since the war in Afghanistan

WMD's haven't been used against us

Saddam Hussein is no longer in power

That would be 3 for 3”

“the man of sticks slams one home for the good guys.....


peddy, why are you so anxious to find fault with your leader?”

“Anxious? I think the case has been made very plain for you, Strat.

Osama hasn't attacked US cities or ships since the war in Afghanistan

WMD's haven't been used against us

Saddam Hussein is no longer in power

That would be 3 for 3"
StickmanWalking
10:42:59 PM
06/15/03

1. The Al-Qaeda attacks in Saudi arabia are politely ignored in this statement.

2. WMD weren't used against us before the war. No WMD have been found in Iraq. How does this compute?

3. Saddam Hussein is and was irrelevent to the administration's lies.”

“The faults don't take much looking Strat. Just look at what Bush said was known about Iraq and wmd. You tell me - was what he said wrong, or have we lost track of 1000s of tons of wmd that are ready to use.

Saying Bush is 0 - 3 or 3 - 3 is way too simple. Americans are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. The world knows that Bush fought a war justified by fales information - at the very least, what we knew was far less precise than he said. The fallout from that may take a long timen to find us.”

“1. The Al-Qaeda attacks in Saudi arabia are politely ignored in this statement.
Phaedrus
11:06:44 PM
06/15/03

What US cities or ships in Saudi Arabia were attacked? Further, what US cities are even in Saudi Arabia, and which attacks in Saudi were directed toward ships?

Saddam didn't use WMD's against us before the war, and you can be sure he won't use them against us after the war.

"3. Saddam Hussein is and was irrelevent to the administration's lies."

Therefore the fact that he was a brutal, murderous dictator who was deposed is a bad thing?Convoluted thinking there.

Like it or not, President Bush said before the war that one of the aims was to remove the Husseing regime.

Saying Bush is 0 - 3 or 3 - 3 is way too simple. Americans are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq.
pedxing
11:07:02 PM
06/15/03
I agree, I was simply pointing out that the information can be looked at more than one way.”

“peddy, don't get your panties inna wad. jsut answer my question. what is your motivation? i can show you dozens of democrats who said before the war that they were confident that iraq had WMD's. i can show youy how the UN said they had them. i can show you how clinton said he had them. were they all lying too?


dood, why don't you look for the real bad guys here?


i am so sick and tired of people dissing this pres, just because he has the nards to take on the tough issues. the horror stories should be enough to justify thios invasion. but you really don't care about common people getting murdered and tortured by their gubment, i guess......try humanitarian you are.....


and dont' hand me th ole line that bush didn't say that was the reason. he mentioned it in every speach reguarding this matter so jsu get ovewr it and move on to something relavent....”

“Outstanding. Holy George can do no wrong.”

“Stickman,

What US cities or ships in Saudi Arabia were attacked? Further, what US cities are even in Saudi Arabia, and which attacks in Saudi were directed toward ships?

C'mon Stickman, you're hiding behind semantics. The attacks in SA tagerted American interests.

Saudi Arabia - Riyadh
Three separate bombings of American/Western residential areas - 34 Killed (8 Americans); Over 200 injured

Saddam didn't use WMD's against us before the war, and you can be sure he won't use them against us after the war.

Apparently because he didn't HAVE any, thereby revealing the danger is the same now as it was before the war. Oh, and if he did have them, and managed to scurry away with them or stash them, how are we safer?

Therefore the fact that he was a brutal, murderous dictator who was deposed is a bad thing?Convoluted thinking there.


The only thing I see that is convoluted is your attempt to make me a Saddam supporter. I'm glad Saddam is gone. I believe the reasons he was deposed were fictitious.”

“i am so sick and tired of people dissing this pres, just because he has the nards to take on the tough issues"

Now thats funny...just like his service record.”

“I was hiding behind semantics to a degree, but there have been attacks against American interests abroad for a long time now. My point is that we've so far stopped any more attacks on US soil; intelligence indicates that some were in the works, hence the constant elevations to level yellow or whatever the flavor of the week is. Plus, mtnSteve left himself wide open for it lol. No harm intended, Steve.

Phaed, I know you aren't a Saddam supporter, but the fact is that along with the WMD which are strangely difficult to locate, Bush said he also wanted to topple Hussein, and he did. What he used as a "selling point" for the war is the part that's so hotly debated. Alot of people say he focused solely on the WMD. Maybe, maybe not, but Saddam is out of the picture, and I think it was 12 years behind schedule. Getting rid of him is enough for me. I'm willing to give it more time before I say the intel on the WMD was wrong. I could think of alot of other countries that need "liberating", but Iraq is enough "fixing" for now. I say more isolationist policies unless N. Korea keeps bucking for a fight, and even then they'll have to be more than a loudmouth to get me to want a fight.”

“For me it was never about weapons,partisan politics, or even oil. It was about something called the Munich Analogy. The only injustice was that it was'nt finished in 91'. Since the weapons are such a big deal to so many people I ask you this: What killed the Kurds; talcum powder, perfume, maybe harsh words?”

“Unless I'm mistaken, he couldn't have killed the Kurds with out our help....that would be the help of our Republican pres at the time.”

“He could have, but you get my point.....”

“No prob....

I just got back from 5 days of button pushing with the kids, it takes a couple days to decompress ;)

it's still 0 for 3 though.....”

“Strat. We were all waiting for you to come to the defense of our last president, also. I guess it's all black and white, isn't it?”

“ebony and ivory....”

“Who cares if we find WMD or not? Sure, it was Bush's casus belli for war, but what does it really matter when the goal of the war was regional hegemony?

Are people really that upset about the government dishonestly exaggerating a threat? I'm sure there was genuine concern. I'm sure it was hyperbolized.

But the point is, we now have considerable power and influence in the region, and we've beat out our competitors for control. This is good for the U.S.”

“i reluctantly agree with muttly.....

wb mutt”

“Strat: My motivation - I don't feel comfortable with the idea of a president lying to the nation and to the world about cause for war. The phony pretext for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was bad enough. There were plenty of other reasons for going to war at the time and lots of people thought they were legitimate. This could be much worse.”

“But Strat: You need to put your thinking cap on. Bush didn't just say that there were unaccounted for wmd... he said there was hard evidence that Saddam had 1,000s of tons of the stuff and they were an immediate danger.

You tell me: was this wrong, or should we be very scared about the fact that 1000s of tons of wmds have slipped through our fingers and may be in the hands of embittered allies of a destroyed regime with nothing to lose?”

“Gullible:
adjective
Easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say.”

“My sole reason for disagreeing with the President's decision to invade was that I did not feel that enough evidence had been presented to support the claims made by the administration.

I have a fundamental problem with any country taking action against another on unwarranted claims. Once we take the postion that we can do anything we want because (a) we advance some plausible theory to support it and (b) no one can do anything to stop us anyway,,,,we find ourselves closer to our "enemies" than we want to believe.

Terrorists attacks are wrong. But then again, I suppose that at least some people could legitimately advance the argument that using the planet's strongest army to attack is only one step removed.”

“Grand Ostrich Party”

“Your whinning is making a difference keep it up! You can tell that you are really shaping the minds of tomorrow!”

“Try disputing the evidence that contradicts your conservative belief system. Otherwise you are just whining.”

“GMMV's? We've uncovered losts of those. Even Scott Simon of NPR fame is quoted to the effect that that the biggest WMD was the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party -- and it does not exist anymore.”

“Yeah Bush is trying to change the topic... but he did not sell the deed on the basis of how bad the Iraqi regime was.

Unlike the Bush boys, Scott Simon tells it pretty much the way he sees it.”

“So, GMMVs don't matter to you?”

“If the war was based on lies to gain control of resources, then it was mass murder -- not really a "war" at all.

What a recruiting angle for al-Qaida!

Simply Brilliant, George.


If Mutt doesn't have a problem with people simply taking what they want, and killing whomever is in the way, I wonder what his defn of "evil" is.”

“I didn't say it didn't matter - but George Bush sold the war and grounded its legitimacy in a doctrine of pre-emption against imminetn danger to the US.

Are you saying that Bush lied, but that it doesn't matter because Hussein was a bad guy?

Are you saying we should invade other countries where the leader has as much blood on his hands as Husseing does/did?”

“I hope not ped,,,otherwise, we can just move all forces attached to CentCom to South America and begin going country to country.


And what about those crazy Chinese,,,they aren't exactly a model of liberty, are they?”

“Please don't say such things, Chili...”

“I just saw a spot on the news that says those trailers that were supposed to be mobile germ warfare labs were actually set up to supply hydrogen gas to military balloons.

We will see.......”

“When do we stop calling him Mr President and start calling him Mr Pants-On-Fire?”

“Or KY Bush.....

You know, kinda like Slick Willy, but, well, you get it.....”

“I was against the war until Powell's presentation. Now with all of the "former" CIA analysts either quitting over the misinformation, or talking anonymously it's beginning to look pretty bad, and I'm feeling a little betrayed. They have more time in my book, but with more servicemen/women getting killed daily, and the Iraqi's wanting us gone it's looking pretty bad”

“"So far Americans in Iraq haven't had much luck in finding WMDs
-- Weapons of Mass Destruction -- but it turns out that they're
doing pretty good at finding VMDs -- victims of mass destruction
-- slaughtered by the hundreds on orders of Saddam Hussein and
buried in mass grave sites around the country." --Lyn Nofziger



PED, bush said there were 1,000 of tons unaccounted for. he also mentioned the iraqi's suffering in EVERY SINGLE MAJOR SPEECH. hillary agreed, all the members of the congressinal commitees agreed, bill clinton, by his actions as president agreed. hussein had every chance to comply with the UN resolutions by giving unfettered access. all he had to do was that...and he didn't. ya think he'd throw his whole world away for no reason? does anyone honestly think that? ped, do you?


ya'll are a pathetic bunch of weenies who wouldn't know a threat if it dropped saron gas on an entire town..........”