WMD's in Iraq?

“I saw this too Violin.

CCW

Protocol III: Incendiary Weapons

Protocol III regulates the use of weapons designed to set fire to or burn their target. The protocol proscribes targeting civilians with incendiary weapons and restricts the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets in close proximity to concentrations of noncombatants. It also prohibits parties from targeting forests or other plant cover unless the vegetation is being used to conceal military forces. The protocol only covers weapons created intentionally to set fire or burn, such as flamethrowers. Weapons that ignite fires or burn as a side effect are not subject to the protocol.”

“I'm wondering about something for you guys who claim that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.

Do you think that anybody is so stupid as to claim that knowing that they were sending search teams in to find the stuff if they knew they wouldn't find anything, and that they'd have to tell everyone, during their term in office, that they didn't find anything?

Yes, you think he's stupid, we get that. But nobody is that stupid, and even if by chance he were, his advisors, or maybe a janitor or something, would bring it up.

So let's assume there were no WMD in Iraq that the U.S. gave them in the past, Bush couldn't have actually lied about it.”

“wmd in iraq?

White Male Dominance?

check”

“... other than that, Incendiary Weapons can not be used on civilian targets. The citizens of Faluja were warned to leave the city. If they remained, I supose they could be considered enemy. Therefore, Incendiary Weapons were not used on civilians, they were used on enemy.”

“The State department obviously gave out false information about the use of WP in Falluja.

I dont's see the evidence that they violated Protocol III. Is there any evidence that they did?”

“Well, I'll bite. Despite the lack of any apology or significant sign that Sarge has had a change of heart - as opposed to a change in tactic - I will take Sarge's post seriously, thus meeting him half way.


What apologists for Bush apparently fail to understand about the Bush teams WMD deception is:

1) While almost everyone believed Saddam had some left over WMD's, the Bush team claimed to have very current and precise intelligence on the location of the WMDs.

2) Bush's team claimed to have current information on how Saddam was moving his WMDs around Iraq and where they were.

3) Bush's team claimed to have excellent evidence that Saddam was expanding his WMD program.

4) Therefore, Bush's team was going far beyond the claims made by Clinton and many of the people Bush says were also fooled.

5) Bush could not be blamed for believing that there were WMD's in Iraq. He probably sincerely believed there were some. In fact, there probably were some - however small in quantity, degreaded, etc. The deception came in the form of claims that there was red hot evicence and that the claims that the threat was growing.

6) Getting a country into war on false pretexts is nothing new. Americans rally around the flag in times of war and crisis and around their president. This is a noble quality, too often exploited (remember Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin?). I figure the Bush team in their hubris figured the whole thing would be long over and the b!tching about false pretexts would be left tot the historians. How seriously would claims by the "liberal media" over the lack of WMD be if the war had gone fast and easy.

7) Remember all those initial claims about evidence of WMD's that were found? They kept making headlines. It is possible that if the war had gone as planned, people would be left with the impression there was real evidence found. The finds got more press than the retractions.

8) Another key part of the deception was the assertion that Saddam wasn't cooperating at the time the US invaded. Saddam actually was cooperating with the UN inspections during the lead-up to the war. Bush and company claimed evidence that Saddam continued to hide and evade and play musical stockpiles in the months before the invasion. This could not be disproved.”

“I have this picture of pedx sitting there typing that while wearing his tin foil hat, like the one's in Signs. ;-)”

“Again, are you saying they lied about that information knowing it would be found out to not be true?

Thanks for the response, but you didn't answer the question I asked. You brought up other interesting points though which we could address separately.”

“Stove: It is interesting to read about your hallucinations.

Sarge: The answer to your question is right there. It's been the tactic of Bush defenders to oversimplify things to create this simple minded notion that Bush is accused of saying there were WMDs when there weren't. That is not the case.

The oversimplified version: They lied about their level of certainty about the extent and nature of WMD's. I don't know what they believed to be true about WMDs, but if you'll read tmy earlier post you will see my speculations on what their considerations may be.


You might also be interested in reading the analysis by one of Mutt's apparent heroes. George Friedman, of Stratfor. I did some research on the guy after Mutt raised Stratfor's stuff several times. He has a very different analysis of why the Bush team lied and what their calculations were. Friedman has been spectacularly wrong at times, but his ability to ferret out secrets seems far better than his judgement and ability to foresee consequences.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385512457/103-5973273-6899821?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance”

“Anyone else notice just how much the Dems have turned into Conspiracy Theorists? ;-)”

“Thanks for posting your pic Stove. I didn't know what you looked like.”

“I don't know what they believed to be true about WMDs, but if you'll read tmy earlier post you will see my speculations on what their considerations may be.

If you don't know what they believed true about WMDs, then how can you say they lied?”

“Anyone else notice just how much the Dems have turned into Conspiracy Theorists? ;-)”
StoveStomper

It seems all you have to do with this administration is go so far as to simply question ANYTHING, and you are instantly labeled a "conspiracy theorist."”

“"When one argues with a moron, it's two."

--- Al Franken”

“Sarge you aren't listening, or aren't reading.

I was very clear about what I said they lied about. I'm not interested in repeating myself. We can start with items 1 - 4 and 8 of my lengthier post.
last edited: 11/17/05 11:04:04 AM”

“I am not questioning what you said they lied about. I am questioning how you could KNOW they lied if you don't know what they believed they knew to be true.

In order for a lie to be a lie, the person telling the lie has to know they are speaking falsely.

I have no interest in your patronizing speak towards me. If you have a question for me, ask it, but don't tell me I am not paying attention to what you are saying. These personal remarks are trollish.”

“Sarge. Simply put, they made up the evidence. It's like when a cop or a prosecutor makes up evidence or coerces witnesses to lie in order to get a conviction. I might be in a position to know that the cop or prosecutor offered phony evidence. I do not know if they believed the guy was guilty or deliberately framed him. the charitable interpretation is that the cops felt sure the guy was guilty, but felt there wasn't enough hard evidence to convict.


The most charitable interpretation I can offer about the Bush team, is that they were convinced Saddam had an active and dangerous WMD program, but couldn't prove it - so they phonied up a case that "proved" it.”

“Ok, so if you agree they made up the evidence, then we're on track to answer the question. That was the premise of my question. Now that we are in agreement of the premise of the question, you or somebody else is welcome to answer it if you'd like to.”

“I already gave you a very clear and thorough answer, which I clarified further.”

“All you have done is told me that they made up and gussied up the intelligence to sell the war. That was the premise of my question.

Also, your answer is incorrect. I have read over the last several years many claims by the left that he completely made up the intelligence, and therefore lied about it. It's been all over. Your claim now that the right misinterpreted those claims is far fetched. I agree that SOME people may have believed the made up intelligence in the same way that you have outlined here, but MANY on the left claimed it was an outright lie, they they just made all of it up - hence lied about it.

You seem to be claiming more of a "misjudgement" about how to deal with the intelligence they had ... how much emphasis should be placed on it. That is not a precursor to lying. Lying is not misjudgment, it's purposefully falsifying information.

If Bush LIED, then he knew it would be found out eventually, which is absurd the he or any of his staff would allow that.
last edited: 11/17/05 12:02:17 PM”

“Again, I can't speak for all the critics of the Bush administration. Certainly the most thoughtful and informative argue that the Bush administration deliberately misrepresented the intelligence. In addition, they misrepresented the level of cooperation by Saddam after inspections were reinstated.

My points 5, 6 and 7 indicate how I think the Bush team thought they could get away with it. If they thought there were WMD's then they would have thought that their lies about what the intelligence showed would not be noticed by many. It's only the stark fact that none were found that make the falsifications so glaring.
last edited: 11/17/05 12:34:43 PM”

“The deception came in the form of claims that there was red hot evicence and that the claims that the threat was growing.

How can you say that with a straight face? Even France thought the threat was growing. Are you saying only Bush thought that, and tried to deceive the rest of the world? Some of out intelligence came from OTHER countries. I can't imagine why you'd think it was deception on Bush's part.”

“I say the Bush team, because I don't know who in the Bush chain of command did the cherry picking or misrepresentation of evidence.

Show me hard evidence that other countries acting independently of Bush were saying Saddam was actively pursuing Nukes.

Just look at what's being unearthed in the Plame affair. Did you forget the Downing Street memo?”

“"I can't hear you. You're mumbling!"

Sarge and the Chocolate Factory”

“limpy - What does that mean?

pedxing - Based on what you just wrote, you are not claiming Bush lied. My question was directed at those that said Bush lied.”

“I don't know if Bush lied or his people lied to him. He definitely deceived the American people. But, you are right, I'm not sure if he lied or was guilty of extreme negligence.”

“Fair enough.”

“Actually, speaking clearly about it, Bush said many misleading things about WMD. It's hard to know if he was deliberately misleading. He certainly avoided saying anything that could be proved to be a lie regarding objective facts about Iraqi WMD.

This goes back to a debate we had a few months back.”

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program.”

“He was misleading or misled if he said this during the lead up to this war. There wasn't a serious threat posed by Saddam's WMD program.”

“*giggle*”

“I have to admit, when he used the following argument to invade Iraq, in hindsight I do question his intent.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

As hard as it is to admit this, I am starting to question what lies (or misinformation) was given to the American people at that time.”

“I should have added "at that time" to my last post there had been a serious threat once, and there might have been once again in the future.”

“A firm majority of Americans now believe that the Bush administration deliberately misled us in the lead up to this war. Some people will never accept the obvious.


For one example of how we were misled, consider this statement by Bush in February 2003:
"The Iraqi regime has acquired and tested the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction. All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicles with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland."

The obvious intent was to scare the crap out of us - the US mainland could come under attack with biological weapons.

However, the October 2002 NIE said this:

"The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability."

Like pedxing has pointed out, this isn’t exactly a flat out lie, but it is surely a deliberate distortion of the best available information to support a predetermined policy.”

“LOL
You peeps quote almost directly from Dem talking points.

All this is an attempt to stir up enough crap with the 'lies', of course your Major Media friends are just too happy to feed it.
The goal is to get Bush impeached for these 'lies' as payback for Clinton.

If you want to look for 'lies' just look in the mirror at your own Party.”

“What difference does it make if it's a primary or a secondary role to deliver WMD?”

“Of course, Nigal, Sarge, bacpac and SS are smarter than this guy too.

Bush - Liar, deserter, failure, coward, moron, traitor, torturor, criminal.

Cheney - Liar, draft dodger, war profiteer, coward, traitor, torturor, criminal.

Voters and defenders of the above - morons.”

“Of course, Nigal, Sarge, bacpac and SS are smarter than this guy too.

Jimmy Carter's (laughing) CIA chief, who by the way, retired a long time ago. What? Is he still on the company email exchange? Maybe he's doing his own CIA work from his basement? He's like "According the the intelligence I have, Bush is wrong." ... Maybe he is using the same notes he used when he told Jimmy Kotter that North Korea wasn't pursuing nukes.”

“

Neo-Con Feith, under investigation, like the majority of Republican leaders.”

“It is very interesting that if you go back before the war the rhetoric coming out the mouths of other administration officials, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, even Powell was much more clear on the proported threat posed by Saddam and WMDs. Bush's words were far more cautious. It's almost as though they didn't want Bush's words to come back and be used at election time. Almost as though they had doubts on what was being said while they were saying it.”

“It is very interesting that if you go back before the war the rhetoric coming out the mouths of other administration officials, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, even Powell was much more clear on the proported threat posed by Saddam and WMDs. Bush's words were far more cautious. It's almost as though they didn't want Bush's words to come back and be used at election time. Almost as though they had doubts on what was being said while they were saying it.”

“I've noticed that, too Y2. The reason for the discrepancy is unlcear. Your sopeculation is one of several that might be accurate.”

“*giggle*”

“Was the President lying when he said this?

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program.”
bacpac
10:32:53 PM
11/17/05

He was misleading or misled if he said this during the lead up to this war. There wasn't a serious threat posed by Saddam's WMD program.”
pedxing
8:38:52 AM
11/18/05

Interesting, This was a quote by President Clinton.”

“I didn't mean to run the liberals off with my little fishing expedition. I baited my hook with the facts and caught a gulible guppy.”

“How many American patriots died during Desert Fox?”

“"The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution . . .

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. . . .

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests." Clinton February 17, 1998 to the Pentagon”

“We felt that in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's [WMD] capabilities fundamentally." Rolf Ekeus Former Head UNSCOM 8/16/00



All inspections were performed without notice, and access was in virtually all cases provided promptly. In no case have the inspectors seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance of their impending arrival."

"The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations."

"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found." "I'm certainly coming more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all, almost, of what they had in the summer of 1991." UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix Pre-Invasion”

“Bacpac: You caught no one in your bait game. You ignore that I said he was misleading if he said this during the lead up to the war. I looked up the Clinton quote, he said it in 1998. Did you know that? That was five years earlier. Things change. You'll note Scott Ritter's assessment changed in that time.

I gave you an honest careful answer and you ignore most of what I said.

Was Clinton misled or misleading at the time? I don't know. He didn't always tell the truth, that's for sure. But, a lot changed in 5 years and a lot of new evidence came in in five years.
last edited: 11/19/05 12:11:14 PM”