So where in heck are them WMD's?

[Killebrew]

When they were finding possible sites every half hour this place was hopping with Skydogs and others WMD Updates©, but now that these reports have been proven false any mention of WMD seems like a bad joke. That said, my first thought when reading
this article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/bush.iraq/) was:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's spokesman said the president is still confident a Pentagon-led search will find Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction, just as soon as they help OJ find the real killer.

[Sharpieman]

Hey, give the WMD search more time. They need more time to do a more comprehensive search!.....wait a minute, that seems very familar...Oh ya, that's right, that's what the UN weapons inspectors said before we went to war. Ironic huh?

[CamEdwards]

Seth Yatovitz, is that you?

[Sharpieman]

Who is Seth Yatovitz?

[Ben E Lou]

It is odd that some of the same people who said that 12 years wasn't enough time for the UN inspections are now acting like 12 weeks should have been enough time for us to find them. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, I read somewhere recently that the estimated total number of gallons of WMD (I can't remember, but I think it was in the neighborhood of either 25,000 gallons or 250,000 gallons), approximates to the size of a large backyard swimming pool. If that is true, then a good ol' boy with appropriate John Deere equipment could likely get everything buried by himself in about a day, and we'd be searching an area the size of California for a buried swimming pool. Yikes! Talk about a needle in a haystack.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Seth Yatovitz, is that you?

what kind of a bogus respone is this? For a guy who handles himself pretty well in debates around here, this is utter bullshit.

Killebrew is making a serious point - day after day, our failure to uncover any "weapons of mass destruction" makes the invasion look more and more questionable. British cabinet members are claiming Britain made selective use of intelligence info in order to go to war. So you jump in here and compare Killebrew to a guy whining about yellow ribbons?

[MrBug708]

Ooo..I think they hit a nerve

[Maple Leafs]

Oh sweet god, make it go away...

Pre-war:
Left: War is bad! You're going to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis!
Right: Tough shit! We need to find the WMDs!

Post war:
Right: We have liberated the innocent Iraqis!
Left: Who gives a shit about them? Where are the WMDs?

Your side is good, the other side is evil. We get it.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Oh sweet god, make it go away...

Pre-war:
Left: War is bad! You're going to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis!
Right: Tough shit! We need to find the WMDs!

Post war:
Right: We have liberated the innocent Iraqis!
Left: Who gives a shit about them? Where are the WMDs?

Your side is good, the other side is evil. We get it.

I heart Maple Leafs.

[Sharpieman]

Skydog, I was just wondering why we couldn't have waited 12 years more? Doesn't look like Sadaam was much of a threat to us for 10 years. If he had WMD, wouldn't he have attacked us already?
BTW, no side is evil.

[sabotai]

"It is odd that some of the same people who said that 12 years wasn't enough time for the UN inspections are now acting like 12 weeks should have been enough time for us to find them."

Let's see.

1) The government were very forceful with the fact that they knew Iraq had WMDs
2) We got rid of Hussain
3) They can't find the WMDs

One question I have. If they don't know where they are, how the hell did they KNOW that Iraq had them to begin with?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Sharpieman
Doesn't look like Sadaam was much of a threat to us for 10 years.
BTW, no side is evil.

The Japanese had not been a threat to us through Dec. 6.




BTW, no side is evil.

it is easy to spot a relativist

Originally posted by Killebuddy Grant
When they were finding possible sites every half hour this place was hopping with Skydogs and others WMD Updates©, but now that these reports have been proven false any mention of WMD seems like a bad joke.

There are those times when the cops pull over a thug and he gets out of the car with his hands in his jacket. the cops tell him to put his hands on his head and he doesnt and so they ask again and again all the while everyone growns more nervous. BLAM, the guy gets shot. Fucker should have taken his hands out of his jacket.

[Airhog]

Okay we have the intellgence gathering ablilities to attempt to kill saddam twice during the war. We have caputured numerous individuals that are high ranking officals inside the regime.

So far we have found nothing. Not one WMD, Not one chemical lab.

So we are able to target someone like saddam, but we cannot find his weapons. If they knew where the weapons were before the war, how did they lose them?

[JPhillips]

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002


Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003


Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003


If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003


So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003


There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003


I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003


One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003


We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003


Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003


But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003


We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003


We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003


I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003


We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003


I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003


U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003


I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003


Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003


Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003


They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then ? it remains a surprise to me now ? that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
what kind of a bogus respone is this? For a guy who handles himself pretty well in debates around here, this is utter bullshit.

Killebrew is making a serious point - day after day, our failure to uncover any "weapons of mass destruction" makes the invasion look more and more questionable. British cabinet members are claiming Britain made selective use of intelligence info in order to go to war. So you jump in here and compare Killebrew to a guy whining about yellow ribbons?

Actually, I was asking Sharpieman if he was Seth Yatovitz, because he lives in Palo Alto... where Seth Yatovitz lives.

Christ, is it your time of the month or something? Don't be such a nancyboy.

To answer the WMD question... I don't know where they are. As Skydog said, you're talking a swimming pool's worth of chemicals in a country the size of California. It's also a country with an open border to Syria, where the Ba'ath party happens to be in power.
We might find them, we might not. I hope we do, because I'd hate to think of them winding up in the hands of a terrorist group.

[Easy Mac]

So speculation is that they took them to Syria, who has known ties to terrorist groups? So we succeeded in keeping WMD's out of terrorist hands how, if this is indeed the case, which seems to be what you're getting at? Seems we were doing a good job of that with respect to Iraq prior to the war.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
So speculation is that they took them to Syria, who has known ties to terrorist groups? So we succeeded in keeping WMD's out of terrorist hands how, if this is indeed the case, which seems to be what you're getting at? Seems we were doing a good job of that with respect to Iraq prior to the war.


Shhh...Bush is good. You must believe everything he says else you're a lousy communist left wing loser and if you don't like it go back where the hell you came from.

There is no room for intelligent thought here. The administration has spoken. Got it???

[tucker342]

My question is, if Iraq had WMD's, why didn't they use them?

[Fidatelo]

I heart JPhillips

[Axxon]

Originally posted by tucker342
My question is, if Iraq had WMD's, why didn't they use them?

The answer is very obvious. They spent years defying the world, risking their own lives and regime and spending countless dollars so they could bury them in the sand when the showdown began. Duh. Pretty obvious.

:rolleyes:

[CamEdwards]

So answer this question. If they had them in 1998, as all intelligence back then indicated... when did they destroy their stocks, and why didn't they ever show proof to the U.N. inspectors that they had fully disarmed in order to end the sanctions?

I'm not trying to sound mean and hateful (like many of you), I'm just curious. If he had them back in 1998, where did they go? If he didn't have them back in 1998, why'd we lob cruise missiles at Iraq and why on earth has this turned into an attack on the President, rather than attack on the CIA and George Tenet?

[Axxon]

Cam, I'm trying to be sarcastic more than hatefull; my hate has burned out and the true comedy is sinking in. The whole thing really strikes me as a sick joke, and that's being honest.

I don't see personally how attacking anyone now that the event is over as being productive, not as long as we, the people don't learn something from it and I seriously doubt we will. We'll still rattle the sabres and fly the flags whenever the next politician plays the "evil foreign menace" card and anyone who dares question it will be pilloried by the "partriotic" folks. Nothing will change.

To answer the rest of your question, I don't know but you think maybe, just maybe they were cooperating with the inspectors like the inspectors were saying and destroyed them in a vain attempt to stop our misguided invasion. Naah, couldn't be could it???

[CamEdwards]

Axxon, if they'd told the inspectors they destroyed them, then that would be one thing. In some cases, they denied having biological agents that the inspectors knew they had back in 1998. There was no evidence of them destroying the agents between 1998 and 2002.

I'll be the first to admit that I really want the WMD found. I'm glad that we went over there, and no, I don't think it was ever all about WMD, but the administration doesn't get a free pass from me if we never find them. That's a far cry from not believing they don't exist, however. I'm all for having a real discussion about this, and I won't even make any bad jokes that cthomer can get his panties bunched up about.

[Airhog]

But isnt the least bit suspicious that we havent found any traces of the weapons labs?

I dont think you can cook 20,000 gallons of sarin in your basement :D

[Axxon]

Cam,

I'm not going to say that the regime didn't try and test the resolve of the UN inspectors and the world in general; that would be naive. Still, once it was obvious that the US wouldn't blink, it's quite possible that they added those to the destroyed list SO THEY WOULD NOT BE FOUND. Can't really expect them to turn around and say, "yes, we've been lying and here's the stuff, we're destroying it."

As long as it was gone and the inspectors never found any traces, I can see where they'd consider it a non issue or at least a minor one. Once they've done that, how can they produce the destroyed material for the US as it's gone.

I'm not saying that this occured but it is pretty logical and consistant with what we're not finding now IMHO.

I don't believe they existed when we invaded though. I honestly don't else they'd have used them in some way even if just as a screw you to israel. I also don't believe that we'd have stopped or told the public even if we had the evidence and the discarded wrappers to prove that they had destroyed them. I truly believe that it was NEVER about WMD. I don't know what it was about but I can't buy that one. This is honest and it's how I've always felt.

I'm glad we haven't found WMD and I hope we never do. I don't believe I could stand the self righteous bullshit that would spout from every apologists mouths 24/7.

I AM willing to give a free pass however if they don't because I honestly believe it won't matter next time so why waste the time and money. As a people we are very gullible and easily led. As long as we are that way, and believe me torpedoing this administration would abe the same game but different leaders, why play the politics game?? Just to see who's going to be elected next time and where their personal whims will take us?

I say we drop the thing, let the administration use the rest of it's time maybe, oh I don't know, help the people here that are suffering since the economy tanked or something. Ultimately, that has more potential for positive as we can't undo what we've already done.

[MrBug708]

I must have missed it when Saddam gassed the Kurds. Ah well


I see a black widow's web in the corner of my porch. I don't see the bacl widow. I look around for a while, don't see it. Therefore, the Black Widow doesnt exist.

I live in California. Feel free to feel sorry for me. Damn you Gray Davis and your 22% approval rating!

[Arles]

First of all, I have no problem with an inquiry into the accuracy of the CIA information, just to cover that base. I think all of us want an accurate intelligence agency.

That said, I think everyone needs to try and look at this with an open mind. It was reported a few months ago that the main CIA agents (ground-based intel) were pulled from Iraq near the end of 2002. This was done because the war could have occured as early February (before the 2nd UN ploy came up). So, the Bush administration was going on intel gathered from the late summer and fall period of 2002.

Therefore, my question is why does everyone seem to discount the high possibility (IMO) that Sadaam saw the writing on the wall in late 2002 and stashed away the WMD. In the months between December and April, Sadaam could have moved these agents to any number of countries (Syria, Iran, Lebanon), stashed them deep in the desert or even destroyed them himself.

Here's the theory I would offer given what we know right now: Sadaam knew he was going to be outgunned, so his hope was that he could clean up all of his labs and stashes. Then, he would let the US make it to Baghdad and hope that he could bunker in for a month or two. The theory being that if the US found no evidence of WMD, they may leave like they did in 1991 and buckle to international pressure. Unfortunately for Sadaam, the US moved through Baghdad like a hot knife through butter.

Plus, there are the two apparent mobile weapons labs that were wiped clean. And, if they were indeed being used for Weather testing or commercial drugs, why was no residue found in them. Why would the Sadaam regime, in the face of preparing for a war, spend all that time wiping down numerous chemical labs if they had nothing to hide?

I have a lot of questions on this before I start indicting Bush. I mean, if there is an intelligence failure, then the intelligence sources in the UK, Poland, Australia, US, Saudi Arabia, the UN inspection team and even Iran were all incorrect. All agreed before the war that there was a high probability that Sadaam had WMD agents in his possession. In fact, France said as much back in October when they agreed that Iraq hadn't accounted for all of those biological agents.

So, I do think there needs to be an investigation on the credibility of the intelligence sources, to be safe. But there are too many things that don't pass the smell test on this one. Primarily, the assertion that Sadaam would go through years of UN sanctions, routinely dance around UN inspections and sacrifice his entire power structure when he never possessed WMD agents.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people are focusing too much on the seriousness of the charge, and not whether there is any truth behind it.

Arlie

[Axxon]

Originally posted by MrBug708


I see a black widow's web in the corner of my porch. I don't see the bacl widow. I look around for a while, don't see it. Therefore, the Black Widow doesnt exist.
!

No, the logical conclusion ( i know you weren't trying to use logic but still ) is that the black widow is gone. It's no longer there. The evidence of it's having been there in no way is invalidated if it leaves. Simple when you think about it isn't it??

[Axxon]

Arles,

I can see the possibility of that theory.

In the end though, if the president tries to pass off the blame on the CIA I will lose any and all respect I have for him. He's the leader, it's his call and he MUST bear full responsibility for what happened. That's the honorable thing to do. He gets all the credit when things go right. If he used outdated info and didn't take that into account in my mind that makes him look worse.

Just another reason we don't need this to turn into a witch hunt.

[Arles]

Axxon,

I think you have a point. I don't want to see Bush sacrifice the reputation of the CIA to save himself some points in the polls. If it is true that information he used for his basis was from August and therefore might not have been 100% in the following April, I think he could say that he went on the assumption that information obtained in August would still be somewhat valid in Feb or March, when the initial attack was planned.

I think going on the assumption that evidence found in August or September of 2002 would still be there, in some degree, in Feb or March of 2003 is a fair call. It is one that I don't see too many people without agendas harping about. I mean, imagine the alternative of letting Sadaam develop these agents into weapons that he then sells to terrorists.

Could you imagine the fallout if a major US city got attacked next year with VX gas, and it came out that Bush knew the gas was being developed in Iraq and did nothing about it? Yikes!

But, I do agree that even if the CIA did screw the pooch on this one, Bush needs to take the heat and explain what he did.

Arlie

[Daimyo]

Originally posted by Killebrew
When they were finding possible sites every half hour this place was hopping with Skydogs and others WMD Updates©, but now that these reports have been proven false any mention of WMD seems like a bad joke. That said, my first thought when reading
this article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/bush.iraq/) was:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's spokesman said the president is still confident a Pentagon-led search will find Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction, just as soon as they help OJ find the real killer.
As Ray from Accounting always used to tell me: "That's not free speech, that's free garbage!"

:D

[EagleFan]

Originally posted by Axxon
No, the logical conclusion ( i know you weren't trying to use logic but still ) is that the black widow is gone. It's no longer there. The evidence of it's having been there in no way is invalidated if it leaves. Simple when you think about it isn't it??

No, since a spider web will need to be regenerated to remain in place. Therefore the spider is still around somewhere, just not at that particular moment. Much like the spider that used to be outside my old house (big mfer). Every night the web would go from the porch to the tree and lamp post making it a good 8 feet in diameter. Every morning, no trace of the web. Hmm, must be gone, next night same web, same spider. It was the lesser of two evils since the flying bug problem was non-existent while it was there.

[CamEdwards]

ayatollah=flying bug? :)

[Axxon]

Originally posted by EagleFan
No, since a spider web will need to be regenerated to remain in place. Therefore the spider is still around somewhere, just not at that particular moment. Much like the spider that used to be outside my old house (big mfer). Every night the web would go from the porch to the tree and lamp post making it a good 8 feet in diameter. Every morning, no trace of the web. Hmm, must be gone, next night same web, same spider. It was the lesser of two evils since the flying bug problem was non-existent while it was there.

A possiblilty but not a definitave answer by any means. Say the spider is killed and eaten by a bird and MrBug708 sees web before it's had time to decay. It doesn't decay the second the spider leaves after all.

In this case, there is proof of the existance of a spider but no spider around any more.

Really, all that can be postulated is that a spider existed and it is not currently there. Anything else is mere conjecture and one conjecture is just as valid as the other from that point.

[MrBug708]

No, the logical conclusion ( i know you weren't trying to use logic but still ) is that the black widow is gone. It's no longer there. The evidence of it's having been there in no way is invalidated if it leaves. Simple when you think about it isn't it??

But Saddam said there were none. If invading Iraq meant the weapons were destroyed, wasn't the mission a sucess?

[Axxon]

Originally posted by MrBug708
But Saddam said there were none. If invading Iraq meant the weapons were destroyed, wasn't the mission a sucess?

If so, yes, but that would leave a very narrow window for the destruction and considering the command and control problems the Iraqis were having it's not at all very likely.

If they were destroyed at all its more likely that they were destroyed prior to the invasion thus making the mission itself unnecessary therefore it can't be considered a success in this case. The threat of the invasion would be a success however but the mission would be overkill.

This all assumes that success is measured solely in terms of WMD.

[Sharpieman]

You all sound so sure that there are WMD, yet no one has actually found any yet, so Ill beileve it when I see it.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Sharpieman
You all sound so sure that there are WMD, yet no one has actually found any yet, so Ill beileve it when I see it.

Surely you're not doubting they ever existed. Even they aren't saying that. It's pretty clear that these weopons existed at one time.

The questions are when and if they destroyed them.

I feel that they were destroyed before the war thus they don't exist now. I've been pretty clear about that so the only way I can see where we all are sure of their existance is that we all agree that at one point they did.

After that, our opinions vary.

[Ben E Lou]

One thing that seems to be missing in this debate is that under the terms of the UN resolution the burden of proof was upon the Iraqi regime. It wasn't/isn't up to the UN inspectors or the US to find the WMD, it was the regime's responsibility to show concrete proof that their WMD had been destroyed. The figure in the article I read (about the amount being able to fit in a swimming pool) came from the amount of WMD that the UN Inspection team said was unaccounted for. In his blunt way, Fritz has a point, they had been told to take their hands out of their pockets again and again and again for TWELVE YEARS. If you ignore such an order from the cops for that long, you're going to get shot.

As far as intel goes, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know that much about our intelligence procedures. That being said, it seems logical to me that our intelligence in the days immediately before and during the shooting got LOTS better. I think we'd all agree that it is safe to assume that at that point we had many more of our own people on the ground in Iraq than at any time since we withdrew in '91. That in my mind would account for how we were able to pinpoint Saddam's location.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Axxon
Surely you're not doubting they ever existed. Even they aren't saying that. It's pretty clear that these weopons existed at one time.

The questions are when and if they destroyed them.

I feel that they were destroyed before the war thus they don't exist now. I've been pretty clear about that so the only way I can see where we all are sure of their existance is that we all agree that at one point they did.

After that, our opinions vary. Dola:

Axx, the first paragraph of my post was in response to this, fyi.

I don't think they destroyed them before the war (My personal guess is that they had them, were planning to use them, but things happened so fast that they never had the chance to take them out of their hiding place(s).) However, I'll walk down that logical road with you. I'll say it again: even the UN admits that there are unaccounted-for WMD. My only question then is this:

If they did destroy them, and they KNEW they needed to provide documentation, then why in the world didn't they provide it?

Chris Rock heavily implied it in a comedy sketch, and Cedric The Entertainer straight-out said it in Barbershop: Rodney King deserved to get his ass kicked. Same applies here.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Chris Rock heavily implied it in a comedy sketch, and Cedric The Entertainer straight-out said it in Barbershop: Rodney King deserved to get his ass kicked. Same applies here.


http://www.koenighaus.net/saddam.jpg
Please, we can get along here.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Dola:

Axx, the first paragraph of my post was in response to this, fyi.

I don't think they destroyed them before the war (My personal guess is that they had them, were planning to use them, but things happened so fast that they never had the chance to take them out of their hiding place(s).) However, I'll walk down that logical road with you. I'll say it again: even the UN admits that there are unaccounted-for WMD. My only question then is this:

If they did destroy them, and they KNEW they needed to provide documentation, then why in the world didn't they provide it?

Chris Rock heavily implied it in a comedy sketch, and Cedric The Entertainer straight-out said it in Barbershop: Rodney King deserved to get his ass kicked. Same applies here.

It is possibly the case that they were caught by surprise but again, why would the weapons still be in extremely hard to find and apparantly inaccessable once any trouble hit, hiding places? Surely after the inspectors got out of dodge they'd have started mobilizing SOME of their WMD's at least. They knew Baghdad would be a safe deploy zone for a while and by that time hiding things certainly wouldn't do any good.

As for the burdon of proof being on the iraqis, this is true and that's what they were doing with the inspectors. As I posted earlier I do believe they were trying to get over on the UN most of the time and it would be very problematic to admit that they'd lied about having the WMD's. They really might not have had to though. If the inspectors could be convinced that they currently were not creating nor harboring any WMD's then the lie that they didn't have them before the last stand by the US may fly.

There also may be the martyr factor going on too. Remember, these people strap explosives to themselves and blow things up for sport. It makes us look horribly bad if we don't find WMD's and that plays into the extremists hands easier and more efficiently than trying to actually use the WMD's in the first place. Makes us look like bullies to the ENTIRE world and solidifies their role as victims. Brilliant!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Axxon
There also may be the martyr factor going on too. Remember, these people strap explosives to themselves and blow things up for sport. It makes us look horribly bad if we don't find WMD's and that plays into the extremists hands easier and more efficiently than trying to actually use the WMD's in the first place. Makes us look like bullies to the ENTIRE world and solidifies their role as victims. Brilliant! You know, I've thought about that possibility too, but dismissed it in my mind because it seemed too far-fetched and illogical. However, I KEEP forgetting that we're not dealing with people that think like us. Another movie line comes to mind, from Crimson Tide: In the good old days of the Cold War, the Soviets could be counted on to do whatever was in their own best interests. Very true. The Soviets made for a fearsome enemy, but at least they were quite predictable, because for the most part, they had the same self-preservation instincts that we did. It is an entirely different ball game when dealing with radicals in the Middle East. The scenario that Axxon presents may NOT be that far-fetched. Who knows?

[sabotai]

"I think you have a point. I don't want to see Bush sacrifice the reputation of the CIA to save himself some points in the polls."

It's a shame that the phrase "The buck stops here." isn't used by polititians anymore...I predict Bush never takes the blame for something that goes wrong under his watch. In fact, I'll be pleasently surprised whenever any polititian in any office does.

[tucker342]

IF it does turn out that there are no weapons in Iraq and that Bush lied to us, would you guys who were going to vote for him, still vote for him?

[Arles]

Originally posted by tucker342
IF it does turn out that there are no weapons in Iraq and that Bush lied to us, would you guys who were going to vote for him, still vote for him?

If Bush knowingly deceived the American people, then I would have a hard time voting for him. But, as I said, the odds of that having happened are pretty small. The public was solidly behind Bush on this before the war, even without the WMD issue. I think that the administration used older (fall 2002) intelligence and figured that nothing would have changed in Iraq by Feb-March 2003.

If Bush did indeed do that, it will be fairly easy to determine. If some of this CIA information pointed to WMD stashes in "cleaned up" areas in hospitals, mobile labs and other outposts we've already found, then I think it's a fair assumption that Sadaam wiped those areas clean between August of 2002 and March 2003.

But, if no CIA evidence shows even a decent probability of finding WMD, then I think the president should pay a price for that.

Now, that I have said that. If there is solid CIA evidence that the WMD were in Iraq, or we do eventually find where they went, would those of you against the war admit it was a just war?

Just curious if the door goes both ways on this issue.

Arlie

[Easy Mac]

So he figured that nothing had changed in Iraq in 6 months? That's great intelligence. Nothing ever changes in 1/2 a year.

The public was also 80% sure Iraqi's piloted the 9/11 planes, putting faith in the public's knowledge is like entrusting monkeys to type out shakespeare.

Is there such a thing as a "just" war? Is there a thing such as a "just" murder? By arguing for justness, you throw morality into the equation. I'm pretty sure the crusades were considered "just" wars. The nazi's considered their murder of the Jews "just." Bush is nowhere even in the same galaxy as that crazy stuff, but calling it just is giving the war a connotation that has serious reprocussions.

[Arles]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
So he figured that nothing had changed in Iraq in 6 months? That's great intelligence. Nothing ever changes in 1/2 a year.


Let me rephrase. My bet is that Bush had some CIA data that said Sadaam had WMD agents back in August. But, it's not like he could make the case for war, mobilize the military, settle the logistics and start an attack in a month. It took 3-4 months to get everything in order and another two for the ill-advised second trip to the UN.

That very well may have given Sadaam enough time to move the WMD agents. So, I would have a hard time faulting Bush for doing what he did if the information he received back in August is legit.

Arlie

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Arles
Let me rephrase. My bet is that Bush had some CIA data that said Sadaam had WMD agents back in August. But, it's not like he could make the case for war, mobilize the military, settle the logistics and start an attack in a month. It took 3-4 months to get everything in order and another two for the ill-advised second trip to the UN.

That very well may have given Sadaam enough time to move the WMD agents. So, I would have a hard time faulting Bush for doing what he did if the information he received back in August is legit.

Arlie

I would fault him. If there's no guarantee that your information is going to be current when you are ready to act it's dangerous and foolish to act on the information.

I was an air traffic controller about 10 years ago. I worked at a tower that had no radar. We did everything by eyesight. The bigger towers generally would choose applicants from our tower to fill vacancies over other towers at the same level but who had radar.

Why? Because we didn't generally have our heads buried in the radar and miss what was actually going on in the air. Radar, like the CIA info, is PAST HISTORY. It shows what was, not what is and it is dangerous to rely on it too much when planning.

This may not be a popular view but remember, I was taught this by our government. :)

[Blackadar]

<b>Chris Rock heavily implied it in a comedy sketch, and Cedric The Entertainer straight-out said it in Barbershop: Rodney King deserved to get his ass kicked. Same applies here.</b>

I'd respect George Bush a lot more if he actually would admit that the friggin' war was over cheap oil and beating Saddam to a pulp because Saddam tried to have George Sr. killed. Of course, I think fair is fair, but that's just my opinion. The WMD excuse is a ruse.

You know, in about a month, we'll suddenly "find" WMDs in some abandoned dump or oil pumping station. Of course, that area will have been secured for some time by the US Special Forced PRIOR to us finding the WMDs, but that won't be mentioned.

[Arles]

Originally posted by Axxon
I would fault him. If there's no guarantee that your information is going to be current when you are ready to act it's dangerous and foolish to act on the information.

But, if he doesn't setup the attack, Sadaam keeps the WMDs and continues his weapons programs as he did through the 90s. Is that worth the risk?

If you have legit evidence in August and start the process for war, there is no guarantee that everything will be the same when you get 200,000 troops halfway across the world. Clinton made the case for war in Bosnia because of mass-genecide ("Hundreds of thousands of mass graves"). Yet, after Milosovich was ousted, only a couple hundred graves were found. That didn't change my support for outsting Milosovich, though.

Arlie

[Axxon]

Wow, you know what Arles you're right. I lived every moment of every waking day worrying about what some wingnut half way around the world was doing. I can't imagine how we all lived with this huge pressingly urgent threat over our heads. The horror!!!!

Of course, of course, terrorism, but funny the terrorists didn't use WMD's when they hit us, ever, and since Saddam is such a terrorist I'm sure he supplied them with what he had.

The WMD thing is the biggest red herring in the history of imperialism IMHO. We can talk about what to do about them and that's fine but when we use their presence as the excuse for acting on outdated information it's really pushing it. If the CIA couldn't supply current information and the president couldn't wait for that information before going to war then he deserves whatever penalties the witch hunt brings him.

There was no urgency here. Period.

[JPhillips]

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois),

?There is a visibility factor in the president's public acts, and those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for the law are hard to sweep under the rug...They reverberate, they ricochet all over the land and provide the worst possible example for our young people.?

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin)

?The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president's defenders?We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the president does not suffer the legal and constitutional consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing the president to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come?laws not enforced are open invitations for more serious and more criminal behavior.?

Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)

?It would be wrong for you to tell America's children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter.?

Steve Buyer (R- Indiana)

?I have also heard some senators from both sides of the aisle state publicly: I think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, to state publicly that you believe that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but for some reason you have this desire not to remove the president -- that desire, though, does not square with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate's precedents for removing federal judges for similar offenses.?

Rep. Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina, Now Senator)

?The president of the United States sets atop of the legal pyramid. If there's reasonable doubt about his ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land, our future would be better off if that individual is removed. And let me tell you where it all comes down to me. If you can go back and explain to your children and your constituents how you can be truthful and misleading at the same time, good luck.?

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois),

?There is a visibility factor in the president's public acts, and those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for the law are hard to sweep under the rug...They reverberate, they ricochet all over the land and provide the worst possible example for our young people.?

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin)

?The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president's defenders?We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the president does not suffer the legal and constitutional consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing the president to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come?laws not enforced are open invitations for more serious and more criminal behavior.?

Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)

?It would be wrong for you to tell America's children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter.?

Steve Buyer (R- Indiana)

?I have also heard some senators from both sides of the aisle state publicly: I think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, to state publicly that you believe that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but for some reason you have this desire not to remove the president -- that desire, though, does not square with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate's precedents for removing federal judges for similar offenses.?

Rep. Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina, Now Senator)

?The president of the United States sets atop of the legal pyramid. If there's reasonable doubt about his ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land, our future would be better off if that individual is removed. And let me tell you where it all comes down to me. If you can go back and explain to your children and your constituents how you can be truthful and misleading at the same time, good luck.?

Point being?

[JPhillips]

Point being its amazing how these guys go into hyperfuss over a penis, but can't be bothered to even publicly investigate the causes/intelligence failures/exagerations/lies that have so far led to 200 dead Americans and 100 billion dollars.

Personally I still think the war was the right thing to do, but in terms of the administration's actions, that doesn't matter. We can't let any President lead us in a preemptive war based on a massive intelligence failure or worse a series of exaggerations or lies. Not only has our international credibility suck into the toilet, we have now tacitly endorsed going to war without telling the American people the real reason for doing so. This is exceptionally dangerous.

I don't know what happened, but I do know that what we were told has turned out not to be true. Remember, we weren't just told that they had WMD in August. We were told that we knew where the weapons were and further, that Saddam intended to use them sooner rather than later. Something failed miserably, and the American public deserves an answer.

[Blackadar]

Thanks. I just didn't get your point. But I agree with you.

[Sybot]

For the record, this was a preventive war. Not a preemptive war.

We had no knowledge of a definite forthcoming attack that we were trying to preempt. We acted on the premise that there may someday in the future be an attack.

There is a big difference, preemptive wars are legal in international law, preventive wars are not. The administration was very careful to always call this a preemptive war because of this. Though by everyone's definitions of the two terms it was not.

And for whoever said "If president Bush lied you would have a hard time voting for him". Please pull your head from out of the ground. There is no doubt that Bush lied. He did it from the first day he got in office. This war has been on his agenda and he just needed a good excuse.

He got that excuse on 9/11 and made you and most other people in this country believe that Iraq lead the attack on the World Trade Center.

Heck I even saw right wingists showing images of the towers coming down when trying to justify this war.

They both had absolutely nothing to do with each other.

[Sybot]

Point being its amazing how these guys go into hyperfuss over a penis, but can't be bothered to even publicly investigate the causes/intelligence failures/exagerations/lies that have so far led to 200 dead Americans and 100 billion dollars.

Please do not forget the innocent Iraqi's who lost their homes, jobs, families, and for some even their lives as well.

[MrBug708]

This war has been on his agenda and he just needed a good excuse.

I wish Gray Davis had such an excuse for ruining California's economy

[Dutch]

The bottom line is that Hussein was a very busy man, trying to make the USA look like the evil imperalist empire. And he seems to have been successful to at least one FOFC'er, probably more. So thank God he's gone so he doesn't turn anymore of us against the USA!

[sabotai]

"The bottom line is that Hussein was a very busy man, trying to make the USA look like the evil imperalist empire. And he seems to have been successful to at least one FOFC'er"

Yeah, I heard a lot of FOFC'ers have been watching Iraqi TV for quite a long time... :rolleyes:

[Anrhydeddu]

You know, I have always believe that the thousands of tons of more conventional weapons that they found adds up to mass destruction capabilities. Maybe they are commplace but all along when our forces were finding these caches, I thought to myself that I am so glad that these are now in our hands instead of theirs. I trust our use (or disposable) of them a whole lot more than Saddam's and the terrorists use of them.

[BishopMVP]

Since we haven't found Saddam or his body yet, does that mean he never existed either?

Claiming that the WMD are something Bush made up is ludicrous. You can find dozens of quotes from Clinton, Blix and others saying that Iraq had WMD well before Bush entered office.

Honestly, I really don't know why I'm posting in this thread. I know there is no information that will convince me this war was immoral and wrong, and I know from statements like Blackadar's claiming that anything found will be planted by the US that there is nothing I can point out that will convince him this war was just and right, so all these threads on Iraq that pop up every couple months just seem like excuses for people to vent and express their frustrations with no real hope for changing opinions.

[sabotai]

"Since we haven't found Saddam or his body yet, does that mean he never existed either?"

:rolleyes:

[Axxon]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
Since we haven't found Saddam or his body yet, does that mean he never existed either?



Well, now that you mention it....











yes it does. :rolleyes:


BTW, I understand BucDawg40 is going to be starting a Logic and Reason camp. You may want to consider attending.

[Easy Mac]

the new weapons of mass destruction

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/flash_mediateam/f_030613_bushnew_//f_030613_bushnew_.jpg

[Anrhydeddu]

WASHINGTON — President Bush's erroneous reference to an Iraqi-Africa uranium (search) link was understandable, former President Clinton (search) said Tuesday, in part because Saddam Hussein's regime had not accounted for some weapons by the time Clinton ended his term in 2001.

Clinton's comments reinforce one of the pillars of Bush's defense of the war in Iraq -- that his Democratic predecessor was never satisfied that Saddam had rid himself of weapons of mass destruction.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for," Clinton said during a televised interview.

Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it," he said.

In his State of the Union (search) speech in February justifying the planned war in Iraq, Bush referred to British intelligence reports that Saddam had tried to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons production. His administration says it now believes those reports were based in part on forged documents.

Clinton confined his remarks to biological and chemical weapons, and did not say whether he would consider credible any report that Saddam had wanted to build a nuclear weapons program.

Nonetheless, he suggested that Bush's mistake was par for the course -- and that it was time to move on now that Bush had acknowledged the error.

"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," he said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to without messing up once in a while. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now."

Clinton said ending tensions in Iraq should be the priority now -- another echo of the current White House's talking points. "We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq."

Clinton made his remarks as a call-in guest on a program observing the 80th birthday of Bob Dole, his rival for the White House in 1996.