Let's Revisit the Issue of Iraq's WMDs, shall we?

[Yonivore]

The Democrats' political strategy, apparently, is to yammer about our intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the world's intelligence, actually -- until next year's election. OK, it's a deal.

Dafydd ab Hugh (http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2005/11/weapon_of_mass.html) sums up just a small part of what we know (I'm sorry if you lefties haven't been paying attention) about Saddam's weapons programs, and the weapons that his armed forces maintained prior to the 2003 invasion.


It is well known that the staggering extent of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs was only discovered after he lost the Gulf War. Iraqi chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons by the tens of thousands were unearthed (often literally) and destroyed by the coalition. Afterward (we have known this for some time from defectors), Hussein decided that Iraq would take a new tack in its never-ending quest for WMD: from then on, all of Iraq's programs were designed to be "dual use": each would have an ostensibly civilian purpose (pesticides, medical research, nuclear power generation) but could quickly -- in some cases within minutes -- be converted to military use.

Therefore, when looking for "stockpiles" of WMD, the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG) should have been looking, not for a warehouse full of shells pre-filled with sarin or mustard gas or anthrax, but rather for the precursor components of such: shells and rockets built to accept such chemicals or biological agents in close proximity to the agents themselves... even if they're not actually loaded into the warhead yet.

A rocket that can accept toxic chemicals into its warhead near a 55-gallon drum of cyclosarin-based "pesticide" is a chemical weapon, and it should be defined as such.

At Karbala, U.S. troops stumbled upon 55-gallon drums of pesticides at what appeared to be a very large "agricultural supply" area, Hanson says. Some of the drums were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex" that was shown to reporters - with unpleasant results. "More than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to a nerve agent," Hanson says. "But later ISG tests resulted in a proclamation of negative, end of story, nothing to see here, etc., and the earlier findings and injuries dissolved into nonexistence. Left unexplained is the small matter of the obvious pains taken to disguise the cache of ostensibly legitimate pesticides. One wonders about the advantage an agricultural-commodities business gains by securing drums of pesticide in camouflaged bunkers 6 feet underground. The 'agricultural site' was also colocated with a military ammunition dump - evidently nothing more than a coincidence in the eyes of the ISG."

That wasn't the only significant find by coalition troops of probable CW stockpiles, Hanson believes. Near the northern Iraqi town of Bai'ji, where Saddam had built a chemical-weapons plant known to the United States from nearly 12 years of inspections, elements of the 4th Infantry Division found 55-gallon drums containing a substance identified through mass spectrometry analysis as cyclosarin - a nerve agent. Nearby were surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, gas masks and a mobile laboratory that could have been used to mix chemicals at the site. "Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up," Hanson says. "It seems Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that 'no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.'"

I know...many of the Lefties in this forum will pretend this is the first time they've heard this or that it proves nothing...but, that's fine.

There is a great deal to be said on this subject, and most of it is already in the public domain. The fact is that the intelligence agencies' official consensus estimate expressed a high level of confidence that Saddam possessed both chemical and biological weapons. The U.N. didn't disagree, contrary to popular assumptions and Hans Blix's revisionist history. As has been repeatedly noted, the U.N.'s UNMOVIC reports emphasized the large quantities of banned materials for which Iraq had failed to account.

This is a big topic, as is the subject of Iraq's many connections with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. In my opinion, we should take up the Democrats' challenge: most Americans know all too little about the threats posed by Saddam's Iraq. Let's talk about those threats from now until November 2006.

Maybe the Democrats will make such a stink the MSM won't be able to ignore, any longer, the evidence of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

You idiot!! Get your head out of Bush's ass for once and see the facts for what they were. Dumbya and his cronies cooked the books to get us into this war and you know it but just don't want to see that your beloved Dumbya is a lieing war monger who wanted to be known as the "War President" to save his daddy's reputation.

[Extra Stout]

You idiot!! Get your head out of Bush's ass for once and see the facts for what they were. Dumbya and his cronies cooked the books to get us into this war and you know it but just don't want to see that your beloved Dumbya is a lieing war monger who wanted to be known as the "War President" to save his daddy's reputation.Did you actually write that, or did you just copy and paste from the "SimLiberal" program?

[Yonivore]

And, for those who put me in Nbadan's Camp (as a whacko conspiracist), consider this article from Today's Wall Street Journal provides yet another instance of a journalistic outsider -- Washington attorney Victoria Toensing (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113098284630086997.html) -- pursuing the relevant facts in the underlying story: "Investigate the CIA" (subscription may be necessary for access to this column). Ms. Toensing puts me in mind of the little boy who pointed out that the emperor wore no clothes. Toensing outlines the facts hiding in plain sight that point to the real scandal the lamestream media have declined to cover or pursue:


• First: The CIA sent her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger on a sensitive mission regarding WMD. He was to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake, an essential ingredient for nonconventional weapons. However, it was Ms. Plame, not Mr. Wilson, who was the WMD expert. Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background, was never a senior person in Niger when he was in the State Department, and was opposed to the administration's Iraq policy. The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame's suggestion.

• Second: Mr. Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement, a mandatory act for the rest of us who either carry out any similar CIA assignment or who represent CIA clients.

• Third: When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn't a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the "missionary," if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president's were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson's oral report.

• Fourth: Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer's expense, over a year later he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. For the rest of us, writing about such an assignment would mean we'd have to bring our proposed op-ed before the CIA's Prepublication Review Board and spend countless hours arguing over every word to be published. Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson's oral briefing. For starters, if the piece had been properly vetted at the CIA, someone should have known that the agency never briefed the vice president on the trip, as claimed by Mr. Wilson in his op-ed.

• Fifth: More important than the inaccuracies is the fact that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame's identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse.

• Sixth: CIA incompetence did not end there. When Mr. Novak called the agency to verify Ms. Plame's employment, it not only did so, but failed to go beyond the perfunctory request not to publish. Every experienced Washington journalist knows that when the CIA really does not want something public, there are serious requests from the top, usually the director. Only the press office talked to Mr. Novak.

• Seventh: Although high-ranking Justice Department officials are prohibited from political activity, the CIA had no problem permitting its deep cover or classified employee from making political contributions under the name "Wilson, Valerie E.," information publicly available at the FEC.

Toensing concludes:

The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft. It is up to Congress to decide which.

Only Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard and Clifford May at National Review have devoted any significant copy to this possible -- indeed, plausible -- angle to the Plame affair.

Seems the MSM would be interested in such CIA ineptness -- or conniving.

[ChumpDumper]

Show us the weapons.

[SA210]

You idiot!! Get your head out of Bush's ass for once and see the facts for what they were. Dumbya and his cronies cooked the books to get us into this war and you know it but just don't want to see that your beloved Dumbya is a lieing war monger who wanted to be known as the "War President" to save his daddy's reputation.


Dumbya, :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Oh, Gee!!]

Bush Stole The 2000 Elections!!! Omg!!!!!!!!

[JoeChalupa]

I'm not convinced about the WMD's in Iraq.

1. They have not been found.
2. I go by facts not theories.
3. I think for myself.
4. I'm not under any pressure by this administration to believe so.
5. I'm a left-wing liberal nut job.

[Yonivore]

Show us the weapons.
Why? You've been shown before and not believed...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/0408-04.jpg

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/B8E0EE39-D18A-4A09-83F8-27C0B3D6EAED/0/32A521A20EFC419A9CDCB03E209368F8.jpg

http://www.ifocusnews.com/images/weapons-mass-destruction/found-wmd1.jpg

http://www.ifocusnews.com/images/weapons-mass-destruction/syria-iraq-wmd1.jpg

http://www.ifocusnews.com/images/weapons-mass-destruction/syria-iraq-wmd3.jpg

http://www.ifocusnews.com/images/weapons-mass-destruction/found-wmd25.jpg

http://www.ifocusnews.com/images/weapons-mass-destruction/found-wmd26.jpg

http://www.ifocusnews.com/images/weapons-mass-destruction/found-wmd6.jpg

http://www.ifocusnews.com/images/weapons-mass-destruction/found-wmd13.jpg

http://www.ifocusnews.com/images/weapons-mass-destruction/found-wmd17.jpg

[Marcus Bryant]

Show us the weapons.


I agree. The US should've given the Hussein regime the time to develop the weaponry.

[Yonivore]

Dumbya, :lmao :lmao :lmao
Wow! You are new to the group, aren't'cha?

[SA210]

Wow! You are new to the group, aren't'cha?

No, actually, I believed for a while that Gov. Bush was dumb.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

You are not alone...

PRESIDENT BUSH’S JOB APPROVAL
Approve
35%
Disapprove
57%

[ChumpDumper]

Why? You've been shown before and not believed...Because they weren't the ones we were scared into believing were actually there, ready to be used on our mainland and troops. Saddam had two chances to use WMDs on us.

So keep your "reportedly"s and pre-precursor crap out of this. Just say they're in Syria and get that invasion over with. After a few more tens of thousands of deaths something is bound to show up.

[Yonivore]

You are not alone...

PRESIDENT BUSH’S JOB APPROVAL
Approve
35%
Disapprove
57%
Gee, at that rate, he'll never win a 3rd term!

[Yonivore]

Because they weren't the ones we were scared into believing were actually there, ready to be used on our mainland and troops. Saddam had two chances to use WMDs on us.

So keep your "reportedly"s and pre-precursor crap out of this. Just say they're in Syria and get that invasion over with. After a few more tens of thousands of deaths something is bound to show up.
So, which "ones" were you scared into believing were actually there? And, do you count all those Democrats and European leaders who also said he had WMD's among those who were doing the "scaring?"

[ChumpDumper]

So, which "ones" were you scared into believing were actually there?The ones the administration was giving the locations of, skippy.
And, do you count all those Democrats and European leaders who also said he had WMD's among those who were doing the "scaring?"Since they got the same skewed intel, yes.

I mean, you're saying they were all completely right, and then making excuses for their being wrong in the same breath saying everyone else was doing it.

Which is it?

[Yonivore]

The ones the administration was giving the locations of, skippy.Since they got the same skewed intel, yes.
A few weeks passed between then and when we reached those sites. You don't think it is possible Saddam Hussein hid, destroyed, or moved them?


I mean, you're saying they were all completely right, and then making excuses for their being wrong in the same breath saying everyone else was doing it.

Which is it?
First, I never said they were all completely right. I've consistently said that EVERYONE, from both parties, in Europe, and on the UN believed -- up until it became apparent that President Bush fully intended to make good on his promise to disarm Saddam Hussein -- that Iraq possessed these weapons.

Everyone. No one was saying (except Saddam Hussein) that he didn't have them.

Given that an investigation has concluded the Bush Administration didn't manipulate intelligence -- you'd be more inclined to place the mystery squarely where it belongs; on the back of Saddam Hussein. But, no, you'd rather defend a dictator than admit your partisan opponent was acting in good faith and in concert with your own party until, that is, the President actually did what Bill Clinton only threatened to do for years.

[ChumpDumper]

A few weeks passed between then and when we reached those sites. You don't think it is possible Saddam Hussein hid, destroyed, or moved them?Then we had a horrible battle plan and failed miserably. We succeeded in making the world much less safe.
Given that an investigationA completely impartial, nonpartisan one I'm sure.
But, no, you'd rather defend a dictatorLiar. Link my defense of Saddam. Now.
than admit your partisan opponent was acting in good faithHe wasn't. He felt he had to do something to show the US was strong. This was by far the easiest thing to do after Afghanistan. Only a few tens of thousands dead. No biggie.

[Marcus Bryant]

So the world is less safe because the US succeeded in taking out a regime that was hell bent on developing WMDs and was overtly friendly towards Islamic fundamentalist militants? Great.

[Yonivore]

Then we had a horrible battle plan and failed miserably. We succeeded in making the world much less safe.
Well, sometimes you choose between the best of two bad options.

A completely impartial, nonpartisan one I'm sure.
I think it was either the Kay, Duelfer, or bi-partisan Congressional Committee report that concluded such. I don't know, you tell me.

Anyway, if Bush lied -- what the fuck were all those Democrats railing about since 1998?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, sometimes you choose between the best of two bad options.Sometimes you simply fuck up. Either that or they didn't care because they knew the weapons didn't exist. Those are the only choices here.

[Yonivore]

Sometimes you simply fuck up. Either that or they didn't care because they knew the weapons didn't exist. Those are the only choices here.
Then everybody fucked up. From the U.S. Congress to the U.N. to President Clinton and to all who were convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and needed to be disarmed.

Agree to that, and your argument has merit. But, agree to that, and you've conceded that it was a understandable fuck up.

[Yonivore]

So the world is less safe because the US succeeded in taking out a regime that was hell bent on developing WMDs and was overtly friendly towards Islamic fundamentalist militants? Great.
A valid point...but, not worth arguing so long as the ChumpDumpers of the world can't get past the idea that President Bush wasn't alone in his belief that Iraq had WMDs. In fact, I'd like to see ChumpDumper produce a major world figure who, before the invasion, didn't believe -- better yet, wasn't convinced -- that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had WMDs.

How 'bout it Chumpy, up for that challenge? And you can't pick anyone that was on Saddam's Oil-For-Food "payroll," okay?

[Marcus Bryant]

Look, Bush made a decision based on faulty intel, real intel about Hussein's desires to game the UN Security Council and yes, a belief that taking out Hussein was a step towards progress in the region and would be a plus in the war on Islamic militants. There is such a thing as making a responsible decision when given less than perfect information.

The alternative is to do nothing, sit on your thumbs and wait for yourself to be attacked yet again. Maybe next time they'll use the really big stuff instead of X-Acto knives.

[ChumpDumper]

Look, Bush made a decision based on faulty intel, real intel about Hussein's desires to game the UN Security Council and yes, a belief that taking out Hussein was a step towards progress in the region and would be a plus in the war on Islamic militants. There is such a thing as making a responsible decision when given less than perfect information.

The alternative is to do nothing, sit on your thumbs and wait for yourself to be attacked yet again. Maybe next time they'll use the really big stuff.That'd be great logic if Saddam ever attacked us with WMDs or if he was an Islamic militant.

Please make up your minds whether these things are still out there and we just completely fucked up securing them, or if they simply don't exist.

[Yonivore]

That'd be great logic if Saddam ever attacked us with WMDs or if he was an Islamic militant.

Please make up your minds whether these things are still out there and we just completely fucked up securing them, or if they simply don't exist.
He had been attacking U.S. Military assets for 12 years and he was in cahoots with Islamic extremists.

You don't pay attention, do you Chumpy?

[ChumpDumper]

He had been attacking U.S. Military assets for 12 yearsWith WMDs?
he was in cahoots with Islamic extremists.Yeah, he planned 9/11.

[Yonivore]

With WMDs?Yeah, he planned 9/11.
I see, so we wait for that to happen?

Yeah, he planned 9/11.
Really? Where'd you hear that?

[ChumpDumper]

Look fellas, just say that he was a bad man that needed to be taken out because we were afraid of him.

Then be consistent with all the other bad men in the world.

You won't need any excuses or make any shit up then.

[ChumpDumper]

I see, so we wait for that to happen?With what WMDs? Are you saying they exist now? Have you made up your mind?
Really? Where'd you hear that?Look up the word hyperbole.

[Yonivore]

Look fellas, just say that he was a bad man that needed to be taken out because we were afraid of him.

Then be consistent with all the other bad men in the world.

You won't need any excuses or make any shit up then.
So, you're contending there was nothing particularly onerous about this bad man?

All those Democrats were wrong too? Even you choice for President -- John Kerry?

Zarqawi fled Afghanistan to Iraq. Abu Nidal was a resident of Baghdad. What other bad men have such close ties to Islamic terrorists?

[Marcus Bryant]

That'd be great logic if Saddam ever attacked us with WMDs


So he gives them to someone who does.




or if he was an Islamic militant.

He certainly had embraced the cause in recent times.




Please make up your minds whether these things are still out there and we just completely fucked up securing them, or if they simply don't exist.

I speak for myself, Honeypie. Recognize that individuals have different opinions and you'll go far.

[Yonivore]

With what WMDs? Are you saying they exist now?
I've always believed he had them. And, even if not, one of his top scientists testified that he was prepared to reconstitute his WMD program immediately after sanctions were lifted -- and, further, would have some chemical weapons ready to deploy within weeks -- if not days.

Why are you defending him so vehemently?


Have you made up your mind?
Yep, I have.


Look up the word hyperbole.
Look up the word idiot...better yet, look in a mirror -- just in case Webster's photo of you is outdated.

I'm still waiting for you to explain all those statements by Democrats who also were convinced -- based on access to the same intelligence the President had -- that Saddam Hussein need to be disarmed.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Bush Lied, People Died!!!!!!

[JohnnyMarzetti]

I'm still waiting for you to explain all those statements by Democrats who also were convinced -- based on access to the same intelligence the President had -- that Saddam Hussein need to be disarmed.

You are the definition of IDIOT!! Those statements were made based on the shitty intelligence that Dumbya, Rover, Rummy, Cheney drummed up.
It really is not that difficult. Dumbya won't even acknowledge that the intelligence was screwed up.

[Yonivore]

You are the definition of IDIOT!! Those statements were made based on the shitty intelligence that Dumbya, Rover, Rummy, Cheney drummed up.
It really is not that difficult. Dumbya won't even acknowledge that the intelligence was screwed up.
Wait a minute? Drummed up or screwed up?

It's possible the intelligence was screwed up and, if so, how can you blame the President for acting on the same "screwed up" intelligence that everyone had and also believed should have been acted on?

But, if you believe it was "drummed" up, you're going to have to explain two things:

1) How did they drum it up during the Clinton administration, and;

2) Where's the proof it was drummed up?

Because, just because you say they lied doesn't make it so. In fact, just the opposite has been concluded -- that the intelligence wasn't manipulated by the administration.

We also haven't even talked about the British, Italian, Australian, and French Intelligence that concluded the same thing.

[SA210]

Dumbya, for the people!!!

[Yonivore]

Bush Lied, People Died!!!!!!
And this is as deep as the Left's argument gets.

No proof.

No alternative.

No plan.

Nothing.

You would think that after a few years of this canard, they would have at least provided some support for the bumper sticker argument.

[SA210]

^^^Bush rehearsed questions with a military group!!! That man is a liar, PERIOD!!!
"The Photo Opportunity President", governor Bush :lmao

[Yonivore]

^^^Bush rehearsed questions with a military group!!! Than man is a liar, PERIOD!!!
"The Photo Opportunity President", governor Bush :lmao
WTF are you on about?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry.

[Yonivore]

You are the definition of IDIOT!! Those statements were made based on the shitty intelligence that Dumbya, Rover, Rummy, Cheney drummed up.
It really is not that difficult. Dumbya won't even acknowledge that the intelligence was screwed up.
Here's another thing to consider...

That "shitty" intelligence was provided by George Tenet's CIA. A Clinton appointee, if memory serves me.

[ChumpDumper]

I've always believed he had them.Where are they and why didn't we get them?
Why are you defending him so vehemently?You can't show me defending him one bit so drop that bullshit once and for all.
Yep, I have.Where are they? Are we safer now that we don't know where they are?
I'm still waiting for you to explain all those statements by Democrats who also were convinced -- based on access to the same intelligence the President had -- that Saddam Hussein need to be disarmed.You labor under the assumption I am a Democrat and that I voted for Kerry. You really aren't good with this assumption thing, are you?

[Yonivore]

Where are they and why didn't we get them?
So, where's Jimmy Hoffa and why haven't we found him?


You can't show me defending him one bit so drop that bullshit once and for all.
Sure you are. You believe him over the rest of the world (caveat: up until the U.S. invaded). You believe he should have been left in power (caveat: After he was removed from power, of course). You believe he was an innocent man who deserved to be left alone (caveat: after he was pulled from the Spider Hole). Before, as we all know, you were just as convinced as the rest that he was evil.


Where are they? Are we safer now that we don't know where they are?
That would, of course, depend on where they are. If destroyed, I'd say yeah -- we're safer. If hidden, possibly not -- unless they're hidden where no one can get to them. If moved...no, they're as much a danger as they were before -- but, no more of a danger.


You labor under the assumption I am a Democrat and that I voted for Kerry. You really aren't good with this assumption thing, are you?
No, I just assume you're an idiot. But, that's based on pretty strong evidence provided in your posts.

[ChumpDumper]

So, where's Jimmy Hoffa and why haven't we found him?He's under Giants Stadium and no one wants to break up the foundation concrete.
Sure you are. You believe him over the rest of the worldNope. I wanted and still want proof.
You believe he should have been left in power I don't believe he should've been overthrown for bogus reasons.
You believe he was an innocent man who deserved to be left aloneFuck you and your idiocy -- I want something more to go on before committing to killing tens of thousands of people.
That would, of course, depend on where they are. If destroyed, I'd say yeah -- we're safer. If hidden, possibly not -- unless they're hidden where no one can get to them. If moved...no, they're as much a danger as they were before -- but, no more of a danger.The mere fact you don't know anything about their existence or whereabouts should make you feel very safe indeed. You are completely comfortable with all that death on your hands on a few ifs and maybes. Good for you. Saddam killed thousands on such whims too.

[Yonivore]

He's under Giants Stadium and no one wants to break up the foundation concrete.Nope. I wanted and still want proof.I don't believe he should've been overthrown for bogus reasons.Fuck you and your idiocy -- I want something more to go on before committing to killing tens of thousands of people.The mere fact you don't know anything about their existence or whereabouts should make you feel very safe indeed. You are completely comfortable with all that death on your hands on a few ifs and maybes. Good for you. Saddam killed thousands on such whims too.
All I've got to say is that if you had been in charge I'm betting we would have had another attack on U.S. soil and that thousands of us would be dead...because you failed to act.

[ChumpDumper]

All I've got to say is that if you had been in charge I'm betting we would have had another attack on U.S. soil and that thousands of us would be dead...because you failed to act.With what?

The weapons that were never there or the weapons that were there and now aren't there and we have not one cluse as to where they are?

I'm all for action -- if it's the right action. Afghanistan was the right action -- and isn't quite finished. Iraq was a distraction to make people like you feel less impotent after 9/11.

All I've got to say is if you were in charge the only person left alive would be Terry Schiavo.

[Yonivore]

With what?

The weapons that were never there or the weapons that were there and now aren't there and we have not one cluse as to where they are?

I'm all for action -- if it's the right action. Afghanistan was the right action -- and isn't quite finished. Iraq was a distraction to make people like you feel less impotent after 9/11.

All I've got to say is if you were in charge the only person left alive would be Terry Schiavo.
So, you deny he had the scientific minds, precursor chemicals and agents, the physical equipment, and the will to re-constitute his WMD program as soon as the sanctions were lifted?

Because, at the very least, that's what the evidence shows.

Combine that with the influx of al Qaeda from an embattled Afghanistan, corrupt actions of the UN and our allies probably leading to a premature lifting of sanctions, and his aggressive posturing...I'm cool with the President's decision.

It was the right thing to do.

[ChumpDumper]

So, you deny he had the scientific minds, precursor chemicals and agents, the physical equipment, and the will to re-constitute his WMD program as soon as the sanctions were lifted?That wasn't the bill of goods we were sold.

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

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. 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." - Bush

"His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox." - Rummy

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

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Fleischer

"It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX." - Bolton

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

“We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.” - Fleischer

“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.” - Wolfowitz

You can come back with all the Democratic quotes you like -- there are many and their complete lack of spine on the issue helped to bring about this mess -- but this war wasn't their invention.

I deny he was going to be able to do much of anything with our flying hundreds of sorties over his country with orders to blow shit up at any sign of so much as a radar lock. The ease with which Iraq was taken over shows just how little a threat he actually posed.

[Yonivore]

Okay, from the top...and, please, I implore you to stay with me here...


“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors”

This Iraq/WMD talk which is still upsetting you, began in 1998.

In 1998, Bill Clinton said we had intelligence that showed Iraq was making WMD and becoming a threat to the world.


“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.”

Maddie Albright agreed:


“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”


Tom Daschle and lots of other Democrats completely agreed.


“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Sandy “Pants” Berger agreed:


“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

Nancy Pelosi agreed:


“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruct[quoteion technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

It’s 1998. We have The American President talking Iraq and WMD, and also, outlining a policy of regime change in Iraq.


The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not left over from the first Bush administration, but, rather, unfinished business from the Clinton administration. Upon entering office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited from the Clinton administration a policy of regime change. That policy was based upon the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), which stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This policy was unanimously approved by the Senate and strongly supported by the Clinton administration.

Not two months after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, President Clinton delivered an address to the nation explaining his decision to order air strikes against Iraqi military targets. He discussed the potential long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, stating,


“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well- being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

“. . . Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”

It is hard to think of any Bush administration words more forceful, unqualified or expressive of the grave and growing danger posed by the Iraqi regime. Yet, I’ve heard no criticism of Clinton administration misuse of intelligence.

How can one administration’s use of intelligence be reasonable and credible, but another administration’s use of the same intelligence be an unreasonable lie?

In 1998, the US was certain that Saddam Hussein was acquiring and developing WMD, and that he posed a credible threat. The president said it. His party said it. The opposition party agreed. The press said it. England said it. Israel said it. France said it. China and Russia said it. EVERYONE said it. EVERYONE accepted it. These were the intelligence reports, and everyone found them believable.

No one acted on them, but no one declared they were false, either. While some cynics suggested that the American President’s focus on the WMD was some “dog wagging” to distract attention from an uncomfortable scandal, no one seriously entertained a notion that Saddam Hussein did NOT have WMD. Everyone believed it to be true. Or at least said they believed it.

In 2001, a new president took office, and was party to the same intelligence information as his predecessor. And he believed that information. And when terror struck his country, he decided that the best way to counter terrorism born in the Middle East would be to, finally, change the Middle East.

He had all this intelligence. He believed it. Everyone he showed it to, believed it.


“The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House…”

So the new president decided it was time to act. He talked to the UN about it. He talked to Congress about it. He laid out numerous reasons why the US policy of regime change should finally be acted upon. Then he acted upon it… and he expected to find lots of WMD, based on that all that intelligence that everyone believed.

Whoops.

No WMD. Some think they’ve been spirited to Syria, but no one knows. All anyone knows is…no WMD.

[Let me be clear. I believe Iraq had WMD. I DO NOT think President Clinton made it all up. But if he didn’t…then neither did Bush.]

Now, if a president were LYING about the existance of WMD, he might think to plant a few hundred gallons of something (and maybe a funked-out nuclear device) in the desert around Iraq, in order to bolster his claim, to not look like a fool or a miscreant. But if he were simply BELIEVING the intelligence everyone else believed, why…I guess he would assume that reasonable people would say,”wow…we ALL believed that there were WMD. There were not. How come?”

Bush’s boner was in assuming he was dealing with reasonable people, people who understand that a “lie” is a willful mistatement of a fact, while a belief based on intelligence deemed credible by everyone in the whole world is…a belief based on intelligence deemed credible by the whole world…

Why was the intelligence wrong? That was a pretty big mistake, and it was a mistake made, it seems, around 1998. Where did the false intelligence come from, and who propagated it? And why?

Those are the questions that need answering. If the Senate wants to shut down until they are answered, I’m all for it. Let’s get a real investigation going, here. Let’s find out where the bad intel came from. Let’s find out why, when we believed such weapons existed, our FBI and CIA were not talking about it together. Let’s find out why the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Hutton Commission in England both declared that the Niger Yellowcake story was “credible” and why Britian still stands by it. Let’s find out what Able Danger did or did not confirm about WMD. Let’s find out if Sandy Berger spirited any information about what we really did or did not know, out of the National Archives. Was the whole thing another illusion, one that appealed to Saddam’s romance-novel writing machismo vanity? One that the whole world sustained because there was money to be made from the sanctions and the UN Oil-for-Food Bank for Big Guys?

It seems like back in 1998, and in the succeeding years, the possibility that Iraq had WMD served quite a few people with quite a few agendas. Was it all a lie laid-out-too well? One that “stupid Bush” was not SUPPOSED to believe and act on, because the things were never there?

I’d like the answers. We’d all like the answers. An investigation is well in order. But let’s take it from the beginning, shall we? I want to hear what President Clinton and Sec. Albright and Sandy Berger and Ted Kennedy and everyone else knew or believed, and why, right from the start. I want to hear from Kofi Annan and George Galloway and all the folks who pocketed money or barrels or oil thanks to the sanctions against “dangerous, recalcitrant” Iraq. When and what did they believe, about WMD, and why?

Then I would like to hear what team Bush knew or believed, and why.
[B]
Then I want to hear why everyone believed it until it was proved false, and then everyone’s belief simply became “one man’s lie.”

We are a whole nation, not merely a nation of thems and we’s. The whole nation needs to know what the whole government thought, and when it thought it; what it believed and why it believed it.

I suggest Sen. Reid and Sen. Durbin get to it. Mount an investigation. America deserves it. She has earned it. Her troops have earned it.

What was “true” in 1998, and “true” in 2003, has turned out to be “not true,” in 2005. I am at a loss to understand how that is one man’s “lie.” But if it is…which man?

We went to war because Bill Clinton told the truth. The Dems would now have us believe that we ought to consider everything Mr Clinton said was a lie. If Mr Bush lied, it was because he relied on the lies of Mr Clinton. Presidents rely on each other when it comes to protecting the homeland.

There you go. Said about as succinctly as can be said. Either Bill Clinton told the truth about WMD, and Bush believed him. Or he lied about WMD, and Bush believed him.

Jimmy Carter seems confused, also.

[ChumpDumper]

You can come back with all the Democratic quotes you like -- there are many and their complete lack of spine on the issue helped to bring about this mess -- but this war wasn't their invention.Again, you consider this a partisan attack, which is another fallacious assumption.

At least this one has yet to kill anyone.

But give it time....

[Medvedenko]

And this is as deep as the Left's argument gets.

No proof. (WMD's.....)

No alternative. (Still in Iraq....)

No plan. (See above)

Nothing. (See above)

You would think that after a few years of this canard, they would have at least provided some support for the bumper sticker argument.

Yoni....nice try.

[SpursWoman]

Yoni....nice try.

Is that your argument? How is that any better or insightful or informative?


"Nice try."

[Yonivore]

Again, you consider this a partisan attack, which is another fallacious assumption.

At least this one has yet to kill anyone.

But give it time....
So, you disagree with the assessment of President Clinton and his administration?

You're the only one in the known universe that thought Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD's and failed to let the rest of in on that little tidbit of information? How fucking irresponsible.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm saying there wasn't enough proof to kill tens of thousands of people. I know you don't care about anyone with a functional brain -- I'm just different that way.

[Yonivore]

I'm saying there wasn't enough proof to kill tens of thousands of people. I know you don't care about anyone with a functional brain -- I'm just different that way.
Yeah, you're different.

So, tell me, at what point would President ChumpDumper have sent in the troops?

Okay Chump, I don't do hypotheticals either so feel free to decline but, here goes:

You're standing in an open field talking to an assemble of friends. Suddenly they all start pointing in a direction behind you and saying that the neighborhood bully is running up behind you with a shotgun in his hand and they think he's getting ready to shoot you with it. You happened, as luck would have it, to have a 9mm holstered at your side.

You wheel around and sure enough, here he comes with a shotgun in his hand...and he's lowering it in an aggressive manner.

What do you do?

[ChumpDumper]

So, tell me, at what point would President ChumpDumper have sent in the troops?When I didn't have to make up reasons to go. When invasion became the conclusion, not the starting point, of foreign policy.

[Yonivore]

When I didn't have to make up reasons to go. When invasion became the conclusion, not the starting point, of foreign policy.
The reasons weren't made up and, if they were, it was during a previous administration because, well, as I've already demonstrated -- that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and was willing to use them and would given the chance was the foregone conclusion of damn near everyone.

Take a look at my hypothetical I added to my last post. I'd be interested to see if you're willing to play along.

[ChumpDumper]

And at the time I probably would've sent troops to Darfur -- y'know, where 400,000 non-brain dead folk were actually being killed. Hell, you probably would've volunteered if I said the Janjaweed were pulling the plugs of the ethnic Africans.

[Yonivore]

And at the time I probably would've sent troops to Darfur -- y'know, where 400,000 non-brain dead folk were actually being killed. Hell, you probably would've volunteered if I said the Janjaweed were pulling the plugs of the ethnic Africans.
Were they ramping up a WMD program, strengthening relationships with Islamic terrorists that had just killed 3,000 Americans, or cutting deals with corrupt allies in order to get out of confining sanctions?

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have intervened in Darfur...but, that the circumstances were different and that we had brushfires elsewhere. Where was the U.N. and other major military countries on that question?

So, how 'bout the hypothetical?

[ChumpDumper]

You're standing in an open field talking to an assemble of friends. Suddenly they all start pointing in a direction behind you and saying that the neighborhood bully is running up behind you with a shotgun in his hand and they think he's getting ready to shoot you with it. You happened, as luck would have it, to have a 9mm holstered at your side.

You wheel around and sure enough, here he comes with a shotgun in his hand...and he's lowering it in an aggressive manner.

What do you do?Bad analogy. You have yet to produce the shotgun of this analogy. To make the analogy relevant you should ask me whether I'd shoot a guy because he's thinking of buying a shotgun.

[Yonivore]

Bad analogy. You have yet to produce the shotgun of this analogy. To make the analogy relevant you should ask me whether I'd shoot a guy because he's thinking of buying a shotgun.
Okay, let's change it to it appears he's pulling a shotgun out from under his trenchcoat.

You're correction is wrong. Everyone believes he already possesses a shotgun. IN fact, he's bragged about his shotgun and what he'll do with it -- put the mother of all holes in your chest -- or some such nonsense.

[ChumpDumper]

Were they ramping up a WMD program, strengthening relationships with Islamic terrorists that had just killed 3,000 Americans, or cutting deals with corrupt allies in order to get out of confining sanctions?Were 400,000 people being hacked to death?
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have intervened in Darfur...but, that the circumstances were different and that we had brushfires elsewhere. Where was the U.N. and other major military countries on that question?Following our lack of leadership. Cowardice loves company. The AU has punked us all.

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, let's change it to it appears he's pulling a shotgun out from under his trenchcoat.

You're correction is wrong. Everyone believes he already possesses a shotgun. IN fact, he's bragged about his shotgun and what he'll do with it -- put the mother of all holes in your chest -- or some such nonsense.Hey, you said you saw it. You can't even stick to one story in a stupid analogy -- can't you see how ridiculous this all is?

[Yonivore]

Were 400,000 people being hacked to death? Following our lack of leadership. Cowardice loves company. The AU has punked us all.
Whatever.

[Yonivore]

Hey, you said you saw it. You can't even stick to one story in a stupid analogy -- can't you see how ridiculous this all is?
You're right, the hypothetical was poorly worded. So, take your pick, you believe you saw it or it appears he's pulling one out from under his coat. Either will work.

Or, just keep finding reasons not to play...that's fine too.

[ChumpDumper]

He has a shotgun pointed at you.

Someone said he was thinking about buying a gun.

He used a gun twenty years ago but you don't know if he has one now.

Someone said someone else said he asked someone about shotgun shells.

Someone saw a firing pin in his toolshed.

He defintely has the shotgun, won't use it himself, but might give it to someone who doesn't like you.

He had the shotgun, but destroyed it when he heard the cops were coming.

He may or may not have had a shotgun, and when the police came he may or may not have given the shotgun that may or may not have existed to someone who may or may not use it on you.

He has a buldge in his trenchcoat but he's just happy to see you.

Which is it?

Meanwhile, 400,000 real people with real functioning brains are hacked to death with real machetes while you perfect your analogy.

[Yonivore]

He has a shotgun pointed at you.

Someone said he was thinking about buying a gun.

He used a gun twenty years ago but you don't know if he has one now.

Someone said someone else said he asked someone about shotgun shells.

Someone saw a firing pin in his toolshed.

He defintely has the shotgun, won't use it himself, but might give it to someone who doesn't like you.

He had the shotgun, but destroyed it when he heard the cops were coming.

He may or may not have had a shotgun, and when the police came he may or may not have given the shotgun that may or may not have existed to someone who may or may not use it on you.

He has a buldge in his trenchcoat but he's just happy to see you.

Which is it?

Meanwhile, 400,000 real people with real functioning brains are hacked to death with real machetes.

No, meanwhile he's running at you while you consider all these possibilities...and, he's pulling something out of his coat. What do you do?

[ChumpDumper]

Running at us? He never left his studio apartment.

All you have to go on is folks trying to peer through the blinds while passing by on their bikes.

[Yonivore]

Running at us? He never left his studio apartment.

All you have to go on is folks trying to peer through the blinds while passing by on their bikes.
Okay fine. The people that just killed 3,000 of your neighbors are joining him in his studio apartment and he refuses to open the door for Police Officers with a valid search warrant. They kick in the door and then he appears to be pulling a shotgun out from under the poker table. What do you do?

You're a fucking idiot Chump. Seriously, you need remedial cognitive therapy.

[ChumpDumper]

The people that just killed 3,000 of your neighbors are joining him in his studio apartment and he refuses to open the door for Police Officers with a valid search warrant. They kick in the door and then he appears to be pulling a shotgun out from under the poker table. What do you do?So he used WMDs when we invaded?

You really need to think these things out, dipshit.

[gtownspur]

And at the time I probably would've sent troops to Darfur -- y'know, where 400,000 non-brain dead folk were actually being killed. Hell, you probably would've volunteered if I said the Janjaweed were pulling the plugs of the ethnic Africans.

THat is complete bullshit! Democrats and libs did not care about sudan as long back as the clinton admin, when these killings were happening. The only time liberals thought it was a good idea to invade was when It was used as an excuse to undermine the plan to invade iraq.

[Yonivore]

So he used WMDs when we invaded?

You really need to think these things out, dipshit.
I guess you forget the threats and the 25,000 body bags and the assessments he would use his WMD's when we invaded.

That he didn't doesn't diminish the fact that up until then everyone thought he had them, thought he would use them, and frankly -- were surprised when he didn't (even his own military leaders).

What were we supposed to do? Well, he didn't gas, infect, or nuke the troops -- I guess we should just abandon our 1998 plan for regime change because, well, it was all about the WMD's now wasn't it?

[Yonivore]

THat is complete bullshit! Democrats and libs did not care about sudan as long back as the clinton admin, when these killings were happening. The only time liberals thought it was a good idea to invade was when It was used as an excuse to undermine the plan to invade iraq.
That's useless gtown, Chumpy is an indepent...while he won't blame Clinton for anything...he never not blames him either...or something like that.

In Chumpy world nothing happened in foreign policy between 1992 and 2001...Hey, kind of like Bill Clinton's approach to foreign policy.

[gtownspur]

So he used WMDs when we invaded?

You really need to think these things out, dipshit.

You need to wipe the Howard DEan Man chowder off your fucking eyelids to see that Bush wasnt the only one to believe sadaam had weapons. ANd i repeat you big dumb fuck trophy, that the intelligence used to prosecute the war was from the CLinton administration asshole.

[ChumpDumper]

I guess you forget the threats and the 25,000 body bags and the assessments he would use his WMD's when we invaded.Nice to see you are unaffected by hype. Well, he certainly had his chance last time didn't he? Why did he not do it then?
I guess we should just abandon our 1998 plan for regime change because, well, it was all about the WMD's now wasn't it?That was Ari's quote, not mine -- take it up with him.

[ChumpDumper]

You need to wipe the Howard DEan Man chowder off your fucking eyelids to see that Bush wasnt the only one to believe sadaam had weapons. ANd i repeat you big dumb fuck trophy, that the intelligence used to prosecute the war was from the CLinton administration asshole.So the invasion was Clinton's idea.

Very sound spin.

[gtownspur]

That's useless gtown, Chumpy is an indepent...while he won't blame Clinton for anything...he never not blames him either...or something like that.

In Chumpy world nothing happened in foreign policy between 1992 and 2001...Hey, kind of like Bill Clinton's approach to foreign policy.

Yeah i'm an independent too. :rolleyes , i now have a teflon sheild to protect me from accusations that i too am partisan.

[ChumpDumper]

Clinton has more than his fair share of mistakes. Starting this war wasn't one of them.

[Yonivore]

Nice to see you are unaffected by hype. Well, he certainly had his chance last time didn't he? Why did he not do it then?
Only he can answer that. But, personally, I believe it's because we caught him off guard. I believe he was assured by his corrupt cronies in France, Russia, Germany, and the U.N. that they would reign the U.S. in and that an invasion wouldn't happen.

If you remember, we started with bombing Baghdad and putting Hussein on the run and, further, cutting command and communications from any field units that may have had the WMD's to deploy.

Maybe we executed the invasion perfectly -- after all, we took Baghdad, toppled the regime, defeated the 5th largest army in the world, and overcame duststorms, severed supply line, and your poo pooing all in 21 days. By any measure the most phenomenal military operation in the history of warfare.

I think the element of surprise is why he didn't use them.

The second scenario is that he had been destroying them all along -- albeit without declaring such destruction to UNSCOM -- and was bluffing everybody, including his own military leaders who have all said they thought he had them and would use them.

Third, he moved them to another country, possibly Syria as has been suggested.

Fourth, their under the sand like those MiGs were.

I think that they never existed would be my last guess, given all the history and evidence.

[ChumpDumper]

So they either never existed or we let them get away and we have no idea where they are.

Mission accomplished.

[Yonivore]

So they either never existed or we let them get away and we have no idea where they are.

Mission accomplished.
Or one of the other scenarios.

And, it could be that we know exactly where they are but -- gee, maybe you and I are not in that intelligence loop. I would imagine that it would be on a need to know basis, if the weapons are no longer in Iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

There's only one other scenario -- that he had been destroying them all along.

1) Never had them
2) Had them but destryoed them
3) Had them and hid them, we have no idea where

Which do you believe?

[gtownspur]

^^^ YEs seeing how bush has already declared the war on terror to be over.[sarcasm] Nice try.

[Yonivore]

There's only one other scenario -- that he had been destroying them all along.

Which do you believe?
I believe they're in Syria...but, I'm not in a position to know. And, neither are you.

[ChumpDumper]

^^^ YEs seeing how bush has already declared the war on terror to be over.[sarcasm] Nice try.Take it up with the banner writers.

[ChumpDumper]

I believe they're in Syria...but, I'm not in a position to know. And, neither are you.So my saying they were already destroyed is just as valid. Understood.

[Yonivore]

Take it up with the banner writers.
Regime change was accomplished and that was the mission that was accomplished.

Given what followed, I tend to agree, it was an unfortunate display but, it was a moral booster for the troops involved in the initial invasion.

[gtownspur]

^either way. We limit the production of WMD's if any of those scenarios exist. And in either way. Invasion or not, those wmd's can still be used. But we should withdraw already...right.

[Yonivore]

So my saying they were already destroyed is just as valid. Understood.
Sure. But, he had a duty to declare that to the U.N. and he didn't. There were tons of chemical and biological weapons he failed to account for and he was, admittedly, engaged in highly suspicious activities during the period when UNSCOM was not allowed in the country. Including, regardless of what Joe Wilson says, the attempted purchase of yellowcake uranium from some country in Africa.

[ChumpDumper]

^either way. We limit the production of WMD's if any of those scenarios exist. And in either way. Invasion or not, those wmd's can still be used. But we should withdraw already...right.No, it's far too late to withdraw. And if the WMDs are still out there in the hands of those to whom we were afraid Saddam would give them -- how much safer are we?

[Yonivore]

No, it's far too late to withdraw. And if the WMDs are still out there in the hands of those to whom we were afraid Saddam would give them -- how much safer are we?
A lot safer. Having the components of the weapons out there (maybe even in a place we know) without the infrastructure and scientific personnel to make them work -- as Saddam Hussein had -- is better than what existed in pre-invasion Iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

There you go with your spin again. I'm talking actual WMDs. It's so convenient to reduce them to pre-pre-precursors when you don't know where they are, and then say a shotgun is being pointed at you when you think you know where they are.

You never make up your mind, so I you lose any credibility.

[Yonivore]

There you go with your spin again. I'm talking actual WMDs. It's so convenient to reduce them to pre-pre-precursors when you don't know where they are, and then say a shotgun is being pointed at you when you think you know where they are.

You never make up your mind, so I you lose any credibility.
I admit it, I don't know where they are.

How do you know they didn't exist? He had them, we know he had them, he was supposed to declare them and destroy them and he didn't. So, you tell me, where are they?

I choose to believe my President and all of the evidence presented by his and the previous administration. From where does your belief that he didn't have them come?

[ChumpDumper]

How do you know they didn't exist?I know he had them years before the invasion. Nothing else.
So, you tell me, where are they?It's nice that you are asking the same question I asked at the beginning of this thread. Flattering, really -- but I was first -- and it took you this many pages to admit you didn't know.
I choose to believe my President and all of the evidence presented by his and the previous administration. From where does your belief that he didn't have them come?The fact we found none. I pray our administration wasn't so incompetent and criminally negligent as to ignore making the securing of WMDs a priority during the invasion after pimping it as the reason to attack in the first place. I sincerely want to believe that isn't the case, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to do so.

[Yonivore]

I know he had them years before the invasion. Nothing else.
That's not exactly true unless, of course, you haven't been paying attention since 1991. You also know he never disclosed the disposition of thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons as he was obligated to do under UNSC resolutions.


It's nice that you are asking the same question I asked at the beginning of this thread. Flattering, really -- but I was first -- and it took you this many pages to admit you didn't know.
So, where are the thousands of tons he was known to possess and never declared?


The fact we found none.
Back to my Jimmy Hoffa example. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And, there was much more evidence pointing to Saddam Hussein having WMDs than there was that Jimmy Hoffa was murdered but, you have no problem believing he was whacked by the mob, I bet.


I pray our administration wasn't so incompetent and criminally negligent as to ignore making the securing of WMDs a priority during the invasion after pimping it as the reason to attack in the first place. I sincerely want to believe that isn't the case, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to do so.
I think that's because it is what you want to believe.

[ChumpDumper]

That's not exactly trueNothing is "exactly true" is it?
So, where are the thousands of tons he was known to possess and never declared?Why do you keep parrotting my questions? You seem very content in not knowing that fact. I'm not.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.Absence of evidence is absense of evidence.
you have no problem believing he was whacked by the mob, I bet.What's the evidence? Hearsay? That was easy to believe with Saddam, wasn't it?
I think that's because it is what you want to believe.Quite the contrary -- I want to believe we did the right thing the right way, but I'm not going to ignore evidence to the contrary just to make myself feel better.

[Yonivore]

Nothing is "exactly true" is it?
Especially that you refuse to acknowledge he possessed weapons that we know not their disposition.

Why do you keep parrotting my questions? You seem very content in not knowing that fact. I'm not.
I'm interested in your answer. And, no, I'm not either. I'd feel better if we knew where they were.

Absence of evidence is absense of evidence.
But, it's not evidence of absence.


What's the evidence? Hearsay? That was easy to believe with Saddam, wasn't it?
Actually, I believe we have him saying he'd use them if we invaded. Of course, he also made statements that he didn't have them. Then he obstructed UNSCOM's attempts to verify one way or the other. We also have his history of using them and a whole lot of circumstantial evidence that points to his perpetuating a WMD program during the period of 1998 to 2003.


Quite the contrary -- I want to believe we did the right thing the right way, but I'm not going to ignore evidence to the contrary just to make myself feel better.
What evidence to the contrary? And, then, when you come up with that -- weigh it against the evidence that supports the decision.

[ChumpDumper]

Especially that you refuse to acknowledge he possessed weapons that we know not their disposition.I absolutely acknowledge we don't know about their disposition or current existence. I have all along. You are the one changing his view on WMDs with every post and analogy.
I'm interested in your answer.You've had it several times over.
Actually, I believe we have him saying he'd use them if we invaded.Right, the reason to invade was Saddam said he'd use WMDs if he was invaded. You know Castro speaks alot of shit in his 5 hour speeches -- when does Bay of Pigs II start?
What evidence to the contrary?Your very speculation that WMDs were allowed out of the country, for one.
And, then, when you come up with that -- weigh it against the evidence that supports the decision.The evidence we did everything right? Everything?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Not my president.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

The Duelfer report is something that anybody who wants to address this topic should read.

There is no doubt that Saddam would have tried to regain WMD's as soon as he thought he could do so and remain in power.

That said:

If we had poured even half the billions we have spent in our ill-planned invasion on maintaining the sanctions, and half the political capital that we have pissed away on maintaining the same, we would have been better off and saved the lives of thousands of our finest.

GW got some hair up his ass, for whatever reason, and dragged the rest of the world kicking and screaming with him. This isn't the sign of a great leader, it is a sign of megalomania.

Saddam wouldn't have given WMD's to al Qaeda even IF he had possessed them, so I honestly didn't give a shit if he had WMD's anyways.

[Yonivore]

Saddam wouldn't have given WMD's to al Qaeda even IF he had possessed them, so I honestly didn't give a shit if he had WMD's anyways.
I've read the Duelfer report and he never addresses this point or arrives at this conclusion. So, from where do you draw this statement? Your ass?

Why did Zarqawi flee Afghanistan and go to Iraq, before we invaded? Why not other Islamic-friendly states like Syria, Indonesia, or Iran?

[RandomGuy]

I've read the Duelfer report and he never addresses this point or arrives at this conclusion. So, from where do you draw this statement? Your ass?

That conclusion is not drawn in the Duelfer report. My apologies if I made it appear so, I merely encourage everybody to read it.

I use this reasoning to come to that conclusion:

Saddam's overriding priority was to keep himself alive and in power.
Any threat to that power was vigorously and preemptively removed, such as religious figures.

As much as Saddam may have miscalculated or misunderstood the US, even he would understand that had he actually given WMD to a terrorist group and that terrorist group had used it on the US, he would have been killed. He understands force, and its applications if nothing else.

The other outgrowth of this is that tends to disfavor the mythical Saddam/terrorist link:

Control. Saddam willfully giving control of a powerful weapon to a group that could just as conceivedly (in his mind) turn that weapon against him, seems a bit uncharactoristic, given what we know of his modus operendi.

Both of these tendencies would lead me to conclude that even if he had them, he wouldn't have allowed them to be given to al Qaeda types, who viewed his secular regime with almost as much scorn as that reserved for the US.

[Yonivore]

Why did Zarqawi flee Afghanistan to Iraq? Why not Syria, Iran, or Indonesia?

Why was Abu Nidal on the Iraqi dole?

Why do you discount all the anectdotal reports of meetings, contacts, and terrorist presence -- some of which we have discovered supporting documentation in the ruins of Baghdad government offices post-invasion?

Why was Saddam Hussein paying Palestinian terrorists? How does that support your reasoning that he would help terrorist groups?

Oh yeah, being an intelligence analyst, has it ever occurred to you that there is a whole butt-load more intelligence on these matters than is in the public domain due to possibility it compromises sources and endangers ongoing operations?

[Yonivore]

That conclusion is not drawn in the Duelfer report. My apologies if I made it appear so, I merely encourage everybody to read it.
Okay. I'm glad you made that clear.


I use this reasoning to come to that conclusion:

Saddam's overriding priority was to keep himself alive and in power.
Any threat to that power was vigorously and preemptively removed, such as religious figures.
Such people become desperate -- and Saddam Hussein was desperate to have sanctions lifted and resume his WMD programs.


As much as Saddam may have miscalculated or misunderstood the US, even he would understand that had he actually given WMD to a terrorist group and that terrorist group had used it on the US, he would have been killed. He understands force, and its applications if nothing else.
See above and guess what, we've already tried to kill him several times. In fact, he's standing trial now and probably will be killed. But, that all ignores the fact that he apparently was able to conceal his connections to terrorist groups -- at least to your satisfaction. In other words, Saddam thinks he's smarter than everyone else, another symptom of his megalomania.


The other outgrowth of this is that tends to disfavor the mythical Saddam/terrorist link:

Control. Saddam willfully giving control of a powerful weapon to a group that could just as conceivedly (in his mind) turn that weapon against him, seems a bit uncharactoristic, given what we know of his modus operendi.
Okay, are you sure you're an intelligence analyst? Because the answer to this conundrum is well-known and was established a long time ago.

You give them the fish and you don't provide a fishing pole or the necessary instruction for how to catch fish. That way, they eat that one and come back for more. It's kind of like how our Liberal welfare system keeps the poor dependent on the U.S. government.

Most terrorist groups, and al Qaeda is one of them, don't have the necessary intellectual capital to reverse engineer such a weapon and then produce it themselves. In all probability, they would receive it, use it, and ask for another.

I will grant you this, Saddam was smart enough not to give them a sufficient quantity with which to turn it on him. But, I am surprised you don't either know of this priniciple or, worse, don't subscribe to it.


Both of these tendencies would lead me to conclude that even if he had them, he wouldn't have allowed them to be given to al Qaeda types, who viewed his secular regime with almost as much scorn as that reserved for the US.
So, your conclusions are based on flawed logic. That's okay...you're not in charge anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

I will grant you this, Saddam was smart enough not to give them a sufficient quantity with which to turn it on him.Then how could it possibly be enough to use on the United States?

Flawed logic, indeed.

[Yonivore]

Then how could it possibly be enough to use on the United States?

Flawed logic, indeed.
God, you're stupid.

If al Qaeda had a weapon and a choice of where to use it, would it be against U.S. interests or against the regime from which he hoped to acquire more?

[ChumpDumper]

God, you're stupid.

If al Qaeda had a weapon and a choice of where to use it, would it be against U.S. interests or against the regime from which he hoped to acquire more?You mean the regime who gassed their ideological brethren?

You know these guys so well....what a pompous piece of shit.

[Yonivore]

You mean the regime who gassed their ideological brethren?
Yeah, that's exactly who I mean. Saddam Hussein is an amoral, opportunistic, megalomaniac capable of absolutely any atrocity. That's exactly who I mean. So, what's your point?


You know these guys so well....what a pompous piece of shit.
If that's the opposite of what you are, I'm fine with that.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, that's exactly who I mean. Saddam Hussein is an amoral, opportunistic, megalomaniac capable of absolutely any atrocity. That's exactly who I mean. So, what's your point?My point is Bin Laden called this guy a demon and devil worshipper in many speeches -- so you think he'd welcome any overture from him with open arms and never ever turn on him. If that's your point, it's a pathetic one.
If that's the opposite of what you are, I'm fine with that.As I am capable of independent intelligent thought, I couldn't agree with you more.

[Yonivore]

My point is Bin Laden called this guy a demon and devil worshipper in many speeches -- so you think he'd welcome any overture from him with open arms and never ever turn on him. If that's your point, it's a pathetic one.
Hussein wasn't afraid of bin Laden -- why would he concern himself with those kinds of possibilities when they had a common enemy and was desperate to break free of sanctions and start rebuilding his WMD programs?

I think the overtures were being made and, while there may not have been a deal struck yet, the lifting of sanctions was inevitable -- thanks to France, Russia, Germany, and Kofi Annan.

Once that was done, Hussein would have been looking for someone to carry his water -- who better than a global terrorist network whom idiots like you would refuse to believe ever would have worked with him?

So, again, why did Zarqawi flee to Iraq instead of Iran, Syria, or Indonesia? Why were there high level meetings between Iraqi security and al Qaeda representatives? And why was Abu Nidal on the Iraqi dole? Why was Hussein supporting Islamic extremists in "Palestine?"

As I am capable of independent intelligent thought, I couldn't agree with you more.
Good. Because your "capability" doesn't necessarily translate into your "execution" of independent intelligent thought.

[ChumpDumper]

So, again, why did Zarqawi flee to Iraq instead of Iran, Syria, or Indonesia?You assume Saddam was in complete control of his country. Another fallacious assumption.
Why were there high level meetings between Iraqi security and al Qaeda representatives?You'd think we'd have tortured that out of Saddam by now don't you?
Why was Hussein supporting Islamic extremists in "Palestine?"Because all Arabs and their motives are exactly the same, right?
Good. Because your "capability" doesn't necessarily translate into your "execution" of independent intelligent thought.And you are wholly incapable.

[Dos]

al qaeda showed us how to turn jet planes full of innocent americans into WMD's on 911... didn't they.... so I am all for fighting these cowards there instead of here...

[Yonivore]

You assume Saddam was in complete control of his country. Another fallacious assumption.
Well, he was in complete control of Baghdad where the Iraqi government (you know, the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein) was paying the room and board for Abu Nidal. He was also in complete control of the Sunni Triangle and areas that border Syria -- where most of the al Qaeda terrorists now call home.


You'd think we'd have tortured that out of Saddam by now don't you?
Maybe we have...

I dont think you or I are in that "need to know" loop. And, unlike the previous administration, this one isn't in the habit of sharing classified information to gain political points. I think they're content to let you and those like you stew in your conspiracies and false assumptions until the time when the undisputable truth comes out. So, carry on...


Because all Arabs and their motives are exactly the same, right?
In a general sense, yeah. Them against the infidel and the enemy of my enemy is my friend...sure, it's a pretty simple formula. It also helps (or gives them the impression of being helpful) when the "infidels" and the "enemies of their enemies" can't quit squabbling over minutae long enough to face them down.


And you are wholly incapable.
Again, your assessment of my argument means little but, whatever makes you happy...because, well, I want you to "feel" good about things.

[RandomGuy]

Why did Zarqawi flee Afghanistan to Iraq? Why not Syria, Iran, or Indonesia?

Why was Abu Nidal on the Iraqi dole?

Why do you discount all the anectdotal reports of meetings, contacts, and terrorist presence -- some of which we have discovered supporting documentation in the ruins of Baghdad government offices post-invasion?

Why was Saddam Hussein paying Palestinian terrorists? How does that support your reasoning that he would help terrorist groups?

Oh yeah, being an intelligence analyst, has it ever occurred to you that there is a whole butt-load more intelligence on these matters than is in the public domain due to possibility it compromises sources and endangers ongoing operations?

I don't discount the fact that Saddam's government had ties with a few terrorists, and from what I have seen, it was pretty much low-level stuff, and not rising to the level of some full-blown cabal that you seem to be pumping up.

Saddam supported Palestinian "terrorists" because he thought doing so would help his image as some new sort of Saledin. PR stunt, nothing more. But to people who want to hype up the case for war like you, it is a convenient straw to grasp.

You would be surprised at the level of information available on US intelligence available from open sources.

All in all, this stuff has been hashed and re-hashed.

In the end, the mountain that you and other apologists make out of the moehill that was Saddam merely highlights the weaknesses in the case to anybody with an ounce of sense, analyst or no.

[RandomGuy]

See above and guess what, we've already tried to kill him several times. In fact, he's standing trial now and probably will be killed. But, that all ignores the fact that he apparently was able to conceal his connections to terrorist groups -- at least to your satisfaction. In other words, Saddam thinks he's smarter than everyone else, another symptom of his megalomania.

He wasn't able to conceal his "connections" to terrorist groups. The connections were the equivilant of two mail room clerks from Ford and GM eating lunch together. Hardly the stuff to warrant hundreds of billions and tens of thousands of lives.


Okay, are you sure you're an intelligence analyst? Because the answer to this conundrum is well-known and was established a long time ago.

You give them the fish and you don't provide a fishing pole or the necessary instruction for how to catch fish. That way, they eat that one and come back for more. It's kind of like how our Liberal welfare system keeps the poor dependent on the U.S. government.

Most terrorist groups, and al Qaeda is one of them, don't have the necessary intellectual capital to reverse engineer such a weapon and then produce it themselves. In all probability, they would receive it, use it, and ask for another.

I will grant you this, Saddam was smart enough not to give them a sufficient quantity with which to turn it on him. But, I am surprised you don't either know of this priniciple or, worse, don't subscribe to it.

Um, yeah, kind of like you and rational or critical thinking. Try it sometime.



So, your conclusions are based on flawed logic. That's okay...you're not in charge anyway.

My conclusions are based on ambiguous information. I have no telepathic link to Saddam and would not want such were it available. When one doesn't have concrete information, one has to make a "best shot" guess based on what information IS available.

Your conclusions are not only based on flawed logic, they are based on propaganda that you have sucked up without questioning. But that's ok, you're not in charge either. "Yes men" rarely get the helm, current president excepted.

[gtownspur]

^^Random Guy, no one is propagandizing that sadaam is evil and had evil intentions. You have had the Clinton administration, the FBI, British intelligence making the case of outing sadaam long before Bush took office. Sadaam's had met with Alqueda officials to discuss coordination of plans to establish training camps in Iraq. THis was no lunch room incident. THe bi partisan 911 commision established that there was an alqueda-iraq connection minus 911.

SO to sit here and clown everybody else and think you are the guardian of Skeptic creed with your blind objections, you better think twice.

[ChumpDumper]

Sadaam's had met with Alqueda officials to discuss coordination of plans to establish training camps in Iraq. Good thing you can edit these posts.

Source of Iraq-Qaeda link suspected liar -NY Times (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05257324.htm)

[Yonivore]

Good thing you can edit these posts.

Source of Iraq-Qaeda link suspected liar -NY Times (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05257324.htm)
NY Times is a confirmed liar.

[ChumpDumper]

Isn't there a Sabbath that needs respecting?

[Yonivore]

Isn't there a Sabbath that needs respecting?
They need to quit spreading their crap on the Sabbath then.

[gtownspur]

Isn't there a Sabbath that needs respecting?
^^Their sabbath was used to attack other people who respected their sabbath. Muslim theology in it's own text has no morals other than they advance islam.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, I was talking about you -- but it's so nice to see your true "no good muslims" colors surface once again.

[RandomGuy]

NY Times is a confirmed liar.

The NY times is no more vulnerable to bad journalism as say, Rush Limbaugh...
:lol

Honestly, you are the biggest baby-with-the-bathwater type I have ever seen.

"There might be somebody somewhere abusing welfare, so let's get rid of the entire social safety net"

"Somebody might be misusing life preservers, so our ships don't need them, let people drown"

"There might be a bad journalist in a huge news organization, everything it says is bullpuckey"



I actually think it's about time that the press finally has called this administration on it's bullshit instead of giving it a free ride.

[jochhejaam]

Does anyone have a clue as to what you can do with 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium? It takes only 20 kilograms (44 lbs) to make a bomb so with 1.77 metric tons equaling roughly 3,900 lbs you could make 88 bombs! <I believe my math is correct>


Show us the weapons.

I'm not convinced about the WMD's in Iraq. They have not been found

Bush Lied, People Died!!!!!!

Dumbya won't even acknowledge that the intelligence was screwed up.

That man is a liar, PERIOD!!!

Saddam wouldn't have given WMD's to al Qaeda even IF he had possessed them, so I honestly didn't give a shit if he had WMD's anyways.


WMDs Found in Iraq
Posted Nov 9, 2005


Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation.


Consider these shocking facts:

• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium!!

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin






This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Miniter reveals in his new book, Disinformation. Miniter systematically dissects the "No-WMD Myth" (how it started, and why it continues), as well as 21 other War-on-Terror myths perpetuated by the media.

The intelligence revealed in Disinformation is vital. The publisher (Regnery, a sister company of HUMAN EVENTS) has agreed to send you one key chapter--free. Simply indicate below to which email address you want the chapter sent and you will receive it in a matter of minutes.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101&o=DIB004

[RandomGuy]

1) There is the further question whether this uranium is highly enriched or slightly/low enriched. Slightly/low enriched doesn't mean much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

Normally one should avoid ad hominem attacks, but I really wonder where this guy got his information.

I always worry when people start saying "look at this that the mainstream media is ignoring". The fact that the website is rabidly conservative doesn't give me much cause to think that journalistic integrity is high on their list.
I get the feeling that this guy is probably mincing words to make his case. Par for most right/left wing nutjobs who want to make a case and know the whole truth generally doesn't paint the picture they want to portray.


I will refrain from giving this much weight until I see the book and the sources/details.

Once again, I simply defer to the Duelfer report.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html#sect4

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=RandomGuy]1) I always worry when people start saying "look at this that the mainstream media is ignoring". The fact that the website is rabidly conservative doesn't give me much cause to think that journalistic integrity is high on their list.
Most media outlets are partisan or viewed as such, who's to say what is subjective or objective reporting anymore?

RG, if you had the mindset I'm sure you could develope strong talking points supporting Bush's Administration. Would that be a correct assumption?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=RandomGuy]1)
Normally one should avoid ad hominem attacks, but I really wonder where this guy got his information.
Agreed.
When you can counter his claims with facts of your own then do so but if you aren't able to refute his assertations then you shouldn't attempt to discredit him with a question you can't answer.

[ChumpDumper]

Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outletsTake it up with those pinkos at Fox.

[Winehole23]

This remarkable CIA mea culpa, just declassified this summer and published here for the first time, describes the U.S. intelligence failure on Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction as the consequence of "analytic liabilities" and predispositions that kept analysts from seeing the issue "through an Iraqi prism." The key findings presented in the first page-and-a-half (the only part most policymakers would read) are released almost in full, while the body of the document looks more like Swiss cheese from the many redactions of codewords, sources, and intelligence reports that remain classified even today, seven years after the Iraq Survey Group reported to the Director of Central Intelligence how wrong the prewar assessments had been. The key findings do not contain the most striking sentences; instead, these are tucked into the tail-end of the document. For example, on page 14, the assessment reports, "Given Iraq's extensive history of deception and only small changes in outward behavior, analysts did not spend adequate time examining the premise that the Iraqis had undergone a change in their behavior, and that what Iraq was saying by the end of 1995 was, for the most part, accurate." On page 16, going even further, the assessment says, "Analysts tended to focus on what was most important to us -- the hunt for WMD -- and less on what would be most important for a paranoid dictatorship to protect. Viewed through an Iraqi prism, their reputation, their security, their overall technological capabilities, and their status needed to be preserved. Deceptions were perpetrated and detected, but the reasons for those deceptions were misread."http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/05/a_classified_CIA_mea_culpa_on_iraq

full report @ the link

[boutons_deux]

but Yoni said, "having translated all the documents", all the WMD were movd to Syria!

:lol

dubya and dickhead LIED the US into wasting 5000+ US military lives, but Yoni whines about Wasserman. :lol

dubya and dickhead LIED the US into wasting $3T+ of US treasury ($100Bs ended up in MIC corporate/investor bank accounts) while opening Iraq to US/UK oilcos, but Repugs whine about, lie about the cool n!gg@'s out-of-control spending and the cool n!gg@'s 's deficit. :lol

[Clipper Nation]

Y:lolni defending an unconstitutional, undeclared war, per par.... :cry but Clinton did it too! :cry

The fact of the matter is, a whole lot of lives and money would have been saved by just issuing a letter of marque and reprisal in Afghanistan like Ron Paul suggested, tbh.... it would have been a LOT simpler than fighting two wars at the same time in the Middle East, including one based on lies dating back to the Clinton administration....

[MannyIsGod]

I'd laugh but the fact is idiots like Yoni are the reason there are a lot of dead people in the world today. But hey, at least there's a lot of people like Cheney's buds who made some good money off of this.

[Winehole23]

2002 NIE (partially) declassified:

https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion

[RandomGuy]

2002 NIE (partially) declassified:

https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion

Link seems broken.

[Winehole23]

works for me

[boutons_deux]

2002 NIE (partially) declassified:

https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion

Heckuva job, dubya and dickhead!

both are wealthily retired war criminals

[ChumpDumper]

They're still translating the documents!

[Nbadan]

According to the newly declassified NIE, the intelligence community concluded that Iraq "probably has renovated a [vaccine] production plant" to manufacture biological weapons "but we are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed." The NIE also said Hussein did not have "sufficient material" to manufacture any nuclear weapons and "the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program."

But in an October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, then-President George W. Bush simply said Iraq, "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Seriously, so much for American exceptional-ism.. until we put Bush, Cheney and the rest of these war criminals in prison how are we better than what we are accusing Putin of doing in Crimea and Latvia?

[spursncowboys]

Seriously, so much for American exceptional-ism.. until we put Bush, Cheney and the rest of these war criminals in prison how are we better than what we are accusing Putin of doing in Crimea and Latvia?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c1/1a/2c/c11a2c1ac1c6423d4275b444ad44dc9b.jpg

[Winehole23]

20 year anniversary of shock and awe.

GWB lied, people died, $T's spent off books. We're no safer than before, and mass domestic surveillance is normal. The Iraq war was an epochal screwup and let's face it, an enormous crime.

1637296683787640836

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Frq8feeWIAMy2Fw?format=jpg&name=medium

[boutons_deux]

George W. Bush misrepresented our work at CIA to sell the Iraq invasion. It's time to call him what he is: 'A liar.'

Two former CIA officials spoke to Insider before the 20th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.

They gave a firsthand account of the

George W. Bush administration's attempts to misrepresent intelligence and

assert a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

In fact, the evidence assembled by the CIA suggested that no such connection existed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/george-bush-liar-cia-mohammed-atta-prague-911-iraq-invasion-2023-3 (https://www.businessinsider.com/george-bush-liar-cia-mohammed-atta-prague-911-iraq-invasion-2023-3?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Insider%20Today%2C%20March%2021%2C%20 2023&utm_term=INSIDER%20TODAY%20SEND%20LIST%20-%20ALL%20ENGAGED)

[boutons_deux]

Repugs sabotaged the Paris Peace talks to get Nixon elected

Repugs sabotaged efforts to free the Iran Embassy hostages

Repugs started the Afgan war and couldn't finish it

Repugs stared the Iraw war and couldn't finisht it

Repugs are going all out to defend criminal Trash

Repugs have degraded into all-out fascists

[spurraider21]

1638673289521266689

[Winehole23]

1638673289521266689If it's still needed now, it could last a good while longer.

[Winehole23]

We wrecked their shit for bullshit reasons. Iraq was better off under Saddam.


But, for all this political turmoil, from the 1950s onwards, benefiting from increased oil revenues, Iraq experienced rapid economic, social and cultural development. By the end of the 1980s Iraq was widely seen in the Arab world as a relatively successful oil-fueled developmental state. As a US government report (https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraqs-economy-past-present-future) on Iraq put it in June 2003:


In the 1980s, Iraq had one of the Arab world’s most advanced economies. Though buffeted by the strains of the Iran-Iraq war, it had – besides petroleum -- a considerable industrial sector, a relatively well-developed transport system, and comparatively good infrastructure. Iraq had a relatively large middle class, per capita income levels comparable to Venezuela, Trinidad or Korea, one of the best educational systems in the Arab world, a well educated population and generally good standards of medical care.



In 1990 that upward-directed trajectory of development was broken. Iraq entered a period of violence and frustrated development that continues down to the present. In 2020 a World Bank report (https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/0d8484f9-90ee-5aa4-b821-92c3add840ef/content) reached the following sobering conclusion:


Although oil wealth has allowed Iraq to obtain upper-middle-income status, in many ways its institutions and socioeconomic outcomes more closely resemble those of a low-income, fragile country. The Iraqi education system once ranked near the top of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, but it now sits near the bottom. Iraq’s rate of participation in the economy is also low, and the country has one of the lowest female labor force participation rates in the world, low levels of human and physical capital, and deteriorating business conditions. Iraq also has one of the highest poverty rates among upper-middle-income countries.

https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-204-iraqs-economic-impasse

[Winehole23]

1638673289521266689about face, about time



The Senate voted Wednesday to repeal authorizations for the use of military force against Iraq (https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/11/politics/aumf-war-authorization-what-matters/index.html), a significant moment as lawmakers aim to reassert authority in military intervention abroad.


The legislation now goes to the US House of Representatives for a vote. Speaker Kevin McCarthy has signaled support for it and said it would likely be brought to the floor. With bipartisan support for the repeal, the measure appears to have a good chance of passing the chambers, though it’s still unclear if lawmakers will try to amend it.
The vote comes on the heels of the 20th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.


The White House said it supports the measure to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of force in Iraq. If it passes both chambers, it would mark a formal conclusion to the conflicts and a symbolic reassertion of Congress’ ability to declare war.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/politics/senate-vote-aumf

[SpursforSix]

Bend over, I'll show you a WMD. ???