Kerry lied, people died.

[Yonivore]

Breitbart TV (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3274) has video of Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts telling a whopper on C-Span.


Sen. John Kerry said during a C-Span appearance that fears of a bloodbath after the US withdrawal from Vietnam never materialized. He says he’s met survivors of the “reeducation camps” who are thriving in modern Vietnam. An award-winning investigation by the Orange County Register concludes that at least 165,000 people perished in the camps.
And 2 million in Cambodia.

You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in the Senate.

[boutons_]

Where has Kerry lied the C-Span above? That he claims some people survived the camps doesn't say nobody died in the camps.

Nobody knows what's going to happen in Iraq after the US leaves.

The Sunnis and Shiites are slaughtering themselves now with the US there, and they will slaughter themselves after the US leaves. Their civil war will fight itself to exhaustion, later if the US stays, sooner if the US leaves.

dubya can't stop them, and the US owes Iraq nothing that the US can actually pay back.

Maybe the US can throw 100s of $Bs as war reparations at whatever emerges after Iraq breaks up. For the US, money is the only value, it solves everything. My bet is dubya's breaking of Iraq will cause more Iraqi dead than Saddam. dubya has already wasted more US lives in Iraq the OBL murdered at WTC.


dubya and dickhead's war unleashed the Iraq civil that caused has caused 100s of 1000s of Iraqi dead, with much more to come. But you dubya suckers will never hold dubya accountable for anything.

[fyatuk]

Actually, Kerry lied about a lot of things that were well documented during his Presidential run relating to Vietnam. Not that his decisions were responsible for mass deaths or anything, but him faultily and supposedly knowingly declaring there were no POWs left in Vietnam led to some of those POWs that were still there dying in captivity.

An insanely stupid comparison to make though.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, it's a good thing that the current administration can't be accused of doing the same thing.

:rolleyes

[Yonivore]

Well, it's a good thing that the current administration can't be accused of doing the same thing.

:rolleyes
Yes, it is.

[SA210]

Yes, it is.
Hey Yawny, so when are you going to enlist?

[FromWayDowntown]

Yes, it is.

Yeah -- I guess Colin Powell's speech to the UN was mostly a series of honest misconstructions of hard evidence.

[Yonivore]

Yeah -- I guess Colin Powell's speech to the UN was mostly a series of honest misconstructions of hard evidence.
A preponderance of the evidence, yeah.

[Oh, Gee!!]

so "more likely than not" is the standard we should strive for when we make the decision to commit thousands of lives and billions of dollars? cool.

[clambake]

Deliberately misleading is nowhere close to "more likely than not".

[xrayzebra]

Hey Yawny, so when are you going to enlist?

Right after you join the Peace Corp and go to Dafur.
:elephant

[Dreamshake]

Right after you join the Peace Corp and go to Dafur.
:elephant

Thats almost a good analogy.

When one stance means deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, and the deaths of what 4 thousand service members.

Is it always the weak, no constitution having people that want other people to fight their wars for them?

[Yonivore]

so "more likely than not" is the standard we should strive for when we make the decision to commit thousands of lives and billions of dollars? cool.
Okay, for the ‘tards in here, let’s review:

August 2, 1990 – Iraq illegally invades Kuwait and disrupts the peace and security of a vital region of the world.
August 2, 1990 – The United Nations Security Council passes Resolution UNSCR 660 basically telling Iraq they’ve done a bad, bad thing and should immediately leave Kuwait, making sure they restore things to the way they were before they invaded. Saddam Hussein says, “Fuck you!”
August 6, 1990 – The United Nations Security Council passes Resolution UNSCR 661 that notices Iraq said “Fuck you!,” and asks member and non-member States of the UN to stop doing business with Iraq and to encourage Iraq to obey UNSCR 660
August 9, 1990 – The United Nations Security Council passes Resolution UNSCR 662 stating how “gravely” alarmed they are that Iraq has said “Fuck you!”
August 18 – November 28, 1990 – The United Nations Security Council passes UJNSCR’s 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677 (there were others that were tangentially related but, this are the ones specifically addressing the Iraq invasion of Kuwait) all pretty much repeating what the others had said, “Iraq, you did a bad thing and you need to leave Kuwait alone.” Saddam Hussein, again, said, “Fuck you!”
November 29, 1990 – The United Nations Security Council passes Resolution #UNSCR 678 basically telling Iraq they done wrong and to get out of Kuwait, leaving things they way they found them. This one is a bit different because it also said that if Saddam Hussein didn’t do what 678 demanded, member and non-member States had the United Nation’s support if they wanted to force Iraq to comply. Surprisingly (okay, not so much), Saddam once again said, “Fuck you!”
January 16, 1991 – The United States of America and a coalition of countries assembled through the diplomatic efforts of President George Herbert Walker Bush say, “No, fuck you!,” and proceeds to kick Saddam’s ass out of Kuwait and back up the “Highway of Death” to Baghdad.
February 28, 1991 – After losing the majority of his elite Republican Guard on the “Highway of Death,” from B-52’s carpet bombing their positions night and day, and due to mass surrenders (who remembers those guys surrendering to the media?), Saddam Hussein cries, “Uncle!”
March 2, 1991 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 678 that fundamentally spells out what Saddam and Iraq must do in order for the U.S. and it’s allies to quit kicking his ass. Saddam says he will, “just don’t hurt me anymore.” Well, there are three things in UNSCR 678 that Saddam never did; 1) he agreed to release all prisoners taken during the Gulf War and to this day there are Kuwaitis and some coalition forces for which he never accounted, 2) he agreed to return all Kuwaiti property seized in the invasion and that never happened, and 3) he agreed to accept liability for the damages caused by his invasion of Kuwait. They never saw a dime from him.
April 3, 1991 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 687 which ordered Iraq to dismantle and destroy it weapons of mass destruction and all programs. It also required Iraq to completely declare all such weapons to UNSCOM. He never did. Iraq was also prohibited, by this resolution, from supporting or committing terrorist acts and from allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
April 5, 1991 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 688 condemning Saddam’s temper-trantrum response to getting his ass kicked through the repression of the Kurds in the North and Shi’ites in the South. The UN told him to stop killing them and creating refugees. Well, Saddam stopped when he got damn good and ready. The resolution also demanded he allow humanitarian aid to be allowed into the areas where he was busy digging mass graves. He refused.
August 15, 1991 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 707 condemning Iraq’s violations of previous UNSCRs and his refusal to cooperate with IAEA and UNSCOM. It laid out a bunch of things Iraq must do in compliance with the UNSCRs related to disclosure and dismantling of his WMDs and programs. Again, Saddam said, “Fuck you!”
October 11, 1991 – The United Nations Security Council passed yet another resolution (UNSCR 715) telling Iraq to cooperate with IAEA inspectors. Again, Saddam said, “Fuck you!” and then he threatens to invade Kuwait again – moving troops toward the Kuwaiti border.
October 15, 1991 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 949 telling Saddam to back off.
1992-1993 – In what has been described as one of the most horrific environmental crimes in the history of the world, Saddam Hussein decides to drain the marsh lands of Souther Iraq to punish the Shi’ites who had lived there for centuries.
April, 1993 – Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush with a car bomb in Kuwait.
In 1995 his son-in-law, General Hussein Kamil Hasan al-Majid and his brother and their families fled from Iraq to Jordan. Hussein invited them back to Iraq, promising them forgiveness and a pardon. They returned on February 20 and were killed on February 23. Four months later, Hussein's regime arrested military officers that it suspected of plotting a coup. Approximately 400 were executed, supervised by Uday Hussein. In August, Saddam Hussein launched an offensive into the northern no-fly zone, to the city of Ibril, where they rounded up and executed 96 members of a group opposed to Hussein. The U.S. retaliated by attacking southern Iraq with cruise missiles and by expanding the no-fly zone one degree southward, from the 32nd to the 33rd parallel.
In 1996 the World Health Organization published a report claiming that between the years 1990 and 1994 the number of deaths of children under the age of five in the provinces governed by the Hussein regime had jumped nearly 500 percent - from 8,903 in 1990 to 52,905. Protests against the sanctions increased, and on May 20, 1996, Hussein accepted the U.N.'s oil-for-food offer. The Hussein regime began exporting oil under the oil-for-food program in December 1996. Of course, children continued to suffer because, according to the Duelfer Report, Saddam skimmed from the OFF program for other than humanitarian purposes. The regime saw the program as an opportunity to rescue "Baghdad's economy from a terminal decline created by the sanctions." The regime gave various people interested in profit vouchers that allowed them to buy oil at a low price and sell it to others. In return for this favor he received cash payments - kickbacks - which, according to the BBC amounted to billions of dollars. Elements in France, Russia, Germany, and the United Nations Secretary General’s office have been implicated in this scheme leading many to wonder if this is the source of those countries’ obstinacy when 2003 rolled around.
March 27, 1996 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 1051 telling Iraq they must report the import of dual use technologies and that they must cooperate with inspectors. Saddam laughs.
June 12, 1996 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 1060 deploring Saddam’s refusal to cooperate with IAEA inspectors. Saddam gets stitches in his side from laughing so hard.
June 21, 1996 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 1115 whining about Saddam’s refusal to cooperate with IAEA inspectors. Saddam flicks a booger at the UN.
October 23, 1997 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 1134 pleading with Saddam to cooperate with IAEA inspectors. Saddam is not moved.
November 12, 1997 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 1137 with some more whining about Saddam Hussein’s refusal to cooperate and threats he made to aircraft occupied by IAEA inspectors. Saddam belches.
March 2, 1998 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 1154 demanding Saddam cooperate with IAEA inspectors. Saddam yawns and then suspends cooperation (as if he ever was) forcing IAEA to abandon their efforts and leave Iraq under not-so-veiled threats.
September 9, 1998 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 1194 condemning Iraq’s ceasing of non-cooperative cooperation with IAEA and demanding they be let back in to continue their work. Saddam’s response? That’s right, “Fuck you!”
October 5, 1998 – The United States Congress pass the Iraqi Liberation Act with the stated purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power and replacing his regime with a democratic government. The vote was 360 to 38. President Clinton signed it into law on October 31, the same day that Hussein expelled all U.N. weapons inspectors.
November 5, 1998 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 1205 condemning Iraq’s flagrant violations of previous UNSCRs. Saddam says, “So what?”
December 17, 1999 – The United Nations Security Council passes UNSCR 1284 changing the name of UNSCOM to UNMOVIC and tries to sneak them back into Iraq, telling Saddam their terrorist recruits bound for Salman Pak. (okay, I made that up). But, the resolution demands Saddam let them in and continue inspections. Saddam says no.
November 8, 2002 – The United Nations Security Council passes USNCR 1441 that demands Iraq disarm and declare all their WMDs. The UN is pretty much ignored at this point.

Yeah, there was absolutely no justification for invading Iraq.

Never mind that several global terrorists had already found safe haven in Baghdad, including Abu Nidal and the Abu Abbas organization. Never mind that there were numerous contacts between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda during the 90’s. Never mind Salman Pak. Never mind his payments to “Palestinian” terrorists. Never mind that al Qaeda terrorists, led by Zarqawi, fled Afghanistan to Iraq after our invasion there.

Never mind that there were tons TONS of known stockpiles of chemical weapons that existed in Iraq when inspectors were forced out in 1998 for which Saddam Hussein never accounted.

Never mind that absolutely every diplomat or former leader of the free world stated a belief that Saddam Hussein and Iraq possessed, with the intent to use, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Name one significant world leader, prior to March 2003, that came out and said there were no WMDs in Iraq. One.

No, absolutely no justification. You, sir, are a fucking idiot.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Man, you devote entirely too much time and energy responding to my sentence-long posts. I'd hate to see you mad.

[Dreamshake]

All that and I can sum it up much better for you. Ill start with three names.

Hans Blix
David Kay
Richard Clarke

Then Ill add.

Still no WMDs found in Iraq. Oh wait, we changed the mission to one of Humanitarianism. Oh wait over 600K Iraqi's have died since Bushs war.

I can add a Dick Cheney's Halliburton into the Iraqi equation.

Maybe sprinkle a little Pat Tillman propaganda.

Bake it with some forged Yellow Cake Documents.

Then top it off with some Illegal Eavesdropping, and torture prisons, and outing of undercover agents.

Yep, all that to say. Ooops, no WMDs. Now look what we got.

[clambake]

Name one significant world leader, prior to March 2003, that came out and said there were no WMDs in Iraq. One.

The world is full of dumb-ass leaders, with ours leading the parade. How much time did these "world leaders" spend in Iraq?

They should have sent in some weapons inspectors to see what they could find.

[clambake]

sorry bout that Dreamshake.

[Dreamshake]

The world is full of dumb-ass leaders, with ours leading the parade. How much time did these "world leaders" spend in Iraq?

They should have sent in some weapons inspectors to see what they could find.


Ill name you one person who did after the fact. GW. He sent in Kay, and didnt like too much what Kay had to offer up.

[Yonivore]

Man, you devote entirely too much time and energy responding to my sentence-long posts. I'd hate to see you mad.
Another non-response.

[clambake]

Ill name you one person who did after the fact. GW. He sent in Kay, and didnt like too much what Kay had to offer up.

I think W is changing tactics. You have to know that Petreaus has already been told how his report will read.

[Yonivore]

All that and I can sum it up much better for you. Ill start with three names.

Hans Blix
David Kay
Richard Clarke

Then Ill add.

Still no WMDs found in Iraq. Oh wait, we changed the mission to one of Humanitarianism. Oh wait over 600K Iraqi's have died since Bushs war.

I can add a Dick Cheney's Halliburton into the Iraqi equation.

Maybe sprinkle a little Pat Tillman propaganda.

Bake it with some forged Yellow Cake Documents.

Then top it off with some Illegal Eavesdropping, and torture prisons, and outing of undercover agents.

Yep, all that to say. Ooops, no WMDs. Now look what we got.
Wow! You just about covered every conspiracy theory out there. Great job!

None of the three you listed were world leaders and, apparently, their declarations did not sway the majority of those who were in the business of making decisions related to Iraq.

In fact, it was due to Hans Blix's whining that most of those UNSCRs were passed.

[clambake]

I'm overly certain AND dead wrong

[Oh, Gee!!]

Another non-response.


My "more likely than not" statement was in response to your "preponderance" statement because, like, that's what preponderance means. I'm not the one that brought up that word, you did. I'm sorry I made that off-the-cuff remark. I hope you spending the entire morning crafting a response makes you feel better about yourself, the war on terrorism, George Bush, and whatever else you're into.

[Dreamshake]

Wow, you call it conspiracy yet Blix stated no wmd's and heres the nut, There are no WMD's. LOL.

David Kay said, no WMDs and still there are no WMDs

Richard Clarke said Bush had plans to invade Iraq as soon as he took office and sure enough, he manufactured enough bullshit to Invade Iraq.

Can you grasp it yet. Will it sink in? NO WMD's. Thats what we went to war over, THATs what Bush and Rummy stated over and over. Well that and a Al Q, Iraq connection. OOOPS not correct either.

Hans Blix wasnt a world leader? LOL. Dude your too easy.

[Yonivore]

My "more likely than not" statement was in response to your "preponderance" statement because, like, that's what preponderance means. I'm not the one that brought up that word, you did. I'm sorry I made that off-the-cuff remark. I hope you spending the entire morning crafting a response makes you feel better about yourself, the war on terrorism, George Bush, and whatever else you're into.
I already feel the war was justified so, it's not a matter of feeling better. Besides, three googles and some formatting and that post was done in about 20 minutes.

So, care to tell me why, in March 2003, President Bush would have had any reason to believe Saddam Hussein wasn't harboring terrorists, wasn't in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and wasn't posturing to join our enemies?

[Yonivore]

Wow, you call it conspiracy yet Blix stated no wmd's and heres the nut, There are no WMD's. LOL.
Read all the United Nations Security Council Resolutions issued between 1991 and 1998, related to Saddam's interference with Hans Blix's gang and tell me that Hans Blix could be certain there were no weapons.

Also, I've never seen Hans Blix explain why he would claim such when he had identified stocks of chemical weapons that were in Iraq when he was forced to leave and that Saddam Hussein never accounted for.


David Kay said, no WMDs and still there are no WMDs
No, David Kay didn't say that. He said there was no evidence. But, again, he wasn't granted unlimited access by Saddam either.


Richard Clarke said Bush had plans to invade Iraq as soon as he took office and sure enough, he manufactured enough bullshit to Invade Iraq.
Guess what, Clinton had plans to invade Iraq as soon as the Liberation of Iraq Act was passed in 1998.


Can you grasp it yet. Will it sink in? NO WMD's. Thats what we went to war over, THATs what Bush and Rummy stated over and over. Well that and a Al Q, Iraq connection. OOOPS not correct either.
No, I'm still not convinced there were no WMDs. Neither are any of the people you listed -- except maybe for Hans Blix (and that's baffling considering all the WMDs he witnessed that were left in Iraq after 1998).


Hans Blix wasnt a world leader? LOL. Dude your too easy.
He was a government bureaucrat.

[Oh, Gee!!]

So, care to tell me why, in March 2003, President Bush would have had any reason to believe Saddam Hussein wasn't harboring terrorists, wasn't in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and wasn't posturing to join our enemies?

that's an odd question, IMO, because GW (or any of us ftm) can choose to believe whatever he wishes regardless of any exterior inluence. but it seems to me that when the intel he's receiving isn't jiving with preconceived notions about Iraq, he shoulda had some reason to believe that the path to war wasn't as straight as he had hoped it would be.

[Yonivore]

that's an odd question, IMO, because GW (or any of us ftm) can choose to believe whatever he wishes regardless of any exterior inluence. but it seems to me that when the intel he's receiving isn't jiving with preconceived notions about Iraq, he shoulda had some reason to believe that the path to war wasn't as straight as he had hoped it would be.
Who said it wasn't jibing in March of 2003? While the intelligence may not have been as "slam dunk" as Tenet claimed, there was more than enough reason to believe (and there still is, by the way) Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists, developing relationships with al Qaeda, and possessing or developing weapons of mass destruction.

There was no intelligence in March of 2003 that said Saddam Hussein absolutely did not have any terrorists in Iraq, absolutely was not developing a relationship with al Qaeda, and absolutely did not have WMDs and related programs.

Then, put all of this against the backdrop of the 9/11 attacks and a fervent desire to prevent another attack and, why take the chance?

[boutons_]

"There was no intelligence in March of 2003 that said Saddam Hussein absolutely did not have any terrorists in Iraq, absolutely was not developing a relationship with al Qaeda, and absolutely did not have WMDs and related programs."

There was no intelligence in March of 2003 that said Saddam Hussein absolutely did have any terrorists in Iraq, absolutely was developing a relationship with al Qaeda, and absolutely did have WMDs and related programs.

The WH suppressed and classified all doubts in the intel community about the above claims, so that the Dems in Congress would sign on. ie, the Dems did NOT have the same intel as the WH.

PNAC/AEI decided to go after Iraq's oil while Clinton was president and asked him to invade.

"why take the chance?"

Just take a look at Iraq today, and all the carnage is has produced, and will produce as longa dubya is unchecked. The USA and M/E are less secure now, there are more terrorists now, than in Feb 2003.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Who said it wasn't jibing in March of 2003? While the intelligence may not have been as "slam dunk" as Tenet claimed, there was more than enough reason to believe (and there still is, by the way) Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists, developing relationships with al Qaeda, and possessing or developing weapons of mass destruction.

this has been covered ad naseum, so I'll just reply by saying that you and I have differing opinions on the weight and breadth of the evidence regarding those subjects.


There was no intelligence in March of 2003 that said Saddam Hussein absolutely did not have any terrorists in Iraq, absolutely was not developing a relationship with al Qaeda, and absolutely did not have WMDs and related programs.

that's an impossible standard to meet, so why use it as justification?


Then, put all of this against the backdrop of the 9/11 attacks and a fervent desire to prevent another attack and, why take the chance?

"Why take the chance" is an even lower burden than "more likely than not," so I guess you'll understand when I don't find that argument persuasive.

Let's just disagree and move on.

[Yonivore]

this has been covered ad naseum, so I'll just reply by saying that you and I have differing opinions on the weight and breadth of the evidence regarding those subjects.
You're right. And, in March of 2003, my position was in agreement with virtually everyone who took to the public airwaves to expound on the issue; Democrats, former Presidents, pundits, military leaders (retired and current), diplomats, leaders from almost every Western country in the world, etc...


that's an impossible standard to meet, so why use it as justification?
Because all Saddam had to do was allow unfettered access by inspectors during the 90's and this standard would have been met. After the attacks of 9/11, we didn't have the luxury to play his games of hide and seek, resolution and resist, anymore. There were much bigger issues to address and, from all the evidence, Saddam Hussein was up to his neck involved in it.

From his common contacts in Sudan to his payments to "Palestinian" terrorists to his harboring Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas to his terrorist training camps at Salman Pak. Time was up and he was still balking at full cooperation and adherance to UNSC resolutions.


"Why take the chance" is an even lower burden than "more likely than not," so I guess you'll understand when I don't find that argument persuasive.

Let's just disagree and move on.
Fine by me. You're the one that keeps bringing up justification for a war we're already in. Regardless of whether or not we ever agree on the legitimacy of the war, the fact remains, our withdrawal will have consequences that are unacceptable.

It will leave Iraq open to a "real" civil war.

It will leave Iraq succeptible to al Qaeda's influence, just as did Russia's abandonment of Afghanistan and our abandonment of Somalia.

It will probably result in genocide -- on the scale of that in which people want us to militarily intervene in Darfur.

It will certainly result in our having to go back because of the establishment of terrorist camps and bases of operation from which al Qaeda starts launching attacks on Western assets.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wow, you call it conspiracy yet Blix stated no wmd's and heres the nut, There are no WMD's. LOL.

David Kay said, no WMDs and still there are no WMDs

Richard Clarke said Bush had plans to invade Iraq as soon as he took office and sure enough, he manufactured enough bullshit to Invade Iraq.

Can you grasp it yet. Will it sink in? NO WMD's. Thats what we went to war over, THATs what Bush and Rummy stated over and over. Well that and a Al Q, Iraq connection. OOOPS not correct either.

Hans Blix wasnt a world leader? LOL. Dude your too easy.


Don't forgt paul O'neil stating the exact same thing about Bush. he said that right after 9/11 they already talking about Iraq...but,but,but they wanted to give peace a chance..

[xrayzebra]

Don't forgt paul O'neil stating the exact same thing about Bush. he said that right after 9/11 they already talking about Iraq...but,but,but they wanted to give peace a chance..

GGA how long did it take us to go into Iraq after 9/11?

How many votes in Congress?

Did they give Saddam a chance to go to a neutral country
and let others take control of Iraq?

Did we go to the UN and how many months did we
spend there?

[boutons_]

"he said that right after 9/11 they already talking about Iraq"

wrong, O'Neill said dubya was talking about Iraq in the FRIST cabinet meeting after the Repugs took office. Iraq invasion for oil-grab was on neo-cunt/PNAC/AEI agenda in the 90s.

[George Gervin's Afro]

"he said that right after 9/11 they already talking about Iraq"

wrong, O'Neill said dubya was talking about Iraq in the FRIST cabinet meeting after the Repugs took office. Iraq invasion for oil-grab was on neo-cunt/PNAC/AEI agenda in the 90s.


Sorry. I knew O'Neill made comments like that..but of course the Yoni's and ray's shrugged it off as someone with an agenda..

[Yonivore]

Don't forgt paul O'neil stating the exact same thing about Bush. he said that right after 9/11 they already talking about Iraq...but,but,but they wanted to give peace a chance..
So? Do you think President Clinton just let the "Liberation of Iraq Act," passed in 1998, sit on his desk without making any plans?

I'll bet they made plans to invade a couple of dozen countries after 9/11.

Sudan and Somalia were probably way up on the list as well.

In fact, and this is something of which you may or may not be aware, the United States of America has military assets currently on the ground in approximately 100 countries on operations related to the war on terror.

[DarkReign]

Wow! You just about covered every conspiracy theory out there. Great job!

None of the three you listed were world leaders and, apparently, their declarations did not sway the majority of those who were in the business of making decisions related to Iraq.

In fact, it was due to Hans Blix's whining that most of those UNSCRs were passed.

Exactly.

[Yonivore]

Exactly.
Exactly.

Which begs the question, if the UNSC passed resolution after resolution demanding Saddam quit obstructing inspectors -- which he never did -- how can Hans Blix assert there were no WMDs in Iraq?

Further, if Hans Blix reported there were tons of chemical weapons in Iraq, in 1998, when the inspectors were run out of the country, and Saddam Hussein never accounted for them, how can Hans Blix assert there were no WMDs in Iraq?

Finally, if by quoting me on this you're claiming that I elevated Hans Blix to decision-maker status, you'd be wrong. He was merely a bureaucrat sent to Iraq by decision-makers. That he turned out to be like Joseph Wilson, whose public comments contradicted his professional findings, doesn't make him anything more than the publicity whore Wilson is.

[boutons_]

Even if Saddam had some WMD, there is the question of them being a threat to the USA, how to deliver they to the USA. So quit arguing ratshit, the big picture was the Saddam's primay enemy was Iran and Kuwait,not the USA.

[Yonivore]

I'm thinking the whole issue is a bit more complex than your mind is able to grasp, DarkReign.

WHERE ARE IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? (http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/ccc-050103.htm)



May 1, 2003

After the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein conducted a systematic concealment operation to disrupt the mission of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), whose mandate was to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The second team of inspectors, reconstituted as the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) had the formidable task of uncovering the work of Iraq's concealment apparatus: a network of intelligence agencies, military units and government ministries assigned to procure, conceal and defend Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It is important now to have a full understanding of this concealment apparatus, as this can help uncover where Iraq's weapons of destruction could have been hidden. At this juncture, the U.S. forces deployed in Iraq have to unravel the activities of a network that once consisted of thousands of people from Iraq's General Intelligence, Special Security Organization, Military Industry Commission and the Special Republican Guards.

The elite Special Security Organization, Amn al-Khas, headed by Saddam's son Qusay, served as one of the major command and control oversight bodies of this concealment network. General Intelligence (al-Mukhabarat) had at least two sub-directorates involved in the concealment effort—a covert operations unit and a covert procurement unit. Military Intelligence (al-Istikhabarat) had a role in the strategic concealment of Iraq's WMDs, while General Security's (al-Amn al-'Amm) military unit, The Emergency Forces (al-Quwwat al-Tawari'), provided security for the facilities that housed these programs. The Special Republican Guard (SRG) (al-Haris al-Jamhuri al-Khas) played numerous roles in the transportation, concealment and guarding of military facilities and materials. One of the most important agencies of all in the concealment operation was the Military Industrial Commission (MIC), which was part of the Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization (MIMI). Both MIMI and MIC oversaw Iraq's military industries and sought to conceal sensitive activities from UN inspectors.[1]

These agencies formed a vast, complex and wide-ranging labyrinth of security organizations, all of which played a role in the procurement and concealment of Iraq's WMD program. The duties and functions of these agencies overlapped, complying with Saddam's security doctrine of not allowing any one agency to have a monopoly over any one area of securing and concealing Iraq's WMD program. While the agencies played a key role in this concealment process, its coordination was clearly a family affair. One source writes of the coordination of the concealment process as, "So important was this responsibility that the small number of men selected for the task were chosen only after the most careful vetting of their families, their tribal ties, their absolute loyalty to Saddam."[2] The head of these agencies generally are from Saddam's immediate family, his al-Bu Nasir clan or from his hometown of Tikrit. Thus, if these hidden WMD facilities were to be found, members of Saddam's clan or family would need to be captured and interrogated.

In May of 1991, Saddam Hussein formed a Concealment Operations Committee (COC) to be supervised by Qusay.[3] UNSCOM inspectors became aware of the existence of this covert network as a result of inspections and interviews conducted between 1991 and 1996. They believed that this apparatus, created in 1991, was designed to hide documents, computer records, and equipment related to its WMD program. As a result, UNMOVIC, and its predecessor UNSCOM's mandate has evolved from inspection agencies to detective agencies, in order to investigate, impede and unravel the activities of this Iraqi concealment network. The U.S. forces tasked with finding these weapons will have to conduct the same investigative activities; thus, discovering where Iraq's WMD infrastructure is located could be a lengthy process.

The concealment apparatus launched a coordinated effort to thwart full discovery of Iraq's proscribed programs. The concealment apparatus destroyed or bulldozed WMD related facilities and constructed false or decoy facilities or altered suspected facilities to deceive inspectors. UNSCOM found a document in Iraq in August 1995 that demonstrates how these tactics were implemented. The Iraqi document, known as "The al-Atheer Center for the Development of Materials Production: Report of Achievements Accomplished from 1 June 1990 to 7 June 1991" recorded how the facility staff was ordered to remove evidence of nuclear weapons activities, evacuate documents to remote sites, physically alter the facility and to conduct mock inspections to prepare for UN inspectors.[4] According to Secretary of State Powell's briefing to the UN on February 5th, 2003, "We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry. To all outward appearances, even to experts, the infrastructure looks like an ordinary civilian operation."[5] The Iraqis learned how to conduct such tactics based on their own innovations as well as through KGB assistance in the early 1980's.

The concealment apparatus focused on concealing only critical materials and WMD components, while destroying non-essential items unilaterally or handing them over to inspectors. It was reported that these critical components of the nuclear, biological, chemical and missile programs were dispersed to the environs surrounding Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, where they were concealed in presidential palaces or the residences of Iraqi security officials belonging to the Special Security Organization and Special Republican Guards.[6] Proscribed materials and documents could be concealed in places ranging from the basements of the official state buildings to private farms of officers and officials. For example, during the last months of 1997, the Iraqis transported sensitive military materials to a large shed used to house military uniforms, within the compound of the state Ba'ath party office in Baghdad.[7] A White House report issued in January 2003, states, "We have many reports of WMD material being buried, concealed in lakes, relocated to agricultural areas and private homes, or hidden beneath Mosques or hospitals. In one report such material was buried in the banks of the Tigris River during a low water period."[8] Thus, finding the evidence of Iraq's WMD program does not merely entail searching specific WMD related facilities, but a search of Iraq itself.

Documents of Iraq's military program could also be easily concealed or evacuated from locations prior to the arrival of the inspectors or moved while armed guards were stalling the UN personnel. Documents relating to the WMD program were either destroyed or forged, or converted into microfiche to facilitate their concealment.[9] Richard Butler, former chairman of UNSCOM relates that, during one inspection, the UNSCOM team was delayed for 20 minutes in front of a facility, as the Iraqis scrambled to remove computer hard drives with critical WMD information stored on them.[10] At times, these materials were moved in the presences of UN inspectors. For example, during an inspection on September 17, 1997 inspectors witnessed the movement and burning of documents, which were then emptied into a nearby river.[11] The White House report mentions, "On January 16, 2003, a joint UNMOVIC/IAEA team found a significant cache of documents related to Iraq's uranium enrichment program in the home of Iraqi scientist Faleh Hassan."[12] Even Hans Blix referred specifically to this instance during his presentation on January 28, saying, "On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes." Thus, Iraq's concealment practices including hiding documents and materials in locations considered unlikely to be found continued with UNMOVIC inspectors. Therefore documentation relating to Iraq's WMD program may still be hidden in homes or other civilian facilities.

Unconfirmed reports indicate that WMD materials are hidden in mobile facilities. An unnamed Iraqi defector details this action in an interview in Amman:


As is well known, on the contrary, these are materials that are easy to transport and that are not even excessively cumbersome. That is exactly where the military apparatuses' and intelligence services' trick lies: namely, in making these devices invisible by constantly moving them around on tanker trucks that travel either under escort or being trailed at a distance.[13]
German intelligence reported that WMD laboratories are hidden in trucks that appear completely normal on the outside.[14]

The Mojahedin-e Khalq, an armed opposition group to the Iranian government based in Iraq, has reportedly played a role in this concealment effort. Former members of this organization informed UNSCOM that Iraqi WMD equipment had been hidden in one of their training camps in the vicinity of Baghdad. When inspectors attempted to visit the site in 1997, armed guards of the Mojahedin blocked them from entering the site. It is believed that the Mojahedin facilities continue to store proscribed WMD materials.[15]

The vast nature of Saddam's concealment apparatus is an indication of how much he had invested in protecting the "crown jewels" of his military arsenal. The discovery of buried mobile labs near Karbala in the south of Iraq on April 14th, 2003 demonstrated that while chemical agents were not found, that Saddam did have the capability to produce such munitions. The nature of this apparatus may indicate that a "smoking gun" cache of chemical or biological warheads may not be found, but the infrastructure to create such munitions or a "breakout capability" in fact did exist.
**The preceding Strategic Insight is a summary from an article entitled, "How Iraq Conceals and Obtains its Weapons of Mass Destruction" available from The Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal, March 2003.**

References

1. Jeremy Binnie, ed., Jane's Sentinel Security Assessments: The Gulf States (London: Jane's Information Group, 2001) p. 219.

2. Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, (New York: Harper Collins, 1999) p. 107.

3. Dilip Hiro, Neighbors, Not Friends: Iraq and Iran After the Gulf Wars (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), p. 49.

4. CNS "UNSCOM's Comprehensive Review: Actions by Iraq to Obstruct Disarmament".

5. US Secretary of State Colin Powell, "Remarks to the United Nations Security Council", February 5, 2003.

6. Hiro, p.61-62.

7. UK Ministry of Defense and Foreign Commonwealth Office, "Ba'ath Party Offices In Aadhamiyya Used To Conceal Sensitive Military Material"

8. The White House, "What Does Disarmament Look Like?", January 2003. p.6

9. Gordon Corera, "Playing the Iraq Inspection Game", Jane's Intelligence Review, November 2002, p. 42-43.

10. Christopher Wren, "UN Weapons Inspection Chief Tells of Iraqi Tricks", The New York Times, 27 Jan. 1998.

11. "UNSCOM Chronology of Main Events", December 1999.

12. The White House, "What Does Disarmament Look Like?", January 2003. p.6

13. "Ranking Iraqi Army Officer Reveals Saddam's Ploy To Outwit UN Inspectors," Panorama, January 23, 2003 pp. 36-40. FBIS EUP20030118000254

14. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, "German Intelligence on Mobile Labs." RFE/RL Iraq Report vol.6 no. 5, February 2003.

15. Kenneth Timmerman, "'Gray Lady' Runs Ad For Terrorists," Insight Magazine, January 24, 2003.

By Ibrahim al-Marashi of the Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC). The CCC is the research arm of the National Security Affairs Department at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Naval Postgraduate School, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

[Yonivore]

Keep in mind when you read the following (http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/ccc-091702.htm), it's in 1999 and when you see the acronym UNSCOM, that's Hans Blix's group.


Of particular concern is Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenal, which many intelligence officials and military experts are convinced that Saddam is aggressively rebuilding. Saddam attempted to conceal his weapons infrastructure from U.N. inspectors throughout the 1990s, and since 1998 has refused to allow inspectors back into Iraq, even at the cost of international sanctions. The exact size and character of Saddam's WMD arsenal is a matter of speculation, but the arsenal's potential contours can be made out:

Biological Weapons. In its report to the U.N. in 1999 the UNSCOM (U.N. Special Commission) concluded that Saddam had concealed nearly 160 biological bombs and more than a dozen missile warheads filled with anthrax and other pathogens. According to the latest intelligence reports 300 secret biological weapons facilities have been reactivated in Iraq since the withdrawal of U.N. inspectors.[6] Quoting Saddam's brother-in-law Hussein Kamel, who defected in 1995, a recent New York Times report stated that U.N. and American records both show that Iraq made more than 22,000 gallons of anthrax and 100,000 gallons of botulinum toxin, one of the world's most lethal poisons. The fate of these weapons is still unknown.[7] According to World Health Organization (WHO) experts, Iraq could have also obtained smallpox virus from a natural outbreak of smallpox that swept Iraq in 1971 and 1972.[8]
Chemical Weapons. UNSCOM records show that much of Saddam's once-vast chemical weapons stockpile remains unaccounted for. The Iraqi government in 1997 claimed to have destroyed 3.9 tons of lethal VX nerve agent, along with 550 mustard gas shells and 107,000 special artillery shell casings. But because the Iraqis did not back this accounting with compelling evidence, UNSCOM dismissed the claim as a lie. Meanwhile, Iraqi insiders contend that Saddam's chemical munitions work is continuing in locations like Falluja, a site known for previous chemical weapons activity. Iraqi defector Ahmed-al-Shemri (pseudonym), who claimed to have worked for many years at the Muthanna State Enterprises—once Iraq's weapons plant— disclosed in August 2002 that Iraq had the ability to make at least 50 tons of liquid nerve agent. Shemri also said that Iraq had invented in 1994, and is now producing, a new solid nerve agent (VX) that clings to soldier's protective clothing and makes decontamination difficult.[9]
Nuclear Weapons. Experts suggest that in 1991 Iraq was very close to being able to develop a nuclear device. However, weeks of Gulf War bombing followed by years of intrusive inspections neutralized the country's capacity to synthesize nuclear fuel. Intelligence reports now suggest that during recent years Saddam has developed secret uranium enrichment facilities, and also that Iraqi nuclear scientists currently possess enough equipment and expertise to build a nuclear bomb quickly. The previously mentioned New York Times report stated that in the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. According to intelligence and security analysts, if Saddam manages to obtain the necessary amount of nuclear fuel, he has the means to develop a nuclear weapon.[10]
7. Michael R. Gordon, "U.S. says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts," New York Times, 8 September 2002.

8. ibid.

9. ibid.

10. Jobby Warrick, "In Assessing Iraq's Arsenal, The Reality is Uncertainty," Washington Post, 31 July 2002

[Wild Cobra]

Yoni, what are you trying to do? Don't you know liberals cannot tolerate the thruth?

[Yonivore]

Here's another interesting commentary from 2000 and, for those in lefty-land, that prior to President Bush taking office.

NIX TO BLIX: MAN WHO CERTIFIED IRAQ AS NON-NUCLEAR IS UNLIKELY TO FIND -- OR EVEN TO SEEK -- SADDAM'S HIDDEN WEAPONS (http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/cfsp-00-f-6.htm)


Security Council's Choice is Sure Sign of End of 'Containment'

Center for Security Policy
SECURITY FORUM No. 00-F 6

27 January 2000

In a hugely disappointing decision yesterday to fill a senior UN bureaucratic post, the Security Council spoke volumes about its depleted appetite for further confrontations with -- to say nothing of additional efforts to punish -- Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The Security Council formally endorsed Secretary General Kofi Annan's recommendation to appoint Hans Blix. a Swedish diplomat with a checkered record, to become the first head of the successor to the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM).

Blix was the lowest-common-denominator choice for the job after Russia, China and France vetoed [can you say oil-for-food scandal? --y.] his much more conscientious compatriot, Rolf Ekeus. He is a natural choice to run the sort of Potemkin inspection operation that those three countries clearly have in mind for their once-and-future client, Iraq. Given Blix's dismal sixteen-year performance as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) -- an organization that had an uncanny track-record during his tenure of not finding evidence of nuclear weapons activities prohibited by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Thus not only Iraq, but Iran, North Korea, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa were among the nations that succeeded in largely concealing indigenous or collaborative nuclear weapons programs from Blix's IAEA.

Unfortunately, as the following, recently published editorials make clear, the Blix appointment is only the latest in a litany of serious mistakes made by the Clinton-Gore Administration with respect to Iraq. If not immediately reversed, these mistakes will have the effect of empowering and emboldening Saddam -- and set the stage for serious grief for the United States and its regional allies down the road.
How prophetic was that?

[Dreamshake]

This would take too long and would be absolutely too easy to debunk each and everyone of your right winged cut and paste jobs.

Please send someone who isnt a Hannity sheeple using bullet points from others arguments. Please for the life of God, use your own idea's.

[boutons_]

When no AQ/Saddam link, no WTC/Saddam link, no WMD found, dubya waved off all the ratshit yoni cites as "bad intel".

[Cant_Be_Faded]

How can somebody devote so much time to making themselves look so stupid? Yoni makes a decent point every now and again but he refuses to budge on any single mishap that this administration gets itself involved into. He's like a giant douche.

[Yonivore]

This would take too long and would be absolutely too easy to debunk each and everyone of your right winged cut and paste jobs.

Please send someone who isnt a Hannity sheeple using bullet points from others arguments. Please for the life of God, use your own idea's.
Iraqi Watch is right-wing? Since when?

I don't think you can refute them. That's your problem.

[Yonivore]

How can somebody devote so much time to making themselves look so stupid? Yoni makes a decent point every now and again but he refuses to budge on any single mishap that this administration gets itself involved into. He's like a giant douche.
Look, I think the war in Iraq is legitimate and justified. It doesn't do any good to get down in the weeds over things that, in hindsight, can be shown to have been wrong. The point I was making in this thread is that the conventional wisdom prior to March 2003 was that Iraq had WMDs.

Were there people that disagreed. Yes. But they were in the minority.

In fact, if the person who criticized my posting as being right-wing cut and paste would go to Iraqi Watch and look at some of the other articles, they'd find some that were critical of a view that Iraq had WMDs. But, to be sure, those articles were in the minority and, in fact, I found all of them were by the same author.

WMDs weren't the only justification but, even if they had been, the concensus among EVERYONE, in March of 2003, was that Iraq had them. And, I don't care what Hans Blix said because, as is shown, UNSCOM and UNMOVIC didn't have the access necessary to make a determination there were no WMDs or programs in Iraq.

When they were kicked out in '98, there were TONS of chemical weapons unaccounted for. Blix never clears up the discrepancy.

[Yonivore]

...he refuses to budge on any single mishap that this administration gets itself involved into.
I guess I need to preamble every one of my posts with the following:

I disagree with the Bush administration on immigration policy. I disagree with the Bush administration's continuance of the idiotic war on drugs. I disagree with the Bush administration's idiotic move to reach across the aisle to Teddy Kennedy on education reform. I think signing McCain-Feingold was stupid. I think the administration doesn't grab the bully pulpit on Iraq enough. I think this administration, while sticking to its guns, is way to conciliatory and compromising to the left and tolerates way too much of the partisan and damaging rhetoric before responding.

I could go on...but, on his prosecution of the war, I believe its legitimacy, his rationale, and the importance of winning far, far, far outweigh any miscalculations. In fact, none of the mistakes, so far, would have changed the need to fight it.

No war plan ever survived first contact with the enemy.

[Yonivore]

One more thing.

If Saddam Hussein wasn't dangerous in March of 2003, at the rate al Qaeda was flowing into the country and with the way Russia, Germany, France, and Kofi were whittling away at sanctions...it was just a matter of time before he was going to be dangerous.

Fact: The sanctions regime was being undermined and was crumbling thanks to nefarious actors in the U.N.

Fact: al Qaeda was fleeing Afghanistan to Iraq.

Fact: If he didn't have them, he wanted WMDs and maintained the skilled people, precursors, plans, and equipment to quickly reconstitute his programs.

Fuck him. May he rot in hell.

[boutons_]

"at the rate al Qaeda was flowing into the country"

what EXACTLY was that rate? in more perfect intel to back it up?

"al Qaeda was fleeing Afghanistan to Iraq."

hmm, some people thought they were and have fled into the Paki FATAs.

"If he didn't have them"

He didn't and he wasn't a threat to the USA or anybody else, with the US flyovers and US occuping countries right next door.

The Feb 2003 situation wasn't perfect, but sometimes you have to settle for less than perfection (less than perfect has worked just fine in Iran and NK), esp when the alternative has, so far, wasted 3700 US military lives, and $1T, with NO increase in US security, and while US-abandoned Aghanistan and Pakistan come apart and with Iran emboldened by dubya's failure in Iraq. What we have now is just "perfect" dubya handiwork, infiinitely better than Feb 2003.

[Darth Celtic]

Read all the United Nations Security Council Resolutions issued between 1991 and 1998, related to Saddam's interference with Hans Blix's gang and tell me that Hans Blix could be certain there were no weapons.

Also, I've never seen Hans Blix explain why he would claim such when he had identified stocks of chemical weapons that were in Iraq when he was forced to leave and that Saddam Hussein never accounted for.


No, David Kay didn't say that. He said there was no evidence. But, again, he wasn't granted unlimited access by Saddam either.


Guess what, Clinton had plans to invade Iraq as soon as the Liberation of Iraq Act was passed in 1998.


No, I'm still not convinced there were no WMDs. Neither are any of the people you listed -- except maybe for Hans Blix (and that's baffling considering all the WMDs he witnessed that were left in Iraq after 1998).


He was a government bureaucrat.

Agreed.

[Wild Cobra]

One thing I find ironic is what the weapons inspectors said, and how the left twists their words. Now without looking up exact quotes, it has been in essence:

"We do not expect to find any weapons of mass destruction."

They don't mean they don't exist. When you place those words with the context of the obstruction they reported, it more likely means that they will never be allowed to find any eveidence of the weapons!

The media seldom reported what the inspectors believed they would find is they had unrestriced and unhindered access. They did report they believed that Saddam had them!

[clambake]

Just like "We do not expect to find a Unicorn or the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or Jack's beanstalk."

I guess you could say they exist, if you're clinging to fantasy.

[boutons_]

The weapons inspectors didn't find any, the UNOBSTRUCTED US military didn't find any.

In the context of hyped and cherry-picked intelligence bullied by the WHIG over all dissenters, in the context of dickhead's repeated and fully discredited lies about Saddam/AQ and Saddam/WTC, it's easy to assume that Saddam's WMD simply didn't exist. There was no hard intel saying they were there, and they were NEVER found.

If the WMD were sneaked out to Syria, why hasn't Syria sneaked them out to terrorists or others? If they are in Syria, why hasn't dubya ever threatened or put pressure on Syria about hoarding Saddam's WMD?

Why haven't these WMD surfaced in terrorists attacks the past 6 years?

With the ease that the Iraqi insurgents have in importing conventional weapons under the noses of the US military, why haven't these WMD been brought back it to you against the US in Iraq?

The absolute URGENCY of starting the invasion in March was very obviously a Repug/Rove presidential campgain imperative, NOT arising from any urgent situation in Iraq. This was confirmed by the political campaign theater of fake flyboy, military-service-evader dubya claiming Mission Accomplished and end of combat operations on an aircraft carrier in May 03.

Playing games with Saddam and inspectors indefinitely was infiintely preferable to the Repug disaster we now have in Iraq, esp since the US already had its hands full in Afghanistan (which, 6 years later, now has more US troops than ever).

Even if Saddam had some WMD, how was he a threat to the USA, compared to all the other threats the USA was facing?

Starting a war is not a faith-based exercise.

Since ALL the reasons for invading Iraq have proven to be bullshit, and the highest priority for the Repugs, even for Bremer in 2003, was for Iraqi to get the oil agreeements done, it clear that the Iraq invasion was a Repug/PNAC/neo-cunt/AEI grab for oil. They knew the invasion,with Saddam's military destroyed in the first Gulf War, would be the cakewalk it turned out to be, just like the first Gulf War, with Saddam's military at its peak, was over in an eye-blink. It was Repug election ploy and grab for oil. WMD was nothing but dishonest smoke and mirrors.

[Wild Cobra]

Just like "We do not expect to find a Unicorn or the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or Jack's beanstalk."

I guess you could say they exist, if you're clinging to fantasy.
Comparing apples to oranges now?