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

[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. Cons ution 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…[but which in fact was wrong.]

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.

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 ing 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. , 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. , 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 cir stances 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 cir stances 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 s s.

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 s s.

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 ing 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, dip .

[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. , you probably would've volunteered if I said the Janjaweed were pulling the plugs of the ethnic Africans.

THat is complete bull ! 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, dip .

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 bull ! 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.