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

[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 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 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 do entation 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 quan y 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 quan y 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 .

[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 .

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 do entation 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 quan y 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

[Yonivore]

Good thing you can edit these posts.

Source of Iraq-Qaeda link suspected liar -NY Times

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...


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 bull instead of giving it a free ride.