Fact: During the leadup to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam’s alleged possession of weaponst of mass destruction was A factor, but not THE factor behind the argument to invade.
Fact: Under UN Security Council resolutions implemented as part of the cessation of the first Gulf War, Saddam was obligated to report, collect, and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction, as well as all related materials.
Fact: Under UN Security Council resolutions implemented as part of the cessation of the first Gulf War, Saddam foreswore any further development of weapons of mass destruction.
Fact: We have uncovered literally TONS of WMDs in Iraq since the invasion. Mostly materiel that predates the first Gulf War, meaning it has deteriorated, but is still dangerous, but some with indications they were produced after Saddam’s surrender.
Fact: Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of his surrender from the first Gulf War by firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones, refusing to cooperate with inspectors weapons inspectors, and not giving a full and accurate accounting of his weapons of mass destruction.
Fact: When the surrendering party in a war later violates the terms of their surrender, repeatedly and deliberately, it is well within the victor’s rights to resume hostilities and enforce the terms of the original surrender. Or demand newer, stricter measures. Or remove the offending government entirely.
Fact: He also attempted to assassinate a former president of the Uinted States as revenge for actions that former president had taken as president — a completely new act of war.
Fact:Saddam was a source of support for international terrorism. Two undeniable examples are his financial support of Palestinian suicide bombers, to the tune of $25,000 to their families, and providing terrorists with training camps within Iraq.
And, finally:
Fact: These facts will have absolutely no effect on the anti-Bush, anti-war factions, who have invested far, far too much into the “Bush lied,” “there were no WMDs in Iraq,” and “the war in Iraq is illegal” myths to let something as trivial as reality shatter their carefully-crafted delusions.
Well, 914 I stopped being surprised by the fallacies of moonbats a long time ago.
Hey Xennady, welcome to a private “NIGHTMARE”.. a room full of idiots and no exit in sight?
Oh, yes, how will you ever get out of this nightmarish room? You could, I don’t know, walk away from your computer.
So Jay, no response? You just list your unsupported “facts” with no links and that’s it? Ok, then…
So, Mantis, what facts do you dispute?
-=Mike
It’s really funny how you whackos (in 914’s case, illiterate whacko) hold on to this crap that is 100% BS, or completely discredited, because you desperately want to look less stupid.
1. Saddam Hussein was NOT stockpiling or creating WMD after 1991.
2. These so-called WMD that Santorum “discovered” had been abandoned during the Iran-Iraq war. These are not weapons that he was hiding from inspectors, they were abandoned to rust in the desert. No rational human being would argue that a bunch of rusty crap in the desert is worth 2,500+ American lives. Even your boy, BUSH knows that this WMD Discovery is crap. Don’t you think he would have been prancing all over TV in his flight suit by now, if this was anything less than total BS?
3. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, that was another guy named Osama. But you don’t care about him, do you? I think people like you want Osama to be able to strike again, because you sure care more about Saddam than Osama. Why do you hate America? Why are you siding with the terrorists?
4. Saddam did not provide terrorists with training camps. Our government has concluded that Saddam was actively training anti-terrorism forces at Salman Pak. That story’s been dead since 2003. Try researching before you make dumb-ass discredited statements. Next thing we know, you’ll be telling us the earth is flat.
5. There are some people who would say that points 1-4 are incorrect. Those people are idiots. These facts are well established. No respected authority agrees with you on this issue, so why don’t you move on?
So, Mantis, what facts do you dispute?
Scroll up.
>> WMD was absolutely essential to get the UK and
>> Australia on board. It was the biggest argument
>> made to the American people.
> No, it was the biggest argument that the press
> said Bush made. Bush regularly and routinely
> made numerous arguments for it.
You are wrong. The UK and Australia would not join
the war effort unless the WMD argument
could be made. Lie one.
>> You say we have found tons of WMD, but you
>> simply assert they had some danger level. I
>> have never read that they had any danger level
>> at all. There is no evidence at all that any of
>> them were produced after 1991. None.
> Seeing as how Iraq couldn’t have ANY…it
> doesn’t matter.
They didn’t have any, so it wasn’t a causus
belli. They had no WMD. They had rusty old
shells filled with sludge you wouldn’t want to
touch, that’s all.
>> The US/UK No-Fly Zone was not some sort of UN
>> thing, it was, by any standard of international
>> law, a decade long illegal bombing campaign.
> Time for a newsflash: The UN is not the provider
> of legitimacy.
The Bush administration repeatedly went to the UN to gain
legitimacy.
> Why was the No-Fly Zone legal? BECAUSE SADDAM
> AGREED TO IT IN THE CEASEFIRE.
The “air exclusion zones” were created by America, not the UN.
>> You assert that governments have the right to
>> renew hostilities with parties who break their
>> treaties. I would be interested in the theory
>> you use to come to this conclusion. Teach me
>> something.
> A treaty is a legal document. In exchange to not
> be killed, a leader makes agreements with the
> country that is attacking them.
First, you mean, in exchange for a cessation of
hostilities. It rarely has anything to do with the
life or death of the actual leader signing the
treaty.
This isn’t anything resembling a proof, though.
I need either a historical precedent, or a school
of thought in international law, or something.
Starting hostilities based on contract violation
would suggest that Saddam was justified in
invading Kuwait in 1991. After all, Kuwait was
stealing its oil.
> Assassinating a former President is not an act
> of war.
> Actually, it very much is.
Again, something more than assertion would be nice
here. Why should I believe you? I have no idea.
>> Such acts have caused wars, but that’s not the
>> same as America being attacked by invading
>> armies, or an imminent invasion, or a domestic
>> group trying to subvert the Constitution (for
>> instance, by radically re-interpreting the 4th
>> Amendment to basically create a
>> “reasonableness” standard for the necessity of
>> a warrant which has never existed in US
>> history).
> Except that the group you obliquely referenced
> has, you know, case law on its side. But it’s
> nice to see you give moral equivalence for the
> US gov’t in regards to terrorists. Kudos to you.
There is no case law on in US or pre-1776 British
Common Law history which supports Hayden’s
interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. He says
that if a search is “reasonable” then you a
warrant is not required.
>>Bush and his administration were deceitful, they
>>wanted the war as soon as they took office (see:
>>Paul O’Neill’s comments in The Price of Loyalty)
>>and they wanted the war in Iraq as soon as 9/11
>>happened (see Richard Clarke) and they wanted
>>this war and they did what they could to make
>>sure it happened.
> Hmm, they told Clarke to see if Saddam was behind
> 9/11. Gee, if they DIDN’T, they’d have been JUST
> A BIT negligent.
This is not what I have gathered from interviews
I’ve seen with Richard Clarke. Not at all.
> As for wanting to remove Saddam, that was a
> Clinton policy, not Bush.
If I don’t like Bush then I like Clinton? Is this
some sort of new breed of “argument” which I need
to be made aware of?
Clinton’s foreign policy sucked.
>> There were no WMD in Iraq
> Except you said there was a few sentences back.
> Be consistent.
I never said there were. I said there were rusty
old shells with nasty sludge in them. Those aren’t
WMD.
>> and you really should read the testimony of Lt
>> Gen Hussein Kamel to get the straight dope on
>> that subject.
> Yes, HE has the “straight dope”. OK.
Every single word he said seems to have been 100%
validated. Compared to Bush or you, he deserves
some respect.
>> Bush would regularly cite _some_ of the
>> evidence provided by Kamel, and then simply
>> pretend the rest doesn’t exist.
> You mean a guy who still praised Saddam and had
> idiotic theories wasn’t fully trusted? Stunning
> piece of news there.
Which idiotic theories are you talking about? How
does that change his knowledge of Iraqi WMD
programs, regularly cited by Bush, which he gained
as head of the entire Iraqi WMD program?]
Newton had tons of crazy theories. He believed in
alchemy. Does that mean you no longer believe in
his equations of classical physics? F != MA
>>Whether or not the war in Iraq is “illegal” it
>>was very bad policy. I would say there are a lot
>>of people who predicted toppling Saddam’s
>>military would be easy, but that the Iraqis
>>would not like being occupied. Supermajorities
>>of Iraqis think we are occupiers. Many Iraqis
>>think we are letting the violence happen on
>>purpose (I don’t believe that, I’m saying that
>>people are conspiracy theorizing against us).
>>The British Ministry of Defence poll shows that
>>half the Iraqis think it is AOK TO KILL
>>AMERICANS! That means that we now have
>>12,000,000 Iraqis who would probably give a
>>little cheer if America was hit again like 9/11.
> Which shows the one mistake we made:
>
> Rebuilding.
>
> Next time, just level everything and keep it up.
HOLY F*CKING SHEET!
Check out this loyal follower of Bush! His plan
is to level Iraq!
And to think, I wasted all this time responding
to you.
>>We have made 10,000,000 new enemies just in
>>Iraq, and 100s of 1,000,000s more around the
>>world.
> Yes, because Iraq was SO on our side before
> this.
>
> And the rest of the world (by that, let’s be
> honest, you mean Europe) is militarily inept
> and incompetent.
>>That is bad policy, regardless of what you think
>>about the desirability of “regime change.”
> Following a Clinton policy usually is a bad
> move, but here it was not.
>> Look at the role of Kagame, as a founding member
>> of the coalition of the willing, and his role
>> in sending armies to slaughter and steal in the
>> Congo, how his troops slaughtered 10s of
>> thousands of Rwandans, too, being a major part
>> of a the many millions dead. Ten times as many
>> people have died in Congo since 1998 than
>> Saddam ever killed. Kagame has visited Bush
>> twice in DC. Laura entertains the butcher’s
>> wife.
> And the UN was neck-deep in ALL of those
> problems — and you still hold them up as
> paragons of morality? You said that we needed UN
> support for it to be legal — yet the UN was
> behind humanitarian crises unmatched in history.
Cheeses –
Doesn’t this statement assume facts not in evidence ?
2. These so-called WMD that Santorum “discovered” had been abandoned during the Iran-Iraq war. These are not weapons that he was hiding from inspectors, they were abandoned to rust in the desert.
Any links for this assertion ?
4. Saddam did not provide terrorists with training camps. Our government has concluded that Saddam was actively training anti-terrorism forces at Salman Pak. That story’s been dead since 2003.
By our government, I assume you mean the CIA. How’d they do on the pre-war “slam dunk” assessment of WMD’s in Iraq. Must be some pretty sharp intelligence analysts there, hey ?
I googled the Salman Pak thing, but it looks like a pretty even split between both sides. There were some entries that said recently translated documents are reporting it to be both a “militia” training camp and for training foreign fighters (or terrorists, if you prefer). I am trying to find a copy of the translated documents.
Doesn’t anyone in this thread use links to back their assertions ?
It’s like watching mimes play tennis. An imaginary ball being hit by imaginary racquets.
1. http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/14894132.htm
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/134890
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201475.html
4. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me.
There you go.
One of the many bizarre traits of moonbats is the
boundless faith they have in future good intentions of Saddam Hussein after we-they believe-forced him to give up his cherished WMD programs.It is undeniable that he had these programs.It is undeniable that he risked the wrath of the United States to retain these programs-for years on end.It is undeniable the he was deposed by force by his unwllingness to take measures to assure the US that he had no WMD.So why-pray tell-do moonbats trustingly belief he wound not restart the stunted WMD programs after the inspectors had departed for good? It’s enough to make me question their judgement I tell ya.
Cheeses –
I didn’t question number 1. I wondered about number 2.
I found the link you posted for number 4. It’s from 2003, as you said before. I’m not sure it’s still a valid story though.
Thanks for trying.
Xennady –
You said it better than I and with brevity. (sigh)
First, the goalposts are constantly moving about whether 1, 5, 500 or 5,000 chemical munitions are necessary to satisfy the “that’s not enough” crowd.
Then the “rusty old sludge” arguments crop up. How old do weapons have to be to qualify as rusty old sludge? If the chemical munitions were produced in the 80’s, then when Iraq signed the ceasefire in 1991, were they still functioning ? Or not ? If they were operational, then Iraq was in violation of the UN resolutions. When do weapons morph from good to rusty old sludge ? 2 years ? 7 years ? 10 years? What’s the magic number ? When the goalposts stop moving, maybe we can take a look.
Next we get the “paperwork was lost” argument. This one could work. More importantly, we have to listen to the moonbats because they should know. They are experts at losing paperwork when faced with felony investigations: Rose Law Firm billing records, 600 FBI files on prominent Republicans among others. Whoops, got to move those goalposts again to keep up with poor record keeping.
Not finding WMD’s in Iraq does not mean there aren’t any there, it means that either there are none or that they haven’t been found yet. We know that there were some in Iraq in the 80’s and now they’ve disappeared. Iraq’s a big place with lots of desert. Where’d they go ?
Since we don’t know what happened to Saddam’s known stockpiles of WMD’s, is there any other way to determine if he was likely to cheat on the UN resolutions and intentionally keep some ? If he was squeaky clean everywhere else, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. If he’s got credibility problems elsewhere, let’s not trust him when he says “But I got rid of all those things years ago.” So we have to guess and if we guess wrong, the consequences could be severe
Any credibility problems with him keeping to the UN resolutions?
A few.
Since David Kay is quoted by the anti-war activists and therefore presumably creditable, this is David Kay’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in October 2004. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/)
All of the activities mentioned by Dr. Kay are prohibited by UN Resolutions and the ceasefire agreement of March, 1991.
PARAGRAPHS NOT NECESSARILY ADJACENT IN ORIGINAL TEXT.
“Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.”
” Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities — one last chance to come clean about what it had.”
“We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.”
From Dr. Kay’s testimony on October 2, 2003 before the same body: (http://www.usiraqprocon.org/pop/KayReport.htm)
“We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
-A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
-A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
-Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist’s home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
-New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
-Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists’ homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).”
“In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence – hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use – are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts.”
“With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information – including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.”
“With regard to Iraq’s nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions. At least one senior Iraqi official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) beginning around 1999 expanded its laboratories and research activities and increased its overall funding levels. This expansion may have been in initial preparation for renewed nuclear weapons research, although documentary evidence of this has not been found, and this is the subject of continuing investigation by ISG.”
“Despite evidence of Saddam’s continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.”
Sorry, the links labeled #1 actually relate to #2.
As for Salman Pak, its been such a non-story that no reputable news sources have touched it since 2003. You probably would be better off looking for “salman pak” on wikipedia.org. Just so you know, the whole Salman Pak thing was presented to the US Gov’t by Ahmed Chilabai, who is currently being investigated for various fraudulent statements and other crimes.
First, the goalposts are constantly moving about whether 1, 5, 500 or 5,000 chemical munitions are necessary to satisfy the “that’s not enough” crowd.
Then the “rusty old sludge” arguments crop up. How old do weapons have to be to qualify as rusty old sludge? If the chemical munitions were produced in the 80’s, then when Iraq signed the ceasefire in 1991, were they still functioning ? Or not ?
The whole premise of the war was that Saddam was stockpiling and continuing to develop WMD. Clearly, he was not. Even the Bush Government conceeds this. Again, If this was significant, WHY IS BUSH NOT BEATING HIS CHEST???
In order to NOT be rusty old sludge, the weapons have to be usable for mass destructive purposes. If you read the reports closely, you can see that they clearly were not operable. Many shells were empty, except for residue. If Saddam had been saving them for the future, don’t you think they would be in better condition? The shells were intended to be used against IRAN in a war that ended in 1988. All but 2, count them, 2 of them were found in an area that was the front line of that war. Why would they be left there? Well, I can think of several possibilities…
1) They were fired at the Iranians and did not go off…
2) They were not fired at the Iranians, and the Iranians killed the Iraqis who were going to shoot them.
3) When the war ended, they were abandoned there.
I don’t know, you wingnuts believe some crazy crap, so I don’t expect to change any of your minds on this. Good Day!
It is undeniable that he had these programs.It is undeniable that he risked the wrath of the United States to retain these programs-for years on end.It is undeniable the he was deposed by force by his unwllingness to take measures to assure the US that he had no WMD.
OK, I call bullshit. You are making this up. Where are your sources?
By our government, I assume you mean the CIA. How’d they do on the pre-war “slam dunk” assessment of WMD’s in Iraq. Must be some pretty sharp intelligence analysts there, hey ?
I wouldn’t place all the blame on them. I don’t think they were as confident as Bush.
Cheeses –
I think President Bush was confident because the CIA was.
“it was a “slam-dunk” that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Or so Tenet said, with the kind of unambiguous self-assurance that Bush so admires. These will go down as Tenet’s famous last words, even though he uttered them more than a year ago.
“George, how confident are you?” the president asked Tenet, in an exchange depicted in Bob Woodward’s book “Plan of Attack.”
“Don’t worry, it’s a slam-dunk,” Tenet said.
link from the wapo but it won’t let me post it
>> WMD was absolutely essential to get the UK and
>> Australia on board. It was the biggest argument
>> made to the American people.
> No, it was the biggest argument that the press
> said Bush made. Bush regularly and routinely
> made numerous arguments for it.
You are wrong. The UK and Australia would not join
the war effort unless the WMD argument
could be made. Lie one.
Except Bush REPEATEDLY and frequently made numerous arguments as to why it’s done. If the European press is too busy to cover the news, that is hardly his fault.
>> You say we have found tons of WMD, but you
>> simply assert they had some danger level. I
>> have never read that they had any danger level
>> at all. There is no evidence at all that any of
>> them were produced after 1991. None.
> Seeing as how Iraq couldn’t have ANY…it
> doesn’t matter.
They didn’t have any, so it wasn’t a causus
belli. They had no WMD.
Except that they did, as you yourself stated.
They had rusty old
shells filled with sludge you wouldn’t want to
touch, that’s all.
Mustard gas maintains its efficacy for DECADES.
>> The US/UK No-Fly Zone was not some sort of UN
>> thing, it was, by any standard of international
>> law, a decade long illegal bombing campaign.
> Time for a newsflash: The UN is not the provider
> of legitimacy.
The Bush administration repeatedly went to the UN to gain legitimacy.
No, he tried to get them to do anything. He could’ve gone the Clinton route and simply ignored them, but he tried to get them to live up to their own resolutions.
THe UN refused, so Bush decided to make it happen with a Coalition of the Willing.
> Why was the No-Fly Zone legal? BECAUSE SADDAM
> AGREED TO IT IN THE CEASEFIRE.
The “air exclusion zones” were created by America, not the UN.
Which, again, is immaterial. Saddam didn’t really have power with which to negotiate a cease-fire. He did what we said he’d HAVE to do to save his own ass. He was required to allow it and violated it, repeatedly.
>> You assert that governments have the right to
>> renew hostilities with parties who break their
>> treaties. I would be interested in the theory
>> you use to come to this conclusion. Teach me
>> something.
> A treaty is a legal document. In exchange to not
> be killed, a leader makes agreements with the
> country that is attacking them.
First, you mean, in exchange for a cessation of
hostilities. It rarely has anything to do with the
life or death of the actual leader signing the
treaty.
In the case of Saddam, it DIRECTLY is done to save his ass.
This isn’t anything resembling a proof, though.
I need either a historical precedent, or a school
of thought in international law, or something.
So, you DON’T grasp the concept of contracts. Got it.
Starting hostilities based on contract violation would suggest that Saddam was justified in invading Kuwait in 1991. After all, Kuwait was
stealing its oil.
Saddam invaded Kuwait saying it was Iraqi territory, which it clearly was not.
But, hey, don’t let reality slow you down.
> Assassinating a former President is not an act
> of war.
> Actually, it very much is.
Again, something more than assertion would be nice
here. Why should I believe you? I have no idea.
That you have no idea is clearly apparent by your posting.
To give you a hint: any intentional attack on ANY members of a country is an act of war.
>> Such acts have caused wars, but that’s not the
>> same as America being attacked by invading
>> armies, or an imminent invasion, or a domestic
>> group trying to subvert the Constitution (for
>> instance, by radically re-interpreting the 4th
>> Amendment to basically create a
>> “reasonableness” standard for the necessity of
>> a warrant which has never existed in US
>> history).
> Except that the group you obliquely referenced
> has, you know, case law on its side. But it’s
> nice to see you give moral equivalence for the
> US gov’t in regards to terrorists. Kudos to you.
There is no case law on in US or pre-1776 British
Common Law history which supports Hayden’s
interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. He says
that if a search is “reasonable” then you a warrant is not required.
Read re Sealed Case. There is clearly defined case law.
>>Bush and his administration were deceitful, they
>>wanted the war as soon as they took office (see:
>>Paul O’Neill’s comments in The Price of Loyalty)
>>and they wanted the war in Iraq as soon as 9/11
>>happened (see Richard Clarke) and they wanted
>>this war and they did what they could to make
>>sure it happened.
> Hmm, they told Clarke to see if Saddam was behind
> 9/11. Gee, if they DIDN’T, they’d have been JUST
> A BIT negligent.
This is not what I have gathered from interviews
I’ve seen with Richard Clarke. Not at all.
And, gee, Clarke has corroboration for his story. Nobody else seems to be saying Bush did the same to them.
> As for wanting to remove Saddam, that was a
> Clinton policy, not Bush.
If I don’t like Bush then I like Clinton? Is this
some sort of new breed of “argument” which I need
to be made aware of?
Clinton’s foreign policy sucked.
Not in the area of removing Saddam.
>> There were no WMD in Iraq
> Except you said there was a few sentences back.
> Be consistent.
I never said there were. I said there were rusty
old shells with nasty sludge in them. Those aren’t
WMD.
“Nasty sludge” is, by MOST definitions, chemical weaponry.
Which, by every definition in history, is a WMD.
>> and you really should read the testimony of Lt
>> Gen Hussein Kamel to get the straight dope on
>> that subject.
> Yes, HE has the “straight dope”. OK.
Every single word he said seems to have been 100%
validated. Compared to Bush or you, he deserves
some respect.
Hardly.
>> Bush would regularly cite _some_ of the
>> evidence provided by Kamel, and then simply
>> pretend the rest doesn’t exist.
> You mean a guy who still praised Saddam and had
> idiotic theories wasn’t fully trusted? Stunning
> piece of news there.
Which idiotic theories are you talking about? How
does that change his knowledge of Iraqi WMD
programs, regularly cited by Bush, which he gained
as head of the entire Iraqi WMD program?]
As somebody else already pointed out, there are Iraqi generals who vigorously disagree with Kamel.
Newton had tons of crazy theories. He believed in alchemy. Does that mean you no longer believe in his equations of classical physics? F != MA
Seeing as how Newton’s claims are provable while Kamel’s are not, it’s like comparing apples and skyscrapers.
>>Whether or not the war in Iraq is “illegal” it
>>was very bad policy. I would say there are a lot
>>of people who predicted toppling Saddam’s
>>military would be easy, but that the Iraqis
>>would not like being occupied. Supermajorities
>>of Iraqis think we are occupiers. Many Iraqis
>>think we are letting the violence happen on
>>purpose (I don’t believe that, I’m saying that
>>people are conspiracy theorizing against us).
>>The British Ministry of Defence poll shows that
>>half the Iraqis think it is AOK TO KILL
>>AMERICANS! That means that we now have
>>12,000,000 Iraqis who would probably give a
>>little cheer if America was hit again like 9/11.
> Which shows the one mistake we made:
>
> Rebuilding.
>
> Next time, just level everything and keep it up.
HOLY F*CKING SHEET!
Check out this loyal follower of Bush! His plan
is to level Iraq!
Absolutely. My empathy with anybody in that sandbox is non-existant. We’re bending over backwards out of kindness. Level everything. Every time a suicide bomber or IED goes off, people die en masse until it stops.
Bleed them dry.
And to think, I wasted all this time responding
to you.
Shame you couldn’t use intellect during that wasting of time.
-=Mike
Jonah
You posted: “it was a “slam-dunk” that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Or so Tenet said,”
That is what Bob Woodward wrote as told to him by Bush, not Tenet.
John McLaughlin, the Asst CIA Director, just recently said that he did not believe that Tenet uttered those words in exactly the sense as portrayed by Woodward in his book as based on what Bush repeated to Woodward..
Since your quote amounts to hearsay, were it a court matter, I don’t think you can reliably pin those words in the context most people give them on George Tenet.
Look to the one who repeated them to Bob Woodward.
That is what Bob Woodward wrote as told to him by Bush, not Tenet.
John McLaughlin, the Asst CIA Director, just recently said that he did not believe that Tenet uttered those words in exactly the sense as portrayed by Woodward in his book as based on what Bush repeated to Woodward..
Since your quote amounts to hearsay, were it a court matter, I don’t think you can reliably pin those words in the context most people give them on George Tenet.
Look to the one who repeated them to Bob Woodward.
Yet you buy the word of utter hearsay of John McLaughlin. Weird.
I mean, McLaughlin admitted he wasn’t there.
-=Mike
MikeSC
No, I simply meant that there’s more than one color to this story. The way that quote is bandied around to suggest that the CIA was at fault for bad intelligence is sonearly universal, one would think that Tenet had one time actually publicly uttered those words.
McLaughlin provides another perspective which I realize is adverse to the way you want to believe it all happened.
Cheeses:OK-Let get this staight.You are suggesting 1)Saddam had no WMD programs.2)Saddam risked nothing by these non-existant programs because the United States did not care if he possessed WMD after the first Gulf War cease fire.3)Saddam Hussein is still dictator of Iraq.Were you alive in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president? Because I recall numerous statements and actions from and by him that back me up on points 1) and 2).For example, operation Desert Fox of 1998.On point 3) I assume you acknowledge that Saddam Hussein has been deposed and base your disagreement on the motivations of that removal.You’re partially correct-George Bush listed several reasons for removing-but those others are relatively obscure today.I find it interesting that you quote the CIA-the very same CIA that told G. Bush that WMD was a slam dunk-to defend Saddam from accusations of impropriety.You folks will believe a thousand accusations of evil intent about President Bush-such as Iraq was invaded for other than the stated reasons-before you’ll believe even one about Saint Saddam.For all practicle purposes that is a religious belief not subject to rational refutation.As somebody famous once said you can’t argue a man out of what he wasn’t argued into-and as far as I can tell you moonbats started with hatred of George Bush and went from there.There is nothing any mortal man or woman will ever say or do that will shake your absolute conviction of the nefarious evil of George W. Bush-nothing.If the post by jonah (thanks for the compliment!) and those by Jay Tea-for example-don’t give you pause then you’re far beyond hope.
No, I simply meant that there’s more than one color to this story. The way that quote is bandied around to suggest that the CIA was at fault for bad intelligence is sonearly universal, one would think that Tenet had one time actually publicly uttered those words.
McLaughlin provides another perspective which I realize is adverse to the way you want to believe it all happened.
All I have is the CIA’s track record of utter ineptitude leading up to 9/11 to back up my assertions.
Bush took the word of Tenet (who, mind you, has never said “Hey, I didn’t say that”).
-=Mike
MikeSC
“Bush took the word of Tenet (who, mind you, has never said “Hey, I didn’t say that”).”
That’s right Mike; anything that gets in the way of your talking points is just dismissed. From what McLauglin said, it was more an issue of the context when Tenet supposedly answered w/ the slam-dunk remark.
The whole story is based on what Bush told Woodward. Given Bush’s track record of lies, it’s likely that that’s not exactly the way the exchange took place, at least from what McLaughlin said.
That’s right Mike; anything that gets in the way of your talking points is just dismissed. From what McLauglin said, it was more an issue of the context when Tenet supposedly answered w/ the slam-dunk remark.
Without providing the context, what good does it do?
The whole story is based on what Bush told Woodward. Given Bush’s track record of lies, it’s likely that that’s not exactly the way the exchange took place, at least from what McLaughlin said.
Tenet hasn’t denied it.
Woodward believed him.
So, you have what to fall back on?
-=Mike
Hey Mak44:I would love to hear your explanation of why Tenet hasn’t come forward to refute the hated Chimpy Bushitler.Just think how much money his book would make him when he told the story of Bush’s evil lies.And he was appointed by Clinton wasn’t he? Is Clinton part of the vast neocon conspiracy? You moonbats have to believe six impossible things before breakfast before you can even cobble together an argument.This goes to what I said earlier-your arguments are more religious faith than they are rational argument.
Cheeses:OK-Let get this staight.You are suggesting 1)Saddam had no WMD programs.2)Saddam risked nothing by these non-existant programs because the United States did not care if he possessed WMD after the first Gulf War cease fire.3)Saddam Hussein is still dictator of Iraq.Were you alive in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president? Because I recall numerous statements and actions from and by him that back me up on points 1) and 2).For example, operation Desert Fox of 1998.On point 3) I assume you acknowledge that Saddam Hussein has been deposed and base your disagreement on the motivations of that removal.
1) Saddam did NOT have active WMD programs post 1991. That is a fact that has been substantiated by US led Weapons Inspectors sent to Iraq by the Bush Government after the invasion. Bill Clinton doesn’t have anything to do with it. He was as wrong as the Chimpmeister.
2) Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Please clarify what you think I’m suggesting. As written, I suggested no such thing.
3) Seriously, are you pulling stuff out of your a$$ or what? Who said anything about Saddam still being the dictator of Iraq? The rationale for war was the non-existant WMD… Don’t you remember how your boy bush was talking about the violations of the UN resolutions on WMD, and when the UN Security council told him to wait for the inspectors to do their job, he declared the UN irrelevant?
I don’t know what is worse, the fact that we have an idiot for a president, or the fact that we actually have people who are still deluded into thinking there were WMDs posessed by Saddam’s government!