's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

WMD nonsense.(34 posts)

WMD nonsense.Spoke Wrench
Jul 23, 2003 5:06 AM
It is appearant to me that Saddam Hussain either:
1. Used up all of his chemical weapons and didn't replenish his stocks.
2. Destroyed his stocks of such weapons.
3. Shipped them off to another country somewhere.
4. Managed to hide them so well that we can't find them.

After he did that, why would he stone wall the UN inspectors, defy the UN imperative and ignore the proven threat that our armed forces were going to come in and overrun his country again?
Word on the street is Arab pride / hubris (nm)TJeanloz
Jul 23, 2003 5:12 AM
agree with TJMJ
Jul 23, 2003 5:15 AM
but the real question is how is W ghonna be held accountable for telling us he had credible intelligence that SH had WMD's ready for use against the US when that clearly wasn't the case?
That's a first...TJeanloz
Jul 23, 2003 5:19 AM
I don't know that it's "clearly" the case that SH didn't have WMD. I find it interesting that the same people who call GWB an idiot expect him to be all-knowing when it comes to where Saddam's weapons are.

He either knows nothing or he knows everything - pick a side.
when will it be clear?MJ
Jul 23, 2003 5:44 AM
6 weeks? 6 months? 6 years? before the next election?

idiot vs all-knowing - no conflict here - he's not the brightest and got caught in a lie - cause and effect from where I sit

don't know what he knows - just know he has been less than honest with everyone - and is still not being held accountable for leading the country to war on the basis of lies and manipulation by anyone on the right
About the time that Armstrong proves he's not doping,TJeanloz
Jul 23, 2003 5:55 AM
As people often say in cycling, you can't prove a negative. No one will ever be able to prove that Saddam didn't have WMD very recently. You can only prove that he did.

If you don't know what he knows, how can you be so sure that he hasn't been honest? If he was lied to and manipulated by the cunning folks on the right, surely heads should roll, but should his? We knew he was a fallible idiot when we elected him.
the solution is not to elect fallible idiots to the office - nmMJ
Jul 23, 2003 6:06 AM
Please remember, Algore was the alternative. (nm)94Nole
Jul 23, 2003 9:57 AM
I voted for Ralph..... (nm)bicyclerepairman
Jul 23, 2003 12:31 PM
Then many would say that you didn't vote (nm)94Nole
Jul 23, 2003 1:05 PM
maybe he fooled everyone, including Clinton?DougSloan
Jul 23, 2003 6:14 AM
There are dozens of Democrats, including Clinton, who swore that Saddam had WMD's and needed to be rid of them, too. Was Clinton an idiot or liar, too? Does the same standard apply to everyone? Or, conveniently, did all the WMD's disappear as soon as Clinton left office?

stick your head back in the sandMJ
Jul 23, 2003 6:24 AM
your 'don't care what my guys does cause he's my guy and I support him' attitude hardly makes for a convincing argument

see no evil - hear no evil - speak no evil

the difference here that you rabid neo-cons seem to forget is that Clinton never started a war re WMD's in Iraq and W did - assess W's basis for actions which led to war rather than Clinton's rather more academic and now historical position...

the same standard does apply - if Clinton had started a war based on a lie he should have been held accountable - he didn't - he wasn't - Bush did and hopefull will be

why don't you now call my post un-American/anti-American or pinko-commie
academic? the record shows...DougSloan
Jul 23, 2003 6:28 AM

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998"

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
the issue is reasonable belief of WMD's, right?DougSloan
Jul 23, 2003 6:30 AM
The issue here is whether there was a reasonable belief that Saddam had WMD's, right? Can't any of you admit that?

no that's not the issueMJ
Jul 23, 2003 6:38 AM
the issue is that we were told he did have them - he didn't

just for the record 'reasonable belief' was never used by anyone

we were told he was a threat against the US and others - he never was nor could have been

we were told there is solid evidence re WMD's that can't be publicly revealed because it'll damage our sources - not the case after the war

we were told that SH was linked to Al Qaeda - he wasn't

the issue is that without the solid evidence the US public would never have supported a war and that they were manipulated

can't you admit you were lied to and W should be held accountable? well we already have your answer - 'don't care if he's wrong he's my guy and I support him' - thanks for playing anyways

BTW - whatever Clinton said or did - he didn't begin a war with a country based on lies did he? can you admit that?
MJ - shouldn't you be mad at Mr. Blair?TJeanloz
Jul 23, 2003 6:46 AM
We can deal with our politics if you can deal with yours.

Why does the rest of the world feel like they have some sway in American politics?

But, to address your points, do you KNOW that ANY of your statements are true.

Are you claiming that SH was NEVER a threat to the US, and NEVER could be - even with WMD?

Are you claiming there was NEVER any link between SH and members of Al Qaeda?

Do you know what any of this evidence is? No, of course you don't, you're just spouting off because the American President can't provide some foreigner all of our National Security files.
alot of people are upset - on the left and rightMJ
Jul 23, 2003 6:56 AM
re Blair's role in this

everyone gets a say because everyone is affected by American politics - anyways how do you know I don't get to vote in both countries? I do by the way - but even if I didn't do we need to register our credentials before voicing our opinion here? no didn't think so

like you said you can't prove a negative - but until someone provides me evidence that proves SH was a threat to the US or ever could be then I'm not buying it - same in respect to Al Qaeda - in fact I think I agree with the CIA on that one...

"some foreigner"? the same ones W now wants to help with peacekeeping in Iraq? maybe with a bit more disclosure and respect for other countries opinions and positions the US/UK wouldn't be all alone in Iraq

seriously - why can't you admit he lied and manipulated public opinion to enter a war - what will it take?
define termsDougSloan
Jul 23, 2003 7:01 AM
What is a lie? Isn't it knowingly stating something false? Do you have any proof Bush or Blair did that?

As to "manipulated public opinion," of course, every politician on the planet does that.

What will it take,TJeanloz
Jul 23, 2003 7:04 AM
What will it take for me to admit that the President lied? Well, I think I'd have to see a statement that was CATEGORICALLY untrue. The one about uranium, while misleading, was 100% true.

I will acknowledge that he manipulated the information - but that's what politicians do. Have you seen what they claim the tax bill will do? They have no idea, really, it's all just one viewpoint. And when you know that the President has a political objective, vs. a purely ideological one, you are able to filter these things out. Your statements now are the equivilent of: "I'm Shocked, Shocked to learn that there's gambling going on here."

I'm not shocked that a politician manipulated accurate data to accomplish what he felt was in the best interest of the public.
face it, no you'll never like Bush or his supportersDougSloan
Jul 23, 2003 6:55 AM
Seems like you can't even honestly address the issue.

Actually, there are several issues, but it seems that most people are fixated on the issue of whether the President honestly believed Iraq had WMD's. Other issues are whether there really were WMD's in Iraq in the last year, and then what should have been done about it. You are focusing on only the last two issues, obviously avoiding the real issue, if you are questioning the President's credibility.

My first question to the President's attackers is this, if this President said Iraq had WMD's, but Iraq really did not have WMD's, what was the basis for his belief? Could part of that basis, aside from direct intelligence, be the fact that nearly every high ranking politician in America has been saying since at least 1998? If you take over as President, and the one before you has been saying for 3 years that Iraq has WMD's, wouldn't you in part be justified in relying upon the former President's statements? Could it be that both Presidents were presented with nearly identical intelligence information?

You seem to imply that Clinton knew he was lying, but just didn't start a war, so the lying was ok. Is that right?

I believe it is absolute political and intellectual dishonesty for any high ranking politician to claim Bush lied about WMD's, as nearly all of them made public statements that Iraq had WMD's since 1998. It's ludicrous, at least without some explanation for where they went since they made their statements.

This debate is about lying. If Bush said Iraq had WMD's based upon the information in front of him, including potentially all the statements of Clinton and his administration and supporters over the last 5 years, but the WMD's really aren't there, it isn't lying. It isn't dishonest. At worst, it is incorrect -- a mistake, but that has nothing to do with lying -- that is, unless you will freely admit that nearly every other politician in America in both parties lied on the same subject since 1998.

The fact that you can't admit this, apparently, or only want to divert the attention away from the core issue of credibility, when pressed, shows that you really, really HATE Bush and his supporters, and nothing anyone can say will change your mind. I'd bet if someone physically plopped you down in front of nuclear and chemical warheads in Iraq right now you'd still not believe they existed, or you'd certainly claim they were a CIA plant.

You have lost the plot my manRidearound
Jul 23, 2003 8:45 AM
"I'd bet if someone physically plopped you down in front of nuclear and chemical warheads in Iraq right now you'd still not believe they existed, or you'd certainly claim they were a CIA plant."

Another of your childish personal attack sessions ain't going to change the facts here. There is no evidence here so support what was said. This is the President of the USA we are talking here. The "he got told some BS so it wasn't his fault" just doesn't work. Blair didn't get away with it in the UK, and nor should Bush in the US.

"I believe it is absolute political and intellectual dishonesty for any high ranking politician to claim Bush lied about WMD's, as nearly all of them made public statements that Iraq had WMD's since 1998."

"Nearly all of them." Christ on a Schwinn, that just goes to show what happens if you just read the right-wing pro-Bush press and close your mind to the thinking world - where the hell were you during the run-up to the war and since?

For the love of man Doug, try to have some intellectual self-respect. The whole point here is that Bush et al didn't have the balls to say "he's bad and he's got it comming", they tried this BS justificaiton act, and now they have been called on it. It has nothing to do with being pro/anti war, or left or right, al the most basic level, it's an issue of the basic human honesty and decency of the President.
agree, in partDougSloan
Jul 23, 2003 9:06 AM
I would have much, much prefered that Bush come out and say "this is an evil guy who has murdered tens of thousands, and it's time to take him out." Then we'd not be having this conversation.

Still, I think it's total hypocrisy to claim Bush lied when dozens of other politicians on boths sides of the aisle and ocean said the same exact things. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Well indeedRidearound
Jul 23, 2003 9:21 AM
but he didn't. That was his mistake. You're right, if he had, we wouldn't be having this conversation, we'd possibly be having one about whether it was morally justifyable etc to do what he did. By the by, I wouldn't have a problem with that - it's call elected leadership - sh1t happends, that's what happens in a democracy - like it or lump it etc - I'd probably have quite liked it, along with, I dare say, most of us.

However, the situation we are in is one where my faith in the Office is being severly tested by this man - that's hard to bear in principle, leaving aside the practicalities. I want a leader I can pretty much trust to lead with integrity. This man just isn't making the grade IMHO.

I can admire your verciferous support of him, though my view may diverge, but not at all costs through think and thin. With great power comes great responsibility. Surely you must weight his acts against the standard that imposes, for to support a leader at any cost is to invite the spectre of despotism to dwell.

Thanks for coming down from "most" to "dozens". I'll give you that;-)
agree, in partDuane Gran
Jul 27, 2003 6:04 AM
Still, I think it's total hypocrisy to claim Bush lied when dozens of other politicians on boths sides of the aisle and ocean said the same exact things.

I happen to think that Iraq and Saddam Hussein has been the archetypical "enemy". Bush (senior and junior) as well as Clinton have made a stink about Iraq.

I don't know if I would go so far as to say that all these politicians lied, but I think they exaggerated the importance of Iraq in our daily lives and safety. Given the current circumstances (no WMD found months after the war and Hussein at large) I think most American's are fair minded to question what the hell motivated the invasion. We were lead to believe that Iraq had WMD. Maybe they will be found tomorrow, in which case I'll reconsider my feelings.

As for the matter of hypocrisy (see quote at top) I think there is nothing wrong with pointing out Bush's errant statements. The only problem would be doing so and pretending that other politicians didn't do the same thing.
Doug, this is where I get annoyed..........Len J
Jul 28, 2003 6:12 AM
I, too "would have much, much prefered that Bush come out and say "this is an evil guy who has murdered tens of thousands, and it's time to take him out." The reason that I would have preferred this is that I believe (& I think that Bush knew) that the American people never would have supported the war on these grounds. Bush knew this & hence the "political manipulation" as you call it was necessary in order to convince the American public that war was justified.

I know you would have supported the war under this reasoning, but ask yourself Why didn't Bush just say this? I think the reason is obvious. Under these conditions, the "political manipulation" is patently wrong IMO.

The Lie isn't the problem, it's the reason for the lie that bothers me......he had an unsupportable policy and decided that he knew better that we did, so rather than give it to us straight, they appear to have fabricated a story based on scant evidence and then surronded it with National security.

So Doug, either "the ends justify the means" or what they did was wrong. Do the Ends justify the means only when you agree with the outcome?

the surface debate may be about lying.rufus
Jul 23, 2003 4:55 PM
underneath, it is far more serious. satellite photos that powell and rummy told us showed renewed construction at known iraqi nuclear facilities, which has since proven not to have occured.

told over and over again that saddam's WMD's(whether they do exist or not) posed an imminent threat to the security of the united states. a threat that could be armed and implemented within 45 minutes. no proof that it was so.

the assertion that the new construction, plus the uranium from africa, meant saddam was developing a nuclear device to use against the U.S., either directly, or through some other terrorist organization. no proof.

word just released from the national intelligence estimate(a compendium of intelligence gathered from all government intelligence agencies, and combined into one report) that the conclusion was reached in intelligence circles that saddam was no threat to the u.s. where he was, but if he were attacked, his threat potential would increase, as the odds that he would use WMD's, or pass weapons on to other terrorists, would increase. even more troublesome news, that our commander in chief never even bothered to read this report.

information that a top member of the NSA(hadley, i think) was on the phone to media people that he knew within minutes of the 9/11 attacks, telling them that they had to link this to saddam, that saddam was responsible.

information that george bush himself, in early 2002, over a year before the attack on iraq was launched, announced to his closest advisors, "f*ck saddam, we're taking him out".

all this information, at least as factual and credible as that offered by the bus administration about iraq's weapon's capabilities, indicates that this administration had already reached the conclusion that saddam must be removed from power, and they need only find some kind of reason to sell to the people to justify it.
Nope, that's not what I think.Spoke Wrench
Jul 23, 2003 8:06 AM
My belief is that Bush decided that invading Iraq would be a good thing to do and then started fishing around for the easiest case to sell to the American people. They decided that WMD would be the easiest case to sell.

How far is it proper for a president to go in selling his case? As TJeanloz might say, everybody draws their line at a different place. Bush stepped over mine.
I agree,TJeanloz
Jul 23, 2003 9:40 AM
Except he didn't go past my line.
Clinton??? Let's drag Ray-Gun Ronnie into thiscritmass
Jul 23, 2003 7:56 AM
In 1982 Ray-Gun Ronnie removed Iraq from the State Departments list of terrorist nations over congressional objections and let U.S. companies sell Iraq the precursors for anthrax and botulism, sarin/cyclosarin and the mustard gas and nerve agents that Iraq used on the Kurds in 1988. Rummy, now our Secretary of Defense was in Iraq on March 24, 1984 working on restoring diplomatic relations that was the day UPI first reported that Iraq had just used large quantities of mustard gas and nerve agents on Iranian troops. Even though the State Department officially recognized that Iraq had used lethal chemical weapons in violation of the Geneva accords in March of 1984 Ray-Gun Ronnie, with Rummy's help, restored full diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iraq in November of 1984. The U.S. continued to sell biological agents to Iraq until 1990.
We know Iraq had WMD because we sold them to Iraq. Whether Iraq still has large stock piles of WMD is not known. What we do know is that Dubya has lied probably as much as Hussein about it. The Niger uraninum and the aluminum tubes, the 45 minute biological attack window, the Iraqi field commanders being ordered to use chemical weapons on Feb 8, the statement to the VFW National Convention on Aug 26 "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has large quantities of weapons of mass destruction", the speech to the U.N. on Sept 12 "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities for the production of biological weapons", the radio address of March 23 "I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction" and on and on and on.

But then Rummy said in an ABC interview on March 30, 2003 "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat" Since Rummy knows where they are I say he should do what others can't seem to do and go find them there himself.
Didn't he bomb an aspirin factory? (nm)94Nole
Jul 23, 2003 9:59 AM
Meanwhile, back at thinkingsville....Ridearound
Jul 23, 2003 5:54 AM
everyone has realised that either:

a) GWB is EVEN MORE moronically stupid that every other sentient being on the planet thought (virtually inconceivable); or

b) GWB lied like a cheap Japanese watch about the threat.

Leader of the Free World. Oops...
The bottom lineMR_GRUMPY
Jul 23, 2003 7:10 AM
The bottom line is, that if the WMD don't exist, George has to take the fall. The buck has to stop on his desk. It doesn't matter if others fed him bad info. He's the one who made the final decision, and he's the one that has to take the blame. If they turn up, he'll be the hero, if they don't, he should be the "goat."
A little more info from the White Housebboc
Jul 23, 2003 7:12 AM
They picked a good day to admit this, since everyone is distracted by the deaths of SH's sons (Cheers to the military). It's pretty obvious to me that either the Bush administration was deliberatly misleading America, or that Bush himself has no control over what comes out of his mouth. Either way it's sad. -Bill-
Because he's a complete whacko,No_sprint
Jul 23, 2003 11:39 AM
mass murderer, torturer, etc. Clearly insane. Rule by heroine, prostitution, etc. veiled beneath strict religion. So clearly insane it's rather funny.