Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
- Thread starter maynerd
- Start date
- Status
Stoney Mason
Banned
Presume for a second that this article is completely true, even if the title is grandstanding crap - what does this honestly change?
The current assessment is that Bush, the staff of the executive branch, and the military acted on faulty intelligence.
If there was conflicting intelligence from two different sources, Sabri and "Curveball," and there was no reason to dismiss or distrust curveball out of hand (or for that matter, no reason to implicitly trust Sabri), then it becomes a he said / she said involving Iraqi defectors / spies.
At that point I suppose it would be a judgement call on who to trust. Obviously the president made the wrong call. Which again, is a mistake, leading to acting on faulty intelligence.
Unless I'm missing an important detail in that article, it changes nothing. Bush is still an incompetent idiot, but not a monster.
The current assessment is that Bush, the staff of the executive branch, and the military acted on faulty intelligence.
If there was conflicting intelligence from two different sources, Sabri and "Curveball," and there was no reason to dismiss or distrust curveball out of hand (or for that matter, no reason to implicitly trust Sabri), then it becomes a he said / she said involving Iraqi defectors / spies.
At that point I suppose it would be a judgement call on who to trust. Obviously the president made the wrong call. Which again, is a mistake, leading to acting on faulty intelligence.
Unless I'm missing an important detail in that article, it changes nothing. Bush is still an incompetent idiot, but not a monster.
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
vas_a_morir said:
UltimaKilo said:
Here's an idea, if you don't read a post, don't bother commenting on it.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
The title made me laugh.
article said:
ComputerNerd
Banned
bill0527 said:
This pretty much ends the thread. It's obvious Bush thought that Iraq had WMD's. It's the only logical conclusion.
And it's the conclusion the government had since the Clinton years. After all, Clinton bombed Iraq using the WMD claim.
It's just that the government thought the evidence that Iraq had WMD's outweighed evidence that they didn't have WMD's.
Outweighed it enough to go to war.
ComputerNerd
Banned
Freshmaker said:
We started the war because we thought they had WMD's.
We're still there because we want to secure the country and not have it turn into a terrorist haven. If it becomes a terrorist haven, then Iraq can become a territory to plan and organize attacks in the US.
Al Queda itself sent a message to Al Queda in Iraq to plan attacks against US targets abroad, and in the US itself.
Regardless of this article, it was pretty clear one or two months into the war that the administration either didn't believe that there were WMD's in Iraq, or weren't concerned about them. Say it with me kids: behaviorism!
For what it's worth, Sardi's information corroborated what Kamel Hussein said when he defected in 98 (?).
JD: Actually, it wasn't just "acting on faulty intelligence." There was a drive from some parts of the administration to re-assess Iraq's WMD capabilities and relationship with terrorist groups. This came mostly from neocons who had Cheney as a bureaucratic patron (see the Office of Special Plans).
Their argument was that the CIA wasn't keeping an open mind, and that the current analysis represented a calcified, outdated way of thinking. Read this piece by Jim Hoagland in '02 to get the gist.
So they were definitely looking for cassus belli. If you're nice, you call it confirmation bias. If you're not, then there are other words for it.
For what it's worth, Sardi's information corroborated what Kamel Hussein said when he defected in 98 (?).
JD: Actually, it wasn't just "acting on faulty intelligence." There was a drive from some parts of the administration to re-assess Iraq's WMD capabilities and relationship with terrorist groups. This came mostly from neocons who had Cheney as a bureaucratic patron (see the Office of Special Plans).
Their argument was that the CIA wasn't keeping an open mind, and that the current analysis represented a calcified, outdated way of thinking. Read this piece by Jim Hoagland in '02 to get the gist.
So they were definitely looking for cassus belli. If you're nice, you call it confirmation bias. If you're not, then there are other words for it.
Phoenix
Member
If they have this evidence and it is legally verifiable, all it takes is a politician with balls to get the impeachment proceedings going forward. While people all hated Cynthia McKinney - she would be all over this right now. Actually when she gets back from protesting the detaining of people in Guantanamo with ex-detainees, she may even exercise her rights and do it.
Phoenix
Member
JayDubya said:
Depends on the veracity of the evidence on both sides. More importantly what REALLY changes is that this detail was completely and totally left out of the NIE as even a possibility that there were no weapons there and that this information was coming from sources which were as reliable if not moreso than those sources that were telling us that Saddam had some nukes underneath his mattress. THAT is a huge difference, particularly if it is verifiable and documented.
I just thought I'd post this little link too. Personally when George Tenet opens his mouth he is lying...well the same can be said about Rumsfeld and every other politician (democrat or republican).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
PhoenixDark
Banned
This merely puts a more official confirmation on what many of us knew before the war even started. Back in my uber liberal days when I checked Antiwar.com/Common Dreams/Randy Rhodes/etc every other hour.
siamesedreamer
Banned
maynerd said:
Its misunderestimate.
So who was telling lies in the Clinton administration when they told us that Saddam had WMD? Who's the warmonger that told Clinton to bomb Iraq in '98 to rid Saddam of his WMD?
I'm not trying to make excuses for Bush's miserable failings, but it seems a lot of people have short-term memory and seem to forget that our government believed Saddam had WMD for ohhh the last 20+ years.
I'm not trying to make excuses for Bush's miserable failings, but it seems a lot of people have short-term memory and seem to forget that our government believed Saddam had WMD for ohhh the last 20+ years.
siamesedreamer
Banned
"[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
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"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
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 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
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 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
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- 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
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 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
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"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
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 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
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
"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
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"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
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 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
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 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
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- 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
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 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
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"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
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 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
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
No. We started the war for reasons which have yet to be provided to the public. (Cue Rumsfield whining about how nobody understands their war.) The Senate etc went along because at the time saying no would've been political suicide. It didn't matter if they thought there were WMD's or not. At the time, the weapon inspectors that Saddam allowed into Iraq due to the threat of a US invasion found no evidence of WMD's. Bush said "Not good enough." and went in anyway claiming he was enforcing UN rulings, which the UN as a body elected not to pursue.ComputerNerd said:
We're still there because Bush sent cronies and incompetent GOP faithfuls to Iraq to oversee its reconstruction. They bathed in money, let the country descend even further into the muck and called it a day.
By every recent styled defense of the war, there was no apparently absolutely no strategic gain to be had by invading Iraq. The most recent goals (building a Utopian freedom fairyland) come across as a fall back attempt at rebranding (like the ongoing struggle against global extremism) for the hopelessly gullible. Iraq really feels like it was just supposed to be a cheap win to build momentum for a further push that fizzled once they figured out that they weren't going to be greeted as liberators.
This never ending battle against Cobra Commander's Islamofacist army is the stupidest excuse anyone's ever come up with for staying in Iraq. (Well that, and the "humanitarian cost" that's suddenly being bandied about by right wing pundits now that playtime seems to be just about over.)
Ah, the obligatory "Democrats/Europeans thought there were WMD's too" list of quotes. Including Lieberman, of all people.
I think that's about right. It certainly wasn't WMD's, which was the reason presented to the public.
It's possible there never was a reason, at least in the sense we'd want. There might never be a memo or Oval Office records that show us "Ah, THAT was their goal!"
Could be just a dumb president making a decision with his lizard brain, being influenced or encouraged by people around him with varying interests in the war.
Freshmaker said:
I think that's about right. It certainly wasn't WMD's, which was the reason presented to the public.
It's possible there never was a reason, at least in the sense we'd want. There might never be a memo or Oval Office records that show us "Ah, THAT was their goal!"
Could be just a dumb president making a decision with his lizard brain, being influenced or encouraged by people around him with varying interests in the war.
Mandark said:
You can call the list whatever you want, but it just adds to the fact that the internet generation doesn't seem to have a clue that just about everyone in our government all the way back to the Reagan Administration believed that Saddam had WMDs. Plenty of people on both sides of the aisle. But if it makes the Bush haters sleep better at night, continue on believing that all of this was magically dreamed up by Bush and his cronies in the Oval Office.
The policy of invading Iraq did come from Bush, though. That a bunch of Democrats abetted and enabled him isn't news.
The administration did not act like they were reacting to intelligence reports of WMD capabilities. Neither in the build-up to the war or the aftermath.
The administration did not act like they were reacting to intelligence reports of WMD capabilities. Neither in the build-up to the war or the aftermath.
Tyrannical
Banned
You could always blame the cowardly UN for not authorizing the removal of Saddam from Iraq after the liberation of Kuwait. Then you can blame Clinton for being an idiot for 8 years for mostly ignoring Saddam as he flaunted UN weapon inspectors.
But Clinton did nothing, and just left the problem for GW to solve. What a nice guy.
But Clinton did nothing, and just left the problem for GW to solve. What a nice guy.
Tyrannical said:
But your wrong. Clinton did do something. He sent a token bombing run over Iraq in '98 and publically said that it was to get rid of Iraq's WMD capabilities and to send a message to Saddam to quit threatening his neighbors. He didn't do a ground invasion, but he made almost the exact same statements in a public speech when he ordered the airstrike, that the Bush Administration made before they started a ground invasion.
Oh ... and we all now know why the UN couldn't be bothered to enforce their own resolutions. A few of those countries had their hands in Saddam's cookie jar known as the oil-for-food program.
Jamesfrom818
Banned
So...Sean Penn was right?
LiveFromKyoto
Member
bill0527 said:
You keep harping on this Clinton thing, but the point is moot. Bush was presented with solid evidence to the contrary, Bush massed a ground invasion backed by a publicity campaign based on rigged intelligence provided to Congress. Neither of the above was the case with Clinton. If the head of the CIA was telling Clinton Saddam didn't have this stuff and he still went ahead you'd have a point, but he didn't so you don't.
You do have a good point about Bush's motivation though. He must have believed that Hussein had something; the only other reasonable explanation is that he thought that after the US forces were greeted as liberators everyone would see how happy the Iraqis were and nobody would care one way or the other.
If Bush had decided to invade Iraq based on intelligence that convinced him of their WMD capabilities, the administration would have reacted VERY differently when David Kay turned up nothing. For that matter, operations like the OSP would have been unnecessary.
It's not what they say, it's what they do.
It's not what they say, it's what they do.
LiveFromKyoto said:
How can you say that there was conclusive solid evidence of proof to the contrary when we've got over 20 years of former administrations, gathered intelligence, and people all over the world claiming that Saddam had WMD.
Its like someone pointed out earlier, on one hand you have evidence saying that he's got them. On the other hand, you've got people and evidence claiming that he doesn't. Which do you believe? You've got a country that was screaming for blood after 9/11. Bush had to respond and do something to try and make it look like our government was fighting terrorism. I know this is sounding like a Bush apology, but I'm not trying to defend the guy. My feeling is that there's been a lot of shit happen to this country during his administration that wasn't his fault. We had the worst terrorist attack on our soil, we had the worst natural disaster in our history that obliterated one of our major cities, and the Bush administration has acted like a goddamn deer in the headlights and when they do get around to making a decision, its usually the wrong one or it makes the problem worse.
Tyrannical
Banned
Where are all the uppity Europeans in this thread?
I'd like to remind them of what happened last time they smuggly ignored a problem before it was too late.
I'd like to remind them of what happened last time they smuggly ignored a problem before it was too late.
Anyone with a thinking head on their shoulders knew what the war was about, America wanted the oil, simple as that, and they where going to get it no matter what. Bush is also the top recruiter for Al Qaeda on the planet, cause if they didn't hate america before the war, they sure as shit hate them now
tehjaybo said:
I know this is a popular mantra, and I mean this in all seriosness... has there been any evidence at all that we're stealing Iraq's oil? I mean, shit, gas prices have actually went up quite a bit since the invasion. That's not something that happens when you've got plenty of supply. So what are we doing with all that oil we're stealing from Iraq? We got it stored up in a warehouse in Jersey or something?
If this is true, then Bush is pretty much as bad as Saddam himself.
In fact, Bush (and Blair) should be taken to Iraq for questioning about War Crimes. Because a shit load of people sure have died in this war.
For the record, Bush is a dangerous idiot and you lot need to ensure he is got rid of in your next election.
In fact, Bush (and Blair) should be taken to Iraq for questioning about War Crimes. Because a shit load of people sure have died in this war.
For the record, Bush is a dangerous idiot and you lot need to ensure he is got rid of in your next election.
The crazy protest version with the US directly stealing Iraq's oil is way off, of course.
But the oil reserves are a big reason why Iraq, and the gulf area in general, are considered to be so strategically important. The US doesn't want a large fraction of the global supply to be under the control of hostile and unpredictable people.
edit:
You're right. Tell you what, I'll personally guarantee this happens!
But the oil reserves are a big reason why Iraq, and the gulf area in general, are considered to be so strategically important. The US doesn't want a large fraction of the global supply to be under the control of hostile and unpredictable people.
edit:
pswii60 said:
You're right. Tell you what, I'll personally guarantee this happens!
Tyrannical
Banned
Mandark said:
Hitler, Germany, WWII, illegal millitary buildup ect.
Patrick Bateman
Member
Yixian said:
Why should he be trialed. I mean the ICC is laughable..
As of August 2007, 104 states are members of the Court; Japan will become the 105th state party on 1 October 2007.[4] A further 41 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.[5] However, a number of states, including China, India and the United States, are critical of the Court and have not joined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
So, who cares. USA didn't loose any war so that there would be a "winner power" who says "We are going to put up a trial!"...
I mean Stalin should have been sentenced to death for all the shit he has done, Churchill for Dresden, and Truman for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. If you are the winner you don't have to fear shit..
Powerslave
Banned
bill0527 said:
He just did.
This topic is sliding off the deep end, invoking Godwin's law (Lol Bu$hitler) and wheeling out the NO BLOOD 4 OIL patrol. Of course, the thread / article title is highly deceptive to begin with and frames things in a way the article does not support.
Have the United States military seized all oil reserves in the region as spoils of war? No? THEN STOP REPEATING STUPIDITY.
As much as I usually disagree with Mandark (and in this thread as well), he's trying to keep it sane.
I believe there were a number of folks in the administration that wanted to take a more aggressive stance on Iraq based on a number of factors, yes. Those folks received information they wanted to hear from Curveball and chose to trust it, perhaps partially because it is what they wanted to hear and what they believed (Hussein is a kook that wants nukes). Hell, I believed it. The Senate believed it.
So Sabri provided evidence to the contrary but wouldn't defect - does this mean by neccessity that Sabri was right? He was, but couldn't someone have legitimate doubts about a foreign minister, a member of Hussein's administration? Do you trust the guy that argues before the U.N. on the same topic to not have his own bias?
The war is pointless and stupid and it needs to end because we had a faulty casus belli. If you want to step beyond saying "faulty" and into "deliberately false" you need strong evidence - choosing not to trust Naji Sabri is not strong evidence.
In this case, we happen to have a Chicken Little / Boy who cried "wolf" situation where one guy has banked on the right horse and is trying to tell others and no one else will listen to him. Well that's fine and dandy, and obviously that fella should feel rather vindicated now that everyone can see there actually was a wolf. Beyond that, I fail to see how this shifts the paradigm in any meaningful way.
Have the United States military seized all oil reserves in the region as spoils of war? No? THEN STOP REPEATING STUPIDITY.
As much as I usually disagree with Mandark (and in this thread as well), he's trying to keep it sane.
I believe there were a number of folks in the administration that wanted to take a more aggressive stance on Iraq based on a number of factors, yes. Those folks received information they wanted to hear from Curveball and chose to trust it, perhaps partially because it is what they wanted to hear and what they believed (Hussein is a kook that wants nukes). Hell, I believed it. The Senate believed it.
So Sabri provided evidence to the contrary but wouldn't defect - does this mean by neccessity that Sabri was right? He was, but couldn't someone have legitimate doubts about a foreign minister, a member of Hussein's administration? Do you trust the guy that argues before the U.N. on the same topic to not have his own bias?
The war is pointless and stupid and it needs to end because we had a faulty casus belli. If you want to step beyond saying "faulty" and into "deliberately false" you need strong evidence - choosing not to trust Naji Sabri is not strong evidence.
In this case, we happen to have a Chicken Little / Boy who cried "wolf" situation where one guy has banked on the right horse and is trying to tell others and no one else will listen to him. Well that's fine and dandy, and obviously that fella should feel rather vindicated now that everyone can see there actually was a wolf. Beyond that, I fail to see how this shifts the paradigm in any meaningful way.
Instigator
Banned
bill0527 said:
It's an oversimplification, but oil makes the Middle East strategically important. It's not so much stealing the oil, but controlling and securing it. The world economy, which the US is the main beneficiary, depends on a stable flow of oil, and building permanent bases in Iraq and having a fleet of warships in the area, achieves that goal. Introducing 'democracy' was both a pretext for invasion and a faint hope it would trigger the toppling of unfriendly regimes in the region. But the US still have their bases so it's not all bad for them, just much more costlier than they anticipated.
Furthermore, as demands increases, oil becomes all the more precious. It can become a powerful tool of coercion if you can influence how the flow is restricted to some future, oil-hungry adversaries like China.
- Status