Support NeoGAF

[MIMIC]

And again, I am here to add more decay to the Bush Administration's dilapidating argument about Saddam's imminent threat.

I'll highlight the important stuff:

Inspector: Iraq had no WMD before invasion
Final report says Saddam had ambitions but no chem or bio arms

WASHINGTON - Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 U.S. lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he had found no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein’s weapons capability weakened, not grew, during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, said Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

But Duelfer supported Bush’s argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made it clear that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, his report said.

[...]

The report could boost Kerry’s contentions that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors should have been given more time.

[...]

Duelfer said he also found no evidence of trailers’ being used to develop biological weapons, although he said he could not flatly declare that none existed.

[...]

Duelfer found that Saddam, hoping to end U.N. sanctions, gradually began ending prohibited weapons programs starting in 1991. But as Iraq started receiving money through the U.N. oil-for-food program in the late 1990s, and as enforcement of the sanctions weakened, Saddam was able to take steps to rebuild his military, such as acquiring parts for missile systems and restoring domestic chemical production.

However, the erosion of sanctions stopped after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer found, preventing Saddam from pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

[...]

The president made similar charges, laying out what he described as Iraq’s threat in a speech on Oct. 7, 2002:

-“It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

-“We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.”

-“Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles — far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations — in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. “

MSNBC

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Welcome to.....

 

[Smiles and Cries]

Wrong War - Wrong Time?

 

[MIMIC]

Welcome to.....

My bad.

 

[Drensch]

Dick Cheney: "Iraq's king, Osama Bin Laden and his best friend Saddam Hussein used moon based doomsday lasers to nuke the world trade center which I was at every day and never met John Edwards."

 

[Keio]

From 19th of September, 2002:

Saddam Hussein told the United Nations in a speech read Thursday by his foreign minister that Iraq is free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

It was the first comments attributed to the Iraqi leader since Iraq's surprise announcement this week that it would accept the unconditional return of international weapons inspectors nearly four years after they left. The decision, which followed a tough speech on Iraq last week by President Bush, has divided the major powers on the U.N. Security Council.

"Our country is ready to receive any scientific experts, accompanied by politicians you choose to represent any one of your countries, to tell us which places and scientific installations they would wish to see,'' Foreign Minister Naji Sabri told the world body, quoting the Iraqi president.

"I hereby declare before you that Iraq is clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons,'' Sabri said, further quoting Saddam.

The speech heavily criticized the United States and Bush for trying to link Iraq in some way to the tragedy of Sept. 11.

It charged that "the American propaganda machine, along with official statements of lies, distortion and falsehood'' was being used for "inciting the American public against Iraq, and pushing them to accept the U.S. administration's schemes of aggression as a fait accompli.''

Well. It's interesting to read old news in a new context, 2 years later.

 

[StoOgE]

So, Imagine that, Saddam only gave the inspectors the run around because he probably didnt want an international organization with free reign in his country. Well, a man wanting to protect his countries sovereignty is certainly worth the mess we are in.. right?

What I find so utterly amusing in all of this is that I was against the war when I thought Iraq had WMD's.. and now it turns out that one country with more WMD's than any other country in the world blew the living hell out of another country for absolutely no reason at all, all the while screaming about the dangers of WMD's.

 

[MIMIC]

Can we put Bush in jail now?

 

[DarienA]

What a perfect week for this stuff to be coming out.... man I hope some of those folks light Bush' ass up in the debate this Friday with their questions.

 

[MIMIC]

What a perfect week for this stuff to be coming out.... man I hope some of those folks light Bush' ass up in the debate this Friday with their questions.

That's what I was thinking.

1. Kerry kicks Bush's ass in debates.
2. Poll numbers for Bush fall; rises for Kerry
3. Rumsfeld acknowledges no hard Iraq/al-Qaeda link
4. Bremer says not enough troops used
5. News reports of Cheney's lies in the debate
6. CIA says no WMD in Iraq
7. Official WMD report says none in Iraq since 1991.
8. Serious doubt on Saddam's Abu Musab Zarqawi help
9. CIA has bleak assessment of Iraq's future.

 

[MassiveAttack]

That's what I was thinking.

1. Kerry kicks Bush's ass in debates.
2. Poll numbers for Bush fall; rises for Kerry
3. Rumsfeld acknowledges no hard Iraq/al-Qaeda link
4. Bremer says not enough troops used
5. News reports of Cheney's lies in the debate
6. CIA says no WMD in Iraq
7. Official WMD report says none in Iraq since 1991.
8. Serious doubt on Saddam's Abu Musab Zarqawi help
9. CIA has bleak assessment of Iraq's future.

... Followed by Osama bin Laden suddenly appearing from out of nowhere in handcuffs and ankle chains and the Bush Administration declaring total victory in the war on terror only a week before elections.

 

[pnjtony]

yeah...wishfull thinking to say bush is in the shithouse. nothing sticks to that guy. If there's one thing we've learned these past three and a half years is that NOTHING sticks to him.

 

[StoOgE]

I think the Dem's are finnaly getting it.. stuff doesnt stick to a guy, you have to make it stick.. if you keep saying something over and over again, it BECOMES true, even when there exists no basis in facts for the assertion. Sadly, all of this stuff is coming out after the foreign policy debate, but I'm sure a nice TV add with all of this stuff in it wouldnt hurt at all. Of course, I live in Texas so I never see any of these ads.

 

[brooklyngooner]

I think the Dem's are finnaly getting it.. stuff doesnt stick to a guy, you have to make it stick.. if you keep saying something over and over again, it BECOMES true, even when there exists no basis in facts for the assertion.

I agree completely. God knows, the entire Republican campaign is run on lies, false assertions and half-truths, yet they keep hammering the same message home over and over, and it obviously sways people. The Democrats have actual factual ammunition to use, and from various sources, so broadside them with it over and over and over again.

 

[Keio]

What I find is hilarious is that getting a BJ and saying "I did not have sex with that woman" nearly got a president kicked out of the White House. Invading a sovereign country on false grounds doesn't even come close!

 

[Malleymal]

What I find is hilarious is that getting a BJ and saying "I did not have sex with that woman" nearly got a president kicked out of the White House. Invading a sovereign country on false grounds doesn't even come close!

LOL

 

[StoOgE]

You want to talk about stuff that should get you kicked out of office?

How about being the CEO of a company that does buisness with Iran (a member of the axis of evil no less!), setting up off shore mail boxes to avoid taxes, not properly disclosing your revenue (and getting a hefty fine for accounting fraud) and then stepping down from said company when you become VP of the United States only to turn around and give said company an exclusive deal to rebuild the country you just blew the shit out of... and that company is overcharging like hell to do it.

 

[KingV]

That's what I was thinking.

1. Kerry kicks Bush's ass in debates.
2. Poll numbers for Bush fall; rises for Kerry
3. Rumsfeld acknowledges no hard Iraq/al-Qaeda link
4. Bremer says not enough troops used
5. News reports of Cheney's lies in the debate
6. CIA says no WMD in Iraq
7. Official WMD report says none in Iraq since 1991.
8. Serious doubt on Saddam's Abu Musab Zarqawi help
9. CIA has bleak assessment of Iraq's future.

10. Bush still wins election.

Seriously though, this report has something for everybody. It's good for everyone and everything. Saddam did not have WMD, but he had every intention of continuing the development programs after sanctions were listed. I think this report was essentially crafted to throw jet fuel on the heated debate over the Iraq War. Now, until the day of the election we can go back and forth saying "Right, just like Saddam had WMD?" and then counter with "But you know he planned to reimplement his programs ASAP!".

 

[Pimpwerx]

This is our tax dollars at work. Probably millions of dollars spent compiling a document which states what everyone knew from the first day of the war, and some of us from before. Blix said from Day1 that there wasn't anything to be found. He was ridiculed as well as anyone else who was gonna get in the way of a good old-fashioned war. Well, it's not really suprising. If Iraq had WMDs, they would have used them while we were trampling our way to Baghdad. Seems pretty obvious to me. The timing is great, but it's not gonna do anything. PEACE.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

10. Bush still wins election.

Seriously though, this report has something for everybody. It's good for everyone and everything. Saddam did not have WMD, but he had every intention of continuing the development programs after sanctions were listed. I think this report was essentially crafted to throw jet fuel on the heated debate over the Iraq War. Now, until the day of the election we can go back and forth saying "Right, just like Saddam had WMD?" and then counter with "But you know he planned to reimplement his programs ASAP!".

What this report says to me is that we could have focused all our military effort in Afghanstan. We could have defeated the warlords, made Afghanstan an becon of democracy, retained broad international support (by support I mean financing and troops), garnered good will within the Arab community by strengthing our hands by showing them what kind of people we are. Now then AFTER that was all done (let's say 7 years) then we could have gone back to the UN with more resolutions on Iraq. It still would not have reconstuited a force that would have challenged or posed a threat to anyone but Iran an Isereal.

 

[Keio]

I also find it interesting that the part which the pro-war people like is a pure assumption. Would Saddam really have started to build weapons of mass destruction should sanctions have eased? How can they be sure he wouldn't have been easily contained through diplomacy?

The article in Guardian today shows Saddam was a man obsessed with self-preservation. That fits the image of him not having WMD after the first war.

When asked, during a custodial interview, whether [Saddam] would have reinstituted a WMD program after sanctions were lifted, his answer implied that Iraq would have done what was necessary.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I also find it interesting that the part which the pro-war people like is a pure assumption. Would Saddam really have started to build weapons of mass destruction should sanctions have eased? How can they be sure he wouldn't have been easily contained through diplomacy?

The article in Guardian today shows Saddam was a man obsessed with self-preservation. That fits the image of him not having WMD after the first war.

From what I can tell it seem that he was more content with self-preservation moreso than out and out aggression. Not then when his children would have taken over that would be different equasion but, I'm sure we had another 20 years of Saddam leadership.

 

[StoOgE]

not to mention.. we could have kept sanctions and UN forces in Iraq without ever having gone to war. Its not like the option was war or letting saddam do whatever he wanted.

 

[MIMIC]

10. Bush still wins election.

Seriously though, this report has something for everybody. It's good for everyone and everything. Saddam did not have WMD, but he had every intention of continuing the development programs after sanctions were listed.

(assuming you meant "lifted")

That wasn't a feasible option for Saddam because the United States had NO intentions to ever lift the sanctions against Iraq.

I think this report was essentially crafted to throw jet fuel on the heated debate over the Iraq War. Now, until the day of the election we can go back and forth saying "Right, just like Saddam had WMD?" and then counter with "But you know he planned to reimplement his programs ASAP!".

You could end with the argument, contending that no matter how much Saddam wanted to, he COULDN'T because sanctions weren't going to be lifted against Iraq.

From the article: "However, the erosion of sanctions stopped after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer found, preventing Saddam from pursuing weapons of mass destruction."

 

[Incognito]

I think the Dem's are finnaly getting it.. stuff doesnt stick to a guy, you have to make it stick.. if you keep saying something over and over again, it BECOMES true, even when there exists no basis in facts for the assertion. Sadly, all of this stuff is coming out after the foreign policy debate, but I'm sure a nice TV add with all of this stuff in it wouldnt hurt at all. Of course, I live in Texas so I never see any of these ads.

it's hopeless in texas. all my asshole republican friends repeat "flip flop," and "four more years" over and over over.

they thought bush won the debate last thursday. they keep asserting that iraq was harboring al-qaida prior to 9-11, even though i have the commission report on my coffee table for them to read.

they won't do it.

"HE VOTED FOR THE WAR.. THEN HE VOTED AGAINST THE FUNDING???"

i just want to take i-10 west out to california to ride out the rest of this election...