Iraq WMD news

[John Galt]

Several sources are reporting that the Bush administration thinks there are no WMD's in Iraq (and may have known that from the beginning). If this is true, it confirms my worst fears about this administration and is a sad reflection on the public justificaitons for the war effort. Links:
http://www.sundayherald.com/33628
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/opinion/06KRIS.html
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/124/wash/Where_are_Iraq_s_weapons_of_ma:.shtml

[sachmo71]

But there were terrorist links. And Sadaam was a bad, bad person. Plus, his cousin was named "Chemical Ali". If I were the president, that alone would be justifiaction.

[RonnieDobbs]

I'm not saying this is the case, but if it were 100% true (they knew they didn't have them and went anyway) color me completely disillusioned with politics for life. I'll go live in a shack somewhere.

[mrsimperless]

The only reason he shut down his weapons programs (a mere week or two before the war from what I gather) was that he knew we were serious this time. I see the war more as a deterrant to others than anything else. Besides, he DID have them in the past when he wasn't supposed to and he did play games with us for a long time. He reminds me of the spoiled child with no respect for authority always trying to push and see how much he can get away with. Put the smack down early and teach your kids a lesson! Would you like it if my kids rode their bikes through your yard? Huh? WOULD YOU?? Have some damn respect and try teaching a little bit of it to those punk-ass kids of yours too!

[Anrhydeddu]

Then don't vote for him. I, in turn, will never vote for a liberal. What's so hard about that?

[Qwikshot]

Why would anyone be so surprised at this? I never thought they had WMD but I still felt that the U.S. /needed/ to go into Iraq and secure the area.

Why would anyone be disillusioned with this and politics...go back to Watergate, Gary Hart, Kennedy's, Iran-Contra, "Read My Lips", Monica Lewinski...

They went there to send a message to the Middle East that if you harbor criminals that are against U.S. policy, if you fund terrorists against U.S. policy, and if you fund programs to build WMD (not have them yet, but developing them)...that you will be dealt with.

I'm amazed at how people suddenly become so disillusioned with politics, all politicians for the most part are dirty...they are interested in benefitting for themselves and their donating supporters (whether they're millionaires, corporations, or groups like N.R.A., Pro-Choice, etc)...then their constituents.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Then don't vote for him. I, in turn, will never vote for a liberal. What's so hard about that?

Leader lies to people and may have sacrified a lot of lives for a cause he didn't believe in and your only response is don't vote for him?

BTW, I didn't vote for Bush or Gore (though I probably would've voted for Bush if I had to choose). Bush, like Clinton, like Bush Sr., like Reagen, like Nixon, etc. seem to lie to justify misguided policies. The logic of your reply (not attacking the president, just deciding not to vote for him) ensures there will never be choices other than Kodos and Kang.

[Easy Mac]

Well, I feel we need to go in and secure parts of South America for our economic interests, which are just as important as security interests. Should we do so?

And I'd try to respond to mrsimper, but I'm not sure what he said.

[The Afoci]

John Galt, do you feel that without WMD that there were no other reasons to go into Iraq. I think many people feel that the world is better without Saddam and him punishing his people.

Please don't say the sanction thing, his people were starving and he was building palaces and amassing fortune. It is overly obvious that he wasn't the best option for his people.

One more question? How would you handled the situation if you were president?

[RonnieDobbs]

I guess to elaborate:

I am currently 22. I've studied Watergate, and vaguely remember seeing Ollie North on television when I was a kid. However, I think it is possible to have knowledge of these things and still believe in the American political system. Monica Lewinsky, whatever. Lying about taxes, whatever. But if this administration blatently lied to the public and to the world in order to start a war, that's something I can't believe. And I really hope that I don't get dismissed as a liberal or any such thing, because I am not one and I supported this war. Perhaps that's why that would upset me so much. I took a lot of heat from family and friends, all who were pretty much uniformally anti-war. I believed that Hussein had WMD, I had no reason to believe otherwise. If the administration knew that the WMD program had been abandoned and that no WMD exist (which I still find to be unlikely), that will be it for me. I guess I just didn't believe that the administration would knowingly lie about something like that. If only we'd elected McCain.


I've studied a fair amount of politics on the college level, so it's not like I'm going into this naively or anything. I would try to paint it more as optimistically. I truly believe in a lot of that stuff they push on FoxNews (America is great), I guess.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Well, I feel we need to go in and secure parts of South America for our economic interests, which are just as important as security interests. Should we do so?

I would say parts of Africa we should remove tyrants, but most anti war people would throw even large fits saying we get into everything. So then we just take out the biggest threat(maybe NK is bigger, but he is nuts) and now you say we don't do enough to help everyone. But if we go into africa or south america, they scream we are trying to police the world. They confuse me.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Well, I feel we need to go in and secure parts of South America for our economic interests, which are just as important as security interests. Should we do so?

Not because you think so, but we should if our national leadership thinks so.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by The Afoci
John Galt, do you feel that without WMD that there were no other reasons to go into Iraq. I think many people feel that the world is better without Saddam and him punishing his people.

Please don't say the sanction thing, his people were starving and he was building palaces and amassing fortune. It is overly obvious that he wasn't the best option for his people.

One more question? How would you handled the situation if you were president?

He's not arguing against the effects (affects? i get those confused), but the reasons for going. The thing is, the war was pushed on the American people as a way to make Americans to feel safe and to keep WMD's out of the hands of terrorists.

If there are no WMD's then isn' the premise of the war as presented to the people (and especially presented to the UN, re: All the documents C.P. talked about) false?

THis is just politics though, its the name of the game, lying. I don't fault Bush or anyone for doing something like this. SUre, I don't agree with it, but I'd like to think I can do things forwarding my agenda if I were in that position.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by The Afoci
John Galt, do you feel that without WMD that there were no other reasons to go into Iraq. I think many people feel that the world is better without Saddam and him punishing his people.

Please don't say the sanction thing, his people were starving and he was building palaces and amassing fortune. It is overly obvious that he wasn't the best option for his people.

One more question? How would you handled the situation if you were president?

First off, I think there is a MAJOR problem with using false justifications for a war and then arguing that it is ok because there were other justifications. If that were the case, then the administration should have stuck with those that it believed to be true.

Second, the other justifications are troublesome as well. Terrorism? No good evidence has been produced (and certainly nothing better than evidence we have against allies we have made in this war - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). Human Rights? Iraq is far from the worst abuser, the American public probably wouldn't have supported a war based on human rights alone, and I believe lifting sanctions would have been a more "humane" solution.

And as I've said before, I think lifting sanctions would've worked to slowly liberalize Iraq. And it is far from clear that things have improved in Iraq - the US has repeatedly failed at post-war reconstruction since WWII and a year or two from now, things could actually be worse.

[Qwikshot]

I believe South America and Africa have constantly been negleted by U.S. policy (or hurt by it).

South America would be a logical choice due to the drug war, and the rise of terrorism (the FARC, etc.) plus word of some Muslim terroirst cells in Brazil. I'm amazed at the horror stories that come out of Brazil of shanty kids being killed by serial killers and black market specialists for organs.

Africa because of the influx of Muslim extremist but unfortunately the colonialism from Europe bares many scars (i.e. Zimbabwae) and South Africa...the lawlessness, the corruption of the governments, the poverty level, and the AIDs outbreak...it seems most people in the world simply ignore this region.

[Easy Mac]

All I'm saying Afoci is that you're going down in Hattrick next week (don't I play you?)

And fritz, I was responding to Qwiks statement: " but I still felt that the U.S. /needed/ to go into Iraq and secure the area."

[CamEdwards]

I'm going to pull an Alec Baldwin and say the day Easy Mac becomes President is the day I move to Bolivian. (wow, a Baldwin reference and a Tyson reference in one sentence!)

[Easy Mac]

You can be my running mate Cam, we'd get all the votes

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
the US has repeatedly failed at post-war reconstruction since WWII and a year or two from now, things could actually be worse.

You have said this before, but I think you can also be pointed to a string of successes as well.

[Anrhydeddu]

John: Are you saying that politicians lie??? They always have and they always will. I watched Watergate on TV and I certainly know how the political machinery have always worked throughout history regardless if they are called Whigs, Federalists, Republicans, Democrats or what have you. Unless you favor anarchy or some utopian shit, the power we have as citizens is to vote for whom we want. If enough care, then changes will happen, but gradually through time. By the way, as an Independent, I voted for Bush because he was not Gore or Nader. I do like his administration compared any other president in my lifetime, esp. the previous 5 administrations (but that's not saying much). Just rambling and trying not to have Galt not press any of my buttons.

[HornedFrog Purple]

This does make one wonder a couple of things:

Maybe, just maybe sanctions worked. I point to the relative ease at which Iraq "fell". In my opinion, this can be contributed not only to our growth in weapons technology but also the many reports I have read of Iraqi weapons simply broken down and not working. A lot of these were just buried in the sand.

I do believe that the propagandist threat that Iraq was supposed to be was greatly exaggerated. I had been saying that before this whole thing started.

[Franklinnoble]

Personally, I think the entire war in Iraq was faked - the whole thing was filmed at Ft. Huachuca, AZ.

[moriarty]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
John: Are you saying that politicians lie??? They always have and they always will. I watched Watergate on TV and I certainly know how the political machinery have always worked throughout history regardless if they are called Whigs, Federalists, Republicans, Democrats or what have you.

Not to be out there with Galt on this one, but I think there is a difference in lying about no new taxes and lying about justifying a war that kills innocent people (not saying that we're not better off for it). And by the way, I do believe the president did get impeached for Watergate, so I don't know if you were intentionally supporting John's position or not.

Sure the politicians lie, but I hate when people say I forgive them because they all lie. The problem is that as society we've learned to accept this behavior. This is only leading us down the path of other 'superior' governments in history which no longer exist.

edited to make the grammer less badder

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by moriarty
Not to be out there with Galt on this one, but I think there is a difference in lying about no new taxes and lying about justifying a war that kills innocent people (not saying that we're not better off for it). And by the way, I do believe the president did get impeached for Watergate, so I don't now if you were intentionally supporting John's position.

Sure the politicians lie, but I hate when people say I forgive them because they all lie. The problem is that as society we've learned to accept this behavior. This is only leading us down the path of other 'superior' governments in history which no longer exist.

Nixon resigned in order to avoid impeachment and to spare himself and the office of the President of the United States of America further embarassment.

Clinton was somewhat less dignified.

[moriarty]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Nixon resigned in order to avoid impeachment and to spare himself and the office of the President of the United States of America further embarassment.

You're right. I guess I should say he 'would have been...'

[The Afoci]

Maybe I am just dumb, but I don't think sanctions would have worked. The whole oil for food program which gave him billions of dollars to help the people of Iraq was used to build his palaces, his headquarters for the secret police and help fund terrorism. I think the big difference between Iraq and other countries (syria, pakastan, saudi arabia) is that they at least try to appear on our side. Iraq never pretended. (sad I know)

[John Galt]

Originally posted by The Afoci
Maybe I am just dumb, but I don't think sanctions would have worked. The whole oil for food program which gave him billions of dollars to help the people of Iraq was used to build his palaces, his headquarters for the secret police and help fund terrorism. I think the big difference between Iraq and other countries (syria, pakastan, saudi arabia) is that they at least try to appear on our side. Iraq never pretended. (sad I know)

First off, the oil for food program was a disaster (although your description is a slight exaggeration) precisely because it was only a partial repeal. It meant all trade went through government hands. Real free trade can't be controlled by a centralized government.

As for Iraq being on our side, you need to look back in history a little further. See pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and the US sending massive aid to him to help us against Iran. Saddam was on the US side for a long time. Only when he invaded Kuwait (a severe miscalculation on his part), did he burn bridges with the US once and for all.

[moriarty]

I haven't read all the articles, but is there evidence Bush 'lied' or does it just say there are likey no WMD?

Bush could have made his statements on his belief that the CIA (or whomever) was providing accurate information. I woudn't call that lying, just mininformed. I mean it wouldn't be the first time the intelligence community misfired.

[The Afoci]

John, I meant as of late (ie post 9/11/01) that they didn't pretend that getting terrorist out of there county was important to them.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
Saddam was on the US side for a long time. Only when he invaded Kuwait (a severe miscalculation on his part), did he burn bridges with the US once and for all.

Iraq was on our side in the sense that they were fighting Iran. They most definitely (thanks ED) were not our buddies when it came to Israel.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
Iraq was on our side in the sense that they were fighting Iran. They most definitely (thanks ED) were not our buddies when it came to Israel.

I don't disagree - I just think the same thing can be said for Saudi Arabia and the House of Saud actually has direct ties to Al Qaeda.

[Ben E Lou]

Here we go Galt.

• Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam’s WMDs.
• The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.
• Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.
• Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs
• Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
• After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs
• Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
• Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.
• Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.
• The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.

It’s just that easy. Any questions?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by The Afoci
John, I meant as of late (ie post 9/11/01) that they didn't pretend that getting terrorist out of there county was important to them.

I'm not sure what you mean. Iraq was hardly the center of terrorist training (that would be in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or Somalia) and there isn't any evidence yet that Saddam was harboring terrorists post 9/11.

[RonnieDobbs]

SkyDog, you raise a valid point, in that the war was still justified. Not knowing for sure that he destroyed the WMD is just as bad for us as knowing he had them, because we really have no reason to trust Saddam. The only thing that worries me is Colin Powell testifying before the U.N. about things which may have been known to be untrue or distortions of the truth. I still think that we're aways away from that, but I honestly expected them to have found a lot by now. Perhaps they're all in Syria. Perhaps they're all buried. It's just odd that our intelligence was so great before the war and now has no idea where these WMD are.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Here we go Galt.

I'm not sure how that answers the fact that the Bush administration may have believed Iraq had no WMD's before the war, yet argued that they did to justify it. Am I missing something?

[RonnieDobbs]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm not sure what you mean. Iraq was hardly the center of terrorist training (that would be in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or Somalia) and there isn't any evidence yet that Saddam was harboring terrorists post 9/11.

Actually John, didn't we find a high ranking official of a Palestinian terror group in Baghdad? Terrorism is terrorism.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm not sure how that answers the fact that the Bush administration may have believed Iraq had no WMD's before the war, yet argued that they did to justify it. Am I missing something?

The burden of proof was NEVER on the Bush administration, nor the UN. The burden of proof (by what HE agreed to) was on Saddam.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm not sure what you mean. Iraq was hardly the center of terrorist training (that would be in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or Somalia) and there isn't any evidence yet that Saddam was harboring terrorists post 9/11.

What I mean is that they played the game of being on our side, Iraq didn't. I know that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and so on are a threat, but at least the gov'ts there pretend to try to help us. Iraq didn't and ended up in our sites and I believe the world is a better place today than 6 months ago because of it.

[GrantDawg]

Yeah, it had been a while since we made these same arguements. Thanks, John.

[John Galt]

SD,

I see from RonnieDobbs that you may have been arguing that Iraq didn't prove destruction. Assuming that is your argument (which I still don't think answers the Bush is a liar problem), this is what I would say:

First, that Saddam had to prove evidence of destruction is still open to debate. That he had to catalogue and document destruction is the more probable interpretation of the treaty. Iraq was able to fill most of the gaps in acounting (gaps that were probably pretty reasonable given the state of Iraq) and inspectors believed it was only a matter of time before the records were complete.

Second, if Iraq doesn't have WMDs, that tends to show the method we used for assessing risk is flawed.

Third, I think part of your list is factually incorrect. I don't believe Saddam ever said he had WMDs after the inspectors left. He has admitted to having non-complying missiles (that were only non-complying when the guidance systems were removed), but I don't know of any admissions of having weapons. I also don't know what evidence there is of "hiding" WMDs. Besides, the articles above cast an ugly light on Bush's real beliefs.

Fourth, if this is just a "technical" violation, then the war seems to be pretty silly. Israel and the US are in violation of a lot of international treaties in more than a "technical" sense.

Ultimately, though, I think all of this may have missed the issue that I posted about: George W. may have lied to everyone about the basis for the war and relied on a premise that he knew to be false.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by RonnieDobbs
Actually John, didn't we find a high ranking official of a Palestinian terror group in Baghdad? Terrorism is terrorism.

A lot more terrorists have been found in Buffalo, Washington, Munich, and New York. Finding ties to 9/11 and ties to Saddam seems to be more important.

[moriarty]

Originally posted by SkyDog
The burden of proof was NEVER on the Bush administration, nor the UN. The burden of proof (by what HE agreed to) was on Saddam.

Actually I think the Bush administration justified to the public and the world the need to go to war based on the fact that Iraq had WMD, not on the fact that they didn't have proper documentation. This is the point, and the proof would therefore lie with the Bush administration as I see it. Assuming they intentially misled the public, does the ends justify the means is the question.

Clearly most people (not all) think we are better off. And we did find a 'single terrorist' (and removed a few more terrorist types), but again that was not the justification used to support the war by the Bush government.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by John Galt
A lot more terrorists have been found in Buffalo, Washington, Munich, and New York. Finding ties to 9/11 and ties to Saddam seems to be more important.

The difference is that the terrorist in baghdad weren't trying to blow it up. They were more than likely looking for/recieving support. The ones in the US when caught are delt with. I don't think that is true about the ones in Iraq.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by The Afoci
The difference is that the terrorist in baghdad weren't trying to blow it up. They were more than likely looking for/recieving support. The ones in the US when caught are delt with. I don't think that is true about the ones in Iraq.

I'm saying, I would be surprised if any you DIDN'T find a terrorist in every major industrialized country or any country that is the "enemy" of the US. Go to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, England, Canada, Phillippines, India, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, etc. and you will find a "terrorist." That just doesn't seem to justify the war.

[RonnieDobbs]

Originally posted by moriarty
I haven't read all the articles, but is there evidence Bush 'lied' or does it just say there are likey no WMD?

Bush could have made his statements on his belief that the CIA (or whomever) was providing accurate information. I woudn't call that lying, just mininformed. I mean it wouldn't be the first time the intelligence community misfired.

The Boston Globe article: Never actually insinuates that anyone lied. Says some Admin officials believe we will not find WMD.

Sunday Herald: Seems to imply some sort of chicanery. However, the source (which I'm not familiar with) doesn't seem to be the most impartial, and the article seemed to have an anti-war bent.

NY Times: Not a member, so didn't read it.

I imagine that the "Bush lied" claim will never be able to be confirmed. I personally (damn that optimism) believe that it would have been stupid to knowingly lie about these things, so I guess if we don't find anything at the least this raises questions about our intelligence gathering.

[Radii]

Those articles (I don't have an nytimes login so I didn't read that one) strike me as containing a lot of unsubstantiated and unconfirmed information.

I definitely feel it will be a problem for the US if no WMD are found. I also would feel even worse about the whole situation if we were to learn with certainty that the US Government never believed that Iraq actually had WMD while they were pressing for this war.

I have disagreed vehemently with the way the Bush Administration handled this entire thing politically, going back to ~last October.

None of the above has changed in my mind, HOWEVER, I do not see anything in either of those articles to change my opinion on the current situation. I'm not sure I understand why they carry weight with anyone at this point in the game.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by moriarty
Actually I think the Bush administration justified to the public and the world the need to go to war based on the fact that Iraq had WMD, not on the fact that they didn't have proper documentation. This is the point, and the proof would therefore lie with the Bush administration as I see it. Assuming they intentially misled the public, does the ends justify the means is the question.

Clearly most people (not all) think we are better off. And we did find a 'single terrorist' (and removed a few more terrorist types), but again that was not the justification used to support the war by the Bush government.

Unfortunately, you're correct in your first paragraph. The Bushies didn't have the guts to just go get him, knowing that we were in the right. Instead, they tried to make it nice and palatable for everyone. Politics really annoys me sometimes.

(Fortunately for me, I don't work in a field where "office politics" makes a big difference. If I did, I'd be toast. I have this nasty habit of saying exactly what is on my mind, consequences be damned...)

[John Galt]

The Herald and NYT sources are the most pointed. The Herald is a good Australian paper and pretty reputable. The NYT piece is actually Nicholas Kristof and it is an "opinion" piece. Nonetheless, if his sources are good, then it is ugly. BTW, a NYT membership is easy - just use a junk email account. It is worth it.

I agree we will never know the "truth," but I was pretty upset after the Powell lies before the UN - now I've pretty much given up on trusting anything Bush says.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Radii
Those articles (I don't have an nytimes login so I didn't read that one) strike me as containing a lot of unsubstantiated and unconfirmed information.

I definitely feel it will be a problem for the US if no WMD are found. I also would feel even worse about the whole situation if we were to learn with certainty that the US Government never believed that Iraq actually had WMD while they were pressing for this war.

I have disagreed vehemently with the way the Bush Administration handled this entire thing politically, going back to ~last October.

None of the above has changed in my mind, HOWEVER, I do not see anything in either of those articles to change my opinion on the current situation. I'm not sure I understand why they carry weight with anyone at this point in the game.

A lot of what has been said during this war has been "unconfirmed" including what the Bush administration said about WMD's. Given that none have been found and Powell's lies before the UN, I think these articles have to carry weight. You can always choose to disbelieve, but if no WMD's are ever found, then you have to think long and hard about what this administration says.

[moriarty]

Originally posted by Radii
I definitely feel it will be a problem for the US if no WMD are found.

I think the impact will be on the integrity of the Administration with foreign nations. If we find WMD, our allies and want to be's can say the action was justified. If not, the administration has lost credibility internationally which puts more pressure on our allies to side with us in similar situations. It might be too late, but the discovery of WMD could help sway the court of global opinion.

Most countries, including probably Saudi Arabia and other Mideast countries are probably glad that Saddam is gone, but w/out the justification, they'll likely have to denounce the action publicly. Otherwise they know a similar 'fabrication' can be used to oust them next.