US Weapons Inspectors: "No WMD in Iraq"

[ghostdog2]

huh?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Simply look up the claims of the Bush Administration on "yellowcake," in Africa, and you'll see what we mean.

One of the great things about this country, whatever anybody thinks or says, is that education and research are available to everbody who can get past the lies of the rich and powerful--most important among which is the lie that the rest of us are too dumb, too foolish, too greedy, too lazy, too uneducated, to understand.

 

[michaeledward]

most important among which is the lie that the rest of us are too dumb, too foolish, too greedy, too lazy, too uneducated, to understand.

Unfortuneately, this 'lie' is too often true, isn't it?

michaeledward

 

[michaeledward]

Why does the Associated Press hate America?

The Associated Press
Updated: 2:24 a.m. ET Jan. 17, 2005

U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq
No signs that weapons were smuggled, intelligence officials say

WASHINGTON - As the hunt for weapons of mass destruction dragged on unsuccessfully in Iraq, top Bush administration officials speculated publicly that the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started.
Whether Saddam Hussein moved the WMD — deadly chemical, biological or radiological arms — is one of the unresolved issues that the final U.S. intelligence report on Iraq’s programs is expected to address next month.
But intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/

So, I must wait to see what further excuses the right will bring forth for the invasion of a sovereign nation, at a cost of several billion dollars a week for the US citizen and his posterity, only to have them proved false. And to then have that falsehood ignored, despite evidence.


And, if you would, mark these quotes, so that when they are refuted a month from now as being 'out of context', we can all agree who spoke them.

. . . throughout much of last year the White House continued to raise the possibility the weapons were transferred to another country.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in early October he believed Saddam had WMD before the war. “He has either hidden them so well or moved them somewhere else, or decided to destroy them ... in event of a conflict but kept the capability of developing them rapidly,” . . .

Eight months earlier, he told senators “it’s possible that WMD did exist, but was transferred, in whole or in part, to one or more other countries. We see that theory put forward.”

<LI class=textBodyBlack>Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed concern the WMD would be found. However, when asked in September if the WMD could have been hidden or moved to a country like Syria, he said, “I can’t exclude any of those possibilities.”
<LI class=textBodyBlack>And, on MSNBC’s “Hardball” in June, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said: “Everyone believed that his programs were more active than they appeared to be, but recognize, he had a lot of time to move stuff, a lot of time to hide stuff.”

 

[ghostdog2]

Okay. You guys win. We're bad and they're good. The solution? Let's give the country back to Saddam Hussein. After all, he's the Benevolent Leader, right?
Let's spruce up the Palaces, re-fit the rape rooms, clean the torture chambers and landscape the mass grave sites.
Stop all this foolish talk about democracy. Stop it right now. Those people don't deserve any better than what they had. Women's rights issues will be referred to clerics, and family counseling will be done with a birch rod. Kurds better stay where they are, Sunni's rejoice and Shiite's beware (or is it the other way around? No matter; they all look alike and they're all in trouble) and Iran, Kuwait and Israel can hold onto their hats, He's back......
Really now, is the value of all we've done lost on so many of us? Talk about making a difference in the world. We have. Be just a little proud that America has done something to make the lives of Iraqi's better and continues to try to better their conditions, their gov't and their lives.
p.s. calling Saddam's Iraq a "sovereign nation" doesn't go far enough. What about "Fourth Reich"?

 

[PeachMonkey]

p.s. calling Saddam's Iraq a "sovereign nation" doesn't go far enough. What about "Fourth Reich"?

It's funny you mention the term "Reich", given that your method of discourse comes right out of the bully-boy techniques near and dear to fascist hearts everywhere.

 

[ghostdog2]

"It's funny you mention the term "Reich", given that your method of discourse comes right out of the bully-boy techniques near and dear to fascist hearts everywhere" Posted by Peachmonkey

Gosh, another intelligent, well-reasoned response from the simian world.
No personal attacks for her, she goes right to the heart of the matter: Fascism.
I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to have to read something nice about your country. I mean, it's clear, only a fascist could love America.
Be careful. You're about to make all those cliches about narrow minded liberals come to life.
Back to the childrens' table.

 

[rmcrobertson]

...uh, what happened to the WMDs? The Bush government's argument specifically was that we went in Iraq because of a, "clear and present danger," to the United States that was posed by Hussein's possession of WMDs and his participation in 9/11. Their argument was that we would specifically NOT be running around doing nation-building, because that was what Clinton had done in Bosnia and tried to do in Somalia and we shouldn't be doing that because it didn't work.

So now, no WMDs, no connection to 9/11, no easy way out of those crowds of cheering Iraquis that were were assured (despited all them pooh-poohing liberals) would be lining every road into Baghdad, and now, all of a sudden, we're really there to free the oppressed, free women, and build a democractic
State?

Not since the good old days of, "Pravda," and "Izvestia," has a government and its ideological apparatuses worked so hard to rewrite history again and again. They must really be getting tired over at MiniTrue.

Funny, too, that we haven't tangled with North Korea...you know, what with our humanitarian interest and our clear and present dangerness. Huh. Wonder why that is?

 

[michaeledward]

Okay. You guys win. We're bad and they're good.

I refuse to enter a debate that is structured:

IF NOT 'A', THEN 'B'.

Really now, is the value of all we've done lost on so many of us? Talk about making a difference in the world. We have. Be just a little proud that America has done something to make the lives of Iraqi's better and continues to try to better their conditions, their gov't and their lives.

Surveys of Iraqi's show that many prefer the order that existed under the Hussein Government. At present, Americans (and Coalition Forces) have attempted to make the conditions in Iraq better, however, the verdict is still out. Only time will tell. Good intentions are not all that matter. Results matter too.

p.s. calling Saddam's Iraq a "sovereign nation" doesn't go far enough. What about "Fourth Reich"?

Please define 'sovereignty'.
Perhaps you can do a better job than the President did. Do a Google on President Bush, Sovereignty, Video for a chuckle.

 

[raedyn]

A slightly related webpage you might find interesting.
http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/003654.html

It compares, point by point, the outcomes of the the investigations into
1) the 60 Minutes story on Duh-ya's military service (that was eventually discredited)
2) the WMD claims the Bush administration based their justification for attacking Iraq on (also discredited)

Something to think about, anyways. or not. whatever. I'm not especially attached to this one, I just thought some of you might find it an interesting link. To each his own.

 

[ghostdog2]

"Funny, too, that we haven't tangled with North Korea...you know, what with our humanitarian interest and our clear and present dangerness. Huh. Wonder why that is?" rmcrobertson

I could be flip and say we're waiting on the French, but that's too predictable.
Sadly, I think you may have me here. But only for the moment.
No. Korea is quite a bit more formidable than Iraq. Harder to be the Bully on the Block when the block includes China.
May have to resort to diplomacy here. We'll see.
Remember always: Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
( Don't go and talk @ GB2's little mind, now. Again, too easy. )

 

[PeachMonkey]

I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to have to read something nice about your country. I mean, it's clear, only a fascist could love America.

I guess I'd be more moved by the arguments about freeing Iraq if we hadn't been supporting Hussein when he was murdering his own people with weapons of mass destruction, if the Iraqi people actually wanted us there, and if that had been our actual justification for invading in the first place.

Given that we've done more harm than good, lied about our reason for invasion, supported the evil murderer before we decided to vilify him, and have become vicious torturers ourselves, it's difficult for me to see much to be proud of in this particular act.

But don't address the facts or the history; instead, hurl insults at "weak minded, America-hating" liberals; it's cute to see such dramatic illustration of modern-day conservative fascism at work.

 

[MisterMike]

I guess I'd be more moved by the arguments about freeing Iraq if we hadn't been supporting Hussein when he was murdering his own people with weapons of mass destruction...

Hmm, did it really bother anyone? I don't recall a whole lot of whoopla back then.

 

[raedyn]

Hmm, did it really bother anyone? I don't recall a whole lot of whoopla back then.

Just because you don't remember hearing a whole lot of hoopla doesn't mean nobody cared! The mainstream media doesn't report everything, ya know. And there is no one person who hears and remembers everything that IS reported. Try watching websites like Amnesty International and Greenpeace that constantly are reporting on human rights and environmental atrocities across the planet. Lots of time no one is listening. That doesn't mean no one cares. The stuff these organizations report on now will be the stuff many people will say "nobody told me" years from now.

 

[The Prof]

Okay folks, get ready to kick my butt, but here it is.

I agreed that Saddam had to go and was glad when we invaded Iraq. I honestly believed and fully supported Bush and company when they sold us the lie about the WMD. Even when the inspectors said they found none I continued to believe and support our president.

Clinton was a liar and Bush is a bigger liar. I am a registered republican but I take Clinton over Bush. My hunch about him was right, that’s why I did not vote for him in either election.

Me and my family will be registering as Democrats for the next election. "VOTE FOR HILLARY in 2008." She will undo the mess created by the current and previous administrations.


Okay everyone, this is my opinion. Sock it to me if you must!


Regards,

The Prof

 

[Kreth]

"VOTE FOR HILLARY in 2008."

It's bad enough she was able to become a NY Senator after being in this state 5 minutes, due to a loophole in our election laws. If she's elected President, I'll be moving to Canada...

Jeff

 

[michaeledward]

If she's elected President, I'll be moving to Canada...

Jeff

Somehow, I doubt it.

Statements like this, however, will have an impact on how others read all of your other posts; even if you were just kidding.

 

[ghostdog2]

Prof: Vote for who you like but it's a little hard to accept your claim to have supported GB if your first fallback position is Hillary and you're proud of the fact that you didn't vote for him in either election.
I don't think HC is the answer. If she doesn't know where Bill is how will she ever find those pesky WMD?
p.s. last remark designed to keep post on topic. This ain't about Hillary. Is it?

 

[lvwhitebir]

I determined that by the statements of Scott Ritter, retired from the US Marine Corps, former leader of UN's weapons inspection teams, a man more qualified than any of us to comment (as he was actually on the groun) I've referenced them in previous threads.

He may have an opinion, and it might be a highly educated one, but he didn't speak for the entire group of inspectors. The inspection reports and briefings to the UN did NOT indicate that they knew the weapons did not exist and that they were done. They indicated serious discrepancies that required more information and Iraqi documentation.

Despite UNSCOM's success in dealing with these obstacles, Iraq had not met its obligations under UN sanctions to fully comply with the original UNSCOM inspections, and as a result, was punished by UN sanctions.

As well as multiple bombings of their facilities and in at least one instance a massing of troops on their border to force compliance. The sanctions weren't working, and many reports lately have indicated that Saddam was simply waiting for the sanctions to be lifted so that he could restart his weapons programs.

The 2003 inspections were underway and Iraq continued to defy the full compliance requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions. However, the UN inspectors and the IAEA requested more time to continue their inspectors, and the United Nations Security Council did not believe further action was necessary until their research was complete.

According to the legal argument put forth in the Butler Report,
1) non-compliance with 1441 put 678 back in force which allowed military action
2) the language of 1441 indicated that no additional UN vote was needed to approve military action.

The Waxman report has found detailed evidence that the Bush Administration specifically ignored evidence contradicting the belief that Hussein had an active WMD program in order to support their desire to go to war.

I'll have to read that report. Do you know where I can get a copy?

Moreover, the WMD programs Hussein had before the original UNSCOM inspections were largely developed with the assistance of United States companies when Iraq was a US client state, and his "evil use" of WMD touted during the run up to the war occurred while Iraq was a US client state, and yet at no time did the US take action against Iraq or stop exporting WMD materials to it.

Off-topic. We give weapons to lots of countries and have multiple times had to reign in the government that didn't use them correctly. Besides, this was pre-1991; we can't blame Bush for that.

These are the kinds of things that lead one to be suspicious, and to think we might have been the "bad guys", or at least seriously incompetent, when it comes to Iraq.

WhiteBirch

 

[rmcrobertson]

So can we blame Bush I and Ronald Reagan, especially given little things like Iran-Contra? They ran the country between 1980 and 1992--hey what was going on then in the Mid-East...why, be darned...