No Weapons of Mass Destruction - basing a war on a lie

[HenryMc]

It was just on the news down here that the guy in charge of the weapons inspections and put there by the Bush Admin has quit and stated that that there áre no weapons' and probably haven't been for a long long time.

As a citizen of one of the countries which was part of the çoalition of the killing' I am appalled that this LIE was used to justify the war.

I guess they're hoping that because they 'won'we'll all be happy and forget the LIE.

Well we wont.

Sadly those of certain politic al views will rush to justify the war with all typesof statements - ie saddam was a evil madman who needed to be stopped - we need to stabilise the middle east - al qaeda -etc - but they , in there heart of hearts will always know the war was based on a lie.

Johh Howard (Aussie Prime Minister - who continued with this deception too ) it's an election year and our sights are on you baby!

[Ron Thorne]

Careful, HenryMc, there's a guy in middle America who's lookin' for anyone who might be suspect ... you know, "pissy little bitches", et al.

Sad, isn't it?

[HenryMc]

and now Colin Powell makes a statement which seems to agree with Kay that there were no weapons. The same Powell who told the UN that there were, that íntelligence'said they were there and had to be eliminated.

I notice that Soap Box Boy and Monte and the rest of the Cons are conspicious by their absent comments.

So Boys DID you believe there were weapons? ...if so, how do you feel now?

and if you DIDN'T believe there were why did you support the contention that there were.

YOU were either lied to or you LIED to us, here - your choice.

Oh and please dont come that lame ..UK/US Govt line about waiting for the outcome of the inspections ....Blix, Kay and now Powell seem to agree that there were no weapons.

[john williams]

Howard has definitely got to go.

The link below leads to a 4 Corners program from October. I posted it before but no-one paid any attention but the program transcript is well worth a read. I never for once believed the war was about WMDs and this news only confirms what many of us believed from the start. Blind loyalty to a political party and its propaganda never ceases to amaze me.


http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...es/default.htm

LIZ JACKSON: Four Corners has tracked down a number of the players, and tonight we can reveal how one small gem of Australian-sourced intelligence was seized on by the CIA, spun and gilded, and then presented by the leaders of the world as their best evidence that Saddam Hussein was starting to build a bomb.

[stonemonkts]

Originally posted by HenryMc
I notice that Soap Box Boy and Monte and the rest of the Cons are conspicious by their absent comments.

So Boys DID you believe there were weapons? ...if so, how do you feel now?

I suspect the WMD argument doesn't matter one way or the other to certain war supporters.

Weapons shmeapons, just get in there and blow the bastards to Hell! To Hell! (cue in military marching band)

[crawjo]

Henry Mc,

I suggest you go to your dictionary, and look up the definition of the word "lie." After doing that, look up the definition of the word "mistake."

Draw your own conclusions.

[Underhound]

Originally posted by HenryMc

So Boys DID you believe there were weapons? ...if so, how do you feel now?

and if you DIDN'T believe there were why did you support the contention that there were.

YOU were either lied to or you LIED to us, here - your choice.

Oh and please dont come that lame ..UK/US Govt line about waiting for the outcome of the inspections ....Blix, Kay and now Powell seem to agree that there were no weapons.

Let's all obediently chant the new official mantra. Everyone... in harmony.

"The world is a better place without Saddam
The world is a better place without Saddam
The world is a better place without Saddam
The world is a better place without Saddam
The world is a better place without Saddam
The world is a better place without Saddam
The world is a better place without Saddam
The world is a better place without Saddam"

[Bill Ashline]

People often misunderstand that this war was fought because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The US led coalition didn't fight the war because Iraq had such weapons. They fought the war because they didn't. Any country that actually possessed weapons of mass destruction would likely use them during a war in which it was attacked. Moreover, no country would ever attack a country that had such weapons because they would be in dread fear of their use. This is why the so-called coalition never bothered to attack North Korea, which likely possesses such weapons. Since Iraq would never have possessed WMD and since the US would never attack a country which actually possessed them, one must ask the US government to reveal the truth about the real reasons behind the Iraq war. The possession of WMD could never be the real reason. No sane country on the planet would attack a country which had them.

Originally posted by crawjo
Henry Mc,

I suggest you go to your dictionary, and look up the definition of the word "lie." After doing that, look up the definition of the word "mistake."

Draw your own conclusions.

• If you think the lies told us by Powell, Rice, Bush, Cheney, et al were inadvertent, you are clearly mistaken. These were deliberate lies and to not see that is indeed to have heavy blinders on.

[Uli]

Crawjo, how comfortable are you with a gov'ment, that goes to war based on a "mistake" and against all warnings from the closest allies and most powerful nations?

And what else do you think is mistaken in Bush's world view?

[tippy]

Getting sucked off by a loose-lipped intern = mistake where nobody died

[Jazzooo]

"Getting sucked off by a loose-lipped intern..."

I'm sorry, but I just had to say that this was probably the most erotic thing ever posted at JC.

[tippy]

No need to apologize but my point was Bush supporters seem awfully ambivalent about this "mistake," meanwhile look at what the republicans were willing to put us through (and expose our children to) and let us pay for (again) day in-day out for almost 2 years over Clinton's illicit bj. Yet now a mistake is just, well, a mistake for crying out loud--could have happened to anybody.

[tippy]

And how many children of Congress and Senate members are serving in the military? Does anybody here know this statistic?

[Brian Olewnick]

re: lie or mistake:

After having read the Atlantic articles and having heard Powell interviewed this past week, I think it's a "mistake" in the sense that the administration made certain assumptions based on what information they had, the info ranged from decent to iffy and, as it stands now, looks like it was largely wrong (it may well have been correct at certain points over the last decade, but doesn't seem to have been as of a year ago). On the other hand, I believe they knew that this data was fuzzy all along and their "lie" was not to say as much to the American public (who knows what they said, exactly, behind closed doors to their would-be allies). Had Bush come out and publicly said, "Look, our info leads us to think that there's a 30% chance that Hussein still possesses WMDs and we believe that to be enough of a risk to justify going in." well, fine at least the cards have been laid on the table. By not doing so (if this scenario is accurate), then "lie" is not, imho, an unreasonable term. fwiw, I don't think such a risk scenario would justify the killing of innocent Iraqis so I'd have still been against the affair.

[Pete C]

Originally posted by Jazzooo

I'm sorry, but I just had to say that this was probably the most erotic thing ever posted at JC.

Just wait until she gets around to Warren G. Harding.

[SinginSumo]

Originally posted by Pete C
Just wait until she gets around to Warren G. Harding.

Or "Woody" Wilson?

[crawjo]

No need to apologize but my point was Bush supporters seem awfully ambivalent about this "mistake," meanwhile look at what the republicans were willing to put us through (and expose our children to) and let us pay for (again) day in-day out for almost 2 years over Clinton's illicit bj. Yet now a mistake is just, well, a mistake for crying out loud--could have happened to anybody.

I didn't support the Starr investigation, but you are comparing apples and oranges here. Clinton lied about his relationship with Lewinsky, and kept lying about it until he was forced to tell the truth. The Bush "mistake" was in the area of interpreting intelligence, which is always a somewhat hazy endeavour. No one disagreed with us that Hussein had violated all of the U.N. resolutions, and no nation doubted that Iraq had WMDs. More importantly, I do believe that the Bush "mistake" is relatively insignificant on an objective level. I believe that because regardless of whether Hussein had WMDs, he clearly had the desire to acquire WMD technology, he clearly had used WMDs in the past, and he clearly was in violation of the cease-fire agreement. But as I've said before, I'm also not the best person to ask about this because I supported the war on primarily humanitarian grounds, because I believed the sanctions were literally killing the Iraqi people.

I continue to believe that something had to happen to those WMDs. I am very suspicious that U.N. inspectors could have gotten rid of everything themselves, and I am wondering if Hussein's strategy might have been to spirit whatever remaining WMDs he had out of the country, perhaps to Syria, and then to direct a guerrilla war against the occupying forces. It wouldn't have been a bad strategy. The missing WMDs would deal a blow to U.S. crediblity while at the same time the "victorious" troops would face continued resistance from insurgent fighters, thus theoretically weakening the coalition's resolve. His goal might have been to undermine U.S. credibility so much that the U.S. would ultimately withdraw and leave a vaccuum of power for him or his men to fill. I don't know if that's what happened but as a strategy it seems entirely plausible. What would have been a better strategy? Out and out using the WMDs would have meant harsh repercussions, and would have solidified the coalition's resolve to destroy his regime. He clearly was outmatched. A strategy like the above might have seemed like his best option once war became imminent. I'm just hypothesizing however.

[HenryMc]

I now know what is meant by 'blind faith'....I suspected that in this debate, those who suppport the war would go to great lengths to distance themselves from the WMD argument. Crawjo's initial 'mistake'argument, for instance and the hoary chestnut 'hey it don't matter we go rid of an evil madman' are two points I expected.

I didn't expect anyone to say that the UN got rid of the weapons for Saddam. This is absolutely unbelievable. Do you really believe this? If so what evidence have you for your 'suspicions'? Oh your 'hypothesiing' here...well.............OK

Man,and that argument that he has used WMDs in the past, well the US has too'. Is this an argument for the UN to step in and disarm the US? Its a spurious argument at best.

Q Was Saddam a danger to the world in Feb 2003?
A No

Q Were there really WMDs ?
A No

Q Does any country in te world have the right to meddle in the political running of another?
A. No

Q. If Human Rights violations are now the reasons for going to war - lets get rid of evil dictators - will the çoalition'be going into other countrties soon?
A = Oh No ....Noooooooooooooo No No No ...unless they are small , have no weapons and ...um LOTSA OIL Baby!


Finally....what you guys do in the States is your matter. If you are comfortable with a Government that is either incompetant (It can not get its security advice right -lotsa mistakes) or disingenuious (WMD WERE the spur to war, or so Bush and Blair etc kept saying) that's your busiiness and will be sorted out in November.

Me..I am concerned for my country. What my Prime Minister did and said about the war. He trumpeted the WMD argument and has already proved that his government will LIE their heads off to stay in office (oh so sorry they will repeat mistaken intelligence ).....that's my problem.

Dearest liberla's,

Once again I have been called out to explain my reasons for the war. Once again I will simlpy state facts that cannot be refuted. Hopefully my dearest Hank and Chris and Uli will somehow "get" it this time. I won't hold my breath.

Try and follow me as closely as you all can, I will type slowly and methodically.

House Joint Resolution 114 granted President Bush the right to use our military against Iraq. It was passed 296-133. Which in dipshit terms means that democrats also voted yea on this issue. 81 of them to be exact. It also passed 77-23 in the Senate, which once again means that some democrats had to vote yea. 29 of em.

To give you folks some perspective on this, in 1991 the first Bush when trying to pass his war resolution only received a vote of 250-183 in the house, and 52-47 in the senate. Keep in mind THIS was the war that you liberla's are so fond of calling "justified". But obviously your representatives saw things differently.

Here's something that you all should also be noting. EVERYONE who voted on the war resolution in October of 2002 HAD COMPLETE AND TOTAL ACCESS TO THE SAME INTELLIGENCE THAT PRESIDENT BUSH WAS BASING HIS PLANS ON!!! Does any of that compute? ANY of it??!!!

In 1991 the U.N. adopted resolution 687 which was basically a cease fire agreement. Go look it up for yourselves. I do not need to go into all the following resolutions that they also presented Iraq with for 12 years, none of which he adhered to. Also, please read the final reports of both Richard Butler and Hans Blix. Both fully agreed that not ALL of Husseins known weapons and toxins had been accounted for.

He had them once before, and the U.N. and everybody else in the world knew it. Please read this next line slowly, and possibly out loud: Due to the wording of U.N. resolution 687, and all the following resolutions, it was SADDAM HUSSEINS burden to prove that these weapons and toxins had been destroyed. The unfortunate part is that Iraq had given full disclosure of it's weapons in the past, so therefore it wasn't up to us, or anyone else to prove that they existed, Iraq had already freely given us that information.

Because Hussein had not lived up to his part of the cease fire agreement, he got bounced.

I personally could not care less if he did indeed have the weapons at the time we went to war. The point is, he did not prove to the world that he didn't, as he had been instructed to do by the U.N.

Got it, Hank?

[HenryMc]

Hank?

Hmmmmm

Oh Scotty you posted ..Im so glad ..I was beginning to think you didn't care....and since you haven't phoned well ..............

[HenryMc]

" I personally could not care less if he did indeed have the weapons at the time we went to war. The point is, he did not prove to the world that he didn't, as he had been instructed to do by the U.N"

Is this the BEST you can do ....why it's beneath you scotty ..there are so many holes one could make in it ...but two will do ...the UN WAS still carrying out its inspections and hadn't finished when Bush rushed to war and since when is the US the UN ...I didn't see any blue berets during the war footage?

Got that Scotty?

[crawjo]

Henry, I didn't say the U.N. hid the weapons for Saddam. I said Saddam's strategy might have been to spirit the weapons out of the country in order to embarrass the U.S.

Put yourself in Hussein's shoes: The U.S. Army is breathing down your neck. Getting ready to invade. What would your strategy be if you were him?

[HenryMc]

Craw you stated

" I am very suspicious that U.N. inspectors could have gotten rid of everything themselves"

and now you say that this didn't mean that the UN inspectors got rid of them but that Saddam spirited them away which it is true you did go on to state..(..oh how very republi-cant (Dubya'd be proud!!) )

[Underhound]

Originally posted by crawjo
Henry, I didn't say the U.N. hid the weapons for Saddam. I said Saddam's strategy might have been to spirit the weapons out of the country in order to embarrass the U.S.

Put yourself in Hussein's shoes: The U.S. Army is breathing down your neck. Getting ready to invade. What would your strategy be if you were him?

So Saddam stockpiled weapons of mass destruction so he could ultimately, uh, embarrass us.

Such a cagey one, that Saddam. I can picture him sitting in his spider hole thinking "Alas, my scheme is a success! Head lice or not, I have finally embarrassed the United States."

Hank, you're diggin in deperation here. Read the facts behind it that I already gave you. What did Butler's final report say? What did Blix's final report say?

If you simply choose to ignore the facts that are readily available to you, then whats the sense of this conversation?

And if there are truly holes in my statement, prove them, don't just talk about them as though you are somehow more in the know than the rest of the world.

Was Blix and the boys in Iraq in 2002? Why didn't Hussein clearly prove at that point(12 fucking years after he should have, by the way)that he was completely clean?

Talk about holes in ones story.

Maybe GW did say it best, Hank. Bring it on!

Opinions do NOT refute facts.

[Dr Dave]

It was a good idea to get rid of Saddam. It was a bad idea to lie about why.

[crawjo]

Originally posted by HenryMc
Craw you stated

" I am very suspicious that U.N. inspectors could have gotten rid of everything themselves"

and now you say that this didn't mean that the UN inspectors got rid of them but that Saddam spirited them away which it is true you did go on to state..(..oh how very republi-cant (Dubya'd be proud!!) )

Well, isn't that what we are supposed to believe now, that the inspectors eliminated his WMD programs? They did, after all, find some things while they were in there in the 90s.

[crawjo]

Originally posted by Underhound
So Saddam stockpiled weapons of mass destruction so he could ultimately, uh, embarrass us.

Such a cagey one, that Saddam. I can picture him sitting in his spider hole thinking "Alas, my scheme is a success! Head lice or not, I have finally embarrassed the United States."

No, consider my full argument. That the embarrassment, coupled with the continued attacks, would weaken U.S. resolve and ultimately lead to the withdrawal of support at home, and an end to the occupation, leaving Saddam (if he had never been captured) to reemerge.

What I'm asking is: right before the war, if you were Saddam Hussein, what would have been your strategy? Using the WMDs would have proven that the U.S. was right all along, and only led to very harsh reprisals. Saddam is a snake. He was probably trying to figure out a way for him to survive the mess he'd gotten himself into. Again, I ask...if you were Saddam, what would you do?

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
Got it, Hank?

• Yes, Scott, Hank has indeed got it! Sorry to say, you still haven't, and you can repeat the appointed Bush regime's pitiful lines until you are blue in the face, but fact will remain fact.