NO WMD

[lakewinola]

"My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons," he said on National Public Radio's "Weekend Edition." "I don't think they exist."

-- Bush's handpicked WMD inspector David Kay.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/index.html

[Spence]

Bill Clinton's penis is hiding them.

Sorry, just thought I'd beat Skinzaholic to the punch.

No surprise here, Lakewinola. This issue has been bubbling for months now and Kay, who went to Iraq in October convinced he would find WMD, has now reversed his position in the face of the facts. It's a shame there are not more people in the U.S. government who have got the decency and guts to do something like that.

[Patrick]

Funny, but the way I see it. The WMD were captured when they pulled Saddam out of a hole. That was good enough for me. ...... Now get the country on it's feet and let's get our troops home.

[RedskinsDave]

Kay said that the administration was misled by the data and not the other way around.

[NamVet4]

Originally posted by Patrick
Funny, but the way I see it. The WMD were captured when they pulled Saddam out of a hole. That was good enough for me. ...... Now get the country on it's feet and let's get our troops home.

Amen!

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Kay said that the administration was misled by the data and not the other way around.

Misled? Face it, Bush had a preconceived desire to go into Iraq, and choose to follow the data which supported his decision without serious analysis and ignored anything that seemed to indicate that perhaps there were no more WMD at the time. It is just as simple as that. It is clear if one looks at the policies espoused by those involved, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, in the years even before Bush was in office.

Even now the admin is trying to focus on the "bad" data provided. They are setting up some fall guy(s) to blame. Just like they have ignored, to the point of redacting virtually all mention, of the evidence of Saudi involvement with 9/11.

[Spence]

Bush's own speechwriter, David Frum, wrote that in his first day in office, Bush told his senior advisors that he was determined to "dig that man" out of Baghdad. Funny, he never told the American people about that during the 2000 elections.

If you allow public officials to deceive you without consequence, you are guaranteeing further deception in the future. This deception has cost people their lives. Several more American soldiers died today in Iraq.

[NCskinsfanatic]

Who's too say they werent moved to syria?It's real easy to sit back and judge based on some facts,some opinions but very little proof.We cant find Osama either but that doesnt mean he doesnt or never did exist.I think he probably had weapons or was in the process of trying to obtain them.He was defiant,he was a murderer,he had used chemical agents in the past and would not play ball with the UN.Should we just have continued to ignore it like Bill did?I think we did the right thing,and usually the right thing isnt very popular.I want our troops to get back homebut the Bush bashing isnt going to help that either.And I think it's a bit foolish to think we will ever elect a leader that doesnt have certain agendas not discussed in their campaign.

[Minnesota Mike]

Originally posted by NCskinsfanatic
Who's too say they werent moved to syria?It's real easy to sit back and judge based on some facts,some opinions but very little proof.We cant find Osama either but that doesnt mean he doesnt or never did exist.I think he probably had weapons or was in the process of trying to obtain them.He was defiant,he was a murderer,he had used chemical agents in the past and would not play ball with the UN.Should we just have continued to ignore it like Bill did?I think we did the right thing,and usually the right thing isnt very popular.I want our troops to get back homebut the Bush bashing isnt going to help that either.And I think it's a bit foolish to think we will ever elect a leader that doesnt have certain agendas not discussed in their campaign.

Osama is most likely in Pakistan, but because Bush wants Musharraf on board for the Caspian pipeline project through Afganistan, Osama is safe there.

Yes Saddam used chemical agents in the past. It was at the urging and direction of the US in the war against Iran.

He wouldn't play ball with the UN? That could describe GWB also, couldn't it?

Americans are dying in Iraq and the reasons given for it seem to be constantly in a state of flux - sometimes it's WMD, sometimes its the immenent threat to the US, sometimes it's ties to Al Qaeda, sometimes it's the war on Terror, and sometimes it's to free the Iraqis.

Basically the only constant here is that Iraq is sitting on lots and lots of oil. And Bush has a lot of friends that are poised to makes lots of $$$ from that oil.

[Yudolindo]

You don't invade Iraq if you want oil; invade Canada: they are closer and more placid that Iraqis. Bush invaded Iraq to establish a democracy, the idea being that it would spread and end the despotic tyrannies that have dominated the region. WMD was a plausible rational, as I doubt Americans would support an invasion based on charity alone. None the less, Saddam was a monster and I am quite glad that he and his psychopathic children will not longer terrorize the Iraqi people or there neighbors.

[lakewinola]

I can't believe how fast conservatives have turned about and now support using the US military for humanitarian reasons. I remember when they were all up in arms when we went into bosnia and somalia.

They say Saddam was a bad man and was bad for his people. Back then they said stay out, when we tried to stop starvation, and genocide.

[lakewinola]

I do have a question though, since there are no WMD's in Iraq, and there is not a shread of evidence tieing him to Al-Queda. Is it legal for us to hold him prisoner? For what charge? Was it legal for us to invade Iraq in the first place?

[RedskinsDave]

Uh Lake, a little thing called genocide maybe?

Bosnia and Somalia reeked of wagging the dog. I had no problem with Bosnia, Somalia was a mess.

[Spence]

Originally posted by NCskinsfanatic
Who's too say they werent moved to syria? And who is to say that the WMD were not spirited off to the magical land of Narnia?

Sweet Jeebus, give me a break. Do you have any evidence for this? No. Is there any reason to suspect that the Syrians would invite a U.S. invasion by accepting those weapons? No. Did the Syrian regime have any love for Saddam Hussein? No.

You guys knock Clinton for parsing words? You guys have surpassed him easily.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Uh Lake, a little thing called genocide maybe? What genocide? You mean the anti-Kurdish genocide of the late 1980s that the Reagan administration knew of and did nothing about? Or do you mean the anti-Shia genocide immediately after the Persian Gulf War that the Bush administration knew of and did nothing about? Which one?

And, uh, why invade Iraq in 2003 when the genocide took place in 1988 and 1991-2? And why not mention genocide as a reason to invade Iraq, rather than going on and on and on about a non-existent WMD threat?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Uh Lake, a little thing called genocide maybe?

Bosnia and Somalia reeked of wagging the dog. I had no problem with Bosnia, Somalia was a mess.

Somalia was certainly was a mess, especialy as compared to, ohhh, say Iraq?

[Spence]

George H.W. Bush put American troops in Somalia and he did it as a lame-duck president [after losing the November election to Clinton].

[RedskinsDave]

We've been through that already and I already showed you that he was pulling troops out and Clinton sent more in.

[AGibbsGirl]

Originally posted by Spence

No surprise here, Lakewinola. This issue has been bubbling for months now and Kay, who went to Iraq in October convinced he would find WMD, has now reversed his position in the face of the facts. It's a shame there are not more people in the U.S. government who have got the decency and guts to do something like that.


Correct me if I'm wrong...wasn't it David Kay who was the most fervent and adamant about there BEING WMD in Iraq? He was the one who pushed and pushed...

[Yudolindo]

Originally posted by Spence
What genocide? You mean the anti-Kurdish genocide of the late 1980s that the Reagan administration knew of and did nothing about? Or do you mean the anti-Shia genocide immediately after the Persian Gulf War that the Bush administration knew of and did nothing about? Which one?

And, uh, why invade Iraq in 2003 when the genocide took place in 1988 and 1991-2? And why not mention genocide as a reason to invade Iraq, rather than going on and on and on about a non-existent WMD threat?

Saddam killed roughly a million of his own citizens, and while his chemical agent attack on the Kurds was by far the most dramatic example of his barbarism, it is also the least responsible for the vast human suffering he inflicted: most were beaten or shot to death in relative silence and anonymity. There is a very significant reason why Reagan did nothing, and, since I am assuming that you were alive during the Iranian hostage crises, I will elaborate unless you disagree (I can only type so much :)). Why invade Iraq in 2003? Perhaps to repay the debt our failure created in 1991. WMDs could still be in the country. Iraq is nation the size of California and WMDs could be buried anywhere. It does not really matter: WMDs acted as a “Cassius Belli” (you’re a lawyer, how good is my Latin?) of sorts, though we did not need it. However, I doubt that the American people would be charitable enough to invade a country for a long term, seemingly intangible benefit; it is much easier to convince people to support a war when they believe that a madman has VX gas at his disposal.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
There is a very significant reason why Reagan did nothing, and, since I am assuming that you were alive during the Iranian hostage crises, elaborate unless you disagree.

I would greatly like for you to elaborate, as it appears that you are implying that it is OK to support, or ignore the indiscretions, of a sadistic tyrant so long as our enemies are his too. In my opinion, that is exactly the reason why we find ourselves in these untenable positions so often, like in Nicaragua, Panama, the Phillipines, Cambodia (where we supported Pol Pot, and later supported the idea of the Khmer Rouge having a role in a coalition to govern after the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops). The list goes on and on. Surely, this is not a good defense?

[Yudolindo]

I don’t think it is a matter of right and wrong. The Iranian revolution was the first established manifestation of a serious threat to Middle Eastern stability: revolutionary Islamism. The Reagan administration’s willingness to put up with Saddam went beyond simple spite of Iran for the Ayatollah’s humiliation of the United States and the abuse of her citizens: the Reagan administration feared that Shiite Islamism would spread west across Iraq, becoming an unstoppable force that would dominate the region and thus cripple the west. Reagan was in fact very unhappy with Saddam, and played him so well that Saddam bankrupted his country in a war in which he gained nothing. We found ourselves in “untenable,” positions quite often because of the cold war, which, with the exception of the Second World War, was the most important ideological battle this world has ever experienced. It was a war we could not loose and people made very hard decisions.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
I don’t think it is a matter of right and wrong. The Iranian revolution was the first established manifestation of a serious threat to Middle Eastern stability: revolutionary Islamism. The Reagan administration’s willingness to put up with Saddam went beyond simple spite of Iran for the Ayatollah’s humiliation of the United States and the abuse of her citizens: the Reagan administration feared that Shiite Islamism would spread west across Iraq, becoming an unstoppable force that would dominate the region and thus cripple the west. Reagan was in fact very unhappy with Saddam, and played him so well that Saddam bankrupted his country in a war in which he gained nothing. We found ourselves in “untenable,” positions quite often because of the cold war, which, with the exception of the Second World War, was the most important ideological battle this world has ever experienced. It was a war we could not loose and people made very hard decisions.

BUT: What did supporting Saddam have to do with our hostages, which you had cited earlier? "Played" Saddam? Played him so well that he massacred his own people? Again, you seem to be implying that it is ok to support an SOB so long as he is our SOB.

[dukeuch]

The other problem with the whole "cold war" explanation is that most of the countries we inserted ourselves into basically viewed their conflicts as civil wars, not a global referendum on communism. Further, in a remarkable number of these cases, the communist revolutionaries were opposing despotic rulers whom the US either put in place or supported, again to protect our short term (read: business profits) interests.

Like it or not, what is in the best interest of the United States is not always (and not usually) in the best interest of the country in question or the rest of the world, for that matter. We may decide that, screw 'em, we'll look out for ourselves first, but if so, we should expect dire consequences in the future.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
It does not really matter: WMDs acted as a “Cassius Belli” (you’re a lawyer, how good is my Latin?) of sorts, though we did not need it. However, I doubt that the American people would be charitable enough to invade a country for a long term, seemingly intangible benefit; it is much easier to convince people to support a war when they believe that a madman has VX gas at his disposal.

So, what you are saying is, if there are no WMD, you do not mind that Bush lied about their existence in order to gain support of the war from the American people who would not have supported the war otherwise?

[Yudolindo]

BUT: What did supporting Saddam have to do with our hostages, which you had cited earlier? "Played" Saddam? Played him so well that he massacred his own people? Again, you seem to be implying that it is ok to support an SOB so long as he is our SOB.

…I think you missed the point. Saddam was a Sunni strong man in a country dominated by Shiites; he was, in the eyes of the Reagan administration, the only thing keeping the wave of Islamism that started in Iran from spreading across the entire region. The hostage crisis was the exclamation point of the Ayatollahs political doctrine: the utter contempt for America and the west. Islamism was seen as the greater evil. Saddam’s opportunistic attack on Iran could have well been won, except that his use of chemical weapons and his general barbarity made Reagan/Bush Sr. more inclined to feed him bogus intelligence and then cut off support entirely. In other words, his early success in Iran was because of us, as was his eventual failure.

The other problem with the whole "cold war" explanation is that most of the countries we inserted ourselves into basically viewed their conflicts as civil wars, not a global referendum on communism. Further, in a remarkable number of these cases, the communist revolutionaries were opposing despotic rulers whom the US either put in place or supported, again to protect our short term (read: business profits) interests.

It’s irrelevant what the countries involved viewed their war was as; all that matters is what they actually were: cold war era proxy wars. Lets look at Korea, for example. North invades south; south fights back, civil war, right? Not even close. The North Koreans, trained by their communist counterparts, flew Soviet made Migs (though in some cases, Chinese and Russian pilots helped out and flew them) against the forces fighting in the south’s name, who flew American f-86 Sabers. When the north was on the verge of collapse, the Chinese threw camouflage into the wind and swarmed into the country to kill Americans fighting under UN auspices. It was a test: who had the better gear, the Reds, or the Red, White and Blues? Who had the bigger allies? Who really dominated the global political and military arena? Who would win if the bomb dropped? Because in part of the uncertainties created by these little wars, the big one never happened. Our experience Vietnam and the Russians in Afghanistan are other examples of what a proxy war looked like. Most conflicts of this period were as such. As proof, notice the human race still exists. That was the real interest. If, when you mention the business interests, you mean the “banana wars,” I would say this: if all of your stuff were about to be swiped by a communist, wouldn’t you be pissed off?

Like it or not, what is in the best interest of the United States is not always (and not usually) in the best interest of the country in question or the rest of the world, for that matter. We may decide that, screw 'em, we'll look out for ourselves first, but if so, we should expect dire consequences in the future.

Oh, right, a nuclear confrontation is in everyone’s interest. Moreover, if you think that democracies have horrible criminal records, then perhaps you should investigate what communist countries do to people. Communism, at least in its Leninist/Maoist incarnations is a very, very bad thing. The existence of totalitarian communist regimes is in no ones interest.

So, what you are saying is, if there are no WMD, you do not mind that Bush lied about their existence in order to gain support of the war from the American people who would not have supported the war otherwise?

That is what I am saying. All other arguments aside, do you expect a government to tell the truth? Did Bill Clinton? Bush Sr.? Ronald Reagan? Carter? How about Jerry Ford? Oh, Nixon was an honest guy…its not about truth sometimes…Saddam being out of power is a very good thing for humanity. So, lied too or not, I, for one at least, don’t really care.

[dukeuch]

Man Yudo, you are one spin-meister. I never intended to argue all these points, but I'll keep it brief:

Reagan embraced "madman/tyrant" Hussein, plain and simple, because he was fighting Iran. Reagan did not care that he was pillaging his own country, and Iran was more interested in getting the US out than exporting it's fundamentalism. To imply that there was such a sophisticated plan as initially supporting Hussein and then subtly shifting away by feeding bogus info is completely unsupportable. Reagan's involvement in the area was remarkable in it's unsophistication and bungling. For Christ's sake, Reagan approved of the sale of weapons to IRAN while terrorists held Americans. By the way, do you remember where the hostages were actually held?

If you think it is irrelevant what the population of a country thinks and wants when it comes to thier own self-determinaiton and government, you are lost to reason. It has to be at least a factor in our decisions. And should we choose, as we have in the past, to support non-communist tyrants to the point where only radical revolutionaries offer hope for change for the oppressed population, we will get what we got. WOuld I be pissed if all my stuff were wiped out b/c of communists? Yes. Would you be pissed if you had no stuff, despite all of your hard work, becuase a despotic non-communist stole your possesions and prevented you from electing the leader of your choice? You know, there was always the opportunity to take into account the democratic process, or lack there of, in the "banana republics" and force true democracy rather than just looking at profit maximization which a dictator could provide.

You seem to be deluding yourself about the tired old "domino theory". The prime example of this doctrine was Vietnam. We lost. The biggest effect I can see on what happened after the communists took over was the defeat of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Nuclear confrontation: Please. We were talking about Iraq here. I am a firm believer that as distasteful as it seems, the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction as effective in preventing the use of nuclear weapons. But wait, for us it is even better; there is nobody out there anymore who could come close to matching our nuclear might. So now it is Unilaterally Assured Destruction in our favor. Everyone tosses around the term "madman" as if any leader of a country would dream of launching a nuclear attack on us knowing it would guarentee that their country is wiped of the map.

You are right, I believe democracy is the best form of government, so let's actually support it rather than pay lip service as we did while we propped up despots in the countries I have cited previously. Do you think foriegn countries are so stupid as to not see what we have done in the past, sometimes in their own country? Christ, WE were involved in the Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan, just because they fought the Soviets, and look where it got us.

Finally, I DO expect to be told the truth by my president. I know that often that truth may be bent, colored, shaded, whatever, but to me it is always a matter of degree, and consequences. Going to war should be a last resort, not a matter of policy. When it is falsely presented as a "last choice", so that the government can proceed with a course of action otherwise against the will of the people and the law, I want accountability.
Regime change in Saudi Arabia would be a wonderful thing for humanity, do you support it, do you think Bush should?