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/...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?