Bush, Cheney Concede Iraq Had No WMDs

Baldimo writes:

Um, those mobile labs were for meteorological purposes, and the centrifuges were for conventional weapons.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0615-02.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1009-01.htm

If I didn't know any better, you're sounding as desperate as Bush these days, Baldimo:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6200854/

baldimo will never falter from his belief that the actions in iraq were a-okay. No sense arguing with him, and that's okay too.

gungasnake:

Do you have any idea how self-denigrating and stupid you sound? It really is quite astounding...

Both kickycan and myself smell that sweet odor of desperation.

Perhaps you can comment on the FACT that the antrax attacks that happened in this country were most likely manufactured HERE, and yet those attacks killed very few Americans. But it was enough to SCARE Americans, and several of those Anthrax attacks were directed at Democratic congressmen.

Worldnet daily is a neconservative propagandist site and nothing more. I cannot take anything they say seriously, especially when THEY are currently contributing to this air of desperation that permeates the air.

The fact that we haven't been "attacked" since 9/11 means absolutely NOTHING, because the last devestating attack against the U.S. happened over 60 years ago, and that was by an actual COUNTRY, not a terrorist organization with NO TIES TO IRAQ.

You blur the lines of the Bush-Cheney bullshit pretty well, gugnasnake, but it ain't gonna work. Not this time.

Too many lies eventually reveals the profound truth, especially in regards to the character of this administration.

Say goodbye to Bush this November. Believe me, MANY of us in this country, and MOST people around the world, will not miss him when he's gone.

I say good riddance to the bastard.

Has Kerry apologized for misleading the Senate since he was most vocal about disarming Saddam?
Has Kerry apologized to Howard Dean for slamming him as ignorant during the primaries?

Or is it that you base your decisions on the evidence available at the time?

You're probably right, Bi-Polar Bear. I just wish neocons like Baldimo would get their facts straight before even OFFERING a substantive argument or a cogent point.

woiyo:

WHO made the decision to go to war where THOUSANDS have died needlessly. And for WHAT?

Give me a break!

And Kerry didn't mislead the Senate, woiyo. He's not the majority NOR the minority leader. Bush and Cheney mislead the Senate. They are the current leaders of this country.

Do YOU think Bush will apologize to EVERY FAMILY that has lost a son or daughter based on his mistakes?

I seriously doubt it.

Hey woiyo, accorging the the Duelfer report Saddam was already disarmed, and it was done without a full scale invasion. The bill that Kerry voted for, and what he advocated, was not invasion and military overthrow. I know it's a little more complex than most things we hear from Washington, but it's worth grasping. And since Kerry wasn't president -- of the US or of the Senate -- I don't think he should apologize for that. I have my own issues with his vote as I think he should have been smart enough to see what Bush was going for, but that's a far cry from establishing a separate intelligence agency outside of the CIA whose sole purpose is to manufacture intelligence which supports going to war and contradicts all evidence to the contrary, and filling the airwaves with said bogus nonsense in order to manufacture support for a war which benefits almost no-one.

woiyo:

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam was dismantling his wmds all through the 90's.

Do you remember who was president then?

Freeduck, I agree, Kerry's vote for the war is one of the few disconcerting issues I have with him, but maybe we should also keep in mind that Bush and Cheney did a rather effective job in convincing the majority of Americans, via the phrase "the enemy attacked us," as reasons for invading Iraq, which pretty much equates Saddam Hussein directly with 9/11.

I need to correct you on your last statement; this war does offer a direct benefit. It has boosted the earnings of the top weapons manufacterers and military contractors in the country. And a former CEO of one of those contractors is now the Vice President of the United States, who is a compulsive liar with a bad heart.

Boy, how did we ever get to this point?

As the article I linked noted, the idea of using biological fermentation to produce hydrogen is basically idiotic and nobody does it other than in experiments. The idea of having the equipment to use biological fermentation to produce hydrogen for balloons in a mobile lab is doubly idiotic.

gungasnake:

And while you continue to argue about the minutia of specificity here, both Iran and North Korea are getting armed and more dangerous with each passing day.

I will concede the point of the weapons labs, but not the centrifuge. In the link you posted it mentions the aluminum tubes as being used for conventional weapons, but I fail to see why you would use a buried centrifuge for conventional weapons. If it was for conventional weapons, then how come it was buried under a rose garden and not out in the open.



I'm not sounding desperate, just hadn't heard the news. I hadn't seen any news on the weapons labs, due to the fact that I was with out news for about 8 months while doing training for the military.



What do you propose we do about Iran and NK? You wouldn't have supported a war with either one of them either.

Dookie - Our elected officials, Kerry included, gave the president authority to go to war. IMO, they are ALL responsible for getting us started in Iraq. Kerry could have not supported giving the president the authority, but based on the information presented to him, he feft it was the correct thing to do.

I agree with Kerry in this regard.

From the Duelfer Report(.pdf):
As part of its investigation into a possible Iraqi mobile BW agent production program, two mobile trailers that were recovered near Irbil and Mosul in 2003 have been examined by ISG. These trailers had tanks or suspected fermentors on board and were initially suspected to be part of a mobile BW agent production program. ISG judges that its Iraqi makers almost certainly designed and built the equipment exclusively for the generation of hydrogen. ISG judges that it is impractical to use the equipment for the production and weaponization of BW agent, and cannot therefore be part of any BW program. A report covering the detailed investigation of the trailers by ISG, is attached as Annex 4.
• ISG has found no evidence to support the view that the trailers were used, or intended to be used, for the production of BW agents, or the filling of BW weapons.
• The design of the equipment makes it unsuitable for the production of BW agent and impractical as part of a BW weapons production system.
• The information gathered, and the assessment of the equipment on the trailers, are consistent with the theory that Iraq developed the trailers for hydrogen gas production.

Vol 3: Biological Warfare Section, p. 43
ISG = Iraq Survey Group
BW = Biological Warfare

Yeah, that was why I said 'almost no-one'. I didn't want to start a whole other topic... it's hard enough just convincing people to believe their eyes.

I'm no expert, so I couldn't honestly answer that question. I never supported the war on Iraq, because we all knew then what we know now (that is, all of the millions around the world who were against Bush's invasion). One of my few gripes with Kerry is that he voted for the war. I wish he would change his tune on that, and now start offering some regret in that matter. Lord knows he has plenty of ammunition now in which to change his mind. And please, don't refer to this as "flip-flopping." It's juvenile, and I could throw twice as many Bush flip-flops right back at you.

But if you watched the debates, Kerry was very succinct in pointing out all the resources we would still have at our disposal if we were to follow a framework propogated by the Clinton administration, in conjunction with help from China, our biggest trading partner. Bilateral vs. ALL parties coming to the table would only increase the options we would have in dealing with North Korea. No matter how intensely xenophobic that communist country may be, they are still suffering due to the horrendously failed policies of Kim Jong II, and any economic incentives (food, medicine, basic human needs) would have gone a long way in hopefully averting the situation we are faced with now.

By invading Iraq and destroying it's infrastructure, Iran now sees an opportunity to influence what takes place in that country, as it also witnesses a massive influx of terrorists into that country, destabilizing it even further. An Iraq with Saddam still in power (but effectively contained) would have kept Iraq more on the sidelines, and probably less empowered in the region.

The reasons for all this are clear, but never discussed; it is about the oil, not the wmds. Plain and simple. Middle Easterners regard their oil as god given, and when westerners come in taking it, the results can be rather devestating, as we are witnessing today.

WMDs were weapons of mass distraction as we are now finding out, and Saddam apparently WAS destroying them through the 90's when Clinton was president. Clinton also attacked Iraq remotely a few times in order to further compel Saddam to get rid of his weapons. It apparently worked.

A strictly western style of thinking on this matter only belies your arguments. We cannot think as we did during the Crusades. The Middle East represents thousands of years of human biblical history, and that history is engraved in the minds of each generation. Americans have only several hundreds years of existence as a country in which to base their ideologies, which have changed significantly throughout the decades. The Middle East is much less prone to such ideological change, as we have seen time and again.

woiyo:



Then you agree with Kerry when he said regarding the authorization vote:

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has mde to the American people in recent days -- to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolutionsetting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

And he has. Kerry felt that giving authorization was the best thing to do as long as Bush followed the guidelines set forth. It is obvious Bush did not, told us Saddam could imminently attack us in 45 minutes and knew EXACTLY where those weapons were.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

His speech from October 9, 2002 is not only highly relevant, but shows how consistent this man has been throughout this process.

Now, to be once again clear; who made the decision to invade Iraq and start the war?

And GW went the the UN, got the resolutions, provided a limited timetable (90 days if I recall) which I believe supports his "TOUGH AND IMMEDIATE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS. Then, when the deadline passed, he, with our allies, took action.

Therfore, which items failed the Kerry test?

the 90 days?
getting the UN Resolution to provide the 90 days?
taking action?
Taking action with support of many countries but France and Germany and Russia. Note that we have no found that those 3 nations were fully supporting the curroption of the oil for food program in concert with the UN which provided Saddam the revenue to re-generate his arsenal.

The inspectors were making progress when Bush gave them 48 hours to get out or their safety would be compromised. Now, if they were making progress, and as the latest weapons report indicates they certainly were, then why the RUSH?

Perhaps you forget that France helped us in the FIRST Gulf War. And speaking of corruption, you probably forgot that Cheney was doing millions of dollars in business with Saddam when he was with Halliburton, so give us a break here. Your hypocrisy, once again, is stunning.

Kofi Annan has denied the corruption within the oil for food program. And you offer us yet ANOTHER untruth, by stating that monies gotten from the oil for food program were providing Saddam the revenue to re-generate his arsenal.

HE WASN'T REGENERATING ANYTHING. Read the report, face the truth, and WAKE UP!!

Quote, "Dookie - Our elected officials, Kerry included, gave the president authority to go to war." The reason our elected officials, including Kerry, gave the president authority to go to war is based on the exaggerations provided to them by this administration that Saddam had WMDs ready to be used against us. You must have a very short memory, but Colin Powell even made the claim before the UN that they knew the locations where Saddam's WMDs were. Go back and reread the SOU speech by Bush. You might get some insight into what really happened. Even Senator Diane Feinstein said this administration lied to them. If they were not lied to, most, if not all, of the democratic senators would not have approved the war with Iraq. I think that number is about 75 or 77 that would have voted against the war.