IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

Quoting, just to get my own comment in context.

Are you sure, Steppenwolf? Maybe not the streets of DC, but congressional offices? We had quite a go 'round with anthrax being mailed here and there, and there was commentary indicating that there were only so many nations with the potential for producing weapons grade anthrax. I'm not at all sure the actual source has been confirmed. Not evidence, but an indication. Had I been an innocent suspect, I would have fallen over backwards to convince the world of my innocence. Iraq did not.

Or ridding the world of despicable, murdering, monster dictators. That's where we're heading, where we need to head and where we'll get to.

A world without dictators. Maybe in my lifetime. Makes me smile.

And I hate to even re-argue this very predictable point, but, was Saddam the only dictator with WMD? Are there not still dictators, some of whom are quite unstable (Lil' Kim) who posess nuclear and biological weapons? In fact, our friends Pakistan have these and are geographically handy to a group of people who have sworn to kill us wherever they find us and, in fact, attacked us.

WMD has been around for a very long time. As someone else pointed out, Saddam had them since the 80s. What's the sudden urgency? If you say 9-11 I'm going to throw up right now. No, your friends who architected this war have been wanting to do it for a very long time. With the current admin, they got their wish.

I believe it was shown that that anthrax was from a US strain. And, the horrors, we still don't know where it came from.

Pass the hash. If GWB had run either of his campaigns on the promise that we would have a war on dictatorships, do you think he would have won? The American people, and especially conservatives, are not interested in going to war to establish democracies everywhere, it just sounds like a nice justification when the WMD fails to show up.

Make no mistake, I have no qualms with either preemptive military force or the removal of tyrants. However, shoddy factual analyses sit poorly with me. I give Saddam no benefit of the doubt. But I also won't give Bush's team a free ride when they mess up. I fear that the administration's decision to enter this war was based on a poor analysis about both the costs and benefits of this war -- the WMD question is only part of my concern. The benefits have been overstated by unrealistic estimates about the threat. Just as the benefits have been overstated, the costs and long-term consequences have been understated: I have yet to see anything approaching the stability promised, and the threat of large-scale revolution in Iraq is as dangerous to us as anything we previously imagined. To be honest, although I've leaped into the WMD question head first, my largest concern is that the administration failed to properly assess reconstruction (part of the aforementioned costs and consequences). Discussion prior to the war was laced with a curious mixture of unrealistic optimism (guaranteed, workable, and friendly democracy in Iraq) and unrealistic pessimism (deadly chemicals and other materials shipped onto American shores at the behest of a rather impotent tyrant).

Anyway, I realize that I differ on this than you or Brandon. It was probably silly for me to enter this futile and perpetual argument (after all, the related Iraq page is up to 500 and some odd pages)... I think I shall step out now unless any new facts emerge. We may all be spinning our wheels here.

Regarding Roger's comment, I think FreeDuck aptly stated my position.

That's a point, Freeduck. Still, a number of biological strains were sent to a university in Iraq before the gulf war by the US. I don't know why the quantities involved were approved, by the way. They were large for any research project, from what I understand.

Don't get too far away, Steppenwolf. You're good at this.

posted January 13, 2004, updated 12:30 p.m.

What comes after end of WMD search?

Iraq Survey Group wants Iraqi scientists, including 'Dr. Germ,' released.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com


Now that the White House has confirmed a report that the Iraq Survey Group has stopped looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, all that remains is for ISG head Charles Duelfer to give his final report this spring to Congress. Reports indicate that Mr. Duelfer will allow his earlier report from September to stand as the definitive statement on the question. That report said the former-Iraqi president Saddam Hussein did not have WMD, and had destroyed the last of his WMD "more than 10 years ago." Duelfer's latest report, however, will also note that Mr. Hussein had the "intent but not the capacity" to make such weapons.
The Guardian reports that the ISG has also made an appeal to the Pentagon for the release of several Iraqi scientists, including the supposedly notorious "Dr. Germ," Rihab Taha, and "Mrs. Anthrax," Huda Amash. The two women, along with several other scientists, have been held by the US for almost two years.

Although US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has apparently approved the release of some of the prisoners, and the Iraqi government is not opposed to the idea, the newspaper says the scientists have been given no indication of when they may be released.

In September, the Guardian had reported that some observers in the region believe the scientists were not being released because they "know too much" about US involvement with Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion.
Why has she [Ms. Taha] not been let go? She has not been charged with any crime, and even if she were, could she not be freed on bail? Is it that the US authorities don't want her talking to the press about the biological specimens she received from American companies in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein was Washington's friend? Are they worried she might produce the receipts she has said she holds?
In an interview that will air this Friday, US President George Bush tells ABC's Barbara Walters that the invasion of Iraq was "definitely worth it" despite the lack of WMD, which the administration had originally given as its reason for invading the country.
Bush told Walters, 'I felt like we'd find weapons of mass destruction — like many here in the United States, many around the world. The United Nations thought he had weapons of mass destruction. So, therefore: ... we need to find out what went wrong in the intelligence gathering. ... Saddam was dangerous and the world is safer without him in power.'
Meanwhile, the Media Matters website takes issue with a comment about when the administration started to use Iraq's supposed possession of WMD as a reason to invade, made by Alexander Haig, secretary of state under former President Ronald Reagan on a recent edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews.
Mr. Haig said: "No, I don't think the weapons of mass destruction was the key issue from the beginning. It became that when we brought it to the United Nations and the British made-insisted that they had to have something besides just getting rid of Saddam. And so we brought that in and it distorted the whole thing, as going to the UN did."
Media Matters, however, says that Bush began laying out the WMD claims as a reason to go to war with Iraq during his Jan. 2002 State of the Union address (better known as the "Axis of Evil" speech), "almost a year" before US Secretary of State Colin Powell had his presentation to the UN Security Council. The Associated Press also reports on the pre-invasion comments of Bush and members of his administration about Iraq possessing WMD.
In two related issues, AP reported last Sunday that Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and one of the most outspoken critics of pre-invasion US claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, will run unopposed for a third term. The US had tried for several months to find someone to run against Mr. ElBaradei, but could find no takers.
The Daily Times of Pakistan reported that the US is now trying to convince 12 of the 35 members states serving on the IAEA to vote against ElBaradei, and eventually replace him with a candidate who would take a harder line on countries like Iran.
Diplomats report that this is "unlikely," especially since some of ElBaradei's most vocal critics, such as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security John Bolton, have announced they are leaving the Bush administration.
Also, The Boston Globe reports that the official who "insisted that Bush make the claim" that Hussein was seeking uranium for nuclear weapons in Africa, a claim largely disproved, is "poised to assume a top State Department job that would make him the lead US arms negotiator with Iran and North Korea." Robert Joseph is "on the short list" to become undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, "the nation's senior diplomat in charge of negotiating arms control treaties."
The Globe reports that diplomatic observers say that the appointment of Mr. Joseph could signal "a further consolidation of US foreign policy under the tight-knit group of national security officials that dominated in the first Bush term and aggressively promoted intelligence linking Iraq to weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, despite cautions in the intelligence community."

Since Joe Nation and I served together in the last fiasco called a war (the Vietnam "conflict" for those too young or too fried to remember), I believe the act of war carries with it a kind of needle for us that continually proods our memory to look back at what it cost us. Neither Joe nor I suffered much more than the loss of friends. But I ask "isn't that enough"?

This war of attrition we now find ourselves mired in has many mirror images of Vietnam attached to it. It is to any student of modern history, a war that cannot ultimately be won by the United States. Like Vietnam, it is impossible to know who the enemy is with any certainty. It is a factional war, with factions that are both religious and ethnic. Any of these factions can become an enemy at any given time with little provocation.

There is one additional problem that no one in our so-called Defense Department took into consideration. It is the fact that these terrorists that are creating havoc for our troops in Iraq are not strangers to kicking the butt of a super power. Consider what they did to the Russians in Afghanistan for nearly ten years. They finally sent the Russian Army home with its tail between it legs.

Sadly we have a president who doesn't read. It is probably why so many in this country are enamored of this moron, he's one of them. If i have offended any of them or you, too bad! Watching fellow veterans come home in boxes, killede in the prime of their lives is a constant offense to me.

WMD, WMD, WMD is all we heard before the war. The President, Vice Pres., SECDEF, SECY State, everyone and their mother in government announced this as the main justification for invasion.

Now it turns out there aren't any WMD to be found. I ask myself, "If these WMD are so horrendous, why stop looking? Shouldn't they be looked for until found lest they fall into the hands of another country that we will have to invade to finally be rid of them?" The WMD situation was serious enough to go to war over but not serious enough to be searched for until found?

Some suggest they were moved to Syria and this is why they can't be found. If that's the case then why isn't that being addressed by the gov't? If this were true don't you think someone would be raising hell about it by now?

Tons of anything doesn't just disappear. Supposedly we have satellites that can read the license plate off a car and if the WMD's were such a threat wouldn't these satellites be watching every move made in Iraq? Surely any significant movement made would have been noticed, especially movement of tons of anything.

Bush & Co. have everyone believing that our intelligence is to blame. Shame on them. These intelligence folks are the ones behind the scenes that won the Cold War. In one fell swoop Bush & Co. have destroyed the reputation of the people who are the unsung hero's of the Cold War. They were good enough to do battle with the Soviet Union for forty years but couldn't handle Iraq? Saddam was so sophisticated and ingenious to hide tons of WMD's? I don't think so.

Bush and Co. are outright liars. L.I.A.R.S. Most people bought their lies. Why? Because of the inherent trust we place on our leaders. Why should I believe Iraq has WMD's and is a threat to the security of our homeland? Because the President said so, that's why. Now it turns out he and his crew are boldface liars. The President didn't have sexual relations with that woman? Yeah right. That lie only cost him my respect. Bush & Co.'s lie almost cost the lives of me and my men a least a dozen times and that lie has put the life of my brother in jeopardy for the last 9 months for no good or real reason and I don't appreciate it. I'm beginning to think those anti-government wacko's aren't so wacko anymore.

What an endearing first post.

Welcome to A2K ... I suppose.

UNlike Vietnam, all the soldiers over in Iraq are volunteers.
Unlike Vietnam, the enemy does not have an endless supply of arms and ammunition coming accross a border with a world power.
Unlike Vietnam, the enemy has no "safe zone" in which to fall back into.
Unlike Vietnam, there is no central government supporting the enemy.

This war will be won. It will be won through the application of freedom and democracy tied in with whatever bullets neccessary to control the insurgency until Iraq's new government, army and police force can take over for itself.

Our President has a vision for the future of the United States of America and we are standing on the threshold of a new era of freedom and democracy throughout the world. Mock him if you want, but he is still the leader of our country and despite many opposing voices will keep the best interests of the entire country as his main focus.

The next 3 years will be very important to the future of Iraq and many other countries that would keep freedom from their citizens.

McGentrix
Shall we all get up salute and sing the battle hymn of the republic. What a load of dreck.

OK. Let's imagine Iraq before the war. Rummaging all about the country, we have spies from Australia and France and New Zealand and Poland and Romania and Norway and Belgium?

And in the skies above Iraq are listening satellites operated by Luxembourg and Finland and Sri Lanka?

From where or who, do you think, Canada would have had to receive its intelligence reports on Iraq? There's a correct answer to this question.

The thing that everyone keeps leaving out here is ....

Oh wait a minute..... Hey Cavolina!!! that's you all over, WELCOME, GI!

Where was I? Oh yeah, those who oppose us in Iraq are Islamic, anti-western and xenophobic, those that are WITH us in Iraq are Islamic, anti-Western and xenophobic too, (by the way the same folks with the same characteristics are with us and against us in Afghanistan which is why this is so fascinating to watch.)

Nobody in either country wants us to be there, not for removal of Saddam or getting rid of the Taleban,. They want all western influences out. The question is not whether Karzai's Kabul government falls but when, the question is not whether those who have backed us in Iraq are all killed or find a way to restore themselves to Islamic credibility and thereby separate themselves from us, but when.

Meanwhile, having foisted this invasion upon the world and the American public based on myopic judgements about TONS of WMDs, this administration continues to pump out the message that freedom is on the march despite every indication that nothing could be farther from the truth.

Do you know what's on the march? Radical Islam, many thanks for pouring gasoline on the hot coals, Donny Rumsfeld, you get the next Medal of Freedom.

Oh yeah, This:

Since we're suddenly into comparisons on this thread, here's a few associated with the CBS "Rathergate" fiasco and the non-existent WMDs (courtesy of Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher):

Investigation recently concluded
R: Yes
WMD: Yes

Number of firings resulting
R: 4
WMD: 0

Use of highly questionable documents
R: Yes
WMD: Yes

Media spread questionable information
R: Yes
WMD: Yes

Central claim completely disproven
R: No
WMD: Yes

Number of wars started partly because of flawed journalism
R: 0
WMD: 1

Cost to American taxpayer
R: $0
WMD: $150 billion, so far

Number of American soldiers killed as a result
R: 0
WMD: 1357, as of today

Number of Iraqi civilians killed as a result
R: 0
WMD: 10,000 to 100,000

U.S. reputation severely damaged as a result
R: No
WMD: Yes

CIA agents outed in effort to prevent or punish disclosure
R: 0
WMD: 1

Resulting government contracts for Halliburton
R: $0
WMD: $10 billion

Key media figure unwilling to admit wrongdoing
R: 1 (Mary Mapes)
WMD: 1 (Judith Miller)

Apologies issued by CBS: 2+
Apologies issued by the White House: 0

Medals of Freedom Awarded to those who played key role
R: 0
WMD: 3

I shall add this to the tally of useless posts.

Better add that one too....

Oh, and this one....