Where Are All The W.M.D.s?

We won't learn the details of Saddam's WMD program until the scientists who worked on it tell us. Mikhail Gorbachev didn't reveal the details of his country's WMD program; the Soviet Union's weapons scientists did.

But that's not why we went to war. We went to war not because we didn't know "the details of the WMD program" (though that's what Bush is now saying as he constantly alters the language of the debate: bait-switch-bait-switch), but because Saddam allegedly had WMD's he was about to use. We've known for years about a program -- just as we've known for years about nuclear and other programs in many other countries. But that wasn't why we went to war, not according to the administration... not to "learn the details..." Clear and present danger, remember?

0 Replies

McGentrix is right; it's no longer about the missing WMD's.

It's about the lying.

The chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence committees this past week rejected calls for a public inquiry into whether the Bush administration distorted or mishandled Iraq intelligence.

"The president is now actively engaged in low-balling the WMD rationale for the war," writes Jules Witcover, but "Understating the importance of the existence or absence of WMD at the time of the invasion won't settle the critical question of whether administration officials hyped government intelligence about the threat to win congressional support for launching pre-emptive war. Without WMD, what was being pre-empted?"

In a letter to Condoleezza Rice, Rep. Henry Waxman writes: "Since March 17, 2003, I have been trying without success to get a direct answer to one simple question: Why did President Bush cite forged evidence [documents alleging that Iraq attempted to buy uranium in Niger] in his State of the Union address?"

The Washington Post cites "senior administration officials and a former government official," who claim that the reason the forged evidence made it into the president's address, was because the CIA did not share information that it had obtained in early 2002, that the documents were forged.

But last month, Nicholas Kristof reported claims that the information had been shared with the State Department, quoting a source who said that "It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year."

There's a link for each paragraph above if anyone requests.

The bottom line, from Kristoff:

Quote:

When I raised the Mystery of the Missing W.M.D. recently, hawks fired barrages of reproachful e-mail at me. The gist was: "You *&#*! Who cares if we never find weapons of mass destruction, because we've liberated the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant."

But it does matter, enormously, for American credibility. After all, as Ari Fleischer said on April 10 about W.M.D.: "That is what this war was about."

0 Replies

The person "moving the goalposts down field" in this instance is Daniel Henninger. The Bush administration did not justify the war by claiming that Iraq was developing WMD, planning for WMD, of even thinking about WMD. Rather they argued that Iraq had those weapons stock piled and ready for use. That, despite an intensive search, turned out not to be the case. Not only were no WMD found, the resources and facilities for manufacturing them are woefully lacking. Further all of the Iraqis captured so far, who were in a position to know, and this includes the scientist who headed Iraq's weapons programs, have stated no such weapons existed. The current attempt to rework the justification for the war from possession to possible intent is nothing more than spin.

0 Replies

The inability to find the weapons is indeed troubling, but only because it means that the weapons remain unaccounted for and might be in the wrong hands. The idea that our inability to thus far find the WMDs proves that the threat was phony and hyped is simply false.

If the U.S. intelligence agencies bent their data to damn Saddam, why is it that the French, German and Russian intelligence services all came to the same conclusion? Why is it that every country on the Security Council, including Syria, in the unanimous Resolution 1441, declared that Saddam had failed to account for the tons of chemical and biological agents he had in 1998? If he had destroyed them all by 2002, why did he not just say so, list where and when it happened, and save his regime?

If Saddam had no chemical weapons, why did coalition forces find thousands of gas masks and atropine syringes in Iraqi army bunkers? And does anybody believe that President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Franks ordered U.S. soldiers outside Baghdad to don heavy, bulky, chemical-weapons suits in scorching heat--an encumbrance that increased their risks in conventional combat and could have jeopardized their lives--to maintain a charade?

(Thanks Tartarin for pointing out my misplacement Embarrassed

)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

If Saddam had no chemical weapons, why did coalition forces find thousands of gas masks and atropine syringes in Iraqi army bunkers?

Perhaps because they had them at one time -- destroyed them as they said they did -- but did not want to destroy the suits and masks because they might need them if an enemy used chemicals.

Finding the suits, masks and syringes does not mean there are stockpiles of chemical weapons. Why are you using such silly arguments?

Quote:

And does anybody believe that President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Franks ordered U.S. soldiers outside Baghdad to don heavy, bulky, chemical-weapons suits in scorching heat--an encumbrance that increased their risks in conventional combat and could have jeopardized their lives--to maintain a charade?

Yes, I have absolutely no trouble assuming something like that. WA better question might be: Why are you not skeptical?

0 Replies

I'm not skeptical because I believe that the government believed that the WMD existed and I will ALWAYS take the word of our government over the word of a person like Hussein. Hindsight is 20-20. I wish the weapons had been waiting in Baghdad with a giant bow because then certain parties in our country would finally shut up and we could move on to fixing our domestic problems.

If the liberal camp would put half the effort into solving problems that they do criticizing the current administration I believe that true change could happen. But, it's easier to bitch about problems than it is to fix them.

0 Replies

McGent, Your post: "I'm not skeptical because I believe that the government believed that the WMD existed and I will ALWAYS take the word of our government over the word of a person like Hussein." You'll never understand that it's not the word between Bush and Saddam. It's the word between Bush and the people who have worked in "our" intelligence agencies. You'll never understand, because you do not wish to. c.i.

0 Replies

Evidently, some Iraqi prisoners are providing information on WMDs. Let's hope it's true; better we get the truth sooner than later. c.i.

0 Replies

McGentrix,
...Pay no attention to C.I., and Frank. Oviously they don't have your great insight, and faith in our GREAT, and HONORABLE president. He would never mislead the public. And it takes a guy like you to see that.
...BTW, I have a wonderful opportunity for a gentleman, with your perception. There's this bridge. It connects Manhatten, and Brooklyn, in NYC. If you act fast, I can let you buy it for a very reasonable price. Now others may scoff, but hey...........

0 Replies

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I'm not skeptical because I believe that the government believed that the WMD existed and I will ALWAYS take the word of our government over the word of a person like Hussein.

You really should get over that naive attitude of yours. To suppose that our government -- which is to say, the politicians who form our government -- are always telling the truth IS PREPOSTEROUS.

And it doesn't really matter who is on the other side of any statement being made by them.

Fact is, as ci just pointed out, it was not the word of "our government" over Saddam Hussein -- but rather "a faction of our government" over "a different faction of our government."

Quote:

Hindsight is 20-20.

Well apparently you weren't here when the war was still in the planning stage, because if you were, you would realize that much of what is being said now was suggested even before we went in.

This is not about hindsight, but I can understand why you want to portray it that way.

Quote:

I wish the weapons had been waiting in Baghdad with a giant bow because then certain parties in our country would finally shut up and we could move on to fixing our domestic problems.

And I wish people like you, who want to support the moron in chief no matter how untenable his position -- would finally come to their senses and shut up. Then we could move on to fixing our domestic problems -- which I think can best be done by getting these incompetents out of office as quickly as possible.

Quote:

If the liberal camp would put half the effort into solving problems that they do criticizing the current administration I believe that true change could happen. But, it's easier to bitch about problems than it is to fix them.

Well I cannot speak for the liberal camp, because I definitely am not one of them. But I might call to your attention two things:

One: One does not have to be a liberal to see clods as clods. Nor does one have to be a liberal to see conservatives for what they are, either.

Two: For conservatives to mention pissing and moaning about an administration considering the kind of bullshit that went on during the Clinton years is so laughable, I almost want to be nice to you. You have truly brought a smile to my face -- so THANKS.

0 Replies

Frank
Thanks for saying what I would like to have said in the same argument.

0 Replies

One other thing McG

Criticizing government -- even when done incessantly -- is often a hallmark of good citizenship and patriotism. I proudly criticize this group of buffoons.

EDGAR

Thanks. I know we are of one mind on this.

0 Replies

Then there are those of us that think Geroge W never lies, you have to have a concept of truth before you can lie.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I'm not skeptical because I believe that the government believed that the WMD existed and I will ALWAYS take the word of our government over the word of a person like Hussein.

You really should get over that naive attitude of yours. To suppose that our government -- which is to say, the politicians who form our government -- are always telling the truth IS PREPOSTEROUS.

And it doesn't really matter who is on the other side of any statement being made by them.

Fact is, as ci just pointed out, it was not the word of "our government" over Saddam Hussein -- but rather "a faction of our government" over "a different faction of our government."

Frank, good post, at least you're being civil and we can discuss further.

I never said that the government is ALWAYS right, I agree that is preposterous. However, If I have to decide whether our government saying Iraq DOES have WMD's, or Iraq's government saying they DON'T have WMD's, I believe our government every time. I'm not sure what you mean by the last statement.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Hindsight is 20-20.

Well apparently you weren't here when the war was still in the planning stage, because if you were, you would realize that much of what is being said now was suggested even before we went in.

This is not about hindsight, but I can understand why you want to portray it that way.

Well, as i don't want to use any hypotheticals here, all I can say is that given time, who know what we will find. But, IF the do find the weapons, even just some of them, what will your reaction be? Skepticism or belief?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
I wish the weapons had been waiting in Baghdad with a giant bow because then certain parties in our country would finally shut up and we could move on to fixing our domestic problems.

And I wish people like you, who want to support the moron in chief no matter how untenable his position -- would finally come to their senses and shut up. Then we could move on to fixing our domestic problems -- which I think can best be done by getting these incompetents out of office as quickly as possible.

That's what makes our country so great, we can completely disagree on one topic, yet agree on something else. We both want the domestic problems fixed, but we disagree on the methods. You think the democratic nominee will be the answer, I don't.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
If the liberal camp would put half the effort into solving problems that they do criticizing the current administration I believe that true change could happen. But, it's easier to bitch about problems than it is to fix them.

Well I cannot speak for the liberal camp, because I definitely am not one of them. But I might call to your attention two things:

One: One does not have to be a liberal to see clods as clods. Nor does one have to be a liberal to see conservatives for what they are, either.

Two: For conservatives to mention pissing and moaning about an administration considering the kind of bullshit that went on during the Clinton years is so laughable, I almost want to be nice to you. You have truly brought a smile to my face -- so THANKS.

I wouldn't want to start a precedence of anyone being nice to me, that would upset the precarious balance that we have. Both parties have done there fair share of bitching, sure, but now it's our turn to complain about it. You had your turn to complain, so just enjoy our complaints about the bitching and moaning.

I agree with your ideas of criticizing the government, but the sheer hatred spewed here towards Bush is just plain silly.

Finally, show me a politician that DOESN'T lie, and I will show you a dead person. We elect the person who's lies we agree with more. Democrats have their lies, Republicans have theirs...

0 Replies

After my last, "slightly" sarcastic post, and McG's response, I would be remiss if I didn't add; Mr. McGentrix, you are a gentleman, and a good sport.

0 Replies

Booman wrote:

After my last, "slightly" sarcastic post, and McG's response, I would be remiss if I didn't add; Mr. McGentrix, you are a gentleman, and a good sport.

Indeed he is -- and I will second your nomination for Mc Gentrix being a gentleman and a doggone good sport-- even if I am being nice to him. (smiles)

Gotta get ready for my honey. She and I are meeting friends for a little get-together tonight -- and I'll probably be toasted in an hour or so. I'll return to this thread tomorrow and comment on one of the things McGentrix said -- if I can remember it.

Have a good night, folks. I'm looking forward to mine.

0 Replies

From Calvin Trillin's latest Nation poem:

We can't yet find the nukes and gas,
Though we have looked in every section
But we may find them in Iran --
And just before the next election.

(The Nation, 6/23)

0 Replies

One should examine the evidence before deciding if the president is a liar or not. The entire world (essentially) was calling him a liar before the invasion of Iraq. It was not a simple case of Bush said this and Saddam said that. Only a couple of nations joined in the invasion and the people of those nations were generally reluctant.

0 Replies

Where Are All The W.M.D.s?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know