Admit WMD Mistake, Survey Chief Tells Bush

[Czar]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1160819,00.html

David Kay, the man who led the CIA's postwar effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has called on the Bush administration to "come clean with the American people" and admit it was wrong about the existence of the weapons.
In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Kay said the administration's reluctance to make that admission was delaying essential reforms of US intelligence agencies, and further undermining its credibility at home and abroad.

He welcomed the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate prewar intelligence on Iraq, and said the wide-ranging US investigation was much more likely to get to the truth than the Butler inquiry in Britain. That, he noted, had "so many limitations it's going to be almost impossible" to come to meaningful conclusions.

Mr Kay, 63, a former nuclear weapons inspector, provoked uproar at the end of January when he told the Senate that "we were almost all wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

 

[Moonbeam]

Come clean? If they washed out the dirt there'd be nothing left.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Come clean? If they washed out the dirt there'd be nothing left.

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Come clean? If they washed out the dirt there'd be nothing left.

ROFL

 

[Red Dawn]

Man Kay must be driving the Dub's election team bonkers as they are doing their best to avert attention away from the fact that they were so wrong about the WMDs and all the other BS reason the gave to garner the American Public support for the Dubs excellent Adventure in Iraq!

 

[Czar]

also an interesting article about the al quaida connections
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/8089829.htm

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Czar
also an interesting article about the al quaida connections
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/8089829.htm

Yeah Al Qaeda is far more prevelent there now than prior to the invasion.

 

[DoubleL]

Boy from reading post after post you would think we went to war in Iraq over WMD's, That was low on the list, But I guess that doen't matter, Gore, Clinton, Kerry and most the world said Iraq had WMD's, They used them more than once, Like I said it shouldn't be there was no WMD's it should be where are they now,

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Boy from reading post after post you would think we went to war in Iraq over WMD's, That was low on the list, But I guess that doen't matter, Gore, Clinton, Kerry and most the world said Iraq had WMD's, They used them more than once, Like I said it shouldn't be there was no WMD's it should be where are they now,

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm

UNITED NATIONS ? A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

The report, to be outlined to the U.N. Security Council as early as Friday, is based on information gathered over more than seven years of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war, plus postwar findings discussed publicly by Kay.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Boy from reading post after post you would think we went to war in Iraq over WMD's,

That was one of the main reasons the Dub and his Neocon handlers gave to fool the American Public into supporting his excellent Adventure in Iraq!

That was low on the list

For the Neocons but it made for a good selling point.

But I guess that doen't matter, Gore, Clinton, Kerry and most the world said Iraq had WMD's, They used them more than once, Like I said it shouldn't be there was no WMD's it should be where are they now,

They sure did use them, especially during the Iran/Iraq war while we sat silently on the sidelines and cheered Hussien on against our mortal enemies at the time, Iran. We also sat on our hands while he used them against his own people who rebelled against him because they were given assurances by the Dub's dad that we would helpt them. Again we just sat on our hands.

Since the months following the first gulf war, I don't think there were any instances that he used them and it looks like they were destroyed, either by Hussien himself of the Air strikes called in by Clinton

 

[DoubleL]

Since the months following the first gulf war, I don't think there were any instances that he used them and it looks like they were destroyed, either by Hussien himself of the Air strikes called in by Clinton

LOL can I sell you a bridge

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Boy from reading post after post you would think we went to war in Iraq over WMD's, That was low on the list, But I guess that doen't matter, Gore, Clinton, Kerry and most the world said Iraq had WMD's, They used them more than once, Like I said it shouldn't be there was no WMD's it should be where are they now,

Yeah, because its not like we were bombarded with press releases talking about mobile weapons factories, or satellite images of WMD production plants, photos of drones that apparantly were designed to drop WMDs etc. And its certainly not as if anyone in the administration said not only did Iraq have WMDs, but that they knew where they were. Its not as if the US government gave Iraq deadlines to disclose the whereabouts of WMDs, and then used the report produced as a cassus belli... I must be imagining all of this

It is the height of either blind fervour or cynical deceit to deny that the public was sold a war based on Iraq being a threat - based on it having WMDs. Regardless of the true reasons for a war, that at least is what it was sold as.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Since the months following the first gulf war, I don't think there were any instances that he used them and it looks like they were destroyed, either by Hussien himself of the Air strikes called in by Clinton

LOL can I sell you a bridge

So it was you!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Since the months following the first gulf war, I don't think there were any instances that he used them and it looks like they were destroyed, either by Hussien himself of the Air strikes called in by Clinton

LOL can I sell you a bridge

No but you can try to prove me wrong if you can.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Since the months following the first gulf war, I don't think there were any instances that he used them and it looks like they were destroyed, either by Hussien himself of the Air strikes called in by Clinton

LOL can I sell you a bridge

No but you can try to prove me wrong if you can.

You didn't buy his bridge of an excuse for a counter to your argument, did you. I'm not surprised. I didn't buy it either, but nice try, DoubleL. I wonder if DoubleL is pronounced like Tool.

 

[chess9]

Moonbeam:

Too funny! Both posts, but especially the first. Blair is a con man just like Cheney.

DoubleL, you need to read for content and with understanding more often. Are you still in high school? If so, forgive me for being rude, 'cause I know reading for content and understanding is done by less than 60% of high school students.



-Robert

 

[AEB]

I've said this many times before , but its been a while so i will refresh memories. UN resolution 1441 and others stated that if there were ANY weapons violtions (not just WMD) there would be immediate and severe consequences. Well there were illegal weapons( we found those missles that went over the legal range). The UN should have invaded iraq but they have no spine, and only pass useless resolutions( they would be useless if not enforced). If anything the united states saved the UN.

Of course what doubleL said about everyone else believing there were WMD is true. 
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
  weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Lot more here * http://www.americasbestmall.com/wmdiraq.htm * Didn't linke because was a quick reply.

 

[Czar]

AEB,
I have to say this yet again
UN wording for the use of force is "by any means necessary", that was not used in 1441 or any other resolutions against Iraq, the only possible way is that by violating UN resolutions Iraq could have broken the cease fire agreement, and as far as I can tell it is the UN that must declare so.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: AEB
I've said this many times before , but its been a while so i will refresh memories. UN resolution 1441 and others stated that if there were ANY weapons violtions (not just WMD) there would be immediate and severe consequences. Well there were illegal weapons( we found those missles that went over the legal range). The UN should have invaded iraq but they have no spine, and only pass useless resolutions( they would be useless if not enforced). If anything the united states saved the UN.

Of course what doubleL said about everyone else believing there were WMD is true. 
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
  weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Lot more here * http://www.americasbestmall.com/wmdiraq.htm * Didn't linke because was a quick reply.

Hmmm what about the Dub's campaign promise not to become the "Worlds Policeman?" Of course that was a bold face lie as he loaded his cabinet with Neocons whose main agenda was to become the "Worlds Policeman"

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: AEB
I've said this many times before , but its been a while so i will refresh memories. UN resolution 1441 and others stated that if there were ANY weapons violtions (not just WMD) there would be immediate and severe consequences. Well there were illegal weapons( we found those missles that went over the legal range). The UN should have invaded iraq but they have no spine, and only pass useless resolutions( they would be useless if not enforced). If anything the united states saved the UN.

Of course what doubleL said about everyone else believing there were WMD is true. 
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
  weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Lot more here * http://www.americasbestmall.com/wmdiraq.htm * Didn't linke because was a quick reply.

AEB,
You better reread Resolution 1441, because it does not say what you claim it does. It says (in my sloppy but easier to read paraphrasing)
1)Iraq is in material breach of obligations set out by previous resolutions
2)That the council will set up a new inspection program
3)Iraq needs to provide full documentation on all aspects of its WMD programs
4)That lying in their documentation is a further breach of Iraq's obligations
5)That Iraq need to let inspectors inspect whatever the inspectors want to inspect
6)That Iraq even needs to let inspectors inspect "sensitive" sites in a manner that the inspectors feel is appropriate
7)That the inspectors can do anything that they think is neccesary with whatever information that they find
8)That Iraq should not threaten anyone involved in fulfilling this resolution
9)Requests that the Secretary General, make sure that Iraq gets the resolution and agrees to its terms
10)Requests that all UN Member states help the inspectors by providing any useful info that they have
11)Asks that the inspectors let the council know if they are hindered in any way.
12)The council needs to meet and decide what to do next based on what info they get back
13)That the council is sick of asking for the same stuff and some action will be taken if Iraq does not comply this time.

It says nothing about weapons violations, and it certianly does not mention "immediate and severe consequences"
You can say it all that you want, but you are just wrong.

 

[AEB]

Czar thats your opinion
1441 says
13. "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"
The previous resolutions had already hit them politically end economically, so i dont know other serious consequences. The UN is still a push over there are 9 different resolutions not including 1441 that say "we are serious this time" so my point still stands that the UN is good at talking but cant back it up. As for you Red DAwn the liberals atttack him for "policing" but they are furious we cant solve the israili dispute and kerry said we took too long getting involved in haiti. So let me summarizes if bush gets in involved its wrong, but if he doesnt then its wrong too. Liberals just go opposite what he does. LAME

oh btw # 13 from here backs me up

 

[Czar]

AEB,
Serious consequences is not UN wording for authorizing the use of force, its that simple, 1441 does not authorize the use of force

and btw, that is not my opinion, that is how it is at the UN, use of force requires "any means necessary"

 

[AEB]

Well like i said in my previous post the UN did nothing thus rendering it a useless body. (but dont worry the United states made them valid again by attacking iraq) My post was more of a formallity, Bush can decided to invade wherever. But when he gets the approval of congress , as he did in the Iraq case, how can you fault him. You can't unless you fault everyone else that voted yes. that includes kerry, you can spin it all you want but we had every right to invade iraq. they did have illegal weapons after all

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: AEB
Well like i said in my previous post the UN did nothing thus rendering it a useless body. (but dont worry the United states made them valid again by attacking iraq) My post was more of a formallity, Bush can decided to invade wherever. But when he gets the approval of congress , as he did in the Iraq case, how can you fault him. You can't unless you fault everyone else that voted yes. that includes kerry, you can spin it all you want but we had every right to invade iraq. they did have illegal weapons after all

Congress voted as their constituents wanted them too. Their Constituents where misled into believing that Iraq posed a threat to us and the world by the Dub and his minions! This was a lie! Because your boy lied to us you are willing to overlook the lie despite the loss of American lives and the billions of dollars it is costing us. Partisanship is one thing, blind partisanship even though it is hurting us is beyond foolish!

Attacking Iraq was always on top of the Dubs agenda. If you question this then ask yourself why did he load his cabinet with Neocons whose main agenda has always been to overthrow Hussien with military force!!

 

[MonkeyK]

AEB, you are making two completely different arguments.
1)You are saying that the UN said that we should have taken action. That is just not so. You took one point of the resolution

Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations

And make that the entire basis for your claim. That is just lame (Note you tried to bolster your argument by slipping the word "immediate" into your earlier post)

In fact, the resolution says that the council will decide what the appropriate response will be (says it in #12).

2)Your second point seems to be that the UN was not effective at enforcing it's resolutions. This is a little closer to a valid criticism, but certianly not justification for the US to do so. How often in the US do you see one state prosecuting residents of another for failure to comply to with their (the first state's) interpretation of federal law?