CIA report: NO WMD. Period

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this thread - but, I think a lot of the WMD report is really being taken out of context. Just checking the news out this morning revealed that Iraq had the facade to make it appear that they had WMD to the Iranians. This process even fooled the intelligence of the Iraqi intelligence agencies.

Go figure. While there might not be any current WMD, the writing was on the wall. It was also reported that Saddam was just waiting for the sanctions to expire - then, he would have kicked production of such weapons back into gear.

For those of you who stick to the "No WMD was found, GOP got owned" mentality, please go back and re-read your sources. Clearly, there is some interesting content there that might provoke some thoughts for you.


[Edit:] I will now refrain from posting in the P&N section for another few weeks. The bias towards the GOP around here gives me the creeps. :Q

The bottom line, from what I understand from the State of the Union 2003, is that we needed to invade in 2003 because of the URGENCY of WMDs falling into hands of terrorists. Links to al-Qaeda were not found as per 9/11 Commission. WMDs were not found. In other words, there was no urgency to stop diplomatic efforts and ongoing inspections to invade in 2003.

Bush is misleading in the debate when he said that he'll go to war as a last resort since Hans Blix WANTED more time to complete WMD inspections.

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't think I was deceived, CsG. I know I was.

I can see the facts in those articles.

It's your blind support of Bush (that much is very obvious to anyone up here) that is affecting your ability to rationalize. And, I am not weak. I am far from it. I am a strong believer in looking at the issues. Looking at the facts and then judging based on them. You, however, ignore everything that is critical of Bush and dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

Sorry, but you are not a Jedi and Bush *is* a failure as President.

CsG is sort of like the Administration. Take a position, then go with all intelligence that supports your position while disregarding anything else that goes against it.

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
It's far from hatred, CsG. It's disgust. Disgust that a completely feckless President has allowed this organization to take over control of our foreign policy decisions. The facts could not be more clear if you have truly read those articles.

The fact you are still apologizing for this administration is proof positive of one of two things:

1) You actually did not read the articles
2) You refuse to admit the person you support has failed miserably


I was man enough to admit I was wrong in my support of Bush after having read all of the facts. You should do the same.

Well, ofcourse YOU think you were decieved or some other such nonsense because you were weak and just followed. I however didn't just follow blindly as you'd understand if you got over your RBH. That's fine you think you have to hate Bush - some of us don't and your hatred isn't going to change it.
No conjur, you didn't read the facts - you read the facts that support your Bush hate. IE: you fell into the left's trap of BS.
Again since you keep trying to ignore it:
Can you kindly show us which pieces of the cease-fire agreement he fully completed?

CsG

I don't think I was deceived, CsG. I know I was.

I can see the facts in those articles.

It's your blind support of Bush (that much is very obvious to anyone up here) that is affecting your ability to rationalize. And, I am not weak. I am far from it. I am a strong believer in looking at the issues. Looking at the facts and then judging based on them. You, however, ignore everything that is critical of Bush and dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

Sorry, but you are not a Jedi and Bush *is* a failure as President.

Conjur...explain how other nations thought he had WMD and so did Clinton while he was president....I mean I think this is more than just Bush.

Other nations/Clinton **thought** Saddam had WMD but didn't rush into war without proof. They wanted the inspections to continue. The inspections were ongoing when Bush declared war.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: seawolf21

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
It's far from hatred, CsG. It's disgust. Disgust that a completely feckless President has allowed this organization to take over control of our foreign policy decisions. The facts could not be more clear if you have truly read those articles.

The fact you are still apologizing for this administration is proof positive of one of two things:

1) You actually did not read the articles
2) You refuse to admit the person you support has failed miserably


I was man enough to admit I was wrong in my support of Bush after having read all of the facts. You should do the same.

Well, ofcourse YOU think you were decieved or some other such nonsense because you were weak and just followed. I however didn't just follow blindly as you'd understand if you got over your RBH. That's fine you think you have to hate Bush - some of us don't and your hatred isn't going to change it.
No conjur, you didn't read the facts - you read the facts that support your Bush hate. IE: you fell into the left's trap of BS.
Again since you keep trying to ignore it:
Can you kindly show us which pieces of the cease-fire agreement he fully completed?

CsG

I don't think I was deceived, CsG. I know I was.

I can see the facts in those articles.

It's your blind support of Bush (that much is very obvious to anyone up here) that is affecting your ability to rationalize. And, I am not weak. I am far from it. I am a strong believer in looking at the issues. Looking at the facts and then judging based on them. You, however, ignore everything that is critical of Bush and dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

Sorry, but you are not a Jedi and Bush *is* a failure as President.

Conjur...explain how other nations thought he had WMD and so did Clinton while he was president....I mean I think this is more than just Bush.

Other nations/Clinton **thought** Saddam had WMD but didn't rush into war without proof. They wanted the inspections to continue. The inspections were ongoing when Bush declared war.

Thats BS...there were no inspections from 1998 till 2002...Clinton didn't do anything after they were kicked out.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: seawolf21

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
It's far from hatred, CsG. It's disgust. Disgust that a completely feckless President has allowed this organization to take over control of our foreign policy decisions. The facts could not be more clear if you have truly read those articles.

The fact you are still apologizing for this administration is proof positive of one of two things:

1) You actually did not read the articles
2) You refuse to admit the person you support has failed miserably


I was man enough to admit I was wrong in my support of Bush after having read all of the facts. You should do the same.

Well, ofcourse YOU think you were decieved or some other such nonsense because you were weak and just followed. I however didn't just follow blindly as you'd understand if you got over your RBH. That's fine you think you have to hate Bush - some of us don't and your hatred isn't going to change it.
No conjur, you didn't read the facts - you read the facts that support your Bush hate. IE: you fell into the left's trap of BS.
Again since you keep trying to ignore it:
Can you kindly show us which pieces of the cease-fire agreement he fully completed?

CsG

I don't think I was deceived, CsG. I know I was.

I can see the facts in those articles.

It's your blind support of Bush (that much is very obvious to anyone up here) that is affecting your ability to rationalize. And, I am not weak. I am far from it. I am a strong believer in looking at the issues. Looking at the facts and then judging based on them. You, however, ignore everything that is critical of Bush and dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

Sorry, but you are not a Jedi and Bush *is* a failure as President.

Conjur...explain how other nations thought he had WMD and so did Clinton while he was president....I mean I think this is more than just Bush.

Other nations/Clinton **thought** Saddam had WMD but didn't rush into war without proof. They wanted the inspections to continue. The inspections were ongoing when Bush declared war.

Thats BS...there were no inspections from 1998 till 2002...Clinton didn't do anything after they were kicked out.

What's BS? Ritter who was the UN Iraqi Inspector from 91-98 did accuse of Clinton and the UN for being soft on the regime but still said there was no evidence of intent or wmd in 98 and even said so right before the war. Inspections were going on right after the march for war. The UN inspectors saw no evidence that Saddam had any intent on WMD and/or any materials or facilities. Should Clinton have pursued more inspections? Of course. But you can't blame Clinton for a decision Bush made even though there was A LOT more evidence saying Saddam didn't have WMD or intent of WMD than he did.

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I suggest you read resolution 687. This isnt hard to do. If he didnt have them he shouldnt have hampered efforts to determine this. And if anybody tells you in 2002 they could prove he didnt have any WMDs then they are smoking the good stuff.

While this was a possibility. He didnt let us know he was toothless and thus keep us from knocking him out of power.

I can understand why Saddam would have want to hamper inspections (even more so after Iraq was named as a part of the Axis of Evil). Iraq views Iran as a threat. Iraq views the US as a threat. Saddam also had problems with the Kurds in the north. Having your enemies think you have WMDs gives him leverage. It's high stakes poker and Saddam was bluffing when his hand was weak.

Having WMD probably saved him for an outright US-led invasion in the Gulf War and kept the US doing more than sabre-rattling for more than a decade. Given that situation, why would he come out clean and say he is bluffing? Had he came out clean and allow inspectors 100% access, he probably would be facing a Kurdish revolt and an Iran eager for revenge.

He made the WRONG bet that the US would not invade due to our belief he has WMD and he is not afraid to use it. As a result, he is now sitting in prison. Bush made the WRONG bet in saying war is necessary in 2003 and he deserves to be evicted from the White House.

Does that really matter? So because he wanted to terrify the Iranians we should continue to let him make the world think he had WMDs?

That does not warrant invasion. Bush was selling the war as if the US was going to be attacked from a WMD from Saddam's arsenal due to his links with terrorists. That is NOT the same as terrifying the Iranians.

We have attack plans for several scenarios. We probably even have attack plans for Canada oh wait......
Does that really prove anything?

Yes we might have attack plans for Canada but that doesn't mean we are going to invade Canada. Going by the same logic....Saddam DIDN'T have WMDs. Saddam DIDN'T have terrorist links. Yet, that's proof enough to invade???

And we knew all of this in 2002-2003 how? If Clinton felt Saddam was a problem then why would the Bush administration think any differently?

We didn't know but Bush didn't seem like he was interested in knowing since he had enough of UN inspections and invaded. Waging war BLIND is worse than no action at all.

Will you be as disgusted if John Kerry gets elected and has to invade Iran to stop them from going Nuclear?

Yes unless he has proof they are building for weapons use.

lol when did you come up with this theory? Let me guess, 24 hours ago?

Before the invasion.

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: MaxisOne
I also want to Add that Kerry Is not the one who gives the command to invade iraq. Its the President ... point blank. He was the one who sidelined the inspection process and rushed to war. If he was a bit more thoughtful or politically astute he should have at least waited for some "on the ground" evidence found by objective UN inspectors before invading Iraq. Iraq would then have been a non issue since the opposing countries in the UN security Council would have looked like fools for opposing the war. But oh no ... the administration broke the inspection process that they agreed to within the council... "

Now I am willing to Admit that im a Centrist Democrat .. am im not a Democrat lackey and i supported Reagan ... twice ... theres a huge difference Between a true conservative and a neo con.. and the disengenuosness of this administration and the way they over play the terrorism card is astounding

I also follow the belief that if someone is going to flame me or personally attack me for my political views then we have nothing to speak about ... Civilty still exists ..we should utilize it even where there is discord on an issue.

I agree. Kerry wasn't the one giving the order to invade. Bush was. I don't like Kerry but Bush does not deserve to keep his job over a mistake on a scale like this REGARDLESS of whether he was misled or was doing the misleading. As I have stated in another thread, I would have considered voting GOP if they had nominated someone other than Bush.

Bush is as much a politican as Kerry is. Bush is not going to admit his mistake nor will he apologize cause doing so will cost him the election.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: seawolf21

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
It's far from hatred, CsG. It's disgust. Disgust that a completely feckless President has allowed this organization to take over control of our foreign policy decisions. The facts could not be more clear if you have truly read those articles.

The fact you are still apologizing for this administration is proof positive of one of two things:

1) You actually did not read the articles
2) You refuse to admit the person you support has failed miserably


I was man enough to admit I was wrong in my support of Bush after having read all of the facts. You should do the same.

Well, ofcourse YOU think you were decieved or some other such nonsense because you were weak and just followed. I however didn't just follow blindly as you'd understand if you got over your RBH. That's fine you think you have to hate Bush - some of us don't and your hatred isn't going to change it.
No conjur, you didn't read the facts - you read the facts that support your Bush hate. IE: you fell into the left's trap of BS.
Again since you keep trying to ignore it:
Can you kindly show us which pieces of the cease-fire agreement he fully completed?

CsG

I don't think I was deceived, CsG. I know I was.

I can see the facts in those articles.

It's your blind support of Bush (that much is very obvious to anyone up here) that is affecting your ability to rationalize. And, I am not weak. I am far from it. I am a strong believer in looking at the issues. Looking at the facts and then judging based on them. You, however, ignore everything that is critical of Bush and dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

Sorry, but you are not a Jedi and Bush *is* a failure as President.

Conjur...explain how other nations thought he had WMD and so did Clinton while he was president....I mean I think this is more than just Bush.

Other nations/Clinton **thought** Saddam had WMD but didn't rush into war without proof. They wanted the inspections to continue. The inspections were ongoing when Bush declared war.

Thats BS...there were no inspections from 1998 till 2002...Clinton didn't do anything after they were kicked out.

What's BS? Ritter who was the UN Iraqi Inspector from 91-98 did accuse of Clinton and the UN for being soft on the regime but still said there was no evidence of intent or wmd in 98 and even said so right before the war. Inspections were going on right after the march for war. The UN inspectors saw no evidence that Saddam had any intent on WMD and/or any materials or facilities. Should Clinton have pursued more inspections? Of course. But you can't blame Clinton for a decision Bush made even though there was A LOT more evidence saying Saddam didn't have WMD or intent of WMD than he did.

Then why weren't the sanctions lifted in 1998?

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Who here REALLY thinks that if Saddam was left completely unfettered....including having the sanctions lifted by the UN that he wouldnt make any attempt at getting WMDS.

Or is Saddam now a reformed angel?

"ATTEMPT"? Did we go in, spends hundreds of billions of dollars, have over 1,000 of our troops killed (and nearly 10,000 wounded - some severely) because he may "ATTEMPT"? No, we went in because we had the proof....or so they lied....

If we take Bush's latest spin of intent being justification for war, we should invade North Korea at this moment. North Korea abuses its citizens through starvation. North Korea is on its way to building a nuke. North Korea has a history of invading South Korea and thus intent.

What about China? They didn say they have not ruled out the military option for Taiwan and they do have WMDs.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: seawolf21

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
It's far from hatred, CsG. It's disgust. Disgust that a completely feckless President has allowed this organization to take over control of our foreign policy decisions. The facts could not be more clear if you have truly read those articles.

The fact you are still apologizing for this administration is proof positive of one of two things:

1) You actually did not read the articles
2) You refuse to admit the person you support has failed miserably


I was man enough to admit I was wrong in my support of Bush after having read all of the facts. You should do the same.

Well, ofcourse YOU think you were decieved or some other such nonsense because you were weak and just followed. I however didn't just follow blindly as you'd understand if you got over your RBH. That's fine you think you have to hate Bush - some of us don't and your hatred isn't going to change it.
No conjur, you didn't read the facts - you read the facts that support your Bush hate. IE: you fell into the left's trap of BS.
Again since you keep trying to ignore it:
Can you kindly show us which pieces of the cease-fire agreement he fully completed?

CsG

I don't think I was deceived, CsG. I know I was.

I can see the facts in those articles.

It's your blind support of Bush (that much is very obvious to anyone up here) that is affecting your ability to rationalize. And, I am not weak. I am far from it. I am a strong believer in looking at the issues. Looking at the facts and then judging based on them. You, however, ignore everything that is critical of Bush and dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

Sorry, but you are not a Jedi and Bush *is* a failure as President.

Conjur...explain how other nations thought he had WMD and so did Clinton while he was president....I mean I think this is more than just Bush.

Other nations/Clinton **thought** Saddam had WMD but didn't rush into war without proof. They wanted the inspections to continue. The inspections were ongoing when Bush declared war.

Thats BS...there were no inspections from 1998 till 2002...Clinton didn't do anything after they were kicked out.

What's BS? Ritter who was the UN Iraqi Inspector from 91-98 did accuse of Clinton and the UN for being soft on the regime but still said there was no evidence of intent or wmd in 98 and even said so right before the war. Inspections were going on right after the march for war. The UN inspectors saw no evidence that Saddam had any intent on WMD and/or any materials or facilities. Should Clinton have pursued more inspections? Of course. But you can't blame Clinton for a decision Bush made even though there was A LOT more evidence saying Saddam didn't have WMD or intent of WMD than he did.

Then why weren't the sanctions lifted in 1998?

To keep Saddam under control. The sanctions were not solely for WMD understand that. Sanctions kept Saddam under control in terms of his army and other things.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: seawolf21

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Who here REALLY thinks that if Saddam was left completely unfettered....including having the sanctions lifted by the UN that he wouldnt make any attempt at getting WMDS.

Or is Saddam now a reformed angel?

"ATTEMPT"? Did we go in, spends hundreds of billions of dollars, have over 1,000 of our troops killed (and nearly 10,000 wounded - some severely) because he may "ATTEMPT"? No, we went in because we had the proof....or so they lied....

If we take Bush's latest spin of intent being justification for war, we should invade North Korea at this moment. North Korea abuses its citizens through starvation. North Korea is on its way to building a nuke. North Korea has a history of invading South Korea and thus intent.

What about China? They didn say they have not ruled out the military option for Taiwan and they do have WMDs.

Exactly. The admin keeps refining their reason to invade Iraq and just shows the idiocy of it. With the current reason, we should invade everyone looking for WMD's because who knows when they'll get them and if they'll target America. People fail to realise that and just swallow it like it makes it valid. IT's NOT!

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Train
jesus, inst this breaking news for like the 10th time over the past year? or wait, this is the FINAL conclusion?, which follows the pre-FINAL report that followed the pre-post-FINAL-pre-Final Draft FINAL?

newsflash: no one cares

Like this news coming out now is gonna change anyones mind, like every Bush supporter is gonna be surprised and jump ship.

"omg, what, you mean there were no WMD? holy crap, thats it! im voting for Kerry!"

Believe it or not, some poeple just might have more important issues on thier minds.

Because the president lying about the reasons to go to war is such a trivial thing, amirite?

 

[LongAce]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Train
jesus, inst this breaking news for like the 10th time over the past year? or wait, this is the FINAL conclusion?, which follows the pre-FINAL report that followed the pre-post-FINAL-pre-Final Draft FINAL?

newsflash: no one cares

Like this news coming out now is gonna change anyones mind, like every Bush supporter is gonna be surprised and jump ship.

"omg, what, you mean there were no WMD? holy crap, thats it! im voting for Kerry!"

Believe it or not, some poeple just might have more important issues on thier minds.

Because the president lying about the reasons to go to war is such a trivial thing, amirite?

Vote for Kerry and he'll lead in a circle. He's like a dog chasing after his own tail.