did you believe the evidence presented when the administration said Iraq had WMD's

[Hayabusa Rider]

Or because as Snopes points out, that the mere possession of 500 tons of yellow cake doesn't *prove* Saddam the tyrant would ever think of doing anything bad with it?

Well lets look at that Snopes article

The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, nor had the yellowcake been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Moreover, the fact that the yellowcake had been in Iraq since before the 1991 Gulf War was plainly stated in the Associated Press article cited in the example above:
Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
Or, as the New York Times stated more plainly:
The yellowcake removed from Iraq was not the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Mr. Hussein was trying to purchase in Africa.
What happened was that U.S. Marines stumbled across known stocks of uranium stored beneath the Tuwaitha nuclear research center, stocks that were not suitable for use in atomic weapons and had long since been cataloged, stored in sealed containers, and safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), stored at a site that had been repeatedly surveyed by U.N. inspectors:
American troops who suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq unwittingly may have stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium, officials said. They said the U.S. troops may have broken U.N. seals meant to keep control of the radioactive material.

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, which has inspected the Tuwaitha nuclear complex at least two dozen times and maintains a thick dossier on the site, had no immediate comment.

But an expert familiar with U.N. nuclear inspections told The Associated Press that it was implausible to believe that U.S. forces had uncovered anything new at the site. Instead, the official said, the Marines apparently broke U.N. seals designed to ensure the materials aren't diverted for weapons use or end up in the wrong hands.

"What happened apparently was that they broke IAEA seals, which is very unfortunate because those seals are integral to ensuring that nuclear material doesn't get diverted," the expert said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Several tons of low-grade uranium has been stored at Tuwaitha, Iraq's principal nuclear research center and a site that has been under IAEA safeguards for years, the official said. The Iraqis were allowed to keep the material because it was unfit for weapons use without costly and time-consuming enrichment.

The uranium was inspected by the U.N. nuclear agency twice a year and was kept under IAEA seal at least until the Marines seized control of the site.

The U.N. nuclear agency's inspectors have visited Tuwaitha about two dozen times, including a dozen checks carried out since December, most recently on Feb. 6. It was among the first sites that IAEA inspectors sought out after the resumption of inspections on Nov. 27 after a nearly four-year break.
The U.S. did manage to ameliorate a substantial security concern by secretly shipping stored yellowcake out of Iraq in mid-2008, but that act was not, as claimed above, proof that Iraq had been purchasing uranium and attempting to restart its nuclear program prior to the U.S. invasion.

Last updated: 25 October 2008

That shoots down any contention about any relevant nuclear program. It was from decades ago, was part of a nuclear power plant operation in 1981 and some from bombing a facility in 1991 in Desert Storm. The material had been gathered and under international control and not other yellowcake exists from beyond that date. How was Saddam going to use yellowcake he didn't have? Was that with the forged document acquisition that Bush used as "proof"? No, long before there was a GWB on the Presidential horizon any possible bomb development ran out of gas.

The world is better off without saddam and I'm glad Obama allowed our military to find him and then have him executed. That's pretty much the only thing I like about Obama.

Saddam Hussein

Captured December 13, 2003

Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the US from January 20, 2009 to present. The italicized names of both people do not mean they are the same person or in any way related, although at times people will link the two.

Note that Saddam was captured almost six years before Obama took office.

Osama bin Laden- Despite Osama being one letter off from Obama, they also aren't related in any way. Note that bin Laden had no relationship with Obama or Saddam. Also note the date of bin Laden's death, May 2, 2011, which happened during Obama's tenure. You got everything wrong.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Here's a colbert report covering this topic:

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/uebndp/abandoned-wmds-in-iraq


"Between 2004 and 2011 Americans found 5,000 chemical war heads, containing things like sarin and mustard gas... These were were warheads left over from the Iran Iraq war... These are weapons that Iraq manufactured with help from the US... So we armed them with chemical weapons in the 80s, we did a lot of things that we regretted in the 1980s!".

"did you believe the evidence presented when the administration said Iraq had WMD's"
Yes. Everyone did, Everyone knew this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So much dishonesty in this thread/poll, even the Clinton administration/UN believed Iraq had WMDs.

Iraq War- Date began- March 16, 2003

William J. Clinton- Last day in office-January 20, 2001

Over 11 years elapsed between Clinton's last day and the War, and a great deal happened between those dates. Citing what Clinton may or may not have believed is completely irrelevant to Bush as circumstances and events substantially changed during that time. The IAEA assumed control of nuclear programs and materials, there was no credible evidence of NBC activity at all, but Bush went to war because a president who left office eleven years prior believed something? That's a complete lack of due diligence, foolishness and/or treachery.

I don't think your statement offers a credible defense.

Edit- the date I first posted was for Clinton's last day as governor. That has been corrected. The statement I found of Clinton saying he believed Saddam was working on WMDs was in 1998. I'm leaving the rest of the post as I submitted initially. Later the same year the IAEA gave a report stating that it had secured all nuclear material. That means that these facts were not well known 11 years between dates as I said, but two full years as disclosed by the IAEA before Bush assumed office. The point still stands.

 

[sm625]

I do not believe those poll results. Back in 2002 and early 2003, most people were frothing at the mouth ready to bomb Iraq and kill or displace millions Iraqis. I remember the hate that was spewed towards people and groups (like the Dixie Chicks) for saying anything even remotely "unpatriotic". Truly disgusting times; the sheeple were really sucking on the udders of the controlled media back then. Given how pliant and uninformed people are on this forum today, I have little reason to believe this group was any better about it back then.

But then again, it really has nothing to do with what people believe, does it? War with Iraq was a set policy, regardless of the opinions of the masses. If people refused to go along with it, they would just received a few more remote controlled airliners up their butts, along with 19 more saudi patsies.

 

[fskimospy]

Iraq War- Date began- March 16, 2003

William J. Clinton- Last day in office- December 12, 1992.

Over 11 years elapsed between Clinton's last day and the War, and a great deal happened between those dates. Citing what Clinton may or may not have believed is completely irrelevant to Bush as circumstances and events substantially changed during that time. The IAEA assumed control of nuclear programs and materials, there was no credible evidence of NBC activity at all, but Bush went to war because a president who left office eleven years prior believed something? That's a complete lack of due diligence, foolishness and/or treachery.

I don't think your statement offers a credible defense.

Although I agree with you that what Clinton thought doesn't matter because he wasn't president when we invaded and he chose not to invade Iraq when he was... his last day in office was January 20, 2001, so it was more like 2 years between him being in office and the war.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Although I agree with you that what Clinton thought doesn't matter because he wasn't president when we invaded and he chose not to invade Iraq when he was... his last day in office was January 20, 2001, so it was more like 2 years between him being in office and the war.

Yeah that was stupid because I put in the last day of him being governor, not President.

Even so the point remains in that what Clinton thought he knew was some years prior to the war, and he wasn't confident enough to invade.

Thanks for pointing out my error. Clinton stated his belief in 1998 according to what I find, so that would be 5 years. Assuming he believed it to his last day in office, what he did not do was invent clever justifications based on lies and deception and actually go to war. Wrong is one thing. To act on wrong and amplify on it purposefully harming others is worse.

 

[glenn1]

I do not believe those poll results. Back in 2002 and early 2003, most people were frothing at the mouth ready to bomb Iraq and kill or displace millions Iraqis. I remember the hate that was spewed towards people and groups (like the Dixie Chicks) for saying anything even remotely "unpatriotic". Truly disgusting times; the sheeple were really sucking on the udders of the controlled media back then. Given how pliant and uninformed people are on this forum today, I have little reason to believe this group was any better about it back then.

But then again, it really has nothing to do with what people believe, does it? War with Iraq was a set policy, regardless of the opinions of the masses. If people refused to go along with it, they would just received a few more remote controlled airliners up their butts, along with 19 more saudi patsies.

Pretty much everyone thought we'd be hugely better off with Saddam gone after his 20+ years of belligerence, crimes against humanity, and concerns of cooperation with terrorist since his was a regime known to possess and use WMDs (poison gas at least).

And we are better off with him gone. He was a cancer walking the Earth who should have been removed from power decades before we did. The problem is that people even worse than him occupied the power void afterwards. The people who supported the potential good outcome (Saddam gone) failed to adequately imagine the potential even worse follow-on outcomes after the primary objective had been achieved. We also willfully overlooked past history that bringing "liberated" nations back into the fold of civilized nations was a very long process (e.g. almost 40 years for South Korea to fully democratize).

Now whether we will judge it to have been worth it in 40 years if we finally achieve a peaceful, stable, and democratic Iraq? That I don't know. Would we have said South Korea was worth it in 1963 when it was being run by a series of autocratic generals and experienced coup after coup? Maybe not, but would we say it was worth it now in 2014, especially comparing it against the North Korean cult of personality alternative universe? Yes, Iraq sure seems like a wasted effort now, but ask me again in 2043 and hopefully I'll be able to say it was worth it.

 

[ttown]

Bush caught saddam, not Obama.

Also, having that uranium is the easiest thing about making a nuke. He was nowhere close to one and he wasn't trying to make one. That's a pretty huge lie.

I wonder if the hundreds of thousands of dead people that our invasion caused think the world is better without him.

Sorry... I was thinking of Osama bin laden. Thank you, Bush.

And thanks Obama, for letting our military assassinate Osama bin laden despite all your love displayed toward similar terrorists.

I'm curious where you get your "hundreds of thousands of dead people that our invasion caused" figure. Even including the years Obama kept killing innocent people there after Hussein was dead, I can't find a number anywhere near that.

Thanks in advance

 

[ivwshane]

Sorry... I was thinking of Osama bin laden. Thank you, Bush.

And thanks Obama, for letting our military assassinate Osama bin laden despite all your love displayed toward similar terrorists.

I'm curious where you get your "hundreds of thousands of dead people that our invasion caused" figure. Even including the years Obama kept killing innocent people there after Hussein was dead, I can't find a number anywhere near that.

Thanks in advance

100-500k depending on how you want to count it.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4102855

 

[Blanky]

Sorry... I was thinking of Osama bin laden. Thank you, Bush.

And thanks Obama, for letting our military assassinate Osama bin laden despite all your love displayed toward similar terrorists.

I'm curious where you get your "hundreds of thousands of dead people that our invasion caused" figure. Even including the years Obama kept killing innocent people there after Hussein was dead, I can't find a number anywhere near that.

Thanks in advance

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or just an ignorant troll and being honest. Can you tell us which one? I assume with the love Obama has for terrorists and focusing on subsequent lives lost in iraq you were being sarcastic.

 

[Ns1]

I'm curious where you get your "hundreds of thousands of dead people that our invasion caused" figure. Even including the years Obama kept killing innocent people there after Hussein was dead, I can't find a number anywhere near that.

Thanks in advance

it's right there in the wiki devoted to this topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Overview._Iraqi_death_estimates_by_source

 

[TreVader]

There were a ton of people who didn't buy Bush BS, my parents among them. I was 17 and IIRC pretty apathetic.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Pretty much everyone thought we'd be hugely better off with Saddam gone after his 20+ years of belligerence, crimes against humanity, and concerns of cooperation with terrorist since his was a regime known to possess and use WMDs (poison gas at least).

And we are better off with him gone. He was a cancer walking the Earth who should have been removed from power decades before we did. The problem is that people even worse than him occupied the power void afterwards. The people who supported the potential good outcome (Saddam gone) failed to adequately imagine the potential even worse follow-on outcomes after the primary objective had been achieved. We also willfully overlooked past history that bringing "liberated" nations back into the fold of civilized nations was a very long process (e.g. almost 40 years for South Korea to fully democratize).

Now whether we will judge it to have been worth it in 40 years if we finally achieve a peaceful, stable, and democratic Iraq? That I don't know. Would we have said South Korea was worth it in 1963 when it was being run by a series of autocratic generals and experienced coup after coup? Maybe not, but would we say it was worth it now in 2014, especially comparing it against the North Korean cult of personality alternative universe? Yes, Iraq sure seems like a wasted effort now, but ask me again in 2043 and hopefully I'll be able to say it was worth it.

Was it worth a few trillion and half a million deaths? Let's wait and see? Let's make sure everyone has job security and an opportunity for a living wage? Access to truly affordable health care? It wouldn't cost more than the war, and the apparently irrelevant unneeded deaths. War and death? Sure. Anything else? Heaven forbid.

 

[ttown]

it's right there in the wiki devoted to this topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Overview._Iraqi_death_estimates_by_source

Thanks... I'll go with the 116,227 figure -- which is about double what I had read elsewhere a few years ago.

 

[ttown]

Was it worth a few trillion and half a million deaths? Let's wait and see? Let's make sure everyone has job security and an opportunity for a living wage? Access to truly affordable health care? It wouldn't cost more than the war, and the apparently irrelevant unneeded deaths. War and death? Sure. Anything else? Heaven forbid.

Oh good Lord. More exaggeration and misleading false comparisons.
Have a nice day. I'll skim the comments from time to time (or as you'd probably say "troll") and I'm sure I'll laugh at all the libbies like I usually do.
At least I can count on you to not vote for Biden or Hillary.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh good Lord. More exaggeration and misleading false comparisons.
Have a nice day. I'll skim the comments from time to time (or as you'd probably say "troll") and I'm sure I'll laugh at all the libbies like I usually do.
At least I can count on you to not vote for Biden or Hillary.

You may unaware of the person you quoted who has a known history of throwing people to the wolves. He rather ridiculously has stated to the effect that I support a welfare state. No, I support a basic safety net, however IMO anyone who can work needs to do something so if you get a check sweep the streets. I'm sure Al Sharpton wouldn't like me.

But spend money on the most foolish conflict since Vietnam? Well, that's not such a big deal. Yes it was. The fight was in Afghanistan, and all resources were needed there, cost and lives aside. Al-Qaeda? Bin Laden? Nothing compared to the contrived threat of Saddam. So you can skim or not anything I comment on, but you are correct in one thing and that is I support neither Hillary or Biden.

 

[OGOC]

Edit- the date I first posted was for Clinton's last day as governor. That has been corrected. The statement I found of Clinton saying he believed Saddam was working on WMDs was in 1998.

Clinton said he thought Iraq had WMDs up until the war. He said it in an interview around four or five years ago.

One of the most interesting things about all of this is that the U.S. did find WMDs but tried to cover it up.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Another interesting thing about wars in general is that Obama has bombed more countries than Bush has, and is currently taking "military action" in I think 13 countries, and Obama still has two years left to make those numbers even bigger, yet a lot of people give him a pass on it. And look at how Obama couldn't wait to attack Syria, (ironically, the reason being chemical weapons), but public outcry stopped him.

Also, Hillary is a big warmonger, so in 2016 it will be interesting to see how any Bush war haters who vote for her will try to justify their vote.

No, son, Bush was a war monger for exploiting the 9/11 tragedy to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

True. But many Democrats voted for the war, and had warmongery things to say about it. So let's give everyone credit where due.

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[glenn1]

Was it worth a few trillion and half a million deaths? Let's wait and see? Let's make sure everyone has job security and an opportunity for a living wage? Access to truly affordable health care? It wouldn't cost more than the war, and the apparently irrelevant unneeded deaths. War and death? Sure. Anything else? Heaven forbid.

You could say the same for most wars. Was Korea worth it, now that in hindsight we know that the "Domino Theory" was bullshit? Hell, if there was ever in history a war which was a waste that was Vietnam and it didn't stop LBJ from trying (and failing) to bring about some of your utopian wish list items.

As for your safety net and sweeping streets, you'll find little disagreement from me but your wish list of things like "living wage" is anything but. Indeed it's little more than warmed over populist red meat for the proles. Places like Greece have proved that you can't long ensure "living wages" for those whose economic contributions don't support it. If you'd rather throw your lot in with the unions and have a few highly paid "living wage" jobs alongside massive unemployment be my guest but I don't see why that's a huge improvement.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As for your safety net and sweeping streets, you'll find little disagreement from me but your wish list of things like "living wage" is anything but. Indeed it's little more than warmed over populist red meat for the proles. Places like Greece have proved that you can't long ensure "living wages" for those whose economic contributions don't support it. If you'd rather throw your lot in with the unions and have a few highly paid "living wage" jobs alongside massive unemployment be my guest but I don't see why that's a huge improvement.

I recall the thread in which is was proposed that when AI/technology makes humans largely redundant that you were quite unconcerned about those displaced with no real alternatives. The few at the top would do ever better, and we go to a small extremely wealthy group, a much smaller middle class, and a huge number with no effective means of advancement and not nearly quallified to be called middle class. No real means to move up because those in control will make sure their own will continue to dominate. You are stuck and the only mobility is downward. We'll sign on to that because we won't be given a choice. If you get cut you are done. But all that money for war and death? Well that might just pay off in the long run. Problem is that the vast majority really have little to lose at that point so they won't care. They will do what they are told because they are powerless.

I don't like that. Our emphasis should be on getting decent jobs and if that means rewarding companies I'm fine with that. If that means that boardrooms are destroyed in their current virtually unaccountable form so be it.

Perhaps war of sorts should come closer to home.

 

[nickqt]

You could say the same for most wars. Was Korea worth it, now that in hindsight we know that the "Domino Theory" was bullshit? Hell, if there was ever in history a war which was a waste that was Vietnam and it didn't stop LBJ from trying (and failing) to bring about some of your utopian wish list items.

As for your safety net and sweeping streets, you'll find little disagreement from me but your wish list of things like "living wage" is anything but. Indeed it's little more than warmed over populist red meat for the proles. Places like Greece have proved that you can't long ensure "living wages" for those whose economic contributions don't support it. If you'd rather throw your lot in with the unions and have a few highly paid "living wage" jobs alongside massive unemployment be my guest but I don't see why that's a huge improvement.

Greece didn't have living wages. It had a system where the richest people didn't pay taxes. At all.

And to top it off, Germany imposed austerity on them, which never helps the economy.

Greece wasn't some socialist utopia with living wages that went bankrupt because of it. Instead, a norm of history, the rich captured the regulators, stopped paying taxes, and were quite alright with screwing over the rabble so that their money wouldn't lose any value.