- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Is it important to you that the US finds Iraqi WMD?
If they do not find these weapons will it affect your opinion of GWB?
If they do not find these weapons will it affect your opinion of GWB?
Poll: Is it important to you that the US finds Iraqi WMD?
- Thread starter Siddhartha
- Start date
It's important b/c everyone thinks Iraq has something . . . maybe the amounts are insignificant it might become significant if it shows up in Tel Aviv.
Bush has no credibility so the second question is irrelevant.
Bush has no credibility so the second question is irrelevant.
No, wouldn't effect my opinion in the least...since I'd know that the US had planted them there. Dirtbags.
I disagree. It's almost a certainty that Saddam has something . . . unless of course he really spent all his extra money building gilded palaces and appointing his military for conventional warfare. It's hard to believe US intelligence sux that much.
1. Yes.
2. My opinion of Bush will not ratchet any lower with this issue. I only hope he raises no new issues that will do so.
2. My opinion of Bush will not ratchet any lower with this issue. I only hope he raises no new issues that will do so.
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
I was hoping to hear from people who supported the war because of what GWB said about Iraq's WMD.
Those people who were stupid enough to be believe Bush about WMD are too dumb to answer your question on their own. They are watching FOX news right now to try and get a possible answer, because they obviously are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Not sure if you're serious or not, but you raise an interesting point. Two months ago, this forum was saturated with Bush/war cheerleaders posting right-wing propaganda. They'd drone on an on about how infallible Bush was and how Iraq was poised to destroy the world if we didn't invade Right This Minute. Anyone who dared question the propriety of the war and the actions of the Bush administration were immediately and savagely drowned out by a torrent of angry true believers. We were outnumbered dozens to one.
Where did they all go? There are still a few ardent Bush supporters hanging around, but most seem to have faded into the woodwork. The balance has shifted dramatically.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
No and yes. No, I don't care if they find weapons. As I said from the beginning, the war was wrong even if Iraq did possess significant weapons of mass distraction.
Yes, it will affect my opinion of Bush-lite (tastes great, less filling). If we do not find these "thousands of litres" and the imminent "mushroom cloud" and all the other doomsday "facts, not assertions" claimed by the Bush administration, it will further solidify my belief that they are dishonest, hypocritical, and power-mad despots who have no business governing this country.
I admit I supported this war, based on the Presidents' assurance that war was neccessary because Saddam had WMD's and was very close to using them. That is what the Leader of the free world said. Why should I, just a lowely voting tax payer and father of military age children, doubt that my President was right in invading Iraq?
I am satisfied that the war lasted a short time, inflicted relatively few casualties, and none of my children where put in harms way.
I am disapointed that my country has not found these WMD's that Bush claimed was so vital, however, the most important aspect of this war was removing the Bathe party from power and removing Saddam from the tyranical grip he had on Iraqi people.
Given that, we do need to find the WMD's and it must be solid in in its nature, with no room for doubt. Bush will need that for 2004,or he is doomed because he has said he wanted to get Saddam for personal reasons. That is not what is allowed by this country, that a sitting President can call up any part of the federal government to attack someone for personal reasons. So we better find WMD's or Bush will have to answer some real tough questions. Congress will not let this slip by, and this can not be precident for any future actions by a President. That is why we have checks and balances. And, if what was done was illegal, then Bush has blood on his hands, our soldiers blood. I will not forgive him that, just as I harbor ill will towards Nixon for falsly declaring in 68 he had a plan to end the war in Viet Nam in his first term. Lieing Presidents should be removed, just like they did Nixon.
But since Republicans control both houses of Congress, this will go under the rug, and only the voters in 2004 can rectify this.
That is why I hope to hell we find Saddams cache of WMD's. I would rather support my President, than wish him his politcal end.
I am satisfied that the war lasted a short time, inflicted relatively few casualties, and none of my children where put in harms way.
I am disapointed that my country has not found these WMD's that Bush claimed was so vital, however, the most important aspect of this war was removing the Bathe party from power and removing Saddam from the tyranical grip he had on Iraqi people.
Given that, we do need to find the WMD's and it must be solid in in its nature, with no room for doubt. Bush will need that for 2004,or he is doomed because he has said he wanted to get Saddam for personal reasons. That is not what is allowed by this country, that a sitting President can call up any part of the federal government to attack someone for personal reasons. So we better find WMD's or Bush will have to answer some real tough questions. Congress will not let this slip by, and this can not be precident for any future actions by a President. That is why we have checks and balances. And, if what was done was illegal, then Bush has blood on his hands, our soldiers blood. I will not forgive him that, just as I harbor ill will towards Nixon for falsly declaring in 68 he had a plan to end the war in Viet Nam in his first term. Lieing Presidents should be removed, just like they did Nixon.
But since Republicans control both houses of Congress, this will go under the rug, and only the voters in 2004 can rectify this.
That is why I hope to hell we find Saddams cache of WMD's. I would rather support my President, than wish him his politcal end.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Would you consider answering a couple of questions for me? I am not trying to argue with you; I am sincerely curious about your thoughts and reasoning.
First, the background: As I remember it, the whole story about liberating the Iraqi people was introduced late in the game. While it was admittedly mentioned in passing once or twice before, it didn't really get emphasized until after we were already in Iraq and finding no evidence of the WMDs. In the Bush/Blair address to the Iraqi people, both said our attack was Saddam's fault because he refused to disarm. In other words, we would not have "freed' the Iraqi people and would have left Hussein in power if he'd met our demands re. WMDs. I think this is strong evidence that the liberation angle was a backup story once the WMD claims started to unravel.
My questions: Do you disagree with my spin on the events surrounging the Iraqi war? If so, can you tell me what and why? Also, do you think you would have supported the war if the "liberation" explanation was the only (or at least primary) justification offered before the war, with no mention of WMDs and imminent threat to the U.S.? If so, what makes Iraq different from other countries with equally brutal governments?
Thank you.
______
Edit: typo
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Thank you.
I was hoping to get some dialogue about the war with this thread beyond: the "You are a unpartriotic Bush hater" comments that were so prevalent during the war.
I supported the war. I find it very suprising that we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. Has my opinion of GWB change for a negative way? It sure has. Personally, I think he should have done more of a moral justice situtiation. "Saddam is supporting terrorism, killing his own people. therefore we must act upon him." instead of WMD issuse. Of course that would raise the issuse of "Why not so and so contrey." I still support the war, reguardless of how much oil we get from Iraq it will be better for the people. However, this was a big faliure on GWB's part. As for someone mentioned that lieing presidents should not be in office. Someone tell me one president that has not lied during his term. Those of you who are going to scream its about oil. Guess what, tell me one goverment offical that isnt involved in big bissness.
Sure thing.
I have always known, as many who follow the news, that Saddam was a despot that needed his head handed to him, and so when this whole scenerio about going to Iraq started, the most startiling and revealing reason for Bush to go afer Saddam was because Saddam tried to kill his father years earlier. Bush came out and said that, and was questioned by democrats (and moderate republicans too) about that. Right after, in the same week of news, the story switched to needing weapons inspectors in to Iraq to once agian find the the cache of WMD's, hence, UN envolvement and Hans Blix. Hans Blix didn't find them (maybe because of the rope-a-dope crap Iraqi pawns used to thwart his efforts. Then came the ratchting up of Bush's claim,(and Powell,Rumsfeld,Cheny and Rice) that blix has been stymied, intelligence(ours and europes) had proof that Saddam was hiding WMD's, and emmidiate action was necessary to stop him because he was about to get nukes. Remember now?
That is when I climbed on board the war wagon, and supported for the first time a military action that my gut told me was wrong, but my devotion to what is right and fair seemed to equal that of Bush's, at least at face value. Saddam was dangerous, his quick relection at 99.9% was an obvious sham, and I believe to this day that getting rid of him is in the worlds best interest. I applaud the coalition effort and salute the soldiers who faithfully and unquestionably fullfilled their duty as soldiers.
Now, when there is no evidence (YET?), and it apears that Bush may have invented this whole thing to get support from other nations and try to build a coalition like his father did, well, that stinks. It didn't work, we still don't have Saddam (or Osama), we are in 2 hostile countries (Afghanistan and now Iraq) with no real viable endgame. I am really embarrassed for our country, and fear much trouble for the US if this isn't corrected. Finding WMD's goes a long way to correcting that.
In answer to one of your questions, NO, I would not have supported this nation building for "liberation" only. I supported it because my country told me Iraq was a threat. Guess I am gun shy after 9/11. So are most all of us. But nation building failed in the Viet Nam era, and I reasoned, if its good for the goose,it's good for the gander. Not so appetizing if it happened to us by say, Germany, because they don't like our style of democracy. But, if in one year, Saddam had nukes and the power to deliver them to our allies or US soil, then war is justifed.
By the way, I argued here we should be going after NK instead, because we know they have nukes, atrocious human rights violations, and they actually threatened to use them against us. Contrast that to Iraq.
There is a big disconnect with Bush and foreign policy. It needs to be fixed. He just this week stepped into the Israel/PLO game, and you see what that got, didn't you? That was calculated to show favorable light on Bush for bringing those 2 countries to the peace table. Instead, Hamas told Bush to shove it, and now it's escalation of murder on both sides.
Lets hope and pray there is a solution to this mess, and soon, before more people die without a valid cause. War is never a good thing, just sometimes a necessary thing.
Oh, and no I won't be voting for Bush in 2004. Anyone but him. I work in the workforce dept for my state, and at no time in history of the office have so many people been out of work and seeking assistance. I had a man in friday who retired from ATT and now has to go back to work because his retirement funds have been wiped out by the drop in the stock market. I fault Bush for not doing a damn thing for Americans, unless they are rich and putting money into his re election bank account. I deal with the reality of the economy every day. You can't spin what I see. It is hurting real people every day. I just hope they vote.
And I think they will.
I disagree with both. The US government has no right to determine who should rule other countries, nor prop-up regimes of their liking. If they wanted to go after regimes with WMD, invades neigbouring countries, and oppresses minorities within their own borders, they need have looked no further than Israel, but hey, they're a pal, and one that pays for all the votes.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I often wondered what became of all those brave Americans who went to Canada during the '60s and early '70s.... I think I'm finding out now. Your position in all this is consistant with the notion that either side of the issue is wrong because of a greater issue, it seems. That greater issue may be the inconsistant foreign policy as well as a domestic policy that does not foster the same high standards that we seek to impose on the rest of the world. That Israel runs the political machine of the United States and its population are dupes in the grander scheme of Israel's manifest program for the rights of mankind... if I am correct .... what's your point?
Originally posted by: AnImuS
you'll see 5x more liberals here posting propaganda...
What are you trying to say AnImus? Is there a "vast liberal conspiracy"? Strange that line didn't work for the Clintons - even after eight years of continuous conservative attacks. And the conservative attacks continue to this day. Like that damn bunny, they just keep going, and going, and going.
1. Is it important to you that the US finds Iraqi WMD?
It is important that the US find Iraqi WMD. Invading a sovereign nation on grounds they are an imminent threat is a claim which must be proven. If not any nation can use this excuse to attack another nation. Our credibility in the world will suffer long term damage if we invaded Iraq under false pretences. And so far there is no proof of WMD. I don't expect any proof since Bush fabricated the charge as an excuse to invade.
2. If they do not find these weapons will it affect your opinion of GWB?
I realize you're trying to get responses from Bush fanboys to see if ANY issue can change their minds about Bush. My mind can't be changed. Bush lived his life as a fraud, came into office a fraud and will continue to be a fraud. It's really all he knows how to do. I don't think it's possible for my opinion of him to go any lower. But hey, we are talking about a Bush here. There's always the possibility his actions can lower my opinion.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Well, DUH - since that was our prime directive for entering the war - YES !
This editorial from the LA TIMES
.....and for those who can't figure out how to register to the Times : (God, this is a long one)
==================================================================================================
Last October in Cincinnati, President Bush delivered what could stand as the most concise summary of why the United States might go to war against Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime, he said, "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people."
Today, more than a month after Bush declared that the United States and its allies had "prevailed" in the war against Hussein, there still is no consensus over whether the threat was as great as described.
A careful review of the evidence marshaled by the Bush administration and the staff of British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the months leading up to the war suggests that some of the claims were overstated, others have been proved wrong, and still others -- particularly those involving Hussein's human rights abuses against his own people -- have been amply validated.
But the charges that many found the most troubling, those involving Hussein's alleged production of chemical and biological weapons, remain largely unsupported. As a rule, the more specific the claim, the more likely it is to have been debunked, or at least called into question. Factories cited by the administration have been inspected and found to be clean; evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from an African country was found to be based on a forgery.
Since the war, the administration has subtly shifted its rhetoric against Hussein's fallen government, with Bush even moving away from the claim -- made repeatedly and vehemently -- that Iraq was actively producing and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons, saying instead that it "had a weapons program."
The failure of the United States and its allies to come up with undisputed proof that Iraq was a storehouse of dangerous, illegal weapons has become political fodder for opponents of Bush and Blair as well as Australian Prime Minister John Howard, whose government also supplied troops for the war. In this country, some members of Congress have called for an investigation of the intelligence that underpinned the administration's drive to war. Senior Bush administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, have continued to predict that they will be vindicated and have counseled patience while teams of weapons hunters scour Iraq.
But there also has been an effort to downplay the issue, with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz noting in a recent interview in Vanity Fair magazine that the administration had stressed unconventional weapons before the war "for bureaucratic reasons," when in fact they were just one of several reasons to attack Iraq.
In an interview with The Times last week, a senior administration official spoke of "connecting the dots" and uncovering weapons programs but repeatedly stopped short of saying any weapons would be found.
"I believe we will put together a picture that will be quite specific," the official said. "But let me ask you something: Is a capacity to put together precursors into a chemical weapon simply a program? Or is that a weapon?"
The charges against Iraq predate the current administration. Well after Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, went to war against Iraq in 1991, President Clinton accused Hussein of thwarting U.N. inspections so Iraq could continue to build chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Clinton ordered U.S. forces to bomb Iraq in December 1998 after declaring that Hussein not only possessed unconventional weapons, but "has used them -- not once, but repeatedly.... I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." Operation Desert Fox, as the Pentagon called that mission, lasted four days and hit nearly 100 targets, including suspected chemical or biological weapons sites.
The current Bush administration began escalating its rhetoric about Iraq not long after the Sept. 11 attacks. In his 2002 State of the Union address, Bush included Hussein's government in an "axis of evil" with Iran and North Korea.
"The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade," Bush charged then. And he warned: "America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security."
The rhetorical assault picked up last August. Its arguments fell into several categories: that Iraq was a champion of terrorism, that it stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, that it sought to produce nuclear weapons, that it maintained illegal missiles, and that it committed wholesale violations of human rights against its people. All but the last of these were portrayed as threats against the United States.
At the time, many of the charges were met with widespread skepticism internationally, causing a rift between the United States and two of its closest allies, France and Germany. The U.S. now has the opportunity -- or burden -- to enhance its credibility by proving that it did not overstate the threat. The outcome could also color Bush's reelection prospects.
The following is a summary of what was alleged before the war in Iraq, and what is known today:
Terrorism
In a speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, Bush charged: "Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder.... And Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq."
Some of this was, or has become, verifiable. Iraq made no effort to hide its financial support of Palestinian groups that carried out suicide bombings against Israelis. Hussein's government was implicated in assassinations of Iraqi dissidents and Iranian Shiite leaders.
And a Times reporter who visited a northern Iraq training camp of the Ansar al Islam extremist group after the war found evidence that members of Al Qaeda had been there after fleeing Afghanistan. The camp, however, was in an autonomous Kurdish region not ruled by Hussein.
As the Bush and Blair governments tried to connect the dots between Hussein and Al Qaeda to demonstrate that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., the evidence became more open to debate.
In his State of the Union address in January, Bush flatly stated that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda." Secretary of State Colin L. Powell elaborated in a Feb. 5 speech to the U.N. that laid out a detailed indictment of Iraq.
Powell focused on an Al Qaeda operative, Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was suspected of heading Osama bin Laden's chemical weapons unit and has been implicated in the assassination of a U.S. diplomat, Laurence Foley, in Amman, Jordan, last year.
Powell charged that Zarqawi had been at the Ansar camp in northern Iraq and came to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment. While he was there, the secretary of state said, nearly two dozen Al Qaeda associates converged on the capital to establish a base of operations. Iraq's denials of ties with Al Qaeda "are simply not credible," Powell said.
But since then, some U.S. and European intelligence officials have downplayed any ties between Al Qaeda and Hussein, saying that Bin Laden's operatives were contemptuous of Hussein's secular government and that Zarqawi's trip to Baghdad may have been purely medical.
Chemical andBiological Weapons
Perhaps the most serious charge leveled against Iraq was that it had failed to destroy its stocks of chemical and biological weapons, which it indisputably possessed -- and used -- in the past. These were often grouped with nuclear weapons under the catchall term "weapons of mass destruction."
"Simply stated," Vice President Dick Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars last August, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us."
"We know they have weapons of mass destruction," Rumsfeld told reporters a month later. "There isn't any debate about it." In fact, he said, it was "beyond anyone's imagination" that U.N. inspectors would fail to find such weapons if they were given the opportunity.
And Blair said that the Iraqi military needed only 45 minutes' notice to deploy some chemical and biological weapons.
Based on intelligence, much of it apparently supplied by Iraqi defectors, Britain and the U.S. pinpointed sites they suspected of producing the illicit weapons. Among the chemical materials named were VX nerve agents, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. Biological agents included ricin and anthrax.
The CIA specifically pointed to the Fallouja II chlorine and phenol production plants, which it said were capable of making the raw materials needed to produce blister and nerve agents, and the Al Dawrah Foot-and-Mouth-Disease Vaccine Facility, the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute, and the Fallouja III Castor Oil Production Plant, all of which were allegedly used for the production of biological weapons.
Before the war, U.N. inspection teams visited all these sites repeatedly and found no clear evidence that they were being used to produce banned weapons. Chief inspector Hans Blix, however, left open the possibility that Iraq had concealed the weapons elsewhere.
As the war began, U.S. and British forces were on high alert, fully expecting Iraq to use banned weapons. At several points during the war, troops came across caches of what appeared to be chemical weapons, but testing revealed them to be benign industrial or agricultural products. Discoveries of gas masks and chemical suits pointed more clearly to Iraq's familiarity with the banned weapons -- but not to any actual stockpiles.
Nevertheless, when, on March 30, midway through the war, Rumsfeld was asked about the illicit weapons, he replied: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
None have yet been found. Seven "sensitive site teams," each consisting of 25 inspectors, have visited about 330 sites, about 230 from target lists and the rest from local tips and other intelligence. Having effectively run out of targets, they have put much of the hunt on hold. A new U.S. search group will take over in July, hoping to develop fresh intelligence through interviews with Iraqi scientists and others.
Rumsfeld has said that U.S. forces would find unconventional weapons "only when they find people who will say precisely where things are." That apparently hasn't happened so far.
To the contrary, Gen. Amir Saadi, the main Iraqi liaison to the U.N. inspection teams, insisted after surrendering to U.S. forces that Iraq had destroyed all illicit weapons in the years after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, according to U.S. intelligence. So did another senior scientist, Emad Ani, who directed Iraqi's program to produce VX nerve gas in the 1980s, U.S. officials have said.
There are indications that many Iraqis who might have knowledge of weapons systems are still wary of cooperating with Americans because they believe that Hussein is alive and could return to power.
Rumsfeld, Powell and others have pleaded for patience, reminding critics that Iraq is a large country and Hussein's government had the time and motivation to effectively hide any banned weapons. And inspectors in the field, while frustrated, express confidence that they will eventually hit pay dirt.
Still, doubts have arisen about whether biological or chemical weapons in any significant quantities will ever be found.
Late last month, the top Marine commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. James Conway, said he was surprised that his forces had not uncovered stockpiles of banned weapons. "We were simply wrong," he said, although he held out hope that the weapons would yet be found.
Earlier this month, the Bloomberg news agency reported the existence of a September 2002 classified report from the Defense Intelligence Agency that said it had no reliable evidence that Iraq possessed chemical weapons.
Absent any other hard evidence, Bush and Blair have pointed to the discovery of two tractor-trailers in northern Iraq as evidence that Hussein did have an illicit weapons program.
The leaders have said the trailers were mobile germ labs capable of producing biological weapons. Powell had described such vehicles in his presentation to the U.N. in February. Lab tests have so far failed to reveal any sign of suspicious materials in the trailers.
In an interview last week with Britain's Guardian newspaper, Blix was quoted as saying he "remains agnostic" about the prospects for finding chemical or biological weapons. "We know for sure that they did exist ... and we cannot exclude they may find something," he said.
Nuclear Weapons
Bush told the United Nations in September that "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."
Twelve days later, Blair released a dossier that said Iraq had "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear power program that could require it." With fissile material, the dossier concluded, Iraq "could produce a nuclear weapon in between one and two years."
Blair's reference to Africa was fleshed out by the State Department on Dec. 19, when it said Baghdad had tried to buy uranium in the African country of Niger. Bush repeated the allegation in his State of the Union speech.
Both charges -- that Iraq tried to buy the aluminum tubes to enrich uranium, and that it had tried to buy uranium from Niger -- have since been either refuted or cast in doubt.
In March, just before the start of war, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the claim about a uranium deal in Niger was based on forged documents. U.S. national security advisor Rice has since acknowledged as much.
In April, the IAEA reported that "extensive field investigation and document analysis" had failed to turn up any evidence that Iraq intended the aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons and that they apparently were intended for use in rockets. The agency said it could find "no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
Human Rights
In his speech to the U.N., Bush charged that Iraq was continuing to commit widespread human rights abuses, arresting political opponents and ordinary citizens, and subjecting them to torture, summary execution, starvation, mutilation and rape.
Hussein's human rights record was presented as an example of his ruthlessness and willingness to stop at nothing to achieve his aims.
Referring to a recounting of Hussein's human rights record, Blair told his Parliament in September: "Read it all, and again I defy anyone to say that this cruel and sadistic dictator should be allowed any possibility of getting his hands on more chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons.... The history of Saddam and WMD is not American or British propaganda. The history and the present threat are real."
In the unclassified dossier he released, Blair cataloged Hussein's abuses in detail, citing the execution of 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984, 122 at the same prison in March 2000, the methods of torture used by Iraqi security police, and the confinement of prisoners in metal boxes "the size of tea chests."
If not every allegation has been proved, the pattern of abuses has been confirmed in dozens of interviews conducted since the end of the war, along with box after box of government records made available to reporters in Iraq and hundreds of bodies unearthed from mass graves throughout the country.
I'll sneak this in at the end !
This editorial from the LA TIMES
.....and for those who can't figure out how to register to the Times : (God, this is a long one)
==================================================================================================
Last October in Cincinnati, President Bush delivered what could stand as the most concise summary of why the United States might go to war against Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime, he said, "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people."
Today, more than a month after Bush declared that the United States and its allies had "prevailed" in the war against Hussein, there still is no consensus over whether the threat was as great as described.
A careful review of the evidence marshaled by the Bush administration and the staff of British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the months leading up to the war suggests that some of the claims were overstated, others have been proved wrong, and still others -- particularly those involving Hussein's human rights abuses against his own people -- have been amply validated.
But the charges that many found the most troubling, those involving Hussein's alleged production of chemical and biological weapons, remain largely unsupported. As a rule, the more specific the claim, the more likely it is to have been debunked, or at least called into question. Factories cited by the administration have been inspected and found to be clean; evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from an African country was found to be based on a forgery.
Since the war, the administration has subtly shifted its rhetoric against Hussein's fallen government, with Bush even moving away from the claim -- made repeatedly and vehemently -- that Iraq was actively producing and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons, saying instead that it "had a weapons program."
The failure of the United States and its allies to come up with undisputed proof that Iraq was a storehouse of dangerous, illegal weapons has become political fodder for opponents of Bush and Blair as well as Australian Prime Minister John Howard, whose government also supplied troops for the war. In this country, some members of Congress have called for an investigation of the intelligence that underpinned the administration's drive to war. Senior Bush administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, have continued to predict that they will be vindicated and have counseled patience while teams of weapons hunters scour Iraq.
But there also has been an effort to downplay the issue, with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz noting in a recent interview in Vanity Fair magazine that the administration had stressed unconventional weapons before the war "for bureaucratic reasons," when in fact they were just one of several reasons to attack Iraq.
In an interview with The Times last week, a senior administration official spoke of "connecting the dots" and uncovering weapons programs but repeatedly stopped short of saying any weapons would be found.
"I believe we will put together a picture that will be quite specific," the official said. "But let me ask you something: Is a capacity to put together precursors into a chemical weapon simply a program? Or is that a weapon?"
The charges against Iraq predate the current administration. Well after Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, went to war against Iraq in 1991, President Clinton accused Hussein of thwarting U.N. inspections so Iraq could continue to build chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Clinton ordered U.S. forces to bomb Iraq in December 1998 after declaring that Hussein not only possessed unconventional weapons, but "has used them -- not once, but repeatedly.... I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." Operation Desert Fox, as the Pentagon called that mission, lasted four days and hit nearly 100 targets, including suspected chemical or biological weapons sites.
The current Bush administration began escalating its rhetoric about Iraq not long after the Sept. 11 attacks. In his 2002 State of the Union address, Bush included Hussein's government in an "axis of evil" with Iran and North Korea.
"The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade," Bush charged then. And he warned: "America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security."
The rhetorical assault picked up last August. Its arguments fell into several categories: that Iraq was a champion of terrorism, that it stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, that it sought to produce nuclear weapons, that it maintained illegal missiles, and that it committed wholesale violations of human rights against its people. All but the last of these were portrayed as threats against the United States.
At the time, many of the charges were met with widespread skepticism internationally, causing a rift between the United States and two of its closest allies, France and Germany. The U.S. now has the opportunity -- or burden -- to enhance its credibility by proving that it did not overstate the threat. The outcome could also color Bush's reelection prospects.
The following is a summary of what was alleged before the war in Iraq, and what is known today:
Terrorism
In a speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, Bush charged: "Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder.... And Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq."
Some of this was, or has become, verifiable. Iraq made no effort to hide its financial support of Palestinian groups that carried out suicide bombings against Israelis. Hussein's government was implicated in assassinations of Iraqi dissidents and Iranian Shiite leaders.
And a Times reporter who visited a northern Iraq training camp of the Ansar al Islam extremist group after the war found evidence that members of Al Qaeda had been there after fleeing Afghanistan. The camp, however, was in an autonomous Kurdish region not ruled by Hussein.
As the Bush and Blair governments tried to connect the dots between Hussein and Al Qaeda to demonstrate that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., the evidence became more open to debate.
In his State of the Union address in January, Bush flatly stated that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda." Secretary of State Colin L. Powell elaborated in a Feb. 5 speech to the U.N. that laid out a detailed indictment of Iraq.
Powell focused on an Al Qaeda operative, Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was suspected of heading Osama bin Laden's chemical weapons unit and has been implicated in the assassination of a U.S. diplomat, Laurence Foley, in Amman, Jordan, last year.
Powell charged that Zarqawi had been at the Ansar camp in northern Iraq and came to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment. While he was there, the secretary of state said, nearly two dozen Al Qaeda associates converged on the capital to establish a base of operations. Iraq's denials of ties with Al Qaeda "are simply not credible," Powell said.
But since then, some U.S. and European intelligence officials have downplayed any ties between Al Qaeda and Hussein, saying that Bin Laden's operatives were contemptuous of Hussein's secular government and that Zarqawi's trip to Baghdad may have been purely medical.
Chemical andBiological Weapons
Perhaps the most serious charge leveled against Iraq was that it had failed to destroy its stocks of chemical and biological weapons, which it indisputably possessed -- and used -- in the past. These were often grouped with nuclear weapons under the catchall term "weapons of mass destruction."
"Simply stated," Vice President Dick Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars last August, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us."
"We know they have weapons of mass destruction," Rumsfeld told reporters a month later. "There isn't any debate about it." In fact, he said, it was "beyond anyone's imagination" that U.N. inspectors would fail to find such weapons if they were given the opportunity.
And Blair said that the Iraqi military needed only 45 minutes' notice to deploy some chemical and biological weapons.
Based on intelligence, much of it apparently supplied by Iraqi defectors, Britain and the U.S. pinpointed sites they suspected of producing the illicit weapons. Among the chemical materials named were VX nerve agents, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. Biological agents included ricin and anthrax.
The CIA specifically pointed to the Fallouja II chlorine and phenol production plants, which it said were capable of making the raw materials needed to produce blister and nerve agents, and the Al Dawrah Foot-and-Mouth-Disease Vaccine Facility, the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute, and the Fallouja III Castor Oil Production Plant, all of which were allegedly used for the production of biological weapons.
Before the war, U.N. inspection teams visited all these sites repeatedly and found no clear evidence that they were being used to produce banned weapons. Chief inspector Hans Blix, however, left open the possibility that Iraq had concealed the weapons elsewhere.
As the war began, U.S. and British forces were on high alert, fully expecting Iraq to use banned weapons. At several points during the war, troops came across caches of what appeared to be chemical weapons, but testing revealed them to be benign industrial or agricultural products. Discoveries of gas masks and chemical suits pointed more clearly to Iraq's familiarity with the banned weapons -- but not to any actual stockpiles.
Nevertheless, when, on March 30, midway through the war, Rumsfeld was asked about the illicit weapons, he replied: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
None have yet been found. Seven "sensitive site teams," each consisting of 25 inspectors, have visited about 330 sites, about 230 from target lists and the rest from local tips and other intelligence. Having effectively run out of targets, they have put much of the hunt on hold. A new U.S. search group will take over in July, hoping to develop fresh intelligence through interviews with Iraqi scientists and others.
Rumsfeld has said that U.S. forces would find unconventional weapons "only when they find people who will say precisely where things are." That apparently hasn't happened so far.
To the contrary, Gen. Amir Saadi, the main Iraqi liaison to the U.N. inspection teams, insisted after surrendering to U.S. forces that Iraq had destroyed all illicit weapons in the years after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, according to U.S. intelligence. So did another senior scientist, Emad Ani, who directed Iraqi's program to produce VX nerve gas in the 1980s, U.S. officials have said.
There are indications that many Iraqis who might have knowledge of weapons systems are still wary of cooperating with Americans because they believe that Hussein is alive and could return to power.
Rumsfeld, Powell and others have pleaded for patience, reminding critics that Iraq is a large country and Hussein's government had the time and motivation to effectively hide any banned weapons. And inspectors in the field, while frustrated, express confidence that they will eventually hit pay dirt.
Still, doubts have arisen about whether biological or chemical weapons in any significant quantities will ever be found.
Late last month, the top Marine commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. James Conway, said he was surprised that his forces had not uncovered stockpiles of banned weapons. "We were simply wrong," he said, although he held out hope that the weapons would yet be found.
Earlier this month, the Bloomberg news agency reported the existence of a September 2002 classified report from the Defense Intelligence Agency that said it had no reliable evidence that Iraq possessed chemical weapons.
Absent any other hard evidence, Bush and Blair have pointed to the discovery of two tractor-trailers in northern Iraq as evidence that Hussein did have an illicit weapons program.
The leaders have said the trailers were mobile germ labs capable of producing biological weapons. Powell had described such vehicles in his presentation to the U.N. in February. Lab tests have so far failed to reveal any sign of suspicious materials in the trailers.
In an interview last week with Britain's Guardian newspaper, Blix was quoted as saying he "remains agnostic" about the prospects for finding chemical or biological weapons. "We know for sure that they did exist ... and we cannot exclude they may find something," he said.
Nuclear Weapons
Bush told the United Nations in September that "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."
Twelve days later, Blair released a dossier that said Iraq had "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear power program that could require it." With fissile material, the dossier concluded, Iraq "could produce a nuclear weapon in between one and two years."
Blair's reference to Africa was fleshed out by the State Department on Dec. 19, when it said Baghdad had tried to buy uranium in the African country of Niger. Bush repeated the allegation in his State of the Union speech.
Both charges -- that Iraq tried to buy the aluminum tubes to enrich uranium, and that it had tried to buy uranium from Niger -- have since been either refuted or cast in doubt.
In March, just before the start of war, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the claim about a uranium deal in Niger was based on forged documents. U.S. national security advisor Rice has since acknowledged as much.
In April, the IAEA reported that "extensive field investigation and document analysis" had failed to turn up any evidence that Iraq intended the aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons and that they apparently were intended for use in rockets. The agency said it could find "no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
Human Rights
In his speech to the U.N., Bush charged that Iraq was continuing to commit widespread human rights abuses, arresting political opponents and ordinary citizens, and subjecting them to torture, summary execution, starvation, mutilation and rape.
Hussein's human rights record was presented as an example of his ruthlessness and willingness to stop at nothing to achieve his aims.
Referring to a recounting of Hussein's human rights record, Blair told his Parliament in September: "Read it all, and again I defy anyone to say that this cruel and sadistic dictator should be allowed any possibility of getting his hands on more chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons.... The history of Saddam and WMD is not American or British propaganda. The history and the present threat are real."
In the unclassified dossier he released, Blair cataloged Hussein's abuses in detail, citing the execution of 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984, 122 at the same prison in March 2000, the methods of torture used by Iraqi security police, and the confinement of prisoners in metal boxes "the size of tea chests."
If not every allegation has been proved, the pattern of abuses has been confirmed in dozens of interviews conducted since the end of the war, along with box after box of government records made available to reporters in Iraq and hundreds of bodies unearthed from mass graves throughout the country.
I'll sneak this in at the end !
could you even believe he said those things??? Who would ever think Iraq had WMD? The next thing you will tell me is there was this whole international effort to inspect his weapons systems to make sure he did not have any. That the rest of the world knew all along, it's just as crazy as those silly drawings powell had showing mobile bio labs.....
hag, of course you don't believe Bush. but you know what, that intelligence came from the UN, from Saddam, from all over the world, all you are saying is you don't believe the known facts and reality, is that part of the
canadian inferiority complex?
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2003
- 2,696
- 0
- 76
Yes we all know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction back in 1991. But does it mean he has them now? NO!
Any sort of chemical or biological agent that he had in '91 would have been long expired and unusable.
The state department had stated that the threat posed by Iraq was overstated, Iraq scientist to this day insist that there is no longer a weapons program, and we still cant find any weapons of mass destruction... what have we found? Two labs for making balloons called a weapons lab.
Edit: what does canada have anything to do with this topic?
Nitemare
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
Not really, because I actually am happy now that the Iraqi people can live under a less repressive regime and are free to criticize things without fear of a family member being executed.
I would like for them to find them to shut the mouths of those screaming liberals, other than that I do not care.
I would like for them to find them to shut the mouths of those screaming liberals, other than that I do not care.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter