Saddam hoodwinked to believe he had WMD

[Witling]

Yet another theory on those missing Iraqi WMD. From the 12/24/03 Guardian

"British officials are circulating a story that Saddam Hussein may have been hoodwinked into believing that Iraq really did possess weapons of mass destruction.

The theory, which is doing the rounds in the upper reaches of Whitehall, is the result of an attempt to find what one official source called a "logical reason" why no chemical and biological weapons had been found in Iraq.

According to the theory, Saddam and his senior advisers and commanders were told by lower-ranking Iraqi officers that his forces were equipped with usable chemical and biological weapons."



Guardian Article.

 

[Gaard]

Dr Blix has always argued that weapons may be unaccounted for, but that did not mean they existed.

OMG! Where was this quote when I was saying the exact same thing to Alistar7, HoP, and others....to no avail I might add.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Whitling
According to the theory, Saddam and his senior advisers and commanders were told by lower-ranking Iraqi officers that his forces were equipped with usable chemical and biological weapons."

Baloney
If the lower ranking officers (major/col) were saying that, it was because that they were shipped equipment that was labeled as such. There would have been some techs/scientists around to handle the initial deployment. That would not have happened without the authorization of the higher ups.

No-one initiated anything with Saddam's approval.

 

[maluckey]

Crap! To do anything without Saddams approval found you feet first into the shredder. Either Saddam apologists are coming out of the woodwork, or the Brits are trying to save face for no WMD's being found..

Saddam may have lied about his current possession of the WMD to intimidate his opponents. It's not like he didn't EVER haver them. But to think that Saddam was manipulated by his own troops is absurd. Anyone having any self motivation to do anything contrary to Saddams wishes would have been murdered long before the made it to the officer ranks.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Dr Blix has always argued that weapons may be unaccounted for, but that did not mean they existed.

OMG! Where was this quote when I was saying the exact same thing to Alistar7, HoP, and others....to no avail I might add.

Imagine this bank robber who's been known to be armed walks into a bank and asks for their money...they would give it to him because they aren't going to take a chance he doesn't happen to have it on him. His gun is unaccounted for but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Consequently, when that robber is spotted by the police walking down the street some day and is shot for not cooperating, I'm not going to point my finger at the cops. Perceived power is virtually equivalent to power itself. So Blix's statement as an argument against the overthrowing of Saddam is rediculous and shows how little logic you're using to figure this all out.

 

[Red Dawn]

So Blix's statement as an argument against the overthrowing of Saddam is rediculous and shows how little logic you're using to figure this all out.

His argument proved to be fact though., Now if you believe that we neede to overthrow Saddam regardless of whether he had WMD's or not then yes that argument would seem rather ridiculous to you.

According to a poll that was posted here it seems that 2/3's of American still suport thew invasion and occupation. Did Bush underestimate the Americans resolve to overthrow Saddam and instead of selling it with a factual and truthful argument he felt that he needed to sell it with dodgy intel? Or was it because he felt that he might not have been able to get the support of Congress if he was truthful (or at least somewhat accurate)

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

So Blix's statement as an argument against the overthrowing of Saddam is rediculous and shows how little logic you're using to figure this all out.

His argument proved to be fact though., Now if you believe that we neede to overthrow Saddam regardless of whether he had WMD's or not then yes that argument would seem rather ridiculous to you.

According to a poll that was posted here it seems that 2/3's of American still suport thew invasion and occupation. Did Bush underestimate the Americans resolve to overthrow Saddam and instead of selling it with a factual and truthful argument he felt that he needed to sell it with dodgy intel? Or was it because he felt that he might not have been able to get the support of Congress if he was truthful (or at least somewhat accurate)

I thought their entire handling of the justification was an absolute bumbling catastrophe. They caved to the pressure for evidence when they should have maintained, as I have, that the evidence must be submitted by Saddam. That led to mixed signals. And, of course, with the democrats feeling very weak right now, there have been relentless attempts to exploit the communication blunders for partisan political gain.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

So Blix's statement as an argument against the overthrowing of Saddam is rediculous and shows how little logic you're using to figure this all out.

His argument proved to be fact though., Now if you believe that we neede to overthrow Saddam regardless of whether he had WMD's or not then yes that argument would seem rather ridiculous to you.

According to a poll that was posted here it seems that 2/3's of American still suport thew invasion and occupation. Did Bush underestimate the Americans resolve to overthrow Saddam and instead of selling it with a factual and truthful argument he felt that he needed to sell it with dodgy intel? Or was it because he felt that he might not have been able to get the support of Congress if he was truthful (or at least somewhat accurate)

I thought their entire handling of the justification was an absolute bumbling catastrophe. They caved to the pressure for evidence when they should have maintained, as I have, that the evidence must be submitted by Saddam. That led to mixed signals. And, of course, with the democrats feeling very weak right now, there have been relentless attempts to exploit the communication blunders for partisan political gain.

As well they should. I can assure you that if the shoe was on the other foot Limbaughtistas and little twats like Sean Hannity would be railing against the Dems!

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

So Blix's statement as an argument against the overthrowing of Saddam is rediculous and shows how little logic you're using to figure this all out.

His argument proved to be fact though., Now if you believe that we neede to overthrow Saddam regardless of whether he had WMD's or not then yes that argument would seem rather ridiculous to you.

According to a poll that was posted here it seems that 2/3's of American still suport thew invasion and occupation. Did Bush underestimate the Americans resolve to overthrow Saddam and instead of selling it with a factual and truthful argument he felt that he needed to sell it with dodgy intel? Or was it because he felt that he might not have been able to get the support of Congress if he was truthful (or at least somewhat accurate)

I thought their entire handling of the justification was an absolute bumbling catastrophe. They caved to the pressure for evidence when they should have maintained, as I have, that the evidence must be submitted by Saddam. That led to mixed signals. And, of course, with the democrats feeling very weak right now, there have been relentless attempts to exploit the communication blunders for partisan political gain.

As well they should. I can assure you that if the shoe was on the other foot Limbaughtistas and little twats like Sean Hannity would be railing against the Dems!

The dems wouldn't do this, so it's moot. The dems were in the White House for 8 years and didn't do this. They were in the White House when Saddam kicked the inspectors out and the dems did jack. So as far as criticizing administrations for taking action when needed, I'm afraid the dems have a monopoly.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

So Blix's statement as an argument against the overthrowing of Saddam is rediculous and shows how little logic you're using to figure this all out.

His argument proved to be fact though., Now if you believe that we neede to overthrow Saddam regardless of whether he had WMD's or not then yes that argument would seem rather ridiculous to you.

According to a poll that was posted here it seems that 2/3's of American still suport thew invasion and occupation. Did Bush underestimate the Americans resolve to overthrow Saddam and instead of selling it with a factual and truthful argument he felt that he needed to sell it with dodgy intel? Or was it because he felt that he might not have been able to get the support of Congress if he was truthful (or at least somewhat accurate)

I thought their entire handling of the justification was an absolute bumbling catastrophe. They caved to the pressure for evidence when they should have maintained, as I have, that the evidence must be submitted by Saddam. That led to mixed signals. And, of course, with the democrats feeling very weak right now, there have been relentless attempts to exploit the communication blunders for partisan political gain.

As well they should. I can assure you that if the shoe was on the other foot Limbaughtistas and little twats like Sean Hannity would be railing against the Dems!

The dems wouldn't do this, so it's moot. The dems were in the White House for 8 years and didn't do this. They were in the White House when Saddam kicked the inspectors out and the dems did jack. So as far as criticizing administrations for taking action when needed, I'm afraid the dems have a monopoly.

You're right. They wouldn't start an illegal moronic war, lying about the justification, that was needed by the mentally retarded and the criminally insane.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

So Blix's statement as an argument against the overthrowing of Saddam is rediculous and shows how little logic you're using to figure this all out.

His argument proved to be fact though., Now if you believe that we neede to overthrow Saddam regardless of whether he had WMD's or not then yes that argument would seem rather ridiculous to you.

According to a poll that was posted here it seems that 2/3's of American still suport thew invasion and occupation. Did Bush underestimate the Americans resolve to overthrow Saddam and instead of selling it with a factual and truthful argument he felt that he needed to sell it with dodgy intel? Or was it because he felt that he might not have been able to get the support of Congress if he was truthful (or at least somewhat accurate)

I thought their entire handling of the justification was an absolute bumbling catastrophe. They caved to the pressure for evidence when they should have maintained, as I have, that the evidence must be submitted by Saddam. That led to mixed signals. And, of course, with the democrats feeling very weak right now, there have been relentless attempts to exploit the communication blunders for partisan political gain.

As well they should. I can assure you that if the shoe was on the other foot Limbaughtistas and little twats like Sean Hannity would be railing against the Dems!

The dems wouldn't do this, so it's moot. The dems were in the White House for 8 years and didn't do this. They were in the White House when Saddam kicked the inspectors out and the dems did jack. So as far as criticizing administrations for taking action when needed, I'm afraid the dems have a monopoly.

You're right. They wouldn't start an illegal moronic war, lying about the justification, that was needed by the mentally retarded and the criminally insane.

The justification is there for anybody with the logical reasoning ability of a ground squirrel to pick up. Had we gone in right after he kicked out the inspectors I doubt anybody would oppose...however, thanks to Clinton's criminal inaction the devil succeeded in convincing the world he didn't exist.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

The justification is there for anybody with the logical reasoning ability of a ground squirrel to pick up. Had we gone in right after he kicked out the inspectors I doubt anybody would oppose...however, thanks to Clinton's criminal inaction the devil succeeded in convincing the world he didn't exist.

Clinton did everything the american public would let him do. America was unwilling to bear the casulaties or expense related to any action until after 9/11. We shouldn't have walked away after Somalia, we shouldn't have let Bin Ladin get away with bombing the cole or the embassies. The simple fact is, and Clinton has said it, the american people were unwilling to take action against our enemies until the attack on NY. So stop blaming Clinton for not doing more, the Republicans roasted him in congress for even doing anything on the times he did try to do.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

The justification is there for anybody with the logical reasoning ability of a ground squirrel to pick up. Had we gone in right after he kicked out the inspectors I doubt anybody would oppose...however, thanks to Clinton's criminal inaction the devil succeeded in convincing the world he didn't exist.

Clinton did everything the american public would let him do. America was unwilling to bear the casulaties or expense related to any action until after 9/11. We shouldn't have walked away after Somalia, we shouldn't have let Bin Ladin get away with bombing the cole or the embassies. The simple fact is, and Clinton has said it, the american people were unwilling to take action against our enemies until the attack on NY. So stop blaming Clinton for not doing more, the Republicans roasted him in congress for even doing anything on the times he did try to do.

That's not fair. You were supposed to reason like a ground squirrel.

 

[DealMonkey]

Bush didn't do squat about Iraq prior to 9/11, so it's quite clear that 9/11 gave him the supposed justification for OIF.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Imagine this bank robber who's been known to be armed walks into a bank and asks for their money...they would give it to him because they aren't going to take a chance he doesn't happen to have it on him. His gun is unaccounted for but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Consequently, when that robber is spotted by the police walking down the street some day and is shot for not cooperating, I'm not going to point my finger at the cops. Perceived power is virtually equivalent to power itself. So Blix's statement as an argument against the overthrowing of Saddam is rediculous and shows how little logic you're using to figure this all out.

Personally, I'd ask why a bunch of New York cops were in Baghdad and wonder when their police powers were extended outside the U.S.?

 

[ReiAyanami]

i guess those illegal missiles he was stockpiling were filled with powdered sugar and were really friendship missiles

maybe we imagined that he was shooting at coalition planes from 1993-2002
maybe we imagined him kicking out UN weapons inspectors in 1996

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

The justification is there for anybody with the logical reasoning ability of a ground squirrel to pick up. Had we gone in right after he kicked out the inspectors I doubt anybody would oppose...however, thanks to Clinton's criminal inaction the devil succeeded in convincing the world he didn't exist.

Clinton did everything the american public would let him do. America was unwilling to bear the casulaties or expense related to any action until after 9/11. We shouldn't have walked away after Somalia, we shouldn't have let Bin Ladin get away with bombing the cole or the embassies. The simple fact is, and Clinton has said it, the american people were unwilling to take action against our enemies until the attack on NY. So stop blaming Clinton for not doing more, the Republicans roasted him in congress for even doing anything on the times he did try to do.

That's such a simpering copout. The American public would have reacted similarly to how it did when Bush did it. Clinton just wanted to keep his image clean and avoid controversy. Even if the public would have reacted less favorably, leaders have to make unpopular decisions sometimes.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
The justification is there for anybody with the logical reasoning ability of a ground squirrel to pick up. Had we gone in right after he kicked out the inspectors I doubt anybody would oppose...however, thanks to Clinton's criminal inaction the devil succeeded in convincing the world he didn't exist.

Clinton did everything the american public would let him do. America was unwilling to bear the casulaties or expense related to any action until after 9/11. We shouldn't have walked away after Somalia, we shouldn't have let Bin Ladin get away with bombing the cole or the embassies. The simple fact is, and Clinton has said it, the american people were unwilling to take action against our enemies until the attack on NY. So stop blaming Clinton for not doing more, the Republicans roasted him in congress for even doing anything on the times he did try to do.

That's not fair. You were supposed to reason like a ground squirrel.

Exactly.

And for the millionth time, the U.N. WITHDREW their inspectors. They were NOT "kicked out". When he can't even get a simple fact like that straight, it's no wonder he has no credibility on anything else. The U.N. withdrew inspectors voluntarily because it knew the U.S. was ready to attack, i.e., Clinton's four-day bombing raids.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

The justification is there for anybody with the logical reasoning ability of a ground squirrel to pick up. Had we gone in right after he kicked out the inspectors I doubt anybody would oppose...however, thanks to Clinton's criminal inaction the devil succeeded in convincing the world he didn't exist.

Clinton did everything the american public would let him do. America was unwilling to bear the casulaties or expense related to any action until after 9/11. We shouldn't have walked away after Somalia, we shouldn't have let Bin Ladin get away with bombing the cole or the embassies. The simple fact is, and Clinton has said it, the american people were unwilling to take action against our enemies until the attack on NY. So stop blaming Clinton for not doing more, the Republicans roasted him in congress for even doing anything on the times he did try to do.

That's such a simpering copout. The American public would have reacted similarly to how it did when Bush did it. Clinton just wanted to keep his image clean and avoid controversy. Even if the public would have reacted less favorably, leaders have to make unpopular decisions sometimes.

Bullsh!t and you know it. After "Black hawk down" in Somalia Clinton wanted to send in the armor and round up the warlords. When those pictures showed up on TV of those crowds of people dragging around naked dead US soldiers for the world to see the american public started asking: why are we there? Why should we do anything to help those people when they show us gratitude like that?

The fact is the President doesn't control american opinion, he reacts to it. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool. Bush capitalized on 9/11 anger and the potential threats from the area to illicit the invasion of Iraq. Without that pre-existing anger from the attack on american civllians he wouldn't have been able to do SQUAT. Clinton wanted to go after Saddam when the inspectors left but no one was willing to pay for the invasion in blood or money. The american people were not motivated to react and without 9/11 we never would have been.

 

[Moonbeam]

Even if the public would have reacted less favorably, leaders have to make unpopular decisions sometimes.
----------------
The bastard lied over and over again. If he had a case, why didn't he make it. It's all about lack of character.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
The justification is there for anybody with the logical reasoning ability of a ground squirrel to pick up. Had we gone in right after he kicked out the inspectors I doubt anybody would oppose...however, thanks to Clinton's criminal inaction the devil succeeded in convincing the world he didn't exist.

Clinton did everything the american public would let him do. America was unwilling to bear the casulaties or expense related to any action until after 9/11. We shouldn't have walked away after Somalia, we shouldn't have let Bin Ladin get away with bombing the cole or the embassies. The simple fact is, and Clinton has said it, the american people were unwilling to take action against our enemies until the attack on NY. So stop blaming Clinton for not doing more, the Republicans roasted him in congress for even doing anything on the times he did try to do.

That's not fair. You were supposed to reason like a ground squirrel.

And for the millionth time, the U.N. WITHDREW their inspectors. They were NOT "kicked out".

Yeah, and your girlfriend didn't break up with you, you withdrew yourself from the relationship when she stopped answering her phone when you'd call.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

So Blix's statement as an argument against the overthrowing of Saddam is rediculous and shows how little logic you're using to figure this all out.

His argument proved to be fact though., Now if you believe that we neede to overthrow Saddam regardless of whether he had WMD's or not then yes that argument would seem rather ridiculous to you.

According to a poll that was posted here it seems that 2/3's of American still suport thew invasion and occupation. Did Bush underestimate the Americans resolve to overthrow Saddam and instead of selling it with a factual and truthful argument he felt that he needed to sell it with dodgy intel? Or was it because he felt that he might not have been able to get the support of Congress if he was truthful (or at least somewhat accurate)

I thought their entire handling of the justification was an absolute bumbling catastrophe. They caved to the pressure for evidence when they should have maintained, as I have, that the evidence must be submitted by Saddam. That led to mixed signals. And, of course, with the democrats feeling very weak right now, there have been relentless attempts to exploit the communication blunders for partisan political gain.

As well they should. I can assure you that if the shoe was on the other foot Limbaughtistas and little twats like Sean Hannity would be railing against the Dems!

The dems wouldn't do this, so it's moot. The dems were in the White House for 8 years and didn't do this. They were in the White House when Saddam kicked the inspectors out and the dems did jack. So as far as criticizing administrations for taking action when needed, I'm afraid the dems have a monopoly.

No they probably wouldn't have. They would have finished the job in Afghanistan though!

 

[alchemize]

No they probably wouldn't have. They would have finished the job in Afghanistan though!

Who was it calling for "negotiations" and "more time" back prior to the bombs starting falling in Afghanistan?

I'm afraid the Dems never would have even started the job, much less finished it.

I'll agree with you that Bush should have approached Afghanistan differently, but I was thinking more along the line of WWII tactics, but with no Marshall Plan.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize

No they probably wouldn't have. They would have finished the job in Afghanistan though!

Who was it calling for "negotiations" and "more time" back prior to the bombs starting falling in Afghanistan?

I'm afraid the Dems never would have even started the job, much less finished it.

I'll agree with you that Bush should have approached Afghanistan differently, but I was thinking more along the line of WWII tactics, but with no Marshall Plan.

I don't recall the DEMS doing that, at least not the majority of them. Hell attacking Afghanistan probably was the easiest decision Bush had to make!

 

[syzygy]

this whole theory is assinine. ba'athists were sanitizing sites and destroying documents even after the american forces initiated
the campaign. it would be very likely that such efforts are continuing ahead of the american-led teams now turning the country
upside down for more evidence.