WMDs confirmed?

So they announced that they're going to announce? How nice, tell me when someone who's not fair and balanced reports on it.

 

Whatever your feelings on the war, doesn't it seem ridiculous that we're spending so much energy looking for WMDs just so we can say "it was worth it!" It's absurd. Of course, there are other reasons we need to find them. But it's just so damned bizarre that we're combing through Iraq hoping to find WMDs.

 

Road trips?

 

Actually, what justified this war was Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with UN weapons inspectors and the numerous resolutions, including the Gulf War cease fire, compelling him to do so.

Had he come clean to demands, been open, none of this would have been necessary. Simply destroying the weapons was not enough. Proving that they were destroyed was what was required.

 

> Actually, what justified this war was Saddam
> Hussein's failure to comply with UN weapons
> inspectors and the numerous resolutions

If a UN rule is broken, then the UN should deal with it. It isn't up to to the US to enforce the rule. I can't go kicking a person that jaywalked in Peru just because the Lima police don't do anything.

Besides, there are plenty of nations that have flaunted UN resolutions. Worst of all is Turkey, which has been doing so for decades. Yet they are still our ally.

 

And when the UN fails to do so, repeatedly? What then. The UN security council members didn't give a fuck whether or not Iraq had a WMD program.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that the majority of security council knew full well that Iraq did NOT in fact a substantial WMD program?

To all you dizzy hawks: produce the weapons, or shut the hell up.

 

Did it ever occur to you that Iraq admitted to having a WMD program, claimed they destroyed it, yet provided no evidence of said destruction to the weapons inspectors who's job it was to confirm the destruction, not search around and find the weapons?

 

Or perhaps that the anthrax cited by Powell had long been expired, vitiating any reason to account for harmless SLUDGE?

http://www.dailybulletin.com/Stories/0,1413,203~21481~1302247,00.html

http://www.basicint.org/iraqconflict/Pubs/Web Notes/WN300103-3.htm

http://www.medialens.org/articles_2002/NPR_Threat_Iraq_United_States.html

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3045

http://www.sundayherald.com/27879

And SLUDGE is what you are still trying to sell.

 

No, it never occurred to me.

Trust me, if Saddam didn't have WMD he would've been pleading desperately to prove this to avoid getting his SS handed to him, which happened in the end. The WMDs are still hidden, were destroyed, or were moved to Syria. Whichever outcome it was, we are still better off without your buddy Saddam in charge.

 

Well, if that Peruvian had designs on jaywalking on your head then it would behoove you to kick him while he's still making his way thru Peru.

 

What we have so far is a couple of suspect mobile labs, a group of scientists who are capable of producing WMD's, and a bellicose leader hostile to the USA and dangerous to his neighbors. But certainly not the massive amounts of weapons that US intelligence predicted were a clear and present danger to the United States. In fact, to this point, no chemicals or biological weapons at all.

Personally, I am glad that Hussein was taken out because I hate tirants who abuse their power and torture people. But the case that America had made before the war in order to justify it has not been proven yet.

 

the weapons lab and the scientists are proof that saddam had a weapons program, they don't mean he still had WMD's.

we were told Saddam had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and that he was trying to develop a nuclear weapon.

some of those stockpiles must be found to validate this war (and they should still be viable weapons, not degraded beyond use). and almost all of the stockpiles must be found to show that the US is more secure than it was when the war started.

there are 3 options:

1) The stockpiles are still there and we haven't found them yet.

2) The stockpiles don't exist (either because they were destroyed pre-war or didn't exist in the numbers we were told) and we were historically deceived.

3) The stockpiles are no longer in Iraq and have been dispersed to other places. This means we no longer have any idea who is in charge of them or where they are. That presents a worse situation than we had before the war.

For the sake of the United States, I hope we find the stockpiles in Iraq regardless of the gloating we would hear from the administration.

Option 2 seriously damages the credibility of the U.S. and presents either one of the most serious betrayals by a U.S. president ever or final proof that our entire intelligence system needs to be torned down and rebuilt.

Option 3 damages the national security of the United States, before the weapons were controlled by a state leader we had pretty effectively contained, now they are out there to be bought and sold and we have no idea who has what or where it is.

 

I call bull**** on the administration and now Saddam's my buddy. When did hawks stop circling and begin spinning?

Here's another possibility: the unaccounted for wet anthrax of 1995 identified by Colin Powell had long passed its shelf life of three years. Anthrax can be preserved longer in a dry form only, and the UN weapons inspectors concluded that Iraq did not possess that capacity. The UN later destroyed the facility that produced that same wet batch. Any of that previously identified anthrax would have been degraded below weapons-grade by 1998 at the latest. Most military scientists would not needlessly maintain possession of useless sludge. With a defiant tyrant desperate to retain his image of power in the region, the former anthrax was likely dumped in quiet. Iraq later did in fact claim just that.

The simplest explanations are usually the correct ones.

 

This blog post is very giggle-worthy.

When was Bill O'Reilly going to apologize for believing the Bush administration, again?

 

Hey, if you liberals want to run on a platform stating that the "War to Oust Saddam" was a bad outcome, we will surely step out of your way and let your noose work properly.

 

Ah yes, the old "ends justify the means" argument. Sure, we did some bad things during the Cold War, but bygones are bygones, and everyone loves America now.
And the war in Iraq was The War to End All Wars.

 

That's awfully nice of you. Speaking of bad outcomes, how many soldiers have died since Bush hung up the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" sign?

 

You can NOT be serious. The "War to Oust Saddam"? Revisionism at its most cynical extreme.

Personally, I don’t accept repeated, bald-faced lying from our civil servants, especially in matters as grave as war. Apparently, you don't care whether you are repeatedly lied to, as long as "your guy" wins.

 

weapons of mass distraction

Well, the neocon civilian influence in the pentagon always believed WMD were there, but I think they were more interested in creating a paxamericana then protecting the strategic interest of the US. Otherwise, these guys would've secured the sprawling nuclear facilities rather than the oil fields.
Sad thing is, though Iraq had no offensive nuclear ambitions, there's enough Cessium on the black market from looters 2 quench someone's urges.

I just pray that any illicit arms deals and plots will be foiled since the world is now far less secure. Jose Padilla was a joke & Al-qaeda never really took him seriously, but if someone w/ a lil more resourcefulness could get a few grams of this stuff and strap it to some conventional explosives, 9/11 will look mundane in comparison.

 

Maybe we should ask Ali Ismaeel Abbas what he thinks about the outcome of the war.