Was W Right About WMDs?

[Mims44 1,864]

No, I just repeat the facts It's the left who keep repeating that Bush stole the 2000 election. And that will never become true.

True or not, relevance to the subject (WMD's in Iraq)?

http://www.logicalfa...ce/red-herring/

I see your red-herring and raise a conditional if...then statement.

If you point out all red-herrings in these boards, then you will not have much free time in your life.

[AuburnNTexas 7,128]

Actually the question is not whether Saddam had Active WMD it is if the intelligence that Bush was given said that he had them. If the info he was given said that then based on what he new he was correct. There were multiple Intelligence agencies that also reported the existence of Active WMD. Intel is not always right hindsight is 100% but no President can use hindsight to make a choice. There was Intel before Pearl Harbor that was ignored. Look at outcome.

[cole256 17,039]

Lol I know when this was about Georgie raptor would be in it going to war

[homersapien 11,354]

Actually the question is not whether Saddam had Active WMD it is if the intelligence that Bush was given said that he had them. If the info he was given said that then based on what he new he was correct. There were multiple Intelligence agencies that also reported the existence of Active WMD. Intel is not always right hindsight is 100% but no President can use hindsight to make a choice. There was Intel before Pearl Harbor that was ignored. Look at outcome.

http://www.foreignpo...igence-failure/

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of ‘Intelligence Failure’

The George Washington University National Security Archive recently published a newly released CIA document from January 2006 titled “Misreading Intentions: Iraq’s Reaction to Inspection Created Picture of Deception”. The document, the Archive notes, “blames ‘analyst liabilities’ such as neglecting to examine Iraq’s deceptive behavior ‘through an Iraqi prism,’ for the failure to correctly assess the country’s virtually non-existent WMD capabilities.” Foreign Policy magazine describes it as a “remarkable CIA mea culpa”. But nothing could be further from the truth. Far from acknowledging the CIA’s true role, the document does not present any kind of serious analysis, but only politicized statements rehashing well-worn official claims designed to further the myth that there was an “intelligence failure” leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March of 2003.

There was no such “intelligence failure”. On the contrary, there was an extremely successful disinformation campaign coordinated by the CIA in furtherance of the government’s policy of seeking regime change in Iraq. The language of the document itself reveals a persistent dishonesty. It speaks of “deepened suspicions” that Iraq “had ongoing WMD programs” and “suspicions that Iraq continued to hide WMD.” Needless to say, however, the Iraq war was not sold to the public on the grounds that government officials and intelligence agencies had “suspicions” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It was sold to the public with declarations that it was a known fact that Iraq had ongoing programs and stockpiles of WMD. The tacit acknowledgment that the actual evidence only supported “suspicions” that this was so by itself is proof of that the narrative of an “intelligence failure” is a fiction.

[quietfan 233]

No, I just repeat the facts It's the left who keep repeating that Bush stole the 2000 election. And that will never become true.

True or not, relevance to the subject (WMD's in Iraq)?

http://www.logicalfa...ce/red-herring/

I see your red-herring and raise a conditional if...then statement.

If you point out all red-herrings in these boards, then you will not have much free time in your life.

You are probably right.

...particularly if every time I point out a red herring, I am answered by another red herring regarding how much free time I do or do not have.

[quietfan 233]

Actually the question is not whether Saddam had Active WMD it is if the intelligence that Bush was given said that he had them. If the info he was given said that then based on what he new he was correct.

You are correct that a President must act on the truth or facts as he knows or understands them.

Those of us who opposed the war back in 2003 had reasonable doubts about the truth or facts, and felt the intelligence claims given to the public by the Administration were flawed, exaggerated, or intentionally dishonest, i.e., that the President had no such intelligence certainty regarding an Iraqi WMD threat.

http://www.berkeley....3/18_blix.shtml

U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq

Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003... "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."

12 years later our suspicions still have not been allayed.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Lol I know when this was about Georgie raptor would be in it going to war

Has more to do w/ the facts than " President Bush ", cole. But don't let that stop you from dissin' anyone.

[AURaptor 1,121]

No, I just repeat the facts It's the left who keep repeating that Bush stole the 2000 election. And that will never become true.

True or not, relevance to the subject (WMD's in Iraq)?

http://www.logicalfa...ce/red-herring/

The relevance is w/ repeating things enough times until they " become true ", as homie phrased it.

They are true regardless of how many times they're repeated.

Please, do try to keep up.

[quietfan 233]

No, I just repeat the facts It's the left who keep repeating that Bush stole the 2000 election. And that will never become true.

True or not, relevance to the subject (WMD's in Iraq)?

http://www.logicalfa...ce/red-herring/

The relevance is w/ repeating things enough times until they " become true ", as homie phrased it.

They are true regardless of how many times they're repeated.

Please, do try to keep up.

Oh, I followed the conservation just fine. You and Homie (and I) are actually in agreement that truth is truth, and falsehood is falsehood, regardless of how many times either is repeated. The red herring was introducing the 2008 election into the conversation when it had nothing to do with the topic. And sure, Homer added nothing but a platitude to the discussion, no new information or meaningful counterpoint, with his "repeating it doesn't make it true" aphorism.

[sometimes I think the level of rational discussion in this forum is little better than the "I'm rubber, You're glue" logic of the elementary school playground. ...pardon my emotional digression. ]

But focusing back on the subject, in the question of Iraqi WMD's:

I and others who opposed the war are asking for ironclad (i.e., sufficient to justify war) evidence of a serious WMD threat from Saddam Hussein in 2003. I have yet to see such, regardless of how many "claims" of truth or falsehood are made.

[RunInRed 16,360]

They find this baby yet?

[AURaptor 1,121]

No, I just repeat the facts It's the left who keep repeating that Bush stole the 2000 election. And that will never become true.

True or not, relevance to the subject (WMD's in Iraq)?

http://www.logicalfa...ce/red-herring/

The relevance is w/ repeating things enough times until they " become true ", as homie phrased it.

They are true regardless of how many times they're repeated.

Please, do try to keep up.

Oh, I followed the conservation just fine. You and Homie (and I) are actually in agreement that truth is truth, and falsehood is falsehood, regardless of how many times either is repeated. The red herring was introducing the 2008 election ( Actually, it was the 2000 election, and I was talking to homie. ) into the conversation when it had nothing to do with the topic.( and yes, it did ) And sure, Homer added nothing but a platitude to the discussion, no new information or meaningful counterpoint, with his "repeating it doesn't make it true" aphorism.

[sometimes I think the level of rational discussion in this forum is little better than the "I'm rubber, You're glue" logic of the elementary school playground. ...pardon my emotional digression. ]

But focusing back on the subject, in the question of Iraqi WMD's:

I and others who opposed the war are asking for ironclad (i.e., sufficient to justify war) evidence of a serious WMD threat from Saddam Hussein in 2003. I have yet to see such, regardless of how many "claims" of truth or falsehood are made.

The evidence which the Bush admin had at the time, right after 9-11, was sufficient for them to warrant focusing on Iraq.

That's why those who, from both parties, voted for military action.

Iraq, with every reason to NOT get caught w/ incriminating - ANYTHING, had more than ample time to disappear that which they didn't want found.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

Actually the question is not whether Saddam had Active WMD it is if the intelligence that Bush was given said that he had them. If the info he was given said that then based on what he new he was correct. There were multiple Intelligence agencies that also reported the existence of Active WMD. Intel is not always right hindsight is 100% but no President can use hindsight to make a choice. There was Intel before Pearl Harbor that was ignored. Look at outcome.

Hindsight for Raptor still hovers around 0%.

[AURaptor 1,121]

TT - you took what was said & flat out ignored it to take the exact opposite position.

Mind bottling

[AURaptor 1,121]

Tom Brady acted like Iraq , & destroyed evidence while not cooperating with the investigation. In the eyes of the Commish - he's guilty !

[quietfan 233]

The evidence which the Bush admin had at the time, right after 9-11, was sufficient for them to warrant focusing on Iraq.

That's why those who, from both parties, voted for military action.

Iraq, with every reason to NOT get caught w/ incriminating - ANYTHING, had more than ample time to disappear that which they didn't want found.

I appreciate the straight forward, to-the-point response. I also respect your right to the expressed opinion(s). I just disagree.

But you offer only:

1. An unsubstantiated claim: "The evidence which the Bush admin had at the time, right after 9-11, was sufficient...",

2. An appeal to authority who's expertise in the subject is unclear and stemmed primarily from what the Bush Administration told them (as well as a presumption of legislators' motives): "That's why those who, from both parties, voted for military action."

3. A possible scenario to explain the lack of evidence: "Iraq...had more than ample time to disappear that which they didn't want found."

...None of which constitutes actual evidence for the existence of threatening Iraqi WMD's at the time of invasion.

(Nor, in my opinion, sufficient justification for war.)

[AURaptor 1,121]

When your CIA director calls the evidence against Iraq " a slam dunk ", I don't call that unsubstantiated.

No " appeal to authority ", what so ever. It's fact. As it's also a fact that the Dem party did an about face on the war , once it became politically expedient for it to do so.

Key word " threatening " WMD. Point is, ANY WMD, old or new, was in violation to the terms of the Gulf War agreement and put Iraq under the chopping block for more severe action.

You can honestly argue that even * IF * Iraq was in violation due to OLD WMD, it still didn't rise to the level of military action as a response. I can appreciate and respect that position.

But to claim anyone intentionally mislead us into war, anyone who was with this administration, simply because they got off seeing US bombs drop or post war contracts to be signed... that's a bridge too far, in my book.

[autigeremt 6,569]

No matter what is said or found, G.W.B. was worth this to many.....

Just like Obama is worth this to many....

[AURaptor 1,121]

emt - where was the Obama effigy pic taken ?

[alexava 6,973]

When your CIA director calls the evidence against Iraq " a slam dunk ", I don't call that unsubstantiated.

No " appeal to authority ", what so ever. It's fact. As it's also a fact that the Dem party did an about face on the war , once it became politically expedient for it to do so.

Key word " threatening " WMD. Point is, ANY WMD, old or new, was in violation to the terms of the Gulf War agreement and put Iraq under the chopping block for more severe action.

You can honestly argue that even * IF * Iraq was in violation due to OLD WMD, it still didn't rise to the level of military action as a response. I can appreciate and respect that position.

But to claim anyone intentionally mislead us into war, anyone who was with this administration, simply because they got off seeing US bombs drop or post war contracts to be signed... that's a bridge too far, in my book.

i disagree. Saddam was likely never to totally comply like getting on his knees with his hands behind his head. Like Iran now. But an all out invasion and 13 year occupancy was not needed and too costly. the international inspectors where pressuring them even with resistance. continuing diplomacy with strategic strikes when needed would have been effective.

[homersapien 11,354]

I can't believe people can still argue this.

Like TT said, we have the benefit of hindsight if we only care to use it. :-\

[homersapien 11,354]

No, I just repeat the facts It's the left who keep repeating that Bush stole the 2000 election. And that will never become true.

True or not, relevance to the subject (WMD's in Iraq)?

http://www.logicalfa...ce/red-herring/

The relevance is w/ repeating things enough times until they " become true ", as homie phrased it.

They are true regardless of how many times they're repeated.

Please, do try to keep up.

Oh, I followed the conservation just fine. You and Homie (and I) are actually in agreement that truth is truth, and falsehood is falsehood, regardless of how many times either is repeated. The red herring was introducing the 2008 election ( Actually, it was the 2000 election, and I was talking to homie. ) into the conversation when it had nothing to do with the topic.( and yes, it did ) And sure, Homer added nothing but a platitude to the discussion, no new information or meaningful counterpoint, with his "repeating it doesn't make it true" aphorism.

[sometimes I think the level of rational discussion in this forum is little better than the "I'm rubber, You're glue" logic of the elementary school playground. ...pardon my emotional digression. ]

But focusing back on the subject, in the question of Iraqi WMD's:

I and others who opposed the war are asking for ironclad (i.e., sufficient to justify war) evidence of a serious WMD threat from Saddam Hussein in 2003. I have yet to see such, regardless of how many "claims" of truth or falsehood are made.

The evidence which the Bush admin had at the time, right after 9-11, was sufficient for them to warrant focusing on Iraq.

That's why those who, from both parties, voted for military action.

Iraq, with every reason to NOT get caught w/ incriminating - ANYTHING, had more than ample time to disappear that which they didn't want found.

Bogus! :-\

You sound as if you are talking from the Bush adm. talking points. This has been covered many times by different sources.

Here's one that's pre-invasion:

http://www.csmonitor...02s01-woiq.html

Bush and/or Cheney were going to use 9/11 as an excuse of invading Iraq, no matter what. All the intelligence was viewed through that filter, just like Hans Blik said....

[Mims44 1,864]

No, I just repeat the facts It's the left who keep repeating that Bush stole the 2000 election. And that will never become true.

True or not, relevance to the subject (WMD's in Iraq)?

http://www.logicalfa...ce/red-herring/

The relevance is w/ repeating things enough times until they " become true ", as homie phrased it.

They are true regardless of how many times they're repeated.

Please, do try to keep up.

Oh, I followed the conservation just fine. You and Homie (and I) are actually in agreement that truth is truth, and falsehood is falsehood, regardless of how many times either is repeated. The red herring was introducing the 2008 election ( Actually, it was the 2000 election, and I was talking to homie. ) into the conversation when it had nothing to do with the topic.( and yes, it did ) And sure, Homer added nothing but a platitude to the discussion, no new information or meaningful counterpoint, with his "repeating it doesn't make it true" aphorism.

[sometimes I think the level of rational discussion in this forum is little better than the "I'm rubber, You're glue" logic of the elementary school playground. ...pardon my emotional digression. ]

But focusing back on the subject, in the question of Iraqi WMD's:

I and others who opposed the war are asking for ironclad (i.e., sufficient to justify war) evidence of a serious WMD threat from Saddam Hussein in 2003. I have yet to see such, regardless of how many "claims" of truth or falsehood are made.

The evidence which the Bush admin had at the time, right after 9-11, was sufficient for them to warrant focusing on Iraq.

That's why those who, from both parties, voted for military action.

Iraq, with every reason to NOT get caught w/ incriminating - ANYTHING, had more than ample time to disappear that which they didn't want found.

Bogus! :-\

You sound as if you are talking from the Bush adm. talking points. This has been covered many times by different sources.

Bush and/or Cheney were going to use 9/11 as an excuse of invading Iraq, no matter what. All the intelligence was viewed through that filter, just like Hans Blik said....

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams! we've all been had! The war was for oil... err heroin. The Iraq nation was perfect, filled with simple and peaceful people!

The Bush family pulls the strings of the universe from their Texas ranches!

[quietfan 233]

I don't often respond by simply "red-lettering" my comments within another quote, but it seems the easiest way to respond in this case:

When your CIA director calls the evidence against Iraq " a slam dunk ", I don't call that unsubstantiated.

No " appeal to authority ", what so ever. It's fact. As it's also a fact that the Dem party did an about face on the war , once it became politically expedient for it to do so. ["Appeal to authority" refers to a logical fallacy, not a definition of "fact". The fallacy in this case: The votes of Congress most certainly have no value in determining "fact". (I think we both agree on that! )But if, according to you, the Democratic Party changes face with political expediency, doesn't that just weaken your claim that Democratic support on the vote to go to war supports the allegation that 'Saddam was a WMD threat'?].

Key word " threatening " WMD. Point is, ANY WMD, old or new, was in violation to the terms of the Gulf War agreement and put Iraq under the chopping block for more severe action. [More severe surveillance, yes. Liars lie. That's true of Saddam Hussein, members of the Republican Party, and members of the Democratic Party. The question is not did Saddam lie about, or fail to report, old unusable weapons. The question is: "Were his lies, those old weapons, or the evidence backing allegations of an on-going active WMD capability sufficient reason to go to war and sacrifice thousands of lives and billions of dollars?" My answer is "NO!" Your answer is "yes". I don't begrudge you your opinion, I just completely disagree with it.]

You can honestly argue that even * IF * Iraq was in violation due to OLD WMD, it still didn't rise to the level of military action as a response. I can appreciate and respect that position. [Thank you. That is exactly my argument. I don't ask you to agree, but I respect your respect.]

But to claim anyone intentionally mislead us into war, anyone who was with this administration, simply because they got off seeing US bombs drop or post war contracts to be signed... that's a bridge too far, in my book

And thanks for a civil discussion instead of swapping ad hominem attacks!

[AURaptor 1,121]

Bob Woodward took 18 months to look into this, and actually found that Bush did NOT blindly take it on the claims of WMD in Iraq being a " slam dunk " as his sole reason for going to war.

No need to lecture me what Appeal to Authority means. I was simply stating that it doesn't apply here. They were for the war, before they were against the war. Dems flipped on this, purely for political reasons. Make of it what you will, but if anything, it doesn't weaken MY position, it weakens theirs.

10 years of ' sanctions ' only ended up hurting the Iraqi people, not Saddam. Don't forget the world's biggest scam ever, the UN's food for oil program. As for WMD programs in Iraq, I really think there's more than we've been told. You may dismiss this out of hand, but for deep political reasons, religious , cultural, as well as massive amounts of $, I think " the truth " has been paid off and done away with.

[AURaptor 1,121]

by the way, how is that retaking of Ramadi working out ? I could not find that thread at this time so I just figured I'd toss it out here.