Declassified report-WMD Found in Iraq

[Victor Galis]

It's been awhile since I've been in Iraq threads on Poly, I don't know where people stand. Heck, last time I actually tried being serious in one Ted was pro-war

[Deity Dude]

It seems to me that Bush gave several reasons for attacking Iraq in addition to potential WMD's.

(just a few off the top of my head: not allowing inspectors in the country, attacking US airplanes patrolling the no-fly zone, attempted assassination of a former president, use of chemical weapons against his own people and during the war with Iran, diversion of funds from humanitarian oil sales to himself and the military, the countless political murders and false inprisonments within his own country, his open support for the 9/11 attacks and of other terrorist organizations)

Then he gave Iraq plenty of time to comply.

It also seems to me that at the time he got overwhelming support from the Senate, House and American people (I'm not talking about everyone at Poly though)

Then as time went on, the action became less and less popular and it became apparent that massive amounts of WMD's weren't gonna be found. Suddenly those who were in the awkward position of supporting the war initially, but were against it currently kept pushing the WMD issue, until it became "the only reason the US went into Iraq"

Someone earlier mentioned the "spin". Well that in my opinion has been the biggest spin of all.

[Arrian]

The other reasons for war were tack-ons by the Bushies once they had trouble making the case for war based on WMDs alone. Then, once it became clear that the WMDs they claimed we'd find wouldn't be found, they pushed those other reasons harder.

Please.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

And to be clear, some of those "other reasons" may have been the "real" reasons the Bushies went to war, but it wasn't sold that way.

-Arrian

[Deity Dude]

I'm not commenting on whether the action was right or wrong. I am just saying WMD's were one of many issues. And originally the major issue was not letting the inspectors in.

By the way, I knew we would never find any WMD's in Iraq even though everything pointed to the probability that he had chemical weapons.

If you warn a drug dealer 6 months ahead of time that you are gonna search his house for drugs, there won't be any drugs in his house at the time of the raid.

[Arrian]

There are two basic categories the justifications for the war fall into:

1) Security concerns (WMDs, alleged connections to A-Q, support for other terrorism, past history of regional warfare)

2) Humanitarian concerns.

The war was primarily sold on the basis of category 1. And it was mostly bull****. The WMD threat was blown entirely out of proportion. There was no alliance between Saddam & A-Q. Saddam's payment of $$ to the families of suicide bombers was distasteful support of such terrorism, but par for the course in that region - a cheap way to pay lipservice to the valiant struggle of the Palestianians against teh evil Zionist Crusader alliance. Was that invasion-worthy? As for regional aggression, Saddam was clearly contained.

That leaves category 2, which means nationbuilding (something Bush always disliked, and I think continues to dislike). As we have seen, the Administration's planning and execution of this nationbuilding was poor. The final outcome remains in doubt. I still hold out hope that things will get better, but so far not so good.

-Arrian

[Deity Dude]

There was also this issue of not allowing inspectors into the country. Or some would be let in but not allowed to inspect the areas that they wanted. This suspicious and illegal behavior coupled with the fact that he had shown the world that he would use these weapons against his own people or against another country in a war was the original issue that set off the crisis.

Let's face it. Iraq lost a war and agreed to terms to end the war. They included inspections and a no-fly zone. He didn't allow inspectors and constantly attacked the US military patrolling the "no-fly" zone. Personally, I'm surprised something didn't happen the first time he took military action against the US and British airforces.

Just think about that. 2 sides fight a war and one side loses. The losing side agrees to a cease fire, then a few months later continually and openly attacks the victorious side militarily.

Add in 9/11 and people had had enough. There was a sense that if the US had been dilligent in enforcing international law 9/11 might not have happened.

Add to that the anthrax attacks in the US and suddenly chemical weapons seemed a very dangerous.

All of these issues were floating around at the time and people made decisions based on all of these things.

Now 5 years later the war that a majority of Americans and American lawmakers approved of isn't quite as neat and clean as people would like. Lawmakers who now want to run against the war have a difficult time answering the question on why they voted for it. Thus comes the magic answer "The only reason I supported the war was because we were told there were WMD's" (at least it sounds better than Kerry's first responses: "When I voted for the war I wasn't really voting for the war")

The reason why this spin works so good is because it allows the majority of American citizens that supported the war who have now changed their minds to blame it on someone else too.

MY unscientific poll puts Americans in 3 groups on the war issue

Group 1: Always against it (20%)
Group 2: Always for it (20%)
Group 3: Originally for it, now against it (60%)

OF the Group 3 you have 2 types of people:

3a: Those who won't admit they used to be for it
3b: Those who say they were lied to about WMD's

I have yet to hear a person say "I was for the war originally but I was wrong"

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Now 5 years later the war that a majority of Americans and American lawmakers approved of isn't quite as neat and clean as people would like.

Understatement of the ______ !!

I have yet to hear a person say "I was for the war originally but I was wrong"

I was for the war originally but I was wrong.

Now you've heard it (sorry, I'm not an American...).

[Arrian]

There was a sense that if the US had been dilligent in enforcing international law 9/11 might not have happened.

Diligence would have helped. International law as you put it, had nothing to do with it. Our own security folks were on to them, but didn't quite put it all together. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Add to that the anthrax attacks in the US and suddenly chemical weapons seemed a very dangerous.

Not to me. First off, anthrax would be a bioweapon, not a chemical weapon. How many people died in those attacks, btw?

I think a few people here at 'poly have admitted to being for the war but now think they were wrong. But it is indeed rare. People don't like admitting mistakes. Politicians are even worse.

-Arrian

[NeOmega]

Add to that the anthrax attacks in the US and suddenly chemical weapons seemed a very dangerous.

Just to point out some hypocrisy, remmeber where the anthrax in those attacks came from.


That anthrax was manufactured right here in the United States in a military lab.

If you warn a drug dealer 6 months ahead of time that you are gonna search his house for drugs, there won't be any drugs in his house at the time of the raid.

bad analogy.

Because drugs aren't used to defend your country.

One question, not one single conservative anywhere has answered is:

and Victor galis said it best:

If Saddam wasn't willing to use WMDs against coalition forces as they toppled his regime, when he had little to lose, do you really think he would have used them offensively?


can any bushpologist answer this question?


anyone?

anyone?

I didn't think so.

[pchang]

Saddam did everything he could to convince he world he had weapons of mass destruction in an effort to firghten us into letting him do what he wanted. Unfortunately, for him he miscalculated. Bush was looking for excuses to take him out and it was all too easy for Bush to take Saddam at face value.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Arrian


Diligence would have helped. International law as you put it, had nothing to do with it. Our own security folks were on to them, but didn't quite put it all together. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

I never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. What I meant was, people felt they learned a lesson from 9/11 and weren't gonna put up with that kinda crap anymore. (USS Cole, Embassy bombings were all events that pointed to 9/11 that the US ignored. Now there's another guy who is attacking our planes and not letting inspectors in and likes to use the nastiest weapons he can get his hands on. Tried to assassinate an ex-President. People didn't want to ignore it anymore)

Originally posted by Arrian
Not to me. First off, anthrax would be a bioweapon, not a chemical weapon. How many people died in those attacks, btw?

It didn't matter how many died. It had been put in the ventilation system of the Capitol Building. The US Capitol had to be evacuated for the 2nd time in one year. People didn't feel safe. It was known that Saddam had Anthrax at one time and he wasn't letting inspectors in to prove that he didn't anymore. He was paying the families of suicide bombers. Why wouldn't he give a terrorist some Anthrax.

My point again is, right or wrong, there were many issues floating around at the time when Congress and the American people gave their support for the war.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Then he gave Iraq plenty of time to comply.

Just like Austria-Hungary gave Serbia plenty of time to comply with their ultimatum before WWI!!

It also seems to me that at the time he got overwhelming support from the Senate, House and American people (I'm not talking about everyone at Poly though)

Yeah, something about Sept. 11 turned people into mindless flag-waving idiots who considered it wrong to question their president.

Then as time went on, the action became less and less popular and it became apparent that massive amounts of WMD's weren't gonna be found. Suddenly those who were in the awkward position of supporting the war initially, but were against it currently kept pushing the WMD issue, until it became "the only reason the US went into Iraq"

Someone earlier mentioned the "spin". Well that in my opinion has been the biggest spin of all.

Well, the real problem is it never was about the WMDs. I was opposed regardless, but the biggest nagging doubt in my mind was always like, "but what if he actually has WMDS and uses them on us?" After it turns out that his WMD stockpile was a joke, that one nagging doubt was horribly crushed. The current trouble with the insurgency just vindicates my opposition, though this is one of those times when you're not terribly happy even though you were sooo right

I'm not commenting on whether the action was right or wrong. I am just saying WMD's were one of many issues. And originally the major issue was not letting the inspectors in.

By the way, I knew we would never find any WMD's in Iraq even though everything pointed to the probability that he had chemical weapons.

If you warn a drug dealer 6 months ahead of time that you are gonna search his house for drugs, there won't be any drugs in his house at the time of the raid

Well... we wanted him to destroy the weapons. If he hid them so well we can't find them in years of searching the country or destroyed them, then mission accomplished before we even fired a shot.

There was also this issue of not allowing inspectors into the country. Or some would be let in but not allowed to inspect the areas that they wanted. This suspicious and illegal behavior coupled with the fact that he had shown the world that he would use these weapons against his own people or against another country in a war was the original issue that set off the crisis.

No, the issue that set off the crisis was that the GOP was about to lose the 2002 congressional election because the economy was sucking. Have you read the Downing Street Memos? It described the timing of the PR campaign vs. Saddam in relation to the Congressional elections. Can't remember exactly what it said word for word, but it was something like: public campaign to start 30 days before US congressional election.

Let's face it. Iraq lost a war and agreed to terms to end the war. They included inspections and a no-fly zone. He didn't allow inspectors and constantly attacked the US military patrolling the "no-fly" zone. Personally, I'm surprised something didn't happen the first time he took military action against the US and British airforces.

Just because you have a casus belli doesn't mean invasion is a good idea. Realistically, the propper response to those attacks was dropping some bombs onto whatever Iraqi installations fired on coalition forces (incidentally this happened from time to time even under Clinton).

Add in 9/11 and people had had enough. There was a sense that if the US had been dilligent in enforcing international law 9/11 might not have happened.

Actually, I'd sum up US popular mood more like, "Let's go blow up some towelheads!"

Add to that the anthrax attacks in the US and suddenly chemical weapons seemed a very dangerous.

Because they killed like 4 people or something! (and later turned out to be from a domestic source) The media really screwed that one up. The media isn't liberal, the media will say whatever it needs to say to scare/outrage people. It will blow stuff like this way out of proportion.

The reason why this spin works so good is because it allows the majority of American citizens that supported the war who have now changed their minds to blame it on someone else too.

Well, given that they were in that unquestioning mode . I mean it's their fault for blindly rallying around the president after 9/11 and buying into the whole, if you don't support the president, you're with the terrorists bit.

I have yet to hear a person say "I was for the war originally but I was wrong"

I will say I was originally against the war in Afghanistan, but I was wrong

And no offense, but Bush doesn't give a rat's *** about international law.

I think a few people here at 'poly have admitted to being for the war but now think they were wrong. But it is indeed rare. People don't like admitting mistakes. Politicians are even worse.

Did Ted ever say something about it? I was here a lot in 2002, and he was totally for it, and then I was gone for like 4 years, and when I came back he had George "the MP for Baghdad Central" Galloway as his avatar. I would have totally missed any admission of wrongness if it happened, so it's an honest question.

[mactbone]

What did Colin Powell give a speech about when discussing Saddam?

Hint, "It's a slam dunk."

It's great that we took out one of the guys that was contained without WMDs. Maybe next time the US can take on North Korea, Pakistan, Israel or one of the other countries with Nukes. Maybe we should just concentrate on countries that have used WMDs and have WMDs, like Britain or the US?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by NeOmega
One question, not one single conservative anywhere has answered is:

and Victor galis said it best:

If Saddam wasn't willing to use WMDs against coalition forces as they toppled his regime, when he had little to lose, do you really think he would have used them offensively?


can any bushpologist answer this question?


anyone?

anyone?

I didn't think so.

I don't get why you're asking this... no conservative here is claiming Iraq had any conventionally deployable WMD. How could he use what he did not have?