Does anyone still think Iraq had WMD's?

[Sandia]

WASHINGTON : President George W Bush's administration "systematically" exaggerated the threat presented by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), according to a report released Thursday by an influential Washington think-tank.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said the United States also misrepresented the findings of UN weapons inspectors in a bid to justify its case for war against Iraq last year.


http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/americas/view/65490/1/.html


Meanwhile, The Washington Post says the Iraqi WMD program "was only on paper."

But investigators have found no support for the two main fears expressed in London and Washington before the war: that Iraq had a hidden arsenal of old weapons and built advanced programs for new ones. In public statements and unauthorized interviews, investigators said they have discovered no work on former germ-warfare agents such as anthrax bacteria, and no work on a new designer pathogen -- combining pox virus and snake venom -- that led U.S. scientists on a highly classified hunt for several months. The investigators assess that Iraq did not, as charged in London and Washington, resume production of its most lethal nerve agent, VX, or learn to make it last longer in storage. And they have found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a "grave and gathering danger" by President Bush and a "mortal threat" by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60340-2004Jan6.html

The Bush Administration says the search for WMD's is ongoing.

Although they're also disbanding the team that's looking for them.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4095292

So the question remains: does anyone really think they're WMD's in Iraq?

And, does it matter?

 

[TWB]

No,

George Bush left just after Thanksgiving.

 

[Ham Murabi]

The way you framed the question, the answer has to be yes. There is no question Iraq had WMD based on the thousands of people who died when Saddam used them.
Put a time frame on that question and you might/will get different responses.

 

[JazzManJim]

The way you framed the question, the answer has to be yes. There is no question Iraq had WMD based on the thousands of people who died when Saddam used them.
Put a time frame on that question and you might/will get different responses.

Exactly.

Yes, of course they had them. That many Kurds didn't keel over of spontaneous heart attacks. Of course the think thank in question (which, btw, as been steadfastly against going back to Iraq from the beginning) doesn't mention the inteligence we have suggesting that said WMDs were dispersed shortly before the latest invasion, nor that some may have been taken into Syria.

And does it matter? No, it doesn't. The presence of WMDs has always been more than a slight red herring.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

And does it matter? No, it doesn't. The presence of WMDs has always been more than a slight red herring.

Heh good thing you can cite a red herring at every turn.

 

[Guest]

 

[Ishmael]

Why don't you ask the Iranians as well?

Or read the UN transcripts right up to the eve of the war.

Ishmael

 

[tendril]

And does it matter? No, it doesn't. The presence of WMDs has always been more than a slight red herring.

Herring?

I would label it giant rather than slight.

 

[JazzManJim]

Heh good thing you can cite a red herring at every turn.

It's not necessary to.

Here's why I'd consider the presence of WMDs a red herring. The authority under which the Coalition overthrew Hussein was the unanimously-approved Res 1441. That resolution said that Hussein had to disclose everything related to his WMD programs, including plans for their being built, details of their destruction, and/or their location. He defied that flatly.

Thus, whether WMD existed or not (and under that resolution, every member of the Security Council accepted as fact that he possessed them) was never the issue. The issue was his full and complete disclosure.

 

[Guest]

Thus, whether WMD existed or not (and under that resolution, every member of the Security Council accepted as fact that he possessed them) was never the issue. The issue was his full and complete disclosure.

Come on Jim that is a bunch of bull.

When it was the main reason for going into Iraq. NOT the freeing of the people or to create a demoracy. That was all after the fact.
We went in because we felt Saddam had good reason to either use his "wmd's" or sell them to Terroists to use against them....

Red herring my ass. Is that the only answer you have? well hey we didn't find them, so it's ok. No harm no foul.

Give me a break.....

Why don't you ask the Iranians as well?

Didn't you give a 6 month limit on when we would find "wmd's"?
Or something along those lines. I seem to remember you doing so.

Sandia i made this thread earlier today

 

[JazzManJim]

Come on Jim that is a bunch of bull.

When it was the main reason for going into Iraq. NOT the freeing of the people or to create a demoracy. That was all after the fact.
We went in because we felt Saddam had good reason to either use his "wmd's" or sell them to Terroists to use against them....

Red herring my ass. Is that the only answer you have? well hey we didn't find them, so it's ok. No harm no foul.

Give me a break.....

Your facts are mistaken.

It was the reason given before the UNited Nations to show that Hussein had not complied with the resolutions before it. Resolution 1441 is unambiguous. Hussein was in possession of WMDs and he had to make full and complete disclosure. Period.

Read the resolution yourself if you don't believe me.

You are also mistaken that the humanitarian reasons came after the WMD argument. The Bush administration was speaking about his brutality from the very beginning. The administration backed the policy endorsed yb the previous President and voted on my Congress that the official policy of the US toward Iraq would be that of regime change. WMDs were certainly a reason then, and were explicitly stated as such, but the humanitarian issues were given equal stature at that time.

 

[miles]

Your facts are mistaken.

He posted facts?

 

[sigh]

Re: No,

George Bush left just after Thanksgiving.

LOL

best answer of the bunch

But in regards to the poll, I didn't vote because the question wasn't worded properly. I don't think there's any doubt that the Iraqis had WMDs at one time (as JMJ so eloquently pointed out, the Kurds didn't die of a mass heart attack). The question is whether they existed at the time we went to war, and if they didn't, was our administration aware of that, because what we were led to believe was that there was a near certainty that they did exist at that time.

Jim, red herring or not, if the American people didn't believe in the certainty that Hussein's WMD program was alive and well, the support for the war would have been drastically lessened. I don't think the American people would have accepted the breaking of a UN resolution as a reason to go to war. It was only the imminent threat of danger that got Bush the support he needed. Bush played upon our fears following 9/11 and dangled the threat of WMDs before our eyes.

 

[JazzManJim]

He posted facts?

Well, kind of.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Yes.

Ann Coultier said so.
Dubya said so.

I believe it.

That settles it.
just kidding, heheh

 

[miles]

Well, kind of.

He admitted being a moron?

 

[WriterDom]

who cares. Only you and your sister miss saddamn and his sons

 

[Guest]

I seem to remember a certain state of the union speech. I don't remember any Iraq people involved. Just a naming of the axis of EVIL..

No the people came six months later.....First time i heard it i believe he was at a coast guard base.

I also remember him driving home the Wmd line every chance he got. First 6 months it was all WMD.
The only reason we went to the U.N. is because of Powel. Bush was ready to go at the state of the union. (Morally)

state of the union 2002

notice NO U.N. Just that he was a threat to us. That was the first 6 months.......Basically the SoU over and over....and add in We must stay the course....blah.....

 

[miles]

I seem to remember a certain state of the union speech. I don't remember any Iraq people involved. Just a naming of the axis of EVIL..

No the people came six months later.....First time i heard it i believe he was at a coast guard base.

I also remember him driving home the Wmd line every chance he got. First 6 months it was all WMD.
The only reason we went to the U.N. is because of Powel. Bush was ready to go at the state of the union. (Morally)

state of the union 2002

notice NO U.N. Just that he was a threat to us. That was the first 6 months.......Basically the SoU over and over....and add in We must stay the course....blah.....

Can you say that in English?

 

[Guest]

He admitted being a moron?

awww your just mad because i turned you down....sorry i don't like lackey's miles.


I need to to better searches...I think the way i word things gives me crap results....I always get essay's and such.....

 

[miles]

awww your just mad because i turned you down....sorry i don't like lackey's miles.


I need to to better searches...I think the way i word things gives me crap results....I always get essay's and such.....

Can you say that in English?

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: No,

Jim, red herring or not, if the American people didn't believe in the certainty that Hussein's WMD program was alive and well, the support for the war would have been drastically lessened. I don't think the American people would have accepted the breaking of a UN resolution as a reason to go to war. It was only the imminent threat of danger that got Bush the support he needed. Bush played upon our fears following 9/11 and dangled the threat of WMDs before our eyes.

That's not correct, though. The President did not say that the threat from Iraq was imminent. He said just the opposite.

 

[sigh]

Re: Re: Re: No,

That's not correct, though. The President did not say that the threat from Iraq was imminent. He said just the opposite.

You are so damn good at twisting words, Jim. Has our president EVER said anything that you can't spin into a positive? You should work for him. I mean it. You're good, hon.

 

[sigh]

Re: Re: Re: No,

That's not correct, though. The President did not say that the threat from Iraq was imminent. He said just the opposite.

Define imminent, please.

 

[JazzManJim]

I seem to remember a certain state of the union speech. I don't remember any Iraq people involved. Just a naming of the axis of EVIL..

From the speech:

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children."

And just for good measure, his words from that speech about Iran and North Korea:

"North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom."

Notice how the three major issues are brought to bear all at the same time: WMDs, terrorism, and humanitarian.

So your memory is wrong. Thanks for posting the correct information, though, even though you didn't mean to.