Question for Iraq war supporters

[M14 Shooter]

How do I know it, because what they said was true, was verified by the Kaye and Duelfer reports after the war.

How do you know what they said was true?
Neither of those reports prove what was said was true, nor that the administration knew they were giving false information.

What happened to the WMD's from 1998? First, there was material that was not accounted for when the inspectors left, but there was not the documented existence of WMD's that we just left behind

So.. what happened to the WMDs that were there?

And some of those WMD left over from 1991 were found, about 500 old artillery shells.

And so... what happened to the rest of them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What do you think happened to them?

You tell me.
They were known to have been there.
Thery were not there after we invaded.
SOMETHING must have happened to them.

 

[Warner]

You tell me.
They were known to have been there.
Thery were not there after we invaded.
SOMETHING must have happened to them.

The nature of Iraq's chemical weapons was such that, in the span of about 7 years (or less) there would be molecular breakdown in the agents and the contaiment (usually artillery shells) would begin to fail as the constituents tend to be rather caustic.

I suspect that Saddam did not bother with the details and simply told someone to deal with it. They then went out and dug a hole in the sand and buried it. Records as to where this was buried were probably not even kept - I'd suspect it was in Shiite or Kurd held lands.

There really is little to support that the Administration honestly believed Saddam posed a serious WMD threat.

The invasion of Iraq was to stop a bigger threat - Euro's for oil.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The nature of Iraq's chemical weapons was such that, in the span of about 7 years (or less) there would be molecular breakdown in the agents and the contaiment (usually artillery shells) would begin to fail as the constituents tend to be rather caustic.

However true that might be, the weapons, degraded or otherwise, must have gone somewhere. The question is still: Where?

I suspect that Saddam did not bother with the details and simply told someone to deal with it. They then went out and dug a hole in the sand and buried it. Records as to where this was buried were probably not even kept -

Aside from this being a rather convenient supposition:
-The Iraqis kept record of everything
-The Iraqis were required to keep specific track of their WMDs

So... what happened to the WMDs that we knew were there?

There really is little to support that the Administration honestly believed Saddam posed a serious WMD threat.

Except, of course, the vast multitude of statements to that effect.

The claim is that the administration lied.
For this claim to stick, it must be shown that they knew what they were saying was false.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The nature of Iraq's chemical weapons was such that, in the span of about 7 years (or less) there would be molecular breakdown in the agents and the contaiment (usually artillery shells) would begin to fail as the constituents tend to be rather caustic.

I suspect that Saddam did not bother with the details and simply told someone to deal with it. They then went out and dug a hole in the sand and buried it. Records as to where this was buried were probably not even kept - I'd suspect it was in Shiite or Kurd held lands.

There really is little to support that the Administration honestly believed Saddam posed a serious WMD threat.

The invasion of Iraq was to stop a bigger threat - Euro's for oil.

Third paragraph is an outright lie or just plain ignorance, I will let you explain which.

 

[maineman]

there was nothing to support the administration's assertions that there was NO DOUBT about the existence of Saddam's WMD arsenal.

Suggesting that there was certainty about the arsenals was misleading when the intelligence communities offered no such assurances of certainty.

and now, class, what do we call it when someone makes a statement that is intended to mislead??

 

[Gunny]

The nature of Iraq's chemical weapons was such that, in the span of about 7 years (or less) there would be molecular breakdown in the agents and the contaiment (usually artillery shells) would begin to fail as the constituents tend to be rather caustic.

I suspect that Saddam did not bother with the details and simply told someone to deal with it. They then went out and dug a hole in the sand and buried it. Records as to where this was buried were probably not even kept - I'd suspect it was in Shiite or Kurd held lands.

There really is little to support that the Administration honestly believed Saddam posed a serious WMD threat.

The invasion of Iraq was to stop a bigger threat - Euro's for oil.

Not a bad assumption. Seems fairly logical. Where I disagree is your comment that there is little to support the Admin honestly believed Saddam posed a serious WMD threat.

I'll even amend THAT to say the PREVIOUS administration since I retired before Bush took office. In 98, the SecDef approved them sticking us with anthrax shots. I can't say for a fact that policy was continued past 2000, but I'm quite sure that sticking all deploying Marine and Navy personnel, and the cost involved was not cheap, and not without reason.

I also don't believe the invasion was to stop France's under the table deals with Saddam for oil.

 

[CSM]

there was nothing to support the administration's assertions that there was NO DOUBT about the existence of Saddam's WMD arsenal.

Suggesting that there was certainty about the arsenals was misleading when the intelligence communities offered no such assurances of certainty.

and now, class, what do we call it when someone makes a statement that is intended to mislead??

Politics as usual.....

 

[maineman]

Politics as usual.....

don't you think that all those Americans who went along with George Bush's war because they were afraid of the stockpiles of WMD's that our administration told us, without doubt, that Sadddam had have a right to feel misled?

 

[Gunny]

don't you think that all those Americans who went along with George Bush's war because they were afraid of the stockpiles of WMD's that our administration told us, without doubt, that Sadddam had have a right to feel misled?

No. Because as keeps getting ignored, we all KNOW he had them and used them. The ignoring, twisting and dancing around the facts doesn't change that.

 

[Dr Grump]

No. Because as keeps getting ignored, we all KNOW he had them and used them. The ignoring, twisting and dancing around the facts doesn't change that.

Nor does the FACT that Sadman posed no threat, let alone an imminent one, to the United States...

 

[Gunny]

Nor does the FACT that Sadman posed no threat, let alone an imminent one, to the United States...

Why? Proximity? Then neither does al Qaeda, right?

Some New Yorkers may neg to disagree with you.

He did pose a threat to US interests which amounts to the same thing.

 

[maineman]

No. Because as keeps getting ignored, we all KNOW he had them and used them. The ignoring, twisting and dancing around the facts doesn't change that.

HAD them....not HAS them.... He HAD chemical weapons, a decade previously, HE HAD used them against Kurds and Iranians, a decade earlier. and in the meantime, sanctions had WORKED...and he had been reduced to a paper tiger...our own Secretary of State told us that seven months BEFORE 9/11.

 

[Gunny]

HAD them....not HAS them.... He HAD chemical weapons, a decade previously, HE HAD used them against Kurds and Iranians, a decade earlier. and in the meantime, sanctions had WORKED...and he had been reduced to a paper tiger...our own Secretary of State told us that seven months BEFORE 9/11.

Since he is dead, "has" doesn't apply. Had them and would not/did not account for them DOES. The argument is way old. He had them, he used them, and acted like he was hiding them. Had he so much as complied with sanctions and allowed UNSCOM inspectors free and unfettererd access you'd have an argument. As it stands, you don't.

Sanctions had worked? Worked at WHAT? Screwing the Iraqi people while he diverted Oil for Food funds into his own personal accounts? Made deals with France that if they voted against sanctions and were able to get sanctions lifted he'd sell them some cut-rate oil?

He was no "paper tiger." He was contained. He showed absolutely NO inclination that he was going to do anything other than continue to be a ruthless murdering bastard and would use whateve means he could get his hands on to accomplish it.

 

[Warner]

However true that might be, the weapons, degraded or otherwise, must have gone somewhere. The question is still: Where?


Aside from this being a rather convenient supposition:
-The Iraqis kept record of everything
-The Iraqis were required to keep specific track of their WMDs

So... what happened to the WMDs that we knew were there?

The Iraqi record keeping system was such a mess, so full of double blind security measures, that I seriously doubt that even if they'd have wanted to they could have accounted for all of the weapons.

Again, I suspect somewhere in Iraq there is an environmental disaster brewing a few feet under the desert.

Except, of course, the vast multitude of statements to that effect.

The claim is that the administration lied.
For this claim to stick, it must be shown that they knew what they were saying was false.

Vast multitude of statements = proof?

It has been proven that they knew some of the statements made regarding Iraqi WMD's were knowing lies. The African Uranium ore connection is one such example. The Aluminum tubes was another.

It is very convenient when you require a standard of absolute proof which the Administration simply blocks with claims of "national security", "executive privilege", and through the use of pardons/commutations.

I am confident that the full scope of the deception will eventually be revealed, but probably not for a decade or so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Iraqi record keeping system was such a mess, so full of double blind security measures, that I seriously doubt that even if they'd have wanted to they could have accounted for all of the weapons.

Yes -- a very convenient position for you to take, as it 'explains' the disappearance of the WMDs and doesn't require a shred of evidence to support it.

 

[Warner]

Not a bad assumption. Seems fairly logical. Where I disagree is your comment that there is little to support the Admin honestly believed Saddam posed a serious WMD threat.

I'll even amend THAT to say the PREVIOUS administration since I retired before Bush took office. In 98, the SecDef approved them sticking us with anthrax shots. I can't say for a fact that policy was continued past 2000, but I'm quite sure that sticking all deploying Marine and Navy personnel, and the cost involved was not cheap, and not without reason.

I also don't believe the invasion was to stop France's under the table deals with Saddam for oil.

I suppose it depends a lot on what you consider a WMD. Your example of Anthrax for instance is out of context. While it could conceivably be considered a WMD, it is not something which Iraq or terrorists could really use as such against the USA. Like many agents, it is only a WMD when it can be delivered in rather massive quantities, which Iraq and/or Islamic terrorists lack the capacity to achieve. It could certainly be used as a weapon of terror, but the level of effect would be rather limited, probably only a few hundred casualties, quite probably less. I do not think your example of immunizing the military against Anthrax is valid because this was intended to protect them against Anthrax used by Saddam to defend his regime, not in an attack on ours.

So lets look at the Iraqi "WMD" agents:

Sarin: The first on the list is probably Sarin gas. This is a very nasty nerve agent which we foolishly helped Saddam develop in the 80's. Fortunately for us, the Iraqi's were unable to achieve the required purity for the precursors, so what they produced had a very short shelf life. Sarin has a short shelf life to start with and the Iraqi sarin gas project was only able to achieve shelf lives of a few months and in many cases only a few weeks. Even the precursors were subject to short shelf lives. So for Iraq to use this weapon it had to manufacture it when they were ready to deploy it, and there is clearly no evidence to indicate this was happening any time in the relevant time period. The massive expense of the Iraqi sarin project in the late 80's, resulting in the need to dispose of perhaps as much as 40 tons of the stuff at the end of that decade, and the exposure of production facilities to easy destruction by our military, discouraged Saddam from pursuing sarin as a viable weapon for use against the USA. And for terrorists it was simply impossible, except perhaps in minute quantities.

Tabun: This agent, like Antrhax, is a legitimately considered a WMD only when coupled with a large scale delivery mechanism, such as bomber aircraft or Artillery. Since Iraq did not have the capability to deliver it in significance to the USA, this is not a WMD in the context of being a threat to us. And like sarin the shelf life of this agent was a real problem for Iraqi technology.

VX: This is a legitimate WMD in any context. However, there is absolutely no evidence that Iraq had the capability to produce VX. It is believed Saddam may have used a small amount of this weapon against the Iranians and/or the Kurds but even this is unproven, and if he did it would have originated from a Western Country (i.e., the USA or Britain). VX is fortunately beyond the technology of most of our enemies.

Nuclear Weapons: Well, I don't think I have to go much into this one. Clearly an atom bomb is a WMD by any definition. Just as clearly, Saddam was no where near having one despite the Administration's claims to the contrary during the run up to the war. Even had all the evidence presented been true Iraq would still have been at least a decade away from producing its first testable weapon.

So to clarify the issue Gunny, in the context of this discussion we do mean WMD's which could actually be used against the USA proper to effect massive casualties right? Clearly the Administration was not claiming that the reason we needed to take out Saddam was because he had WMD's which he might use against our troops should we invade Iraq.

 

[Warner]

Yes -- a very convenient position for you to take, as it 'explains' the disappearance of the WMDs and doesn't require a shred of evidence to support it.

Well you see there is the rub. We don't really know how much of these "WMD's" existed in the first place. All we have are estimates. So now you want proof positive of what happened to WMD's which may not even have existed. Saddam was very much about deception, and it is quite likely these weapons never really did exist. In his twisted mind it may have suited him to make the West think they existed when in fact they didn't. We just don't really know.

I believe the claims of Iraqi WMD's were quite exagerated and when I say they likely are buried in the desert somewhere I'm mostly talking about weapons from the 80's. For the most part, these weapons were never a real threat to the USA anyway, except against our troops should we attack Iraq.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well you see there is the rub. We don't really know how much of these "WMD's" existed in the first place. All we have are estimates.

That's not true.
Both in 1998 and 2003 the UN inspectors had lists of weapons that were known to have existed and not shown to be destroyed.

So now you want proof positive of what happened to WMD's....

...were known to have existed and not shown to be destroyed?
Yes. Don't you?

In his twisted mind it may have suited him to make the West think they existed when in fact they didn't. We just don't really know.

And yet, somehow, Bush lied!!!

 

[maineman]

the only "lie" Bush told was when he expressed no doubt as to the existence of WMD stockpiles. The intelligence community always couched its intelligence estimates with caveats and qualifiers making the administration's expression of absolute certainty a misleading false impression.