Remember folks when you read this ...THERE WERE NEVER NEVER any WMDs!!!

[ChrisL]

Remember that Bush fired Saddam's army - the same army that would have known where those old, abandoned chemical munitions were buried and/or stockpiled.

The dispute concerns what many regard as the Bush administration's single biggest mistake in the first few months after Saddam Hussein's ouster—the order, in May 2003, to disband the Iraqi army.

It was a move that put 250,000 young Iraqi men out of a job, out on the streets, angry, and armed—and all but guaranteed the violent chaos to come.

Who disbanded the Iraqi army?

Bush: 'I can't remember why we disbanded the Iraqi army'

Maybe because they couldn't be trusted?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Apparently ISIS now controls a chemical weapon plant.

It turns out that Bush was telling the truth all along, and that the communist democrats were the ones lying.

Whoopsie.

{WASHINGTON -- A New York Times report confirms that the U.S. government knew that an Iraqi facility now controlled by the Islamic State militant organization likely contained deadly chemical weapons -- a finding reported by The Huffington Post on Monday.}

ISIS Likely Captured Iraqi Chemical Weapons New York Times Confirms

Turns out that fucking pile of shit Obama has been lying all along...

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's your conundrum having to claim the NY Times is a reliable news source after decades of conservatives telling us it isn't.

Should Obama be impeached for lying about WMD's in Iraq?

He knew about them all along, but lied to the American people for political gain, simply so that he could slander and libel the Bush administration.

 

[Kondor3]

I can't believe this is even a topic, that people are even debating this.

The administration CONFESSED. It was all a ruse. It was a plan to just change the landscape of the middle east. They admitted that it was a pretext to get the world on board to invade, that Iraq had the potential to make and give WMD's to terrorists. Bush admitted that they found none.

Why are people debating this issue? Seriously?

Agreed.

The President of the United States admitted that (1) they believe Saddam had WMDs and (2) it turned out he had none after all.

Admitted openly, and for all to see - no ambiguity is possible.

Case closed.

 

[Conservative65]

Also while you Bush bashers start to soil your undergarments...
remember these Democrat statements???
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

I've seen quotes by those who say Bush lied about WMDs claim the same thing Bush did and claimed it before hew was President. Suddenly, when a Republican actually does something about it rather than using a cigar as a sex toy on a lard ass intern, it's a lie according to the very ones making the same claim

 

[Kondor3]

Liberals are everywhere on this thread. I know Kondor is not a liberal, but he can clearly see how liberals always claimed saddam did not even have chemical weapons. I am not sure why he is denying that when he says EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons.

The left claimed he had NOTHING.

Also, I am not sure why Kondor would deny that saddam put out information (on purpose) that he was trying to get nuclear weapons. He clearly had the infrastructure in place for a reason, as confirmed by UNSCOM.

The country clearly made it a policy by signing the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under Clinton for a reason. Then again, the left does not or care that Clinton awarded Halliburton at least 4 no bid contracts. Just to further illustrate how pathetic liberals are, and how they do not stand for shit. They are an utter waste of my time.

Kondor, I am little surprised at you though.

Owl, my own personal position is entirely disconnected from standard Liberal fare - it merely and coincidentally overlaps a bit here and there - not to worry.

Liberals can deny Saddam had chemical weapons 'til the cows come home, but their use against Iran, and domestically, informed rational, objective minds worldwide, that Saddam did, indeed, have chemical weapons - in some stage of utility or another - to deny that is folly - a folly in which I, for one, would not engage.

Also, please show where I denied that Saddam intentionally put out information that he was, indeed, seeking nuclear capability. Upon review, you'll find quite the opposite, with me claiming that Saddam's 'leaked information' was the biggest bluff since the invention of Falsies.

As for the rest, I'll repeat what I said earlier - I don't give a rat's fat ass which party(ies) were responsible for Stage A or B or C of our eventual incursion into Iraq.

What I care about is the sincerity and legitimacy of the casus belli and 4000 dead American kids and 32000 wounded American kids and untold deaths and shattered lives amongst the Coalition and our Mercs and Iraqi civilians et al.

I am no Liberal, but I am also no Conservative - merely a Centrist with a strong Conservative lean.

When I feel sufficiently strongly about something that others perceive as a Liberal -like position, I'll pursue that just as vigorously as I would a more Conservative talking point.

That's the beauty of being an Independent, and a Centrist, when you get right down to it.

However, upon examination, other than my harping upon the Nuclear Weapons emphasis embedded in the casus belli, my position is, in actuality, not very Liberal -like.

 

[mudwhistle]

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

That's a lie Greenbean....it WAS about WMD'S, in the form of waking up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud....NUKES

it WAS about yellowcake....for NUKES

it WAS about NUKES that could hit us in 45 minutes...

It is you that has conveniently forgotten what we were being told by the administration at the time....

Problem is we remember what they said, not just what Democrats and their state-run press claims was said.

Oh, yes we do, remember what they said and the war drums beating with the media beating those war drums right along the President's and administrations side....Chris Matthews all goo goo gah gah over Bush at the time....Fox beating the war drums, the fake story planted by Judith Miller in the NYTimes, not reporting on what Powel and Rice had just said in January of 2001 that there were no wmd's that were a threat with Saddam, down to Cheney saying we here in the usa could have a mushroom WMD reach us .... in 45 minutes, and Condi with we don't want to wake up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud.... and all the fake and wrong yellowcake stories....and the administration trying to stop Plame's husband, Wilson from getting the truth out on their lies about Saddam trying to acquire yellowcake... and the Downing Street memo where they recording bush pushing the Iraq war before he even knew the results of the inspections....

PLEASE, trust me, I remember everything that went on and am getting sick to my stomach all over again....

I only WISH I could have this convenient memory lapse that you seem to be having...you're blessed, in a way....

Nothing with my memory.

Your memory must be a product of listening to MSNBC or CNN too much.

BTW, if Saddam wasn't trying to get yellow-cake, why did they find tons of it in Iraq????? HUH?????

 

[Care4all]

Saddam had a strange habit of killing witnesses.

He shot family members who knew about his hopes for a nuke program. Who's to say he didn't bury all of this shit and then execute any witnesses he felt might be disloyal.

They've found mass graves all over the place in Iraq. I read it was up to 20 million of his own people that Saddam is suspected to have murdered.

But most all of them were killed before or during the Gulf War 1, Operation Dessert Storm... in 1990-91

WE KNEW THEN all the people Saddam had already massacred....and did not get rid of him then....

THAT right there, said America was fine with it, OR it said, WE knew our place and our CONSTITUTION and knew it was not our place to take over a Sovereign nation with a despot that was of no threat to us after we obliterated 96.5% of his arsenal during the gulf war...

that we were previously on the side of....in a twisted sort of way, because we were against Iran at the time, and Saddam was needed to keep Iran in its place.... Saddam got much of his chemical weapon arsenal from us, didn't he
?

...was that just for him to play with or for him to use it?

 

[Kondor3]

...Over 2000 tons of uranium waiting to be processed says it was a good possibly.

Good Guys do NOT go to war over 'possibilities' in this context.

Either Saddam was actively pursuing Nuclear Weapons or he was not.

After Gulf War I, and its shattering of the Iraqi military and infrastructure, we should have had far more competent intelligence resources on the ground to inform us.

Our focus upon materials enrichment and related inspections and refusals confirms for all to see, that Nuclear Weapons was the primary thrust of our casus belli.

We either had a massive Intelligence Failure, or we had a massive Lie told to us, or both.

I don't like it, but there it is.

 

[mudwhistle]

Liberals are everywhere on this thread. I know Kondor is not a liberal, but he can clearly see how liberals always claimed saddam did not even have chemical weapons. I am not sure why he is denying that when he says EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons.

The left claimed he had NOTHING.

Also, I am not sure why Kondor would deny that saddam put out information (on purpose) that he was trying to get nuclear weapons. He clearly had the infrastructure in place for a reason, as confirmed by UNSCOM.

The country clearly made it a policy by signing the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under Clinton for a reason. Then again, the left does not or care that Clinton awarded Halliburton at least 4 no bid contracts. Just to further illustrate how pathetic liberals are, and how they do not stand for shit. They are an utter waste of my time.

Kondor, I am little surprised at you though.

Owl, my own personal position is entirely disconnected from standard Liberal fare - it merely and coincidentally overlaps a bit here and there - not to worry.

Liberals can deny Saddam had chemical weapons 'til the cows come home, but their use against Iran, and domestically, informed rational, objective minds worldwide, that Saddam did, indeed, have chemical weapons - in some stage of utility or another - to deny that is folly - a folly in which I, for one, would not engage.

Also, please show where I denied that Saddam intentionally put out information that he was, indeed, seeking nuclear capability. Upon review, you'll find quite the opposite, with me claiming that Saddam's 'leaked information' was the biggest bluff since the invention of Falsies.

As for the rest, I'll repeat what I said earlier - I don't give a rat's fat ass which party(ies) were responsible for Stage A or B or C of our eventual incursion into Iraq.

What I care about is the sincerity and legitimacy of the casus belli and 4000 dead American kids and 32000 wounded American kids and untold deaths and shattered lives amongst the Coalition and our Mercs and Iraqi civilians et al.

I am no Liberal, but I am also no Conservative - merely a Centrist with a strong Conservative lean.

When I feel sufficiently strongly about something that others perceive as a Liberal -like position, I'll pursue that just as vigorously as I would a more Conservative talking point.

That's the beauty of being an Independent, and a Centrist, when you get right down to it.

However, upon examination, other than my harping upon the Nuclear Weapons emphasis embedded in the casus belli, my position is, in actuality, not very Liberal -like.

These days an Independent is just a Democrat afraid to show his stripes.

 

[mudwhistle]

Saddam had a strange habit of killing witnesses.

He shot family members who knew about his hopes for a nuke program. Who's to say he didn't bury all of this shit and then execute any witnesses he felt might be disloyal.

They've found mass graves all over the place in Iraq. I read it was up to 20 million of his own people that Saddam is suspected to have murdered.

But most all of them were killed before or during the Gulf War 1, Operation Dessert Storm... in 1990-91

WE KNEW THEN all the people Saddam had already massacred....and did not get rid of him then....

THAT right there, said America was fine with it, OR it said, WE knew our place and our CONSTITUTION and knew it was not our place to take over a Sovereign nation with a despot that was of no threat to us after we obliterated 96.5% of his arsenal during the gulf war...

that we were previously on the side of....in a twisted sort of way, because we were against Iran at the time, and Saddam was needed to keep Iran in its place.... Saddam got much of his chemical weapon arsenal from us, didn't he
?

...was that just for him to play with or for him to use it?

So ISIS is doing the same now in Iraq, yet Obama had to be pulled kicking and screaming into a half-hearted fight. Must be because there's something twisted about his thought processes.

 

[Care4all]

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

That's a lie Greenbean....it WAS about WMD'S, in the form of waking up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud....NUKES

it WAS about yellowcake....for NUKES

it WAS about NUKES that could hit us in 45 minutes...

It is you that has conveniently forgotten what we were being told by the administration at the time....

Problem is we remember what they said, not just what Democrats and their state-run press claims was said.

Oh, yes we do, remember what they said and the war drums beating with the media beating those war drums right along the President's and administrations side....Chris Matthews all goo goo gah gah over Bush at the time....Fox beating the war drums, the fake story planted by Judith Miller in the NYTimes, not reporting on what Powel and Rice had just said in January of 2001 that there were no wmd's that were a threat with Saddam, down to Cheney saying we here in the usa could have a mushroom WMD reach us .... in 45 minutes, and Condi with we don't want to wake up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud.... and all the fake and wrong yellowcake stories....and the administration trying to stop Plame's husband, Wilson from getting the truth out on their lies about Saddam trying to acquire yellowcake... and the Downing Street memo where they recording bush pushing the Iraq war before he even knew the results of the inspections....

PLEASE, trust me, I remember everything that went on and am getting sick to my stomach all over again....

I only WISH I could have this convenient memory lapse that you seem to be having...you're blessed, in a way....

Nothing with my memory.

Your memory must be a product of listening to MSNBC or CNN too much.

BTW, if Saddam wasn't trying to get yellow-cake, why did they find tons of it in Iraq????? HUH?????

talk to the HAND.... couldn't find the smiley for it, sorry!

 

[Kondor3]

Liberals are everywhere on this thread. I know Kondor is not a liberal, but he can clearly see how liberals always claimed saddam did not even have chemical weapons. I am not sure why he is denying that when he says EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons.

The left claimed he had NOTHING.

Also, I am not sure why Kondor would deny that saddam put out information (on purpose) that he was trying to get nuclear weapons. He clearly had the infrastructure in place for a reason, as confirmed by UNSCOM.

The country clearly made it a policy by signing the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under Clinton for a reason. Then again, the left does not or care that Clinton awarded Halliburton at least 4 no bid contracts. Just to further illustrate how pathetic liberals are, and how they do not stand for shit. They are an utter waste of my time.

Kondor, I am little surprised at you though.

Owl, my own personal position is entirely disconnected from standard Liberal fare - it merely and coincidentally overlaps a bit here and there - not to worry.

Liberals can deny Saddam had chemical weapons 'til the cows come home, but their use against Iran, and domestically, informed rational, objective minds worldwide, that Saddam did, indeed, have chemical weapons - in some stage of utility or another - to deny that is folly - a folly in which I, for one, would not engage.

Also, please show where I denied that Saddam intentionally put out information that he was, indeed, seeking nuclear capability. Upon review, you'll find quite the opposite, with me claiming that Saddam's 'leaked information' was the biggest bluff since the invention of Falsies.

As for the rest, I'll repeat what I said earlier - I don't give a rat's fat ass which party(ies) were responsible for Stage A or B or C of our eventual incursion into Iraq.

What I care about is the sincerity and legitimacy of the casus belli and 4000 dead American kids and 32000 wounded American kids and untold deaths and shattered lives amongst the Coalition and our Mercs and Iraqi civilians et al.

I am no Liberal, but I am also no Conservative - merely a Centrist with a strong Conservative lean.

When I feel sufficiently strongly about something that others perceive as a Liberal -like position, I'll pursue that just as vigorously as I would a more Conservative talking point.

That's the beauty of being an Independent, and a Centrist, when you get right down to it.

However, upon examination, other than my harping upon the Nuclear Weapons emphasis embedded in the casus belli, my position is, in actuality, not very Liberal -like.

These days an Independent is just a Democrat afraid to show his stripes.

Suit yourself... remember that I'm just a closet Democrat the next time you see me arguing the Israel issue, or abortion, or Islam, or gay rights, or illegal immigration.

Meanwhile, I know who and what I am, and I'll keep my own counsel, in labeling myself, and determining what those labels mean, to myself and most others.

 

[ChrisL]

...Over 2000 tons of uranium waiting to be processed says it was a good possibly.

Good Guys do NOT go to war over 'possibilities' in this context.

Either Saddam was actively pursuing Nuclear Weapons or he was not.

After Gulf War I, and its shattering of the Iraqi military and infrastructure, we should have had far more competent intelligence resources on the ground to inform us.

Our focus upon materials enrichment and related inspections and refusals confirms for all to see, that Nuclear Weapons was the primary thrust of our casus belli.

We either had a massive Intelligence Failure, or we had a massive Lie told to us, or both.

I don't like it, but there it is.

Maybe they thought, better safe than sorry after 911. What would the repercussions for GWB have been if he had done nothing and we were attacked again?

 

[ChrisL]

Saddam had a strange habit of killing witnesses.

He shot family members who knew about his hopes for a nuke program. Who's to say he didn't bury all of this shit and then execute any witnesses he felt might be disloyal.

They've found mass graves all over the place in Iraq. I read it was up to 20 million of his own people that Saddam is suspected to have murdered.

But most all of them were killed before or during the Gulf War 1, Operation Dessert Storm... in 1990-91

WE KNEW THEN all the people Saddam had already massacred....and did not get rid of him then....

THAT right there, said America was fine with it, OR it said, WE knew our place and our CONSTITUTION and knew it was not our place to take over a Sovereign nation with a despot that was of no threat to us after we obliterated 96.5% of his arsenal during the gulf war...

that we were previously on the side of....in a twisted sort of way, because we were against Iran at the time, and Saddam was needed to keep Iran in its place.... Saddam got much of his chemical weapon arsenal from us, didn't he
?

...was that just for him to play with or for him to use it?

Because we didn't want to take any chances after 911? I think perhaps they also may have underestimated the resistance they faced in Iraq? I don't know, but you must know that there are PLENTY of secrets the government keeps that we may never know about. We are not privy to everything.

 

[Theowl32]

Liberals are everywhere on this thread. I know Kondor is not a liberal, but he can clearly see how liberals always claimed saddam did not even have chemical weapons. I am not sure why he is denying that when he says EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons.

The left claimed he had NOTHING.

Also, I am not sure why Kondor would deny that saddam put out information (on purpose) that he was trying to get nuclear weapons. He clearly had the infrastructure in place for a reason, as confirmed by UNSCOM.

The country clearly made it a policy by signing the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under Clinton for a reason. Then again, the left does not or care that Clinton awarded Halliburton at least 4 no bid contracts. Just to further illustrate how pathetic liberals are, and how they do not stand for shit. They are an utter waste of my time.

Kondor, I am little surprised at you though.

Owl, my own personal position is entirely disconnected from standard Liberal fare - it merely and coincidentally overlaps a bit here and there - not to worry.

Liberals can deny Saddam had chemical weapons 'til the cows come home, but their use against Iran, and domestically, informed rational, objective minds worldwide, that Saddam did, indeed, have chemical weapons - in some stage of utility or another - to deny that is folly - a folly in which I, for one, would not engage.

Also, please show where I denied that Saddam intentionally put out information that he was, indeed, seeking nuclear capability. Upon review, you'll find quite the opposite, with me claiming that Saddam's 'leaked information' was the biggest bluff since the invention of Falsies.

As for the rest, I'll repeat what I said earlier - I don't give a rat's fat ass which party(ies) were responsible for Stage A or B or C of our eventual incursion into Iraq.

What I care about is the sincerity and legitimacy of the casus belli and 4000 dead American kids and 32000 wounded American kids and untold deaths and shattered lives amongst the Coalition and our Mercs and Iraqi civilians et al.

I am no Liberal, but I am also no Conservative - merely a Centrist with a strong Conservative lean.

When I feel sufficiently strongly about something that others perceive as a Liberal -like position, I'll pursue that just as vigorously as I would a more Conservative talking point.

That's the beauty of being an Independent, and a Centrist, when you get right down to it.

However, upon examination, other than my harping upon the Nuclear Weapons emphasis embedded in the casus belli, my position is, in actuality, not very Liberal -like.

Ok centrist this that or the other, at some point you need to climb down from the fence and pick a side. The fact is the WAR ON TERROR was never going to be about ONE person or ONE GROUP. This is a massive war and one that is unlike any other this country has ever fought.

In years past, capturing a capital and deposing a leader usually settled things. Even then, it would take decades to get that conquered country get back into a functional country.

In our over exposed, liberal world, we could have never won WWII if we had to fight it today. Patton would have been crushed. Along with all of our generals and the reporters would have gladly given all of our positions away.....to the Japanese. (Notice I did not say Germany)

The point is in relation to wars this country has fought in the past, 3200 is a small number. You are not going to get me to tell you that it is perfectly fine that they died, but I would rather believe and I choose to believe they died for something noble.

Taking out saddam and liberating a country from a tyrant and establishing a key ally in a region that had declared absolute war on US is a noble cause to me. I am not going to get all technical and say it was ONLY about al qaeda or ONLY about bin laden. As far as I am concerned all of those smelly stinkbags are in the same boat.

I am sick of waiting to react to a terror hit rather than being preemptive. For that reason I could not give two shits about saddam or the next dirty sandnigger. Yeah, that is what they are, and if there was a more disrespectful way to refer to them I would.

The problem is most of us still have no clue what we are fighting and if we do not know after what 19 of them pulled after 911 with out a gun, then we never will. Yes, WMDs are a major concern. These pieces of smelly shit are VERY MUCH committed to setting something off. From a dirty nuke, to weaponized small pox, to what ever. We cannot afford to fuck around and play patty cake with these pieces of shit.

Yes, that is the war we are in, and these assholes only understand one thing. The fact we even attempt to be politically correct with them, tells me we are clueless. When I see we, you know what I am talking about.

I wish there was some magical answer out there that will all of a sudden make them stop their intentions of destroying us. It would not matter if we abandoned Israel. Not one bit. They are about converting the world to their false god period.

You need to open your eyes to that truth.

 

[Kondor3]

...Over 2000 tons of uranium waiting to be processed says it was a good possibly.

Good Guys do NOT go to war over 'possibilities' in this context.

Either Saddam was actively pursuing Nuclear Weapons or he was not.

After Gulf War I, and its shattering of the Iraqi military and infrastructure, we should have had far more competent intelligence resources on the ground to inform us.

Our focus upon materials enrichment and related inspections and refusals confirms for all to see, that Nuclear Weapons was the primary thrust of our casus belli.

We either had a massive Intelligence Failure, or we had a massive Lie told to us, or both.

I don't like it, but there it is.

Maybe they thought, better safe than sorry after 911. What would the repercussions for GWB have been if he had done nothing and we were attacked again?

I would think that a Clear and Present Danger is a bare-bones minimum prerequisite for committing the nation to war. Failing to find one...???

 

[ChrisL]

...Over 2000 tons of uranium waiting to be processed says it was a good possibly.

Good Guys do NOT go to war over 'possibilities' in this context.

Either Saddam was actively pursuing Nuclear Weapons or he was not.

After Gulf War I, and its shattering of the Iraqi military and infrastructure, we should have had far more competent intelligence resources on the ground to inform us.

Our focus upon materials enrichment and related inspections and refusals confirms for all to see, that Nuclear Weapons was the primary thrust of our casus belli.

We either had a massive Intelligence Failure, or we had a massive Lie told to us, or both.

I don't like it, but there it is.

Maybe they thought, better safe than sorry after 911. What would the repercussions for GWB have been if he had done nothing and we were attacked again?

I would think that a Clear and Present Danger is a bare-bones minimum prerequisite for committing the nation to war. Failing to find one...???

Well, they did have intelligence which reported that Saddam was working on obtaining WMD (apparently they weren't ENTIRELY wrong). Also, Saddam made the world BELIEVE that he had something up his sleeve. He even admitted to doing this after he was captured in order to mess with Iran and Israel. He wouldn't allow inspectors in when they wanted to come in and do inspections, and they had to issue threats and warnings before he would cooperate. I also remember hearing about reports of Saddam transferring weapons to Syria. I don't know how true that last one is, but it is certainly not impossible, and it's not unreasonable to see why everyone did (even other countries felt he had WMD of some kind) believe he was hiding something big.

 

[Care4all]

Saddam had a strange habit of killing witnesses.

He shot family members who knew about his hopes for a nuke program. Who's to say he didn't bury all of this shit and then execute any witnesses he felt might be disloyal.

They've found mass graves all over the place in Iraq. I read it was up to 20 million of his own people that Saddam is suspected to have murdered.

But most all of them were killed before or during the Gulf War 1, Operation Dessert Storm... in 1990-91

WE KNEW THEN all the people Saddam had already massacred....and did not get rid of him then....

THAT right there, said America was fine with it, OR it said, WE knew our place and our CONSTITUTION and knew it was not our place to take over a Sovereign nation with a despot that was of no threat to us after we obliterated 96.5% of his arsenal during the gulf war...

that we were previously on the side of....in a twisted sort of way, because we were against Iran at the time, and Saddam was needed to keep Iran in its place.... Saddam got much of his chemical weapon arsenal from us, didn't he
?

...was that just for him to play with or for him to use it?

Because we didn't want to take any chances after 911? I think perhaps they also may have underestimated the resistance they faced in Iraq? I don't know, but you must know that there are PLENTY of secrets the government keeps that we may never know about. We are not privy to everything.

I agree that we are not privy to everything....and we shouldn't be in many cases... why have Top Secret if we ALL knew about everything?

But you should think the same way on things similar, in this Presidency as well, no?

 

[ChrisL]

Saddam had a strange habit of killing witnesses.

He shot family members who knew about his hopes for a nuke program. Who's to say he didn't bury all of this shit and then execute any witnesses he felt might be disloyal.

They've found mass graves all over the place in Iraq. I read it was up to 20 million of his own people that Saddam is suspected to have murdered.

But most all of them were killed before or during the Gulf War 1, Operation Dessert Storm... in 1990-91

WE KNEW THEN all the people Saddam had already massacred....and did not get rid of him then....

THAT right there, said America was fine with it, OR it said, WE knew our place and our CONSTITUTION and knew it was not our place to take over a Sovereign nation with a despot that was of no threat to us after we obliterated 96.5% of his arsenal during the gulf war...

that we were previously on the side of....in a twisted sort of way, because we were against Iran at the time, and Saddam was needed to keep Iran in its place.... Saddam got much of his chemical weapon arsenal from us, didn't he
?

...was that just for him to play with or for him to use it?

Because we didn't want to take any chances after 911? I think perhaps they also may have underestimated the resistance they faced in Iraq? I don't know, but you must know that there are PLENTY of secrets the government keeps that we may never know about. We are not privy to everything.

I agree that we are not privy to everything....and we shouldn't be in many cases... why have Top Secret if we ALL knew about everything?

But you should think the same way on things similar, in this Presidency as well, no?

Well, I do. I know there are always going to be things that I don't know about, and maybe I'm better off not knowing because it really is a dog-eat-dog world out there with no mercy.