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

[Care4all]

no Chrisl, the administration was WRONG on that intelligence, it was a guy telling a major LIE....chalabi....i think was his name.....it was manufactured intelligence, it was not true....our gvt was even warned by other nations that this was a lie....

 

[Kondor3]

...Ok centrist this that or the other, at some point you need to climb down from the fence and pick a side...

I have. Long ago. I picked the American side. It's where both my heart and my loyalties lie. I served in its military in wartime, although I never got anywhere near a combat zone.

...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...

Nolo contendere.

But I have no idea what this has to do with Iraq.

...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)...

Nolo contendere.

But I have no idea what this has to do with Iraq.

...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...

The death of ONE American kid - serving in our military - is entirely unacceptable - if the casis belli was not righteous.

In the case of our Iraq war veterans, I honor their service, and honor the memories of our war dead by openly and honestly and objectively examining the casus belli, so that, if we ultimately judge that casus belli to be illegitimate, we learn a lesson from that needless tragedy, and take better care in future, in picking our fights.

...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...

We have different ideas about what constitutes a Noble Cause in this instance.

I am not prepared to spend the lives of American boys and girls to depose any tyrant that comes up on our scope.

I am prepared to spend the lives of American boys and girls to engaged in righteous struggles and wars, but not illegitimate ones - big difference.

...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...

I'm actually in favor of preemption, myself, when warranted. Where you and I disagree is in whether or not it was warranted in the case of Iraq.

... 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....

Nolo contendere.

But I have no idea what this has to do with Iraq.

...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.

Please do not attempt to portray me as unaware of the risks inherent in Radicalized, Militant Islam.

You can ask any of a dozen or more Arab butt-kissers and Militant Muslim useful idiots who hang around here, about my stance on Islam, and its perceived risks, and its complete incompatibility with and hostility towards The West in general and America in particular.

You're preaching to the choir.

My eyes are, indeed, wide-open to that threat vector... it's just that Iraq wasn't part of that (an active threat-vector of Radicalized Militant Islam) at the time.

Iraq was a waste of blood and treasure.

A waste.

And that coming from a Vietnam-era (non-combat) vet who was sickened by the truth that the bled ourselves in Vietnam for nothing, as well.

It's not an easy conclusion to reach, nor a comfortable one - but, then again, the Truth is oftentimes damned inconvenient like that.

God bless our kids who served their country faithfully in that misguided war, and God damn those who put them in harm's way for no good reason.

 

[Kondor3]

no Chrisl, the administration was WRONG on that intelligence, it was a guy telling a major LIE....chalabi....i think was his name.....it was manufactured intelligence, it was not true....our gvt was even warned by other nations that this was a lie....

True, sadly... all too true... but the truth was to no avail, amongst a leadership cadre intensely vested in conducting their own war, and to the Devil with the rationale.

 

[Ringel05]

The elites are laughing at you chattle. Really, they are.

==============
chattle..???
an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property

what fuck is this supposed to mean ? CHATTLE ?????

It's an OWSer....... Need I say more?

As if. I've been accused of being a Tea Partier far more often.

So? I've been called a moonbat and a wingnut so I guess I'll change your classification (after reading some of your posts) to common moron.

 

[mudwhistle]

...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.

Bullshit. We didn't have a massive intelligence failure. What we had was a conspiracy perpetrated by Russia and the United Nations against the United States using Saddam as a pawn. It was meant to discredit the United States. Turkey was in on in as well as Syria and others, the same folks currently involved in a proxy war involving ISIS. The UN and Russia assisted the removal of Saddam's weapons program and gave him assurances that the US would not invade. We did, and so Saddam was betrayed by folks he trusted and he ended up getting hanged for his troubles.

 

[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.

Bullshit. We didn't have a massive intelligence failure. What we had was a conspiracy perpetrated by Russia and the United Nations against the United States using Saddam as a pawn. It was meant to discredit the United States. Turkey was in on in as well as Syria and others, the same folks currently involved in a proxy war involving ISIS.

Sorry, I don't do conspiracy theories before breakfast... not goin' down that road... there has been no credible evidence and discussion of this in the public domain over time.

Repeat after me: "We fucked up, going into Iraq. Glory, honor and heartfelt gratitude and committed support to those who served. Let's not make this mistake again."

All fixed.

=====================================

I defended our position in this matter while we still had boots on the ground, on the old (now defunct) MSNBC Political Message Board system, in order to avoid giving aid and comfort to the enemy, over the Internet, while our kids were still in harms' way.

But, now that our kids are out of that shit-hole, it's time to have a more open and honest conversation on the subject. Both parties were (and are) full of shit, in connection with Iraq - both sides have blood on their hands - and both sides need to reflect upon their own part in this mistake and tragedy, and to muster-up sufficient honesty to deal with it.

That goes for Mainstream America, as well, methinks.

We best honor our warriors from those times by dealing honestly with both history and the future.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Another headline read but not the story. This is as good a Bush bashing news report as I have seen - just read what Duelfor says.

 

[mudwhistle]

...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.

Bullshit. We didn't have a massive intelligence failure. What we had was a conspiracy perpetrated by Russia and the United Nations against the United States using Saddam as a pawn. It was meant to discredit the United States. Turkey was in on in as well as Syria and others, the same folks currently involved in a proxy war involving ISIS.

Sorry, I don't do conspiracy theories before breakfast... not goin' down that road... there has been no credible evidence and discussion of this in the public domain over time.

Repeat after me: "We fucked up, going into Iraq. Glory, honor and gratitude to those who served. Let's not make this mistake again."

All fixed.

Yet you don't even bat an eye when you claim that every reliable intelligence agency in the world got it wrong. You'll believe that nonsense, no questions asked.

Guess you can't believe anything unless it's reported in the news.

I personally saw in Somalia how UNISOM conducted themselves while I was deployed there. The United Nations cannot be trusted. It's also clear that Russia has had an axe to grind with us since the 1980 war in Afghanistan. They've shown their true intentions by taking Crimea and fully intend to reacquire as much of the former Soviet Unions' land back as possible. This is paybacks for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

[Kondor3]

...Yet you don't even bat an eye when you claim that every reliable intelligence agency in the world got it wrong...

1. everyone knew that Saddam had chemical weapons, in some form and state-of-usability or another - we had known for years - not the main focus for the casus belli

2. everyone knew that Saddam had biological weapons, in some form and state-of-usability or another - we had known for years - not the main focus for the casus belli

3. we were told that Saddam was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program - and he wasn't letting inspectors look at same - this was the main focus of the casus belli

4. no substantive nuclear weapons program existed

5. therefore, the main focus of the casus belli (substantive nuclear weapons program) proved false

6. the undeniable truth of (5) can only be explained by an intelligence failure - or a lie - or both - take your pick

These are documented historical facts and the singular logical conclusions one must reach through an objective assessment of such fact.

These are not subject to disputation or debate.

...You'll believe that nonsense, no questions asked...

I do not know what you think I believe, but I have precisely defined what I believe, in (1) thru (6) above.

...Guess you can't believe anything unless it's reported in the news...

I would not dream of trying to change your opinion of my gullibility, given that you know me so well.

...I personally saw in Somalia how UNISOM conducted themselves while I was deployed there.The United Nations cannot be trusted...

I agree.

The United Nations has a serious trust problem, in its dealings with the United States.

But this is not prima facie evidence that the UN participated in some kind of non-specific 'conspiracy' leading up to Iraq, designed to make the US look bad.

Unless you are able to serve-up credible and substantive and unambiguous evidence in support of that claim, regrettably, I will be obliged to set such claims aside as spurious.

...It's also clear that Russia has had an axe to grind with us since the 1980 war in Afghanistan...

Agreed.

They did not appreciate the payback, dating back to the Vietnam War, when they were arming our enemies.

But this is not prima facie evidence that Russia participated in some kind of non-specific 'conspiracy' leading up to Iraq, designed to make the US look bad.

Again - evidence, not wild and hairy speculative opinion.

...They've shown their true intentions by taking Crimea and fully intend to reacquire as much of the former Soviet Unions' land back as possible. This is paybacks for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Agreed.

But this is not prima facie evidence that Russian participated in some kind of non-specific 'conspiracy' leading up to Iraq, designed to make the US look bad.

-------------------

You appear to be tilting at windmills on this one, Mud, and I respectfully suggest that you not pursue this particular line of thought much further - there's no basis for it in the Real World nor credible evidence coming to light in the public domain - so there's really very little chance of advancing that particular argument beyond the realm of theory.

 

[mudwhistle]

...Yet you don't even bat an eye when you claim that every reliable intelligence agency in the world got it wrong...

1. everyone knew that Saddam had chemical weapons, in some form and state-of-usability or another - we had known for years - not the main focus for the casus belli

2. everyone knew that Saddam had biological weapons, in some form and state-of-usability or another - we had known for years - not the main focus for the casus belli

3. we were told that Saddam was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program - and he wasn't letting inspectors look at same - this was the main focus of the casus belli

4. no substantive nuclear weapons program existed

5. therefore, the main focus of the casus belli (substantive nuclear weapons program) proved false

6. the undeniable truth of (5) can only be explained by an intelligence failure - or a lie - or both - take your pick

These are documented historical facts and the singular logical conclusions one must reach through an objective assessment of such fact.

These are not subject to disputation or debate.

...You'll believe that nonsense, no questions asked...

I do not know what you think I believe, but I have precisely defined what I believe, in (1) thru (6) above.

...Guess you can't believe anything unless it's reported in the news...

I would not dream of trying to change your opinion of my gullibility, given that you know me so well.

...I personally saw in Somalia how UNISOM conducted themselves while I was deployed there.The United Nations cannot be trusted...

I agree.

The United Nations has a serious trust problem, in its dealings with the United States.

But this is not prima facie evidence that the UN participated in some kind of non-specific 'conspiracy' leading up to Iraq, designed to make the US look bad.

Unless you are able to serve-up credible and substantive and unambiguous evidence in support of that claim, regrettably, I will be obliged to set such claims aside as spurious.

...It's also clear that Russia has had an axe to grind with us since the 1980 war in Afghanistan...

Agreed.

They did not appreciate the payback, dating back to the Vietnam War, when they were arming our enemies.

But this is not prima facie evidence that Russia participated in some kind of non-specific 'conspiracy' leading up to Iraq, designed to make the US look bad.

Again - evidence, not wild and hairy speculative opinion.

...They've shown their true intentions by taking Crimea and fully intend to reacquire as much of the former Soviet Unions' land back as possible. This is paybacks for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Agreed.

But this is not prima facie evidence that Russian participated in some kind of non-specific 'conspiracy' leading up to Iraq, designed to make the US look bad.

-------------------

You appear to be tilting at windmills on this one, Mud, and I respectfully suggest that you not pursue this particular line of thought much further - there's no basis for it in the Real World nor credible evidence coming to light in the public domain - so there's really very little chance of advancing that particular argument beyond the realm of theory.

Observation and common-sense isn't wild and hairy speculative opinion.

You want to act rational in this by only paying attention to the obvious and excluding everything else, walking around with blinders on so to speak. That seems like the level-headed approach. It's cool that you can bring some sanity to this discussion. And the only sane explanations are those provided to us by the MSM. Anything else is just crazy talk.

 

[mudwhistle]

BTW, all of the facts are classified, so you really don't know what they really are, and even if you did you couldn't divulge them as long as you're under orders. What we're being fed is an official line by the Pentagon and they'll only tell us what they think we need to know.

 

[Kondor3]

Sorry, Mud - I am left unconvinced. Have a good one.

 

[mudwhistle]

This discussion is supposed to be about the buildup to the war and whether or not it was justified. Saddam proved to be a wild dog who was capable of doing anything. That is why we took him out. Explain to me why Qaddafi and Assad had to go but not Saddam?

 

[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.

Bullshit. We didn't have a massive intelligence failure. What we had was a conspiracy perpetrated by Russia and the United Nations against the United States using Saddam as a pawn. It was meant to discredit the United States. Turkey was in on in as well as Syria and others, the same folks currently involved in a proxy war involving ISIS. The UN and Russia assisted the removal of Saddam's weapons program and gave him assurances that the US would not invade. We did, and so Saddam was betrayed by folks he trusted and he ended up getting hanged for his troubles.

Fascinating! Do you happen to have a link?

 

[mudwhistle]

Sorry, Mud - I am left unconvinced. Have a good one.

You are entitled to your opinion as am I.

 

[mudwhistle]

...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.

Bullshit. We didn't have a massive intelligence failure. What we had was a conspiracy perpetrated by Russia and the United Nations against the United States using Saddam as a pawn. It was meant to discredit the United States. Turkey was in on in as well as Syria and others, the same folks currently involved in a proxy war involving ISIS. The UN and Russia assisted the removal of Saddam's weapons program and gave him assurances that the US would not invade. We did, and so Saddam was betrayed by folks he trusted and he ended up getting hanged for his troubles.

Fascinating! Do you happen to have a link?

Several, but it would take too long to find them all. I'd have to do a history search and I have to go to work.

 

[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.

Bullshit. We didn't have a massive intelligence failure. What we had was a conspiracy perpetrated by Russia and the United Nations against the United States using Saddam as a pawn. It was meant to discredit the United States. Turkey was in on in as well as Syria and others, the same folks currently involved in a proxy war involving ISIS. The UN and Russia assisted the removal of Saddam's weapons program and gave him assurances that the US would not invade. We did, and so Saddam was betrayed by folks he trusted and he ended up getting hanged for his troubles.

Fascinating! Do you happen to have a link?

Several, but it would take too long to find them all. I'd have to do a history search and I have to go to work.

I'll have to google and check for myself then.

 

[Jarhead]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

You most certainly missed something. Chemical weapons was ALWAYS the concern with Iraq and Hussein. Nuclear weapons has been the concern with Iran.

So yes, you most certainly missed something.

 

[GreenBean]

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....

Look everyone, liberals are now trying to claim chemical weapons were not part of the WMDs.

They also deny that saddam was putting that information out on purpose about nukes, and it was confirmed by defectors, including his two son in laws.

They clearly deny that the country simply enforced the policy of the country that had been signed by Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

They clearly will not allow themselves to see that the WAR ON TERROR was always going to be about more than getting al qaeda or bin laden.

They are shifting like the sands of Egypt right before our eyes.

No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake and
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...

WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...

Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....

STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.

You are on ignore you miserable, double talking lying piece of shit.

You really don't like the Truth, do you?

truth is anathema to rightwingnuts

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 [Democratic Vice President Nominee 2004]


“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Democratic Senator Robert Byrd 2002 former member of the KKK, He was the longest-serving U.S. Senator and, at the time of his death.

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

 

[Kondor3]

Look everyone, liberals are now trying to claim chemical weapons were not part of the WMDs.

They also deny that saddam was putting that information out on purpose about nukes, and it was confirmed by defectors, including his two son in laws.

They clearly deny that the country simply enforced the policy of the country that had been signed by Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

They clearly will not allow themselves to see that the WAR ON TERROR was always going to be about more than getting al qaeda or bin laden.

They are shifting like the sands of Egypt right before our eyes.

No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake and
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...

WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...

Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....

STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.

You are on ignore you miserable, double talking lying piece of shit.

You really don't like the Truth, do you?

truth is anathema to rightwingnuts

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 [Democratic Vice President Nominee 2004]


“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Democratic Senator Robert Byrd 2002 former member of the KKK, He was the longest-serving U.S. Senator and, at the time of his death.

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Indeed.

We knew that

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

You most certainly missed something. Chemical weapons was ALWAYS the concern with Iraq and Hussein. Nuclear weapons has been the concern with Iran.

So yes, you most certainly missed something.

The UN Weapons Inspection Team was focused upon nuclear weapons and related development programs.

UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT TO SECURITY COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

We did not assemble our invasion force until after Saddam had thrown out the UN Inspectors.

When Colin Powell went to the UN, his primary focus was Iraq's nuclear program, and shipments of yellowcake uranium, etc.

We did not go to war primarily with chemical nor biological weapons n the public eye, in order to sell the country on going to war, because everyone knew Saddam had had chemical and biological weapons of one kind or another - in one state of usability - for years - and one does not sell papers nor go to war over old news.

Rather, we went to war over the false flag that Saddam had a substantive and ongoing nuclear weapons development program underway, and that Saddam had kicked the UN's nuclear weapons investigators out of Iraq, in order to cover that up.

Our disagreement is merely over which (nuclear, chemical or biological) type of weapon was the primary focus for the casus belli.

I've seen nothing here to change my mind. I have zero problem with conceding this point if it turns out that I'm wrong, but I don't believe at present that I am.

And, given that President Bush, himself, is on-record (and on-video) conceding that we got it wrong - that Iraq had no substantive arsenal of WMD after all - the possibility for debate is greatly diminished, evaporating into the realm of established fact.

In any event, somebody else is going to have to pursue this, if desired - I've gotta go out-and-about in the world for the day, within a half hour or so.