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

[Kosh]

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.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

You seem to be operating under the impression that I do not include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.

I do, indeed, include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.

I merely hold that the casus belli (the reason for going to war) for the Iraq War was NUCLEAR weapons - and their pursuit by the Iraq regime of those times.

This is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.

It is also a documented historical fact that no such weapons - nor their weaponized precursor components - were ever found.

Creating a condition in which the casus belli for the Iraq War proved to be false.

This, too, is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.

It was a false alarm - and, quite possibly, an intentionally contrived falsehood.

I don't like that any more than you do, but it is what it is.

Nope that is Anthrax he is holding up not a nuclear bomb.

Then again many at the UN opposed the war as they got caught red handed with their hands in the OIL for FOOD cookie jar.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I see the lefties are bending and twisting words, re-defining them, in order to keep their lie.

What else is new? lefties love to lie.

 

[Moonglow]

Is this big news to the rwers today? Since multiple threads are sprouting..

 

[Kondor3]

...Nope that is Anthrax he is holding up not a nuclear bomb. Then again many at the UN opposed the war as they got caught red handed with their hands in the OIL for FOOD cookie jar.

Oh, c'mon... I'm not disputing the idea that the Bush Administration also included chemical and biological weapons into the mix, when building the case for war.

But the MAIN thrust and focus was upon nuclear weapons - yellow-cake uranium purchases and all that - and you know that just as well as I do.

Good luck disputing the idea that the MAIN FOCUS of our casus belli for the Iraq War was anything other than nuclear weapons.

Better?

 

[Ringel05]

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.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

You seem to be operating under the impression that I do not include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.

I do, indeed, include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.

I merely hold that the casus belli (the reason for going to war) for the Iraq War was NUCLEAR weapons - and their pursuit by the Iraq regime of those times.

This is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.

It is also a documented historical fact that no such weapons - nor their weaponized precursor components - were ever found.

Creating a condition in which the casus belli for the Iraq War proved to be false.

This, too, is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.

It was a false alarm - and, quite possibly, an intentionally contrived falsehood.

I don't like that any more than you do, but it is what it is.

It was over WMDs, not one specific type of WMD over and above the other........... While I disagreed with the war I won't play the "politics" game you're obviously playing because the "There were no WMDs in Iraq" political battle cry has been rendered null and void. Yeah, you're trying to move the goal posts.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

 

[Theowl32]

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.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

You seem to be operating under the impression that I do not include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.

I do, indeed, include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.

I merely hold that the casus belli (the reason for going to war) for the Iraq War was NUCLEAR weapons - and their pursuit by the Iraq regime of those times.

This is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.

It is also a documented historical fact that no such weapons - nor their weaponized precursor components - were ever found.

Creating a condition in which the casus belli for the Iraq War proved to be false.

This, too, is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.

It was a false alarm - and, quite possibly, an intentionally contrived falsehood.

I don't like that any more than you do, but it is what it is.

What exactly is not up for debate? I do not understand. You said that there were no nuclear weapons found. True enough. However, what is not up for debate is whether or not saddam was putting out information that he was trying to get his nuclear program going, and he did that on purpose.

Again, that was revealed several times and it is covered under the UNSCOM findings, which had nothing to do with Bush. His two son in laws revealed his desires. They were executed for it, and that is one of the main reasons why Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs. Bush carried out that policy essentially, which is why it was not AN INVASION but a liberation.

I know to the left that America was not welcomed as liberators. Talk about rewriting of history. We were absolutely welcomed as liberators as they cheered at the tearing down of his statue. Only the left uses the term invasion, since they do clearly wish saddam was still in power. Hence the reason I shake my head whenever they feign outrage over their so called concerns over "torture." No, what they reveal is they only hate America, since they do not say shit about the mass murders committed by saddam and mass tortures he was guilty of. They actually wish he was still in power. Yes, they do.

The left are all worthless. Every one of them. Do not get sucked into their shit by making you think how much they care about the poor and down trodden. They could not possibly care less if they tried.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Would you guys stop starting new threads on this?

Honest. There is NO prize for posting something first.

 

[Kondor3]

...It was over WMDs, not one specific type of WMD over and above the other...

I remember it differently... I could be wrong... although it would take some convincing.

...While I disagreed with the war I won't play the 'politics' game you're obviously playing because the "There were no WMDs in Iraq" political battle cry has been rendered null and void...

I'm not playing any political game here.

I'm stating what I perceive to be fact.

Nobody disputes the idea that chemical and biological weapons existed in Iraq at the time - and for many years prior to the 2003 war.

The Administration du jour ALSO pitched the idea that the Iraqis were fast-tracking a nuclear weapons program.

The Administration was wrong - or they were lying.

Personally, I totally supported our assault on Afghanistan, but disagreed with going to war with Iraq - I did not want us taking our eye off the ball with al-Qaeda.

But, once we sent our people into Iraq, as a veteran, I publicly supported our kids over there, and held my peace, until the fighting was over.

None of that, however, changes the idea that the Administration pitched nuclear weapons as the central theme of their casus belli, and that proved to be false.

...Yeah, you're trying to move the goal posts.

Disagree.

Refreshing our memory about the central focus for that casus belli and stating the casus belli turned out to be a false alarm, is not moving the goal posts.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why did it need to be secretly reported?

This isn't a secret report. If it was, we wouldn't be hearing it.

We've heard rumors of this, but now we have the proof.

Bush didn't lie after all folks.

I never thought Bush lied. I just always thought that the left were DESPERATE FOOLS who would say or do anything to insult Bush.

 

[Wildman]

Why did it need to be secretly reported?

=============
you tell us.., you fucking libercrats have all the answers to everything else so this should be no problem for you smarter than the average idiot.

 

[Kondor3]

...What exactly is not up for debate? I do not understand. You said that there were no nuclear weapons found. True enough. However, what is not up for debate is whether or not saddam was putting out information that he was trying to get his nuclear program going, and he did that on purpose...

Yeah. He put up information that he was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. That's why we invented the CIA... to figure out whether such declarations had any merit to them, or whether they were the biggest bluff in history since Falsies. Going to war on false premises is, at best, indicative of gross negligence and incompetency.

...Again, that was revealed several times and it is covered under the UNSCOM findings, which had nothing to do with Bush. His two son in laws revealed his desires. They were executed for it, and that is one of the main reasons why Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs. Bush carried out that policy essentially, which is why it was not AN INVASION but a liberation...

It doesn't matter a damn WHO signed-off on what, and which party said what.

What matters is that the casus belli proved to be one of the biggest False Alarms in history, and we paid for that Intelligence Failure (or manufactured lie? - take your pick) - with far more blood and treasure and domestic unity than it was worth.

...I know to the left that America was not welcomed as liberators. Talk about rewriting of history. We were absolutely welcomed as liberators as they cheered at the tearing down of his statue. Only the left uses the term invasion, since they do clearly wish saddam was still in power...

I'm a Centrist - I vote Left sometimes, and Right sometimes, and sometimes right down the middle, and I call it an invasion, too.

Our incursion into Afghanistan was as close to a Righteous War as can possibly be imagined.

Our incursion into Iraq was based upon false premises (accidental or manufactured) and took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and was a complete waste and failure.

Personally, I'm glad that Saddam is gone, but I don't think it was worth one single American life nor one single American dollar, nor do I appreciate what happened as our (predictable) failed nation-building collapsed and ISIS-ISIL spawned and moved to fill the vacuum.

... Hence the reason I shake my head whenever they feign outrage over their so called concerns over "torture." No, what they reveal is they only hate America, since they do not say shit about the mass murders committed by saddam and mass tortures he was guilty of. They actually wish he was still in power. Yes, they do...

I don't give a rat's ass about what Iraqis do to each other, in the context of spending American lives and treasure, and that attitude is evident in the minds of a great many Americans on the Left, in the Center, and, actually, a fair number on the Right, who do not see it as our business to manufacture reasons for going to war.

...The left are all worthless. Every one of them. Do not get sucked into their shit by making you think how much they care about the poor and down trodden. They could not possibly care less if they tried.

I'm a Big Boy and capable of making up my own mind.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

You seem to be operating under the impression that I do not include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.

I do, indeed, include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.

I merely hold that the casus belli (the reason for going to war) for the Iraq War was NUCLEAR weapons - and their pursuit by the Iraq regime of those times.

This is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.

It is also a documented historical fact that no such weapons - nor their weaponized precursor components - were ever found.

Creating a condition in which the casus belli for the Iraq War proved to be false.

This, too, is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.

It was a false alarm - and, quite possibly, an intentionally contrived falsehood.

I don't like that any more than you do, but it is what it is.

I suppose then that Saddam was planning a very big birthday party with all of that yellow-cake.

I think that this revelation is a prime example of the difference between what is documented and what is reality.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Would you guys stop starting new threads on this?

Honest. There is NO prize for posting something first.

Fuck off TROLL.

How many damn threads have we had to endure over the years about Bush lying because you faggots CAN'T WAIT TO TROLL when the opportunity arises.

 

[Ringel05]

...It was over WMDs, not one specific type of WMD over and above the other...

I remember it differently... I could be wrong... although it would take some convincing.

...While I disagreed with the war I won't play the 'politics' game you're obviously playing because the "There were no WMDs in Iraq" political battle cry has been rendered null and void...

I'm not playing any political game here.

I'm stating what I perceive to be fact.

Nobody disputes the idea that chemical and biological weapons existed in Iraq at the time - and for many years prior to the 2003 war.

The Administration du jour ALSO pitched the idea that the Iraqis were fast-tracking a nuclear weapons program.

The Administration was wrong - or they were lying.

Personally, I totally supported our assault on Afghanistan, but disagreed with going to war with Iraq - I did not want us taking our eye off the ball with AL-Qaeda.

But, once we sent our people into Iraq, as a veteran, I publicly supported our kids over there, and held my peace, until the fighting was over.

None of that, however, changes the idea that the Administration pitched nuclear weapons as the central theme of their casus belli, and that proved to be false.

...Yeah, you're trying to move the goal posts.

Disagree.

Refreshing our memory about the central focus for that casus belli and stating the casus belli turned out to be a false alarm, is not moving the goal posts.

Then we agree to disagree.
And yes, as a vet I also supported the troops and kept my moth shut till afterwards but my reason for opposing Iraq wasn't specifically AL-Qaeda, it was being familiar with the region, culture and peoples and foreseeing the mess that exists now.

 

[Wildman]

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 ?????

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

That makes two threads on this topic....both misrepresenting the matter. Congrats.

actually it is now the 3RD thread on this...

How many bullshit threads have we see that BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED? And your panties are in a twist because breaking news is being reported that exposes the truth?

 

[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?

 

[Kondor3]

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.

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Everybody on the face of the planet already know that Saddam had chemical weapons - for years prior to the invasion - dog bites man.

Everybody on the face of the planet already knew that Saddam had biological weapons - for years prior to the invasion - dog bites man.

What tipped the scales in favor of invasion was the third leg of the weapons triad - nuclear weapons - man bites dog.

Supposed yellow-cake uranium shipments from South Africa and highly advanced research and materials-processing facilities and knowledge-base.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam's chemical weapons away from him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam biological weapons away form him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

People went to war to stop Saddam from developing and deploying nuclear weapons - a supposed new state of affairs.

Doesn't matter how the arguments for the casus belli were formalized, at the UN, or, more loosely, amongst the American People.

What DOES matter is the focus of the arguments leading up to the formalizing of the casus belli.

And that focus was nuclear weaponry - the NEW element in the weapons triad that could be made to serve as the flash-point for an alarm, sufficient to go to war over.

You know that just as well as I do, whether you choose to concede the point here or not.

Lest we forget.

IMHO, to overlook that fact is to do a grave injustice to the shades of our war dead, and living spirit of those who served and suffered and survived that largely avoidable and tragic mistake.

We kicked ass, alright, during the early going - kudos, over and over again, to our wonderful boys and girls who served.

But it's OK to raise eyebrows at those who put them into harms' way on such a threadbare and highly questionable rationale.

 

[Theowl32]

...It was over WMDs, not one specific type of WMD over and above the other...

I remember it differently... I could be wrong... although it would take some convincing.

...While I disagreed with the war I won't play the 'politics' game you're obviously playing because the "There were no WMDs in Iraq" political battle cry has been rendered null and void...

I'm not playing any political game here.

I'm stating what I perceive to be fact.

Nobody disputes the idea that chemical and biological weapons existed in Iraq at the time - and for many years prior to the 2003 war.

The Administration du jour ALSO pitched the idea that the Iraqis were fast-tracking a nuclear weapons program.

The Administration was wrong - or they were lying.

Personally, I totally supported our assault on Afghanistan, but disagreed with going to war with Iraq - I did not want us taking our eye off the ball with al-Qaeda.

But, once we sent our people into Iraq, as a veteran, I publicly supported our kids over there, and held my peace, until the fighting was over.

None of that, however, changes the idea that the Administration pitched nuclear weapons as the central theme of their casus belli, and that proved to be false.

...Yeah, you're trying to move the goal posts.

Disagree.

Refreshing our memory about the central focus for that casus belli and stating the casus belli turned out to be a false alarm, is not moving the goal posts.

Sorry kondor, you are wrong about a lot of things.

One, the war on terror was NEVER going to be about getting ONE MAN (bin laden) and not about getting ONE GROUP (al qaeda.) You can see that it is clearly the case. bin laden has been dead for 3 years, al qaeda has been "on the run." Yet this WAR ON TERROR is still very much going on. Do not be so naive about the reality of the WAR ON TERROR.


Two, the paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats abroad and our national policy changed. This country had already been committed to liberating Iraq, since indeed the country had already made that a policy. I am not going to let the signing of the Iraq liberation Act for WMDs be forgotten. That was THE POLICY of this country and it was put in place. OUR country enforced the policy.

Three, you are limiting the notion of WMDs to nuclear weapons, even when you are claiming you aren't. You are, cause keep making the distinction, while at the same time saying you know chemical weapons are classified as WMDs. That is liberal type double talk. Sorry.

Four, do not ignore the fact that saddam clearly put out false information about getting nuclear weapons and stop glossing over the fact that defectors (his two son in laws along with others) revealed what his plans were.

The world is a better place with out saddam. Period. Regardless of what the left is trying to say. Hell, I will never have any clue what their point is. They claim to hate these Iraqi people being tortured (keep in mind they cry over the fact that those who planned 911 were water boarded) but all wish saddam was still in power murdering and torturing his own people.

Hell, they are revealing now that they could not care less that women and children are being slaughtered right now. They could not possibly care less. The world has gone into the shithole because this president keeps on placating his moronic base, who actually believes global warming is a bigger threat to America than ISIS. They fucking think the Tea Party is a bigger threat than islamic fundamentalists.