The Bush Administration Was "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN" That Saddam Hussein Had WMDs

[Billo_Really]

you're delusional here

Here is his exact quote...

Hans Blix's briefing to the security council
Friday 14 February 2003

How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

...so no, I'm not delusional.

 

[Billo_Really]

The Taliban had a viable way out ... turn over OBL and STFU. They chose another path. Their fate was of their own choosing.

Their fate was the choice George Bush made, there were many other options he could've used to mitigate this problem. But since you have no concept of personal responsibility, that concept is foreign to your brain.

 

[Billo_Really]

The notion that radical fundamentalists are "criminals" and not engaged in a war against the West is vague concept that progressives like yourself seem determined to cling to despite evidence to the contrary. We're presently witnessing the coalescence of radical fundamentalists throughout the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban are taking political power. They are not criminal organizations...they are radical Islamic fundamentalists who seek to impose their views on the rest of the world by force.

I don't see how you can make that conclusion, we're the only ones invading sovereign nations.

In the last 10 years, name one country that has attacked another one, other than us.

As for innocents being killed in wars? Thousands of French civilians were killed in the bombing that preceded and followed D-Day. Does that mean that the Allies were "war criminals" for invading Europe? Were innocent people killed by us in Afghanistan? Yes they were. It's what happens in war. And if you're the leader of a country and you CARE about your people then you do everything you can not to put them into a position like that. You don't let groups like Al Queda set up terrorist training camps in your country because you KNOW that what they are training for is the slaughter of innocents which WILL engender a response from those who are attacked. You want to blame someone for those deaths? Blame the Taliban leadership that looked the other way while Osama bin Laden did his thing!

You seem to want to blame everyone but yourself. Things don't happen in a vacuum. When you deliberately bomb the shit out of some ME country, that itself, creates a hatred towards the US and eventually radicalizes a segment of that population to commit terrorist acts against the United States. So a portion of our foreign policy is creating terrorists and making American's less safe.

 

[Billo_Really]

An offer that was justifiably unacceptable to the US and you still haven't the courage to admit your original claim was bogus. The Taliban did not offer to turn him over to the US, an act which could have saved them and the Afghans much grief. The choice was theirs and they chose wrongly. End of story.

You're splitting hairs.

They offered to turn him over to a 3rd party, which would turn him over to us.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

you're delusional here

Here is his exact quote...

Hans Blix's briefing to the security council
Friday 14 February 2003

How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

...so no, I'm not delusional.

Blix is not saying they exist based on evidence and inspections. His opinion was that they probably didn't.

You are delusional in that you are using what Blix said as a justification for the Iraqi War.

Now, Dante supported going in to Iraq before Bush was elected. Dante never cared about the WMD arguments as they never truly sounded credible as presented by Cheney, and by Rumsfeld (whom Dante admired), and by Colin Powell, at al...

People like me (or at State) never thought after an invasion a Paul Bremer type would go in with what amounted to plenipotentiary authority, and destroy the nation in order to rebuild it. That was insanity 101.

The neocons lost many people, people like me liked some of their arguments on things...they will not be trusted again for at least a generation

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It isn't the invasion of Iraq which turned people against the right wingers...it is the aftermath, the Bremer plan.

 

[Billo_Really]

Now that we’re out of Iraq, the CIA has come clean on how it came to be bamboozled about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ferrets over at the National Security Archive (NSA) petitioned for, and got, the CIA’s equivalent of the dog-ate-my-homework. (Technically, the NSA obtained this document under a mandatory-declassification-review request it made in 2006, which can be faster [It still took six years!] than an FOIA request if the requester has sufficient details on a specific document.)

Bottom line, from the CIA’s point of view: Saddam used to lie about possessing WMD, so we believed he still was.

Read more: The CIA's Mea Culpa on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction | TIME.com

and
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Believed?"

Bush and Cheney said they "knew". That's not a belief.

And you don't go to war over what you believe.

The CIA were aware of a British report on March 3, 2002, that indicated that it there wasn't much evidence Hussein had any WMD's.

British intel reports that there's only "sporadic and patchy" evidence of Iraqi WMD. "There is no intelligence on any [biological weapons] production facilities." [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]

That's coming from British intel, an agency that is not known for lying.

In May of 2002, US intel determined Curveball was a liar.

Primary corroborator of Curveball's claims that Iraq has mobile weapons labs is judged a liar and Chalabi plant by DIA. A fabricator warning is posted in US intelligence databases. [Date the public knew: 3/28/04]

In the summer of 2002, the French told the US the yellowcake story was bullshit.

French debunk yellowcake theory: "We told the Americans, 'Bullshit. It doesn't make any sense,'" says French official. [Date the public knew: 12/11/05]

In September of 2002, Germany told the CIA Curveball was crazy and a fabricator.

Tyler Drumheller, CIA's European operations chief, calls German Embassy in Washington seeking access to Curveball. Germans warn he's "crazy" and "probably a fabricator." [Date the public knew: 11/20/05]

On September 26, 2002, US intel reported there was "no reliable intel" proving Hussein was stockpiling weapons.

Classified DIA assessment of Iraq's chemical weapons concludes there is "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." [Date the public knew: 5/30/03]

So to say the CIA was basing its decision soley on the notion Hussein lied in the past and is probably lying now, is a lie in itself.

 

[Billo_Really]

Blix is not saying they exist based on evidence and inspections. His opinion was that they probably didn't.

You are delusional in that you are using what Blix said as a justification for the Iraqi War.

Where the fuck have I said anything like that?

I've been against the Iraq war since day 1.

Why would I argue in favor of it?

 

[Oldstyle]

An offer that was justifiably unacceptable to the US and you still haven't the courage to admit your original claim was bogus. The Taliban did not offer to turn him over to the US, an act which could have saved them and the Afghans much grief. The choice was theirs and they chose wrongly. End of story.

You're splitting hairs.

They offered to turn him over to a 3rd party, which would turn him over to us.

The offer to turn him over to a third party was contingent on that party NOT turning him over to the US. Once again, Loinboy...you've shown yourself to be extremely uninformed about what REALLY took place.

 

[Billo_Really]

The offer to turn him over to a third party was contingent on that party NOT turning him over to the US. Once again, Loinboy...you've shown yourself to be extremely uninformed about what REALLY took place.

I'm pretty confident that once he was turned over to a third party, we could get him after that.

 

[GWV5903]

Now that we’re out of Iraq, the CIA has come clean on how it came to be bamboozled about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ferrets over at the National Security Archive (NSA) petitioned for, and got, the CIA’s equivalent of the dog-ate-my-homework. (Technically, the NSA obtained this document under a mandatory-declassification-review request it made in 2006, which can be faster [It still took six years!] than an FOIA request if the requester has sufficient details on a specific document.)

Bottom line, from the CIA’s point of view: Saddam used to lie about possessing WMD, so we believed he still was.

Read more: The CIA's Mea Culpa on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction | TIME.com

and
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YADAYADAYADAYADA...

How do the Stupid Liberals of USMB reconcile this? Proof positive that you can't fix stupid...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk]Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) - YouTube[/ame]

More Proof...

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

Again, now we add Dantee...

Marc, loinboy and the rest of the desparate Stupid Liberal Left, what should be done with your leadership, hell they are the ones who passed this belief along...

So you have a hard time calling out Clinton, Albright, Berger, Rockefeller, etc...

That's why you're Dumbocrats...

 

[Oldstyle]

The notion that radical fundamentalists are "criminals" and not engaged in a war against the West is vague concept that progressives like yourself seem determined to cling to despite evidence to the contrary. We're presently witnessing the coalescence of radical fundamentalists throughout the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban are taking political power. They are not criminal organizations...they are radical Islamic fundamentalists who seek to impose their views on the rest of the world by force.

I don't see how you can make that conclusion, we're the only ones invading sovereign nations.

In the last 10 years, name one country that has attacked another one, other than us.

As for innocents being killed in wars? Thousands of French civilians were killed in the bombing that preceded and followed D-Day. Does that mean that the Allies were "war criminals" for invading Europe? Were innocent people killed by us in Afghanistan? Yes they were. It's what happens in war. And if you're the leader of a country and you CARE about your people then you do everything you can not to put them into a position like that. You don't let groups like Al Queda set up terrorist training camps in your country because you KNOW that what they are training for is the slaughter of innocents which WILL engender a response from those who are attacked. You want to blame someone for those deaths? Blame the Taliban leadership that looked the other way while Osama bin Laden did his thing!

You seem to want to blame everyone but yourself. Things don't happen in a vacuum. When you deliberately bomb the shit out of some ME country, that itself, creates a hatred towards the US and eventually radicalizes a segment of that population to commit terrorist acts against the United States. So a portion of our foreign policy is creating terrorists and making American's less safe.

Now "I'm" to blame? This gets more amusing by the post, Loinboy!

I'm curious...you apparently abhor how W. supposedly bombed the shit out of some Middle Eastern countries...but you don't seem to be upset about Barry using drones to bomb the shit out countries in the Middle East, in Africa and in Asia. Why is that?

 

[Oldstyle]

The offer to turn him over to a third party was contingent on that party NOT turning him over to the US. Once again, Loinboy...you've shown yourself to be extremely uninformed about what REALLY took place.

I'm pretty confident that once he was turned over to a third party, we could get him after that.

So you think that if Osama bin Laden had been turned over to say Syria or Iran, that THEY would have given him up to us? I'm trying to get a feel for just HOW naive you really are, Loinboy.

Let me give you a little "hand" with reality here...

If Afghanistan REALLY wanted Osama in our custody they would have simply turned him over to us. Instead they sought an agreement in which he would be turned over to a third party country of their choosing in return for a ceasation of bombing. There is no way in God's green earth that they would have EVER turned OBL over to any country that would have then turned him over to us. They literally went to war rather than do so...against an opponent that they had to have known would prevail against them militarily.

 

[jtpr312]

Here's the FACTS. He didn't need any WMD's to be in Iraq. Iraq broke the agreements of the cease fire that ended hostilities after the 1st Gulf war over and over and over again, and THAT is all the justification, legal and moral, that Bush needed to go into Iraq and clean their clocks for them, forget the fact that they fired on US Warplanes in pursuit of their UN related duties. Sadam played chicken and ended up at the end of a rope, along with hundreds of thousands of his fellow muslim scumbags.

Wrong. It wasn't Bush's call to decide unilaterally for the UNSC, if Hussein violated the terms of previous resolutions.

As far as firing on US warplanes, those planes were bombing the shit out of the country. That's not no-fly zone enforcement, that's trying to provoke a war.

Better read up a bit on the terms of the Cease Fire that stopped hostilities after the first Gulf War son. Wrong, the planes where engaged in their legal duties of ENFORCING the terms of the cease fire when fired upon. You can whine, bitch and cry all you want the FACT is Bush had all the legal and moral authority he needed to go into Iraq and wax their asses, which he did.

 

[Dubya]

Here's the FACTS. He didn't need any WMD's to be in Iraq. Iraq broke the agreements of the cease fire that ended hostilities after the 1st Gulf war over and over and over again, and THAT is all the justification, legal and moral, that Bush needed to go into Iraq and clean their clocks for them, forget the fact that they fired on US Warplanes in pursuit of their UN related duties. Sadam played chicken and ended up at the end of a rope, along with hundreds of thousands of his fellow muslim scumbags.

Wrong. It wasn't Bush's call to decide unilaterally for the UNSC, if Hussein violated the terms of previous resolutions.

As far as firing on US warplanes, those planes were bombing the shit out of the country. That's not no-fly zone enforcement, that's trying to provoke a war.

Better read up a bit on the terms of the Cease Fire that stopped hostilities after the first Gulf War son. Wrong, the planes where engaged in their legal duties of ENFORCING the terms of the cease fire when fired upon. You can whine, bitch and cry all you want the FACT is Bush had all the legal and moral authority he needed to go into Iraq and wax their asses, which he did.

What is it with you people? You claim there was WMD and then say there wasn't when you faced with Bush admitting it. You'll be back again posting there was WMD, because all you right-wingers do is make up lies and post them.

 

[Billo_Really]

Better read up a bit on the terms of the Cease Fire that stopped hostilities after the first Gulf War son.

Don't need to. I'm well aware of those "terms". You need to fix your comprehension problems. Because the only "terms" that were in effect, were those in 1441. And at the bottom of that resolution, is the phrase, "we remain siezed on this matter", which is the UNSC's way of saying they have jurisdiction and any member state that suspects a violation, they are to refer it back to the Security Counsel, for further review.

We were helping to enforce that resolution, we weren't running the show.

And if there was a violation, it would've been documented in one of Hans Blix reports to the UN and it wasn't.

Wrong, the planes where engaged in their legal duties of ENFORCING the terms of the cease fire when fired upon.

Running over 2000 sorties, dropping over 600 bombs, on over 300 pre-selected targets, is not "no-fly zone" enforcement, you war-mongering prick!

You can whine, bitch and cry all you want the FACT is Bush had all the legal and moral authority he needed to go into Iraq and wax their asses, which he did.

Bullshit. We attacked in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter and you don't have a clue as to what morality is. Is it moral to make up reasons to attack a country where over a million innocent men, women and children died as a result?

 

[Billo_Really]

Marc, loinboy and the rest of the desparate Stupid Liberal Left, what should be done with your leadership, hell they are the ones who passed this belief along...

They're not the ones who started the "belief", you fuckin' idiot!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Here's the FACTS. He didn't need any WMD's to be in Iraq. Iraq broke the agreements of the cease fire that ended hostilities after the 1st Gulf war over and over and over again, and THAT is all the justification, legal and moral, that Bush needed to go into Iraq and clean their clocks for them, forget the fact that they fired on US Warplanes in pursuit of their UN related duties. Sadam played chicken and ended up at the end of a rope, along with hundreds of thousands of his fellow muslim scumbags.

Wrong. It wasn't Bush's call to decide unilaterally for the UNSC, if Hussein violated the terms of previous resolutions.

As far as firing on US warplanes, those planes were bombing the shit out of the country. That's not no-fly zone enforcement, that's trying to provoke a war.

The United States brought its case before the United Nations using the intelligence that was brought to them at that time (sounds very similar to the left saying it wasn't Obama's fault for Benghazi and any possible "misinformation" it may have been presented about a demonstration...... yet let's just BLAME Bush anyways for Iraq because we didn't agree with his policies..... not that he lied).

The point against your argument is that key members of the United Nations were profiting from Iraq, they weren't going to listen to the United States or take further action against Saddam no matter WHAT was presented to them. France was profiting from Iraq by selling them French Marauder fighter aircraft to help rebuild Saddam's Air Force. Russia was also profiting from Iraq by sending them supplies... it's called the Oil for Food United Nations scandal, you should look it up sometime. The United Nations was in bed with Iraq and was going with Saddam's interests of dragging this out for as long as it takes without serious enforcement or pursuit of any further consequences, as a result of more violations. You people on the left are real idiots if you think the United Nations was going to actually "do its job of enforcement" of the cease fire agreement and sanctions they already passed against Iraq. The U.N. was worthless and uninterested with what Iraq may, or may not, be doing.

 

[Dubya]

Here's the FACTS. He didn't need any WMD's to be in Iraq. Iraq broke the agreements of the cease fire that ended hostilities after the 1st Gulf war over and over and over again, and THAT is all the justification, legal and moral, that Bush needed to go into Iraq and clean their clocks for them, forget the fact that they fired on US Warplanes in pursuit of their UN related duties. Sadam played chicken and ended up at the end of a rope, along with hundreds of thousands of his fellow muslim scumbags.

Wrong. It wasn't Bush's call to decide unilaterally for the UNSC, if Hussein violated the terms of previous resolutions.

As far as firing on US warplanes, those planes were bombing the shit out of the country. That's not no-fly zone enforcement, that's trying to provoke a war.

The United States brought its case before the United Nations using the intelligence that was brought to them at that time (sounds very similar to the left saying it wasn't Obama's fault for Benghazi and the "misinformation" it was presented about a demonstration...... yet let's just BLAME Bush anyways for Iraq because we didn't agree with his policies..... not that he lied).

The point against your argument is that key members of the United Nations were profiting from Iraq, they weren't going to listen to the United States or take further action against Saddam no matter WHAT was presented to them. France was profiting from Iraq by selling them French Marauder fighter aircraft to help rebuild Saddam's Air Force. Russia was also profiting from Iraq by sending them supplies... it's called the Oil for Food United Nations scandal, you should look it up sometime. The United Nations was in bed with Iraq and was going with Saddam's interests if dragging this out for as long as it takes without serious enforcement or pursuit of any interest of further consequences of any more violations. You people on the left are real idiots if you think the United Nations was going to actually "do its job of enforcement" of the cease fire agreement and sanctions they already passed against Iraq. The U.N. was worthless and uninterested with what Iraq may, or may not, be doing.

Cheney cooked the intelligence and that's been proven.

 

[Billo_Really]

Now "I'm" to blame? This gets more amusing by the post, Loinboy!

Are you an American citizen? Then you're to blame. We all are. We're responsible for the government we elect and everything they do, is done in our name.

However, since you support the war, I think you're a little more to blame than I am.

I'm curious...you apparently abhor how W. supposedly bombed the shit out of some Middle Eastern countries...but you don't seem to be upset about Barry using drones to bomb the shit out countries in the Middle East, in Africa and in Asia. Why is that?

What makes you think that?

I'm the one who started the "Drone warfare is terrorism" thread.

I've said on many occasions I withdrew my support for Obama Administration policies almost 4 years ago when it was clear he was still persuing the neocon foreign policy agenda.

I want all these wars to end, all the troops brought back home, the over 800 bases around the world closed (unless a country wants it there, then we'll send them a bill for the operating costs).