The UN weapons inspectors sure thought there were chemical and bio weapons programs. Feel free to read their report to the Security Council.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/

Tom
(still wondering where those 30,000 liters of biological agents went)

January 1999?

Yes, Jan 1999. Iraq stopped cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors in October of 98, and they left. They returned in November 98 on the invitation if Iraq, but left a month later because Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. This report came out just after.

There were no other technical talks between UN inspectors and Iraq untill May 2002.

Inspectors didn't return to Iraq until Nov 2002.

I don't think there is anything there either, but the fact remains that the materials that were documented but unaccounted for by the UN inspectors remains unaccounted for today.

Tom

"Facts are inconvenient things"........

The fact of the matter is that at the time when Bush, (not Saddam), kicked the inspectors out and invaded Iraq, Saddam was 100% contained as a threat. That would have been true even if he was a threat to the rest of the world at that time, which he wasn't. This was not a known fact at the time, but it was being determined in a manner that was not costing lives or billions of dollars, or running up the biggest deficits in history and devaluing the dollar to the point where it is destabilising the entire world's economy.

What Bush and Co. did do was to transform a peaceful country, (albeit one that was run by an iron-fisted dictator), into the most violent place in the world, and give middle eastern terrorism its biggest boost since (?) Iraq sits smack in the middle of the most jihad-ridden/religious extremist/f'ed up part of the world, and it was actually a stabilising influence, in a strange way, because S. Hussein was a secular leader, not religious or a practicing Muslim by any stretch, and certainly not admired or liked by Bin Laden, or vice-versa.

Many facts were known at the time of the run-up to the war, and many more are known now. What blows my mind, and really shatters my hope, is that so many people still can't seem to grasp what a monumental blunder this war was/is today! And not only was a lot of what's happening predictable, it was predicted!

The world is well-stocked w/ experts on this region of the world, the great majority of whom advised against invading Iraq and predicted quite accurately the problems that we would encounter, but Bush chose to listen only to a relatively small group of poli scientists known as the Neocons, (since completely discredited and widely doubted before the war), and Iraqi exiles w/ huge vested interest in convincing him to topple Saddam Hussein.

The number of other politicians who either believed Bush and Cheney or didn't have the balls to cross them, (9/11, remember?), is completely irrelevent. They flat-out lied when they stated things as facts or with certainty regarding Iraq as a threat when in fact they did not know themselves and were taking what they thought would be a winning gamble.

Denis, that was special but completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Unless ofcourse you're saying Bush fabricated the evidence which the CIA then regurgetated back to them?????

Anyway, my point is you guys (liberals everywhere) are taking great glee in the lack of WMD's thus far and you are taking this opportunity to attempt an "I told ya so". There is however one problem.........you DIDN'T tell us or anyone else so. You were against the war, yes. But no one save Ritter was saying "there are none, zero, nada WMD's in Iraq". So I ask you why you pretend you did? Don't change the subject, just tell me who it was on your side that told us he was unarmed? If you can't find anyone, that makes you guys just as incompetent as you claim Bush to be right?

Len, it's actually irrelevant that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

We invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us.

Bush violated the memories of those killed on Sept. 11 by using their deaths to convince you that we had to act.

You could be against the war and not *know* (whatever that means) that there were WMD. I could have assumed that Iraq *did* have WMDs and I still would have been against the war. Why? Well, sane people do risk/reward analysis. Some people might think that a stable secular (albeit whack) leader in a contained situation would be better than an invasion and the highly probably resulting anarchy. Then again, I wasn't taking into account the potential economic gains by American companies for "rebuilding" or the oil reserves. Silly me...

Guys, I am responding to Tech's post here. It was his goal to illustrate W's stupidity by saying how wrong he was and that he should have known, yes? I'm showing him how that example doesn't hold up. All Bush did was rely on the best intelligence available, just like everyone else.

Now as to how all you guys are so much wiser than our current administration, well that's a topic for another thread.

yep, Saddam and OBL hate each other.
So, after WE gets done with Iraq the only thing will be left are followers of OBL that have moved in to fight their war.

So, basically GWB's administration will hand over a country to AQ ... for what ???? 9/11 ???

We should have put those resourses to find OBL in Afganistan and wipe out any and all AQ....

Tony, did you dream all of that? None of that is true. But FWIW, feel free to provide some sources.

Well I see he pulled it, I should have quoted him:)

Len, sorry about taht I screwed that post up and I deleted it 'cause I'm looking at some other stuff atm.. I'll put it back.. sec.. brb

"As far as the people that told us he was WMD free, how about 95% of the governments of the world, the UN weapons inspectors(of which the vast majority are US military intelligence officers), most every single news agency on the planet (except Fox), etc."

Len, not so much wiser, but rather some of us would weigh corporate needs (wants actually) and religious beliefs a *little* less when making policy decisions.

Len, that's the problem. He didn't. He used intelligence and warped to his and the neocon's personal agendas.

there was absolutely no evidence, no intelligence that Saddam was going to use WMDs against us. None.

There was absolutely no evidence of a connection between Saddam and Al Quaida and 9/11.

None.

We have no idea where OBL is.

Someone fabricated a lot of evidence but we non-lemmings are not suggesting that bush sat at his desk in the oval office making up fake documentation framing iraq for attempting to acquire uranium ore in africa.

What is known from many whistle blowers in the US intelligence organizations is that the bush regime was strong arming their organizations to come up with anything that would show a link between AQ, WMD and Iraq. Concidering the white house's inclusion of acusations that were known to be false in the bush's state of the union address its pretty clear that bush & co were not concerned with anything resembling the truth.

If you can't connect the dots thats pretty sad but don't expect the rest of us to revel in your ignorance.

Didn't you see or read the reports telling us that saddam was shipping bio-warfare aircraft drones to the US in shipping containers in order to kill us all with? :rolleyes:

I absolutely assumed that he had some WMDs and I was still 100% opposed to invading Iraq. Hope this clears that up for you. :)

Even if he had turned out to have had some banned weapons left, it would not change my opinion that invading Iraq was illegal and morally indefensible in 2003. And don't even bother w/ the "violated U.N. resolutions" bull***** unless you also support military action against Israel. And the U.S.

I'm surprised that he didn't have any chem weapons, (after all, we sold him a *****load of them), but he was completely boxed in when we kicked out the inspectors, (who were doing a very thourough and professional job I might add), and militarily invaded them. Talk about violating the wishes of the U.N. and our allies, for fuch's sake Skippy! :rolleyes:

The bottom line is that the current administration LIED when they said that they had "bulletproof evidence" of WMDs, (and a lot of other things), they did not. And they manipulated intelligence, tossing out anything that didn't support their pre-ordained theories and justifications. And a lot of Bush supporters just don't care. All because he seems like a good ol' boy(?) :confused:

Just to be clear, the current situation has no precedent in our history, no leader has ever lied about evidence to start a war, and/or had a war go this much sideways. It makes Viet Nam look entirely manageable, IMO. What a nightmare. And there is no glee from me, none whatsoever. When the first U.S. troop or Iraqi civilian got blown up, it became a nightmare.

The only possible good that will come out of it is that future generations will not fall for BS like this again, but of course they will. When was the last time that our leaders lied to us like this? Only 30 years ago? :cool:

That's exactly what I said the case was. Seems you and I agree that Techs post is without basis.

Moving on.......The "they lied" crap is just partison drivel. I say he acted on bad info, you say he made the info up........whatever, I mean where do we go from there?

how about Iran? http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1392078,00.html

"Bring 'em on!" :rolleyes:

act of aggression against Iran = nuclear war ?
scary stuff:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL16Ak01.html