Where did the WMD go?

[Superman]

Right. The best thing you can pretend to say about this decision by Dubya, is that he was bamboozled. The leader of the free world was bamboozled. And the evidence to support this is thin, but that's what the conservatives are trying to established. That Dubya was tricked. The alternative conclusion is not as kind as this one.

[skipdup]

I was slow in my last response... Should have checked for more replies before I hit submit...

One could suppose that if one didn't really have WMD but needed your neighbors to still suspect that you had them, you too might play it close to the vest.

That's very understanding of Saddam's predicament.

Is it really out of the question that W, in a post 911 environment, needed to do anything to keep us safe?

The best thing you can pretend to say about this decision by Dubya, is that he was bamboozled.

What about the rest of the world? Is a person really "bamboozled" if everyone else is too?

- Skip

[350HP930]

This is old news.

Lathes, mills and other manufacturing equipment was looted thanks to the bush regime's bad planning.

Sure they can be used to make WMD, but they can also be used to make car and machine parts. Thats the reason why they were looted.

Leave it to those grasping at straws to try to twist the theft of manufacturing equipment into the whole 'saddam had WMD' argument.

The article also stated that even the bricks some buildings were made out of were looted.

Watch out, some crafty iraqi might put together a nuke with those machine tools and bricks.

[stevepaa]

skipdup
On the destruction of the weapons, he , Saddam would have considerably more difficulty in proving destruction of weapons than we do for treaty limitations. We have Russian delegations that come here and inspect our nuclear faclitites and our porcesses for destroying old missiles. We send people over there to observe also, but even Russia could not account for all of its stuff. To expect any good accounting in Iraq was wishful thinking.
see war motivation
for a little input from JSDSKI on Bush motivation.
Bush knew the "intelligence" was poor.
Other points.
No , Bush is not stupid, IQ ~130. But he has his agenda.

France and Germany could not prove he did not have them, but I don't recall them agreeing that he had them.

[jyl]

There was miscalculation or both sides. Saddam thought that keeping the world thinking that he might have WMD was itself of strategic value. He was also hoping to have WMD again someday, and wanted to keep his scientists, facilities, equipment, etc even though his WMD had been destroyed. Finally, he did not think the US would actually invade. So he made a big mistake. The US government thought that Saddam had WMD, and misinterpreted the intelligence as confirming this. So the US made a big mistake.

This is the optimistic version of events. The less optimistic version is that the US government wanted to invade Iraq and used WMD as a pretext. If you've worked in big coporations, you know how managers decide what they want to conclude and then pressure subordinates to come up with data and analysis justifying the conclusion. You decide if the US Presidency would or wouldn't act the same way.

Anyway, maybe the reason there weren't immediate replies to the original post is because this stinky horse is beaten, dead, and buried.

We routed Saddam's army, captured his scientists and henchmen and records, took over the country. Then we went looking for the WMD to triumphantly hold up to silence our critics. Oops, there wasn't any. The UN couldn't find WMD. The military couldn't find WMD. The US government has conceded in the post-war investigations that there wasn't any WMD found. The head of the CIA was forced out, his deputies were axed.

Give me a break. Even George Bush has stopped citing Saddam's WMD arsenal as the justification for this $300 billion adventure. No, we did it to bring democracy to the Iraqi people.

Well, no one asked me, as a US citizen and taxpayer, what I thought about invading a Middle East country, spending $300 billion and counting, losing over a thousand US soliders dead and tens of thousands more wounded, and something over 40,000 Iraqi civilians and soldiers killed, in order to bring democratic elections to that country. Call me a tightwad, but I suspect some Americans might have said that's not a trade worth making.

So a NYT article that says equipment - not WMD, just "equipment" - was looted is supposed to exhume this decomposing carcass of a justification for a stupid war?

[Superman]

What about the rest of the world? Is a person really "bamboozled" if everyone else is too?

- Skip [/B]

No, a person with an incorrect belief is mistaken or misled. Bamboozled is when you have been fooled into taking action based on incorrect information. Like for example attacking a foreign country causing the death of (so far) well over a thousand of your own troops and at least tens of thousands of citizens of the country you are attacking.

[skipdup]

stevepaa- Iraq is not nearly the same as Russia - in either geographic size nor volume/amount of weapons. I see your point, but I disagree that it's the same thing. Although, I must admit it's an interesting view I hadn't considered.

If France & Germany didn't think/know he had them, surely they would have used that as pressure to keep us from going to war... They tried everything else... That tells me that they did believe he had them. If they believed it, why is it so outrageous that W believed it too?

Bamboozled is when you have been fooled into taking action based on incorrect information.

bam·boo·zle - To take in by elaborate methods of deceit; hoodwink. See Synonyms at deceive.

So, if he was deceived, so was the rest of the world. If everyone else was, how can you act as though it's so unbelievable that W was too? Somehow he should have known he wasn't being deceived? The guy IS human.

- Skip

[rrpjr]

Things to remember. The invasion was based on the best available intelligence findings and the consensus of a majority of our allies' intelligence services, including France's and Germany's. Hussein's ownership of these weapons was attested as fact by the previous administration, the United Nations and a majority of our congress. The evidentiary basis of the war was preponderant and surpassed any reasonable standard. For the most part those who continue to bleat "where is the WMD" have no real interest in finding them or explaining where they might have gone, and would have been the first to eviscerate Bush for doing nothing if they'd been found or had been developed a la North Korea. These people also entirely ignore or reject any of the larger moral and civilized arguments for invasion, including the veritable and multiple "arrest warrants" issued against Hussein for 10 years, that he was firng on US and British fliers for 10 years, that he killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims within and outside his borders, and that terrorists were rife and roaming free in his country.

[stevepaa]

The point of Russia example is that the US has excellent records, Russia doesn't and any expectation that a third rate dictatorship would have anything credible is wishful thinking.

But if you know he had poor record keeping, one can certainly use that to say he didn't provide sufficent proof.

France and Germany were laughed off the stage just for opposing as they did. I had friends who were absolutley confident that the US would find WMD and that we would trace them back to France and Germany. Nothing France or Germany would have said would have deterred this adminstration from proceeding to bring God's gift of freedom/democracy to the world.

What they believed, I don't know. But any politician/nation would hedge their bets without solid information. They had none either way, but didn't believe the evidence the US was putting forward. Remember the 15 minute to a bomb scenario. It was all hype. But they could not refute with solid facts.

[stevepaa]

Disagree on evidentary standard for this war.

Without WMD this war could never have been sold to the American public. Bush knew that. And sooner rather than later, the evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD would have been revealed. That's why he couldn't wait any longer.

[stuartj]

Dear god. You'all still desperately want to believe there were WMD in Iraq.

The sites were stripped, looted in the vacuum of the invasion. Yunnerstand that CNC lathes and the like are worth money. So are copper elec cables and building materials.

Saw Robert Greenwald's documentary, "Uncovered The War On Iraq" last night. Nothing new, all the usual suspects (actually quite a steller gathering of intelligence, diplomatic, military "dissidents"). Nothing that hasnt been heard before- but it was compelling to see the whole litany of neo con lies laid out over two hours. The quotes, the film grabs "there is
no doubt Iraq has WMD" "Iraq's WMD are an imminent threat to the people of the US" etc etc.

David Kay laid it out. There are no WMDs. Moreover, there are no links to AlQaeda (well, there are now....)

It was a sham, a farce, a lie. The biggest lie ever perpetrated?

[stevepaa]

The point of commenting on where are the WMD is to remind us that the use of fear and threat to one's country is the tried and true means of gaining popular support for a war that otherwise would be rejected. But it still looks like we have not learned that yet.

[skipdup]

[lovefest]
stevepaa- why is it your posts make me think while others posts make my blood boil???

Don't get me wrong, you haven't swayed me... But, your arguments at least seem based on reason vs. blind hatred and unbridled emotion. That, I respect!
[/lovefest]

Without WMD this war could never have been sold to the American public. Bush knew that. And sooner rather than later, the evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD would have been revealed. That's why he couldn't wait any longer.

Why did Bush go to war then?

- Skip

[stuartj]

Why did Bush go to war then?

- Skip [/B][/QUOTE]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[rrpjr]

Evidence of al Qaida in Iraq was apparent at the time and is even stronger today.

Kay's report is widely misinterpreted. It is not exculpatory of Iraq.

And as the NY Times recently reported, but was reported elsewhere almost one year ago, intercepted computer files and testimony of defecting scientists in Iraq confirm Hussein was in talks with North Korea to acquire an off-the-shelf nuclear device. It was only our deadline for invasion, and the seriousness with which it was viewed, that scuttled the discussions.

But I shouldn't be disingenuous. For I would have supported the invasion even without recent proof of WMD. To quote Christopher Hitchens: “Coexistence with psychopathic, aggressive dictators is not possible. And that’s a good thing.” If a nation breaks with genocide laws, commits repeated aggression to its neighbors, does not follow the rules of nuclear nonproliferation treaties, and serves as a state supporter of international terrorism, it should be reprimanded militarily. “Iraq did all four,” he said. “It shouldn't be sovereign.”

[skipdup]

Originally posted by stuartj
Why did Bush go to war then?

- Skip

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

That's a pretty big site Stuart. Care to give a synopsis?

- Skip

[CamB]

But I shouldn't be disingenuous. For I would have supported the invasion even without recent proof of WMD. To quote Christopher Hitchens: “Coexistence with psychopathic, aggressive dictators is not possible. And that’s a good thing.” If a nation breaks with genocide laws, commits repeated aggression to its neighbors, does not follow the rules of nuclear nonproliferation treaties, and serves as a state supporter of international terrorism, it should be reprimanded militarily. “Iraq did all four,” he said. “It shouldn't be sovereign.”

Yeah fine, but is it a big stretch to imagine a more peaceful method of going about the same thing (seems to be that is the preferred method in other parts of the world that the US is in at the moment)?

ESPECIALLY if you had $300 billion to spend (or even the original $80b).

[stuartj]

Originally posted by rrpjr
Evidence of al Qaida in Iraq was apparent at the time and is even stronger today.

Kay's report is widely misinterpreted. It is not exculpatory of Iraq.

And as the NY Times recently reported, but was reported elsewhere almost one year ago, intercepted computer files and testimony of defecting scientists in Iraq confirm Hussein was in talks with North Korea to acquire an off-the-shelf nuclear device. It was only our deadline for invasion, and the seriousness with which it was viewed, that scuttled the discussions.

But I shouldn't be disingenuous. For I would have supported the invasion even without recent proof of WMD. To quote Christopher Hitchens: “Coexistence with psychopathic, aggressive dictators is not possible. And that’s a good thing.” If a nation breaks with genocide laws, commits repeated aggression to its neighbors, does not follow the rules of nuclear nonproliferation treaties, and serves as a state supporter of international terrorism, it should be reprimanded militarily. “Iraq did all four,” he said. “It shouldn't be sovereign.”

Gack. You mean you have evidence of Saddam's links to Al Qaeda? Lets hear it man, quick!

"even without recent proof of WMD"? To what proof do you refer?

As for the rest;
1. None of this was cited as a justifcation for war with Iraq.
2. Are we massing armies on the borders of Burma, NKorea oh, and err, China?

[350HP930]

Originally posted by skipdup
That's a pretty big site Stuart. Care to give a synopsis?

- Skip

This is the link you are looking for . . .
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[stuartj]

Originally posted by 350HP930
This is the link you are looking for . . .
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

The NeoCon Manifesto.