Apparently saddam was just a threat...

[Reeder]

"This nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq," Bush said during a speech to business leaders in New Jersey. "Now there are some who would like to rewrite history -- revisionist historians is what I like to call them.

"Saddam Hussein was a threat to America and the free world in '91, in '98, in 2003. He continually ignored the demands of the free world, so the United States and friends and allies acted."

No mention of WMD at all. So now I guess we will go after all the "threats" in the world.

[Reeder]

Geez...forgot the link..


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/16/sprj.irq.main/index.html

[Brutus]

Oh, well, now that you included a link, you have a right-proper Great Debate on your hands! Hey, why not try this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=191326) link?

[PatriotX]

Why was he a threat?

He could've given WoMD/ CBW to terrorists.

[Reeder]

What WMoD/cbr?

[hobbes730]

Didn't the FBI/CIA/DoD/pick-your-acronym just officially admit that there was in fact NO real evidence as to the existance of WoMD? I guess this goes with what Reeder said...

[Spite]

The ones the UNSC could not be certain that he did not have. The ones that the Inspectors could not certify that he did not have. The ones that Saddam could/would not provide proof of what he did with materials to make said weapons.

The entire world said Saddam was a threat. If you are trying to say he wasn't, you need to tell us why with some kind of evidence against calling him a threat.

We all don't get woody's and self gratification by bashing Bush every chance we gwet, so please forgive and humor us.

[PatriotX]

What do you mean "finally"? Just the DoD was full bore in favor of the operation. The CIA was always careful to qualify every statement it made and even advised that going into Iraq might be counter-productive to the stated agenda.

[PatriotX]

Originally posted by Spite
The ones the UNSC could not be certain that he did not have. The ones that the Inspectors could not certify that he did not have.
Please remind me of why the UN inspectors couldn't finish their job?
Wasn't it somehow related to the imminent threat of an invasion of Iraq by the US military?

[Squink]

Bush didn't say anything about Iraq posing an imminent threat to the US either. I guess he's trying to further the lower the threshold for calling something a "just war". (Or battle if we take Rove's spin on the invasion).

[Spite]

Hmm, 'finish their job'? Would you please define that for me and tell me how 'finishing their job' would somehow eliminate the threat of WMD's in Iraq?

And I would like for you to explain how you corelate the inability of UN inspectors to 'finish their job' and the invasion of Iraq.

If you say that the inspectors had a mandate to certify iraq as weapons free and the actions of the UN members must abide by such certification, I want a cite for that.

[nameless]

Is it just me or is there not enough outrage about this very fact--that Bush seems to have completely overblown the presence of WoMD in Iraq? For crying out loud, he made it seem like flaming NBC death was imminent. And by NBC, I mean "Nuclear/Biological/Chemical," not National Broadcasting Corporation. So far, the people around me give the same response to this conundrum: "Eh so what... we got Saddam out/We won/We bombed the hell out of Iraq."

It may not be an impeachable offense, but this strikes me as outrageous. I really wanted to be proven wrong. I wanted the invading force to find the WoMD. Even a flimsy excuse seemed better than none at all.

But now, we've just been lied to. I feel so used.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally posted by SimonX
Why was he a threat?

He could've given WoMD/ CBW to terrorists.
SimonX, please tell me what is that spoiler supposed to communicate and whether there is something behind that big black bar all across. Anyone here knowledgeable, tell me also.

From WMDs to threats, this thread of Bush does get to be more and more interesting for a study of Bush and his war party's psychology, of gradual down-scaling inconsistencey.

Susma Rio Sep

[PatriotX]

What was the source of the threat from Hussein?
(from: 2003 SotU address)
1) biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax

2) materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin

3) materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent
whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html)

(from: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal Cincinnati, Ohio)

4) It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. ...Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons

5) Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas

[and the ace-in-the-hole kicker]

6) Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

7) Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. [Oh yeah those aluminum tubes ]

whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)

[Reeder]

Where are they Simon? Bush said they were there. It was all a lie.

[Reeder]

Using Bush's words to back up his lie.


That works.

[PatriotX]

Originally posted by Spite

Hmm, 'finish their job'? Would you please define that for me and tell me how 'finishing their job' would somehow eliminate the threat of WMD's in Iraq?

I'm not making the assertion that you are talking about: UN inspector 'finishing their job' would somehow eliminate the threat of WMD's in Iraq.

I'm addressing the statement that you made:

The ones the UNSC could not be certain that he did not have. The ones that the Inspectors could not certify that he did not have.
It is a reasonable and distinct possibility that it'd've been cheaper, (in terms of money and US soldiers' lives), and easier to determine what quantities of of various CBW Iraq had by using UN inspectors than a quarter million plus military personel.

Originally posted by Spite

And I would like for you to explain how you corelate the inability of UN inspectors to 'finish their job' and the invasion of Iraq.

IIRC, they left just prior to and because of the imminent threat of the invasion of Iraq by the US. I think the rationale was that they didn't want to be caught in the crossfire.

[PatriotX]

Susma

He could've given WoMD/ CBW to terrorists.

[PatriotX]

Originally posted by Reeder
Using Bush's words to back up his lie.


That works.

Ummm... get a hold of yourself.
I was pointing out how Bush could not dodge the CBW issue.

[Reeder]

My bad. It's late.

My apologies.

[Spite]

Very good. Then you agree with me that letting the inspectors continue under the circumstances of the past twelve years and even the six months before the invasion, that The inspectors could not certify Iraq free of WMD and be a source fore eliminating the threat from Iraq?

It is a reasonable and distinct possibility that it'd've been cheaper, (in terms of money and US soldiers' lives), and easier to determine what quantities of of various CBW Iraq had by using UN inspectors than a quarter million plus military personel.


err...then again, maybe not. Yes it would have been possible, but likely? Think it through. Blix and co come out 4 months later with a report to the UN stating that it was unable to find evidence of WMD or the chemicals, parts, or other agents described to the world by the US and others about the capabilities of Iraq. Besides the answers they were able to come up with regarding a few items like the use of the rods and the few missiles they were able to find, how would that have ended the threat. The unanswered questions would have still been there. Saddam never offered to give any explanation regarding his purchases or ast stockpiles of the weapons. And the onus was pretty much n him to provide those answers, or to at least disabuse the UN of their concerns.

The only thing that ouwl have done would have made those opposed to the war to begin with happy. Those that felt Iraq was a threat would not have dissuaded by anything that the inspectors could have done in their limited time and capabilities.

IIRC, they left just prior to and because of the imminent threat of the invasion of Iraq by the US. I think the rationale was that they didn't want to be caught in the crossfire.

And a very good rationalization I might add. So what was their job that they were unable to finish again?

[Huerta88]

Originally posted by Spite
The ones the UNSC could not be certain that he did not have. The ones that the Inspectors could not certify that he did not have. The ones that Saddam could/would not provide proof of what he did with materials to make said weapons.

The entire world said Saddam was a threat. If you are trying to say he wasn't, you need to tell us why with some kind of evidence against calling him a threat.

We all don't get woody's and self gratification by bashing Bush every chance we gwet, so please forgive and humor us.
I "can't be certain" you don't have a Romulun cloaking device and I "can't certify" that you don't have eleven forged Chuck E. Cheese coupons. You can't provide me proof that you don't have them, or what you did with them.

Therefore you have them. And, you must be imminently planning to use them for ill against me.

The bombing will begin in five minutes.

I don't know that the entire world ever said Saddam was a threat, or even the entire conglomeration of sovereign nations, or even a plurality thereof. Cite, pls. And while we're at it . . . a threat to do what? And how likely is the threat to materialize? Is it a threat to . . . take Citizen Abdul's lunch money? Steal Abdul's girlfriend? Throw Abdul in Iraqi prison for rabble rousing? Shoot Abdul? Shoot Abdul and his girlfriend and family? Shoot Abdul and 1,000 of his secessionist comrades? Attack a similarly-radical Arab neighbor with conventional missiles? Attack a non-Arab neighbor with conventional missiles? Attack Iraqis with unconventional "WMDs?" If so, how many? Attack Iran with WMDs? If so, how many and what kind? Attack America and Americans with WMD, or give weaponized WMD to al Q., who are his close buddies?

It's fine to state any number of "threat projections" along the continuum of this threat matrix, and to name your own estimated probability for each potential "threat" -- it's just that it happens GWB strongly focused on only the last category of threat, and ranked the likelihood/imminence as relatively high. Saying there was a "threat" wouldn't have been enough to sell the war ab initio, I think, if the threat were simply of the being-mean-to-Abdul-and-other-Iraqis variety; maybe this shouldn't be so, but it is. The Admin. made specific assertions re: severe, and fairly imminent, types of threat in selling the war, and to move the goalposts ex post facto and assert that only some indeterminate threat was necessary (or was invoked) is not worthy of Bush, of whom I am not a "basher," but who I also don't think should get a free pass from honest GOPers any more than Clinton deserved worthy Dems. explaining that perjury wasn't a crime or misdemeanor.

I think the most honest GOP response is some more elegant version of "We did the right thing for the wrong asserted reasons, and we really didn't know at the time that they were the wrong ones." Not, as far as I can tell, "We were right then, we're right now, the WMDs were there, and if they weren't you're still a traitor."

[Spite]

ouwl = would :smack:

[Spite]

Originally posted by Huerta88
I "can't be certain" you don't have a Romulun cloaking device and I "can't certify" that you don't have eleven forged Chuck E. Cheese coupons. You can't provide me proof that you don't have them, or what you did with them.

Saddam was not innocent until proven guilty. And your analogy does not cut mustard as long as you ingore the relevant history in the issue.


I don't know that the entire world ever said Saddam was a threat, or even the entire conglomeration of sovereign nations, or even a plurality thereof. Cite, pls.

Umm have you ever read the resolutions against Iraq?

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement (warning pdf)

Let me help you.

The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March
1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15
August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and
1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its
intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as
a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international
peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional,
and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special
Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons............

It is really interesting reading. As long as you are interested in such I recommend it.


The threat was there. The threat was acknlowledged by all. The threat was casus belli to some but not others. To argue that the threat was not there is irresponsible.

howvwer the case can be made that some knew more about the threat than others and ecieved. That is responsible. Or we can even rehash the arguments that the threats were justification of war. But to deny there ever was a threat is plain stupid.

[Spavined Gelding]

On one hand you have general, floating in the air, possibility some time in the future threat. On the other hand you have a serious and immediate threat to the vital national interests of the United States, a clear and present danger. They are not the same. One is a basis for vigilance. The other is grounds for war.

It is dishonest to say that they are the same thing. It is reprehensible to claim one as the pretext for war and then claim the other as the justification for war, after the fact.

[Huerta88]

Originally posted by Spite
Saddam was not innocent until proven guilty. And your analogy does not cut mustard as long as you ingore the relevant history in the issue.
I'm not sure you said what you think you said, but so be it. The question is whether Saddam was "guilty" of posing the specific threat(s) invoked by the Bush Administration in arguing for, and more or less securing from the U.S. people, consent (or lack of sufficient opposition) to an exclusively pre-emptive war.

The arguments actually relied upon were not about generic threats, and not even about generic "threats to international peace and security." If you believe the American people would have gone to war over this, and nothing more, persuade me of your hypothetical -- but it is a hypothetical, because generic "threats to international peace and security" were not all GWB relied upon, and were presumably believed by his Admin. to be insufficient to convince the rest of the world (as indeed they were, factually, given that he could not persuade the very UN that voted on the resolution that such generic threats were grounds for war).

Instead, the Admin.'s actual lead argument involved ratcheting the threat up to one that Americans would go to war for -- a realistic threat of unconventional weapons attack on the U.S. or Americans. Convince me that the religious and social conservatives who are GWB's core would have endorsed spilling 'Merican blood principally to vindicate a Resolution of a UN that they largely despise and fear, and I'll reconsider my statement of what actually sold the war.

The threat was there. The threat was acknlowledged by all.
Ah, but which threat is the tricky question -- which I acknowledged with my supposition that S.H. was doing something along the continuum from bullying poor Abdul down the block to planning mushroom clouds over Peoria. The devil's in the details of proving where along the continuum.

To get specific, the mere fact that SH did not use the (suppositious) WMDs in the course of being invaded, deposed, emasculated, strongly suggests that either (a) he didn't have them, or not in the deliverable form claimed by the Admin., and/or (b) he was too sane to use them -- either possibility seriously undercuts the "extreme threat to U.S." that was bread and butter of the Admin. That is true even if WMDs turned up en masse tomorrow (as they haven't) -- if that happened, it could still be argued that SH was a lot more prudent/less dangerous than alleged (like you with your Romulan cloaking device, which it turns out you use only to amaze your friends with magic tricks, or get girls, or impress the neighborhood bullies).

I'm not going to get too much into your appeal to the authority of the UN findings as "proof" of a (specific level of) threat sufficient to justify war, given the aforementioned little problem of the same authority denying that that was their original intent in so resolving, or their preferred response to the threat.

Either the UN's irrelevant and its desires can be ignored across the board (possibly not a bad idea), or its views of the "threat" have to be reconciled with its opposition to the war as a response to that threat.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Time to check on BBC about the latest development on the controversy over WMDS as justification for the war on Iraq.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2995794.stm

Excerpt:Pressure mounts over WMD claims

An inquiry opens on Tuesday into whether the UK Government misled parliament on the threat posed by Iraq, as Washington comes under fresh attack for allegedly manipulating evidence.

In London, parliament's Foreign Affairs Select Committee will focus particular attention on British Government claims that Iraq had the capacity to launch a strike using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) within 45 minutes.

Since the war was officially declared over, no such weapons have been located - although their alleged existence was a key reason cited by the US President George Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair for going to war.

In Washington, Congress is to open inquiries this week into whether the government misread or inflated threats posed by Iraq before going to war.

Such a finding is seen as having the potential to embarrass President Bush.

Why did the CIA say that they had provided detailed information to the UN... when they had not?

Read all about it in the abovd referred to cite.

Susma Rio Sep

PS:I didn't know what 'spoilers' were all about here; now I know, and by selecting the bar with shift and arrow I could read the blackened text.

But I was smart never to have bought the spiel of Bush and Blair on WMDs as reason to wage war on Iraq.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Hey, how do you guys do that spoiler trick? There was a time I could not even manage to put text within quote lines.

Susma Rio Sep

[PatriotX]

Spite,

The Bush Admin has already pulled out its two main search teams. I'd've given them at least the same four months that the UN inspectors had, (that'd been until August sometime). The Bush Admin is giving up hope of finding them. All we have over there now is a team who'll sift through documents and transcripts looking for evidence of the potential to have a CBW program.

If you've got a beef about not being able to find the CBW that're supposed to be there you should take it up w/ the Bush admin.

W/o the CBW, you can't justify Hussein as a threat, (especially to the US). W/o a threat, there's nothing for the UN inspectors to remove.

Which is the wiser use of US taxpayer's money?

UN inspectors find...
Zero evidence of CBW

250,000 troops and massive multi billion dollar invasion that has lead to the death of American military personell finds....
Zero evidence of CBW

Same results just vastly different price tags.

Susma,
[ spoiler ] [ /spoiler ] w/o the extra spaces. Any time you'd like to learn coding just hit the quote function and it'll all be displayed for you to cut and paste the relevant pieces.

[Huerta88]

Hey, with an audience like this,

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/6085261.htm

I don't even know why GWB is bothering to ratchet the casus belli back down, nunc pro tunc, to "SH was some sort of threat and he was a bully and he had a, um, program." Could just keep harping on the weapons that the U.S. has already found, and that S.H. used during the late war.

[ChaosGod]

Not everything was a loss. GWB just got himself a couple of industrial strength, mobile party balloon blowers (http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html) .
An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.
Should come in handy for the 2004 election rallies