Apparently saddam was just a threat...

Great Debates
1

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

2

Geez…forgot the link…

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

3

Oh, well, now that you included a link, you have a right-proper Great Debate on your hands! Hey, why not try this link?

4

Why was he a threat?

He could’ve given WoMD/ CBW to terrorists.

5

What WMoD/cbr?

6

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…

7

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.

8

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.

9

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?

10

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).

11

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.

12

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.

13

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

14

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

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

  1. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. …Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons

  2. 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]

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

  2. 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

15

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

16

Using Bush’s words to back up his lie.
That works.

17

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:

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.

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.

18

Susma

He could’ve given WoMD/ CBW to terrorists.

19

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

20

My bad. It’s late.

My apologies.