I think it is funny when these anti-war peace hippies use arguments that are blatantly hypocritical.
What part of that do you think is controversial? We all know that the Bush admin claimed there’d be WMD’s, we all know that they haven’t found any, and we all know that the details of Lynch’s rescue were reported to be exaggerated. You sum up by offering conclusions that most people would’ve accepted as givens even without a rehash of last week’s news. Where’s your usual fire?
Hmmmm…maybe it would be more convincing if you addressed his arguments instead. Funny how some people think the forum rules don’t apply when it comes to december.
Would you care to be a little more specific as to person or statement, of is your’s just a gratuitous drive-by posting?
I bet if we were to spend millions of dollars and many months looking for them, we would find them. Especially if we told we supposedly knew where they were.
I’m worried more than ever that our government–not wanting to look like lying punks–will plant something to get everyone to shut up. And how would any of us know?
sorry I assumed that taken into context of the post that was directly before that it was fairly obvious, next time though, I will try to be more specific. I was refereing to the fact that the OP decries those of us who were for the war, and believed the WMD evidence, yet his only proof is just as questionable as mine. He uses reports form the BBC and other media outlets that are well known for being anti-american, so of course there “news” is going to refute any proof or evidence put forward by the american military regarding both WMD’s and PFC Lynch.
Again, for all of you whom I confused, I will try to be more specific in the future.
Not if my backyard was as big as Iraq and I was actively tyrying to hide them from you.
Dick Gephardt, for instance -
“We are going to find weapons of mass destruction. This was about keeping America safe.”
Al Gore, too -
Clinton
- On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States…"
Regards,
Shodan
The usual procedure is that the party throwing out the accusations must provide the proof and not the other way around. If some guy claims that you have stolen his watch, then he needs to prove it. Not finding the watch in your home and then saying “Aha! But Megadave might have hidden it somewhere else! Where is the proof that he didn’t steal the watch?” makes him look “bad” and isn’t even a viable stance.
“I don’t know who was duped, but it’s becoming clear that there was some fabricating going on.”
Not to mention the forging of documents, as was pointed out by Dr. Blix. I’m still waiting to hear an explanation of that.
Yeah, those yellow-journalist scum over there at the BBC, looking to stab the knife into America’s back at every turn…
im not taking the stance that you have to proove there is no WMD’s and I don’t see how you could have gotten that from my posts. All I said is that basically just because we haven’t found them yet doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
Sorry Shodan, but no. The buck stops with the sitting president. Which is Bush. Many people may have been duped, but he’s the one who was duped into starting a war.
I’m not about to argue whether or not the BBC has a grudge against the US, but I’ll just point out that Micheal Moore won an acedamy award for a documentary film despite the fact that many claim he doctored scenes and was dishonest with the material.
All I’m saying is just because the BBC’s writers have won various awards doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t prove they are “out to get the US” and it doesn’t prove they are.
You’re using carrot logic by saying bush lied for the lack of discovery. I could hide ALL of the WMD on my postage stamp property. ALL OF THEM. 30-50 chem war heads. Enough Anthrax to destroy humanity, Plaque, small pox, and nuke warheads. Might have to clean out the garage.
When It takes a year to build up an army there is no element of surprise. The call to relocate any secret material could have been issued by a camel bound letter. Every nasty item could be loaded on the back of a 48 ft trailer for destinations unknown.
I would worry less about dissing someone and more about the weapons. If you listened to Bush’s prewar speeches you would realize the initial defeat of Saddam was the first step in a long journey.
When WMDs are disposed of, isn’t there some evidence later that they were disposed of? I’m very unfamiliar with WMD in general, but I’d heard that somewhere along the line. If anyone can confirm, thanks.
If they weren’t disposed of, then perhaps they were removed to another country? I can buy that, except the whole world was watching Iraq for several months before the war began. Sure, they could have done it, but it would have been a little tough.
You and MegaDave say this like you’re experts in hiding WOMD’s and like ya’ll know it’s easy to do. Surely chemical and physical traces are left behind when one has WOMDs. We haven’t even stumbled over mere traces of all those nukes and anthraxes and small poxes. If those WOMD’s are hiding, they sure are smart little WOMDs.
I could hide kingdom come iin my belly button. It sure is easy saying something like this without having to produce proof about its feasibility.
While there is cause for skepticism over what the U.S. has said about Saddam’s caches of WMDs (and its justifications in general for waging undeclared war), it is illogical at this point to conclude that the entire issue was a fraud and cry “Dupes!!!”.
A 6/4 USA Today editorial had this to say:
*"Reports by the United Nations, CIA, State Department and private researchers, many issued during the Clinton administration, all concluded that Saddam had large amounts of banned weapons despite years of U.N. inspections. Examples:
-
A February 1998 State Department study found that Saddam was ‘‘making every effort to preserve them.’’
-
A January 1999 report from U.N. inspectors said Iraq had failed to account for weapons it previously had declared, including 1.5 tons of VX gas, 8,000 liters of anthrax, 7,000 liters of botulinum toxin and nearly 1,000 liters of aflatoxin, a potent carcinogen.
-
A June 1999 CIA report said Iraq likely had 6,000 hidden chemical munitions.
-
An August 2002 report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said Iraq ‘‘almost certainly does have large numbers of chemical weapons and some biological weapons.’’
-
A September 2002 report from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said Iraq had probably retained ‘‘a few hundred tons’’ of deadly mustard and sarin gases.
-
In January, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix concluded that Iraq had yet to account for 1,000 tons of chemical agents or its anthrax stockpile. Blix’s latest report, issued Tuesday, said Iraq still hadn’t proved itself weapons-free on the war’s eve.
The chance that all of these reports were wrong is slim. If anything, they were bolstered by Saddam’s behavior of continually thwarting U.N. inspections. For example, Iraq denied having biological weapons for four years after the 1991 Gulf War, then admitted their existence after a defector pointed inspectors to the arsenal.
So what has happened to Saddam’s lethal weapons? The only plausible explanations are that they were destroyed, remain hidden in Iraq or have been moved out of the country. The job now is to determine which is the case as quickly as possible."*
Just a few problems with this. First, Iraq was a secular state. The new Iraq? - we’ll see.
Second, if we’re going to invade any dictatorship we don’t like, fine. Just check to see if the American people are behind this change in over 200 years of policy. Perhaps Bush knew he couldn’t get away with it for this reason, and so had to lie to us? Why not take out the other nasty dictators? Oh, wait - no oil, right!
And you are going to give a cite about how Saddam was plugged into terrorism, right?
I disagree, but I’m not going to ask you to prove otherwise.