If the U.S. does not find any bio/chem weapons will they "find" them anyway?

So much is riding on weapons of mass distruction being found in Iraq that the U.S. has to find some. My experience with intelligence gathering groups is that when something has to be found, it is, whether it is there or not.

Or would be the American government be willing to say “Oops, we were wrong, but as long as we’ve killed all of these people and spent all of this money, we’ll just keep doing what we are doing.”?

Clearly, you didn’t get the memo. That was last month, the whole thing about protecting ourselves from intercontinental drones armed with nuclear anthrax. It has gone the way of Saddam’s Nuke, down the memory hole, poof! gone.

Our purpose is nothing so selfish as pre-emptive self defense. We are now engaged in a noble crusa…endeavor to free and liberate the Iraqi people. That has always been our purpose. Previous purposes are non-operational, and should be discarded. And forgotten.

And those who ask “Where’s the weapons?” will be shouted down with chants of “WE LIBERATED THEM - WHO CARES?”.


REMEMBER! It’s daylight savings time today, so set your clocks back to 1984!


GeeDubya thinks Daylight Savings Time is a bad idea, the extra hour of sunlight isn’t good for the lawn.

From a Friday story on CNN, quoting a White House official:

**As recently as this morning, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz reiterated the Bush administration’s belief the WoMD are in Iraq and that they’ll be found. But if it makes you feel better to pretend that the U.S. has abandoned that objective, who am I to interrupt your little party with a trivial thing like reality? Have fun!

an attempt to answer the question seriously.

They’ve found chemical suits, remnants of production (Which may date back to the prior Gulf War) etc. There was never any doubt that at one point he had some level of chemical weaponry (inflicted on the Kurds in the North IIRC). But his level of armament and ability to launch them against his neighbors, providing the credible ‘threat’ to safety/security of other nations was the issue.

If they fail to find evidence that he had any substantial stockpile or weapons or means of delivery, there’s always the possability that ‘he gave them to Al Q, or other terrorist groups’. So even w/o finding the ‘smoking gun’, we’ll never be able to affirmatively prove that no smoking gun ever actually existed.

I can’t help but be amused by the persistence of this topic in GD.

His “belief”? We were given to understand that it was a fact, an incontrovertible, rock solid fact. Are we downgrading now to “pretty sure”? Are we to assume now that this was no more real than Saddam’s Nukes, just a boogyman to frighten us into accepting the unacceptable?

And no, this ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco, this ain’t no fooling around. Thousands of people are dead, as of this moment, who would not be otherwise. I mourn, I grieve, I rage. I am not having fun. I assume you are not either, if for no other reason than my reluctance to regard a fellow human with loathing.

v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves

  1. To accept as true or real


  1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
  2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something

Sorry, elucidator, the sanctimony about “fun” would have been much more effective if it hadn’t emerged in a thread where you’ve already made a “dumb Dubya” joke. The solemnity you’re affecting doesn’t seem to hold up.

But ya know what? I still mean it. If it makes you feel better to act morally superior in the absence of a real response, be my guest. I won’t spoil the party. I won’t even point out the fact that “belief/believe” does not mean what you seem to think it does. Oh wait! I already did. Sorry.

Bob the difference isn’t between ‘believe’ and ‘fantasize’ but between “believe” and “Know”

and the word choice does seem to be an administrative back pedal from “we know that he has these”.

or do you not acknowledge any difference between “believe to be true” and “know to be true”??

Hey, no, wring the man has posted a definition from a dictionary, that’s the Ace of Trump here on the boards. Nope, got us dead to rights with that one. Wish I would have thought of that. “Post a definition from the dictionary” Gotta write that one down.

As to my “dumb Dubya” joke, would you have preferred a “cruel, heartless and self-righteous Dubya” joke? Howzabout when he did that utterly adorable impersonation of someone he was about to exectute? Laugh riot, that guy. But for real chuckles, maybe he’ll explain his military career when he’s talking tough to the troops, how he wandered off base for a beer and forgot to come back. That should be chucklesome.

But, in truth, you have a point. Sometimes the sheer horror of this shitstorm gets to me, and my sense of humor evaporates. Perhaps an hour or so of Fox News.

This was always the primary motive, self-defense. A motive which I happen to agree with. Liberating the Iraqi people is a nice plus though, because, well, we are liberating them from a sadistic, brutal, not-elected-in-any-way despot.

And there’s not much room for debate. If you’re against the war (especially if because you’re anti-Bush) then if we don’t find any WMD it’ll be, “See, I told you so!” but if we do it’ll be, “the US planted them!”. Personally, I don’t think there’s that much riding on their discovery or not. The US public is supportive of this campaign based on the principles of American self defense and ridding the world of another Hitler.

Sorry, but some “human beings” deserve nothing but loathing and hatred (and death). Namely members of Hussein’s regime.

Good point, Hail Ants. About time we made Saddam pay for attacking Pearl Harbor!

But this war was sold on television and in the U.N. about being about Saddam’s weapons of mass distruction. What about all those photographs and diagrams and stuff like that they had before the war started that proved the Iraqis had nukes and bio/chemical weapons?

That’s why we went to war - to make the world safe from the nukes and bio/chemical weapons. If they don’t exist, it was just about oil and ego.

And all the people who have died, died for a lie.

I’m just wondering who ran against Jay Garner when the Iraqis voted him in…

The spin will be that the WMD have been stashed in Syria or possibly Iran. And, as long as we are over there anyway, we might as well take care of that little situation, hadn’t we?

Well, if we don’t find them in Iraq, and destroy them, the threat posed to America by the certainty of their existence in Syria will be just as large as it was when the Iraqi’s had them. It’d be a betrayal of his oath of office for Bush not to occupy Damascus and remove these terrible weapons from the hands of brutal madmen once and for all. :wink:

He’s kidding, Mr. President! Kidding! See that winking smiley at the end? Thats what it means, just funning around, post-modernist irony.

(Dammit, Squink, you gotta be more careful!)

It was actually my word choice in paraphrasing the report I saw, so if you take exception with it, it’ll have to be with me. Sorry for my horrible backpedaling.

And, sorry, elucidator can try to deflect the definition with his typical condescension and that won’t change the fact that the point he made–and that you’re now making–is not correct. “Believe” means “to accept as fact,” and in the context I used it it certainly didn’t equate with “pretty sure.” Seems pretty unambiguous to me, and elucidator’s response was his typically melodramatic attempt to make a mountain out of nothing rather than acknowledge the fact that his original position was flatly contradicted. Again, though, my word choice, not Wolfowitz’s (actually, I didn’t read a verbatim of his interview, so I don’t know for sure he didn’t say this, but that word was not used in the report I read).

Anyway, you don’t want definitions trotted out, elucidator, then don’t misuse words for comic effect. Or at least don’t get pissy when somebody you attempted to bludgeon with your misuse points it out. It’s especially bad form when you’re the guy who thought the word was worthy of parsing to begin with.

And I’m glad to see you’ve abandoned that silly solemnity you were attempting to shroud the place with; just isn’t like you. I much prefer the snarky one-liners–grandstanding, pandering, devoid of substance and predictable. Really, their substance is in what you leave out–facts, direct responses to points raised, etc.–so that a certain truth emerges from the vacuum where mere facts would have withered and died. They’re like haikus, your posts. Keep up the good work.