France demands indisputable WMD proof. Why so, if “the UN thought they had them”?
You try to break a rock with a hammer, and the hammer shatters in your hand. You then claim that its because the rock is too soft.
Colin Powell didn’t think so. In a quote cited here too many times, in Cairo, December 2000, he stated that Iraq’s fangs were drawn, that Saddam represented no threat to his neighbors, etc. Condi Rice stood there next to him when he said it, didn’t seem to have a problem with the statement.
“The UN thought he had them”? The UN was of one mind, a single opinion universally held? Please. Spare me.
Ahh, yes! The “Ooopsy!” defense.
And, to top it off, like the rotten cherry atop a turd sundae, the ever-popular “You don’t agree with me because you hate America” ploy.
This just in: finally, somebody in Iraq who matters calls for withdrawal. Although the actual substance of the statement is still weak.
Colin Powell certainly did think Iraq had them. I see you’re one quote from 2000 in Cairo, and raise you his speech to the UN.
I didn’t do anything but laugh at his silly, outlandish statement. He’s the one who is equating the Iraqi terrorists and the American founders. Don’t blame me that anti-American loonies always seem to be on your side of the discussion. I’d be getting angry with them for harboring such views, not at me for laughing at them.
Colin Powell is not the same as “everybody”, though. I repeat:
Most people thought Iraq might have or probably had WMD, which is why they favored weapons inspections. But it is not true that most people were convinced that Iraq did have them, which is what the Administration was falsely assuring us in its attempts to justify immediate invasion.
This is a reasonable position.
It’s tough because we may just disagree on how to define “most people”. I would say that most reasonable people did think he had them. Not probably, but definitely. I suppose we could dig up old polls from prior to the invasion. I’ll check around. However, it’s certainly accurate for me to say that “most” in the intelligence community and the UN thought he definitely had them.
If so, why no Security Council majority (since instead they demanded Hans Blix be given time to finish his work)?
Here’s a poll from Rasmussen that says
This is from Dec 14, 2002. I’d say that’s “most” people.
If the UN didn’t think Saddam had WMD’s then why did they send inspectors in the first place? Why the 18 (or was it 19?) resolutions against Iraq?
Most reasonable Scotsmen, no doubt.
To look for them. To check that he wasn’t breaking resolutions. You have not yet answered why Hans Blix was not allowed to finish his checking and looking as France, Germany and a whole load of others rightly demanded.
(And, incidentally, here’s a poll from 2004 which I’m sure you’ll agree is rather disturbing - the point being that polls are not reliable indicators of truth, whcih is why we do things like send weapons inspectors to check stuff).
Oh, polls are relevent? Cool beans, I’ve got some!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-26-poll-us-not-winning-iraq_x.htm
And this…
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?ReleaseID=820
OK, I admit it. That really isn’t directly relevent to the OP. Just gloating. But I haven’t laughed so hard since they shot Old Yeller.
Learn something new everyday, huh? Well, mayhaps that doesn’t apply to you.
Moving on.
Zogby International Released: January 28, 2005
Guess that makes for literally millions of “terrorists in Iraq who are blowing up children with roadside bombs.” Or maybe, just maybe, those terrorists are not acting on behalf of the great majority of Iraqi patriots who want the occupying forces out of their country.
Now, if you want to get down to specifics, sure, the most active members of the resistance movement belong to the ex-ruling Sunni class – for rather obvious reasons. OTOH, you’re being played like a used banjo by Sistani & Co. for their own purposes. Once their rule is solidified and their allaince with Iran sufficiently strenghtened, you’ll be getting the boot right up the kazoo from them as well.
Meanwhile, enjoy your fantasies…while you still can.
I don’t think so. Remember, before the invasion the UN weapons inspectors were already reporting to the UN Security Council that they had found no WMDs in Iraq and could not be certain that there were any there at all. Intelligence reports asserting the existence of such weapons were slanted to imply certainty, against the objections of senior intelligence officials and avowed uncertainty.
I think it’s more accurate to say that “most” in the intelligence community and the UN thought Saddam definitely had the ambition to acquire WMDs and programs for doing so, and that he might already have the weapons themselves. And I agree that “most” of them were willing to give serious consideration to Administration assertions that he did definitely have them.
But the assertions of certainty and urgency came chiefly from the US and UK administrations starting in summer 2002, and they weren’t independently supported by most UN members—not even by all of the UN Security Council. And as time passed and the weapons inspections continued to come up negative, the assertions of certainty and urgency were growing less plausible. Basically, it seems pretty evident that the US and UK rushed the invasion not because they were afraid that Saddam would attack with WMD, but because they were afraid that it would become clear that he couldn’t, thus undermining their rationale for war.
And as I found before, that rationale is undermined even more by recent revelations regarding:
-Dubious yellow cake reports ( the best I have seen supporting the administration contention that there was truth to this, is a report that breaks the record on the use of "may"s in an article.)
-The OSP
-The Downing Street Minutes.
-The New Yorker’s report on how FALSE connections to Al-qaeda and Saddam were obtained through the use of torture.
-The dubious intelligence furnished by guys like Chalabi.
There is a lot that has not been properly investigated.
No country is going to send blue helmets in Irak in the current situation, even if it was paid for by the USA.
What do you mean by “he had them”, exactly ? For instance, I personnally believed that “he had them”. In the sense that he had some leftover, in small quantities, and possibly ourdated. But I didn’t think that he was in any position to threaten its neighbors, let alone western countries with them.
And the argumets given at the time weren’t “he might have some leftover” but rather : “he has plenty of them, he’s building nuclear weapons, London could be hit by WMD in less than an hour” and similar BS that nobody (and in all likehood not even the people stating so) believed.
[A “fairly substantial” withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq could take place next spring or summer if the insurgency doesn’t grow and the country’s political process continues as scheduled, the commander of coalition forces said in Baghdad today.
U.S. Army Gen. George W. Casey, head of Multinational Force Iraq, spoke during a surprise visit to Iraq by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.](http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050727/2005072718.html)
Good call, David Simmons! Pre-empted Rummy himself by two days. Your political instincts remain sharp.
In humble imitation of the master I offer my own reckless speculations:
2006 - Half of US troops removed from Iraq. GOP gains seats on Capitol Hill.
2008 - US troops deployment in Iraq down to 30 or 40 thousands. Iraq is not a big issue in Prez. elections.
2010 - Furious debate about horrors of Iraq invasion rages unabated in certain nooks and crannies of the blogosphere.
He certainly said so at the UN, but I’m fairly convinced that he ddin’t believe his statements were truthful.
If I remember correctly, the poster you were responding to was criticizing the use of the word “terrorist” to characterize all of the Iraki resistance. Your statement that terrorists blowing up children can’t be compared to american patriots doesn’t adress the original criticism, but just did the same thing again, equating terrorist and people shelling the US troops with mortars, for instance. Are all people attacking the US troops terrorists blowing up children? If not, is an Iraki ambushing american soldiers different from an american ambushing british soldiers?
People are using the word “terrorist” to characterize anybody they don’t like, currently. In this very thread, a poster called the former Iraki leaders “terrorists” on the basis that they tortured people. Dictators aren’t terrorists, they’re dictators, and people doing the dirty job aren’t terrorists, they’re torturers. People planting a bomb in a public place to kill as many people as possible are terrorists. People shelling an US military convoy aren’t.
I don’t see the beginning of the Iraq civil war and the failure of the democratic government in your timeline, an outcome as certain as day follows night if the US withdraws. But, so long as the neocon agenda stays on track, that is only a trifle.