The search for Weapons Of Mass Destruction in Iraq is officially over.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814588/
We didn’t find any.
More than 100,000 Iraqi civilians, & more than 1200 of our own troops died for nothing.
We have, officially, comitted a dreadful crime, and in my heart I believe that Heaven shall punish our nation for this crime.
May God damn you to hell, George W. Bush, for this terrible thing you have done.
You, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, all of you.
It’s about damn time.
Freedom! 9-11! Saddam!
There, I trust THAT answers all your objections! (See, I can play right-wing pundit too!)
It’s been a fair while since the administration claimed there were ever WMDs there. They downgraded it to “WMD capabilities” a while ago.
You forgot Poland. Don’t forget Poland!
Aha political Llap-Goch
I’m sure they’re still hidden in the sand somewhere. :rolleyes:
I hope all the suckers that ate this bullshit up with a spoon feel like the losers they are. Thanks for stupid war! Next time listen to us!
How long before the Pubbie apologists show up?
Robin
Not even “capabilities” anymore - “weapons of mass destruction program-related activities” is still the operative statement.
This is impossible. Mr. Bush and his advisors knew that Iraq was hip-deep in was nucular anthrax. They said so many times. They can’t be giving up after only 18 months or so. This must be disinformation on MSNBC’s part. Damn libruhl media anyway.
Since there weren’t any, it really makes you wonder just what Saddam was thinking by playing a shell game with the U.N inspectors. He was hardly forthcoming and certainly gave the appearance of trying to stay a step ahead of the inspections. It would have been so easy for him to have removed any pretext for a U.S. invasion.
He was so incredibly cunning and capable in some regards, but so stupid in others.
In anticipation of replies supporting the invasion for purposes of humanitarian regime change, note that the administration shied away from such justifications when they were actually making the case for war since they set a rather dangerous (and even ‘liberal’) precedent. If that was their real reason for war, they should have said so and ignored WMD entirely.
Heck, I might even have agreed. Heck, so might have the UN Security Council.
What neither I nor the UNSC definitely did not agree with was this hopelessly botched Iraqi Public Relations disaster which killed, and still kills, more civilians than Saddam’s admittedly brutal but stable regime could have if he remained in power for decades…
If you didn’t already know, SH was a selfish asshole, who did his best to exaggerate his capabilities. Don’t give me a load of shit about how he could have avoided the whole thing by 'fessing up, because IIRC he was saying he didn’t have shit the whole time. Looks like he was telling the truth there. The onus is on the invading country to make sure it has the facts straight before blowing thousands of innocent civs to shit. We (not including everyone who said this was a waste before the invasion)) dropped the ball big fucking time.
BTW I’ll add that all countries exaggerate their military abilities. For example, our “limited but functional” missle shield, which we know is a load of crap. Compare the following quotes.
(After the invasion)
“Well SH shouldn’t have lied about that stuff, he should have just fessed up”
(After US getting nuked)
“Well they shouldn’t have made it like they have some shield that could have stopped all that crap”
Somehow, I don’t think people would go for the latter one.
I wonder if Cheney is going to stick by his statement he made only last October:
The whole administration is a den of lying vipers.
But he did do something like this - he allowed the inspectors back into the country, a month or so before the invasion. They found nothing, of course.
On preview, I see Sentient Meat has already pointed this out. However, it’s interesting how this factoid has almost disappeared from the conventional story of the war…
Does this mean that we can rehang the “Mission Accomplished” banner?
I conceivably would have too, SentientMeat, especially since a logical contingent of such a justification would have been a rapid and appropriate focus on initially maintaining and then improving the existing infrastructure with regards to utilities, food, medicine and security and a non-violent transition to stable self government. Had any change been made for humanitarian reasons, an appropriate focus might have been placed on the elements that currently missing have made the situation so disasterous for the people.
As to Blix’s comments, might we not consider instead someone not assessing their own culpability in a failed mission? Accurate or not, an impartial judgement might carry more weight.
I think I read somewhere that Cuba recently found oil. I could be wrong of course, but I wonder how long it’ll be before we realize that Castro has WMD and we must go to war with them.