No WMD... why didn't Saddam say so?

[Shodan]

Originally posted by Airblairxxx *
**
How is this, alone, relevant for justifying the war? It’s not just that Bush claimed Saddam had WMD’s, it’s that he had 'em, he was buddies with Al-Qaida, and he was going to use 'em in downtown Washington next Tuesday. This was the chain of logic he used to start the war.*

More or less (except for the part that Saddam was about to use them). The conventional wisdom was as described. See the Snopes quotes for evidence that even those who oppose Bush were in agreement that Saddam had WMD, was a terrorist regime, etc.

*Originally posted by Airblairxxx *
**As a Bush apologist, it’s fairly apparent why you choose not to pursue this notion. So let me do it for you. Unlike everyone else on earth, Bush is THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He has the power of the United States military at his beck and call, and he has used it in a rash, pointless, manipulative manner, destroying what remained of a nation’s infrastructure at tremendous cost to the US budget. I presume you’re an American taxpayer, doesn’t this . . . irk you a little?
**

Since I don’t believe that Bush acted in a “rash, pointless and manipulative manner”, no, I am not as irked as you seem to be. Rash? Saddam was doing what he did for a dozen years. Pointless? The goal was to overthrow the Saddam regime. Which we did. Manipulative? It was part of the war on terror, and done to enforce the inspection regime imposed after the invasion of Kuwait. If you want to call disarming Saddam and eliminating him as a threat to the region “manipulative”, you are welcome to do so, but I am still not going to get as upset as you are. I consider acting to defend the security of the United States and the Middle East to be money well spent.

And you guys are going to have to make up your mind. Either we invaded Iraq to steal their oil, in which case we are going to come out of the war with a profit, or we did it for security. If it costs us money, it can’t be to steal oil.

I guess I will agree that it would have been better if Bush had a magic crystal ball that showed him what every other President and every other politician in captivity did not know. Failing that, hindsight, as they say, is 20/20, and if you care to judge the US actions based on information that was not available at the time, go ahead. I am sure you could make a killing in Las Vegas, if they let you hedge your bets retroactively.

So Bush is President. You even put it in capital letters, so we are all real clear that you know this. Are you saying that therefore, he should know things that nobody else knows? That Clinton didn’t know? That Gore didn’t know? That Gephardt, Kerry, and Ted Kennedy didn’t know? Do you vote for politicians, or psychics?

*Originally posted by Airblairxxx *
**
And do we even want to conjecture about the families of the servicemen and -women who are over there right now, and who have already died there? Should we think about the Iraqi civilians who died? I know, I know, we overthrew their dictator. So what if some of them died, they should be thankful. We had to destroy the village in order to save it.
**

Feel free to conjecture. War is a terrible thing.

Add to your conjecture the idea of Saddam Hussein feeding his political enemies feet first into a plastic shredder, or his sons wandering the streets of Baghdad wondering who they will rape next. Have a quick glance at the dungeons of the Iraqi secret police. Think about the invasion of Kuwait, or the war with Iran. Tally up the number of people who would die horribly if Saddam had been left in place.

The moral equations of war are a little more balanced if you look at both sides.

Originally posted by Airblairxxx *
** It has everything to do with an administration that had a hard-on for a third-world despot and was aching for any kind of pretext to go in after him. I’m stunned that you don’t find this entire exercise a disturbing example of an arrogant, foolish group of ideologically blindered operatives who saw an opportunity to burn American tax dollars and servicemens’ lives in a quest that they couldn’t honestly justify and which turned out to be wrong and pointless.*

And I in turn am not stunned by the idea that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the idea that Saddam had, or was trying to obtain, WMD - an idea shared by practically everyone on earth, friend and foe alike.

Instead it was just because Bush wanted to waste money and lives.

Amused, maybe - it is silly enough. But not stunned. I have heard worse from the Bush-haters of the world.

*Originally posted by Airblairxxx *
**
I’ll make more sense once I get some lunch . . . **

I hope so very much.

Regards,
Shodan

[Rashak_Mani]

More impressive is the fact that the US spent billions in intelligence services and the only “facts” to prove WMD were what Powell presented to the UN. Naturally having the info and seeing something else is another matter.

Even if Saddam did have a few WMD they were far from deployable in 45 minutes and probably more dangerous to his own troops than to anyone else.

[elucidator]

…I consider acting to defend the security of the United States and the Middle East to be money well spent…

Well, yes. If that is, in fact, the result. I fear you are offering faith-based foreign policy as a fait accompli. As charming as such boundless belief may be, it has yet to materialize.

…Either we invaded Iraq to steal their oil, in which case we are going to come out of the war with a profit, or we did it for security. If it costs us money, it can’t be to steal oil…

Or, on the gripping hand, it is a bad plan poorly executed, which will avail none of its goals. As Lord Acton had it, never underestimate the importance of stupidity when considering history.

…Tally up the number of people who would die horribly if Saddam had been left in place…

Probable, yet nonetheless hypothetical. The real corpses being stacked every day of our neo-con military fantasy are very real indeed. And these are done in our name, not Saddam’s.

…I have heard worse from the Bush-haters of the world…

Do you swear, by Ayn Rand’s falsies, that you sincerely believe that we say all this solely due to our personal ire and/or jealousy for Fearless Misleader?

Then how come, whenever the truth comes out after being hidden, its us who are telling the truth?

[tracer]

*Originally posted by HubZilla *
**Why didn’t he just say “I don’t have them” or “Come in and look, you won’t find them” or even “Look, I destroyed them, they’re gone”. He could’ve saved himself a lot of trouble and kept his rule over Iraq. **

Okay, let’s reverse the roles here to see why Hussein might not have allowed U.N. weapons inspectors to look in all the places Bush wanted them to look:

Suppose the U.N. declared that the U.S. should destroy all of its chemical weapons. (After all, we used Agent Orange at some time in the past, and they want to be sure there isn’t any left over.) We tell the U.N. we have no chemical weapons. The U.N. sends in inspectors to make sure we have no chemical weapons. But, among the places the U.N. wants to search for chemical weapons is this little place in the Nevada desert where top secret military aircraft are being developed. The U.S. refuses to let the U.N. weapons inspectors search this little top-secret airbase, for obvious reasons.

In this scenario, was the U.S. refusing to comply with U.N. searches because the U.S. had a secret stockpile of chemical weapons hidden in that Nevada airbase? No. They refused to comply because they had other national secrets, completely unrelated to chemical weapons, hidden in that Nevada airbase.

Surely, Hussein had some national secrets he didn’t want to let into the hands of his potential enemies – secrets that had nothing whatsoever to do with weapons of mass destruction. That was probably why Hussein didn’t just say, “Come in and inspect the whole country for W.M.D.s.”

[Opus1]

elucidator wrote:

Probable, yet nonetheless hypothetical. The real corpses being stacked every day of our neo-con military fantasy are very real indeed. And these are done in our name, not Saddam’s.

C’mon, this makes no sense. Any time you opt to do A instead of B, the consequences of A are real while the consequences of B are still hypothetical. Such an argument can be used to justify or oppose any already accomplished act.

[elucidator]

Well, of course, the same objection must necessarily apply to the original conjecture. If I’m wrong, then he must be equally wrong.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

IzzyR:

• What I’d like to see are some quotes from Democrats who believed that Saddam did NOT have WMD. Just a couple will suffice.*

To what point?
Shodan:

• So would I.

I would especially like as much as is available on their reasons for believing that Saddam didn’t have any WMD. I hear a lot of accusations that Bush “lied” about Iraq’s having WMD. I have never seen any indication that anyone knew, or should have known, that Saddam had really destroyed them. And therefore, as far as I can tell, the worst that can be said about Bush is that he was wrong. So was practically everyone else on earth.*

Speaking as one who has made that accusation, I would like an opportunity to respond.

The question is not, nor has it ever been, whether or not the former Iraq regime possessed “WMDs.” As you rightly point out, there was a general consensus among intelligence experts that he probably maintained some capacity. Rather, the real issue here was the extent to which we could rightly claim that his “WMD” capacity threatened the US. Was it accurate and truthful to argue on the basis of what we knew prior to the war that Saddam’s capacities constituted an “imminent threat?”

Those who favored the war said yes. Those who opposed said no.

In addition, those who opposed asked those who favored to provide for them the clear, compelling evidence which they claimed supported their assertion. And that’s where the accusations of lying come in. Specifically, the administration consistently presented false, misleading evidence and arguments to support their claims that Hussein represented an imminent threat, and did so with the full knowledge that the majority of intelligence experts strongly disagreed with their interpretations of that evidence.

As examples, I cite Bush’s claim that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon; the administration’s general claim that Iraq had “reconstituted” its nuclear weapons research program; that there existed no doubt that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons (by contrast, David Kelly, one of the UK’s top experts on Iraq’s weapons programs, estimated that there existed a 30% chance that Iraq has an active chemical weapons research program); that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium “yellowcake” from Niger (a claim known to be false prior to Bush’s last SOTU); that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes suitable for use as centrifuges in uranium enrichment (a claim rejected by both domestic and foreign experts prior to Bush’s last SOTU); that the Iraqi government had meaningful connections with Al-Qaeda, or was in some way cooperating with Al-Qaeda; that the UN inspections regime had been ineffective; that the inability of Iraq to account for a portion of its weapons stocks was unquestionably equivalent to them still having those stocks, and so forth.

All of these assertions have proven to wrong; but more importantly, it was the general consensus of the intelligence community, both here and abroad, that they were wrong even before the US invaded Iraq. And I find it impossible to believe that the Bush administration was unaware that, in making these very strong claims, they were also ignoring the consensus of their own intelligence organs. In fact, they often claimed that they had gotten their information from precisely those sources whose general conclusions they were simultaneously ignoring.

That’s why I think Bush and the rest of his administration are liars.

• Because it is only the invasion of Iraq that let us know that [Iraq didn’t have “WMDs”](assuming we don’t find any more). Saddam was never going to admit it - if he had, he probably would not have been able to hold onto power.*

What part of “** There is only one truth and therefore I tell you as I have said on many occasions before that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever,**” do you not understand?

elucidator:

Are you still up? Isn’t it kinda late over there in Nipples?

[Milum]

Airblairxxx: “… Bush is THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He has the power of the United States military at his beck and call, and he has used it in a rash, pointless, manipulative manner, destroying what remained of a nation’s infrastructure at tremendous cost to the US budget. I presume you’re an American taxpayer, doesn’t this . . . irk you a little?”

---

Yeah! Damn straight, ** Airblairxxx**, it irks me a lot! And that warmongering squench **Hillary Rodam ** was in on it too!

---

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” - ** Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002**

[casdave]

Quoth Shodan

He did hang on to his centrifuges, nuclear plans, and the mobile bio-labs, in hopes of stalling his way thru the inspections until he outlasted the will of the UN. Then the inspections end, he puts his centrifuges back online, and gets back to the task of developing his arsenal

The mobile labs did not exist, they were nothing of the sort, not in the biological weapons sense anyway, assessors now grudgingly accept that these were for the production of Hydrogen gas for what the regime stated were weather ballons.

As for the centrifuges, these are used in other parts of industry, from oil cleaning right to blood plasma separation, please show that the Hussain regime specifically had the type of cebtrifuge used in separating out fissile isotapes dissolved in solutions, and while you are at it, perhaps you can also provide proof that they were in fact used for this purpose, which will not be hard to do since they will have a certain level of readable radiactive residue.

Last of all, you must be like the Bush administration, in short a mind reader, because you are stating in definate terms what Hussains intentions were, instead of sayinf that it might be possible to restart WMD programs, which is a long way short of justification for war, I have every intention of having sex with Uma Thurman, but this does into make me a stalker, to prove that you would need evidence.
Your speculation as to Hussains intentions fall a long way short of proof.

Unfortunately for Saddam, 9/11 went down, and suddenly the President of the moment was a lot more concerned with terrorism and terrorist regimes.

Although Bush conflated international terrorism with Hussain, I would expect you to back this up, since it has been so handily misused.
Provide proof positive that Hussain had any hand in planning, training, or providing material for any terrorist action upon US soil.
This was a damnable lie and was used as one of the rotten props to justify this war.
Bush absolutely knew that this was not the case, and yet still portrayed those awful 9/11 events alongside his concerns about Saddam Hussain, when the reality was that Al-Qaeda drew most of its operational resources(almost all) from Saudi based dissidents.

I expect you cannot have known that, if you had you would have been knowingly repeating the lies and propaganda of Bush, consider yourself slightly better informed Shodan