“Oh yeah, that makes sense…”
Well, Saddam WAS known for his ability to act rationally…
No, let me see if I understand it.
Colin Powell goes before the UN, and says, “Iraq has mobile factories to produce WMD. Here are the pictures.” The Left says this is not evidence.
We invade. Then we start finding the mobile factories to produce WMD. Just like Colin Powell said.
The Left says that this means that Bush lied.
WTF? When we find what the administration says we would, this is taken as evidence that the administration is lying.
Saddam destroyed (perhaps) the anthrax, poison gas, and so forth, that he had already produced. However, he also hid the mobile production facilities used to make the stuff, in hopes that he could survive a protracted war, get the US to pull out without overthrowing him, and then start up the poison factories and have the stuff available to blackmail his neighbors, kill Kurds, or whatever.
What is so hard to understand about this?
We are finding the facilities with which Saddam produces WMD, which Powell, speaking on behalf of the administration, mentioned very specifically. This means that Iraq has the capabilities to use WMD, which she isn’t supposed to have. It is also rather clear proof that Saddam was not, did not, and did not intend to cooperate with the inspection regime. Just exactly as Bush said, and just exactly why Bush said an invasion was necessary. Because Saddam was not cooperating with the inspections, and was making strenuous efforts to re-arm.
And yet you lefties are swearing up and down that unless there is a mountain of anthrax a mile high, the invasion wasn’t justified, because admitting that Bush was correct in his estimate of the situation would cause you to bleed out the ears.
Bush did not lie. He was not misled. The mobile weapons production facilities he mentioned are indeed present, and are being accounted for.
Did anyone else read the interview that BBC did with one of the inspectors? An interesting document.
He does not agree that the invasion was unjustified.
He also does not agree that there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq.
So the UN inspector says they were there. Colin Powell says they were there. And then we find them.
And you all swear up and down that they aren’t really there.
This is going to turn into another of those stupid, left-wing lies like “Clinton was impeached for a blowjob” or “Alger Hiss was innocent” or “the CIA killed Kennedy”. Evil One is correct - some of you could have your noses rubbed in the evidence until the manufacturer’s logo was printed backwards on your forehead, and you would still be claiming there was nothing there.
Regards,
Shodan
Bush claimed Iraq’s weapons stores represented an immediate threat to the security of the United States (remember that “nukes in 6 months stuff”?). They didn’t. He lied. Is that so hard to follow?
The evidence you’re grasping for is the leap of faith that the trucks were used for producing the stuff, and recently. You don’t know that. Bush claimed it, but he didn’t know it either. Is that so hard to follow?
You present the argument that a UN inspector said there were other reasons for war. Maybe so - but that isn’t the main reason why were led into one. Is that so hard to follow?
“And then we find them”, you say? Not yet, kemosabe. BTW, nobody is, as you assert, “swearing up and down that they aren’t really there” - just that the evidence is not present; that they still have not been found even though Bush said he knew where it was. That’s a lie. Is that so hard to follow?
Bowen mentioned that the documents didn’t match what they found - well, so what? Documents don’t hurt us. Weapons so, excep that none have been found. That surprises even those of us who thought the war was a bad idea even if they were there. We are convinced, though, of the likelihood of it by Bush’s withdrawing the people assigned to look for them. Is that so hard to follow?
“Those stupid, left-wing lies”, you say? No, it’s a simple insistence on evidence. All you’ve got is a rusty old trailer, not a threat to anyone. Let us know when a real weapon, capable of really hurting real Americans, has been found, and then you can talk about stupidity and lies, OK? You know where the burden of proof lies.
Said Evil One:
I think it’s about time that we put Fox News in the shitcan where it belongs, because for the last three months I’ve seen otherwise cogent individuals posting Fox’s ignoramus feed as if it is something worth reading and accepting as fact.
It is not. And here is the proof:
March 10: Possible mobile weapons lab found: citing Fox news reports.
March 17: Iraq Arming Troops With Chemical Weapons
March 24: U.S. captures Iraqi chemical-weapons plant: reported by Jerusalem Post; confirmed by Fox News.
March 24: Caution on chemical arms reports: citing the erroneous WMD report by Fox News.
April 10: Troops Find Possible Evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction
April 12: Fox News passes on report of plutonium found outside of Baghdad
May 6: U.S. Officials ‘Confident’ of Weapons Lab Find
May 28: U.S. Confident Saddam Had Mobile WMD Lab
To date, NOT ONE of these reports by Fox News has panned out. Not a single one.
You may be wondering why so many of those links go to sources which merely cite Fox News. That’s because when I search Fox itself, I can’t find the reports. I can find other news articles from the same date on the Fox site, so that leads me to believe that Fox may also be removing their erroneous reports after the fact.
I’m tired of this bullshit. From this point forward I unilaterally declare that anyone passing on an assertion by Fox News regarding WMD is guilty of willful ignorance and worthy of the deepest contempt by the readers of the Straight Dope Message Board.
Every time I see someone perform the ignorant act of citing or linking to a Fox report on WMD, I will post the above list, and THIS.
You name Fox and WMD in front of me, and I’m going to ridicule you, not ad hominem, but by posting the above list, which will demonstrate by itself that you are an ignorant fool.
That the President, et al, manipulated the truth if they did not flat out lie to us is a given. Remember that there were a fair number of people saying that the stories we were getting did not make sense on the immediate threat level if not more deeply. Apparently we are use to being mislead and we have gotten to the point that we expect it. We do no climb up on our hind legs and howl when our leaders tell us that we can work an immediate recovery of our economic hard times with more tax cuts and more national debt, by depriving injured people of a fair compensation for their injuries, that lead in gasoline is good for us, that tobacco smoke does not cause or contribute to lung cancer, that trees cause global warming, that there is no global warming, that the US is not expanding the war to Cambodia, that the prisoners at GITMO are neither criminal defendants nor prisoners of war, that PM Sharon is a man of peace, that we did not deal with terrorists to free our embassy people in Iraq, etc, etc, and etc, ad nausium.
But let a married guy deny that he got a blow job and the whole damn world falls on his head. That after all is the nation’s business. Go figure.
Let’s sit back and watch the Brits. I’ll wager a small amount of money that they will not take the recent revelations about the unsupported additions to PM Blair’s resume of causes lying down.
Shame on us all.
That’s two ridiculous, transparent lies of omission in less than fifty words. Surely you can do better than that.
-
It’s an outright lie to suggest, as you keep trying to, that the U.S. cause for war was based on the one claim that “mobile factories” were a casus belli. You, I, and everyone whose memory extends back more than two months knows damned well the casus belli was that THEY HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The “mobile production facilities” were a very, very small part of the case for war, because Powell, Bush, and you knew damned well nobody would support a war over three trailers that could be used to make mustard gas but maybe weren’t. It’s ridiculous and insulting for you to point to what amount to maybe one tenth of one percent of the U.S. body of evidence for war, and based on one news story that MIGHT support it, ignore the other 99.9% of the evidence that has turned out to be baloney and say “Look! They were telling the truth!”
-
So far the evidence that they HAVE found such “mobile factories” is not convincing to anyone who isn’t a fool. What do we have? One story citing many unnamed sources stating that they found some trailers that they are convinced were built to make poison gas, but they cannot actually find any trace of poison gas on them, and they grudgingly admit that the Iraqi claim that they were used to make hydrogen gas is supported by the chemicals found inside the equipment but they think it was planted. Dude, you couldn’t convict someone of a traffic violation on evidence that thin. And even if you did it’s still 1/1000th of the U.S. case for war.
You know what would convince me of the U.S. claims that Iraq possessed massive stockpiles of WMDs? If they actually found some evidence that Iraq possessed massive stockpiles of WMDs. Call me crazy, but “we found three beat up old trailers that might have been used to create poson gas, but we can’t actually determine if they were used as such” isn’t a convincing case for war. And it DOESN’T match the claims Powell made, no matter how much you want it to.
The U.S. claimed there were MASSIVE stockpiles of WMDs. Thousands and thousands of pounds of them, deployed, ready to use. Put up or shut up.
Didn’t the administration say we would find thousands of tons of anthrax weapons? Thousands of tons of mustard gas weapons? An active nuclear weapons program? Umm, when were those things found?
See my previous message. It’s stupid to believe Iraq had tens of thousands of pounds of this stuff in 2002 and then destroyed it without a trace.
Actually, I’m a staunch conservative. The difference is that I’m not an idiot.
and you know what? I WANT to see a big pile of anthrax, and sarin gas, and mustard gas, because
THAT’S WHY BUSH SAID HE WAS STARTING THE WAR!
NOT because they had three rusty old trailers, so stop pissing on our legs and telling us it’s raining.
do you have Alzheimer’s disease? Surely not. NIGERIAN URANIUM. Explain how that was not a lie, please.
Where are the WMDs? Put up or shut up. And stop pretending that these trailers were the stated case for war. They weren’t and you know it.
I hereby nominate this post for best use of the link feature 
It’s not a question of whether he would have acted rationally, it’s whether he would have acted in his own self-interest. The latter would be consistent with his behavior. Even setting aside the physical impossibility of making the large numbers of WMDs they were purported to have, vanish without a trace in the short period of time right before the U.S. invaded - why would Saddam have even wanted to do so? I’m not saying the man was rational, I’m saying it’s inconsistent with his character.
George W. Bush (March 6, 2003)
George W. Bush (March 17, 2003)
The BBC Radio 4 Today programme interviewers were having a field day this morning, both about the mysterious absence of WMD despite the Government’s assertions that Iraq could have them up and running within 45 minutes, and about the Government’s earlier promise that cluster bombs would not be used in built-up areas and the subsequent reports form independent charity organisations that they’re finding cluster bombs in Basra. I have a suspicion that the Government reps getting roasted eight ways to Sunday by the Beeb had drawn the short straws or something similar, because they obviously didn’t want to be there.
Blair may survive this, albeit with greatly reduced support and increased disgruntlement in the Labour ranks, mostly because the Tories can’t find their own buttocks with both hands (let alone WMD). OTOH, let’s not forget that in the UK the party in power can change leaders betwixt elections (as happened with Margaret Thatcher, who was replaced by John Major), and Gordon Brown is definitely breathing down Blair’s neck…
I forgot to mention that Blair may be spared some of the heat if people believe that he was fed erroneous information by the US. And if the US moves against Iran and Blair refuses to go along this time (which he could without difficulty, given that the UK’s military resources are overstretched as is), he could gain back some of his lost credibility.
So then, if you can’t destroy “THOUSANDS OF TONS” of WMD “without a trace”- then what happned to those exact same THOUSANDS OF TONS’ of WMD that even Blix said that Daddam USED to have? And that Blix asked Saddam for the evidence of said destruction of "THOUSANDS OF TONS’, and they had nothing to show Blix- and even Blix said that was fishy. So- if they can’t be destroyed without a trace- what happened to them? Would not the UN and the USA be finding “traces” of the destruction, even if said destruction was pre-Blix?
And then I am to swallow the even more unbeliveable story that despite there was no inspections and no earthly reason for Saddam to destroy all his shiny & expensive new toys of evil- before Blix- he did so anyway? That somehow, the “spirit of peace & happiness” invaded the heart of possibly the most evil dictator on the earth, and he destroyed said toys without a struggle or a good reason? Especially so- if he had destroyed them, he could have did so in public or shown proof of such, and gotten the despised sanctions lifted? :dubious: :rolleyes:
You forget- no one, not even Blix- disputes the mass of WMD before. What happened to them, then? Fairies? Gremlins? :rolleyes: :dubious:
Since they DID exist (and we can’t find anything but traces now- but we have found traces, note), then only 3 things COULD have happened (barring the “gremlins/fairies” thesis). 1. They were destroyed (without much of a trace) 2. They were moved. 3. they were hidden very very well. (4- “they never existed” won’t cut it, they were confirmed by the UN, sorry)
So- rjung, Rickjay, blowero, and avalonian- what do you say happened to the UNDOUBTED “pre-Blix” WMD? Destroyed?- before Blix? If so why? And, why not show Blix the proof he asked for?
Just to toss out a few more quotes:
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
–Vice President Dick Cheney, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, August 27, 2002
“The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and vocally as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.”
–Ari Fleischer, December 5, 2002
“The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had. They have never accounted for all the organic material used to make them. And they have not accounted for many of the weapons filled with these agents such as there are 400 bombs. This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true. This is all well-documented.”
–Colin Powell, addressing the United Nations, February 5, 2003
I’m not a chemist, but maybe the expired? Y’know, like milk going sour or antibiotics with a limited shelf life?
Personally, I still think Saddam had WMDs, but certainly not the “thousands of tons” that the Bushistas were touting before the war – more like a few mayonaise jars’ worth in a cupboard somewhere. Certainly nothing to start a war over, but if they ever turn up, I fully expect the Usual Suspects from trumpeting it as the “proof” they’ve been seeking.
blowero:
Nitpick, but acting rationally means acting in one’s self-interest. They’re exactly the same thing.
rjung- the UN saw the massive amounts, pre-Blix. Maybe not “thousands of tons”, but way more than a mayonaise jar. Those Scuds all by themslves (albiet most would not call a SCUD a “WMD”, but they were still prohibited).
And, sure, they do expire (well,some of them, anyway). But they don’t evaporate while doing so. So SH would have been able to show the 'expired" WMD to Blix. Or evidence he had destroyed them. He had no such evidence.
If we found out that SH had been selling them off to his neighbors for a while pre-Blix, and that is what he was hiding from Blix, and then he just shipped off the “last few” after Bush made his ultimatum- that woudl not shock me. Surprise me a little, yes. But not shock.
But they existed- so what happened to them?
The mobile labs have tested negative for germ agents.
Oh, and it turns out there weren’t no bunker, either.
Something stinks, and it ain’t my co-worker’s gym bag.
Which SCUDS were those ? There’ve been no confirmed reports of any SCUD missiles.
Considering Hussein and his neighbors hated each other (especially Iraq), it doesn’t make sense for him to sell 'em WMDs that could be used against himself, does it?
Beats me, ask Saddam. Maybe they expired, but he didn’t want to publically admit that (to the UN or to anyone else) because that would invite an invasion from one of his hostile neighbors…?
In any event, just because we suspected Saddam Hussein of having WMDs is not enough reason to go to war. If we’re supposed to be a nation of peacekeepers, then we have to gather evidence first. Otherwise it’s all just hypocritical bullstuff, and all the nitpicking you may choose to indulge in won’t change that.
Well didn’t Scott Ritter say that virtually all the WMDs had been destroyed after Gulf War I? He was villified for saying it, of course, but it looks like he may have been right.