Rumfeld admits to no WMD's

[rsa]

Tony Blair: "We have only just begun the process now of investigating the various sites…"

:dubious:

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/150/wash/Commander_of_US_Marines_in_Ira:.shtml

Lt. Gen. James Conway, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said in a video teleconference from his headquarters in southern Iraq that he was convinced before and during the war that at least some Republican Guard units had been provided with chemical weapons.

‘‘It was a surprise to me then it remains a surprise to me now that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites,’’ he told reporters at the Pentagon.

‘‘Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying,’’ he added. ‘‘We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there.’’

Conway added that it was too soon to say whether this amounted to a U.S. intelligence failure or whether it meant that the Bush administration had been wrong about Iraq’s weapons programs.

[Apos]

The Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, likewise, weren’t in response to 9/11, but 9/11 provided a convenient excuse.

I find that a little hard to believe, as prior to 9/11, the administration opposed the creation of the Department, even going as far as to ridicule the Clinton era commision that suggested it.

[DrDeth]

*Originally posted by light strand *
**Hang on there Sparky, don’t be using my cite as evidence of your WMD.

Kamal said that he destroyed the WMD after the First Bush Family War. This would have been in compliance with UN resolutions.

Yes, Iraq certainly had WMD, as we know from the gassing of the Kurds, but those WMDs are not why we went to war in the Second Bush Family War.

Why is it so hard to believe that they destroyed them in 1991 as Kamal said they did? Is it simply that it won’t fit into your agenda? Where is the evidence that they weren’t destroyed then? They haven’t used them, no Scientist has affirmed they were producing them, and they can’t find them.

**

So let me see. First you say “don’t be using my cite as evidence of your WMD”. Then you say “Yes, Iraq certainly had WMD…” . Did they or did they not, at one time have significant amounts of WMD? Did they ever prove to the UN’s satisfaction that they destroyed them?

Sure- it is possible that they destroyed them in 1991. But without doing so publicly, leaving any significant evidence, and without any documentation? :dubious: If they had done so- why not invite the UN team to a big “WMD” BBQ, so everyone can watch then being destroyed? Why do it secretly, without records?

So basicly, you have two choices: A. believe Saddam that he destoyed them, secretly, with no good reason, and without any real evidence or documentation. or B- Believe Bush that they were there before the Ulitmatum. I am no Bush fan, by any means; but when the choice is between Bush & Saddam Hussain, the only sane choice is Bush.

[Semp]

*Originally posted by Beagle *
Defense #1, he didn’t lie. He received bad intelligence information and based his decisions on that.

That’s an assumption. We don’t know what he was told. We don’t know if he was told before he quoted the IAEA report that it was out of date, but he threw it out there for public consumption as if it had been written the day before. We don’t know if he was told that the plagiarized, decade-old student paper was a plagiarized, decade-old student paper, but he (or his people) tossed it into the heap of evidence. We don’t know if anyone told him that the aluminum tube report was weak and easily refutable, but there it was in the State of the Union Address. And we don’t know if he was told that the Niger uranium document was a flat-out forgery, but… well, you get the idea.

Remember the 2000 campaign, how we were told that Dubya wasn’t the overly hands-on type of guy that Clinton was, but he really knew how to surround himself with top notch advisors? Was that a lie? Did these guys he pick wind up stabbing him in the back by their incometence? Or were they, in fact, top notch advisors, but he chose to ignore their warnings about the strengths of the evidence (or lack thereof)? Well, we don’t know. But it’s a lose-lose situation either way, isn’t it?

[light_strand]

DrDeth, Ok, let me restate. I don’t think anyone, unless, they are blind and foolish would say that Iraq never had WMD. After all, the US gave them WMD, and they used WMD against the Kurds. However, Germany used WMD, during WWI, do we attack them now based on their history? History does not an active weapons program make. Kamal said they destroyed them, show me that they didn’t. You keep asking for proof. They’ve been denying their existence for over ten years, show me evidence to the contrary!

The “masssive” WMD capacity in 2003 was specious at best.

[light_strand]

I suppose I should add, why would Hussein make the destruction of WMD public? If I were him I certainly wouldn’t. The sanctions didn’t hurt him or his family. Allowing the neighbors to believe that you have “massive” amounts of weapons can’t hurt your security, and destruction without knowledge covers you in in both legal and security manners. You can bring in inspectors without being busted, but you can remain a bad-ass in the neighborhood, and your populaces eyes.

Do you nave WMD, don’t you? Who wants to find out? It’s brilliant.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

When Kramer hears about this, the shit is really going to hit the fan.

By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.
A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terrorist groups.
This team, self-mockingly called the Cabal, “cherry-picked the intelligence stream” in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defense Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence.
The DIA was “exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD,” or weapons of mass destruction, he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA had “no guts at all” to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.
[…]
Anger among security professionals appears widespread. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group that says it is made up mostly of CIA intelligence analysts, wrote to U.S. President George Bush May 1 to hit what they called “a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions.”
“In intelligence there is one unpardonable sin – cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy,” it wrote. “There is ample indication this has been done with respect to Iraq.”

[jshore]

*Originally posted by DrDeth *
So basicly, you have two choices: A. believe Saddam that he destoyed them, secretly, with no good reason, and without any real evidence or documentation. or B- Believe Bush that they were there before the Ulitmatum. I am no Bush fan, by any means; but when the choice is between Bush & Saddam Hussain, the only sane choice is Bush.

I think that since both sources have shown a willingness…in fact a predilection…to lie repeatedly, the only sane choice is to trust neither and instead go with the evidence.

By the way, is it supposed to reassure me and justify Bush’s actions vis-a-vis Iraq when you suggest that as a result of Bush’s ultimatum and threat of war, maybe the WMDs were transferred to Iran and Syria?!? (Which I don’t happen to believe anyway, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt…) Hell, I feel much safer already! :rolleyes:

[Squink]

Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress’ star is falling rapidly. Since believing Bush is tantamount to believing Chalabi, it appears that even Bush doesn’t believe Bush anymore.

[clairobscur]

*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding *
**and that the real reason for the invasion was to allow the US to pull its troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Can this be accurate? **

I always wondered what were the real reason behind this invasion. My best guess was that the US gvt wanted to replace the Iraki government by a US-friendly one in order to :

1. Indeed being able to install military bases and personnels in this strategic part of the middle-east, and doing so being able to pull off from Saudi Arabia, since this latter country is essentially unreliable and likely to collapse into chaos sooner or later

2)Getting a hold on Iraki oil, not for short term reasons like handing some juicy contracts to political friends or the like, but for long-term, strategical reasons (securing an oil supply for the US).

Of course, these were/are only my best guesses, and I’ve no evidence to back this assumption. Also, it doesn’t mean that there couldn’t have been other reasons (laudable or sinister) to launch this war in the mind of the US president and of his advisors.

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by Apos *
**I find that a little hard to believe, as prior to 9/11, the administration opposed the creation of the Department, even going as far as to ridicule the Clinton era commision that suggested it. **

Why is it hard to believe. The document I linked to above contains the script, and they’re now just following the script. From the document:

HOMELAND DEFENSE. America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains essential. But the new century has brought with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.

LARGE WARS. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the “two-war” standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.

CONSTABULARY DUTIES. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. A decade’s experience and the policies of two administrations have shown that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new, long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These duties are today’s most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations.

TRANSFORM U.S. ARMED FORCES. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the socalled “revolution in military affairs,” sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

I suppose that one could conclude that Sadam never existed prior to Gulf II. Intelligence/news reports of him were in error. The proof is that we can’t seem to find him. Shit, we can’t even find his doubles. Could it be that the Bush administration lied to us?

[adaher]

Bin Laden never existed either. Neither did the WTC. The whole story was made up to attack the Taliban, who we know exist because some of them are still shooting at people.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

But why would we have wanted to attack the Taliban? In May of 2001, Bush wanted to give them millions of dollars.

[DrDeth]

*Originally posted by jshore *
**I think that since both sources have shown a willingness…in fact a predilection…to lie repeatedly, the only sane choice is to trust neither and instead go with the evidence.
**

Well, actually, the Bush admin has been pretty careful, and they haven’t uttered any bald faced lies I know of. Exagerations, puffery, one sidedness, prevarications- YES! But AFAIK, not out & out whoppers. Now compare that to the Iraqi government, especially with their propaganda Minister, who was lying faster & worse that that Jon Lovitz character on SNL.

So, when the Bush Admin says something- it is time to bring out the old saltshaker. But all you can do with SH is shake your head & sigh- or laugh your ass off.

And jshore- the problem is- that there is no good evidence either way. Thus, I believe GWB- well, more that I believe SH in any case. Sure, the WMD were certainly blown out of proportion, and Bush “sold us” the war, but I don’t think he out & out lied.

[Cervaise]

*Originally posted by DrDeth *
Well, actually, the Bush admin has been pretty careful, and they haven’t uttered any bald faced lies I know of.

Y’know, it’s too bad we didn’t have internet message boards in 1973, so we could now point to similarly half-hearted defenses of Nixon’s shenanigans.

I believe GWB- well, more that I believe SH in any case.

It is a fallacy to believe that the deceptions of one party imply anything at all about the veracity of the opposing party.

[DrDeth]

Not at all- when they are each claiming the opposite side of a fact.

In that case, one can & should “consider the source”.

[RickJay]

Okay, let’s consider the source. We know Bush has lied about WMD information about Iraq. He claimed the existence of nonexistent reports. He happily paraded the African uranium scam before the public. Both lies.

Well, there it is. He’s a liar.