I’m just trying to figure out from their posts if they’ve slept together yet.
Ya never know… Sometimes a specific technical question will be well-enough received… At least it changes the tempo…
What’s the worst that could happen, eh? 
Alas, he hasn’t been back since I insisted on proof that he didn’t expose Valerie Plame’s identity.
Trying to destroy the paper trail, no doubt.
Quick question: are you a repug or just hate to lose?
I don’t know what a “repug” is, so I have to assume I’m not one.
Can you prove that you didn’t expose Valerie Plame’s identity?
Repug is short for republican.
No, it’s short for “repugnant.” Republicans as a group may be repugnant, but using this term is exactly the sort of *ad hominem *you decry above.
Whoa, it’s like a time warp back to 2004!
I could make cracks about the CIA, but hell, does Scott Ritter not exist in this timeline? Unlike other dissenters I think he was actually on CNN once.
Let’s sweep their made up terrorist connections under the rug.
Remember, though - telling him he’s engaging in ad hominem is ITSELF an ad hominem. 
Please tell me that this is a joke, and I have been whooshed…
Again please tell me that this is a joke and that I have been whooshed…
I asked for clarification also, and provided possible counterexamples.
There doesn’t seem to be any indication this guy is interested in an actual dialogue.
haha, yes yes and yss. ask rush to figure it out.
daring to wade into the morass and address the OP…
Clothahump was nitpicked but essentially had some basics right.
It was well known that at one point in time Iraq had a functional Weapon of Mass Destruction capability. Chemical weapons count as WMDs. Iraq did use chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war (a war which spanned 1980 to 1988) and in gassing their own Kurdish citizens in 1988.
Years later, Iraq had that little incident in Kuwait. Afterwards the United Nations passed a series of resolutions demanding Iraq disband its WMD capacity and submit to international inspections to prove they had disbanded those programs.
The can’t-prove-a-negative sideshow that this thread degenerated into was also a problem for Iraq. They would submit to inspections for a time, and then kick the inspectors out. In the early 1990s there were chemical weapons found and destroyed or otherwise made inactive. But how could Iraq definitively prove the negative (ie, that all the weapons had been found and none remained) - they couldn’t. Not really.
Inspections continued off and on until 1998. “Iraq is not disarming”, UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspector Scott Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, “Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike.” UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq in late 1998 and the US and Britain engaged in airstrikes.
Now, whether the inspector’s departure from Iraq was a withdraw by the UN, or Iraq kicking them out is a point that has been argued. Perhaps Iraq was so sick of the inspectors poking around because there was nothing left to find like your weird uncle who stays longer than you hoped at the family reunion. Or was Iraq trying to get them to leave in order to be able to hide any remnants of its WMD program?
But by June 1999 UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter responded to an interviewer,
In 2002 Ritter produced a film In Shifting Sands detailing in part why he no longer thought Iraq posed a threat. He noted having found the archive of Iraq’s nuclear and biological weapons program in a shed at a pig farm. Let’s just say that Iraqi record keeping left something to be desired.
Now it didn’t help Iraq’s case that some WMDs had been found in a pit in the desert at Khamisiyah early in the inspections program in 1991. With finds like that and poor record keeping, how could the UN later be certain that Iraq had fully complied and disarmed? And how could Iraq prove they no longer had WMD capability?
And so, come 2003, there were competing notions. UNSCOM inspector Ritter was making the claim that everything that could be found had been found. Iraq claimed to no longer have WMD capability. But proving a negative is notoriously difficult. It was in this environment, and post 9/11 with military action already raging in Afghanistan, that the Bush administration pushed for military action in Iraq.
In the end, Bush pushed for an invasion. And US troops searched for evidence of a WMD program. They found some interesting things such as intact fighter jets and, yes, a few highly degraded chemical weapons (that almost certainly were non-functional) buried in the sand. But no big stockpile was found. The idea that there might be more buried WMD material in the sand somewhere drove further searches.
And so, it’s not to say that Bush couldn’t have been impeached. Impeachment is an inherently political act. But many, many politicians on both sides of the aisle seemed to agree leading up to the 2003 invasion that it was quite likely that Iraq maintained a WMD capability. It would be hard in retrospect to impeach Bush without also needing to justify their own statements at the time.
Come forward to the modern day and… the extremists of ISIS have invaded northern Iraq seizing a former chemical weapons facility. Apparently they have found some chemicals. Chemicals that were sealed in bunkers that might not have been properly destroyed from the WMD program. Fortunately it is not believed that the militants can make a working WMD from what remains. Hopefully not.
I don’t know anyone who disputes that Iraq has had WMD programs at some points in its past. But that’s not the issue. The question in 2003 was whether Iraq had any current WMD programs. Citing evidence from 1988 was meaningless. The situation in Iraq changed in 1991.
It’s called context, addressing an OP who wasn’t even born at the time of the first Gulf War.
TL;DR version
Yes. Iraq previously had an extensive WMD program. Really. Bush didn’t make that up.
Iraq invaded Kuwait. A coalition of countries responded. There was a war. The UN demanded Iraq disable its WMD program. US troops kept finding chemical weapons at various sites around Iraq.
Nearly a decade of inspections followed. Inspectors found WMDs too. As inspectors were leaving in 1998 they were still saying Iraq poses a danger. Shortly after inspectors left they changed their minds, declaring Iraq was disarmed. Iraqi record keeping was less than complete.
Come 2003 politicians on both sides of the aisle believed Iraq was still hiding WMDs. Turns out there was no significant remnants found after the US invaded.
So why not impeach Bush? The Congress could have pushed to do so. But the reality is that given the rather extensive WMD program Iraq once had and the belief that Iraq had displayed a pattern over a decade of being less than fully forthcoming, many politicians on both sides of the aisle believed Iraq was still not compliant. To impeach Bush would have called into question those statements of support by many Congresscritters from both parties.
We had to invade Iraq because they were buying yellow cake, then they were gonna put it in aluminum tubes, spin it up, and then give it to their best friend, Osama. Also they were hiding all their WMD from the inspectors using mobile weapons labs. Iron clad sources. Isn’t that right, Curveball? Or forged documents of unknown origin – Italy, maybe? How about Khidir Hamza?
Bush and Colin Powell said Iraq kicked the inspectors out in '98, and the media repeated them, but that’s not true. Here are two guys who were actually involved.
Richard Butler:
Scott Ritter:
The most charitable interpretation is Clinton thought Iraq was yanking their chain so he was just gonna bomb them as punishment or where he “knew” the WMD was located.
Bush and friends also made up the story about Iraq kicking out the inspectors the second time so they just had to invade right then and there. The balls on these guys.
You do realize that constantly laughing at everyone who disagrees with you and calling them all repugs and Rush listeners is ad homin em, right? ACTUAL ad hominem, not crazy backwards pants-on-head “saying I’m wrong is ad hominem”, right?
Well, to be super pedantic, no, that’s just being insulting and abusive.
Formally, ad hominem means claiming that the person is wrong in his debate points because of his characteristics. “Well, sure, but you’re from Maine, so of course your opinion is questionable.”
Merely being rude doesn’t quite rise to that level. “What a jerk.” Of course, you might say that there is an implied subtext. “What a jerk (i.e., ‘you’re wrong in what you say.’”)
But I’d really like to hear more about the theory that “When you say ‘you didn’t’ it’s ad homenim by definition.” However, the only response we got was “Haha, yes yes and yss. ask rush to figure it out,” so I’m guessing we aren’t going to receive enlightenment on this matter.
There’s no basis for thinking Clinton “knew” that, even though he thought the evidence for Sudan was strong enough. He certainly didn’t say this.