Well, tell you what december. About the distinction between WMD’s and WMD programs. Did you ever hear of anyone being shot with the blueprints of a gun?
Really. Are you using your magic crystal ball to tell us this? Just what evidence do you have that allows you to make this claim? Just the fact that weapons haven’t been found yet?
If so, you might just wind up having to eat those words. Of course, the Bush administration could produce an Iraqi death ray now, and some of you would still be saying that it’s irrelevant because it wasn’t discovered the day after Baghdad fell.
Six months. Six months? Does it really take that long to plant the evidence in the wide open desert? I’m still surprised they haven’t planted it by now. What’s the hold up?
When they pick up a gun and fire at our troops. But, then again, I bet you expect our troops to arrest hostiles, because we can’t be going around shooting teens with guns, can we. :rolleyes:
Not to comment just on one particular case, because I don’t have the full story and arresting someone who is determined to go down firing is not particularly easy, but “arresting hostiles” is actually part of what the troops are supposed to be doing. Part of their obligations as an occupying power and all that…
I think he is refering to the fact that “we” fought a war against Iraq which lead to the destruction of the existing regime. That’s kinda the point when you start thinking about using that death ray that you’ve spent so long saving up for.
December, your statements on this matter are starting to resemble more and more the press conferances of the Iraqi Minister of Information. Just keep saying it and, hope against hope, it might come true. Although I do partly agree with you, there is the potential for widespread paper cuts to be caused by WMD programs.
And can someone please confirm if the 7.5 miles of documents are laid end-to-end, side-by-side or piled high to the sky. I’m confused!
"US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that the US had no fresh intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before going to war.
It was increased worries about terrorism, not new evidence of Iraqi preparations, that was the key reason for going to war, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light - through the prism of our experience on 9/11,” he said."
If they had no “fresh intelligence” what were they relying on ? Old intelligence, like UNSCOM, who said there was nothing of any significance remaining.
Here’s a thought for you Sam Stone, you were plain wrong, you were duped like so many others about the WMD pretext for invasion – in fact, I can still recall you writing extensively about all those huge, presidential palaces and what was going to be revealed . . .
That you were so wrong about swallowing the hook over WMD doesn’t have to mean the invasion/acquisition didn’t have some other justification – why not adopt a more tenable ‘position B’.
Fwiw1, even a Jack Nicholson: “You can’t handle the truth!” line is better than this embarrassing defence.
Fwiw2, As ’liuci and others may testify, I actually supported the invasion (although) convinced that the WMD were a false pretext.
Keep in mind, folks, that not only will this report be released in February, but elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq are scheduled close to the election.
Do you honestly think Bush would have all this stuff right around that time unless he felt confident he’d get good news on all three? Don’t you think that he’ll be wanting to say in his convention speech that Afghanistan and Iraq are now democracies, and that we proved our case on WMD?
And he will, I have no doubt of it. Our Fearless Misleader is not a man to allow mere facts to be an impediment.
Can you cite this, Zig, old beast? A bit confusing, don’t you think? If we are given to understand that there are enormous complexities involved, esp. as regards translations from Arabic, how then would we already know that the “millions of documents” relate to WMD’s?
Have they all got enormous stamps on them saying “Top Secret WMD Stuff! Don’t let the Americans see this! Burn before reading…”
If you could provide the cite, I’m sure we can sort this all out right crisply.
Don’t know about Arabic, but I used to work in the translation biz, and a general rule of thumb is that a pro can translate about 10 pages of technical material a day. I sure hope the U.S. government has access to a whole heaping pile of specialists (not to mention some really large vats of coffee), because even the project coordination for a job that size (ensuring everyone is using consistent vocabulary, etc.) is going to be a humungous and complex undertaking.
Either way, it’s going to take a little while for it to be translated.
Wasn’t the Manhattan Project a threat to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
[The Sunday Times
London - David Kelly, the British weapons expert at the centre of the Iraq dossier row, had amassed firm evidence to show that Saddam Hussein built and tested a “dirty bomb.”
Designed to cause cancer and birth defects, the radiological weapon could have been used by terrorists to create panic and widespread contamination in a crowded city.](http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2003/08/03/f230.raw.html)
[**Al Qaeda Link to Attacks in Iraq -UK Source **
LONDON (Reuters) - Members of groups linked to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network may have taken part in attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, a British diplomatic source said on Friday.
The source said that while the attacks were largely the work of Iraqis loyal to deposed dictator Saddam Hussein “there is some evidence that they’ve been joined by groups that are loosely connected with the al Qaeda network.”](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12401-2003Aug1?language=printer)
Better watch out, december. I’ve just downloaded the blueprints to the QE2. I’m gonna build it in the back yard, then sail it to New Jersey. Then you’ll be in deep shit. :rolleyes:
There’s a big difference between having a plan, and actually implementing the plan.
Re: your last links, december, we already know how much the U.S. feared the “dirty bomb” scenario. You remember, by allowing the IAEA secured sites to be looted?
So what? If the US war plan was faulty, does that reduce the risk of Iraqi WMDs?
It’s the reverse. The posibility that a war against Iraq might be conducted in an imperfect manner was an argument against waiting too long to begin it.
If you’re now going to say: “See, Iraq really did have a credible WMD program - dirty bombs”, you’ll need to explain why noone in the Administration treated it as a credible threat, or even mentioned it before. If they did do so, please provide a link and we can discuss it further.
No, actually the faulty US war plan served to increase the risk, as has been thoroughly discussed before. By rushing in with concerns about management of oil fields but no concerns about management of sites with nuclear material or the purported weapons sites, the faulty US war plan increased the likelihood that these would end up in the hands of those already engaged in attacks on the US. But thanks for your question.
He’s still clinging to the Titanic wall panel in the icy waters, at three am, hoping against hope . . .
Once you acknowledge that there was a risk of WMDs, you and the Democrats have lost this debate. You’re reduced to quibbling over strategy, in a war that was quite successful. That won’t do anything to get a Democratic candidate elected.
Noting London_Calling’s comment: If the only people allowed to vote in 2004 were participants in SD Great Debates (including non-Americans), then you would be right. My arguments would be desperate, futile hopes.
However, because of the non-doper voters, I expect a Bush landslide victory in 2004. In 15 months, I’ll come back and either admit error or say, “I told you so.”
The voters outside the Straight Dope
Encourage Republican hope.
…They don’t focus on blame;
…Safety’s real, not some game;
To the Democrats, they will say, “Nope!”