Had we been told then what America knows now (Iraq WMD)

GoGov.com ^ | July 4, 2003 | Russell Betts

[BJungNan]

After what was found in Iraq and learned about Saddam and Sons, it is without question that the former Iraqi regime itself was a weapon of mass destruction. Biological dirty bombs, nuclear weapons programs or sponsoring terrorist for such acts as flying planeloads of people into buildings, it is all the same.

Liberal critics of the President, however, latch on to a different post war theme. "It is not what we were told we would find" is their complaint about White House communications prior to the war. For purely political ends, they beat this drum in hopes someone will listen.

Beat as they might, nearly everyone sees the effort in Iraq had good results for our country. Few listen when they can see for themselves what should be obvious to all – and is to most – that a man that would hold his own people in dungeons, torture and maim them would have no second thoughts about funding another major terror strike against our country.

The message of the war has been heard. No matter what the intelligence was before the war, no matter what we were told we would find, what we found was as bad or worse. Anything now about us being misled about weapons of mass destruction is only partisan background noise against an outcome an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with.

And had we been told then what America knows now, most Americans would still have given President Bush the go-ahead to move on Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

[optimistically_conservative]

the question that dare not be spoken on these threads ... how do you prove a negative?

You're not stupid. Prove it.

[BJungNan]

1. They understand the inaccuracies in their methods and maintain a minimum and maximum number. At one point, these were 2 to 1 with each other. As time is going by, they are moving closer together as they do more research. At the time I wrote my comment, the MINIMUM number was just over 6000. I never considered the maximim number.

That is the same that I heard. It must have been the interview that I heard. I will have to agree with you that they seemed reasonable, not bent on distorting things.

As for the U.S. doing body counts, I'm sure they have a number. What we don't do is publish it, likely for reasons that it will be twisted against our effort there. I saw a CNN report that so highlighted civilian casualties that it completely ignored the thousands that were saved from torture.

People opposed to the war and citing civilian casualties never seem to get past a one-move-at-a-time thought process/mentality. While they say, not one civilian should be caught in the cross fire, they would let thousands burn.

This always amazes me that people can not see that what they want is not possible. I think we call that utopian. We hope they one day grow up - or in the case of Martin Sheen, do us all a favor and duct tape their mouths voluntarily.

[optimistically_conservative]

Just as a reminder how easy it is to accurately report a body count:

Estimates of deaths in first war still in dispute

[optimistically_conservative]

The only explanation for that is to hide the data from the people so they would not become enraged. We are left with nothing better than the amateurs doing the counting and debates over the accuracy. I believe the government should have done an accurate count, no matter how embarrassing.

Our government was in a position to count and bury Iraqi civilian and military bodies during the war?

Served in combat?

[Frances_Marion]

Sheesh is right. So, inconvenient facts are just liberal talking points? Are you concerned with the truth, or just what is conducive to your preconceived notions? Be careful what you ask for:

December 20 1983. Donald Rumsfeld, then a civilian, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.

March 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the U.S. becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.

May 1986. The U.S. Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

April 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

December 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.

July 1991. The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians.

Yeah, all that anthrax was just to combat Iraq's problem with anthrax amongst their HUGE cattle industry. A line like that coming from a leftist would be met with much derision.

[Frances_Marion]

For one, The Senate Banking Committee in an investigation discovered large shipments of dual-use chemical and biological liscensed by the Commerce Dept to be exported to Iraq. This continued years after it was evident that Saddam was using these materials not just on the Iranians, but on Iraqi Kurds and others in Iraq. This is not to say the U.S. shouldn't have removed Saddam, but it's just to say that of course we knew he had these materials and weapons programs, because our government along with other gov's sold the materials to him even when we knew what he was using them for.

http://www.belleville.com/mld/newsdemocrat/5674107.htm

[MEG33]

If Iran had conquered Iraq my mind reels with the power they would have had...in the region and ,through oil, in the world.Iran was a "friend of the USSR.The Cold War was going on.

[iconoclast]

Your post 71 was cutely correct buy NOT the answer to my question.

[optimistically_conservative]

Your post 71 was cutely correct buy NOT the answer to my question.

That's a fair assessment. It was meant to reflect my honest SWAG at where UBL might be found - Afghanistan/Pakistan/Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan/Tajikistan.

I want to address your tagline while I'm at it, since it seems to me a valid, if poorly considered question.

I have often proven a negative, and most professionals that have dealt with sensitive, proprietary, confidential or classified materials have.

But that's probably not a good analogy for the chattering class, so let's try one more base:

Ever been caught chewing gum where you're not supposed too? Back in a younger day, perhaps? Let me see if I can set the scene....

Auth: "Iconoclast, are you chewing gum?"

Iconoclast: [gulp] "No."

(A negative which must now be proven)

Auth: "Open your mouth." [Visually inspects] "Lift your tongue."

Iconoclast: [Complies]

Auth: "Iconoclast, what did you do with the gum?"

Iconoclast: [Shrugs]

Auth: "Did you throw it away?"

Iconoclast: "No."

Auth: "Did you stick it under your desk?"

Iconoclast: "No."

Auth: "Did you swallow it?"

Iconoclast: [Nods head]

(Proven.)

---

UN/US: "Iraq, do you have WMD?"

Iraq: "No."

(See where I'm going with this?)

[optimistically_conservative]

AM - would you delete my 149? Headspace and formatting errors resulted in a corrected/duplicate post.

Thanks!!

[ApesForEvolution]

Hmm, if the threat of force caused him to dismantle, hide or ship out his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons/programs, then we accomplished the mission.

The fact that he was a communist tyrant of immense proportions within the arab world, attacked his neighbors, funded terrorists against Israel and on and on would have been enough reason.

His nuclear program was far more advanced previously than anyone had thought. What if it had been this time and nobody checked it? Next stop: Iran - with Syria on deck.

[stryker]

I agree. I have even heard two administration officials refer to Saddam's brutality as unprecedented in history. It scares me that people who could make such enormously stupid statements could actually have a say in shaping our public and international policy.

[Mike4Freedom]

I have even heard two administration officials refer to Saddam's brutality as unprecedented in history. It scares me that people who could make such enormously stupid statements could actually have a say in shaping our public and international policy.

Even a public school educated teenager can give examples of far worse despots in history. The 20th century was full of them. Shall we list a few for the benefit of Bush administration officials: Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot.

[iconoclast]

That's a fair assessment. It was meant to reflect my honest SWAG at where UBL might be found - Afghanistan/Pakistan/Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan/Tajikistan.

Not a bad answer (though I don't think you needed to go past Pakistan {our newest "best friend" in the region})

But, I was sincere in my question of where UBL would be turned over if discovered. Still not answered.

[optimistically_conservative]

Then perhaps I don't understand the question:

What do you mean by turned over? Do you mean if some other country captures him and turns him over, which country is that likely to be?

Personally, I think if we find out where he is, we'll have to dig him up.

[iconoclast]

The question is:

Name a Muslim country that would rat-out UBL if they knew where he was.

Is this not simple to understand?

[iconoclast]

I think if we find out where he is, we'll have to dig him up.

Yeah, sure, and Saddam, too.

[optimistically_conservative]

I think that there are several factious countries where UBL might be turned over.

For example, there are factions in Afghanistan and Pakistan that are fiercely loyal to UBL, and others that would anxiously risk their lives to capture UBL and turn him over for political, economic, and social (revenge) reasons.

I think if UBL is alive, he is moving only as his health allows - if at all.

[optimistically_conservative]

Yeah, sure, and Saddam, too.

And Elvis, Hoffa, D.B. Cooper, Michael Rockefeller, Amelia Earhart, Joseph Crater ....