Blair on Iraq Rack as Spy Chief Breaks Cover

Reuters ^ | 09-15-03

[Dr. Frank fan]

Maybe Saddam wanted us to believe he had WMD because he calculated that our belief in his "WMD" would deter us.

Yep, this is the most plausible explanation if he destroyed the WMD but didn't prove it. In which case, again, all I can say is: he sure fooled us. Good one, Saddam!

[arete]

Doesn't it stike you as odd that a country with a known established chemical program is sanitized of any evi\dence at all?? There is non so blind as he who will not see.

Not only odd, it's down right astonishing. Manufacturing materials and equipment, workers, delivery systems, buildings, contaminated areas, the chems and bios themselves -- all vanished. A clean sweep. Maybe they had David Cooperfield on the payroll.

There is no delusion like self-delusion.

Richard W.

[Dr. Frank fan]

So we're agreed: Saddam fooled us.

Bummer for him.

What's your point?

[arete]

So we're agreed: Saddam fooled us.

Saddam didn't fool anyone but someone surely did. Now who could that be?

Richard W.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Saddam didn't fool anyone but someone surely did.

Yes he did. He made the leadership of USA and Great Britain, among others, think that he had WMDs, when in fact (as you've demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt with mathematical certainty in this thread) he had destroyed all of them without documenting this destruction. That's who he fooled.

[Lysandru]

Excuse me, but why do these media pukes call this news?

I, for one, always assumed that the 45 min. figure referred to battlefield weapons.

[arete]

He made the leadership of USA and Great Britain, among others, think that he had WMDs

That's ridiculous. That would imply that he wanted to be attacked and lose power. Forget all the posturing and mind games that may have been taking place, the US and the Britts claimed that he had them and the Britts were so eager to make the point they even produced false documents. Okay, we went to war based on, what would have to be rock solid evidence because we are talking about going to war, and so the question just hangs out there -- where are the WMD? Keep in mind that we were so sure that we couldn't even let the UN inspectors finish their job. Couldn't be that we already knew that the UN wouldn't find anything now would it?

Richard W.

[pfflier]

Ummm...they did forget 16,000 chemical suits and bleach. Maybe they were cleaning the toilets.

Let fools rush in...

[Dr. Frank fan]

[He made the leadership of USA and Great Britain, among others, think that he had WMDs] That's ridiculous. That would imply that he wanted to be attacked and lose power.

Or that he thought this would deter attack. Or that he was just delusional.

the Britts were so eager to make the point they even produced false documents

Source? Andrew Gilligan?

Okay, we went to war based on, what would have to be rock solid evidence because we are talking about going to war,

For the record, I don't agree that one has to go to war only based on evidence which is "rock solid".

so the question just hangs out there -- where are the WMD?

That's true. We may find out the answer to this question eventually. I can wait. The internet makes people impatient and jumpy, but really, I can wait.

Couldn't be that we already knew that the UN wouldn't find anything now would it?

Actually, I think it's precisely because we knew that the UN wouldn't find anything that we had to give up the whole charade.

[RobbyS]

If he was bluffing, then his bluff was called, nicht wahr? But I think he was depending on France to stop any military action.

[bernie_g]

This may be a 'nothing' issue in the US, but when Blair was trying to get the UK on board, he had part of the country totally against war whatever happened, part of it just as keen to see 'our chaps' show their mettle and a large part, something like 1/4 to 1/2, not convinced and wanting to see compelling reasons, showing it was in the British national interest, before supporting the US in invading Iraq.

Blair would probably not have gotten the support to go to war without making his WMD claims, like it or not. Whatever the greater moral dimensions may be, he's staked his reputation with the UK public on those WMD claims to get the UK to war.

So it may not be a matter of concern in the US, but Blair went far out on a limb for Bush and the way things are going, he's going to be badly, perhaps even fatally damaged as a result of the WMD claims that he made in support of US policies.

[arete]

Or that he thought this would deter attack. Or that he was just delusional.

You see the hopeless position of your case. You argue that even though WMD was the excuse for war, Saddam was delusional enough to think that they would prevent an attack. GW was going to have his war and invade Iraq one way or the other. It was a done deal and the excuses were made up to fit -- and there sure hasn't been any shortage of excuses from the "liberation" excuse to the "working with AQ" excuse and everything in between.

Richard W.

[Dr. Frank fan]

You see the hopeless position of your case.

What "case"? I'm agreeing w/you: Saddam got rid of WMD & tricked us into thinking he didn't, so we ousted him. Oopsy daisy. Good one Saddam! You sure played us for fools.

How is that making a "case" for anything?

You argue that even though WMD was the excuse for war, Saddam was delusional enough to think that they would prevent an attack.

I'm saying that's a possibility.

GW was going to have his war and invade Iraq one way or the other.

I agree.

Your point?

[Montfort]

If getting rid of MWD means sending them into Syria and dumping the excess into rivers, that is not disarming. That is merely finding another shell under which to hide the weapons.

This particular rope-a-dope game Saddam is playing is very high risk, though. He has already lost two of his most vicious children, and he needs the American people to be stupid enough to vote for an anti-war Democrat for President for the strategy to succeed (or for the Democrats to pull off voter fraud on a scale never before seen).

It is a high-risk strategy, but not necessarily doomed to failure.

[Tennessean4Bush]

With the massive WMD program Saddam was accused of having, surely at least one scientist, worker, military person of any rank would have been talking his head off by now.

And, of course, you know with absolute certainty that this is not happening, right?

[Tennessean4Bush]

With the massive WMD program Saddam was accused of having, surely at least one scientist, worker, military person of any rank would have been talking his head off by now.

The United States has found evidence of an active programme to make weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including "truly amazing" testimony from Iraqis ordered to dupe United Nations inspectors before the war...[more]  telegraph.co.uk - 8/1/2003

You were saying?

[arete]

The Bitts and Tony Blair? UK propaganda to be taken seriously? Kind of like getting info from Fox News isn't it?

Where are the WMD?

Richard W.