Wolfowitz says Saudi troop withdrawal was 'huge' reason for war with Iraq

Associated Press ^

[Miss Marple]

You are absolutely determined to believe a lie, aren't you?

Why would you ignore the speech to the UN? Answer: Because it disproves your claim that this was the only reason we went to war.

Why would you disbelieve the transcript from the DoD, the Washington Post AND Vanity Fairs reporter himself, who is already "clarifying" and backtracking? Answer: Because you are desperate to believe that this is your ONE ISSUE which will prove Bush is bad.

We have found all sorts of items...mobile biological labs, mustard gas in old warheads, barrels of nuclear material, poson in the Euphrates, etc. etc.

Apparently, you have some sort of vision in your mind of the Acme WMD plant with barrels stacked up labeled with a skull and crossbones and big "DANGER" signs. Sorry, that isn't how they were stored, and that isn't how they will be found.

[Miss Marple]

Please show me one person who has claimed that WMD's weren't a reason. Your statement is patently false.

[Captain Kirk]

Billbears didn't portray WMD as the only reason. Re-read his post. He said it was the main reason. It certainly was on FR and was used to hysterical effect.

[Miss Marple]

No one is saying it wasn't the main reason. What is aggravating is that people will not understand that we have found plenty of signs that the WMD's were there, that it is possible that they were destroyed or moved right before the war, that we will probably locate them in due time, and that they were there in 1992! Saddam never provided proof of their destruction. So, where are they?

[hchutch]

It's becoming more obvious to me that the paleo-cons and the rest of the anti-war crowd will try to fake evidence that the "neoconservative cabal" lied to the world about Iraq.

They will not accept the truth, because to accept the truth would mean they have to admit they were wrong to oppose taking Saddam out. And thus, they have to admit the neoconservatives were correct. Therefore, they will resort to whatever they have to in order to convicne themselves that their position is correct.

It's an exercise in self-delusion.

[Captain Kirk]

Huh? I said that WMD's were the main reason presented by defenders of the war, not the only one. Other reasons were given such as colloboration with Al Qaeda on 9-11 (remember all the huff about Atta), and "building democracy." WMD was emphasized in my IMHO because it was shown to be the most effective "scare" tactic. It certainly scared a lot of freepers!

[Captain Kirk]

Neo-Cons were correct? About what? On WMDs? On the possibilities of building democracy in Iraq? We shall see).

[Miss Marple]

Well, time will tell, won't it? I will be here to ping you when the articles appear showing the discovery of WMD.

[Captain Kirk]

"one of many reasons" is the term being used by revisionist freepers. Is that denying that it was the main reason? I suppose not technically, if one speaks Clintonese.

[Poohbah]

Bottom line: Saddam thought he could get away with slow-rolling everyone on WMDs. He was wrong. A salutary lesson was administered. End of problem.

There were a LOT of WMDs there in 1998. If they were destroyed, there is no evidence of their destruction, which Saddam was required to provide. Consider this to be a VERY intrusive inspection and verification mission.

[hchutch]

WMDs? Well, gosh, those mobile labs in and of themselves are proof. Scrubbed clean, but why? If they were for an innocent purpose, why were they not declared and inspected?

The existence of labs that could be moved around to thwart inspectors tells me that they were NOT meant to produce infant formula.

[OldFriend]

Uh, please do take your spin elsewhere........I hear DU is seeking visitors.

[Dane]

You're kidding right? I'm supposed to believe what the Defense Department says about one of their own versus an outside source?!?

JMO, billbears, but you as a big Libertarian on FR with the above quote prove that marijuana and reveling on the counterculture is the core being of modern Libertarianism.

You and the loony left have much in common, IMO.

[Captain Kirk]

Nobody disagrees that Saddam once had WMDs....but a few measley labs are pretty pathetic when compared to the hysterical claims that New York was about go up in smoke if we didn't go to war. BTW, I opposed the war but thought that he did have WMDs. Perhaps I was too gullible in believing Rumsfeld. Live and learn.

[Poohbah]

OK, hotshot...

Somewhere in the state of California, there's something about the size of a 55-gallon drum. It could be damn near any shape within that volume.

Find it in six weeks.

[Dane]

Billbears didn't portray WMD as the only reason. Re-read his post. He said it was the main reason. It certainly was on FR and was used to hysterical effect

Huh, I guess that Saddam was also sponsoring terrorism went straight over your head.

Oh that's correct, you think that vanity Fair is the know all and be all, even with their truncated quote, nevermind.

Continue with your reveling in leftist 60's counterculture tenets.

[SJackson]

Nobody disagrees that Saddam once had WMDs....but a few measly labs are pretty pathetic when compared to the hysterical claims that New York was about go up in smoke if we didn't go to war. BTW, I opposed the war but thought that he did have WMDs. Perhaps I was too gullible in believing Rumsfeld. Live and learn.

I think that sums up our disagrement, as well as that other posters seem to have with your position. It's really one of GWBs policy of preemption.

Sadaams possession of WMDs, coupled with his hostility towards America and his enabling relationships with terrorist groups targeting Americans is enough justification for me to support action, in hopes of averting an attack, and minimizing the cost in lives. I’d guess you'd for incontrovertible proof of an imminent threat, or an accomplished attack, balanced against the possibility that Sadaam’s threat to the US was benign.

That disagreement aside, the intelligence issue is one that needs to be addressed, currently I’d give it a C- at best.

[SJackson]

Somewhere in the state of California, there's something about the size of a 55-gallon drum. It could be damn near any shape within that volume

Sadaam may have had a bigger boat than Scott Peterson. If we find it at all, it may be off Alaska.

[VeniVidiVici]

Funny everybody is an intelligence expert on here.

So, does North Korea have nukes? Have you seen them? Have they used them? Did Hussein use chem/bio? Did Hussein finance terrorism? Did Hussein allow terrorist training camps be setup in Iraq?

Does Iran have nukes? How about chem/bio? Ever seen them? Does Iran finance terrorists? Has Al-Queda been discovered in Iran?

What covers supporting "national defense"? An invasion force at the border? Forward deployed troops as a tripwire? Or do we just wait till 3,000 or 3,000,000 Americans are killed by weapons YOU are not sure they have or will use?

[Dane]

Sadaam may have had a bigger boat than Scott Peterson. If we find it at all, it may be off Alaska

Very weak corollary. Scott Peterson was known to be fishing in San Francisco bay the night his wife was murdered. San Francisco Bay is not the size of California, also dead bodies have a tenedency to wash up on shore.

But what the hey at least you tried to cut the rope Kirk was hanging himself. Too bad you were using a very dull knife, but what else is a person to expect from someone who may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer.