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]

Are you trying to say that the imminent threat of WMDs to the US was not the primary reason to go to war. Did you already forget things that happened in Feburary and March of this year?

I haven't forgetten, and I'm trying to say that WMD was not the sole reason for going to war, despite Wolfowitz's admission that it became the primary public reason since everyone in the bureaucracy could agree on it.

I actually remember what happened. WMDs were ready to go on 45 minutes notice. There were tonnes of them. Isn't that what Powell said to the UN?

Powell's UN presentation does not mention 45 minutes notice, that came from Blair's dossier. And yes, numerous sources quoted tonnes of unaccounted chemical agents - specifically see my links in post 33 for some of the intelligence sources and UNMOVIC reports.

And while no one in the administration actually said that Saddam was behind 9/11, the propoganda machine sure confused the general public.

The confusion has made it's way to the courts.

Spain links suspect in 9/11 plot to Baghdad

It also includes a new affirmation by the Czech government that Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 plotters, met an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ibrahim al-Ani, in Prague in April 2001. Some US officials have suggested this meeting did not happen. But in a signed statement dated 24 February, 2003, Hynek Kmonicek, the Czech ambassador to the UN, says his government 'can confirm that during the stay of Mohamed Atta ... there was contact with Mr al-Ani, who was on 22 April, 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities not compatible with his diplomatic status [the usual euphemism for spying]'.

Sept. 11 Plaintiffs Win Case Against Iraq

Judge Harold Baer ruled Wednesday that the survivors of two people who were killed in the World Trade Center terrorist attack had presented enough evidence, "albeit barely," to be awarded $104 million in damages against the state of Iraq, Osama bin Laden, and his terrorist network.

At this point, it sure looks like we were lied into a war. It wouldn't be the first time either. Remember the Maine and Gulf of Tonkin come to mind immediately.

From my perspective, it appears you did not understand the reasons being provided for the war, had not thought through your own perspective and were emotionally against the war. You are now trying to justify your stance based on an incomplete outcome two months after the cessation of major hostilities. Some might call that premature speculation.

The more time goes by without finding anything, the more people will be forced into that conclusion. It is hard to imagine what the nation's thoughts will be by November 2004.

Forced? Certainly your chicken little act supports the actions and propaganda from those orchestrating guerilla warfare in Iraq and the Islamists and their supporters. I don't think many Americans will be forced into believing that WMD never existed in Iraq, that Saddam was cooperating, and that Bush knowing lied to the American people to wage a war in Iraq. But you're welcome to keep trying.

[MHGinTN]

The game is known as 'democrat agitprop' ... go to news discussion websites and try to raise as much doubt and division as possible using any lies or dissembling imaginable, with fellow agitprops chiming in occasionally to lend an air of responsible discussion, then skip on to the the next. These democrat operatives come and go. We see them more often, now that the president's approach to protecting America appears to be working. Note, if you will, the snide little ridicule of 'pre-emption'. Clues, lots of clues, accented with specious denials and a glaring lack of facts and a desire to 'jump the gun' and reach premature conclusions. The same operatives will be nowhere to be heard when WMD evidence sufaces all the more. They do their hench work and move on to their next assignment.

[optimistically_conservative]

... No one is to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. I think that 6,000 dead Iraqis were also entitled to due process, or at least a little better evidence of wrong doing before we dropped bombs on them.

12 years due process began the day the cease fire was signed.

[Mike4Freedom]

Did I misunderstand your comment?

My comparison to France was sarcasm, of course. I find that extending an argument to its absurd limits helps to show the absurdity of the original argument.

This is why, when discussing Patriot 1 and 2 and Homeland Security, I remind people that these government powers will not always be used by Bush and company whom you trust. They will be in place for all future presidents which just might include Hillary. That scary and absurd, but possible, future, is intended to make you'all think about how evil these laws are. Hillary could use those laws and powers to round up members of the VRWC. Libertarians and conservatives will share the re-education camps in that future.

[optimistically_conservative]

Thoughtful and well-said post. The war was determined to be over, according to President Bush, however what concerns me today, are our young military kids getting killed, bombed and shot at, and in temperatures of 115 deg. F. Add to that, a foreign country,where you never know who's friend or foe. The heat alone is enough to kill.

I think you should be concerned about the continued guerilla tactics and terrorism in Iraq. I think it makes sense to move faster on setting up an Iraqi internal defense force, bringing in additional international forces to help set it up.

However, make sure you understand that the hostilities today are limited to the Baath Belt; the Kurds in the North are strongly supportive of us and the Shi'ites in the South continue to be supportive.

As a vet from DS I and having trained and deployed in desert and equatorial climates, I can tell you your concern about the heat is entirely misplaced.

[iconoclast]

DITTO

[BJungNan]

Thanks for the explanation. I have not seen that many one FR but they sure stick out when the come here. Usually people here try to support their arguments. Not everyone always does or is right. But they stand corrected in the face of logic and reason.

I should have figured something was up with these two. Do they really expect people to fall for such nonsense? Also, I have not looked closely at all the posts, but I don't think he answered one direct question put to him.

[iconoclast]

Saddam gave money to Palestinian bomber families and did shelter known terrorists.

As do all muslim countries. Where the hell do you think Bin Laden is, Disneyland?

[BJungNan]

sheep are good only for shearing and slaughtering.

I hear from an Aussie friend of mine that the kiwis have another use for them.

But what sheep has to do with this debate I have yet to figure out. Since you raised it, perhaps you can explain.

[optimistically_conservative]

As do all muslim countries.

Not true, as an iconoclast that was a sloppy comment.

Where the hell do you think Bin Laden is, Disneyland?

I'm betting a country with a name ending in -stan.

[BJungNan]

My comparison to France was sarcasm, of course. I find that extending an argument to its absurd limits helps to show the absurdity of the original argument.

No, it does not work that way. That approach does not logically follow. You would be marked down severely in debate class.

Far better to stick with well reasoned debating points than trying to be cute when everyone else is taking the discussion seriously.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The George F. Will column recently had me cursing under my breath, because I respect him enormously, and he seemed to be lending cover to the no-WMD naysayers.

Anyone on board with the invasion could see that it was justified many ways. Problem: most people do not look below the surface where these justifications can be clearly seen.

Since the nuanced view is too lengthy to articulate, the one sentence description of why we went to war is going to continue to be that there was an imminent danger of WMDs being used.

There are people who have principled objections to things that were said by GWB in light of the oversimplified justification that they accept.

This small level of distrust by loyal but unconvinced Americans is magnified by anti-Bush voices making political hay out of the awkwardness of the casus belli.

It adds up to a genuine but small credibility problem for the US and the Bush administration. It is unjust, but there probably is no real cure for it. It will fade.

[Nick Danger]

If we had been told before the war that Iraq was absolutely no danger to us, that it had no WMDs... the American public and Congress would not have signed off on a war.

What the Congress might have done is conjecture, but I will sign up as one who would not have been in favor of this without a direct threat. I'm not big on sending our troops around the world to play Superman, righting the world's wrongs.

The problem for me with all this noise is that I have zero doubt that they had this stuff. I suspect that most of it is still there.

They sprayed people with poison gas. We know this. They had high-level officials in charge of these kinds of programs. We know this, and we know their names. We knew many of their names before the war even started. The UN people had documented tens of thousands of tons of these materials.

Now the story is that, well, it looks like maybe they really did destroy this stuff like they said they did.

I'm not buying. We know more now about the character of that regime than ever before, and nothing we have learned points to UN-compliant disarmers hoping to live in peace. That was as brutal, secretive, and inhumane a regime as has ever existed on planet Earth. They disarmed because the UN said so? It is to laugh.

The discovery of uranium-enrichment equipment buried under a rose bush in some guy's back yard gives us a clue about what we're up against trying to find this material. Nobody ever said Saddam Hussein was stupid or lacked cleverness. If he set out to hide this stuff, we can assume he hid it real well.

I figure I'm just going to have to grin and bear it while the liberals dance on the stage with their "have you found it yet?" hoo-hah. It is their nature to do that, and there they are doing it.

I believe the stuff is there, and that we will -- if we persist -- find it. I also believe that when we do, the liberals will not stop dancing. They will just move on to the next item on their list of things to carp about.

[iconoclast]

If you believe for one minute that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, what do you think happened to those weapons, because everyone admits that he had them in 1998.

No, persons on each side of the aisle claimed Iraq had those weapons.

I guess you would have let Hitler remain in power if he claimed to have closed his gas chambers, and I bet that you think that Stalin had only the highest altruistic interests of the people in mind as he sent them off to the Gulags and starved the Ukranians.

PLEASE! If I hear one more comparison between the twin evils of the 20th century and this two-bit despot I think I'll puke.

Leftists like you always support the enemies of democracy.

Mike I'm sure crap like this rolls right off of you. Isn't it amusing in a poignant sort of way that whenever you question these bush-bot's icons that, regardless of ones credentials or years of conservative posts, you become a liberal?

Sort of a playground level of discussion, wouldn't you agree.

[cardinal4]

Yeah, we know that because our government sold him much of those chemical weapons.

I hate seeing liberal talking points used on this forum. Especially the untrue ones. Can you source for me please, the types of WMD we gave Iraq? Ill bet all you'll come up with is dual use chemicals and anthrax spores used to combat the cow disease. Do you really believe we said "Here is some wicked mustard gas, try it out!"???? Sheesh.

[Eva]

There is nothing conservative about questioning the removal of an evil despotic enemy of the US. Now, I suppose you are going to tell me that Saddam may have been an enemy, but posed no danger. Yeah, that's what the left said about Stalin, too.

[iconoclast]

As do all muslim countries. Not true, as an iconoclast that was a sloppy comment.

Oh? Where would he be turned over? You sound like you believe that "Islam is a religion of peace" BS.

[iconoclast]

I suppose you are going to tell me that Saddam may have been an enemy, but posed no danger. Yeah, that's what the left said about Stalin, too.

Gad, there you go again.

[HitmanLV]

Nah, honestly this isn't good enough. They need to find, or trace, the WMD that Iraq had/has. The central issue would be how could so many intelligence agencies (several of ours, as well as the UK's and Israel's) be wrong?

The answer: It's very unlikely they were.

So they need to find them, or heads need to roll at Military Intelligence. If Bush & crew deliberately lied, then they have lost the moral authority to lead.

I don't see any evidence that they lied, so any talk of that is wishful thinking on the part of the enemies of the administration.