RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Impeach Bush over WMDs?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
What kind of intelligence is that? "Yes, they have WMDs but we might not find them for 15 years"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
If Saddam had the WMDs, why didn't he use them during the war? I'm honestly asking... Am I missing something, has that been addressed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
What kind of intelligence is that? "Yes, they have WMDs but we might not find them for 15 years"?

---

so... this is dependent upon your personal time line? if 15 is too long, is 5 acceptible?

the unibomber (US based serial killer) was around and kicking for 15 or so years, uncaptured. we knew he was there, we could prove he existed, we just couldn't pin him down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
If Saddam had the WMDs, why didn't he use them during the war? I'm honestly asking... Am I missing something, has that been addressed?

---

best guess is that if he had them and used them, he'd lose all martyr status and all this current anti-US momentum, because he'd reveal himself as a liar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
the biggest evidence that they didn't lie is they went to war, if they knew there werent any WMD they wouldnt have went to war knowing that their lie would be revealed after the war was over....

---

quote:

---

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."[/b]

---

quote:

---

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have
Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced [b]thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wingnut-EL:
...But, all in all, we became a better nation under his watch...

---

Apart from this sentence, I connected with pretty much everything you said - even if I didn't agree with much of it. This, however, strikes me as pretty near indefensible. Although I'd love to hear your reasoning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
Fair enough. A well-supported argument I don't agree with is better than one that mindlessly parrots everything I say.

Although the idea of armies of posters groveling at my feet is kinda interesting...

(cue harp music and wavy film effect a la Wayne's World)

Rob: "Phil, everyone loves your Cap'n's Log articles!"

Dave: "I disagree with you on pretty much everything, but you make your case so well that I've decided to join your cause!"

whomod: "You never read my sources all the way through and you have definite asshole tendencies, but we'll follow you anywhere!"

PJP: "I was pretty much on your side to begin with."

TK-069: "Phil, I need advice from you on how to make it with the ladies!"

Mxy: "Your story posts on the Hero Revolution threads should be this good!"

ZOD: "Zod admires Phil's leadership potential. Zod thinks Phil should be the leader."

MisterJLA: "You really should mod this forum."

Wingnut: "You may not be a Democrat, but dammit, you're our kind of guy!"

(cut the harp music, back to reality)

If that ever happened in real life I'd blow my brains out. :lol:

---

What do you mean "pretty much" I've always agreed with you my good Captain.

You might need to convince Zod on that leader thing though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
he just doesn't strike me as a liar. again, thats based on absolutely nothing. im typically an excellent judge of character, and even better at picking up lies. which... really... means squat, since the only times i've really seen him talk are on tv, with them pretty lights.

arguments have been made, time and time again, that he's either a retarded monkey boy or a comic book super villain. its my belief that he's neither.

im not awarding him sainthood, but id never pin demonic attributes to him.

there's a lot more respect in this forum for colin powell than there is for dubya... are you under the impression that he's a liar as well? or stupid? he proposed most everything dubya did, in just as public a format. should he be fired?

---

If Powell is in on this, then most definitely.

He's not stupid, but if he misled people over the nature of the evidence, or more likely, exaggerated mere conjecturethen yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wingnut-EL:

Was Saddam a slimy asshole? Sure. Does he deserve a bullet in the base of the skull? Sure. Is Iraq & the world better off without him? Sure. Did he hate America? Sure. Although you have to acknowledge that he and the Baath party were our creation. We brought them to power. How many times we gotta get bit in the ass by supporting people like him before we learn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
Because after all, any self-respecting nutcase dictator - even one who used chemical weapons inside his own borders and terrorized and tortured his own people - couldn't possibly be sneaky enough to move stuff around. Not even if he had months of advance warning that guys in blue hats were coming to turn a few rocks over.

---

quote:

---

Ockham's Razor - a tidy little logical exercise. Says that the simplest explanation is usually the most logical and the most likely. Hmmmm... Let's see... Either (1) the most advanced intelligence service in the world botched hundreds of decisions based on thousands of photos in a scenario frighteningly similar to some of the most feared and trained-for scenarios since the fall of the USSR and saw WMDs where there were none, or (2) crazy dictator guy with the resources of an entire country and allies elsewhere in the Middle East stalls for months before letting weapons inspectors into his country, managing to buy enough time to move or hide or even sell the stuff he shouldn't have, leaving the inspection teams to obviously come back empty-handed.

---

quote:

---

I guess if you've already decided you're against the administration and everything it stands for, that first possibility is way easier to believe. But when we're dealing with a guy who's proven as unscrupulous as Saddam Hussein, the idea that he might have moved the WMDs elsewhere shouldn't be that far-fetched.

Oh, wait. The UN thinks Bush was lying? That surprises me to no end. But it's the UN, and their judgment must be impeccable - or else they wouldn't have placed Libya and North Korea on a human rights commission. :lol:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
i think bsams is saying that the biggest proof that the coalition wasn't lying was that they felt enough justification to go to war.

if the US was lying, surely they'd know the posters on the RKMBs would eventually discover their betraying ways, after the way.

dave, seriously, what is an acceptible timeline to you for finding wmds? your point of view seems to hinge on this question.

if its next month, you'll feel the war is justified. if its 15 years, you'll feel its not.

where's the break off point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor. (etc, etc).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
People keep saying, Iraqi is the size of California. But you'd have documents, aerial photographs, material, laboratories, scientists, all sorts of evidence there, immediately accessible. Once you have control of the city, it should be easy to find. Its not like we're talking a missile or two here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
Because after all, any self-respecting nutcase dictator - even one who used chemical weapons inside his own borders and terrorized and tortured his own people - couldn't possibly be sneaky enough to move stuff around. Not even if he had months of advance warning that guys in blue hats were coming to turn a few rocks over.

---

Sure, and that's my point. Why hide the stuff when you've got 101st Airborne about to use you as a toilet brush?

---

if you're going to go that far, why would saddam stick around at all? maybe he doesn't exist

• Missing chemical weapons which numbered in the thousands (according to the Saddam goverment's own records provided to the U.N. ), prior to the March 2003 invasion by U.S./British coalition forces.
• The utter lack of co-operation with U.N. weapons inspectors for 12 years. There was only token minimum cooperation in the last 2 months or so, right before the U.S. invaded. But never any real cooperation.
• High-ranking Iraq military officers who have defected since 1995-forward, who have revealed that Saddam was definitely illegally pursuing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
  Whether or not Saddam had these weapons at the time of the invasion, destroyed them, or slipped them across the border to Syria, Iran or Al Qaida, there is very good evidence that he was pursuing these weapons. And as I said, this April 2003 invasion is the equivalent of taking out Hitler in 1936, before he became a real threat, and became much harder to take out.
• Saddam's cruelty to his own people, killing roughly 1 million, of the 23 million surviving Iraqi citizens.
• Invasion brought freedom to the Iraqi peoople.
• Despite any continuing casualties (both those of Iraqi and of U.S. military, and there can be no doubt that these are Saddam Fedayeen fighting on, although the liberal anti-American press makes it out to be "Iraqi popular unrest", despite the fact that a poll yesterday shows only 17% of Iraqi citizens polled want the U.S. to leave), it can not be disputed that whatever the human cost, it is FAR LOWER than the alternative, of leaving Saddam in power, or having a war with him LATER, when Saddam Hussein would have been far better armed.
• Mobile chemical weapons labs have been found in Iraq since the invasion, to confirm THE INTENT of Saddam to secretly pursue weapons of mass destruction, and was hiding these mobile labs from U.N. inspectors, EXACTLY as defecting military officers describe. Although the liberal press keeps alive the myth that the evidence is not conclusive. Although the evidence, and lack of Iraqi cooperation, FOR 12 YEARS, was CERTAINLY enough to justify the invasion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
I guess if you've already decided you're against the administration and everything it stands for, that first possibility is way easier to believe. But when we're dealing with a guy who's proven as unscrupulous as Saddam Hussein, the idea that he might have moved the WMDs elsewhere shouldn't be that far-fetched.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wingnut-EL:
The thing you guys overlook is that we don't trust/are against this administration, and everything it stands for, based on it's actions and history. And you might notice we don't attack "conservative values" nearly as much, or with the level of venom you direct towards "liberal values".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wingnut-EL:

And Dave, you keep yammering on about the liberal media. Who are you talking about? Mother Jones & the Nation? That's the liberal media. Most of the institutions you seem to rail against are pretty mainstream, if not conservative in their views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wingnut-EL:

Maybe you are just so far to the right that you view "middle of the road" as liberal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wingnut-EL:

And just a reminder, the subject of the thread is about whether Bush misled the public & congress in a desire for war on Saddam/Iraq (most likely to project an image of strength would be my guess, given this administrations proclivity for macho postering). The subject isn't about if Saddam was a shithead who deserved a spanking. I believe that line of arguement is what's called, a red herring.

---

• Circumstantial evidence of high-ranking defectors from the Saddam military confirmed Saddam was pursuing these things.
• Saddam's lack of co-operation --with the U.N., and 1991 Gulf War terms of surrender-- are abundant.
• If chemical weapons are never found, Saddam's lack of U.N. resolution compliance alone is all the justification that is ever needed to explain the U.S./British invasion.
• Hans Blix and the U.N.'s inspection records note that --from the Saddam government's own records-- that there are many tons of Sarin gas, VX nerve gas, and Anthrax that are unaccounted for.

quote:

---

Straw, Powell had serious doubts over their Iraqi weapons claims

Secret transcript revealed

Dan Plesch and Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday May 31, 2003
The Guardian

Jack Straw and his US counterpart, Colin Powell, privately expressed serious doubts about the
quality of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programme at the very time they were publicly
trumpeting it to get UN support for a war on Iraq, the Guardian has learned.
Their deep concerns about the intelligence - and about claims being made by their political
bosses, Tony Blair and George Bush - emerged at a private meeting between the two men shortly
before a crucial UN security council session on February 5.

The meeting took place at the Waldorf hotel in New York, where they discussed the growing
diplomatic crisis. The exchange about the validity of their respective governments' intelligence
reports on Iraq lasted less than 10 minutes, according to a diplomatic source who has read a
transcript of the conversation.

The foreign secretary reportedly expressed concern that claims being made by Mr Blair and
President Bush could not be proved. The problem, explained Mr Straw, was the lack of
corroborative evidence to back up the claims.

Much of the intelligence were assumptions and assessments not supported by hard facts or other
sources.

Mr Powell shared the concern about intelligence assessments, especially those being presented by
the Pentagon's office of special plans set up by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul
Wolfowitz.

Mr Powell said he had all but "moved in" with US intelligence to prepare his briefings for the
UN security council, according to the transcripts.

But he told Mr Straw he had come away from the meetings "apprehensive" about what he called, at
best, circumstantial evidence highly tilted in favour of assessments drawn from them, rather
than any actual raw intelligence.

Mr Powell told the foreign secretary he hoped the facts, when they came out, would not "explode
in their faces".

What are called the "Waldorf transcripts" are being circulated in Nato diplomatic circles. It is
not being revealed how the transcripts came to be made; however, they appear to have been leaked
by diplomats who supported the war against Iraq even when the evidence about Saddam Hussein's
programme of weapons of mass destruction was fuzzy, and who now believe they were lied to.

People circulating the transcripts call themselves "allied sources supportive of US war aims in
Iraq at the time".

The transcripts will fuel the controversy in Britain and the US over claims that London and
Washington distorted and exaggerated the intelligence assessments about Saddam's nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons programme.

An unnamed intelligence official told the BBC on Thursday that a key claim in the dossier on
Iraq's weapons released by the British government last September - that Iraq could launch a
chemical or biological attack within 45 minutes of an order - was inserted on the instructions
of officials in 10 Downing Street.

Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, admitted the claim was made by "a single source; it
wasn't corroborated".

Speaking yesterday in Warsaw, the Polish capital, Mr Blair said the evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in the dossier was "evidence the truth of which I have absolutely no doubt about at
all".

He said he had consulted the heads of the security and intelligence services before emphatically
denying that Downing Street had leaned on them to strengthen their assessment of the WMD threat
in Iraq. He insisted he had "absolutely no doubt" that proof of banned weapons would eventually
be found in Iraq. Whitehall sources make it clear they do not share the prime minister's
optimism.

The Waldorf transcripts are all the more damaging given Mr Powell's dramatic 75-minute speech to
the UN security council on February 5, when he presented declassified satellite images, and
communications intercepts of what were purported to be conversations between Iraqi commanders,
and held up a vial that, he said, could contain anthrax.

Evidence, he said, had come from "people who have risked their lives to let the world know what
Saddam is really up to".

Some of the intelligence used by Mr Powell was provided by Britain.

The US secretary of state, who was praised by Mr Straw as having made a "most powerful and
authoritative case", also drew links between al-Qaida and Iraq - a connection dismissed by
British intelligence agencies. His speech did not persuade France, Germany and Russia, who stuck
to their previous insistence that the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq should be given more time to
do their job.

The Waldorf meeting took place a few days after Downing Street presented Mr Powell with a
separate dossier on Iraq's banned weapons which he used to try to strengthen the impact of his
UN speech.

A few days later, Downing Street admitted that much of its dossier was lifted from academic
sources and included a plagiarised section written by an American PhD student.

Mr Wolfowitz set up the Pentagon's office of special plans to counter what he and his boss,
Donald Rumsfeld, considered inadequate - and unwelcome - intelligence from the CIA.

He angered critics of the war this week in a Vanity Fair magazine interview in which he cited
"bureaucratic reasons" for the White House focusing on Iraq's alleged arsenal as the reason for
the war. In reality, a "huge" reason for the conflict was to enable the US to withdraw its
troops from Saudi Arabia, he said.

Earlier in the week, Mr Rumsfeld suggested that Saddam might have destroyed such weapons before
the war.

---

quote:

---

U.S. Refuses To Allow U.N. Weapons Inspectors
Back Into Iraq
BAGHDAD, IRAQ—For the third time in as many weeks, U.S. officials denied U.N. weapons inspectors' request to reenter Iraq. "Thanks so much for the offer, but we can handle it from here," Lt. Gen. William Wallace told U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix. "We're getting very close to finding Saddam's massive WMD stockpile, and to have the U.N. get involved at this point would just complicate matters. Sorry." U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has given President Bush a June 28 deadline to let inspectors into Iraq.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultimate Jaburg53:
If he is lying (they may yet still find some) don't we have to?

I mean we were moving toward impeachment over the Clinton Sex romp.

We can't try to impeach a president for lying about some oral sex then ignore a president who allegedly started lied to win support for going to war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Again, defectors from high in Iraq's military have been saying since 1995 that Saddam's government has been pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and violating U.N. peace resolutions it signed to end the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons and mobile labs were definitely pursued, whether the threat was imminent or three years away.

This is all the justification that was needed for invasion, Saddam was clearly a threat. The only question is how quickly that threat would become imminent, and how he managed to get rid of the weapons his own records show he had.

This is all just an attempt to smear Bush and Blair, and based solely on speculation. There is nothing criminal about how Bush and Blair unified resolve to eliminate a known threat.

---