Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD
Sancselfieme
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
story


quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Drafts of a report from the top U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but say there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to people familiar with the findings.


Will the WMD believers finally give it up?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This does not change that we had every reason to believe he had them prior to the war.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It also seems to show that the minute sanctions or the embargo was sufficiently undermined, Saddam was ready to go again, and we would end up going to the UN again with more resolutions and so on and so on and so on.....

And if Kerry were president, that would be all we would do. Maybe, you can't be too sure, he might change his mind and do nothing (ie do the UN one better).

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sancselfieme
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This does not change that we had every reason to believe he had them prior to the war.
No, the CIA, FBI and other sources presented significant doubt before the war that they had them.


http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lets see, Americanprogress.org. Isn't that run by John Podesta Clintons chief of staff and Haliprin who was national director of the ACLU?

Where do you get these guys????

On that site they also claim that Bush believed Saddam and al Qaeda were linked. That the CIA influence declined along with the DIA?? Bush claimed he relied on both for intel into Afghanistan AND Iraq. Read Woodwards "Bush at War" even Woodward states as much. Tell me, did Bush ever say there was a connection between al Qaida and Saddam? I certainly don't think so. Doesn't that impeach the site somewhat???

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sancselfieme
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tell me, did Bush ever say there was a connection between al Qaida and Saddam?
Several times. Both he and Cheney have given myriad public speeches to this effect.

Also, the CIA and FBI both warned Bush that the intel. might not be accurate, it was Bush's decision to go ahead, lie, and tell the public that it was absolutely correct. It was the Bush admin. that cooked up the completely bogus Prague story, and it was the Bush admin. through Powell that showed meaningless pictures to the UN claiming they were "mobile weapons Labs."


As to the site, find one fact in that timeline that is inaccurate. You regularly post things from newsmax and expect us to take them seriously. I guess hypocrisy is easy for you.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Forgive me, your right, I meant 9-11.

Was there a connection?

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a Jordanian ran terrorist training camps in Iraq, he is also associated with al Qaeda.

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hypocrisy, I give fair warning that the newsite I used was anti Kerry or anti something else. I saw no such caveat on your post. You were either completely ignorant of the source you used, or chose to be deceptive in the manner in which you chose that site. Either way I suggest you change tactics.

[ September 17, 2004, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sancselfieme
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for demonstrating yet again why I usually do not respond to you. Since none of the info. I was referring to on the sites were disputed facts, no caveat was needed.

[ September 17, 2004, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: Sancselfieme ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anonymous24
Member
Member # 1468

 - posted      Profile for Anonymous24   Email Anonymous24   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The main reason for the war that Bush gave was that Saddam was on the brink of developing weapons of mass destruction or had actually developed them. So, yes, the fact that the U.S. weapons inspectors say that Saddam was no where near developing such weapons is a big deal.

[ September 17, 2004, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Anonymous24 ]

Posts: 1226 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sancselfieme
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anonymous, you shouldn't be so forgiving. Bush said in his SotU speech that Saddam ABSOLUTELY HAD hundreds of thousands of gallons of various chemical and biological weapons, none of which actually existed.

[ September 17, 2004, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: Sancselfieme ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, Saddam had said that he had had them earlier that decade and had shown no proof of them having been disposed of so what do you want people to think?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sancselfieme
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That isn't and wasn't required. Nor is lack of evidence of dismantlement justfication for war.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do we keep going over the same ground? Why do the antis continue to spout incorrect facts? Hussein was _required_ by the terms of the ceasefire to provide this evidence. He failed, and the war _resumed_.

It's like being a convicted felon on probation. You violate your probation and you go back to jail.

Posts: 594 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL, I love the way Sancselfieme says that because the facts (according to him) are undisputed he doesn't have to explain his source.

I have known people who have taken that same stance with the Bible and Mein Kampf (both have some indisputable facts in them). They're not very credible either.

[ September 17, 2004, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why do we keep going over the same ground? Why do the antis continue to spout incorrect facts? Hussein was _required_ by the terms of the ceasefire to provide this evidence. He failed, and the war _resumed_."

For that to be correct, since the invasion of Iraq was a UN war, under the terms of the UN, the UN had to authorize force, which they did not do. Resolution 1441 was written to be deliberately ambiguous enough to so that the US could claim that the UN had authorized force (murky politics), while the UN could deny that it had done so.

Given that the UN DID deny that it had granted the authorization of force, and given that the war in Iraq was a United Nations launched war, and given the UN charter, the war did not resume because the UN didn't authorize the useage of force in furtherance of that war.

Its a convienent fiction that the war "Resumed." This was a new war, launched by the United States, rather then the united nation. When a war is between different parties, its not the same war.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The logic is questionable and certainly not direct. The UN deliberately wrote a vague resolution ambiguous enough so that the US could claim that hte UN had authorized force and allow the UN to deny that it had done so. I agree. As the war was about to start, did the UN come forth with some kind of statement that denied US interpetation of 1441 or did it happen after the fact? And if it was, was it individual countries (using the vagueness for cover) or a more concrete decrees from the UN, I mean they knew it was coming for weeks.

[ September 17, 2004, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev, that doesn't wash with me. The UN is not a nation. The UN is a bargaining table. It does not go to war. The individual nations that compose it go to war.

The US is a sovreign nation. By _definition_, a sovreign nation recognizes no authority higher than itself.

The US enters into war and it leaves war based on its _own_ authority. It cooperates or fails to do so _solely_ on the basis of its own interests and morality, as does every other sovreign nation on Earth.

If you maintain that the UN has any authority over when and how the US goes to war, or how it rules on the terms of a ceasefire, then you are denying the sovreignty of the United States.

Posts: 594 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sancselfieme:

Will the WMD believers finally give it up?

Not me.

Last year they found the mustard gas the Japanese denied using in China during WWII.

We might finally find the stuff in Iraq 50 years from now.

The October 2003 inspector's report said they found evidence WMD had been shipped out of Iraq. We might find Iraq's WMD when whoever has them now uses them.

But I won't believe they didn't exist. I've read the UNSCOM inspectors final report from 1998. The UN, all the world's intelligence agencies, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and the list goes on all believed Iraq had WMD. Saddam admitted he still had WMD.

I find it much easier to believe Saddam with 12 years of preparation time found a really good hiding place or shipped the WMD out of Iraq rather than believing everybody who ventured an opinion on Iraq's WMD in the 90's was wrong.


==============

I'd also like to object to the title of the thread. "Iraq had no WMD" is not only inaccurate but its also not what the inspector supposedly will say.

"there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction"

stockpile: a storage pile: as a : a reserve supply of something essential accumulated within a country for use during a shortage b : a gradually accumulated reserve of something

There wasn't a "big storage pile" of WMD. But they did find VX nerve gas and 12-15 gallons of sarin which would make for a large terrorist attack if used properly.

They also found a live sample of botulinum toxin which is considered the most lethal bioweapon existant.

Its not a "big pile" but its quite different than "no WMD" and in line with the comment from the article "there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time".

=================

About this exchange

kelcimer: "Well, Saddam had said that he had had them earlier that decade and had shown no proof of them having been disposed of so what do you want people to think?"


Sancselfieme: "That isn't and wasn't required. Nor is lack of evidence of dismantlement justfication for war."


Actually, that was required. Saddam agreed to bring the WMD he admitted to having in front of the UN inspectors and dispose of them while they witnessed it. That was one of the conditions of the UN cease fire that ended the hostilities of the Gulf War.

The Gulf War never officially ended. All that happened was both sides signed a cease-fire. Saddam didn't live up to several of the terms he agreed to in the cease fire including the one to bring all of his stuff to the UN and dispose of it while they witnessed it.

So technically "lack of evidence of dismantlement" is grounds for resuming the war since it broke the terms of the cease fire.

I could dig up the UN document again if you're interested in reading it.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sancselfieme
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ATW, nice try, but you cannot deny that Bush said Saddam absolutely had hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical and biological agents. Bush claimed there were huge stockpiles of them and it was absolutely not the case. Bush, though warned by the CIA the intel. was very shaky and probably not true, told the American people it was absolutely true.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, it was actually the UN that counted it and catalogued it and originally stated it and Bush referred to it for justification. And the intel was not seen as shaky as you assume. Everyone believed that those WMD were there, and no one believed he would not use them.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sancselfieme
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Everyone believed that those WMD were there

So wrong. The CIA had doubts, the FBI didn't think they were still there and the original reports Bush cited were 10+ years old. Most of the items listed didn't have a shelf life even half that long.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sancselfieme:
ATW, nice try, but you cannot deny that Bush said Saddam absolutely had hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical and biological agents.

Didn't you read my post? I said I still think Saddam has, or gave away, hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical and biological agents. And I in no way tried to deny that "Bush said Saddam absolutely had hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical and biological agents".

What I did was complain about you saying there were no WMD in Iraq even though there were some WMD found.

I personally have no WMD's. Saddam had some WMD's. There's a difference between "no" and "some".

Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry that I'm taking so long to get back to this thread... hopefully will put in my post concerning sovereignty and war tomorrow morning.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The report said "there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction" found. In the same report it says: "Duelfer's report doesn't reach firm conclusions in all areas. For instance, U.S. officials are still investigating whether Saddam's fallen regime may have sent chemical weapons equipment and several billion dollars over the border to Syria."

Remember in August when it was released that Saddam had given the responsibility of "rehabilitating" any WMD to his son? During that period when Bush had applied to the UN for an additional six months before starting the war, we now know that all the normal border guards between Syria and Iraq were removed from certain truck crossing points and replaced with Iraqi Security officers under the directions of that son while caravans of unidentified trucks disappeared into Syria.

Based on that, and that we had intercepted Electronic surveilance from Iraqi military officers confirming that all illegal materiels had been removed successfully does anyone expect for us to find large stockpiles of WMD in Iraq?

Anyone who claims the WMD story is a done deal is a fool. Anyone who claims that the US is evil for going after WMD are "useful idiots."

Since the biased news media has portrayed this as a done deal, does anyone wonder why so many people are confused about the war?

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And why does it not matter to some people that the final report of the weapons inspectors included the conclusion that Saddam Hussein did clearly intend to restart his WMD programs as soon as international close scrutiny went away--he had small labs with the right equipment, and key scientists and technicians with the necessary skills and experience from previously making WMDs that he was maintaining in readiness.

The concept of a pre-emptive strike to prevent WMDs from being being produced is a valid part of the war on terror, and does make WMDs a legitimate part of the reason for attacking Iraq, even if no current WMDs were found. Perhaps this concept is too nuanced for some people, who are addicted to calling the president a liar and saying he did not have valid reason to lead us into war with Iraq, because that has become a part of their political creed, and it would be a denial of their faith to admit the president was fully justified in the decision that he made.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
baubin2
Member
Member # 2032

 - posted      Profile for baubin2   Email baubin2   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just want to say that I saw some evidence posted in one of the general comments forums that some of the chemical/biological weapons could have been moved to Syria. I'm not saying whether it's true or not, but the evidence for the possibility being open looked pretty solid and so I just wanted to raise the possibility. When I find the link to the evidence I saw, I'll post it too.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1