It appears WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) may have been found in Iraq. Soldiers found a missile buried, presumably by Saddam Hussein before the 2003 invasion. The debate about WMD has been put on the back burner with most writing off ever finding any substantial evidence that the former Iraqi dictator had mass weapons in his possession.
My contention is, and always will be, that during the period of time that the left and the U.N. were ringing their hands about the invasion, most of Saddam’s WMD went over the border into Syria. It’s pretty simple really. If you possess an illegal substance and you know that authorities are coming in the next 12 months or so, will you keep them? No, you’ll probably transfer them to your friends house.
Of course this isn’t the first time WMD have been found in Iraq.
Just a little common sense; something that was lacking in the whole Iraq War debate.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Two points:
1. A missile is not a WMD unless it contains chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
2. As for your “not the first time WMDs have been found” link, you should actually read the story:
‘ The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added. ‘
In other words, they would have been more of a danger to anybody who tried to use them than to any potential targets. We had the same problem with chemical munitions we’d stored in Europe (in much better condition, you should know). As weapons, they were useless.
3. UN inspectors found before the war began that Saddam had no WMDs. Therefore, he would have had none to “hide,” even if he’d been inclined to do so.
Since it’s obvious we intended to end his regime and his life, he (just as obviously) would have had no reason to “hide them for another day.”
February 6th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Good story.
Check out http://PushBackNow.com
February 6th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
The fact still remains that we will find more of these weapons over time that proves Saddam Hussein was defying the UN and the world developing WMD systems for use at some point in the future (unless he was stopped).
Whether or not it had any WMD payload present with it when it was discovered is of no consequence……..
February 6th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Bruce:
Of course a missile by itself is not a WMD. But even Saddam himself has admitted to having Biological weapons because: a) He did start destroying some of the material, as requested by the UN, and b) This country sold him some of the original material.
You argument that it would have been more dangerous for them to use it than us being on the receiving end is ridiculous; if I tell you I have a grenade that is has an 80% chance of exploding when I take out the pin before I throw it at you, would you shoot me before I take out the pin?
The only thing UN inspectors found is that Saddam gave them a hard time and didn’t let them do their job, right until the point he kicked them out. Common sense tells you that if someone has nothing to hide, then they do not need to obfuscate or obstruct.
We had to end his regime because we do not live in a vaccuum; what Saddam does affected us, because this country, like many others, depends on an economy which depends on oil. If you read nothing else I wrote than READ THIS: it was a non-nuclear Iraq which attacked Kuwait, and it was non-nuclear thanks to Israel preemptive strike. If Saddam controlled Iraq’s and Kuwait’s oil together, he would have been able to truly harm this country.
And there is also a moral argument here: because what he did in Kuwait and in his own country is Hitler-like, I’m glad he is gone. It just so happens that the moral argument was the icing on the cake to an economic decision to protect this country’s interest in beginning the war.
I understand this article is about WMD’s, and the argument, at least in the media, to invade Saddam’s Iraq was centered on that, but it is only a portion of the reasoning. Oil is the other. The third is that at the time Saddam was giving the finger to the world at the UN (remember after the first Gulf War, Iraq was supposed to disarm) by not disarming, the US was within the war on terror, a post 9/11 world, and had to make an example out of him. The fourth reason for the war let the enemy fight us and focus somewhere else than our homeland, which even Al Qaeda admitted Iraq was their focus. The fifth and final reason was that Al Qaeda was freely operating in Iraq, and Saddam wouldn’t do anything about it.
In 1998, Clinton authorized Operation Desert Fox, which had over 650 sorties, to punish Saddam for kicking out the weapons inspectors. The limited strike did not convince Saddam to allow inspectors back in, and Clinton decided to let it go, but the CIA knew the WMD issue would come back.
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
There is a larger picture here more important than WMD’s, and it is the key to understanding what is going on there. When the US decided to go into Iraq, given that it was already in Afghanistan, knowing that Iran was influencing other areas in the middle east, and was being assisted by Russia and China since before 2000 regarding missile and nuclear development.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:15 am
To Ken:
Your comment, “Whether or not it had any WMD payload present with it when it was discovered is of no consequence……..” betrays a lack of understanding of the pre-Iraq War situation. This missile was allowed under the pre-war limits. It has nothing to do with WMDs unless that’s what the warhead contains.
To yaron:
I have a military background and I know a lot about chemical munitions. There is NO WAY to use one of these if it’s leaking, period. Even DISPOSING of them when they’re NOT leaking is an extremely hazardous task. If you don’t believe me, you should research the protests at Utah’s Tooele Chemical Depot.
Second, in 2003 the inspectors were in Iraq AND DOING THEIR JOB. Saddam didn’t kick them out.They pulled out when it was obvious the US would invade, in order to protect their people.
Finally, Your “moral argument” is baloney. If we should take out every tyrant, why not invade North Korea, the Congo, Sudan, Kyrgyzstan, or any of the other nations with leaders on a par with Saddam.
The war was predicated on lies. PERIOD. If the Bush Admin had been honest with the American people and they still supported the war, that would be one thing, but they weren’t.
1. Saddam had no meaningful links with al Qaeda. As paranoid as he was, he certainly wouldn’t have given them any WMDs that might be traced back to him, even if they had been friendly, which they weren’t–he was secular and AQ is fundamentalist.
2. Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US, as many Bush Admin. people claimed.
3. And Saddam DID NOT have WMDs.
Now if you can disprove any of these three facts, fine, but don’t lead me on some “yeah, well, he needed to be gotten rid of anyway” wild goose chase. That’s intellectually cowardly and dishonest.
February 7th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Bruce:
You are on fantasy land. I have been giving you facts and I will again.
I’m not going to get into a debate with leaking and not leaking munitions, because to me the experts were the weapons inspectors. First they were kicked out in 1998, and President Clinton responded with over 650 sorties. Secondly, there were plenty of UN resolutions which they did not obey by, from the US perspective and in a post 9/11 world, the US had to show someone was not toothless. He was deemed a threat and needed to step down to avert a war. This is not a full argument in itself, only an added reason, and it is a very justifiable reason to have gone into Iraq. After all, Saddam didn’t believe that the US would rescue Kuwait, and then he didn’t believe we would put troops on the ground. He didn’t respect the US, much less the world. Again, the president of a country that experienced 9/11 decided that the time for games was done, and it was important to make an example to anyone else what can happen if you mess with the US. I’m sorry if that isn’t factually convenient for you, but it is obvious to anyone with two eyes. In terms of the inspectors: March 7, 2003: UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix tells the Security Council that Iraq’s cooperation with the inspectors in providing information about past weapons activities has improved, although Baghdad has not yet complied with its disarmament obligations. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors had stated during briefings to the Security Council on January 27 and February 14 that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations. Yet, both deemed the cooperation insufficient. How’s that fact for you?
I never said we should take out every tyrant. We should take out those that threat our national interests, if possible, and even support those tyrants, only if we have to, achieve our national interests. We are not responsible for the world, but generally a safe and stable world benefits us, and it is our government, the US government, and that is fine, so long we act within the bounds of the law. Our military prowess keeps a lot of potential conflicts from breaking out. The policy of dealing with supporting and/or not supporting tyrants is a critical element that allows us to protect our national interest. It has been done over and again and will continue to be done over and again. Maybe it isn’t pretty, but when our security and economical interests can help others live better, that’s the icing on the cake!!! There’s no baloney here: we do what’s good for us, and if it helps others, even better. Don’t extrapolate.
For you to say that Saddam had no meaningful link with al Qaeda shows you have a truth-filter in your ears or you are uneducated. Read this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?page=3
I understand you used the ridiculous word meaningful. I’m sorry the fact that they had a growing relationship is not meaningful enough to you, but in a post 9/11 world, a country cannot be a parking lot for terror. Hence, you have drones in Pakistan doing more than ever, a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a front developing in Yemen. This is not to say that Saddam was involved in 9/11, he wasn’t. But as Condi said herself: “it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist—international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam to—from a peaceful religion into one in which they—they call on it for violence. And they’re all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East.”
Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US. That’s probably the only thing I really agree with you on. But he has a proven record of being a threat to US interests, and with no doubt be so again in the future. And at the time, the long unresolved North Korean nuclear issue remained, and making an example out of them was good. Again, maybe this is inconvenient to your world few, but few can deny that making an example out of one may affect another. Case in point: Lybia: one of the most positive developments of the 2003 Iraq invasion was Libya voluntarily dropped its pants and revealed it was in the process of developing a nuclear program. That’s a wonderful fact, so swallow that real good.
So yes, he was not an imminent threat, but he was a growing and almost inevitable threat in the future. The time was ripe, because public opinion was good, and it was a chance to change the Middle East, as Condi said, to give hope, and to give the US a chance to change a region which the US has a huge interest in from turning against us. How was he going to be a threat? Your world view may be different, but he had a record of being a bully, ready to threaten, blackmail, and attack those in the Middle East region. Israel, Kuwait, Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia were all afraid from Saddam achieving regional power. And the US has an interest in keeping that part of the world balanced, there’s another fact for you. And if you would like, I will happy to quote you many democratic leaders who had full access to intelligence data who deemed him a threat.
He did have WMD’s; that is an easy fact. We sold it to him, he has used it, and so he did have it. He could have buried it, and even you must know how difficult that is to find, unless he transferred them. He would have used those to threaten those around him, and make the Middle East a more extreme area, something that the US had to curb after 9/11.
Intellectually coward and dishonest, me? You are the one with the world view that is cowardly and dishonest to yourself. You world view reminds me of how a horse is trained with minimum vision. Who is the US fighting in Iraq? It is Iran and Syria, and some elements of Jordan. Who is on our side? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Do you really think it is a coincidence that we are in Iraq, West of Iran, and in Afghanistan and Pakistan, East of Iran, with weekly murderous riots going on in Iran? With Turkey having tried to mediate between Israel and Syria, to peel them from supporting Iran? The Middle East is only one variable in a long equation, but it is a major variable.
How’s all these facts for you buddy?
February 7th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
The facts, buddy, are that the war was predicated on lies and deception. You haven’t refuted that.
1. Saddam didn’t have any WMDs, unless you count the USELESS 20-year-old leakers buried in the desert, which were no danger to us, and which Saddam might not even have known about.
2. Saddam’s contact with al Qaeda were minimal and insubstantial. Cheney lied about a meeting in Prague, which shows the depths to which the Bushies went to make their lies palatable to the gullible.
The idea that a paranoid control freak like Saddam would give aid to al Qaeda is laughable, except to those same gullible fools.
3. Saddam was no threat to America.
I REPEAT, The war was predicated on lies. PERIOD.
If the Bush Admin had been honest with the American people and they still supported the war, that would be one thing, but they weren’t.
If you think it’s OK for the national leadership to lie to the public to get us into a war, you’re a danger to democracy.
February 7th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
I refuted your original 3 points, with factual evidence to support my statements.
Like a horse, you keep on looking only at WMD’s, not looking at the bigger picture. I have presented many reasons for the war, which WMD’s were a part of. The other reasons were that he was a growing threat who has a record of a bully, we have a substantial interest in a stable region from which we get out oil, several other Arab countries wanted him gone, for you to say he did not have a substantial relationship with al Qaeda (and it was the same type Pakistan and Yemen had with al Qaeda) is beyond ridiculous, especially since I submitted to you the full evidence via a link. You obviously did not read that material or you would have known exactly what support Saddam gave al Qaeda. What Pakistan and Afghanistan allowed to do was laughable too? And Yemen, also laughable? You don’t have to agree, and you can keep saying the relationship was laughable, but you haven’t given any hard facts to support that.
I think the funniest thing you say is that he wasn’t a threat, yet it was the US who had to save Kuwait to both protect our her, our interest, and to show the rest of our Arab allies that the US stands for a stable Middle East.
So he wasn’t a threat, yet we had to spend billions of dollars and put half a million troops on the ground? And he wasn’t a threat?
I know what you will say: he was no longer a threat, and bush lied. That is the type of thinking that allowed 9/11. Bush Junior wanted to change the Middle East region, I also showed you a quote from Condi which stated that his administration wanted to change and give hope to the region, because 5 or 10 years from now, he could have been a threat, just as Iran and North Korea has become.
Didn’t Lybia have a secret nuclear program? Didn’t Iran also at one point? Wouldn’t Saddam try and match Iran’s drive to nuclear weapons?
I know what you will say next: Saddam couldn’t, we paralyzed him? We were watching him too closely? So let’s not be a horse and look at this next scenario. Say we were so tight on him, he couldn’t compete with Iran’s drive to nuclear weapons, you would have Iran over power him, instead, we now have troops to East and West of Iran, which Obama JUST LIKE BUSH will not pull out, even though as a candidate he said he would pull out the Iraq troops, he isn’t doing that because he agrees with Bush, and when a leftist agrees with Bush, you know he must be right.
You give no credit that at least the Bush administration prevented Lybia from attaining nuclear weapons, and Iran is in turmoil, thanks to Bush, the CIA, and now even Obama has helped keep the plan alive.
But you see none of that, still focused on Bush while Obama continues to execute the same plan.
In summary, there were lots of reasons to go into Iraq, but the media spotlight was on WMD’s. Politics caused that, but the underlying plan was executed because of many reasons, and it a plan that underwent some tactical modifications under President Obama but the strategy is the same as Bush.
Reasons: Had WMD’s (we disagree), Saddam was a threat (fact), Saddam will be a threat (we disagree), Saddam’s neighbors feared his growing power (?), Saddam had an operational relationship with al Qaeda that was growing (we disagree), US planned to squeeze Iran who has been getting missile and nuclear assistance from Russia and China before 2000 (we disagree), the US wants a stable Middle East to protect its oil interest in the region (?), the US wanted to show its Arab allies that we are not toothless (we disagree), the US wanted to give hope to the region and change its trajectory towards us (we disagree), the US invasion of 2003 made Libya give up its secret nuclear program (we disagree).
I save the best for last. You say the Bush administration people weren’t honest. When you say that, you also say that: (1) The CIA lied (2) Other intelligence agencies lied (3) Democrats who had full access to intelligence info lied. For you to say the CIA lied, I could write several pages on that, and I won’t, but suffice it to say, they had the similar intelligence on Saddam during the Clinton years. Please please please understand that the WMD’s was a fraction of the reasoning for going into Iraq, a fraction that HAD TRACTION in the media once floated, and that was one of the things that was presented to the UN. It was a media sensation, but not the full story. That’s why Bush specifically explained to people that Saddam was not responsible for 9/11, and Condi said that the administration wants to change the region. That was complete honesty, but got no traction. I can supply you with the sources for that if you’d like–just ask.
Do you think that Obama is keeping the same strategy as Bush?
February 8th, 2010 at 9:32 am
By the way, regarding the Prague comment, Cheney was relying on sources other than the CIA. If you read his 2 comments carefully, in no way was he saying it was the CIA’s position on the matter.
If anything, it proves that the CIA was an independent organization giving its true estimates, and could not influence the White House or vice versa.
Even Wolf Blitzer of your favorite liberal station said: “I think if you take a look at how the vice president phrased all those contacts, alleged contacts, between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi official in Prague, he was always a little bit more cautious…”
The only reason that Cheney’s comments got any traction was that Bagala of CNN said “Our intelligence had told the White House that wasn’t true” (about the Prague meeting), and that is correct, the White House never influenced the CIA to say that, and Cheney never made false Bagala assertion that our intelligence services agreed with that, and that’s why Wolf Blitzer corrected Bagala, reminding him that Cheney did preface his comments by saying who declared this information, which was the Czechs.
So your Prague assertion has just been totally annihilated, but I’m sure you will either just change subjects or at the very least not try to prove *MY* FACTS wrong.
For all the world to see how wrong you are, here are Cheney’s comments:
“I know this. In Prague, in April of this year, as well as earlier. And that information has been made public. The Czechs made that public. Obviously, that’s an interesting piece of information.”
“Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”
In the end, the report concerning the meeting in Praque was refuted. But in no way did Cheney lie, as he did not say our intelligence units said so, and he was relying on others’ reporting, and even Wolf Blitzer supported Cheney.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
yaron: “In the end, the report concerning the meeting in Praque was refuted. But in no way did Cheney lie, as he did not say our intelligence units said so, and he was relying on others’ reporting, and even Wolf Blitzer supported Cheney.”
I’m afraid not, chum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ
Either you’re uninformed or you’re a liar.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
You complete idiot.
After he answers her, they play ONLY HALF a clip to make it look like he lied. I’ve been talking to an idiot all along that can’t even see that simple thing.
Seriously, get a degree.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
And by the way, let me CLARIFY THE TAPE FOR YOU IGNORAMOUS:
When he talks to the lady, he says “WE have never been able to confirm that.” That is inline with what I said, that the CIA never confirmed that.
When they play the clip afterwards, he says “It has been pretty well confirmed…”
Play it again and again my retard.
The only thing Cheney did wrong in that particular clip is that he misunderstood her when he said he never said that, he did, but what he said was completely correct, and Wold Blitzer does not stand corrected.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
You are such a horse. Here is the entire transcript which I generated myself:
Lady: You have said in the past that it was pretty well confirmed…
No I never said that. Absolutely not. [He wrongly thinks that she said that he confirmed the meeting, so he goes on to explain below].
Cheney: The Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague in April 9th of 2001 and allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence offical. *We* had never been able to confirm that. Nor have *WE* been able to knock it down. [Notice he said We never confirmed or disproved that.]
[Switches to past interview]
Cheney: *It* has been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Praque and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Checklosvakia. [He was careful not to say we, he was speaking of others' reports, and that's why correctly defended him].
Again, the only thing I see he made a simple communication mistake in, was thinking that she accused him of having said that we were responsible for that report. However, he goes on to fully describe correctly that he NEVER said that *WE* said this, only that *IT* has been well confirmed. And that’s why I say to you, they have never been able to influence the CIA even on a small matter like this, much less on WMD’s.
What do you say to that?
February 8th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
You obviously will say anything to deny what’s right there in front of you. Your repeated name-calling and attempting to divert from what I said proves this.
She quoted him word for word and he DENIED IT. He wouldn’t even let her FINISH her question. If you want to try to parse that, go right ahead. It won’t fly with me. He obviously lied the first time and was trying to squirm out of it the second time. Where the report came from, CIA or others, is moot. He said it was “confirmed.” He said NOTHING to allow for doubt. Period.
I showed that the war was predicated on lies: there were no usable WMDs at the time of the war (you keep bringing up 1998–that was five years earlier, in case you didn’t know), no Saddam/AQ links of substance (the 9/11 Commission reported this well after your Weekly Standard article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html), and that Saddam was not a threat to us. Your haven’t disproven any of those facts.
You don’t care about democracy, only about the government doing what YOU want it to do. The fact that you said, “I never said we should take out every tyrant. We should take out those that threat our national interests, if possible, and even support those tyrants, only if we have to, achieve our national interests” proves that.
When you can find a way to be rational, I’ll be glad to talk to you. The fact that you find it necessary to call me retard, ignoramus, and such only proves to me that you have no answers.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
By the way, the link doesn’t work because a parenthesis is included in it.
Here’s the story:
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein’s government and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was “overwhelming.”
But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday’s hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding….
February 8th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
I have responded to all your charges; why don’t you read everything I write for a change, and maybe respond accordingly as I have with you?
Again, you are not looking at the substance of what he said. You are playing gotch’ya games here. Why don’t you look at the substance of what he is talking about? When speaking about the meeting in Prague, he is clearly not citing our intelligence, he said *IT* has been confirmed, and at the time it has been. It is in simple English. He did interrupt her, and that’s probably why he thought she is accusing him of something she didn’t, but that doesn’t change the substance, which is that Cheney was referring to a Czech intelligence report, and he does say that. Therefore, saying that this one exchange shows that the war was based on lies is ludicrous and short-sighted.
There were WMD’s in Iraq before we invaded, only a FRACTION of the reason we went into Iraq, which you have ignored all the other reason we went in there. Nevertheless, before the war the CIA believed there were WMD’s, democrats thought that, and other independent intelligence agencies thought that — did they lie? Once we got there, what we found was a dizzying array of activities which broke UN resolution 1441: a clandestine network of laboratories suitable for producing biological weapons; strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist’s home; documents and equipment hidden in scientists homes for use in enriching uranium (The CIA at War, 331-332). Before the war, no one knew of any of this. But his intent on developing nuclear weapons, obviously a WMD, has never ceased. Finally, by 2007, the completed effort to remove 600 tons of uranium in yellow cake from Iraq was completed, and in 2004, 1.8 tons of low enriched uranium was also removed just before giving autonomy to Iraq ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/africa/07iht-iraq.4.14301928.html ). So we went in there PARTLY because of WMD’s, but mostly because he was a threat, and we found that he did in fact break resolution 1441 — that’s a fact and you cannot disprove that.
Further, you never admitted that he was a threat. In a post 9/11 world, waiting until a threat is imminent is suicide and too late. He was threatening to his neighbors, had a record of a bully. If he wasn’t such, why did we put half a million troops on the ground to push him back to Iraq, and why did Clinton execute over 650 sorties against him, if he wans’t a threat. There are over a dozen democrats who said he was a threat as well as republicans, who had access to raw intelligence data. Therefore, if both Dems and Reps say he was a threat, then he was a threat and you cannot disprove that. The fact that Dems believed he was a threat, and that they believed he had weapons of mass destruction can be found everywhere including here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1051684/posts , and you cannot disprove those quotes, they are facts.
He was also a threat because he had an operational relationship with al Qaeda, and it was growing, and this is simply a fact which I previously linked above and you also cannot deny or disprove it, as that link lays out the FACTS. It is also a known fact that they had al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, and you cannot disprove that. They also harbored hundreds of terrorists, which we captured after invading, and I’ll let you google that easy one. I never said they were in collaboration with one another, I said they had an operational relationship, where al Qaeda was allowed to operate freely in his territory, this is a COMMON fact that you can look up, and as I said, I provided that link in the previous posts above. There’s in no way for you to disprove that al Qaeda was operating there, it is now a known common fact.
“I never said we should take out every tyrant. We should take out those that threat our national interests, if possible, and even support those tyrants, only if we have to, achieve our national interests.” That’s right, in case you missed kindergarten 101, tyrants that threaten us should be removed. Our government is responsible to us, is sworn to protect us and the interests that affect us. It isn’t responsible for the world, it is accountable to us. Even though you may want it to, my quote has nothing to do with democracy, so your comment is useless.
You still have not responded to my comment that WMD’s was just a fraction of the reason for going into Iraq. I guess you don’t agree with the fact that Saddam was a threat and Democrats said he would continue to be a threat. You also didn’t respond to any of these reasons for war, which I have mentioned earlier:
Oil was major reason we went in there. Another was to protect our Arab allies. Another was to change the face of the Middle East by planting a democracy in a region of tyranny, which would spread and create a safer region and world. Another reason was to make an example out of Iraq so that other countries will not follow in its footsteps. Another reason is that this country has a right to protect its interest, even if the world doesn’t think so because the government is a US government, not a world government. Another reason is to squeeze Iran from its East, as it was building missiles and nuclear technologies with the help of China and Russia since before 2000 (as it is now, in 2010, very evident). You haven’t responded to ANY of these claims I made, all of which were a part of going into Iraq. You focus like a horse on WMD’s. Bush said he wants to spread freedom to protect this country, is it that evil?
If you are waiting for a smoking gun, it will be too late by then. You also didn’t respond to my claim of the dangers of proliferation. One of the most dangerous things that can happen, and Bush and others talked about this, is if we or one of our allies gets attacked without us knowing who did it, and those are the dangers that come in a post 9/11 world.
You also didn’t respond to the fact that Obama is continuing and expanding Bush’s war. If Bush is so wrong and the premise so wrong, why do that? Although President Obama originally stated that he would have troops taken out by the end of 2009, he didn’t. He in fact, has not only broken his promise to closing Guantanamo Bay within one year of his own signed executive order, but he has increased drone missile targeting in Pakistan, and air strikes and cruise missile strikes in Yemen.
In the end, Iran will be dealt with. Iraq’s democracy will grow. Other nearby countries will be affected positively, we will be safer, and world will be safer, and Bush will get most of the credit, even Obama will get some, and in the end, your position and beliefs will be proven wrong. None of those things are guaranteed, and a lot depends on Obama, Secretary Clinton, and our intelligence communities, but is likely.
I’d like to leave you with 3 Bush quotes, and although Bushisms may be funny, these aren’t these type of quotes:
1) “For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations.”
2) “We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace. We know that oppressive governments support terror, while free governments fight the terrorists in their midst. We know that free peoples embrace progress and life, instead of becoming the recruits for murderous ideologies.”
3) “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.” “I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Make sure to read my Feb 8, 7:32pm remark. But just to separately address your link for other readers, I’d like to note to you that you article also states, and you can correct me if I’m wrong:
“But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation.”
It is also a known fact that they had al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, and you cannot disprove that. They also harbored hundreds of terrorists, which we captured after invading, and I’ll let you google that easy one. I never said they were in collaboration with one another, I said they had an operational relationship, where al Qaeda was allowed to operate freely in his territory, this is a COMMON fact that you can look up, and as I said, I provided that link in the previous posts above. There’s in no way for you to disprove that al Qaeda was operating there, it is now a known common fact, you can find it here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
The article also stated:
A Bush campaign spokesman countered that Kerry himself has said Hussein “supported and harbored terrorist groups.” And Cheney’s spokesman pointed to a 2002 letter written by CIA Director George J. Tenet stating that “we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade” and “credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.” Cheney’s office also pointed to a 2003 Tenet statement calling Zarqawi “a senior al Qaeda terrorist associate.”
Whatever our differences are, whatever names I used to describe you, put it all aside, because I want you to believe me when I say that everyone pretty much agrees, especially in Washington, that Mr. Tenet is a stand up guy, one of the best things that happened to this country, truly devoted, and this is coming from all sides of all isles.
In any case, I have given proof that they had an operational relationship, and it is a known fact. You have provided proof that they didn’t have collaboration, which I agree with, and I never said they did.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
You’re obviously more interested in winning the argument than getting at the truth.
Cheney said what he said because he wanted a rationale for the war. Over and over the reasons given for the war was a) Saddam was a threat, which he was not; b) he possessed WMDs, which he did not (except for those useless ones found buried in the desert); and c) he was working with al Qaeda, which was also a lie (the al Qaeda training camp accusation is also a lie–the only substantiative AQ presence in Iraq was AFTER we invaded).
These are proven facts, and have ALL been verified by the 9/11 Commission. The Bush Administration cherry-picked the information that supported their position and downplayed anything that contradicted it. That’s obvious to anybody who looks at the facts impartially.
The only thing your statements prove is that you’re hiding from reality.
You say that there were other reasons we went to war. I never doubted that. What I said, if you would only pay attention, is that the reasons that were continually advanced were the three lies given above.
They lied to the American people about the reasons over and over and over again to get their war. The administration said dozens of times that Saddam was an imminent threat, that he had WMD, and that he was working with AQ. That is not how a democracy is supposed to work, and if you support those methods, you obviously don’t like democracy very much.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
You know, I wrote a giant response and I decided to erase it and write something more general to try and get to the root of our differences.
Intelligence isn’t perfect, and there isn’t always hard evidence to everything, and even when two officers look at the same thing, they may come to a different opinion. The fact is, the best reasons for going to war are not always easily understood and therefore do not gain easy traction in the media. The administration may have not chosen the best reasons for the war to play in the media, and to present to the American people, but the aim of everyone involved was to protect this country from a proven threat and an inevitable threat that was Iraq.
In a democracy, people are held accountable for their actions, but it does not mean they have to show all their cards in public. Democracy does not equal complete and immediate transparency, hence, we have organizations like the CIA, and oversight committees, and commissions such as the 9/11 commissions. Sometimes, even if an argument for war can be easily understood, you may not be able to reveal it because you may endanger lives or future operations. A government needs some level of secrecy at least for a time, or delayed truth, if you will. Yet, accountability and oversight remain in place.
Eventually, the truth does resurface. The 9/11 commission decided that there wasn’t a collaborative relationship, nor a collaborative operational relationship, and no hard evidence. But there was an operational relationship. A branch of al Qaeda was in northern Iraq. Yes, it wasn’t Bin Laden’s posse, and weakly linked, if you will, and there were far better reasons to go to war, but that was one the reason that those involved decided to pass on to the media, perhaps a poor choice in retrospect, perhaps not–depends on you view current events.
I say perhaps not, because as I said, eventually the truth does resurface. About seven years later, and you see the great strategic advantage of being there, and that’s where the truth is, in how things turn out. There is a strategy in place, and no matter who is the president, the reality of the evil of the world forces each president to continue on.
I understand you feel misled. Personally, I feel that if we didn’t live in a 5 second sound byte type of society, a president will be able to give us the better, and naturally more complex reasons of why we went to war. The president did not lie to you when he cherry-picked his reasons for going to war; neither did the top democrats lie when they agreed with his cherry-picking when they knew exactly what was going on. If you are intellectually honest, you can’t deny the president was not alone. For example, just as Nancy Pelosi knew about the water boarding, she also knew the real reason we went into Iraq.
And Bush has told us the main reason for war over and again–it’s no secret. The spread of freedom–aimed at tyrannical regimes whose way of life threatens us because two oceans no longer protect us–is the best way to secure America’s future. And he acted based on that. And a democratic congress funded his efforts. And a democratic president is continuing and expanding Bush’s effort.
But the truth does come out. You see it in everyday events, or you can zoom out and see it trends across decades. The fact is, America depends on the Middle East, we have multiple interests there, and that’s why we are in Iraq. For example, Iran and America are on a crash course. Although Obama reached out to Iran, he only did so to gain the American and world support for when he MAY need to conduct military action to defend our interests. The instability in Iraq is Iran-Syria generated. No different than the instability in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, and Yemen. If there fighters isn’t there, their money is. We are also on a course against Russia and China, although it may not be a crash.
My point is this: we are a democracy, there is accountability and oversight. Cherry-picking is not lying, it has been done by both sides and will continue to be as long as we are a sound byte society. The threat to our Middle Eastern interests and allies was real (even without WMD’s), and the strategic advantage of taking that tyrant out was almost priceless. Now, the strategic position we have against Iran can be seen now, and the truth is coming out every day in the events that occur everyday, and the trends that continue. Just like Bush, Obama will not only stay the course, he will expand it.
Here is a quote from Obama during his Noble Prize acceptance speech:
“The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.”
If there is threat that threatens us, as long as WMD scares the public and fits in a sound byte, even Obama will cherry-pick it and go to war, because even as a Republican myself, I know enough about reality to know that even a chicken president, liberal/socialist democrat like Obama will do whatever it takes to protect us, even strike preemptively and say WMD was the reason — watch as it happens.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:27 am
If you don’t want to feel like I am being combative, than perhaps an article which discusses why people disagree on the al Qaeda link will help.
If you don’t read the whole thing, just read the paragraph beginning with “Pillar said he believed…” in http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/revisiting-the-saddam-husseinal-qaeda-relationship/2/.
That is a two-page article that discusses why people debate the issue of al Qaeda. If you want to read the first page from the link above, just switch the 2 in the url with a 1.
March 26th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Bruce, our government feeds us lies all the time. Our corporate news gives it to us on the tip of a spoon. Every country has it’s propaganda, however any country looking from the outside in is not gonna believe us in the future; one of the consequences of aggression. The fact that there are morons around eating up every lie that’s spewed from a politician’s mouth then bowing down blindly to be raped via taxes to support a war effort or an overfed corporation, just encourages them to do it again.
April 3rd, 2010 at 12:44 pm
“The fact that there are morons around eating up every lie that’s spewed from a politician’s mouth then bowing down blindly to be raped via taxes to support a war effort or an overfed corporation, just encourages them to do it again.”
You forgot that we are also raped via taxes to support unsustainable social programs and entitlements….there have been a lot of “lies” spewed about that lately, too.
“If you like your doctor, you’ll get to keep your doctor.”
Yeah, right, IF he or she stays in the medical profession, and why should they? Work harder and longer for less income? Isn’t that what ALL the “smart” people do? Ambitious doctors would be better off switching into law, at this point. No one coming after them, in that profession. No such thing as an “overfed” law corporation, making “ungodly profits” off the poor innocent, workers. Not at long as we have a cadre of elite lawyer-rulers in Washington, making the rules for everybody’s profession but their own.
April 17th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Great discussion on both sides……shows how hard it can be to interpret history. That being said, “observer” hits the nail on the head, if you are debating the truth of politicians statements you are trying to carry water in your hands. I think Yuron has great points regarding real reasons to go to war. Bottom line is Saddam did not cooperate……he should have. Hind site is 20/20. Now we have Iran. What do we do about this one? Do we invade, or do we let them get nuclear weapons?