Flamebait Poll: Bush and WMDs

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

Personally, as I've said before, I don't think he outright lied, at least not about the existence of WMDs. He wanted them to be there, and no lack of evidence was going to deter him.

To reveal my own bias, I supported the war.

[Warpy]

1. Oh, come on. Scott Ritter and Hans Blix had already told him

there was nothing left, no infrastructure, no ordinance, no nothing.

Bush LIED.

There is no other explanation.

[wishlist]

3. CIA knew that exiled Iraqis claiming nuclear potential were unreliable too

Bush and Cheney purposely stretched and exaggerated all the evidence and intelligence to prop up their deception, knowing there was no imminent threat.

[Goldmund]

2. THEY lied. Whether HE lied depends on how much they tell the dummy.

[bunkerbuster1]

6. yep, that's why it's called plausible deniability.

I'm with the OP. Plenty of behavior in the war's run-up that was appalling on Bush's part, but I too tend to stop short of saying he "lied" about WMD, merely because his people made sure to weasle word their warnings about the "imminent danger" so's not to have too much riding on it.

And like the OP, I supported the war. Yeah, I actually thought they'd get the bastard, set up the right people to run the country, and have most of our people out of there fairy quickly.

I told people at the time, "these are the LAST people I want running this show, but we might as well go do this, considering the alternative. If we can do this quickly and with a minimum of casualties, better to just get it the hell over with."

Yeah, I'm a dumbass.

[Crunchy Frog]

8. Well, at least you're able to learn and are open to looking at

evidence that challenges your preconcieved notions, so you're probably better off than most people.

I wouldn't consider you a dumbass. Somebody who still thinks the war was a good idea on the other hand...

[Zhade]

23. We've got at least one DUer who still supports the war.

That's pretty sad.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

18. I guess I'm one too, then.

My support for the war, and my continued support for it even now is a result of my looking past Bush. Bush made some big mistakes in the management of this war, but you have to look past that and see the positives. You see, this war is bigger than Bush. It always was.

[Zhade]

24. You still support the war?

How the fuck do you sleep at night?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

29. The same as always, I guess.

Answer me this question. Were all those Iraqis voting a couple months ago tools of Bush? Man how do THEY sleep at night?

Am I a Bush supporter? No, not really. Do I recognize that a lot of shit went bad during this war, especially the WMD mess and Abu Ghraib? Yes. But I see the progress made, and yeah, I still support the war effort.

[Zhade]

34. They sleep at night, waiting to kick us out.

And they're right to want that.

Were they tools? Only of desperation and hopelessness. I guess when an invading army is illegally occupying your land, you take what you can get. Your suggestion that the election was some leap forward for democracy is pretty funny, though.

I'd better stop, otherwise I'll really be sorry I replied to your post. Needless to say, I find your stance reprehensible.

[Wilms]

37. Here's a presentation about some recent progress made.

http://bushflash.com/y2.html

[Zhade]

39. Wilms, here's an animation that represents your efforts perfectly:

:banghead:

How ANYONE not of the freeper-mindset can still support this war is beyond me. I mean, I know the media is really bad, but how can someone hang out at DU every day and still quite wrongly believe the war is going well, that we're winning, that good is coming from all this? We see stories daily that prove this to be untrue - why do some cling to the childish fantasy that this was "worth it"?

I'm sorry, I'm getting extremely pissed off, so I'd better shut up.

[Wilms]

50. I think it's something like "bearing witness".

It's not perhaps so much to convince anyone of anything.

But it reminds ME of the war's costs. It takes me out of MY pea-brained world to spend a moment in consideration of the war's victim.

It's a prayer. Not for the living, but for the dead.

[Zhade]

56. Well-said.

NT!

[wtmusic]

57. OMG what progress?

There has been no progress made, my friend. Open your eyes. "Democracy" in Iraq is a myth. Saddam Hussein is in custody at the expense of 100,000 of his countrymen's lives. If you believe Iraqis sleep better now than when they did under Hussein you are either in denial or not keeping abreast of current events.

"A lot of shit went bad during the war." A sorry excuse for the fact that the war was unwinnable from the beginning, and it's starting to all come back to us. :eyes:

[BornLeft]

66. Please tell me

you are age eligible to serve? Please. Maybe your sons or daughters? Please Your wife? Please make Jihad and go fight. die Kriegmaschine benötigt Sie und Sie Führer benötigen Sie.

Please pack now and go.

[Zhade]

69. Indeed. All who support this war should volunteer.

Otherwise, they're hypocritical chickenhawk cowards. Sorry if that seems harsh; it's just the truth.

[wishlist]

11. Bush was not concerned with safeguarding the explosives that we found

If he and his Administration really considered Iraq a terrorist haven and threat to us at the time of invasion, they would have put a higher priority on making sure those stockpiles of explosives (that Saddam had locked up and U.N had tagged and was monitoring) were kept under lock and key and guarded or promptly blown up, not just left sitting around to be looted. The fact that they only directed the military to safeguard the Oil Ministry and oil fields after the invasion is a pretty good indication they never really considered Iraqis to be a terrorist threat to anyone and never expected anti-American violence even though Saddam and many thousands of his army and supporters were free and unaccounted for after the invasion.

[Goldmund]

16. Again, you're assuming...

...that Bush actually gets to make decisions. I'm not so sure. I think decisions are made by the Neocon Witch Council, which uses Shrubster as their front.

[Goldmund]

4. Do you still support the war?

Why or why not?

[Zhade]

26. Post #18 would indicate that's a "yes". Post #19 expresses my disgust.

It will likely be deleted, but I stand by my question.

[Djinn]

59. I'm with you Zhade

this "war" was a crock of shit to begin with and most thinking people knew that, but at this point ANYONE who still beleives it had ANYTHING to do with freedom has their head firmly planted up their arse.

Just the fact that one of the US's strongest allies is Saudi should tip off everyone that western powers couldn't give a flying fuck about "freedom".

If it was all for the Iraqis then why did we sell off their assets before a REAL representative government could be formed?

Why Fallujah?

There is no reason a thinking person can support this war unless you personally stand to benefit financially from it or you beleive it's right for the US to do so.

[Zhade]

70. "Why Fallujah?"

Oh, you know why - it was 'militarily necessary' to 'root out' the 'terror network' that 'enveloped Fallujah'...or some such bullshit.

Yeah, I don't know why some still support this massive war crime. I guess I can understand not being informed enough beforehand (though if I knew the WMD stuff was a series of lies, others could have known too), but supporting it STILL? It doesn't make any sense.

We have DUers posting good, solid, credible information every single day about how terrible things are in Iraq and about how the government and media are lying to us about the 'progress' and 'successes' in Iraq (I'm sure those daily car bombs, even hitting the Green Zone, are fireworks celebrating the glorious new Iraqi government and its freedom-giving ways) - yet people still support this insanity.

Is it willful ignorance? Secret support for American imperialism? An unwillingness to believe our government can do such horrible things? WHAT IS IT?

[Crunchy Frog]

5. He lies every time he opens his mouth.

Of course he lied about WMD. Now, it's quite possible that he thought there might be something there, but the stuff that he was using to justify the invasion was pure fabrication and he knew it because he was willing to say or do absolutely anything to get into Iraq.

He knowingly lied about Niger yellow cake, about an active "nukular" weapons program, about aluminum tubes being for use as centrifuges. And he made outrageous claims about tons and tons of anthrax and ricin and other chemical and biological weapons. That's just what I can remember off the top of my head and I wasn't even paying very close attention at the time.

Not that I consider it a bias, but based on the evidence I saw presented, I never saw any justification for invading Iraq and so did not favor the war.

[Misunderestimator]

7. He encouraged the lie, he promoted the lie and he delivered the lie...

he LIED

[ngGale]

55. "Ditto" and thank you, now I don't have to write it...

n/t

[K-W]

9. You are completely and utterly missing the point.

He could have both believed Saddam had wmd's AND lied to the American people about them.

He wanted them to be there. There was no evidence, so he lied about the evidence. He probably did assume he would find them, so it was no biggie, but thats still a lie.

He lied, plain and simple. Regardless of whether he believed Saddam had weapons, he made claims that the white house knew to be false. Either he is lying about being president, or he was lying about the weapons. Either way, he needs to be impeached.

That you supported the war reveals no bias, btw.

[LynnTheDem]

10. Just how do you define "LIE"?

CIA to Bush: 'No clear Evidence of WMD'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/120103A.shtml

Why the CIA thinks Bush is wrong

The president says the US has to act now against Iraq. The trouble is, his own security services don't agree.
http://www.sundayherald.com/28384

CIA in blow to Bush attack plans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808970,00.html

White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'
Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,807286,00.html

CIA's October 2002 NIE:

-Unmanned aircraft
" ... The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, US Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability."

bush LIE:

-"We have 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 are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

CIA's October 2002 NIE:

-WMD
"We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs."

bush LIE:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly"

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction."

"We know where they are."

CIA's October 2002 NIE:

-Nuclear program
"The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons."

bush LIE:

"Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

The American majority agree; bush knowingly and deliberately LIED.

[Wizard777]

12. Was Bush Extremely Gullible or Grossly Negligent?

We can't use boots on the ground UN Intelligence. But we can use Intelligence from someone who by all accounts is a "drunken pathological liar" in Germany. Who cares! Either way he's screwed.

[Wilms]

13. Here's my favorite...

"He didn't lie per se, but he didn't concern himself with being accurate. He believed they were there."

So, making an assertion (a very serious one in this case) that you want others to believe to be true--but don't KNOW to be true yourself, and don't wish to find out for sure-- is not a "...lie per se...".

I'm sure, looking at the state of our culture, that a lot of folks would agree with that.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

22. What I meant was, he didn't just make it up out of the blue.

He had a hunch based on what they gave him, and he didn't bother to be sure. He wasn't concerned with being sure. For instance, say you're buying a house. Someone tells you that the house is going to cost $80,000, and you take out your last $80,000 that you're really allowed to spend to buy this house. You find out later that the house costs $200,000, and now you to borrow an additional $120,000 to buy this house, and it still needs repairs. You thought you had enough, but you didn't bother to check. However, it's still your fault that you blew the extra dough, and you must own up to it. You didn't lie, but you made a costly mistake. However, at the end of the day, your family still has the house.

He did flip-flop (lie)on the importance of WMDs. In his speeches defending his case for the war, he basically made it about WMDs. After he got caught with egg on his face, he backpedaled to cover his ass. So in that regard, he lied.

[Wilms]

32. Sorry, LWM. Feels like you're really stretching to make the case.

As was *. As was most who supported the unsupported call to war.

You wrote below, to another poster, that the two of you will never agree.

As long as he makes logical, rational arguments, and you hold on to yours, you never will.

Are you looking for someone to say, "hey, it wasn't your fault"? Ya feel bad about what happened to innocent people as a partial result of the support you offered? Good. Let the healing begin.

[immoderate]

44. I'll give you this much....

I don't think the lies originated in his head. I also think there are issues about what is reality to GWB.

--IMM

[nonconformist]

51. That is a really pathetic analogy nt

[Skip Intro]

14. Why did you support the war?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

19. I really don't want to get into this again, but here I go.

I felt Saddam was a threat. He needed to go. The Iraqi people needed to be free. Initially, it was the WMDs that made up the security case, but the humanitarian case ( as with Kosovo), made it hard to be against it. We see now the success of the elections, and the seeds of democratic opportunity being sown. It's too early to gloat (Hell, we should never gloat), but it looks like we have a bright side, despite the lack of WMDs. Saddam is gone, the Iraqis have a government, Syria has pulled out of Lebanon, etc.

Did it have go down this way, meaning with all the incompetence, evasion, laspes in command, and political bullshit? No. But we're here. Let's look on the bright side.

[Skip Intro]

21. well - you answered the question, I'll say that

I disagreed really strongly with pretty much everything you wrote, but you were honest.

If it weren't for all the murdered thousands and thousands, and the insanity of "pre-emptive" invasion, I'd be compelled to leave it at that.

But tens and tens of thousands are dead and shattered - and there were soooooo many ways to avoid what bush brought to the world thru this (our national shame not the least of it) - I just do not see any way an informed or attentive person could hold your views - I just don't.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

25. I guess we'll never see eye to eye on this.

[Zhade]

35. That's because you're wrong in your arguments.

Why SHOULD others see eye-to-eye with you, when your arguments in support of the war are 1) factually inaccurate 2) apologia for war crimes and 3) hopelessly naive?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

42. Gee, I don't know, maybe because they're not?

I'll never see eye to eye with those who oppose the war, with those who continue to see Bush as the source of all evil in the world. You said I was wrong in my arguments. You've yet to prove me wrong. You called my an apologist for war crimes. I won't take that personally, because I know it sprang from a naive and ignorant mind.

We'll never see eye to eye, because debating you is like debating a brick wall.

[Zhade]

43. You're free to think all that.

But you're still wrong, and several posters on this very thread have already demonstrated that you're wrong. Just being on DU for as long as you have means you have been proven wrong, just about every single day - and it's impossible that you could have missed all the information proving you wrong in your tenure here.

You do offer apologia for war crimes. The entire war is a war crime. You support and offer apologie for it. I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable. Perhaps the truth others have shown you has made you feel uncertain in your convictions? One would hope so.

[immoderate]

46. LWM, hard to defend the war.

Most Iraqis had decent lives before the war, particularly, relative to the rest of the region. Yes, a few were victims of that lunatic, but his kind are common around the world. Nobody in Iraq is living better now than they were before, except maybe Chalabi. Even if there are exceptions, they don't offset the thousands of deaths and casualties US caused, and the unrelenting misery for years to come. Throw in the stimulus to growth of terrorism, creation of new enemies, loss of prestige, the expense(!) etc., and we're talking DISASTER! And we told you so!

What's debatable here?:shrug:

--IMM

[Zhade]

47. Chalabi's sitting pretty damn pretty right now.

Oil Minister - wonder if some DUers, who thought the 'fallout' between Chalabi and the neocons was a front, were right?

I don't see how anyone can support the war myself, unless they are 1) evil or 2) woefully misinformed.

I don't think the OP is evil.

[immoderate]

48. Chalabi's nephew is finance minister.

It's like they have their own private secret tunnel into the Iraqi treasury. Secret except that everybody know about it. Audacity is not a factor! Hard to imagine Chalabi would pop up again without a rabbi in the Bush administration.

--IMM

[Zhade]

49. I wonder how long until they both are hanging from lampposts?

It's been known to happen after a civil war, and the Iraqis HATE these guys.

[Djinn]

60. it wont happen until US troops are out

and that wont happen until there's a stable government, but as any government approved by the US is NOT going to popular with Iraqis (they have this weird thing about wanting to keep their resources for the benefit of Iraqis) it's gonna be a long wait.

But the longer the wait the angrier the mob - as Mussolini found out

[Zhade]

68. Indeed. Good point.

NT!

[Zhade]

31. You bring up that you support an illegal, immoral war...

...but you don't want to get into why you support it? Should we dance around the fact that you posted a poll about the lies that got us into a war you support?

You've got guts, I'll say that much. Your conclusions are naive and laughable, IMHO, but you're willing to be honest, at least.

I do think this is an admission that will taint you. Frankly, I think you deserve that. Your support of this war is unconscionable and short-sighted.

If I supported this monstrosity, I wouldn't have the guts to proudly proclaim it to a board of people who know better than to support this massive war crime. In a way, I admire your honesty, even as I find your stance morally repugnant.

[karlrschneider]

38. Could you expound on why or how Saddam was a 'threat'?

I appreciate your candor but I question your rationale. Can you produce any evidence that Hussein was a genuine threat to...uh, anybody?...other than his domestic opponents?

Sure, he was a nasty bastard, as are many other national leaders (our own included according to much of the world) but what actual 'threat' isssued from his position?

[Zhade]

41. I'd like to see that answer myself.

So would the families of about 100,000 dead Iraqis.

[LynnTheDem]

63. And the "humanitarian" crap, too.

Invading and occupying a nation and imposing martial law and killing 100,000+ civilians and child malnutrition rate more than doubles and two major cities are pretty much bombed off the map...that just don't sound very "humanitarian" to me.

And when the EXPERTS on the subject of humanitarian interventions, experts who are quite RABID about the subject, such as Amnesty International, ICRC, and Human Rights Watch, publicly tell bush & bLiar they CANNOT call their war of aggression a "humanitarian intervention" as there were NO on-going, NO current, and NO imminent threat of atrocities happening in Iraq, then while one can of course still have one's personal opinion that this war of aggression was a "humanitarian intervention", one would NOT be basing one's personal opinion on the FACTS.

[Zhade]

71. I notice the sound of crickets.

Perhaps LWM has been beaten into submission under an assault of the truth. I hope s/he doesn't think we hate him/her - just his/her views on this subject.

I would seriously like to get some answers for the claims s/he put forth.

[LynnTheDem]

76. Agreed.

I like getting reasons from people as to why they support this crime; then I add the debunking of such reasons to my talking points.

Usually though all I get in reasons from war of aggression supporters is the "because I just do" bush-type.

[Zhade]

78. Look downthread - I think LWM is pretty young.

Could explain a lot, in which case a nicer approach might help LWM to see why the views s/he holds on the war are wrong.

[ikojo]

90. Also, why was Saddam so bad in 2003 but OK in `

1963 when the US tried to overthrow the Iraqi government at the time and in the 1980s when the US supported him with arms sales?

He was a dictator in the 1980s as well as in 2003 but in the 80s he was a friend of Ronnie and Poppy Bush as well as Rumsfeld.

[wtmusic]

58. N Korea sees Bush as a threat--does he "need to go" too?

That is the most ethnocentric statement I've seen on DU in a long time.

[LynnTheDem]

61. Total delusion.

Deep and total delusion.

[Zhade]

77. You want delusional? I give you...delusion!

From LWM's own webpage:


IRAQ IS FREE. OUR TROOPS ARE SAFE. ALL IS WELL...

Or is it? I'll be honest with you. I am still 100 percent proud of our troops for liberating the people of Iraq, and have always supported them. Yet I do have some serious concerns. While I don't really agree with this sentiment, many anti-war people on the Left (and Right) have legitimate concerns about whether the ends justified the means. Like I said, I don't agree with their sentiment, but their criticism is legitimate. I am convinced that most people, regardless of their stance on the war, rejoiced when Saddam's regime fell. Everyone (with the exception of a handful of hardcore radicals ) wanted him gone.

Yet, one question still remains: Where are the WMDs? I'm not saying he doesn't have them, but it seems that many of the hawks don't seem to care where they are. Dennis Miller said that no one really cares about WMDs. Really? I sure as hell do. If we don't find those weapons, our credibility is shot. If Scott Ritter is right, then we are screwed. I am not saying I agree with him, but these questions should not be ignored.

Another thing that has bothered me since the beginning of this thing is the attitude of the chickenhawks. While I disagreed with a good number of the anti-war people(and I believed that they were not looking at the big picture), I never once questioned their patriotism, their ethics, their judgment, their intelligence, or their love for freedom. Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, the Dixie Chicks, and all the others are not traitors, un-American, Communists, Marxists, stupid, or Saddam apologists. They were just misinformed. Chickenhawks like Hannity, Horowitz, and O'Reilly, who question the patriotism of Hollywood liberals or Senate Democrats are out of line. Period. I could rant all day about these phony patriots, but I needn't do so. I don't hate the Chicks. Tim Robbins doesn't hate America. Michael Moore is still an idiot though (as is Chris Hedges, that twit from Columbia, Jessica Lange), and France is well, France.

Wow, this is pretty funny too:

Alan Colmes' official website. In case you don't know who he is, he's the liberal on Hannity and Colmes. One of the leading progressive voices out there.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Alan Colmes? Are you fucking KIDDING me? And why the hell does LWM have a link to FOX NEWS?

(BTW, LWM - you're not an otaku if your idea of good anime is Dragonball Z and Sailor Moon - especially dubbed Americanized anime. Just a tip.)

I'm getting the distinct impression that LWM is young and not very well-informed.

[LynnTheDem]

79. Agreed. But LWM is trying to understand, and I applaud that.

It's much easier simply to not think and not try to understand, and just go along with the rightwing flow of garbage.

I give LWM credit for not just going along.

[Zhade]

80. It sounds to me like LWM *is* just going along.

The repeated bullshit about the 'success' in Iraq, for example. However, as long as LWM is willing to be honest and to learn, you're right - that deserves recognition.

But Alan Colmes? That's still too damn funny! :P

[LynnTheDem]

81. OK the Alan Colmes bit was way out there.

:D

[DemonFighterLives]

82. Did you hear about the OSP?

Did you know that Cheney made several trips to CIA headquarters to stovepipe the bad intel?
They all lied, W, condi, rummy and dickles cheney, oh and powell.
Sick fu*kers have caused a world of hurt.

[warrior1]

15. He

fucking lied his ass off and hasn't come clean yet.

[SmokingJacket]

17. Facts were irrelevent to purpose.

No one really "knew" whether or not there were any WMD there -- but obviously no one had proof there were any, either.

They decided to say there were WMD, and deal with the possible fallout later, once they were in.

Sounds like as close to a lie as you can get, actually.

[Toucano]

20. The mother fucker lied.

It was a systematic disinformation campaign supported by the absolute and active rejection of contradictory evidence.

[sellitman]

28. Bingo! The weasel lied!!!!!!!!!!

[yella_dawg]

27. I posted this on another thread yesterday. It bears repeating.

I was lead software engineer on a major upgrade of the U2 electronics suite during the mid nineties. I am fully aware of the capabilities of the U2 and with the deployment of the U2 over Iraq during the nineties.

Believe me. We knew where all the lost hubcaps in Iraq were. It would have been amazingly simple to catalog the WMD in Iraq right down to the serial numbers on chemical canisters.

[wishlist]

30. Nothing leads me to believe he genuinely thought Iraq had WMD's

I listened to his statements closely every step of the way and read every article and watched every news program I could cram into my waking hours in the months preceding the invasion and I never believed he really thought Iraq had WMD's or was a true threat to us or its neighbors.

In fact it seemed obvious that the reason he rushed into the invasion instead of giving the U.N. inspectors more time when the Iraqis were showing more cooperation, was precisely because he knew they did not have WMD's and giving the inspectors more time would have made it more clear that Iraq was not a threat and mobilized more opposition to the war.

The man is a skillful deliberate manipulative pathological liar who is very aware of his deceptions, not simply a gullible dummy frontman.

[understandinglife]

33. Bu$h has fristian values. You can bet your butt he LIED.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us (The.Day.WE.THE.PEOPLE.BEGIN.........)

[karlrschneider]

36. I picked choice #1, that he lied but I'm not 100% certain he KNEW he was

lying at the time. After all, this guy is several orders of Freedom Fries short of a Happy Meal...

[Azathoth]

40. It was faith-based intelligence

Bush honestly believed -- as did most of the world's intelligence agencies -- that Iraq had some type of WMD, but he had no clue exactly what or how much. What he did know (and what the neocons like Cheney certainly knew) was that Iraq did not pose an immediate threat and that most of the so-called "hard" evidence of WMDs his administration was presenting was utter bullshit. They figured they could exaggerate, mislead and lie about specific intelligence claims because it was an article of faith that Saddam had SOMETHING bad.

[LynnTheDem]

62. You are factually incorrect. "Most of the world's intell agencies" did NOT

believe Iraq had some type of WMD.

Only bush, his Gang, and the US State Media have ever said the world's intell did think Iraq had WMD. IN FACT most the world's intell agencies said the opposite; why do you think the vast majority of the entire world's nations said NO to invading Iraq???

Even the intell agencies of the UK and Aus AND AMERICA said there was little to NO PROOF of any WMD (and many individual agents said there was NO WMD period).

[Azathoth]

64. I'm not factually incorrect; I've followed this fairly closely

In fact, I have a good friend who used to work on the periphery of the US intelligence community, and who still talks to people actively involved in US intelligence.

Let me put it to you this way: If, as you say, no one except Bushco believed Saddam had any WMDs, why did the UN even bother passing Res 1441 (among others) and sending inspectors into Iraq on numerous occasions throughout the 90's? Why waste all that time, money and effort if all the intelligence communities had decided there were no WMDs?

The general consensus in both the US and many foreign intelligence communities was that, based on Saddam's character, his previous actions, the fact that he had not accounted for many of his pre-1991 weapons, the way his government treated the UN inspectors during their visits, and various reports that had surfaced from time to time, Iraq probably had some WMDs. What no one really knew was precisely what he had, how much of it he had, where it was, and what programs he had to develop it. Various claims of dubious veracity had cropped up from time to time, but there was little credible on-site intel, and there was virtually no hard evidence of major weapons stockpiles or development programs. Further, Saddam's ability to actually use any weapons he possessed against us or our allies had been assessed as practically non-existent. As a result, although they believed he probably had something, few in the intelligence community considered Iraq a grave threat, and they certainly did not believe that pre-emptive war was necessary, although some did believe it was justified. Many of them were completely dumbfounded when Cheney got on television and wildly declared that Saddam had, among other things, reconstituted nuclear weapons. My understanding is that the real expectation was to find things like mustard gas and chemical shells when we invaded.

Thus, I think Bush was somewhat justified (or at least, he had good company) in his belief that Saddam had WMDs. Bill Clinton had attacked Iraq four years before based on similar claims (the Democrats in congress had actually written him a letter demanding that he take action against Saddam), and even people like Scott Ritter, who were bitterly opposed to the war from the start, were careful to note before the war that Saddam had not properly accounted for everything that he had circa 1991. The Bush administration, however, realized they would never be able to garner enough support for the war based on claims of "Saddam probably has something" and "there's most likely some old mustard gas and chemical shells over there." They needed an imminent and dramatic threat, which the intelligence community on a whole did not believe existed, and they needed specific claims/assertions about Saddam's capabilities to reinforce that threat. So they started digging up and embellishing spurious and outlandish intelligence reports that had previously been considered not credible, many of which had come from Chalabi's people. The administration knew that 95% of these claims were pure bullshit, but they didn't care because it was an article of faith that Saddam was a bad guy and had something stashed somewhere.

None of this, of course, changes the fact that WMDs had nothing to do with the real motivations for the war.

[LynnTheDem]

65. Really? UN and USA experts; No evidence of WMD, 2001-2003

And now that the entire world knows for a FACT that Iraq hasn't had WMD for over a decade, why does the UN STILL want to get back into Iraq and finish their inspections?

Because they have a job to finish before they can close their books. THAT is why the UN wanted to continue their inspections. It's why they still want to.

When the US kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq in the fall of 1998, UNSCOM's own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMD's had been successfully destroyed.

Blix insists there was no firm weapons evidence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5181328-103681,00.html

OCTOBER 8, 1997 – IAEA SAYS IRAQ FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
http://www.nci.org/i/iaea10-8-98.htm

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/article.asp?NewsID=4928

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/us-dod-iraqchemreport-060703.htm

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NIGER CLAIM
https://registration.miami.com/reg/login.do?url=http://www.miami.com%2Fmld%2Fmiamiherald%2Fnews%2Fnation%2F6362092.htm

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Iraq/declassifiedintellreport.pdf

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON DRONES
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:lwPsa158KQoJ:www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp%3Fitem%3Dcomplete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_191+US+air+force+warns+white+house+on+Iraq+drones&hl=en

FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340723/

MARCH 7, 2003 – IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/international/middleeast/07CND-IRAQ.html?ex=1115092800&en=a9a9706469766940&ei=5070&ex=1075352400&en=35756793e3b71e73&ei=5070

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Where's the Proof? (October 9, 2002)
http://eatthestate.org/07-03/WeaponsMassDestruction.htm

2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Then there's all the other intell experts around the world, esp ONA (Australia) and France who said nope, no WMD. And of course the many UK and US intell agents who resigned over Iraq who said Iraq had no WMD or leftover useless remnants at most.

For those who were paying attention, and that was the overwhelming majority of the world outside the USA, it was pretty damn clear Iraq had no WMD.

[Zhade]

73. LTD pretty much proved your unsourced assertions to be wrong.

Do you have anything to back up your side of the debate?

[Crunchy Frog]

45. Do you have any particular reason for posting these polls?

Are you looking for validation of your views? Are you trying to show off to others how much more evolved you are to be supporting Bush on this issue? Do you just enjoy getting flamed periodically?

And by the way, are you planning on enlisting anytime soon? I kind of think that anyone who actually supports this war has a moral obligation to put their body where their beliefs are and enlist to go over there. If you're not eligible to join the military, maybe you should go over there as a humanitarian worker or something, since you seem to care so much about the well being of the Iraqi people that you're willing to see thousands of them killed or maimed, their women forced back into the burqua and out of their jobs and schools, and their children with double the rate of severe malnutrition, and all for their own good and because you care so much about them and their freedom.

So when are you going over there. I'm very anxious to hear about your plans in that department.

[Misunderestimator]

67. It's in the title... "Flamebait" .... pretty clear that it is.

[Zhade]

74. Bravo! Couldn't have said it better myself.

It IS odd - why mention your support for war crimes on a site dedicated to opposing the main war criminal?

LWM must surely realize that the (wrong, misinformed) views s/he has on this war will clash with the rest of us who don't support it. Is this just an exercise in masochism?

[Crunchy Frog]

83. Well, he doesn't seem very inclined to answer.

I'm guessing that means I hit pretty close to the mark. Maybe he's too busy getting ready to go over there.:shrug:

[Zhade]

84. It's probably a strategic retreat.

LWM kinda got schooled - I can understand not being thrilled at the idea of coming back to this thread. I myself was pretty hard on him (not that that's a bad thing; anyone still supportive of this war needs a good talking-to to help wake them up).

I'm still laughing about the Alan Colmes thing, though. I had no idea the guy had ANY fans.

[Zhade]

52. Please see this thread that PROVES BUSH LIED.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3577068

[cry baby]

53. Knowing what you know now, would you still have supported the

war?

[ComerPerro]

54. You contend that he wanted them to be there so badly that he cherrypicked

intel to make it look as though there was overwhelming evidence of WMD.

Sorry, but intentions don't mean shit.

He lied.

They fabricated evidence to sell the war.

What do you call that?

Its a lie!

[Dr Fate]

72. Is presenting forged Documents to the UN "lying?"

Who forged them and why?

[johnaries]

75. "He tried to kill my Daddy!"

'nuff said.

[Terran1212]

85. I think his group of people just wanted to invade Iraq for any reason they

could find....

The WMD thing was a convenient cover, and they played up what they didn't know was there for sure.

[Amonester]

89. Big-Oil$ and War-Profiter$ were/are the reason$

-> $15 to $20/barrel cheap (and easy/ier) "light" crude to pump up

-> 212 billions (editing my typo here: it's Million$, but still...) overcharged by Chene-yoself's "old" pals (Hell-yburton)

-> 9 billions "unaccounted" for...


http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm

all 'n all: The BIGGE$T holdup IN HISTORY

we always knew this criminal war was based on LIE$

voted accordingly.

[GetTheRightVote]

86. He knew the truth, it slapped him in the face but did not suit his plans

How less could he convince the American public to go to war against Iraq when they did not attack us.

:kick:

[GetTheRightVote]

87. Voted

:kick:

[MrSlayer]

88. Of course he lied, it's proven fact.

If the latest secret memo from Downing Street doesn't convince you, nothing will. It's all there in undeniable black and white.

[IdaBriggs]

91. I knew we were going to war w/Iraq in November 2000 if Bush "won" --

I had nightmares about it. I still grieve this foreknowledge (apparent to anyone who read the internet) didn't do any good. The only question was what excuse the SOB was going to use.

[Moderator]

92. The subject line says it all, Locking n/t