Saddam’s Files
December 7th, 2007 at 06:59am Matt Margolis
I totally missed this when it first came out, but luckily one of our commenters here posted a link to this story and I’ve decided put up a quick post on it since it clearly hasn’t gotten the attention it should.
According to John Loftus, writing at FrontPage Magazine, we now know what happened to Saddam’s WMD… the answers come from Saddam’s own files.
Based on the evidence, Loftus writes,
Saddam’s nuclear documents compel any reasonable person to the conclusion that, more probably than not, there were in fact nuclear WMD sites, components, and programs hidden inside Iraq at the time the Coalition forces invaded. In view of these newly discovered documents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition forces.
It’s unfortunately that there are so few (if any) reasonable people in the Democratic Party.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
94 Comments
1. OhioOrrin | December 7th, 2007 at 7:03 am
the problem is that we didn’t even find sufficient equipment to make nukes.
I used to believe these people.
Now I believe the British.
2. Hates Cows--Male | December 7th, 2007 at 7:05 am
///sarcasm///
C’mon, Matt, we all know there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion, so why would we believe there were WMDs or WMD programs? After all, prior to this week, all intelligence was either flawed or “cooked” by Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Blackwater, to advance the neocon agenda…
///sarcasm off///
3. Christian Wright | December 7th, 2007 at 7:41 am
It has been well documented that the destroyed his WMD in 1993.
4. searp | December 7th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Why does this end up being a Democratic Party issue? Have you polled all Republicans, and do they all believe that Saddam had a covert nuclear program in 2003? If so, what is the evidence? Official sources all say no.
If the official sources, including this administration, say not, then what is unreasonable about accepting this finding? I’d say the “unreason” has to go to people who do not accept this finding.
5. AAR | December 7th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Another quote from the original and full article…
We’ll be lucky to ever read about the truth in the Main Stream Media, and we will certainly never hear it from the Democrats!
AAR
6. Retired Spook | December 7th, 2007 at 8:31 am
and we will certainly never hear it from the Democrats!
Actually, AAR, you just did. John Loftus is a Democrat. He just happens to be a Democrat who puts his country before his party. (I know, somewhat of a rarity) I read the original piece that you quote from; it’s very convincing.
7. Joe | December 7th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Yep, he puts country in front of party all right. The guy a) appeared on FOX News regularly, so we know he tends more Republican and b) is a loose cannon that just throws crap against the wall in hopes that it sticks.
Example:
He really loves the country to the point of recklessly putting an innocent family in danger. Nice.
So forgive me if I don’t quite believe this bull about known WMDs, nuclear programs and “Al Qaeda’s long-term secret partner”. I’ll stick with believing the people that actually looked into this. Not some wacko with an agenda.
By the way, Spook, why do you say he is a Democrat? I looked and couldn’t find anything. Maybe I just missed it, but I didn’t see anything about that.
8. neocon | December 7th, 2007 at 8:43 am
It’s shameful, but the lefts opposition to this war has nothing to do with protecting Americans or other innocent lives, and has everything to do with discrediting Bush and securing power.
Bushs foreign policy is responsible for peacefully disarming Libya, NK and supposedly Iran, establishing a representative government in Iraq, and building a new ally in India.
Had we listened to the Democrats, Saddam would still be in power and NK, Iran and Libya would still be developing WMD’s.
9. neocon | December 7th, 2007 at 8:50 am
I like the way Joe and other liberals approach new information. Just deny, attack and discredit.
So I am going to begin using that tactic. Here goes:
“I am only going to believe people that actually know something about the dangers Saddam and militant Islamists pose, not some socialist government funded whack job who is afraid of armed confrontation.
They really love their country to the point of falsely accusing their own soldiers of crimes putting them in further danger. They really love others in need to the point of abandoning them in the middle of a conflict which would assuredly result in their death.
So forgive me if I don’t believe them.
10. liberalT | December 7th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Matt - the problem is that this article makes quite a large number of assertions. Claiming that “people” have looked at “files” and discovered all these new truths. However, the author doesn’t indicate where a single one of these files can be found. He doesn’t offer a single one of the supposed photos that show the underwater labs. He doesn’t show anything. Who knows - but given what actual evidence he presents - absolutely zero - its just a story. I could easily make a website and make such a story up myself. Its really really scary what you guys will believe. Could it be true - possibly - but until there even one grain of evidence presented I will assume just that its a story
11. Joe | December 7th, 2007 at 9:02 am
neocon, now THAT is funny. You saying we “Just deny, attack and discredit.”
Have you READ some of the posts by Noonan or others that post here? Anything post against your believe is attacked as an un-American Terrorist-loving, Christian-hating kook.
Man you people kill me. I love coming here for my daily dose of laughter.
12. neocon | December 7th, 2007 at 9:05 am
John Kerry provided absolutely zero evidence of the following assertions. So in the absence of that, I can only conclude that it is a fear tactic used by the Democrats.
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
13. neocon | December 7th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Joe, I am convinced that you find laughter in most anything. Unbalanced people usually do.
14. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Pretty weak lib rebuttals this morning..that’s for sure.
CW, since “some” documentation has been found to substantiate at least a 66% (the same percentage pro-GW affix to their claims) chance Saddam had a clandestine WMD program, including nuclear, then how about providing “some” documentation to counter the claims?? Or are you simply quoting your lib talking points play book??
15. Joe | December 7th, 2007 at 9:13 am
neocon,
are those John Kerry quotes supposed to prove that all was ok? Yes, we all know what the Democrats said in the leadup. Yippee. And now that he sees the truth, his mind was changed. Remember? You guys blasted him for flipflopping on things? Any of that ringing a bell?
The point of the post is not who voted for force and who didn’t.
The point is that now some nutjob is claiming to have proof of Saddam’s WMDs, nuclear program and being in bed with AQ.
16. TiredofLibBullShit | December 7th, 2007 at 9:14 am
“It has been well documented that the destroyed his WMD in 1993.”
Another blatant lib lie.
It is well docomented by the UN report in the late 90s that Saddam still had 1000s of tons WMD, precursors/projectiles/delivery systems still not accounted for.
So cut the crap.
17. Joe | December 7th, 2007 at 9:18 am
navydad,
The post was that this nutjob all of the sudden had a breakthrough and has this proof. I believe it would be up to him (and those that believe him) to prove their findings.
Meanwhile, back in reality… from the AP in 2005
So now, a few years later, some talkshow host has this proof? Why do you believe him over people that have actually looked into the Iraq situation??
18. neocon | December 7th, 2007 at 9:20 am
So now according to Joe, Loftus is some “nutjob”. Nice. Despite the following credentials:
>>>>>>As a former Justice Department prosecutor, John Loftus once held some of the highest security clearances in the world, with special access to NATO Cosmic, CIA codeword, and Top Secret Nuclear files.<<<<<<
And Kerry changed his mind, not for political expediency and to pander to morons like Joe, but because he was convinced that Saddam completely destroyed his WMD programs out of concern for world humanity.
19. Retired Spook | December 7th, 2007 at 9:25 am
And now that he sees the truth, his mind was changed.
Joe, I don’t think you’d know the truth if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.
With regard to Loftus being a Democrat, the article I read was a much longer version of the one linked to in Mark’s post and started off identifying Loftus as a life-long Democrat. I thought I archived that article, but I can’t find it. It went into substantially more detail about the Sadaam files. If it’s important to you to find out that I guy you so malign shares your political beliefs, I see if I can dig it up.
20. liberalT | December 7th, 2007 at 9:26 am
weak? Actually asking for one real document one real photograph is weak? So I challenge you guys - produce one document from Iraq one photograph that proves all the assertions that you are making. Not rhetoric - not quotes from democrats who were also wrong - not nice stories - one actual piece of evidence.
21. Joe | December 7th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Sorry… “nutjob” wasn’t nice. Should I call him a “kook”? That seems to the name you folks like to use.
Bottom line neocon is that his is a talkshow host that claims something that CIA weapons inspectors didn’t find after months of investigation. You can chose whoever you want to chose to believe.
As for Kerry, I didn’t realize you could read minds as to why he changed his mind. You are pretty impressive. Are you just upset that he changed his mind? Because if that really bothers you, you must despise Mitt Romney.
22. neocon | December 7th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Charles Duelfer is a nutjob and a loose cannon:
Mr. Duelfer told Congress that he was struck by the “extreme reluctance of Iraqi managers, scientists and engineers to speak freely.”
We needn’t search too deeply into why the Iraqis with knowledge of Saddam’s WMD programs were specifically being targeted by Zarqawi’s terrorists. It surely wasn’t because all Iraqi WMD programs had been dismantled twelve years earlier, shortly after the first Gulf War. But for those of you who haven’t carted this tome to the beach yet, Duelfer’s 1,500-plus page “Comprehensive Report,” issued in rough form in September and in final form this spring, argues that this is more or less what happened.
Duelfer’s Report suffers from curious lapses. In the months and years immediately before Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Saddam was not nearly as WMD-free as Duelfer surmises. The Report is valuable for what it does reveal, but it certainly does not serve as any basis for the media’s and administration critics’ angry claims of a harmless Iraq.
23. AAR | December 7th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Joe,
The original research paper, from which the linked article was written, provides an extensive list of sources and references. Supposedly, you can purchase the original paper for $5 if you would like to write your own revisionist version.
If you choose to believe the translations of Saddam’s documents are incorrect (i.e., don’t support you propagandist needs), you might try learning whatever language(s) they were written in an personally translate them yourself!
There are many more documents remaining to be translated. Who knows what information will be revealed by those!
AAR
24. Joe | December 7th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Spook, I don’t care about his political affiliation. I only asked because you brought it up and I couldn’t find anything to back it up.
25. Joe | December 7th, 2007 at 9:49 am
neocon, what are you talking about?
AAR, we have government agencies that learn the language needed for those files so I don’t have to. It all comes down to who you want to believe. I chose to believe those that are paid/trained and spent the time to research this. I chose not to believe some talkshow personality that thinks he knows something that the professionals don’t.
I know, I’m an American-hating, terrorist-loving, anti-christian kook for believing the professionals.
26. neocon | December 7th, 2007 at 9:52 am
That “talkshow” host you so conveniently dismiss has the following credentials, Joey:
>>>>As a former Justice Department prosecutor, John Loftus once held some of the highest security clearances in the world, with special access to NATO Cosmic, CIA codeword, and Top Secret Nuclear files<<<<<<
And the following link will provide you with some interesting reading (if you want to believe it). It wont fit into your agenda driven paradigm though.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1427256/posts
27. neocon | December 7th, 2007 at 9:54 am
>>>I know, I’m an American-hating, terrorist-loving, anti-christian kook for believing the professionals. - Joe<<<<<
Another nice job at discrediting those you disagree with. We don’t think that at all, we just believe you are an ignorant, indoctrinated, agenda driven liberal with no regard for the truth.
28. Joe | December 7th, 2007 at 10:01 am
neo: “…with no regard for the truth.”
Isn’t that what we are arguing about? You believe the truth is from some guy. I believe the truth is from the professionals.
I have work to do. I’ll check in later when I need another laugh.
29. neocon | December 7th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Here’s Joes logic:
A Justice Dept. prosecutor with high security clearance is just “some guy”, yet a UN appointed “inspector” is the professional. Nice.
And Joe had to ge back to work. The drive through must be getting busy.
30. AAR | December 7th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Joe,
You choose to believe no one and nothing which does not support your Liberal views and propaganda!
I didn’t know that John Loftus was a Democrat until Retired Spook pointed that out, but I can use Google, and unless he changed his party affiliation, he is a Democrat, and he has received some sharp criticism from Conservatives!
Why do you believe him over people that have actually looked into the Iraq situation??
Why would you believe outdated beliefs and ignore those who have more current information? Are you still reading your book about the “flat Earth” and “the sun revolving around the Earth”?!!!
You only believe those whom you say are “professionals” and only if they support your propaganda needs!
Another laugh? Look in the mirror!!!
AAR
31. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Joe,
We’ve been over this subject dozens of times and the hate Bush crowd continues to attach the lack of mass quantities of WMDs in Iraq to GWB and Republicans. Get over it, they were there, you know it, I know it, and Saddams bud’s know it. But because a negative is so difficult to prove, the hate-Bush crowd has latched on to the issue as if they actually believe it.
Here’s the reality, and I can only speak for myself. There are thousands of Americans that are present and past weapons complex employees and over the years (mine were between 1978 and 1993), that have seen documentation, heard from at least three administrations and caught bits and pieces from our buds at various facilities and organizations that Iraq indeed posed a threat and indeed had stockpiles of WMDs, including a clandestine nuke program. Please note the administration at the time of my employement Joe.
So, if you’re going to keep pushing that hate-Bush, no WMDs bandwagon around, eventually, if it’s ever uncovered that the programs and stockpiles did exist, that bandwagon is gonna get real light when your party starts to abandon ship for fear of political retribution.
Additionally, there are literally hundreds of thousands of documents tied to Saddam’s regime yet to be released and/or interpreted.
So, continue to beat the WMD drum Joe and it may implode.
32. Aztec | December 7th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Neocon, I’m trying to figure out what you’re trying to say with that Kerry quote? Was he right? wrong? Fearmongering? Pandering? If he was fearmongering, what about the rest of the voices saying the same thing? If he was correct in his comments are you complementing him on his great insight?
33. Almiranta | December 7th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Trying to get the sound of Joe’s demented cackle out of my imagination (he sounds a LOT like Hillary…) I would like to point out, not that it is necessary, the bizarre ability to simply twist words to mean what he wants them to mean.
Look how impressed he is by this statement: “the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”
Clearly, he has decided that this REALLY MEANS that they gave up because they knew they wouldn’t find anything.
No wonder he is so easily amused. But in fact, of course, his cherished statement (he had to repeat it, he loved it so much) doesn’t even remotely mean that they gave up because they knew there was little likelyhood of finding anything.
Hey, Joe, they gave up on looking for Steve Fossett, too, but we’re all pretty sure he’s out there.
A modern jet plane crashed on a mountaintop a couple of years ago, when the military had a very good idea of where it had gone down, and it still took years to find it. And it was not hidden.
History is rife with examples of things sought for years, decades even, only to finally turn up.
I don’t live in a city, I live in a pretty wild part of the country, so that may contribute to my greater understanding of the problems of searching vast expanses for specific things. Last year several of us were up in a very wild part of Forest Service land, looking out over a vista which stretched for at least a hundred miles, and it was just one ridge after another, with a valley between every two ridges. I turned to a friend and said “If Osama was hiding in any of those valleys it would be impossible to find him, especially if he had caves and tunnels” and as we looked out on this vast wilderness that reality was clear. But to someone who has never seen anything remotely like it, it’s easy to just pronounce from a position of total ignorance that it “should” have been easy.
Ditto for searching hundreds of thousands of square miles of sandy desert for carefully buried and concealed and camoflauged materal.
How’s about we send snickery Joe over to do the searching? Probably not a good idea, as he has shown he can’t even find a fact in a statement or.
And doncha LOVE the assumption that if a person appears on Fox, he is by definition “a Republican”? Gee, I have been seeing so many Democrat talking heads on Fox I have been wondering if they figured the positions were so weak they had to make up for it with sheer volume. NOW I get it—they are really Republicans!
You Lefty Lemmings are so predictable.
Navydad, those lemmings will not abandon ship. They will simply rewrite history and change the “facts” to accommodate their latest position. They can, do, and will simply move the bar—-whatever is found will be insignificant because (fill in the blanks…) it did not meet some secret but essential prerequisite, or it was “planted” or whatever the loony tunes factory is churning out that week.
But they will not admit they are wrong. Ever. Ever.
34. eric | December 7th, 2007 at 11:11 am
navydad,
The left has become so blinded by their hatred of our President that they will not listen to reason. Joe keeps saying that he is choosing to listen to the professionals, while discarding the efforts of this non-partisan group of analysts. Why? Because the evidence provided by Loftus does not support his agenda and it does not further fuel his hatred of President Bush. People like Joe cannot be reasoned with and will never admit that they could be wrong. It reminds me of the 9/11 truthers and the global warming kooks.
Here are a couple of relevant links that I have archived in my browser:
DoD Document re: Abo Abdullah
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1673944/posts
Satellite Photo re: Trucks Loading in Iraq
http://discardedlies.com/entry/?1517
Also, there is a Washington Post article that was published on October 29, 2004 that supports the conclusion that the weapons were moved to Syria. I had the link to the article archived, but WaPo is now charging for their long term archives.
35. eric | December 7th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Almiranta,
Well said.
36. js | December 7th, 2007 at 11:23 am
>>>WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA?s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has ?gone as far as feasible? and has found nothing<<<<<
CIA? lol
Didnt the NIE and CIA do everything they could to discredit Bush, as far as the Iraq conflict goes?
Its strange, neither of these two highly funded agencies put any importance into translating all of the millions of documents we pulled out of Iraq…matter of fact, the more that are interpreted, the more information we find about Saddams WMD….and the liberals?….lol….the word lollygagging comes to mind.
37. js | December 7th, 2007 at 11:29 am
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
Here is what the CIA told Bush about Saddams WMD.
If there is any liberal alive that wants to dispute it, take it up with your congressman.
38. liberalT | December 7th, 2007 at 11:40 am
its amazing. its the same argument that was used for looking for WMDs that was pushed in 2003 - you know all the ones that were found to be false , fakes, and inconclusive. Ok - fine live in a twilight zone if you want . Do you really think that if we knew that they moved them to Syria that we wouldn’t have found them by now? Exactly where do you hide an ICBM
39. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 11:49 am
LT…you’ve got to be kidding! Please…no one respond to this illinformed insanity.
40. SteaM | December 7th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Happy Friday, you crazy republicans!
This here wacky liberal would just like to ask one simple question:
Where are the weapons?
41. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
SteaM
If they were up your ars, you’d know where they were…now wouldn’t you?
Sorry matt, I couldn’t resist..LOL!
42. SteaM | December 7th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Yes, very classic.
But I just checked and they aren’t there either. Strange, I could’ve swore he had weapons. Where the heck are they?
They are in Iran!
43. jayhay | December 7th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I heard a military wife on the radio this morning reacting to the poll showing 60% of military voters now feel the war was a bad idea, etc. She still feels the war in Iraq was a good idea “to fight the war on terror”. It is so sad to see such patriotic people manipulated, clinging to the lie that Iraq was somehow involved in 911. Because obviously if they accepted that the people and forces behind 911 were elsewhere, then what would their incredible sacrifice be for?
44. SteaM | December 7th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“…what would their incredible sacrifice be for?”
I’m sorry Jay, but the answer to that might be oil.
45. searp | December 7th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
If there were any proof whatsoever that Saddam had or was developing WMD, then this administration would be moving heaven and earth to get it in front of the American people.
James Loftus, who cares? How about a standard you all know and love? When our president gets on prime time and asserts WMD were there or an active program, and shows us proof, then I will consider this claim. Otherwise, forget it.
46. jayhay | December 7th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
And this part of the article you link to in the post above:
“The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam’s nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam’s entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans’ noses.”
Wow, once the truth is solely based upon aligning with your preconceptions, even the most crackpot ideas sound plausible. ENORMOUS UNDERWATER WAREHOUSES! OF COURSE!
(security code words: “destitute General” - as in the destitute ideas of armchair Generals…
47. AAR | December 7th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
If it was “well documented that Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1993″, then why didn’t someone tell the Democrats that BEFORE they SUPPORTED and VOTED FOR the Iraq WAR???!!!
If anyone should have known, it would be Hillary. President Clinton had access to the information while he was president and he certainly advised her about the facts before she made her speech and voted for war!!!
AAR
48. KCJ | December 7th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Wasn’t Kerry also on the intelligence committee at the time? Wouldn’t he have had access to more classified information too?
49. eric | December 7th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Jayhay,
Are you saying that is not possible to build underwater? What about the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel and all of the tunnels into New York City? From an engineering standpoint, it really would not be that difficult to construct a warehouse on land, sink it, and pump out the water.
50. SteaM | December 7th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
It’s in the past AAR. Let it go and look to the future.
I was in support of the Iraq war at the beginning as well. Because, myself, just like everyone else, was feeling very passionate about the attacks on 9/11. The nationalism and patriotism was flowing through the pulse of every American. Including Congressional Democrats. Including the media. Bill Moyers had a great documentary on PBS about the media during the run up to the war and they were gushing over anything and everything that Bush and Cheney told them. The very respected Colon Powell was devistated and highly regrets his role in telling the United Nations and the world that, without a doubt, Iraq was pursueing WMDs. Condy used the phrase “mushroom cloud”.
I’m saying, people in the United States (the citizens, the media, the congress) were all feeling very vulnerable at the time. So when Bush basically was like let’s go kick some ass! Everyone was like, hell yeah!
Well, not everyone.
Some were very skeptical and for very good reasons. There should’ve been a debate in the Senate. It should’ve been very scrutinized but wasn’t. Some like Senator Byrd were very skeptical about the whole thing. But their concerns were not enough to stop the premptive strike on another soverign nation. Something that is illegal by international standards.
Here’s a nice qoute from a book. I won’t say who wrote it though.
<blockqoute “Not long before our nation launched the invasion of Iraq, our longest-serving Senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor and said: “This chamber is, for the most part, silent—ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate.”
Related Articles
The Last Temptation of Al Gore
He has fallen out of love with politics. But friends, moneymen and an army of green activists are begging him to run
Why was the Senate silent?
In describing the empty chamber the way he did, Byrd invited a specific version of the same general question millions of us have been asking: “Why do reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?” The persistent and sustained reliance on falsehoods as the basis of policy, even in the face of massive and well-understood evidence to the contrary, seems to many Americans to have reached levels that were previously unimaginable.
A large and growing number of Americans are asking out loud: “What has happened to our country?” People are trying to figure out what has gone wrong in our democracy, and how we can fix it.
To take another example, for the first time in American history, the Executive Branch of our government has not only condoned but actively promoted the treatment of captives in wartime that clearly involves torture, thus overturning a prohibition established by General George Washington during the Revolutionary War.
It is too easy—and too partisan—to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us? Why has America’s public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned? Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.”
51. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
White phosphorus, which is used as a weapons grade incendiary is commonly stored underwater to prevent contact with oxygen.
So, my question to our lib friends here at B4B: Because you’ve never heard of such a thing, such as storing weapons grade WP underwater, does this mean it isn’t possible? Or, maybe it’s because most of you don’t know what you don’t know.
52. eric | December 7th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Plus, if you wanted to hide such a facility from thermal imaging cameras, hiding it underwater is brilliant. The water would effectively dissipate the heat from the facility and render it very difficult to find.
53. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
eric, if the facility were hidden in still water, where it could be treated with an aquatic dye, it would be even harder to detect.
54. sleepygene | December 7th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Navydad-
Don’t you think if this was a credible report that the Bush administration would be shouting it from the tallest mountain? Why aren’t they?
55. John Ryan | December 7th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I think I saw one of those underwater sites used by a villain in a James Bond movie. But James Bond was able to find it. Navydad do you think Saddam saw that movie too ?
56. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
sleepy,
The Bush adm. has been beaten down so badly, it wouldn’t be worth their time to do any chest thumping at this point. It would land on deaf ears.
57. sleepygene | December 7th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
That is your best answer? It is not a credible one. If this was a truly credible report no matter how battered the administration was they would be publishing it everywhere, at least on their own website.
But I agree with Kahn, Bush has been succesful in disarming two enemies, Iran and Libya. Iraq didn’t have weapons so you can’t disarm them. Kudos to Bush.
58. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
sleepy,
GW has nothing more to prove…he’s disarmed our #1,2 & 3 enemies and if the American public can’t figure this out, well, that’s their problem.
But, I learned quite a few years ago, after the invasion went south, that not only are most Americans impatient, they’re kinda dumb when it comes to war, therefore, what’s the use?
“Iraq didn’t have weapons so you can’t disarm them” sorry sleepy, looks like we’ll need to put you in the “kinda dumb” category.
59. sleepygene | December 7th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
navy-
Nice that you call me kinda dumb. But your source that Iraq had WMD’s is a report from Frontpage Magazine, not the Whitehouse, not the CIA, not the DNI.
Good Day Sir.
60. js | December 7th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
>>>>its amazing. its the same argument that was used for looking for WMDs that was pushed in 2003 - you know all the ones that were found to be false , fakes, and inconclusive<<<<<
TYPICAL LIBERAL CONCEIT
you are more than welcome to document this lie, not like there were others that were far far more convincing than you are, but the gossip mongoring liberals just dont have the intelligence to prove thier lip service to these issues
61. eric | December 7th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
sleepygene,
Given the state of denial that you seem to inhabit, would you believe the Whitehouse, the CIA, or the DNI?
62. Ricorun | December 7th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
You guys have to read this article. Apparently Loftus believes that the Bush family was complicit in the aborted coup attempt to bring down the American gov’t in the 20’s, were instrumental in bringing Hitler to power, thinks 9/11 was an inside job, thinks Grover Norquist is a lobbyist for terrorists, and all kinds of other things. Apparently this guy this guy has never run across a conspiracy he can’t refuse.
63. js | December 7th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
its amazing how small minded people can blame George for everything in the world that didnt go right, not the CIA, not the FBI, or FEMA, but just one guy who they think is solely responsible for it all
but thats something thats too small minded to deal with, because if something existed like wmd in iraq, and it did (they dont deny it), it had to go somewhere
our forensic tests didnt find its ashes, our satellites didnt locate it under ground, and certainly, the hundred someodd thousand people with eyeballs didnt find it either, so is it logical to concede that it never existed?
only if it were sugar
64. sleepygene | December 7th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Eric-
I think you are the one in the state of denial. Please provide me a credible link that shows Saddam had WMD’s after 2000. I think Rico just debunked your Frontpage Magazine source.
65. sleepygene | December 7th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
You realize that in order to read the documents Loftus touts in the Fronpage article you have to subscribe to his website. PAAAAAALEASE.
66. liberalT | December 7th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
its really amazing. Here is the chain of events:
(1) most people believe that Saddam’s weapons program has been in check since the first gulf war including weapons inspectors from the UN, international intelligence agencies, etc
(2) Bush argues that there are WMDs - and comes up with evidence such as aluminum tubes, yellow cake from nigeria, and meetings in Germany between al-queda and iraqi officials
(3) we invade and don’t find any wmds
(4) We find out that the yellow cake uranium story is false, the meeting between Iraqi officials and al queda never occurred, and the aluminum tubes could be from anything not just a centerfuge to produce nuclear weapons
(5) further we find that intellgience officials at the CIA were pushed and pushed until they came up with the “right answer” despite many first drafts coming to the absolute oposite conclusion
Now - rather believe the initial estimates and the newest information you would rather believe that they were there - but some how he hid them and thats why we never saw them. Despite the fact that the country was in lock down, under constant survaliance, and scowered for years to find them. Thats denial at a whole new level
67. eric | December 7th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
sleepygene,
You did not answer my question. Would you believe the Whitehouse, the CIA, or the DNI?
See my post above (#34) for three links that indicate that Saddam had WMDs.
Here is another:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514
And another:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml
68. Casper | December 7th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Rico,
Very interesting article. I really liked this quote
“Remember, we were talking during the break about the Bush family. People don’t realize that Prescott Bush, the President’s grandfather, and his great-grandfather, Herbert Walker, were in bed with the Nazis. These were the guys that raised investment capital in the early 1920s that funded the Nazi Party, they funded Hitler.”
Of course that doesn’t mean he’s wrong on WMDs. I would love to have access to the documents and the time to digest them.
69. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
“Here is the chain of events”
By those that chose not to know the truth…sure.
There is only one event that could have prevented the iraq invasion LT:
2003 17 March - UK’s ambassador to the UN says the diplomatic process on Iraq has ended; arms inspectors evacuate; US President George W Bush gives Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war.
Can you imagine where we’d be today if they had listened?
70. Ricorun | December 7th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
sleepygene: I think Rico just debunked your Frontpage Magazine source.
Actually no. What I said was Loftus apparently sees conspiracies all over the place. And at least some of them may be right. But it’s almost like you can Google “Loftus [anything bad]” and come up with some hits. He thinks our government has been funding al Qaeda all along, and the Muslim Brotherhood before that. He thinks the Bush administration intentionally let Bin Laden get away. He thinks one of the guys responsible for the London bombings was a double agent working for MI-6, who recruited him to fight in Kosovo. But then he moved to Oregon and tried to set up a terrorist training cell there. China, Russia, the Carlisle Group, you name it, everyone’s involved. It goes on and on. He’s good at what he does though. If you look at any one argument and you are likely to come away from it thinking… well, it sounds plausible enough. It’s just the shear magnitude of them that make you question whether (a) there really is a grand international conspiracy involved in just about everything, or (b) maybe he isn’t wrapped quite tightly enough.
71. Casper | December 7th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Ricorun,
What would be scary is if he is right.
72. liberalT | December 7th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
umm - can you imagine how many more people would be alive today if it weren’t for the war. I can 100s of thousands
73. eric | December 7th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
How many would be alive were it not for Saddam? How many more would he have killed if he had not been ousted?
74. liberalT | December 7th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
That is a valid point Eric but the simple fact of the matter is that the worst of his atrocities were done in the 80s - you know the same time that Rummy was shaking hands with him and we were supporting them against Iran?
Further every reliable intelligence source indicated that Saddam was essentially completely paralyzed after the first gulf war. He essentially was a non-factor and thats just a matter of the historic record from 1993-2003.
Finally - there were other options than invading the country. You guys always seem to make this argument that we were at the brink of destruction and it was the only possible move we could make. Quite to the contrary we were dealing with someone we had fully contained and we knew offered no significant threat
75. CallMeTeach | December 7th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Wow, I too have looked into this Loftus guy >>> but he must be right since he was a Justice Department prosecutor. Sounds to me like the neocons and Erics should be saying something like “Okay everyone, this guy IS NOT credible” and “we apologize for trying to back up this truly off centered person”. This ought to be good.
76. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
“Further every reliable intelligence source indicated that Saddam was essentially completely paralyzed after the first gulf war.”
LbT, do you “essentially,” have complete proof that Saddam was paralyzed?
Paralyzed is a bit of an exaggeration..ya think?
Saddam was no dummy. Once he figured our President wasn’t Fing around, he decided to warm his family’s pockets with Oil for Food $. At the Iraqi peoples’ expense. So, if you call this paralyzed, I’d suggest you’d need to apply the same to the UN.
77. eric | December 7th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Teach,
I’m not saying I back up anybody. However, I believe that there is credible evidence that Saddam had WMDs and that he moved/hid those WMDs during the run up to the war. You are not even addressing the additional links that I posted. Why? Perhaps, it does support the possibility that Saddam did, in fact, have WMDs and you cannot discredit that evidence (other than to ask, “Where are the weapons now?). You are so blinded by your hatred of President Bush that you are unwilling to entertain the notion that he was correct.
78. Almiranta | December 7th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
LT seems to be saying (he’s a little incoherent) that “100s of thousands” of “people” would still be alive if we had not invaded Iraq.
Of course, he is exactly as accurate in this as he is in everything else he spouts.
Doncha just love the Loony Left ability to just invent things and spout them as if they had any relationship at all to reality?
Notice that LT and his ilk never answer any of the relevant questions. Let’s try again:
Where do you get your figures?
Of the “100s of thousands” of alleged casualties, do you assert that they died as the result of our invasion?
How?
How many were enemy combatants?
How many were innocent civilians, bystanders?
How can you tell the difference?
How many innocent civilians died before we invaded?
(You can skip the bizarro explanation that we were somehow to blame for Sadaam’s torture and rape rooms and mass graves—too goofy even for you.)
See, there is not one shred of reputable factual information in LT’s rants—and he doesn’t care. His is just one of those pathologies that feels better when he is viciously attacking someone. And he obviously doesn’t care how stupid, how deeply and profoundly stupid, he proves himself to be as he does it.
BTW, I have bought ketchup without “being in bed with” TerrAYza Heinz Kerry (please oh PLEASE get that image out of my mind!!!) You guys are so insane. Lots and lots of people did business with various German businesses in the years before Hitler proved to be a madman. Lots and lots of people even supported him, in Germany and all over the world, for what he purported to represent—renewed pride in Germany, the pursuit of industrial excellence, a strong national identity. To try to confabulate any connection with pre-late-30’s Hitler and his eventual actions is merely more and more and MORE proof of total historical illiteracy, as well as a scary dedication to insanity if it sounds vicious enough.
And LT has proven to us that vicious is all that matters to him.
79. Faceplant | December 7th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Hmmm, and who is it exactly that sits on the panel of intelligencesummit.org, the group that was behind the report?
Bill Cown, Claire Lopez, Thomas McInerney, and Paul Vallely are all neoconservative members of the Iran policy committee. A group that advocates for hardline policies against Iran.
Yosef Bodansky wrote article’s, and books claiming that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were in cahoots together despite the fact that there is little evidence that any link ever existed.
Rachel Ehrenfeld is a neoconservative member of the Committee on Present Danger; A hardline neocon group who advocates long term military presense in Iraq, and war against Iran.
Tashib Sayyed is a adjunct fellow at The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; A (you guessed it!) hardline neocon group which advocates a never ending military presense in Iraq, and war against Iran and Syria. It also advocates for US foreign policy in the Middle East to be completely centered around Israel.
Brigitte Gabriel is the founder of the American Congress for truth; a hardline neocon aligned group that believes terrorism is an existential threat that could threaten our very civilization.
One of the major financiers of the intelligencesummit.org is Michael Cherney, a man who is accused by the Israeli, and Russian Gov’t of having ties to organized crime. He’s currently under investigation by the Israeli Gov’t for business dealings he made with the Russian mafia.
James Woolsey, and John Deutch even resigned from the group after hearing incriminating evidence about Cherney.
A group just OOOOOzing with credibility.
So let’s recount this. David Kay, the first person handpicked by the Bush administration to lead an American weapons inspection team in Iraq, concludes that Iraq did not possess WMD. Charles Duelfer, the SECOND man handpicked by the Bush administration to lead an American weapons inpsection team in Iraq, concludes that Iraq did not possess WMD. Every member of the former Iraqi Gov’t that would have known about WMD programs have ALL claimed that no such weapons existed anymore. Not even a low level employee who would have worked on such weapons has ever come forward after the invasion of Iraq. The President of the United States concedes that there were no WMD in Iraq.
Yet you base your evidence on a group of card carrying neocons who STILL claim Iraq had WMD.
You guys really don’t realize how ridiculous you sound do you?
80. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
“The President of the United States concedes that there were no WMD in Iraq.” At the time of the invasion…numnuts…geez!!
Why is it, the kooks feel the need to attack with cherry-picked so-called facts that are irrelevant to the original argument and where is this indisputable evidence no WMDs existed prior to the invasion?
See FP, neither you or your kook buddies on the left can prove WMDs never existed anymore than we believers can prove they were, (although the infrastructure for these programs still exist to a certain degree) however, I’d be willing to put up a crisp $100 bill that eventually, the world will see overwhelming evidence to support our argument and your’s will go down in flames just like your “the surge won’t work” argument. Hell, I should’ve put money on that horse!
It must be sad to wake up every day, wondering what worms you’ll eat today…LOL!
81. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
“existed anymore”
I’m no english major, but WTF is this???
82. CallMeTeach | December 7th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Eric,
It is ignorant to say that everyone that does not agree with you hates Bush. I could care less and if I were to hate anyone it would be the American voters who had the lack of common sense to vote for an Evangelical who bankrupted 3 large companies and didn’t even know there was more than one sect of Islam and can’t explain what a sovereign nation is to save his life. Ya, I hate you Eric if that were the case but since I don’t hate anyone I guess it isn’t.
83. liberalT | December 8th, 2007 at 12:20 am
so let me ask you a question - if a foreign country starting bombing the US and invading it with tanks coming down your street. What would you do - even if they said they were trying to liberate you with tanks and bombs - even in the absurd proposition that you believed them?
84. eric | December 8th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Teach,
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. The problem I have with those of your ilk is the fact that you refuse to view all of the evidence and you refuse to engage in an intelligent debate. You simply ignore the facts that do not support your agenda. Did you take the time to read the additional links that I provided?
liberal T,
Do you want to add some more variables to your hypothetical? What if the leader of the U.S. was a brutal dictator? What if that same dictator murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens? What if that same dictator imprisoned those that opposed him? What if the son of that dictator was a rapist who terrorized the citizens? Unless you forgot, all of this actually happened in Iraq.
85. Casper | December 8th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Almiranta
“You guys are so insane. Lots and lots of people did business with various German businesses in the years before Hitler proved to be a madman.”
The quote about Bush’s grandparents came from John Loftus, the same guy who wrote the article about the missing WMD. Check out Rico’s link. I was using it to show what other beliefs Loftus has.
86. FmrMarine | December 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Teach
YOU - show us why, we should RUN from the marxist public schools as fast as we can.
87. Faceplant | December 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
“Why is it, the kooks feel the need to attack with cherry-picked so-called facts that are irrelevant to the original argument”
Every Gov’t sanctioned investigation has come to the conclusion that Iraq no longer possessed WMD (the Kay, and Duelfer reports both stated that Iraq most likely halted it’s WMD programs shortly after the Gulf War), yet you base your entire argument on a fringe group of neocons who are financed by a person who’s connected to organized crime.
And you say liberals are the ones cherry picking evidence? Do you even listen to yourself.
“See FP, neither you or your kook buddies on the left can prove WMDs never existed anymore than we believers can prove they were”
First of all, nobody ever claimed that they “never” existed. The claim (backed up by the United States Gov’t own inspection teams) is that Saddam destroyed his stockpiles shortly after the Gulf War, and made no effort to reconstitute those programs. Of course I can’t prove positively that Iraq didn’t have them, although if I listened to Sean Hannity I would know that we already found the WMD in Iraq… several different times.
But you see, the difference is that I can make a pretty safe assumption that they didn’t exist since, you know, two separate Gov’t sanctioned inspections teams came to the same conclusion, that Iraq didn’t possess WMD, and destroyed it’s stockpiles shortly after the gulf war.
Oh, but I forgot! A group of neocon’s financed by a criminal say Iraq did possess WMD. Well, I mean it must be true then!
“I’d be willing to put up a crisp $100 bill that eventually, the world will see overwhelming evidence to support our argument and your’s will go down in flames just like your “the surge won’t work” argument.”
If you say so.
and where is this indisputable evidence no WMDs existed prior to the invasion?
“Hell, I should’ve put money on that horse!”
Because our standard for winning now is that less people are getting killed. The surge is doing nothing to solve the underlying political problems.
88. liberalT | December 8th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
sure add that hypothesis. In fact its not just a hypothetical - you can ask what the Iraqi people want and every poll says that the vast majority did not support the invasion and want the US out ASAP. But thats just another inconvenient fact for you I suppose
89. navydad | December 8th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
FP,
B-freakin-S! No one, not one person or organization has concluded that there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion. Only that they didn’t exist at the “time” of the invasion. Read the documents retard…geez!
90. Ricorun | December 8th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
navydad: No one, not one person or organization has concluded that there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion. Only that they didn’t exist at the “time” of the invasion.
That is largely true. But by the same token, the only ones post-Oct 2002 that claimed with “high confidence”, even outright certainty that there were, were mostly employed by the Bush administration. And can you think of anything that happened between Oct 2002 and the invasion in March 2003 that might have caused some people to doubt their previous conclusions?
91. navydad | December 9th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Rico,
Could you direct me to those employed by the Bush Admin.? I’d like to compile a list of those that do and those that don’t…thanks.
I hadn’t really thought of putting a partisan twist on who actually believed the WMDs were there or weren’t there since the majority of politicians agreed that WMDs did exist. I’ve always, from the night GWB gave Saddam and da boys their ultimatum, believed that they did exist, but because of information I had access to from my years at the DOE..not the media or GWB, or our pols..
Now there’s something I feel that’s missing from all of this “was there or wasn’t there” rhetoric. The fact, and this is a fact, that there have been WMDs, in small quantities-not the WMDs we were expecting to find, but still some-that fell into the hands of insurgents and/or terrorists. Now how did they get there, and where did they come from? And if they were left-overs from the ‘91 era, where are the remnants to those thousands of WMD muniitions that are unaccounted for?
Also, if they were so easily accessed by either Saddam’s pals, wouldn’t one suppose that the larger stockpiles-if they existed- would be worth big $ on the black market and taken to market in a protected manner? There are way too many variables to leave this with a black or white. yes or no history, and in the final analysis-which may never be known by you or I-comes in, we still may never know the truth. But, for the those that believe WMDs never existed in Iraq to say such, is like saying Iraq was better off with Saddam in power…it simply makes no sense.
In a munitions rich environment such as Iraq’s, people like Saddam and his henchmen, derived their power from these weapons, and since Saddam’s pals in Syria are just as apt to be desirous of WMD programs as NK, Libya and Iran are/were, the book should remain open until that final analysis.
IMHO, those that choose to close “the book” do so primarily for political gain, and to do so may prove to be premature…just like “the surge won’t work.”
92. Ricorun | December 9th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
navydad, Could you direct me to those employed by the Bush Admin.? I’d like to compile a list of those that do and those that don’t…thanks.
The point I am trying to make here is that weapons inspectors returned to Iraq in greater numbers than ever before, starting in Dec 2002 and until just before the start of the invasion in March 2003. Without the authorization to use force that was passed in Oct 2002 I doubt that would have been possible. So I do give credit to Bush and/or congress (if you believe Karl Rove, there seems to be some question now as to who pushed to pass the resolution). At any rate the inspectors were there. And they did find some things, but not in the magnitude they expected. That’s not to say they were convinced of their absence (el Baradei had “high confidence that there wasn’t much in the way of an active nuclear program, but Blix was considerably less certain about chemical and biological weapons). Saddam was still pussyfooting around, and the plan was for inspections to intensify and get even more intrusive. Heaven knows how things would have played out had that happened. There was some talk that Saddam might have left voluntarily under an asylum deal. That seemed unlikely to me. More likely was that more of our “traditional allies”, would have joined the coalition, perhaps NATO, perhaps even the UN itself. Hans Blix stated publicly some time after the fact that that was his impression. Meanwhile, we had Saddam in a box. He couldn’t have done much of anything even if he wanted to. And of course, we had that other thing going on in Afghanistan, from which many of the best special ops guys were diverted to work on Iraq.
Regime change in Iraq was a foregone conclusion, it seems to me. And it had broad bipartisan and international appeal. The issue was primarily one of timing and strategic optimization. I’m trying to be as brief as I can here, but if you look at the kind of coalition that Bush 41 put together for the first Gulf War, and you compare it to the kind of coalition that Bush 43 cobbled together for the invasion of Iraq, the two are like night and day. And that is even though there remained a lot of international sympathy for the US because of what happened in 9/11. The coalition Bush 41 put together had the backing of much of the world (even Syria, by the way). We led the world in a fight for what’s right. And the rest of the world ended up paying for 90% of it. In contrast, the coalition Bush 43 put together lacked any significant international backing and we’re paying out the nose. More importantly, the sympathies many people felt for our plight in much of the rest of the world evaporated quickly, and instead we were seen as trigger-happy jingoist cowboys. That may be too harsh a characterization for general consumption. But you have to admit that there was considerable backlash over the invasion, even in countries whose governments decided to join us (however nominally).
Getting back to the timing issue, and specifically with respect to the “partisan twist” as you call it in terms of who actually believed the WMDs were there. My point was this… if you look at AAR’s comment #47 above and check out the dates of those quotations (from Democrats), all of them occur well before the inspectors returned to Iraq. After that time, and especially as the invasion drew near at the end of March, many Dems had adopted a “wait and see” approach to both the question of WMD and Bush’s diplomatic efforts in securing some sort of solid international legitimacy to whatever action was contemplated for Iraq — if not the UN, then at least NATO. Those were issues for many Republicans as well. But in the latter case Bush was doing an effective job of persuading the conservative base that the UN was a bunch of moonbats to the extent that many conservative pundits were actively trivializing the work of the UN inspectors, essentially claiming that they couldn’t find the ocean from the beach, and ignoring the significance of NATO entirely. That, I think, was the difference in terms of the partisan views at the time. And all the while there were any number of Bush administration muckity-mucks who continued to express “high confidence” that Saddam retained WMD — Bush, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz, Negroponte, etc. But rather than catalog them, I refer you here, when you can find an exhastive day-by-day account of events leading up to the invasion.
All that being said, the WMD issue was not the only one on the table. It is, however, the one that has the most traction from the standpoint of international law. No matter how theoretically or morally compelling it may sound to try to promote democracy, it does not provide a legal justification for an invasion of another country. The WMD question at least placed the justification in a legal gray area. That’s why it was so important. And that, I suspect, is why people keep going back to it. To me personally it matters far less whether or not WMD were found after the fact, but whether or not there was an adequate case to think they were there at the time. In that respect there was a big disconnect between the certainty of the Bush administration that they were there and the difficulties the arms inspectors encountered in turning stuff up. That’s not to say they weren’t turning stuff up — they were. Even as late as March 2003 they found a cache of medium range missiles, which they destroyed because they were in violation of sanctions. Nonetheless, to my mind Bush’s #1 shortcoming was that he failed in his diplomatic efforts because he pulled the trigger too hastily. The #2 shortcoming was that they didn’t have a well conceived plan to deal with the occupation. But that’s another topic entirely.
93. navydad | December 9th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Great run-down Rico!
I’ve posted the link in my favorites for future reference.
Ultimately, I think your last paragraph sums up “why” the war was such a blunder, but to say GWB “pulled the trigger too hastily” might be a bit much when you consider the 17 UN resolutions (over how many years) were basically ignored…and now we know why.
94. Faceplant | December 10th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
“No one, not one person or organization has concluded that there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion. Only that they didn’t exist at the “time” of the invasion. Read the documents retard…geez!”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
“The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq’s illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.
Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq’s weapons programs, said Hussein’s ability to produce nuclear weapons had “progressively decayed” since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of “concerted efforts to restart the program.”"