Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 14, 2007 17:16
VIEWED: 19028
PAGE 1 of 3
See: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30340
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But Hero's post was a joke, right?
Right?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A very well disuised one, probably. Maybe. Possibly --- Ok ------ I have no idea.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I fear Hero needs to believe something.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
But Hero's post was a joke, right?
Right?
Ten or twenty years from now peeps who stuck to the WMD fantasy will be feeling pretty much like they wasted their energy holding on to that one.
For me- when I read the title of his post, I was like "No WAY! If they DID, I'm gonna have to eat some crow..." See, many are prepared to see that they might be wrong about something, and others...well, they calcify their beliefs and will die with them, no matter what.
Oswald was alone (not) Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Funny thing is how Hero is alwayd baggin on Pirate like a good arch nemesis should while debunking all Pirate's conspiracy stuff.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, that irony is not lost on me, Mal.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes sir. It's proof positive right here. Liberals got no sense of humor at all.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:One of the things about humor is that it's supposed to be funny, I think the left has a great sense of humor, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, those guys kill me!
Originally posted by Geezer:
Yes sir. It's proof positive right here. Liberals got no sense of humor at all.
Now when I watch the 1/2 hour comedy hour on Fox, I need to hear a quick drum fill cymbal crash to know when they think it's supposed to be funny. And they have this laugh track that sounds like it comes from I Love Lucy days.
I guess my point is that you conservatives have a different sense of humor than liberals do, no better, no worse, just different.
Leave the hate behind Geezer, throw on those old Birkenstocks, love your liberal brothers
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
well, things are funny when they ring true. Problem with Hero making a joke is it rings too true to be able to determine if it is in fact, a joke.
Fox comedy isn't funny to me because it doesn't ring true. I'll make no claim to real truth verses bias, but from my perspective, the jokes don't work because they miss...they don't hit the heart of their targets.
From somebody elses perspective, the show may be hilarious. Not sure how many in that camp there are, though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lighten up, guys. I got the joke, thought it was pretty funny, actually.
And I pretty much hate every single Hero post on a cellular level, so that's saying something.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I actually found Hero's post pretty humorous. I figured Chris of all people would appreciate that.
I guess for the some Left-wing types humor is heavily dependent on ideology. It’s only funny if they’re sure they’re mocking the “right” people. When Hero gives them gold it confuses them. 
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sorry, it's just that the WMD mythology has become a religion to many, so when a pro-war type makes a funny involving it, my first reaction is that they're seriously trying to promote the idea with more lies/innacuracies. A second look at the thread reveals a goofy, over-the-top quality that I missed- but then again I found the idea that you could start a war with a lie sort of goofy and over-the-top to begin with, hence my missing the humour.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I actually found Hero's post pretty humorous. I figured Chris of all people would appreciate that.
Not a member of the Church Of The Divine WMD's Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently you right-wing-types don't recognize left-wing humor!
But actually, yeah, I recognized the joke. I even thought it was kinda funny! It would have been funnier if it didn't track some real-life serious statements so closely. I mean, didja hear the one that Bush said just recently? If we don't win in Iraq, al Qaida's gonna take over? Yeah, right- as if Iran would let them!!!
---------------------------------
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
With all due respect to Hero, nobody's funnier than Bush.
But, you know, funny in a 'yeah, but out troops are paying for it' kinda way.
So, generally hard to laugh Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just find it very hard to laugh over massive death and destruction.
Did'ja hear the one about the schoolbus full of little children ?? The bus driver was coming off a high and they ALL crashed !!! HA HA HA ... nah 
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh yeah- BTW- welcome back Finn!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Our Lady Of The Almighty WMD, ...please to remove your shoes when entering...
"We see you not, yet you are there.
We feel your presence, and the power it entails!
Yea, though we walk through the shadow of the valley of relative peace, you give us purpose.
Glory be to the WMD, everywhere and nowhere, threat without end!
It maketh Iran, and Venezuela, and North Korea into Holy Targets! (Don't know about China, though...)
If you enjoyed this sermon, please send contributions to Our Lady Of The Almighty WMD care of the Pentagon, Wash. D. C.
WMD bless."
How's that for funny Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You shoulda said "Care of Chrisisall"!!!!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/index_np.h
tml
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."
-------------------------------------------
Why Bush might send over a hundred thousand US troops into harm's way from WMD - b/c he knew they weren't there.
Looks like I was right.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.yourealyingsackofcrap.com/
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction (see previous post)
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cue AURaptor:
YES THEY DID! My world crumbles if they didn't.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cue Hero:
There is no conclusive substancial legal anti-proof that they do indeedy exist. Any drunk driver could tell you that.isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow! A whole two people told the president that there were no WMD in Iraq! I guess it’s conclusive. How could the president have possibly believed the countless others who said there were WMDs in Iraq, when two people said there weren’t!!!!
Originally posted by Storymark:
Cue AURaptor:
YES THEY DID! My world crumbles if they didn't.
I bet I could find two people who say that global warming doesn’t exist – I guess we’re all in agreement then that it doesn’t.
Makes me wonder whose world you’re actually worried about crumbling.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yup, they ignored this guy "Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister" and went with 'Curveball' instead. Good choice. 
One I'm sure you find acceptable.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, imagine that - the White House didn’t place a high level of confidence in the foreign minister of Saddam’s Iraq.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, imagine that - they believed Curveball.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
Curveball's German intelligence handlers saw him as "crazy ... out of control", his friends called him a, "congenital liar" and US officials investigating his claims were surprised that he had a hangover and that he, "might be an alcoholic".
... there were many reports that Curveball was actually a relative of one of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC) top aides.
The Bush administration ignored evidence from the UN weapons inspectors that Curveball's claims where false. Among Curveball's claims was that an Iraqi facility had been redesigned, with a temporary wall, to allow mobile laboratories to slip in and out undetected.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, you're a normally intelligent person but you just get all weird on this. There were many other indications that Saddam wasn't producing WMD: the whole "yellowcake" fiasco, the aluminum tube fiasco... The CIA and DIA tagged "Curveball" as unreliable long b4 he ever got Bush's attention. But Curveball's story was what Bush wanted to hear.
Furthermore, Blix had testified b4 the UN that he was within a few months of finding Iraq in substantial compliance with UN mandates. And so you have to wonder... or at least I did... what was the urgent urgency of going into Iraq? Why not just let the UNMOVIC inpsections play out?
And fianlly- where were Saddam's delivery systems? He sure didn't have ICBMs, or even reginally effective rockets. So why did we have to invade this month, this hour, this minute... CAN'T WAIT? It was all just a big show and you should have seen through it.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, Rap and Hero. I can't remember who else.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Many detractors want to make this appear as if this whole thing was crystal clear in 2003, but it was not, and it really still is not. The strongest reason that we’ve largely concluded that there were no WMDs at the time of the US/UK invasion is simply because we haven’t found them. Well, there are a lot of things that took a while to find, and there’s no guarantee that we still won’t find those WMD’s somewhere. In 2003, the existence of WMDs in Iraq was conjecture either way – there was really no hard evidence to support either side – so it really comes to who you want to believe. The Foreign Minister of Saddam’s Iraq wasn’t high on my list of reliable sources. And I doubt it was high on anyone’s list, if they were legitimately interested in the question.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So.....
After the wash, it appears the " The Foreign Minister of Saddam’s Iraq " now has greater credibility than the US government.
Mission Accomplished !!!!!!!!!!!
White Flour !
The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wiki
However, Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's European division, told the Los Angeles Times that "everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening" with Curveball.
Finn
And I doubt it (Naji Sabri) was high on anyone’s list (of reliable sources)
Salon
Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller.
-------------------------
Curveball was Bush's cover story, and while it may not have been clear to YOU in 2003 that there were no WMD, but it was clear to many people, including me.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn- It was crystal clear to me from the get-go. All I had to do was look at the accelerating hysteria the closer that Blix came to the finish to know that it was manufactured. The same thing happened b4 the invasion of Panama under the pretext that Noriega was a major drug-runner (HA! It was all about the canal) and the invasion of Grenada. War is not always about defense.
Quote:The US government is made of lots of people. Some of them are credible. Bush- not so much. Definitely less credible than Blix. But it is frustrating when you try to reduce everything to false dilemnas.
After the wash, it appears the " The Foreign Minister of Saddam’s Iraq " now has greater credibility than the US government.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So tell me, Finn. How is it that some people knew there were no WMD in Iraq while you continued (and still continue) to believe Bush ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- It was crystal clear to me from the get-go. All I had to do was look at the accelerating hysteria the closer that Blix came to the finish to know that it was manufactured. The same thing happened b4 the invasion of Panama under the pretext that Noriega was a major drug-runner (HA! It was all about the canal) and the invasion of Grenada. War is not always about defense.Quote:The US government is made of lots of people. Some of them are credible. Bush- not so much. Definitely less credible than Blix. But it is frustrating when you try to reduce everything to false dilemnas.
After the wash, it appears the " The Foreign Minister of Saddam’s Iraq " now has greater credibility than the US government.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Don't mean to frustrate you,
Bush as head of that government has set the tone, and direction of action for the rest. Anyone who had the courage to stand up, either resigned ( like a long line of Generals, Tenet maybe, likely Powell ) or were silenced ( Plame, etc ) or did nothing... and I don't mind painting those who do nothing with the same brush as the true believers.
And as a whole, my feeling is the US government has no credibility, as that has caused harm in many areas... Sudan for one
The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You don’t know any more than anyone else.
Originally posted by rue:
So tell me, Finn. How is it that some people knew there were no WMD in Iraq while you continued (and still continue) to believe Bush ?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So tell me, Finn. How is it that some people knew there were no WMD in Iraq while you continued (and still continue) to believe Bush ?
I think your recalling things a bit off. Most folk "knew" Iraq had a WMD program. Some people "thought" they didn't. Part of Saddam's strategy was to hide the truth. Since we knew he had them originally, but could not prove he didn't have them in 2003, then we chose to act on the collective intellegence we had at the time. That intellegence was consistant with that of our allies, Iraq's history, Saddam's behaivor, and common sense.
Was my posting a joke. Of course. I took a real world event, sprinkled a little Pirate-ish insanity and out comes some good crazy talk. I'm glad some folk were smart enough to get the joke, and glad some of you didn't cause thats funny too. But unlike PirateNews, mine had a message.
What was my message? It was subtle and had several parts: If the UN can't find the WMDs in their office how can they find them in Iraq? The WMD vials in their office is more proof of an Iraqi weapons program in the late 1990s (since thats where and when the stuff came from). But that, and the tons of munitions, missiles, and old weapons found scattered in Iraq are ignored. Did Saddam have an active program? Probably not. But there were the leavings and remnants of the old arsenal discovered and kept classified till last year. There are the remnants and leavings of the old arsenal hidden in desk drawers at the UN.
Me, I thought Saddam had a good strategy. He was never able to recover fully from the 1991 war. So he hid Iraq's weakness from its aggressive neighbors by maintaining an aggressive and confrontational stance towards US policy in the region. He undermined the western alliance of 1991 by buying wholesale lots of French, German, Russian, and UN officials with illegal oil money. He covered up his impotence by concealing the extent or lack thereof of his WMD program. It worked good, had Clinton completely fooled.
Bush countered by courting new European allies and calling Saddam's bluff. Saddam played his bad hand rather then folding when he had the chance and it cost him his life and the lives of hundreds of thousands of his people.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All that anyone in this Admin "knew" was that they wanted there to be WMD.
Spin it all you like, it was a war undertaken without proof, that has turned into a nightmare, killed thousands of our troops, and countless Iraqius, because our fucktard President wanted a war.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Spin it all you like, it was a war undertaken without proof...
There was proof because we knew 100% he HAD them and we had little or no evidence they didn't have them.
And the WMDs were only one issue in the multi-issue cause for war that the administration presented. If we had ten good reasons and 1 bad one, then the war is still good. Also the torture rooms and mass graves we discovered after the invasion are reasons we did not list prior to the war but which help justify it after the war is over. After all nobody knew about the extermination of the Jews in WW2 till we liberated the camps in 1945. Yet regardless of everything else the wholesale slaughter of millions by Hitler justifies the whole war after the fact. The same principal applies here.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I did know there were no WMD and I posted that.
So, how did I and others know while you didn't ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hindsight is 20/20?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:...and there's no guarantee that the Romulans won't invade us next year...
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
and there’s no guarantee that we still won’t find those WMD’s somewhere.
Quote:Exactly! PRECISELY!!
In 2003, the existence of WMDs in Iraq was conjecture either way – there was really no hard evidence to support either side –
And somehow you are okay with starting a war based on what you want to see in a situation....honestly Finn, a lot of times you have an argument for your perspective that I must respect, but your logic is in question, where WMD's are concerned.
Vulcanisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hindsight in 2003 ? Try again.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Hindsight is 20/20?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So tell me, Finn. How is it that some people knew there were no WMD in Iraq while you continued (and still continue) to believe Bush ?-Rue
You don’t know any more than anyone else. -Finn
Quote:Hey, I knew from the get-go and I posted as such. And I explained WHY I knew: The closer Blix got to declaring Iraq in substantial compliance with UN mandates, the more shrill the Adminstration got. Some of the "evidence" that they put forth was clearly unjustified. (For example, the DOE found those infamous aluminum tubes didn't meet uranium centrifuge specs and were prolly purchased for rocket engines. But one thing Bush does quite well is brush aside "techie" evaulations. It's like physical reality doesn't exist for him.) Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence from past administrations (You can include Lyndon Johnson and Maggie Thatcher along with Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush) that wars are NOT always about defense. Politics requires a BIG dose of skepticism: Nobody is going to tell you outright that they're about the f*ck yu over. BY the time they're thru spinning the story, you'll be so dizzy you'll believe it's all for your own good! Just start out with the idea that most politicians lie most of the time... EVEN ABOUT WAR... and you'll be heading in the right direction
Hindsight is 20/20?-BDN
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You have the same psi-ability that I possess, clearly.
Originally posted by rue:
I did know there were no WMD and I posted that.
So, how did I and others know while you didn't ?
Gifted Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I did know there were no WMD and I posted that.
So, how did I and others know while you didn't ?
You were wrong. President Clinton, ALGore and dozens of other high ranking democrats disagreed with you.
Not to mention President Bush, Tony Blair and 95% of the world wide intellegence community.
It was you, Saddam, and a few guys from the UN. Heck, I still don't believe you. Lets face it I could plop a warhead filled with sarin gas and stamped 'Made in Iraq, March 1st 2003' taken live on video by a busload of nuns as it was removed from Saddam's bedroom minutes after he fled the building having completed a live internet sex tape staring him, Paris Hilton, and the warhead and witnessed by every person in the entire world and certified by Jesus Christ himself IN PERSON and you'd still say "but there were no WMDs, Bush lied".
Did they find a WMD program? No. Did they find WMDs and prohibited weapons? Yes, yes they did. Most were manufactured leftovers from the '80s and early '90s and no stockpiles, just some here and some there. Might Saddam have hidden more or moved them to Syria? Maybe. He sent his air force to Iran during the '91 War (except the Migs we found buried in the desert in 1993) , so there's precedent.
Tell you what. Give me ten years head start and I'll hide something in the state of California, if you find it then I'll admit I'm wrong.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:that you might even destroy you country's economy trying to respond.
Originally posted by SignyM:
BY the time they're thru spinning the story, you'll be so dizzy
Saddam was goin' for a Reagan-a-dope Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The EXACT opposite is true for you, Hero.
Originally posted by Hero:
Lets face it I could plop a warhead filled with sarin gas and stamped 'Made in Iraq, March 1st 2003' taken live on video by a busload of nuns as it was removed from Saddam's bedroom minutes after he fled the building having completed a live internet sex tape staring him, Paris Hilton, and the warhead and witnessed by every person in the entire world and certified by Jesus Christ himself IN PERSON and you'd still say "but there were no WMDs, Bush lied".
And you won't even see it
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:At the time they were in office they did not have the additional information generated by aggressive UNMOVIC inpsections. And it wasn't "the UN" that inpsected Iraq, the inspection team included Scott Ritter AND David Kay. I listened carefully to what they were doing and how they were doing it, and it didn't seem possible that Saddam would be producing WMD in meaningful quantities w/o it being detected. You have to pay attention to information as it comes in, not get stuck in 5-year-old data.
You were wrong. President Clinton, ALGore and dozens of other high ranking democrats disagreed with you.
Quote:Is that the best you can come up with????
Lets face it I could plop a warhead filled with sarin gas and stamped 'Made in Iraq, March 1st 2003' taken live on video by a busload of nuns as it was removed from Saddam's bedroom minutes after he fled the building having completed a live internet sex tape staring him, Paris Hilton, and the warhead and witnessed by every person in the entire world and certified by Jesus Christ himself IN PERSON and you'd still say "but there were no WMDs, Bush lied".
Why did you even post? Quote:Is it bigger than a breadbox? Tell you what- you "hide" a uranium weapons program in California, or the ability to produce 5 tons of Sarin... or the ability to produce 25,000 liters of liquid anthrax and you win.
Tell you what. Give me ten years head start and I'll hide something in the state of California, if you find it then I'll admit I'm wrong.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You were wrong. President Clinton, ALGore and dozens of other high ranking democrats disagreed with you."
No, I was right.
Now maybe in your line of work (court clerk) you spend your time thinking about how things could have been construed and how to work with innuendo, but in my line of work (scientist) I deal with data and facts.
So, what did I know that made me right and you wrong ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh yeah... and make sure you hide that ICBM program you got going too. Also make sure to test your rockets and missiles in secret.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Tell you what- you "hide" a uranium weapons program in California, or the ability to produce 5 tons of Sarin... or the ability to produce 25,000 liters of liquid anthrax and you win.
I was thinking about this as I wrote it. How many WMDs are too many? How many tons of sarin gas do you need? I think that the ability to produce it is bad and easily found, but a couple tons of it is really bad, yet easily hidden. Especially since I plan to cheat our little game and hide everything in Utah.
Good thing for you Saddam would NEVER cheat...
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero
You still think there's WMD in Iraq ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Of course he does, Rue, it's in the secret base of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, who briefly aligned himself with Iraq, and who had planned to steal them from Saddam all along.
Originally posted by rue:
Hero
You still think there's WMD in Iraq ?
He (and they) are now in Iran.
Silly silly British Rue Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh dear, that was a silly question for me to ask, wasn't it ? 
And yet, I'm still hoping for a reply.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A lot.
I was thinking about this as I wrote it. How many WMDs are too many? How many tons of sarin gas do you need?
Quote:Because too bad for YOU that Sarin and liquid anthrax degrade quickly, especially in hot weather. You can't produce Sarin or liquid anthrax little by little and store it like in a piggy-bank. You see, this is where being a technical newbie puts you at a disadvantage. Your imagination is free to dream up all kinds of scenarios. But once you start grappling with the real details there are suddenly many stumbling blocks. And what about those rockets? What good does it so to have all those weapons if you can't "deliver" them? The facts are as the facts are.
I think that the ability to produce it is bad and easily found, but a couple tons of it is really bad, yet easily hidden. Especially since I plan to cheat our little game and hide everything in Utah.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:A lot.
I was thinking about this as I wrote it. How many WMDs are too many? How many tons of sarin gas do you need?Quote:
For military use in an open battlefield that's probably true in a confined space like the NY subway.... not so much.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4365417.stm
That's the kicker of this whole thing. A pound of polonium has limited miliary use against forces with good ABC countermeasures. The same amount wrapped around a dirty bomb and exploded in Times Square? Different ball game.
So if the question is "can you hide enough to win a replay of the Iran-Iraq war or topple Saudi Arabia, the answer is probably no, if the question is can you hide enough to give NYC or LA a very bad day, that's very different.
You may not agree that WMD's were the real reason that the administration went to war but they certainly expected to find some when they got there. Declaring war on that basis, going in and finding nothing was the worse possible result for them because it very serverly damaged US creadibilty from that moment. Right now Washington could show a video of Iran's president Ahmadinejad, tapdancing around an A-Bomb, provide a hand writen note by him saying he'll drop it on Tel Aviv and a radar track of the plane in the air and the UN won't believe it. The US could have come up with any number of reasons to topple Sadam, they chose WMD because unlike Rue they were absolutely sure that when they got there they would find some.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Because too bad for YOU that Sarin and liquid anthrax degrade quickly, especially in hot weather. You can't produce Sarin or liquid anthrax little by little and store it like in a piggy-bank. You see, this is where being a technical newbie puts you at a disadvantage.
Isn't liquid Anthrax principly in that state to allow it to be weaponised? I believe as dry powdered spores (like the stuff mailed to congress) it would actually last a long time. The UK exploded an Anthrax bomb on a Scotish island during WW2 and it was still considered lethal in the 1980's (I know the weather is a lil different but I'm curious.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island
Also, isn't Sarin made from binary components? Wiki suggests the shelf life in Binary form could be several years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saddam didn't have the technology to create sporulated anthrax. When Colin Powell showed that little vial of powder to the UN and said that Saddam had so many thousand liters, that was complete BS. Saddam had liquid anthrax in the 80's. What Saddam missed destroying had been "spoiled" for many years by that time.
AFA terrorist use of WMD... Saddam was a secular dictator. He was not confused by visions of matryrdom and paradise. At one time he was our bulwark against Iranian theocracy. His ambitions were purely regional. Bush had to work hard to paint Saddam as a "terrorist" (in the sense of attacking the USA) and a lot of Bush's arguments had a lot of "if" coming offa them. (Saddam MIGHT sell WMD to terrorists. Or they MIGHT steal them from him. Or they MIGHT be deployed and stolen later.) The data just wasn't behind it.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Saddam didn't have the technology to create sporulated anthrax. When Colin Powell showed that little vial of powder to the UN and said that Saddam had so many thousand liters, that was complete BS. Saddam had liquid anthrax in the 80's. What Saddam missed destroying had been "spoiled" for many years by that time.
AFA terrorist use of WMD... Saddam was a secular dictator. He was not (towards the end to his reign) particularly "connected", but he also wasn't confused by visions of matryrdom and paradise. At one time he was our bulwark against Iranian theocracy. He had no intention of bringing down the USA because his ambitions were purely regional. But that's why Bush had to work so hard to connect Saddam to 9-11: to paint him as a "terrorist".
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Hummm ok, that's kind of opposite from the way I understood it. Anthrax creates spores naturally and you can dry them and make them into a powder. That was why the 1940's British bomb could be made so easily. However, powdered Anthrax is hard to handle and deploy and is risky to your own troops. Making it as a liquid makes it more potent and means you can use it in the same artillary shells you can use to fire chemical weapons. I thought liquifying it was what made it "weaponised" as opposed to the powdered form which is what is supplied to most labs?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can't believe there is still discussion on this.. even Bush and Cheney themselves have admitted there was a severe "intelligence failure." Very curious, especially considering that the CIA was trying constantly to tell Bush even before the war that Saddam had no WMD. Bush just didn't listen. Anyway, any reputable source you can find will say that there were no WMD in Iraq and that there was an "intelligence failure" which made us think there was WMD there before the invasion.
So, I don't get what this thread is about. Is this for real a discussion on whether Saddam had WMD? I don't know whether to laugh or cry guys.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are a few people here who still think Iraq had WMD (though I'm still waiting for an answer from one person).
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, weaponized anthrax is sporulated. It's relatvely easy to grow anthrax in a liquid medium. What's difficult is collecting and purifying the spore from the "goop" and milling the spores dwon to individual particles. Also, you need to apply an anti-static coating to the spores otherwise they clump together and settle out too quickly. At one time I knew the preferred particle size (it was in the micron range) but have since forgotten.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You didn’t know. You bet against your country and may have gotten lucky, and now you’re trying to pass that off as knowledge. At best you’re disingenuous.
Originally posted by rue:
I did know there were no WMD and I posted that.
So, how did I and others know while you didn't ?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No Finn. I KNEW.
You didn’t know.
Quote:I wasn't betting against my country I was betting for it. Because I ALSO knew that getting into Iraq would be a lot easier than getting out. I'll try and find my earlier posts from this board. Not that its verifiable but I can post my letters to Dianne Feinstein too if you wish.
You bet against your country and got lucky,
Quote:I have repeated more than once how I knew what I knew. If you would listen and take heed you might know too.
and now you’re trying to pass that off as knowledge.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, to reiterate: Start out with the idea that very few politicans really worry about "the state of the nation", and follow that with the idea that no politican is going to tell you outright that s/he's about to fnck you over.
Once you've stopped thinking of a politician as a big daddy (or mommy) taking care of the country you'll start to see the truth about a lot of things.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FinnQuote:
You didn’t know. You bet against your country and may have gotten lucky, and now you’re trying to pass that off as knowledge. At best you’re disingenuous.
Actually I DID know, and I also knew that Bush knew, and that he lied. And so did SignyM, Ghoulman, and a few others. No betting was involved.
Bush LIED about WMD
May 09, 2005
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=10019
9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam
June 16, 2004
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=5766
Don't get mad, it's for our troops
May 05, 2004
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=5066
Our President
April 24, 2004
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=4880
So, how did we know ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually I DID know, and I also knew that Bush knew, and that he lied. And so did SignyM, Ghoulman, and a few others. No betting was involved.
Originally posted by rue:
FinnQuote:
You didn’t know. You bet against your country and may have gotten lucky, and now you’re trying to pass that off as knowledge. At best you’re disingenuous.
That you have nothing good to say about this administration only demonstrates how biased you are, not that you knew anything. How could you have known? Where you in charge of Saddam’s weapons’ programs? Are you magical? That’s it, isn’t it? What’s more likely, that you’re some sort of all-knowing and all-seeing magician or you just shot your mouth and by happenstance got it right?
I know which one I pick.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So you have nothing to say about the topic.
I keep asking you to figure out HOW we knew because even back then there were very specific pieces of widely available information that gave it away.
But you refused to consider them, no matter how evident, because they didn't fit with what you wanted to believe.
Do you want me to pull out specific quotes ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:IS there anything good to say? Let's see.. he tried to privatize Social Security, he gave a way a shitload of money to the pharmas thru Medicare by prohibiting the government from bargaining over the price, he and his administration fiddled while NOLA drowned, he declared himself free from needing warrants for telephone snooping- or habeus corpus for detention, he wrote more "signing statements" than all other Presidents combined, he created a larger deficit than all previous deficits, he tried to allow illegal immigrants permanent residence,... I dunno, what did he do right? If you can come up with something good I'd sure be interested to hear it.
That you have nothing good to say about this administration only demonstrates how biased you are
Quote:
How could you have known? Where you in charge of Saddam’s weapons’ programs? Are you magical? That’s it, isn’t it? What’s more likely, that you’re some sort of all-knowing and all-seeing magician or you just shot your mouth and by happenstance got it right?
Did you read my posts? I thought I was very clear on how I knew what I did:1) historical precedent
2) lack of trust in most politicians
3) reports from Blix
4) the timing and tone of Adminstration statements.
According to the old thread that Rue dug up, I've been pretty clear all along. Nothing magical about it- just realism.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And I’ve already told you. You took a guess and it turned out to be right. For instance, you trusted the opinion of the Foreign Minister of Saddam’s Iraq. Why? Because there’s any reason to believe that he was being honest or even that he knew himself? No. Most of Saddam’s government, including many of his weapon’s experts, didn’t know. But somehow you did? Magic is the only way that could have happened.
Originally posted by rue:
So you have nothing to say about the topic.
I keep asking you to figure out HOW we knew because even back then there were very specific pieces of widely available information that gave it away.
You had a point of view based largely on cynicism, distrust and outright hatred of Bush administration, more than any kind of real knowledge, but as it turns out you were probably correct. However, as far as you knew or anyone else, it could have just as easily not been correct. Now you’re trying to attribute some kind of certain knowledge, but all you’re doing is undermining your own credibility.
No one knew.
Some people guessed right.
Quote:Historical precedent? At no time in history has a nation believed to have WMD turn out to have them? Lack of trust in most politicians – so what? Reports from Blix – Blix went before the UN and listed tons of biological and chemical weapons Saddam was believed to have. The timing and tone of the administration statements – again so what? What you did was make a guess, based largely on your political ideology more than any kind of real knowledge. Now if you want to admit that you made a guess, even an insightful guess, I can believe that and even tip my hat to your insight, but if you’re going to insist that you somehow knew what you couldn’t possibly have known, don’t bother, because I’m not that stupid.
Originally posted by SignyM:
According to the old thread that Rue dug up, I've been pretty clear all along. Nothing magical about it- just realism.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know Finn- when I come across people who seem to know more than I do - who make better predictions - I go out of my way to learn from them. I suppose your defensiveness about your background and education won't let you do that.
If you have to tell yourself that people who were right when you were wrong are just mean-spirited lucky guessers, then go right ahead and do that if it makes you feel better.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was certain. Could I go to Iraq and verify what I was sure about? Of course not. But did I have any doubt whatsoever? No.
Quote:You're looking at the wrong precedent, my friend. I can point out a number of times that leaders have gone to war... or taken military action... for reasons that they dare not say out loud. Remember the Tonkin Gulf? The Mayaguez? Grenada? The Falklands? Panama? In hindsight, the "reasons" why a military action was taken don't stand up to the scrutiny of history.
Historical precedent? At no time in history has a nation believed to have WMD turn out to have them?
Quote:Just assume that what you're told has little to do with the truth. Take a step back and try not to be so engaged in the moment- take a historical perspective.
Lack of trust in most politicians – so what?
Quote:No: Believed to have had. Which everyone knew were no longer useful (except mustard gas) What they were doing - aside from looking for active WMD programs- was an accounting of the weapons that Saddam claimed to have destroyed but didn't document.
Reports from Blix – Blix went before the UN and listed tons of biological and chemical weapons Saddam was believed to have.
Quote:Finn, politicians only tell you what they want you to hear when they want you to hear it. They seek to manipulate you to further their own agendas. Take a step back, put it in that context. Most politicians lie. And I don't mean about little stuff like whether they go to church, I mean about whether to go to war or bankrupt the country.
The timing and tone of the administration statements – again so what?
Quote:No, it's not based on ideology. I'm not a Democrat, I didn't vote for Clinton (and I could give you a long list of things that he did that galled me, starting wtih NAFTA), I think Hillary is dangerous. But I know when I'm being manipulated. If you want to call that an insightful guess, that's fine with me. But it was a guess based on lots of experience and analysis.
What you did was make a guess, based largely on your political ideology more than any kind of real knowledge. Now if you want to admit that you made a guess, even an insightful guess, I can believe that and even tip my hat to your insight, but if you’re going to insist that you somehow knew what you couldn’t possibly have known, don’t bother, because I’m not that stupid.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is a key point of disagreement: the sole reason I did not scream loudly at the start of the war was -only- due to the threat that Sadam had WMD; nothing else justified the war, imho. Of course, the real question is what was there a significant portion of the US public who felt the same way; harder to say. But it seems to me that there were a goodly number of folks in that leaky boat.
Originally posted by Hero:
And the WMDs were only one issue in the multi-issue cause for war that the administration presented. If we had ten good reasons and 1 bad one, then the war is still good.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero, from a LEGAL perspective there is only one reason to pre-emptively attack and that is when faced with imminent danger. And even that notion isn't fully supported. There was nothing imminent about Saddam.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And that's why Bush had to call it a preventative war. Though there's no such definition in international law - a fact that was pointed out at the time.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Being mean-spirited has nothing to do with the WMD issue.
Originally posted by rue:
If you have to tell yourself that people who were right when you were wrong are just mean-spirited lucky guessers, then go right ahead if it makes you feel better.
I happen to think that there is a lot to be said for insightful guesses, most of the opinions I’ve had that turned out to be right were more often than not guesses. But when someone tries to convince me that they knew all along something that they couldn’t possibly have known – that’s a red flag that this person is trying to inflate the reliability of their opinions.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In Signy's case, it's called having specific scientific knowledge of certain realities.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You didn’t know. You bet against your country and may have gotten lucky, and now you’re trying to pass that off as knowledge.
When Bush wanted to go into Afghanistan, I didn't yell that we shouldn't, just 'cause it was Bush sayin' it. But when the frenzy to invade Iraq started, I smelled Horse poop all over it.
Like when 'scientific' reports showed how 'good' margerine was for you, I balked. It was another case of finding or creating the evidence to support the findings they wanted.
In my case, common sence sufficed (but not so common as it should be, clearly).
And most of us don't BET against our country, we just call foul when we see it. It's just too bad that recently it's been often.
Chrisisall, no believer in real-life Treknobabble
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It prolly depends on what you mean by "know". Was I certain? Yes. Was Rue certain? Yes. Does that constitute "knowing"? Well, I've predicted this kind of stuff b4. I know how it works, I have confidence in my model based on past success. IMHO yes.
that they knew all along something that they couldn’t possibly have known
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There were other things that justified the war in my mind and probably in the minds of many key policy makers in the administrations, but the WMD issue was seen as the strongest argument to make as the CB to the public. And this was Fletch2’s point, that the administration would never have focused on this issue if they didn’t believe it completely. That makes a lot of sense.
Originally posted by leadb:Quote:This is a key point of disagreement: the sole reason I did not scream loudly at the start of the war was -only- due to the threat that Sadam had WMD; nothing else justified the war, imho. Of course, the real question is what was there a significant portion of the US public who felt the same way; harder to say. But it seems to me that there were a goodly number of folks in that leaky boat.
Originally posted by Hero:
And the WMDs were only one issue in the multi-issue cause for war that the administration presented. If we had ten good reasons and 1 bad one, then the war is still good.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Absolutely technically speaking, I can see your point. No one could "KNOW".
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I happen to think that there is a lot to be said for insightful guesses,
But in that way, I can only guess that Mt. Everest exists; I've never actually seen it...and I can only guess that Earth has only one moon since I can't PROVE a second or third one doesn't exist.
I plead guilty to leaning according to a propondererance of evidence- not first-hand conclusive proof.
Not perfected yet Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
the administration would never have focused on this issue if they didn’t believe it completely. That makes a lot of sense.
IT
DOESN'T!
It makes sense that they used it as the public reasoning for the war, assuming things would go better than they have been, and could've made up other excuses that we'd all buy later, as a sucessful campaigne would have been widely accepted, no matter the nefarious reasons for it's beginning (or so they thought, IMO).
They are no Boyscouts; Boyscouts are always prepared. They weren't.
'Believed it completely', I'm dyin' heah Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There were other things that justified the war in my mind and probably in the minds of many key policy makers in the administrations, but the WMD issue was seen as the strongest argument to make as the CB to the public. And this was Fletch2’s point, that the administration would never have focused on this issue if they didn’t believe it completely. That makes a lot of sense.
How about... they focused on the issue because it would scare the crap outta the public? Because they thought the war would be a success and everybody forgives a success? Wow. You still haven't figured it out. 
You just can't face the emotional turmoil of realizing that you've been lied to by someone you've been taught your whole life to respect. You have so much invested in what you think America is like that it's preventing you from seeing the truth. And if you saw the truth, you'd feel like a displaced person; the feeling of "home" would be gone. :sad face:
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You had a point of view based largely on cynicism, distrust and outright hatred of Bush administration, more than any kind of real knowledge ..."
You couldn't be more wrong. There were many contrary facts that were in the news. It wasn't about guessing, or hatred, or trusting anyone in Hussein's government.
It started with the hasty exit from Afghanistan, with bin Laden still on the loose and Bush not thinking about him much, anymore. (And bin Laden says hi, just to remind us that he's still there. :waves hand:)
The 'yellowcake' SOTU, Powell's flimsy UN presentation, the aluminum tube fiasco the US DOE said could never used for centrifuges, Bush's continued escalation of demands on Hussein as he (Hussein) kept meeting UN requirements - and as the window for a good-weather war closed, the UN inspections finding nothing, and Bush arbitrarily creating a new timetable, Bush's own description of it as a 'preventative' war - these are only a few. The final nail was the sheer fact that the US military was NOT prepared for chemical or biological weapons and that, in the Bush scenario, he was prepared to send them into harm's way and take thousands of casualties from those 'massive stockpiles' of WMD just waiting to go.
Think about it. Does that make military or political sense to you ?
I was not in doubt that the US was being carefully groomed to turn and aim at Iraq for reasons divorced from 9/11, GWOT or WMD.
----------------------
And now, I have to get on with my (already full) weekend.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except that the evidence that existed wasn’t even nearly as strong as you suggest. Most of Rue’s and Signym argument is based on cynicism and mistrust. That’s not evidence at all. There wasn’t any strong evidence one way or another. A good part of what’s generally given as evidence against WMDs in Iraq doesn’t really even qualify as evidence.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I plead guilty to leaning according to a propondererance of evidence- not first-hand conclusive proof.
And yes, I think the administration was sure that they would find WMD’s in Iraq. Much like Rue and Signym, they were certain of what they couldn’t possibly have known. But the likely existence of WMDs in Saddam’s Iraq was the consensus, not only among those who were in favor of the war, but among those who were against it.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Another key point of disagreement; I believe that Bush wanted the war, and one of two things happened,
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:There were other things that justified the war in my mind and probably in the minds of many key policy makers in the administrations, but the WMD issue was seen as the strongest argument to make as the CB to the public. And this was Fletch2’s point, that the administration would never have focused on this issue if they didn’t believe it completely. That makes a lot of sense.
Originally posted by leadb:Quote:This is a key point of disagreement: the sole reason I did not scream loudly at the start of the war was -only- due to the threat that Sadam had WMD; nothing else justified the war, imho. Of course, the real question is what was there a significant portion of the US public who felt the same way; harder to say. But it seems to me that there were a goodly number of folks in that leaky boat.
Originally posted by Hero:
And the WMDs were only one issue in the multi-issue cause for war that the administration presented. If we had ten good reasons and 1 bad one, then the war is still good.
1) he deliberately suppressed information which did not support going to war.
2) he made it clear that what he wanted was information to support going to war, and this failure in leadership led to him being presented biased information.
Neither 'looks good' for Bush, and the former borders on the illegal. The latter might support him 'believing it completely'; however, then he failed to learn the lesson of the need to get all perspectives appropriately represented to achieve the best solution. I personally do not think he 'believed it completely'; I believe he simply recognized it as the best way to ram through the initiation of the war.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t disagree with that. But the mistake I think you’re making is in assuming that this necessarily means he had malicious motivations. I don’t think so at all. I think he believed, as did many in his administration, that Iraq had WMDs and was a potential threat, which in the years preceding 9/ll was not considered tolerable given US/Iraq relations. And in the absence of certainty, he felt an obligation to his office and his country. I can respect opinions that disagree with the war or with the reasons for going to war, but this desire to portray Bush as some sort of evil villain that was desperate for war is just far too sophomoric.
Originally posted by leadb:
Another key point of disagreement; I believe that Bush wanted the war, and one of two things happened.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not all all. I had to ask myself- and you should too- why, with Blix so near the finish line and no evidence whatsoever that Saddam had missiles that could reach us... what was so terribly urgent that invasion couldn't wait for another three months?
Most of Rue’s and Signym argument is based on cynicism and mistrust.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wait for what? Iraq had the UNSC in its pocket. It led weapons’ inspectors around by their ears for a decade. The truth is that weapons inspectors in Iraq never had any credibility in the eyes of the administration. But that’s not evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq – it’s just evidence that the administration didn’t trust the UN to find them, which quick frankly, I can’t blame them, given the UN's track record in Iraq.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Not all all. I had to ask myself- and you should too- why, with Blix so near the finish line and no evidence whatsoever that Saddam had missiles that could reach us... what was so terribly urgent that invasion couldn't wait for another three months?
Most of Rue’s and Signym argument is based on cynicism and mistrust.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, weaponized anthrax is sporulated. It's relatvely easy to grow anthrax in a liquid medium. What's difficult is collecting and purifying the spore from the "goop" and milling the spores dwon to individual particles. Also, you need to apply an anti-static coating to the spores otherwise they clump together and settle out too quickly. At one time I knew the preferred particle size (it was in the micron range) but have since forgotten.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Well we built a bomb with 1940's technology while under strategic bombing and the main reason it wasn't used was out of fear that it could be too effective. It seems hard to imagine that Saddam couldn't do the same 50 years later.
Weaponising something to the level of a battlefield weapon is far far more complex than making a crude device. Things like antistatic coatings improve the effectiveness of the device but they are not essential.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn
Your arguments make little sense before the attack, and none at all to explain US action after. If the administration was SO sure there were WMDs that constituted such a DIRE threat - why didn't they secure the sites where they 'knew' the weapons were ? Why didn't they start looking for weapons until months later, and then only under pressure ? Why didn't they invite the UN in to help find the weapons after the war ?
Nope, your arguments don't make sense at all, Finn.
And you have yet to explain mine away. You just keep mis-characterizing them as conjecture, as if that was an actual argument. That the aluminum tubes couldn't be used in centrifuges was technical fact. That the 'yellowcake' claim was an outright lie was a fact, as outlined at great length in the Senate Report. The same is true for the supposed connection between Hussein and al Qaeda. That the military wasn't equipped for a CBW war was reported by the GAO. That Bush kept shifting the goal-lines for Iraq to avoid war was reported on the WH website.
I invite you to substantively discuss these facts. But if all you do is more handwaving, then I see no point in further discussion.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wait for what? Iraq had the UNSC in its pocket. It led weapons’ inspectors around by their ears for a decade. The truth is that weapons inspectors in Iraq never had any credibility in the eyes of the administration. But that’s not evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq – it’s just evidence that the administration didn’t trust the UN to find them, which quick frankly, I can’t blame them, given the UN's track record in Iraq.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Not all all. I had to ask myself- and you should too- why, with Blix so near the finish line and no evidence whatsoever that Saddam had missiles that could reach us... what was so terribly urgent that invasion couldn't wait for another three months?
Most of Rue’s and Signym argument is based on cynicism and mistrust.
one important detail... turns out the UN / embargo was effective after all; Iraq in fact had destroyed the bulk of their weapons. You now speak of 'trust',etc. Keeping in mind that Iraq had a very hostile neighbor, Sadam played his hand to keep Iraq worried enough to not invade them; this isn't exactly an irrational possition given I doubht much of anyone in the world would come to Iraq's aid in such an event. Sadam underestimated one of two things:
1) US's ability to conduct effective intelligence.
2) Bush's determination to invade regardless.
I personally believe it was #2 that was his undoing more so than 1.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've been pondering this a bit; and have decided I'm personally at my 'sum up' point for where this discussion has been going.
Consider this analogy: Person A, B and C. A lives across the street from B & C. A sees B fiddling around with something that looks like a grenade launcher vaguely aimed at C's place. There's a long history of trouble and threats amongst the three; and C is suspected of occasionally stealing B's stuff, and they are 'fighting' over where a property line should be drawn. B & C have each eternally sworn to see the other sent to hell first. Person A, knowing that grenade launcher could hit his house, shoots and kills person B. Many of the neighbors are variously pleased or not over the passing of B, and many think the action justified. It turns out, when the cops show up, that the grenade launcher was really a pipe and drill bit; and the rest of the drilling rig is in the house ready to be setup. Now, had that -really- been a grenade launcher, A probably could have gotten off with a self-defense plea. But he was, however justifiably, wrong. In all likely hood, he's going to go away for man-slaughter or some reduced charge.
Much in the same way, the only fig leaf Bush had going into Iraq was the WMD. This is something he -had- to be right about. He was wrong; perhaps with good reason; but he was in fact wrong. This is a case where, all excuses aside, this leaves Bush liable, at least morally, possibly legally. I believe that the question is not was Bush in the wrong, but which crime is he guilty of: Knowing that the WMD but trying to leave himself plausible denial ability. Or just 'wrong', and being guilty of the 'manslaughter' equivalent. I believe he should be removed from office, and in any case once out of office, could be subjected to international judgment. Of course, I'm not going to hold my breath on this one... looks like Bush is going to get another free pass on his 'oops'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch2- the liquid anthrax that Saddam was a "bulk" form.
Quote:
Consequently, it was also never explained that Iraq had been "fundamentally disarmed" by UN inspectors, in the words of former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter, with "90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability…verifiably eliminated". It was never revealed to the American public by the Bush administration that even had Iraq managed to maintain "stockpiles" of the anthrax it had produced, it had a shelf life which would have rendered it useless many years prior. Iraq, Ritter explained, produced only "liquid bulk anthrax", which "even under ideal storage conditions, germinates in three years, becoming useless."
Y'all should read this:
www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/iraq_anthrax.htm
ALSO, FLECTH2-The wiki article that you link to is NOT REPEAT NOT liquid anthrax. They refer to anthrax spores which are a dry powder. When they refer to a "brown aerosol" they're referring to a POWDERED aerosol.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, I think it was more likely that the UN destroyed the bulk of Iraq’s WMDs, but this is irrelevant. The UN conducted weapons’ inspections so poorly and was so willing to appease Saddam instead of enforcing UN Chapter 7 Resolutions that they could not be trusted. The UN didn’t even trust themselves. The UN had no idea what WMDs Saddam had – they couldn’t verify it because weapons’ inspectors were so heavily chained by politics and the UNSC was so totally ineffective in dealing with Iraq. You can’t say that they UN was effective after all, when they were totally clueless about how effective they were. The US intelligence was bad and the UN had lost control of the political situation in Iraq – following 9/ll both the US and the UK found this to be understandably alarming.
Originally posted by leadb:
one important detail... turns out the UN / embargo was effective after all; Iraq in fact had destroyed the bulk of their weapons.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The you should have paid closer attention to THIS inspection team. Harassment from Saddam and tepid support from the UN did not prevent these guys from fulfilling their mission. Also under pressure from the USA and with the inducement of oil contracts Iraq was allowing access to every place that the inspectors chose to go, including Presidential Palaces.
Wait for what? Iraq had the UNSC in its pocket. It led weapons’ inspectors around by their ears for a decade. The truth is that weapons inspectors in Iraq never had any credibility in the eyes of the administration. But that’s not evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq – it’s just evidence that the administration didn’t trust the UN to find them, which quick frankly, I can’t blame them, given the UN's track record in Iraq.
Scott Ritter described what they would do:
They would communicate in the hotel room by writing.
THEY decided on the target
They would only pass around a WRITTEN target time and location on inspection AM, as they were standing by their vehicles.
They would split up into 4-5 groups, and drive randomly around, only converging on a target at the last moment
They would bust down the door
They assumed they had FIVE MINUTES to do an inspection until critical info was "sanitized"
When they burst in, their team consisted of computer experts, biologists, chemists, missile experts, security, and the like. They would split up and grab computers and documents and samples and anything else that could provide info, and take it with them for later examination
It was a very aggressive search, guided by past experience, satellite and reconnaissance photos, and CIA (and other intelligence agency) concerns. (Don't forget that some of the folks in the inspection teams were - in addition to their official duties and training- also CIA officers.) SO, for example, if photos showed a lot of trucks parked at a particular facility that might be dual-use, they would converge their. So this wasn't a hand-waving kind of inspection. but this kind of detail was not presented to Americans by mainstream media.
BTW- Rue and I both do inspections and audits. I'm asked frequently to review data and reports, and I also do internal audits and I'm pretty damn good at it. I think I have an appreciation for "might haves" and "maybes" because I encounter them rather frequently in my line of work, which is (at times) forensic auditing.
Sometimes you have to be quiet and just let the data speak to you without imposing your fears of hopes on it. I don't know how else to describe the concept. I watched the situation develop with Iraq and I let the data speak to me. And what it said was This is a setup
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Alarming yes; sufficient justification for invasion, no; not without finding the weapons after the invasion.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Actually, I think it was more likely that the UN destroyed the bulk of Iraq’s WMDs, but this is irrelevant. The UN conducted weapons’ inspections so poorly and was so willing to appease Saddam instead of enforcing UN Chapter 7 Resolutions that they could not be trusted. The UN didn’t even trust themselves. The UN had no idea what WMDs Saddam had – they couldn’t verify it because weapons’ inspectors were so heavily chained by politics and the UNSC was so totally ineffective in dealing with Iraq. You can’t say that they UN was effective after all, when they were totally clueless about how effective they were. The US intelligence was bad and the UN had lost control of the political situation in Iraq – following 9/ll both the US and the UK found this to be understandably alarming.
Originally posted by leadb:
one important detail... turns out the UN / embargo was effective after all; Iraq in fact had destroyed the bulk of their weapons.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That may have been the case. But if it was the case, it was only so because the US and the UK had an invasion force at Iraq’s doorstep, not because the UN or Saddam had changed their colors. At that point, it was a little too late for Saddam to play nice or for the UN to act professionally. If the US and the UK had withdrawn their forces from Kuwait it would have been yet another political victory for Saddam and probably made this round of weapons’ inspectors even bigger fools then the last one. The US and the UK can’t keep their troops in Kuwait indefinitely, and there was no guarantee that weapons inspectors would be done any time soon. But neither the US nor the UK trusted the UN to deal with the situation anymore – and that trust had vanished long before Blix came on the scene. The truth is that neither the US nor the UK were going to happy with the UN handling this, and they insisted upon doing it the old fashion way with or without the UN. And while I might not like the idea of going to war with Iraq, I can’t sit here and tell you that I had any confidence in the UN’s ability to handle Iraq anymore either – so I can’t really say I had a better option.
Originally posted by SignyM:
The you should have paid closer attention to THIS inspection team. Harassment from Saddam and tepid support from the UN did not prevent these guys from fulfilling their mission. Also under pressure from the USA and with the inducement of oil contracts Iraq was allowing access to every place that the inspectors chose to go, including Presidential Palaces.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So it would have been sufficient justification if we had found WMD in Iraq? But since we had no way of knowing one way or another if there were WMDs in Iraq, your sufficient justification is based on a wholly unknowable quantity. If a cop shoots a person whom he reasonably thinks is wielding a gun and whom he has every reason to believe is an armed criminal threatening his person, which later turns out to be a kid with a toy, is the shooting sufficiently justified?
Originally posted by leadb:
Alarming yes; sufficient justification for invasion, no; not without finding the weapons after the invasion.
That’s not a good analogy though because Iraq was never a kid with a toy. A better analogy might be that the perpetrator later turns out to be a criminal with a knife.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It would merit a full investigation; and the officer should either be charged with a crime or cleared of fault. Feel free to initiate the investigation against Bush at any time.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:So it would have been sufficient justification if we had found WMD in Iraq? But since we had no way of knowing one way or another if there were WMDs in Iraq, your sufficient justification is based on a wholly unknowable quantity. If a cop shoots a person whom he reasonably thinks is wielding a gun and whom he has every reason to believe is an armed criminal threatening his person, which later turns out to be a kid with a toy, is the shooting sufficiently justified?
Originally posted by leadb:
Alarming yes; sufficient justification for invasion, no; not without finding the weapons after the invasion.
Edit: Key word "full". In the case of a police officer, he will typically be removed from 'street duty' until this is resolved; and IA has all of the 'power'. Bush has not cooperated with reviews to date, using executive powers to ensure key information is not revealed. Bush has had plenty of power during reviews to date and has prevented any sort of 'full' investigation.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You’re evading the question, so I assume that you see my point.
Originally posted by leadb:
It would merit a full investigation; and the officer should either be charged with a crime or cleared of fault. Feel free to initiate the investigation against Bush at any time.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME