Do you believe in Iraqi "WMD"? Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq.
People tend to become "independent of reality" in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.
The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.
You gotta love how sneeringly dismissive the reporter who wrote this article is. Reading through the article you almost expect to run into a paragraph like this:
How can these fools not know that the Bushies lied to them?
Laughably bad. But media bias aside, I'm not certain how anyone could answer this poll question - as asked at the beginning of this article - with a "no."
We know that Saddam had some WMD's. There have been countless media reports about troops finding chemical agents and shells filled with poisonous gas. These are verified facts, so the only factual answer to the poll question above is "yes."
Now, if the question were to ask whether or not we all still believe that Saddam's WMD's posed a threat to U.S. security I think the answer would have to be a resounding "no." Knowing what we know now - and in the absence of any really credible or conclusive evidence to the contrary - Saddam's WMD's programs and stockpiles were pretty much non-existent. There are theories about the stockpiles being moved to Syria, etc. and I'm sympathetic to those, but until we have conclusive proof that this is what really happened those are just going to remain theories.
But really, what do opinions about WMD's matter now? The only opinions about WMD's that mattered were the ones held prior to the invasion in 2003. It's easy to look back and criticize the Bush administration on WMD's when we all have 20/20 hindsight. What the President knew before invading Iraq was that his intelligence chief was telling him that Iraq absolutely have WMD's, an opinion backed up by intelligence officials from other nations and held by pretty much every political leader here in America.
You cannot blame President Bush for his decision to invade Iraq. The intelligence was bad, but you go to war with the intelligence you have at hand not the intelligence you wish you had.
Also, Iraq's supposed WMD's were just one of many reasons for war with the country, the other reasons being the liberation of the Iraqi people and the overarching theory that liberating countries in the middle east would serve to strike at the roots of what causes terrorism in the first place. Among other things.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 17
"Also, Iraq's supposed WMD's were just one of many reasons for war with the country, the other reasons being the liberation of the Iraqi people and the overarching theory that liberating countries in the middle east would serve to strike at the roots of what causes terrorism in the first place. Among other things."
So many lies. So very many lies and misleading statements. Yet, thanks to insiders and documents like the Downing St. Memos, we all know the REAL truth by now. The neocons had been planning this invasion for years, as the first stage of their grand (and insane) plan to re-draw the map of the middle east to their liking.
"Not to mention on 3 seperate occasions Saddam the Magnificent utilized wmd's on his own people."
Please provide documentation to back this claim up. There seems to be plenty of information to counter this claim, but I've yet to see anything documented to verify it. I'd love to see what you've got.
"How many mass graves have been uncovered since we went into Iraq?
According to USAID, approximately 270 (as of 2004), containing the remains of approximately 400,000 bodies. Does this number somehow equate to 9/11? I'm not quite sure I see the relavence of this, frankly. I recently read that Bush is now responsible for up to 250,000 deaths there, so I guess Saddam is still ahead, if that's what you're referring to.
"Wasn't his absolute intransigence in cooperating with International inspections another cause for action?"
No. The only two conditions that made it legal for Bush to invade Iraq were if Iraq had attacked us directly (they did not), or if Bush could prove to congress that they posed a direct threat to the US (Bush did not).
"These same sneering media jackals also rarely mention much of the resistance to our going into Iraq, was from countries such as France and Germany busily lining their pockets with the Oil For Food funds."
There was rampant corruption in that program, including several American corporations, along with other nation's corporate interests. Of course, the sneering jackels somehow forget to mention that as well.
"And on the much vaunted blarting on Iraqi oil. Where is it?"
NO SHIT! We were PROMISED by this corrupt administration that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the invasion and occupation! Show me the money! Where the hell is all of that oil, neocons?
"Most of those exports went to China, Japan, Australia and other places including their buddies in Syria. "
Huh? Iraq is producing but a mere fraction of what they produced before we invaded. I hardly think those other countries are any more happy about the failure of this adminstration to get oil production up to pre-invasion levels than we are.
Please, feel free to provide documentation to refute me. While you're in research mode, I'm still waiting for your documentation that "Saddam gassed his own people on three separate occassions."
Brainwashed Americans Still Buying into WMD Propaganda
(PS. My article was written before I knew Rob had written his.)
Yes, which is why I wanted to see what you had. I appreciate this. Meanwhile, there is some rather strongly convicing evidence at hand to the contrary.
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html
Here's a good one as well...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/08_gassing.html
"And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas."
And, another...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html
"Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance."
Yet more...
http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/soc.culture.arabic/msg11147.html
And more...
http://www.uscrusade.com/index.php?blog=3&title=us_army_war_college_no_proof_saddam_gass&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Next, indeed. Make sure you pay special attention to the sections that speak of US involvement in helping him acquire and target WMD, while you're busy reading.
The fact is, there is NO conclusive evidence that Saddam "gassed his own people," as has often been bandied about, while there is significant reason to believe it not to be true. He DID, however, gas Iranian civilians (as they gassed Iraqi civilians).
Bob Barnes replied no. If George Bush intentionally lied he would have taken precautions such as planting WMD's (e.g., anthrax). However, since the administration was convinced along w/ the rest of the world that Saddam had WMD's he did not feel the need to go this route. This issue of lying will hound Bush for the rest of his career. If he truly lied, I am sure Rove would have provided a back up plan instead of no plan.
I read your sources and they were worth reading.
My only question is why before the Iraq war did everyone including Democrates (John Kerry, Clinton, ect.) and Western European nations state that Saddam had WMD's?
Gee, now WHO would've expected a shameless Bush worshipper to run away when faced with bitter facts and harsh reality? Go figure. Why, color me "shocked." And, just when I was really starting to think that my previous mindset about neocons being incapable of carrying out critical thinking processes on their own might be unjustified.
"This issue of lying will hound Bush for the rest of his career. If he truly lied, I am sure Rove would have provided a back up plan instead of no plan. "
I totally disagree. I think people give Rove FAR too much credit. He's a political mastermind in terms of smearing his opponents, diverting attention away from his boy's failures, and winning elections, but he's completely clueless about actual governance, as are all of these neocons.
I believe that Bush intentionally lied and misled the world on WMD in order to hand the PNAC neocons what they've wanted for years...a set permanent of permanent military bases in Iraq from which to launch endless wars for empire building in the middle east, all designed to gather control of the world's oil reserves.
If you read some of the quotes from these people, beforoe and even shortly after their illegal invasion, you see clearly that they truly believed that this would be a cakewalk. Consider this: Had our occupation of Iraq been as seamless and smooth sailing as our drive to Baghdad, nobody would've said "boo" about there being no WMD.
I, too, had initially thought that there would be WMD planted there, but in retrospect, I believe that they just didn't think it would be an issue at all. Remember Bush's horribly distasteful joke at the press corps dinner a couple years back? He peeked under the table, claiming to be looking for WMD (laughing while US soldiers were dying, no less).
It was a joke to them, because it was NEVER the real reason for invading, and it was NOT a concern to them that they wouldn't be there, because they were convinced that we'd be well on our way to Damascus by the time anybody noticed that we didn't find any WMD in Iraq.
These people are the appex of arrogance. They truly believe that every insane plan that they concoct in their board room will blossom into perfection for all of the world to gaze in awe at. If they had planned for there being no WMD, it would mean that they would also have planned for their grand invasion of Iraq to be less than "perfect," and I believe in my heart of hearts that these people are simply incapable of accepting that they can make mistakes. When was the last time you heard one of them admit an error?
I actually provided SEVERAL sources, and can provide at least another two dozen, if it'll make ya feel better, little feller.
"A DU loser. It just has to suck being you. You hate everything. "
Such a cheerful, peaceful, wonderful little guy. I'm SO glad that you're around to show the world what being a republican is all about. You're doing an EXCELLENT job. Keep up the great work!
Yeah, you're definitely right about that. I couldn't imagine a better anti-GOP voice to have mingling amongst the general masses.