Ok Boys!
 

LET THE SPIN BEGIN!!!!

U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD


WASHINGTON Oct. 6, 2004 — Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. The report also says Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, according to the report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.


http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World...1006_1241.html

Awww, come on. I know you Bush backers are reading it. There's been a few visits to this thread already.


Oh I see, just hiding and hoping it'll go away.

But you see there's something about TRUTH.


It never leaves, it stares u right in the face 24/7. With cold, watching eyes.

Just to be fair...

Remember that the commission also stated that Saddamm kept the money and intellectual resources stockpiled and planned to restart the programs ASAP.

So, even if they weren't in full effect when we invaded, they would have been at a later point. So, which is worse, invading once it had started or invading before they started?

I say the later.

If that was the case I take it we should be bombing Iran and N.Korea now.

Yes I am being fair, raging a war based on what you "think could" happen isn't a justifiable excuse. It just isn't and there is no way a person can say it is. Dude even if Iraq had these WMDs, how do you expect him to get it here? Iraq was NEVER a threat to US security.

As I said once and I'll say it again, the last few attacks on American soil or against American soldiers during peacetime did not come from Iraqis. Saddam was just blowing hot air up our azzez. It's like punching a 90 year old woman in the face because she threaten the kick your azz.

Well Shortfuse you know how I feel about this, I've said it the whole time Iraq never had any WMDs and Bush knew it. It's such a shame that over 1,000 American have died b/c of Bush's pride it was in his plans to attack Iraq when he took office.

It's sad indeed. But I'm wondering why this thread is so empty?




TRUTH

IT KEEPS KNUCKLEHEADS AWAY!

Every damn time.

please answer in order:

1) who is the last human being to use WMD?


2) is the terrorist culture confined to any one nation, region, or government? -or- rather, is it spread across the entire region?


3) is iraq better off (long-term) without a brutal, dehumanizing dictatorship?


4) are there deeper ramifications to invading N. Korea than those w/ Iraq?


5) would US citizens, and citizens of the world, live safer lives with a stablized Middle East?



Simply put, the danger of what 'could happen' is an overwhelmingly good 'excuse' for attempting to stablize the second most dangerous region in the world - and make no mistakes, an unstable middle east presents a far more immediate threat to American citizens than North Korea, which is the far more dangerous long-term threat.

I do agree, coincidently, with your assessment of the dangers of North Korea - but there is this little issue of say China, just to start . . . there's no way to enter North Korea. Clinton knew this, by the way, which is how we get to today.

Now, no one likes death of american soldiers - and you are right that the al-Qaeda members that attacked were not Iraqi. But this is a step toward stablizing a region that is infested with bullshit - and this is the ONLY step that could come first. What, you think we could just waltz into Iran or Saudi arabia? While we do that, why not just send 4 or 5 guys to pop North Korea too, oh and on the way they can form an alliance with China and eliminate Chechan rebels.

Now who's living in a fantasy world? Look, Bush didn't do things perfectly, but stop acting like there's nothing positive here, and stop making emotional arguments about death a part of rational discussion. It makes you look like a fool.

And while you guys are harping on FACTS!!!!11!1 you might want to find some facts to support your assertions and stop using immaterial shit like 'pride' and 'knew since he got in office' that are impossible to support.

Here you go Shortfuse, here's an interesting thread you might wanna read!

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=31270

Ummmm, I just posted a article, where do you see assertions? Please find a way to dispute the article.

The United States didn't go to war because Saddam is a brutal dictator.

We went to War because of WMD (THE MAIN REASON) which what was fed to most of Congress (sidenote, that is why I can excuse Senator Kerry for voting for the war). People WE knew what Saddam had.


KSig, where's the positive for the AMERICAN people. Saddam was just a mini-midget dictator who was only a danger to his own people. Sure I'm happy for the folks in Iraq but trust they would've gotten this man when they got ready. It wasn't our job to meddle in others affair. But since we're on that tip, how come US soldiers aren't in the Sudan kicking azz? (insert spin here)


But since sicne you went there, our problem didn't make residence in Iraq. None of the terrorist who hit us on 9/11 or onboard of the US Cole were Iraqis. It's like fighting a Alpha because a Sigma slapped you in the face.


AND THE SPIN CONTINUES


Fellas just find a way to dispute the article, no need for attacks. Admit it, Bush was wrong and let us move on.


CHECK THE SIG

I read some of it. Only needed to read a page to understand the tone of that thread.


IT TURNS MY STOMACH to hear some people talk about WE are at war and how we should stay the course. Most of these people (Dubya and Cheney) included have never seen a man get his brains blown out or heard 18-19 year old boys scream out in pain. Most have never had to rush in the room to save a uncle who re-lived the HORROR of the Vietnam war because he can't get it out of his head.


Heck to all these patroits in here. Why don't you sign up? The enlistment people are taking EVERYBODY, trust me.


But I guess it's cool to be patriotic when you don't have to look at the buisness end of a AK-47 :rolleyes:

Short,

Did you hear the whole point that the panel made? Or just the part played on Headline News? Many networks conveniently left out the fact that Saddam was stockpiling money from the oil for food program, scientists and materials so that he could get the WMD program back up to speed just as soon as restrictions were lessened.

And remember, pre-9/11, the French, etc. were pushing for exactly that.

We went into Iraq based on faulty intelligence. Your candidate supported it as much as Bush does so anything he says should totally lack credibility unless you're sipping on the donkey-kool-aide.

What would you propose we do? Just leave and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves? You want to absolutely GUARANTEE that we'll have WMD coming out of there? Go right ahead.

Iraq is still an important victory in the war on terrorism. A friendly arab democracy will go a long way to bringing down the religious despots of the region and pushing governments towards Democracy. Are you against that?

What exactly are you against besides what's already done?

That's all based on "what if" he does use it for WMDs. But if you tell me he has WMD, then he damn sure better have them.

Yes I'm against us going over and making governments the way we want them. Don't get me wrong, thats some GANGSTA stuff to do, but it's not right. Our form of government (which basically translates into Capitalism) doesn't work for everybody. Our model isn't perfect.


How can Iraq be an important victory in the War on Terriorism? First, we HAVEN'T WON A VICTORY THERE YET!

Second, where was the terrorist threat? Please tell me. Saddam (which I will repeat) was just a mini-midget dictator who only controlled what was in his backyard. He's Mussolini without Japan or Germany to back him up.

Dude, I know I was long-winded, but you really have to read the entirety of my post.

I get what you're saying about WMD, and the point of the article - I'll cede that it does suck that the intelligence was bad, and I don't like what that says about the current state of the CIA etc.

HOWEVER - the entire region is unstable. Stabilizing the Middle East, ridding it of the dictatorships and theocracies that turn a blind eye to terrorism while pandering to the so-called 'legit' wings of these organizations (as well as FUNDING them), IS EXACTLY WHAT THE WAR ON TERROR IS.

Again - answer the questions, interpolate. Your focus on WMD is seeing the trees, but not the forest. It's OK to hate Bush - feel free. But the entirety of the war is fairly sound - it's the only way to attack terrorism. Again - we can't just march into the house of Saud, unfortunately, or Tehran - baby steps, for the greater good (which includes Americans).

Bud, take the blinders off. Al Quaeda members used Saddam for medical treatment, they met with him, etc. There absolutely was a credible terrorist threat when WMD's came into being.

So our form of representative government doesn't work for everyone? You're saying that the Iraqi people are predisposed to wanting to live under bullying dictators? What makes you think this? Their current system isn't a hell of a lot different than what we had in Europe 200-300 years ago -- a monarch with a LOT of church interferance. Would you have said that Europeans are also not predisposed to having individual liberties? That's an ignorant statement you made and borderline racist.

How can it be an important victory? It destabilizes governments that support and shelter terrorists -- Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. will all have a neighbor that is NOT a theocracy/dictatorship. Their people will suddenly be "have-nots" when it comes to rights. That's the best way to move a region towards democracy. Once the war in Iraq is won (and it'll be won), the region will follow in time. At least that's the theory.

As for your comment that Saddam is only dangerous to his own countrymen... How the hell did you come up with that? We are talking about Saddam Hussein, right? You know, the fella that's invaded or tried to invade most of the countries that border him? The guy that gassed his own people as well as his adversaries in Iran? Yeah, he's just a threat to his own country. You're totally right!

You never answered me, besides past misteps and miscalculations, what exactly about our current policy there do you oppose? Do you think we should just pack up and leave them to civil war? All I'm hearing you complain about are things that cannot be changed. Please be specific on what you disagree with that CAN be changed.

Saudi Arabia are harboring some of those terrorist as well as the Syrians (who were reponsbile for the bombing that Libya got blamed for), let's nto forget Egypt or Yemen.

I answered you. I said I'm totally against ALL OF THE OCCUPATION. There was NO JUSTIFICATION other than SPECULATION. But to clear it up for you, we can't leave now. My point is that we should've never been there in the first place. Trust me, if people got that tired of a type of rule it'd got changed. THEN and ONLY THEN would I be for American involvment. But you can't incite a revolution against a government and that is basically what we're NOW (now that there are no WMD) are doing.

Personally, I couldn't argue much with it (although i don't agree) if that was OUR MAIN REASON FOR BEING THERE. But it wasn't. WMDs were our reason. those soldiers died believing that they were getting rid of a guy who possess WMD and were going to use them. Not to free the Iraqis and not because we believe he'll HAVE them.

Nobody said Iraqis are used to having a dictator. But what works for the United States doesn't work for Great Britain or Saudi Arabia. What works for Scotland, WON'T work for the United States. Can't run a Run and SHoot offense if you only have one guy who can catch a football.

As far as gassing Irainians, it's funny Americans are so against but have no answer to the fact that the American government was actually shaking hands with Saddam while he was doing it. But I guess it help eliminate that pesky Iranian problem huh? Saddam is just as much threat to the United States as Howard's University football team is to the New England Patroits

Once again, just admit Bush was wrong. :rolleyes:

The bottom line to me is that the reasons the American people were given for starting this war were bogus.

It has nothing to do with whether the Iraqi people are better off. It has nothing to do with whether the world is safer without Saddam. It has nothing to do with 9/11. Those weren't the reasons given then and are begging the question now.

Is hindsight 20/20? Sure it is -- and several reports by various commissions have helped us understand how wrong the reasons given us were. Even back then the UN Wepons Inspectors had found nothing except the very most circumstantial evidence that there was even a chance of a WMD program.

There was no substantial evidence of WMD's then and none has been found since. The speech that Colin Powell gave to the UN to try to garner support for the war was a joke -- tiny bottles of whatever and pictures of empty trucks.

If the real reason for conflict was to get rid of Saddam -- that was the argument that should have been at the forefront of the debate back then. Of course it might not have flown, so trumped up charges of scary WMD's were used instead.

This belief isn't something new on my part -- I believed it and was saying it before we invaded. Go back and check the posts.

Maybe a good argument could have been made for action against Iraq -- but the way the war was "sold" to us was absolutely wrong -- and I think cynical. Does anyone think that this could be the reason for the lack of real combat and financial support we got from almost anyone?

Now that we're in this mess, we need to stay in it until there is some kind of (hopefully) favorable resolution. It's not going to be a pretty effort, though. I can't help but wish we had finished the job the first time when we had a strong coalition -- and a strong and just reason for fighting.

Put politics aside -- if that's even possible these days -- and search your hearts. Be honest with yourselves. Look at the evidence both then and now. You are intelligent people. Somebody wasn't telling the real story. Whatever it is.

So you're upset with Kerry, Edwards, Bush, and the rest of the American legislators that chose to go to war?

-Rudey

Absolutely.

And do you blame only the legislators or also the intelligence community that failed in determining where these WMD are/were?

There are questions left open by this report.

Where are the remains of the WMD if they were destroyed?

There is a question of what would have happened in the future with WMD given the use in the country.

Were WMD moved to other countries like Syria or hidden?

And unlike you I truly see WMD as but one of many reasons we went in there. I don't see war for the sake of war. I truly wish we could reconstruct and rebuild the country along with Afghanistan. I see rogue countries like Iran and Syria moving towards eliminating their weapons programs.

There is one thing I don't like about this war and have never liked. I feel as if Iran has been strengthened. But I don't see that as only a result of this war. The problem is a global one, whereby the Europeans do not care what happens.

-Rudey

I have no idea (due to your grammar) what the hell you are trying to say in that last sentence. Because you capitalized a word, I guess you think it's important. Please proof your replies before posting.

So you're totally against the occupation, but you're against withdrawal as well? Dude, you're beginning to sound like Senator Kerry.

Choose a side, A or B. You're either for or against. If a certain candidate could get that through his skull, he'd have a 10-point lead right now.



No, the panel gave pretty concrete proof that he did plan on manufacturing these things. Again, which is better, having to deal with this man when he actually had his WMD's or nipping the problem in the bud beforehand? Again, A or B.



So what you're saying is that the Iraqi people aren't capable of having a democracy because they're too dumb, they like being tortured, they lack the skills, etc.? Running a government is in no way similar to playing football. For one thing, Iraq doesn't have the 85 scholarship limitation thing, a salary cap or any of that stuff.

On the other hand, they do have one of the most highly educated electorates in the region. That is one thing that Saddam knew he needed -- smart people that knew stuff. Now, those smart people are the ones leading the rebuilding of their country. They plan on having real democratic elections shortly. Specifically, why do you not think they are capable of living under a representative government? Your football analogy just ain't analogous enough.

So you're going back to our foriegn policy 30 years saying that we were friends with him and therefore, now he's not a threat. No, he just had people caught a few years ago trying to assasinate or President, no biggie.

I'll tell you another person we were wrong to shake hands with 30 years ago who I guess by your logic is also not a threat -- Osama Bin Ladin.

Based on the evidence presented to him (and Kerry), they both made the decision to go to war. It was made on faulty information. So, Bush, Kerry and Edwards were all equally wrong.

Maybe Kerry less equally because he voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it.

Rudey, I'm just as upset about the legislature who voted on it too (KERRY INCLUDED) because everybody risked American Lives so they can "win votes" for future offices. Nobody actually sat down and looked at what really threatned us. But I hope everybody can help rebuild Iraq because what done is done. Now it's time to help out.

But I thought you were against the occupation?

The intelligence community as well, along with the various administrations -- Democrats and Republicans -- who have weakened our ability to gather human intelligence and who have weakened our military to the point that this war has put such a strain on it.

But I also blame those who run agencies like the CIA who have allowed it and themselves to become politicized to the point that they tell the President and Congress what it wants to hear as much as what is really going on. That's also not limited to one President or one party.

Do you blame yourself for voting for these men and for representing your interests as well?

-Rudey

WOW, the grammar nazis are here. But I'll work with you.


I was against the initial war, still am. But, I agree with you, that we can't pull out. I'm just saying we shouldn't be occupying Iraq in the first place. But we can't leave now until the mess is cleaned up.

The football analogy wasnt' for you to compare piece by piece. Of course it's not exactly the same. But I take it that you've never coached a team nor held position in government. I've done both (Head Football coach at several MS and I was a elected Junior official in the town I went to HS) and you must realize that what you do in DC can't be done in Lexington, NC. What you do in the USA might not work in other countries.

As far as WMD, you can't go to WAR based on SPECULATION. Concrete proof is basically calling this report a lie. Snake, you got republicans who are not buying this. I told you my view, you're going agree with it or not. I can deal with that. My thing is basically that we can't pull out. My conscience wouldn't allow me to fully agree with leaving those Iraqis to more chaos then what they have now.


P.S. it was 20 years ago and not 30.

reread my post

Still Twisting and twirling around.

I'm not demanding perfect or even good grammar. I do, however, ask (politely) that you please make sense when you post. I think you'd agree that it hurts the flow of the discussion. I could care less where you put your commas and semi-colons though. Totally up to you :D



Excellent. I agree. We certainly went in there based on flawed intelligence which anyone will concede. Now that we're there, it's a disservice to the 1000+ men and women that have made the ultimate sacrifice. Hopefully, in the end, good will come of this. There is certainly a huge potential for good to come out of this if the planets are properly aligned.



Your expereince as a football coach qualifies you to be an expert on the formation of democratic regimes following despotic ones? I don't believe they are going to have a USA-style democracy there at all. That was never the goal and still isn't. However, this go-round, the Iraqi people are going to be able to choose their own leaders on a regular basis. My understanding at this point is that the new government will ultimately be influenced a great deal by Islam but still consist of elected officials. Will it be a good thing for the United States? Who knows. It will certainly be of benefit to the Iraqi people though.

As far as the election goes, this is really a non-issue since all the candidates basically voted the same way when it came to going to war. We felt our proof was fairly concrete, but in the end, it turned out to be a huge case of groupthink.

As far as when it was, does it really make a difference? Our government was dealing with Osama and Bin Ladin. Your logic was still horrible. 20 years ago is just as irrelevant today in that area as 30.

So to synthesize what's going on here:

1. We disagree over whether or not we should have gone in in the first place.

2. We agree that we should stay

3. We disagree over whether Iraq is capable of maintaining a representative government without constant US involvement.

#1 can't be resolved. #2 is resolved. #3 -- only time will tell.

This is well-put and fair, even though i don't agree with the path or premise (which we're just going to have to see that we have differing views on world politics and the US role therein, it is what it is).

That said - will you agree that stabilizing the middle east is the only way to actually 'fight' terrorism?

Not finding WMD in Iraq so far, does not mean they are there, or were there and moved out pre-war.

Thats like saying "I'm going to scowr the state of Texas and look for Mexicans". Eventually, you'll find one.

Sorry, but that's NONE of your damn business. For you to ask questions like that, then use the condescending eyeroll is absolutely out of line.

Stick with your argument, not with statements like these.

Don't let him get to you. He make illogical statements all the time because he doesn't read.

-Rudey

Stabilizing the Middle East isn't the "only" way to actually fight terrorism... because terrorism doesn't only happen in the Middle East nor is it solely motivated by the politics or religions of the region.

While of course most of the focus is on how this report will play in the current US elections; with each party putting their own unique spin on the content... I have to wonder how it will affect Bush's closest Ally abroad in Iraq - Tony Blair. It was a tough fight for him to convince his party (which he really didn't succeed all that well in) to give him the needed backing for commiting British forces in Iraq; his selling point was the much lauded WMD capability of Saddam - now Blair's footing is even more precarious following this report.

What an empty statement if I ever read one.

-Rudey

Huh?????

Your getting silly. First, how do you know that I voted for anyone who voted for any of these things?

Second, I know you love your little deflect the topic games, but I'm not playing.

($200 for a wine and cheese party?)

Now, now don't make accusations that you can't back Mr. Rather.

At the end of the day, WMD was one of the reasons. This study doesn't completely account for the WMD (I can't and it seems nobody can sadly). Additionally this war was voted for by Kerry, Edwards, and Bush along with many other lawmakers (elected to represent voter interests) who relied on the intelligence community to make their decision.

-Rudey

OK - this is true, but it is a total strawman.


Restatement: the anti-American, pro-radical Islam terrorism that we are currently at war with can only be fought through stabilization of the region.


RACoop - the motivation via politics and religion is immaterial to this statement, can you tell me why?