Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - If Bush lied, so did a whole lot of other people...

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - If Bush lied, so did a whole lot of other people... (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/11496-if-bush-lied-so-did-whole-lot-other-people.html)

If Bush lied, so did a whole lot of other people...

This is in response to the idea that the president ought to be impeached for "lying about the existence of WMD's in Iraq."

Before I start with the quotes though, I want to point out 2 things:

1) We also haven't found Saddam Hussein. Yet, we know he existed before (of course). So, does that mean he doesn't exist now since we don't know where he is? ;)

2) Yes, so some of the information we had was false and a forgery. Fine. That has nothing to do with the president and his administration however. The CIA has admitted that they did not report to the White House that the reports of Iraq buying nuclear materials from Nigeria were a forgery.

Anyway, here goes...

Quote:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

- President Clinton, February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/.../clinton.iraq/

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
January 27, 2003
Addressing the UN Security Council
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusn...wsID=354&sID=6

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
January 27, 2003
Addressing the UN Security Council
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusn...wsID=354&sID=6

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ... we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
January 27, 2003
Addressing the UN Security Council
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusn...wsID=354&sID=6

"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."

- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
January 27, 2003
Addressing the UN Security Council
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusn...wsID=354&sID=6

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton):

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

- 105th Congress, 2nd Session, September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...980929-in2.htm

Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust President Saddam Hussein.

The New York Times
February 13, 2002
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abst...AB0894DA404482

Saddam regime's publicly-documented collaboration with Islamic terrorists:

His offer of $25,000 to the family of every suicide bomber and every Palestinian family made homeless by the Israeli assault last month on a refugee camp in the West Bank city of Jenin has won wide admiration at home and in the larger Arab world.

Time Magazine
May 6, 2002
Inside Saddam's world
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/06/time.saddam/

Wow, that's a lot of people talking about a whole lot of weapons... I mean 1,000 tons here, 8,500 liters there.

So where are they......

*poof*

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Wow, that's a lot of people talking about a whole lot of weapons... I mean 1,000 tons here, 8,500 liters there.

So where are they......

*poof*

Maybe you should wait for the search to conclude?

As it has been said many many times on many threads, Iraq is a large country and there are many ways to hide various WMDs. It's just a matter of time before we find traces of them and/or the people who know what happened to them.

Don't guess you noticed that the source for many of those items was Dr. Hans Blix - Not someone from the RNC, the CIA or the PDQ!.

A president, acting in good faith, based upon the information he has - even if that information proves to be totally erroneous, is only doing his job. Nothing more - nothing less.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Wow, that's a lot of people talking about a whole lot of weapons... I mean 1,000 tons here, 8,500 liters there.

So where are they......

*poof*

Again, we've talked a lot about Saddam Hussein in the past, we knew he existed in the past, yet just because we don't know where he is now we don't assume he no longer exists....do we??? :confused: :confused: :hmm: :hmm:

look, nobody that you quoted had access to all the intelligence that a US president has access to.

----

and as for hans blix, he never stated for a fact that iraq possessed these weapons like gwb did.

and while we're talking about blix, here's something else

i know this is a lil old, but it proves the point
----------------

US claim dismissed by Blix

Quote:

Dan Plesch in New York
Wednesday February 5, 2003
The Guardian

The chief UN weapons inspector yesterday dismissed what has been billed as a central claim of the speech the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, will make today to the UN security council.
Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived.

In a series of leaks or previews, the state department has said Mr Powell will allege that Iraq moved mobile biological weapons laboratories ahead of an inspection. Dr Blix said he had already inspected two alleged mobile labs and found nothing: "Two food-testing trucks have been inspected and nothing has been found."

Dr Blix said that the problem of bio-weapons laboratories on trucks had been around for a while and that he had received tips from the US that led him to inspect trucks in Iraq. The Iraqis claimed that the trucks were used to inspect the quality of food production.

He also contested the theory that the Iraqis knew in advance what sites were to be inspected. He added that they expected to be bugged "by several nations" and took great care not to say anything Iraqis could overhear.

He said he assumed the US secretary of state would not be indicating sites that the inspectors should visit that he had not told them about. "It is more likely to be based upon satellite imagery and upon intercepts of telephone conversations or knowledge about Iraqi procurement of technical material or chemicals," he said.

Dr Blix is travelling to Baghdad for further meetings with Iraqi officials before reporting to the security council on February 14 and March 1.

He said the choice for the UN was between continued containment and invasion. Both strategies had problems, but an invasion required 250,000 troops and over $100bn while for containment the numbers were 250 inspectors and $80m.

and here is a recent interview w/ diane sawyer.

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/...exclusive.html

Quote:

SAWYER: Did the Bush administration tell the truth?

BLIX: Well, they interpreted things that they were seeing, and they— some of the things they saw were not real.

Oh, no evidence of mobile weapons labs.

Hmmm, like the two we found.

And I guess president Clinton didn't have access to the same intelligence that president Bush does.

That made a lot of sense.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Oh, no evidence of mobile weapons labs.

Hmmm, like the two we found.

they havent proven anything about those labs.
i've posted on another thread

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/1941172

Quote:

Analysts have doubts Iraqi trailers were germ labs
By JUDITH MILLER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
New York Times

U.S. and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence are disputing claims that two mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making deadly germs. In interviews over the last week, they said the mobile units were more likely for other purposes and charged that the evaluation process had been damaged by a rush to judgment.

"Everyone has wanted to find the `smoking gun' so much that they may have wanted to have reached this conclusion," said one intelligence expert who has seen the trailers and like some others spoke on condition that he not be identified. He added, "I am very upset with the process."

The Bush administration has said the two trailers, which forces found in Iraq in April and May, are evidence that Saddam Hussein was hiding a program for biological warfare. In a "white paper" analysis last week, the administration publicly detailed its case, even while conceding discrepancies in the evidence and a lack of hard proof.

Now, intelligence analysts in the Middle East, as well as in the United States and Britain, are disclosing serious doubts about the germ evidence in what appears to be a bitter debate within the intelligence community. Skeptics said their initial judgments of a weapon application for the trailers had faltered as new evidence came to light.

Bill Harlow, a spokesman for the CIA, said the dissenters "are entitled to their opinion, of course, but we stand behind the assertions in the white paper."

At least three teams of Western experts have examined the trailers and evidence from them. While the first two groups to see the evidence were largely convinced that the vehicles were intended to make germ agents, the third group of more senior analysts disagreed sharply over the function of the trailers, with several members expressing strong skepticism, some of the dissenters said.

"I have no great confidence that it's a fermenter," a senior analyst with long experience in unconventional arms said of a tank which the first investigators thought had been used to multiply seed germs into lethal swarms. The government's public report, he added, "was a rushed job and looks political." This analyst had not seen the trailers but had reviewed evidence from them.

The skeptical experts said the mobile plants lacked gear for steam sterilization, normally a prerequisite for any kind of biological production, peaceful or otherwise. Its lack of availability between production runs would threaten to let in germ contaminants, resulting in failed weapons.

Senior intelligence officials in Washington rebutted the skeptics, saying, for instance, that the Iraqis might have obtained the needed steam for sterilization from a separate supply truck.

The debate came as the U.N. nuclear agency returned to Iraq Friday after a three-month absense. Representatives from the International Atomic Energy Agency -- operating this time under continuous U.S. military escort -- will assess what's missing from the nation's biggest nuclear plant and how to find any missing materials.

Quote:

And I guess president Clinton didn't have access to the same intelligence that president Bush does.

obviously, clinton didnt think the intelligence pointed to an "imminent threat"

Personally, I'm tired of all this stuff, today is one of the days when I wish everyone on capitol could removed. Or better yet throw in Bone's burn pile(Nonsense Thread).....

Bush lied, so did Clinton, Nixon, Regan and whole lot of other people in office. I'm not saying he lied about everything. Or even enough to impeach him like someone proposed in another thread. Currently I'm with seretogis, maybe we should wait till the search is over to pass judgement. That is if the search lasts a reseaonable amount of time. I don't wanna still be looking for WMD in 2006.

Of course there is always the idea that Iraq doesn't have any WMD and none will be found because they shipped them all out of country to other terrorists...

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude

obviously, clinton didnt think the intelligence pointed to an "imminent threat"

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton):

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

- 105th Congress, 2nd Session, September 29, 1998

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

- President Clinton, February 17, 1998

No, it's not that he didn't see an imminent threat...it's that he was too busy taking care of "other business" in the oval office to do anything about it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Prophecy
Of course there is always the idea that Iraq doesn't have any WMD and none will be found because they shipped them all out of country to other terrorists...

If they're not there anymore....then, sadly, this would be the case.

mmm,

Amazing to me that we haven't figured out the 'other' legitimate uses for those trailers.

Or for that matter, why Saddam hid those other trailers from inspectors.

But I'm sure they were legit and Bush is just a big liar.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
mmm,

Amazing to me that we haven't figured out the 'other' legitimate uses for those trailers.

Or for that matter, why Saddam hid those other trailers from inspectors.

But I'm sure they were legit and Bush is just a big liar.

where did you find out that the trailer was hidden?

i could be very well wrong here (and i have no prob w/ that), but all i heard was they "found" 2 trailers.

I love arguments like this where the pro-war people always respond with the sarcastic "hmmm...well, I guess then..." while the anti-war people always post an article proving their point.

All in all, this thread should have really been named "If Fark already posted this article, so did a whole lot of other people.":D

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
I love arguments like this where the pro-war people always respond with the sarcastic "hmmm...well, I guess then..." while the anti-war people always post an article proving their point.

All in all, this thread should have really been named "If Fark already posted this article, so did a whole lot of other people.":D

hehe, yeah, but not everyone goes to Fark, and it's still interesting nonetheless ;)

As for posting articles, there's not much of a need. What I and most others say isn't anything that is contrary to any articles one could post, but rather an inevitable conclusion through common sense (aka connecting the dots). I don't need an article to tell me that if a madman and chronic liar has a ton of weapons of mass destruction in 1998, kicks out inspectors, and when they return 4 years later claims he doesn't have them anymore but can't provide any proof of it - which he KNEW they would be looking for - that he's still lying and that they're really there in some form or another. Or maybe they're not - maybe he sold them to people already or something. But they sure weren't destroyed.

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
I love arguments like this where the pro-war people always respond with the sarcastic "hmmm...well, I guess then..." while the anti-war people always post an article proving their point.

I've really yet to see any proof on this thread either way. Unfortunately no one may ever know what Saddam really had. If he did the prudent thing and hid them very deeply and very secretively we may never find them. Maybe all the people who knew where they were are hidden are in some mass grave somewhere. Not finding them is not proof that they didn't exist. Only finding them can answer the question for sure.

Quote:

Edited to say,

Killer Yoda,

If you don't care for 'sarcasm' as you put it, why practice it?

I grant that I can be sarcastic, but the points I made were valid.

As to posts, are you really saying that I or any other person supporting this war has been lax in putting them up?

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
where did you find out that the trailer was hidden?

i could be very well wrong here (and i have no prob w/ that), but all i heard was they "found" 2 trailers.

Not the same trailers, sorry.

I'm talking about he ones that were loaded with scientific equipment and buried south of Bagdad.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Not the same trailers, sorry.

I'm talking about he ones that were loaded with scientific equipment and buried south of Bagdad.

wanna link me on that, i didnt hear about it.

http://www.redding.com/news/apaftern...aptop055.shtml

shipping containers, 11 of them. Buried.

No, no "evidence" of WMD's. Just lots and lots of lab equipment.

But I've not seen a satisfactory explaination for why they were buried near a munitions plant either.

My question would be "when is the search over?" You can't prove he never had WMDs or a WMD program. It's not logically possible to prove something was never there. So armed with that excuse, we can go on looking forever.
That being said, I would like some actual hard and fast evidence of WMDs, not just hints that something might have existed.

Believe it or not, I want some hard evidence too.

But I believe they were there. I also believe there is a real possibility they are now in Syria.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
My question would be "when is the search over?" You can't prove he never had WMDs or a WMD program. It's not logically possible to prove something was never there. So armed with that excuse, we can go on looking forever.
That being said, I would like some actual hard and fast evidence of WMDs, not just hints that something might have existed.

That's a valid question. The only answer I can offer is I don't know.

Here's the thing though. Where do you get the idea it's even remotely possible he never had WMDs? Last I checked, his enemies didn't gas themselves and Chemical Ali didn't get that nickname because he was a great chemistry teacher.

Now, sure, you can say "we haven't seen them and we have no proof that he didn't destroy them." To which I ask when the burden of proof suddenly came to us and away from those who gassed their own people and were the subject of all the UN resolutions in the first place. We don't put the burden of proof on the government to show that convicted criminals AREN'T reformed when they're up for parole, the burden of proof is on the convicted criminals to prove that they ARE reformed.

It's not like we just came out of the blue and said "Look! Canada has vast reaching biochem weapon plans and will eventually attack the US!"

No, we said "Look. We ALL know that Iraq did have vast reaching biochem weapons plans and has used them in the past. We ALL agreed that those plans should be stopped. And we ALL told Iraq to prove to us - 13 years ago - that they did stop and destroyed the fruits of their labors. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if they had truly destroyed their weapons they would be able to provide swift proof of it - ESPECIALLY considering they knew that's EXACTLY what the internation community wanted and the possible repercussions of not doing so."

Well they called our bluff one too many times, and I for one am thankful that the game of cat and mouse is finally coming to an end.

As for if I think we'll ever find them, I don't know. I hope we do. I know one thing though - they do still exist. Thinking anything to the contrary goes against all logic and common sense. It's just a matter of what's happened to them.

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
hehe, yeah, but not everyone goes to Fark, and it's still interesting nonetheless ;)

Yeah, I just thought it was pretty funny when I saw it both places. And to avoid any angry responses (which I'm impressed to now see so far) to my venacular slipup that I didn't notice until now, when I said anti-war people post articles to prove their point, I didn't mean we were right all the time, we just seem to do it more for some reason.

There just seems to be a recurring trend of pro-war sarcasm towards the many, many articles we anti-war people feel the need to post all the time. I thought it was pretty funny, we seem to have cooled down a little since the war "ended" back when it used to be almost near-flaming occassionally. And as far as people being sarcastic, I try to never, ever use sarcasm in arguments.;)

Sorry for the threadjack, now back to your regularly schedualed programming...

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
That's a valid question. The only answer I can offer is I don't know.

Here's the thing though. Where do you get the idea it's even remotely possible he never had WMDs? Last I checked, his enemies didn't gas themselves and Chemical Ali didn't get that nickname because he was a great chemistry teacher.

Now, sure, you can say "we haven't seen them and we have no proof that he didn't destroy them." To which I ask when the burden of proof suddenly came to us and away from those who gassed their own people and were the subject of all the UN resolutions in the first place. We don't put the burden of proof on the government to show that convicted criminals AREN'T reformed when they're up for parole, the burden of proof is on the convicted criminals to prove that they ARE reformed.

It's not like we just came out of the blue and said "Look! Canada has vast reaching biochem weapon plans and will eventually attack the US!"

No, we said "Look. We ALL know that Iraq did have vast reaching biochem weapons plans and has used them in the past. We ALL agreed that those plans should be stopped. And we ALL told Iraq to prove to us - 13 years ago - that they did stop and destroyed the fruits of their labors. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if they had truly destroyed their weapons they would be able to provide swift proof of it - ESPECIALLY considering they knew that's EXACTLY what the internation community wanted and the possible repercussions of not doing so."

Well they called our bluff one too many times, and I for one am thankful that the game of cat and mouse is finally coming to an end.

As for if I think we'll ever find them, I don't know. I hope we do. I know one thing though - they do still exist. Thinking anything to the contrary goes against all logic and common sense. It's just a matter of what's happened to them.

If I had 169,000 square miles to hide something, billions of dollars in resources and thirteen years in which to do it, I gaurantee you'd never find them. Having the ability to bury the people doing the work only ensures success. But again I must point out the fact that not finding something does not prove it never existed.

Edit: Where is Jimmy Hoffa?

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
If I had 169,000 square miles to hide something, billions of dollars in resources and thirteen years in which to do it, I gaurantee you'd never find them. Having the ability to bury the people doing the work only ensures success. But again I must point out the fact that not finding something does not prove it never existed.

Edit: Where is Jimmy Hoffa?

but, can you hide it from the greatest nation on earth? the greatest army on earth? the greatest intelligence service on earth?

i thought we already knew where they were.

I didn't see any quotes in which Clinton described Iraq's WMDs as an imminent threat. I see "emboldened tomorrow" and "some day"; but nothing like what Bush said.

I'm totally willing to believe that everything Bush said was in good faith, but was based on some crucial bad information. This actually scares me more than if he lied, because it suggests a damaged and divided intelligence community.

It does not mean that every one else was lying, if I lie to you and tell you that my name is bob, is it lying if you state that my name is bob?

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
but, can you hide it from the greatest nation on earth? the greatest army on earth? the greatest intelligence service on earth?

You find Jimmy Hoffa then. Isn't he hiding from the greatest nation on Earth? Maybe some archeologist will dig them up some day. The point is they aren't in Osama bin Ladens hands either. That's why Bush went after them in the first place. He didn't go in there to prove Saddam had them, but to prevent them from falling into terrorists hands.

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
You find Jimmy Hoffa then. Isn't he hiding from the greatest nation on Earth? Maybe some archeologist will dig them up some day. The point is they aren't in Osama bin Ladens hands either. That's why Bush went after them in the first place. He didn't go in there to prove Saddam had them, but to prevent them from falling into terrorists hands.

we're not talking about one person.

we're talking about a SHITLOAD of tons of material here. it's not that easy to move like a person, as a person can just travel w/ ease.

ok I’ve said before on 2 separate post, 500 tons of sarin (which is what he was quoted as having by the bush administration) is 15000 cubic feet, you cant hide 15,000 cubic feet.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
ok I’ve said before on 2 separate post, 500 tons of sarin (which is what he was quoted as having by the bush administration) is 15000 cubic feet, you cant hide 15,000 cubic feet.

15,000 cubic feet...if it's stored in perfect cubes, comes out to an area of about 625 square feet (25 ft x 25 ft x 25 ft = 15,625 ft^3 for volume if in a perfect cube)

Don't let numbers deceive you - it seems like an inconspicuous amount, yet, in volume, it's not much bigger than my house (and I live in a small house).

sigh, if they were there, why werent they used?

a little dose of anthrax could have evened the odds in the war.

Yeah, it would make saddam look like a big meanie et al, and it might have even caused America to nuke iraq (unlikely), but Saddam must have known that he had no chance of winning and that history is going to paint him that way anyway.

And no, i don't think a sudden pang of conscience is what did it.

For those who reckon he's moved them, stop to consider the logistics of transporting numerous WMD's in total secret when you know that America is spying on you night and day with the most sophisticated techonology invented. Its not like you can slip a warhead into the back pocket of someone and send them on thier way either, huge convoys with armed escorts would have had to be used.

btw, Lebell... the American government is hard pressed to prove the existence of WMD's. The containers were discovered at or some stage before April the 14th 2003. It is now June the 14th. I think we can safely say that those containers are in no way related to chemical weapons.

I also think we can safely say that they will not find any WMD's, or to be precise, WMD's of Iraqi origin.

Loki, while I understand your logic, I don't understand how it is any less reasonable than the logic that, had they actually destroyed the weapons, they would have shown the proof to us.

"a little dose of anthrax could have evened the ods in the war."

so could a little proof of destruction.

No, I think we're exactly in the situation Saddam wanted us to end up in - he knew he couldn't win through military might so, as usual, why not manipulate the court of world opinion and make Iraq out to be a victim.

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
Loki, while I understand your logic, I don't understand how it is any less reasonable than the logic that, had they actually destroyed the weapons, they would have shown the proof to us.

"a little dose of anthrax could have evened the ods in the war."

so could a little proof of destruction.

No, I think we're exactly in the situation Saddam wanted us to end up in - he knew he couldn't win through military might so, as usual, why not manipulate the court of world opinion and make Iraq out to be a victim.

it didnt bother him that he lost all his power as long as he manipulated world opinion?

a dictator's #1 priority is maintaining/increasing power and he/she would go to great distances to do this.

I completely agree dude, which is why it makes no sense through logic to think that if he had destroyed his WMDs he wouldn't submit proof of it, seeing as how - we're he telling the truth - that's all that would be requierd for him to truly remain in power.

Instead, they were not destroyed and therefore he had no proof to the contrary to submit. So, from there, there are 2 options really - 1) be ushered into war, use the WMDs, world opinion shifts entirely against you without a question of doubt, and that's that - there is absolutely nothing left for him - or, 2) be ushered into war, hide and/or sell your WMDs, watch the world defend you (verbally at least) against the United States, not lose every last grasp of power you have, and perhaps go on to eventually see those hidden/sold WMDs be used on the US one day.

no offense, but the #2 seems very far fetched to me

far fetched as it may seem - it allows for maintaining some power whereas the only other logical option does not - and, as you said, a dictator's primary priority is maintaining power.

Add that to the fact that Saddam Hussein is well known as a master manipulator of the media and it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.