Simple_Min

I think the Iraqi Info. Minister has infiltrated the administration.
Missing are Blair party's quotes...about 40minute deployability to hit Britian.

Only time will tell if these were lies or not. Also if we find anything....does it justify the "urgency" the coalitian has noted?
I guess the only way to find out is with more time and inspections...



Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002


Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003


Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003


If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003


So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003


There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003


I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.


Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003


One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003


We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003


Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003


But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003


We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003


We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003


I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003


We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003


I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003




U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003




I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003




Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003




Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003




They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.


Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003




For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."


Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003

__________________
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

4thTimeLucky

IF there are no such WMDs, I wonder if the US and UK will ever actually admit it. How long do you think it would take... three months, 1/2 a year, a year? And to what extent would they apologise for riding rough shod over international law and the will of the international community?

PS I take it you didn't collate all of these quotes yourself (if you did, I'm very impressed). Where do you get them from?

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

Macheath

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

For me this is the great bombshell quote, not for what it says about the existence of WMDs but for what it says about the Bush administration. What it says is that there were influential members of the administration who did not think that the liberation of the Iraqi people was a good enough reason to invade Iraq.

They were so unconvinced by that argument in fact that a "compromise" on WMDs was needed to get them on board.

But who is "they"? Certainly not George the liberator or Donald the freedom fighter, liberty was foremost in their minds all the time. Um, I think it was the now departed Ari wot did it. He was obviously the bastard who didn't give a shit about the Iraqi people, but he's gone now so it's okay.

4thTimeLucky

Macheath Do you value international law? Do you think that an international body intended to prevent a future World War is a good thing?

One country invading another to "liberate" it is illegal. Not legal. Against the law. Wrong.

Nazi War Criminals were hanged after WWII on the following charge:
“planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”.

There are only 2 legal bases on which one can go to war:

Article 51 of the UN Charter: Self defence or collective self defence in the face of an imminent threat.

Article 42 of the UN Charter: As a result of a Security Council sanctioned intervention to "to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Important note: To pull your troops out of Saudi Arabia is not one of the legal justifications. Thinking that regime change would be a good idea is not one of the legal justifications. Deciding yourself (or in conjuction with any number of other countries) that there is a humanitation disaster is not one of the legal justifications.

And the US has signed up to this. It was one of the founding fathers of these rules.

You may not like them when it suits you (just as you may not like any number of domestic laws when it suits you), but they are there for a reason. A good reason. Disrespect the laws now and you will have no recourse but force when others violate the laws themselves.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

Macheath

4thTimeLucky, I must confess I was being sarcastic in response to Wolfowitz's flippant reference to international law as "bureaucratic reasons" and the intense "after the fact" focus on the liberation "reason" and dismissal of the WMD issue - I may have gone overboard in my sarcasm.

I know of the huge legal issues that are raised by the idea of humanitarian intervention, and the importance of state sovereignty. I actually think the subject could have its own thread, considering the Europeans might now be sending troops into The Congo.

4thTimeLucky

My apologies. There seem to be so many die-hard hawks and liberators out there that subtle sarcasm can slip beneath my radar.

As for Congo I believe that that would be a seperate issue, as additional UN troops would be invited in there by the government.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

Simple_Min

Good point fellas.

4thTimeLucky, I was sent a link of this thru email actually. I have since deleted the email, but I will post the source later on in a day or so. My apologies.

__________________
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

The_Dude

they lied to accomplish what was needed, they played upon our fears of another terrorist attack.

anyway, nice list of quotes, i'm saving it

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

smooth

More like chickenhawks.

Anyway, this is my favorite:

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

Given this concrete idea of where they are located, I wonder why all the trouble in finding the WMD's (ah, I just love these catchy phrases and acronyms).

MSD

I agree that the WMD justification was a bit absurd and relied too much on assumption. I protested the war, but now I think that what we have to do is accept that what was done is done, and work together to make sure that more good than bad comes out of it. If we were to pull out now, a fundamentalist regime would rise, we need to have enough of a presence in the country to make sure that it does become a democratic and peaceful land. To me, this has become more important than debating who was right or wrong.

I think that this should, however, be a factor in elections. People will need to decide whether or not they're willing to re-elect an administration that lied to them in order to accomplish its goals (whatever those may be.)

Simple_Min

As promised the quotes with the sources of those quotes hyperlinked...

If you have the time, read through some of the reader comments...some are flames but some are very thoughtful. (Though I must confess most of the comments are unpatriotic fools bashing our pResident)

http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html

__________________
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Daval

I wish this were true as well, but the redneck sheep in the US will re-elect Mr. Bush in a landslide. Oh how I wish the democrats would field a viable candidate.

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

The_Dude

fine, i'll run

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Simple_Min

A little off topic, but I read something marvelous about the Green party's strategy for next election: to back democracts. I dislike a two party system as much as the next guy but I think this is a splendid idea to bring common sense back into politics.

src: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...rty/index.html

__________________
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

smooth

that would be nice. I met and spoke with Bill Domhoff about this issue at a conference a few months ago. He just finished his book called Changing the Powers That Be: How the Left Can Stop Losing and Win.

*Domhoff is the author of The Power Elite which expands on C. Wright Mill's theories in Who Rules America?.

Daval

great article. I think this is a great idea for the green party to do.

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

reconmike

Oh how I hope they dont field one because the commie pinko liberal sheep would sure try to get him in, in vain of course

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Kows

As a Green party memeber, I think that would be a horrible idea. They are there to keep the Dem's liberal, not to become democrats. The point of the last election was to prove that we would hold out until Democrats compromised on our issues - to give in now to the likes of Lieberman (who will likely win the primary), who supported the war and is NOT an opposition, is apalling.

Of course, if a peacenik wins the primary, then I'll vote for him. But I refuse to ever cast my vote for a neocon of ANY party, democrat or republican.

Liquor Dealer

Go 4 it!

Don't think you can fit a single Constitutional requirement but there are a bunch of dolts on this board that will swear they'll vote for you!

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

smooth

This is exactly Domhoff's point. He isn't advocating Greens to become Dems. In a two party system that pulls heavily to the right the only viable way to shape the political discourse is to interact within it (and this only applies at the national level. Green party members have been very successful at the local level--giving the impression they can ultimately succeed at the national level, too).

For example, Green party members who are participating in the Democratic primaries are able to shape the platform and push their issues onto the Democrats plate (along with their voters).

Right now third party candidates are throwing stones in a bazooka war.

Kadath

Once again, no comments from our own hawks on the matter at hand. Choose your battles, I guess, and know the ones you've lost before they began.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Simple_Min

smooth, I couldn't find that author on Amazon and B&N. B&N had the book but no editorial or reader comments.

I agree with you that the way for third parties to advance into National politics is through state and legislative federal level.

The president can have any number of titles, but the legislative branch ultimately decides what issue to discuss and vote. Once the third parties have had a strong hold in State and Legislative federal level, then they should peruse the White house.

__________________
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

smooth

Simple_Min,

When I spoke with Bill a couple months ago the book was just coming off the presses. You might need to search the web for an academic review. Domhoff is currently at UC Santa Cruz; C. Wright Mills is dead (he is by far the most layman accessable sociologist).

I pulled some things that will give you an idea of what and how he writes:

An Internet Guide to Power Structure Research Suggested Reading

Critical Analysis 1: Who Rules America?

DIVERSITY IN THE POWER ELITE

Although, I think the focus is that Green issues can shape the Democratic platform rather than Green's actually becoming a viable party.

Of course, they would become a "viable" party in the sense that their issues would be addressed but not in the sense of achieving positions of power at the national level.

While we see local and even increasingly wider support for independant candidates the reality is that without access to the media like the two main parties enjoy a substantial voter base can not be built.

Mr. Mojo

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
<b>-President Bill Clinton in 1998</b>

"Of course they have no credibility. If they had any, they certainly lost it in 1991. I don't see that they have acquired any credibility."
<b>-Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, on the Saddam regime</b>

"The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognized by the U.N."
<b>-Letter by Eight European leaders in support of the United States</b>

"At the end of all of the academic arguments is whether we are willing to pay the price to bring freedom to the people of Iraq. If we are, we will not regret it."
<b>-Vietnam veteran and former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey</b>

""Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.

Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. "

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century," he argued. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
<b>President Bill Clinton</b>


At these to the List

__________________
When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

Simple_Min

I don't think anyone here is arguing for Hussein or his dictatorship. But, where are these "wmd's & agents"? We were told that Iraq had capability to launch and attack...and if that is the case these weapons could not be very easily hidden or transported without the Military spying airplanes & satellites.

Furthermore, the US did not accept the UN reports and went to this war based on it's own (somehow far superior) intelligence.

Again, Saddam has been a threat for a long time. Innocent people have been persecuted and some have been dying for a long time. Saddam had the same WMD's in the past as he does even now. Clearly the reason to attack was not for the best interest of civilians and to "spread democracy". So far the reasons used to justify the war have been without any outcome.

What other interest does the U.S. (particularly Halliburton/Exxon) have in the region...

__________________
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Simple_Min

Sh*t hits the fan?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...968603,00.html

__________________
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Mr. Mojo

Where are the WMD - In a country the size of California we haven't found them in, what 8 weeks? Your asking a lot in a short amount of time. (protect museums & Oil wells, food & medicine for the nation, Law & Order, find WMD's ..etc)
It took 6 years to find Olympic bomber when he was only a few hundred miles from the bombing. It took 10 years before we were sure Hitler was dead.
If the US and the UK were lying, why don’t we just plant the weapons?We both could go on and on citing examples going both ways.
But these weapons were not the only reason we went to war. Its gotten the most press, but the main thrust was to get Al-Qaeda supporters <a target=new href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml"><b>The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden</b> </a> - again, we can go back and forth linking stories. I think they will be found. When, I dont know. But the world is a better place with him gone.

__________________
When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

Kadath

Mr. Mojo, your point about the difficulty in finding the weapons is well taken, but the government clearly intended us to think we would be finding stockpiles everywhere during and after the war. It's that sort of lying I find to be a problem.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Simple_Min

Thank you.

__________________
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Simple_Min

Smooth, thanks for those links. I have yet to read all the way through them, but it is very interesting so far and it fits well with my mental biases

__________________
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.