Bush, Cheney concede Saddam had no WMDs

[UZI Suicide 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._iraq_weapons_2

[Guest MikeSC]

And?

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

When was the last time they used WMDs as the reasoning for war?...

 

Hasn't it been 'Saddaam was bad' for awhile now?

[UZI Suicide 0]

The whole reason we went there was to take him out and get his WMD's right? Well he never had any, so what the fuck was the point of going in?

[Guest MikeSC]

When was the last time they used WMDs as the reasoning for war?...

 

Hasn't it been 'Saddaam was bad' for awhile now?

The biggest concern was that Saddam was a threat --- which he was.

 

And the report goes a long way in showing that Bush COULDN'T have done this more diplomatically.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

The whole reason we went there was to take him out and get his WMD's right? Well he never had any, so what the fuck was the point of going in?

Bad intel is hardly lying. Saddam's OWN PEOPLE thought he had them. We KNOW he used them.

 

Hindsight is lovely.

-=Mike

[UZI Suicide 0]

When was the last time they used WMDs as the reasoning for war?...

 

Hasn't it been 'Saddaam was bad' for awhile now?

The biggest concern was that Saddam was a threat --- which he was.

 

And the report goes a long way in showing that Bush COULDN'T have done this more diplomatically.

-=Mike

He didn't have any fucking WMD's so how could he be a threat? He rushed to Iraq when right now N. Korea and Iran are much bigger threats than Saddam has been in over a decade.

[Guest MikeSC]

When was the last time they used WMDs as the reasoning for war?...

 

Hasn't it been 'Saddaam was bad' for awhile now?

The biggest concern was that Saddam was a threat --- which he was.

 

And the report goes a long way in showing that Bush COULDN'T have done this more diplomatically.

-=Mike

He didn't have any fucking WMD's so how could he be a threat? He rushed to Iraq when right now N. Korea and Iran are much bigger threats than Saddam has been in over a decade.

We don't know where the WMD's he had went. Nobody can say he actually disposed of them. We were concerned about him either using them himself --- or, even worse, selling them to other terrorists.

 

We know he intended to re-start up the WMD program when he managed to shake off the sanctions, which was becoming a more likely possibility.

 

We know he bribed the UN for reasons we'll never fully understand.

 

And, let's say our intel about N. Korea and Iran is wrong --- HARDLY a stretch. Will you say any action taken was done on a lie?

-=Mike

[UZI Suicide 0]

When was the last time they used WMDs as the reasoning for war?...

 

Hasn't it been 'Saddaam was bad' for awhile now?

The biggest concern was that Saddam was a threat --- which he was.

 

And the report goes a long way in showing that Bush COULDN'T have done this more diplomatically.

-=Mike

He didn't have any fucking WMD's so how could he be a threat? He rushed to Iraq when right now N. Korea and Iran are much bigger threats than Saddam has been in over a decade.

We don't know where the WMD's he had went. Nobody can say he actually disposed of them. We were concerned about him either using them himself --- or, even worse, selling them to other terrorists.

 

We know he intended to re-start up the WMD program when he managed to shake off the sanctions, which was becoming a more likely possibility.

 

We know he bribed the UN for reasons we'll never fully understand.

 

And, let's say our intel about N. Korea and Iran is wrong --- HARDLY a stretch. Will you say any action taken was done on a lie?

-=Mike

Well there's a lot more evidence to N. Korea and Iran considering they've admitted having Nukes, or at least N. Korea has, but Iran is pretty much guarenteed to have it as well, or to at least be in the process of creating them, considering what they've been doing the past couple of years.

 

So what was the reason for invading Iraq then? The Duelfer Report stated he had no way to make new WMD's, and only intended to start a nuclear program IF UN sanctions are lifted. So while Al Qaeda, the people who actually DID attack us, and Bin Laden are in Afghanistan, we go after a guy who has no WMD's. That makes sense.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well there's a lot more evidence to N. Korea and Iran considering they've admitted having Nukes

And Saddam actively portrayed himself as having them. Again, his OWN PEOPLE thought he had them. How is Bush supposed to know something that, apparently, ONLY Saddam knew? Saddam Hussein wanted to pretend that he had them --- he suffered the consequences.

or at least N. Korea has, but Iran is pretty much guarenteed to have it as well, or to at least be in the process of creating them, considering what they've been doing the past couple of years.

And this is different than Saddam in WHAT way?

 

It's the same problem.

So what was the reason for invading Iraq then? The Duelfer Report stated he had no way to make new WMD's, and only intended to start a nuclear program IF UN sanctions are lifted.

Which the bribes likely were given to try and expedite (France was COMPLETELY behind lifting them for a while). And we KNOW --- for a fact --- that he used them against the Kurds.

 

Consider this:

 

Remember all of the shit Bush took about "ignoring" the exceptionally vague intelligence about OBL's plan to attack America? We had MORE intel and MORE reason to act against Saddam than we EVER had to do so against OBL.

So while Al Qaeda, the people who actually DID attack us, and Bin Laden are in Afghanistan, we go after a guy who has no WMD's. That makes sense.

We did both equally.

 

Like it or not, the only thing throwing more troops into Afghanistan would have done would have been to give terrorists more targets. It would have done virtually nothing when it comes to finding OBL's corpse.

-=Mike

[UZI Suicide 0]

And Saddam actively portrayed himself as having them. Again, his OWN PEOPLE thought he had them. How is Bush supposed to know something that, apparently, ONLY Saddam knew? Saddam Hussein wanted to pretend that he had them --- he suffered the consequences.

 

Well the Weapons Inspectors concluding that he had none might have been a hint.

 

And this is different than Saddam in WHAT way?

 

It's the same problem.

 

Saddam never actually came out and admitted to having a Nuclear Bomb. We KNOW North Korea has nukes. We also know that Iran has been purchasing Uraniam and other black market nuclear parts.

 

[QU

[snuffbox 0]

I wouldnt mind seeing Bin Laden captured before anything else...

[Guest MikeSC]

And Saddam actively portrayed himself as having them. Again, his OWN PEOPLE thought he had them. How is Bush supposed to know something that, apparently, ONLY Saddam knew? Saddam Hussein wanted to pretend that he had them --- he suffered the consequences.

 

Well the Weapons Inspectors concluding that he had none might have been a hint.

The same inspectors who stated he was in material breach of the UN resolutions?

 

THOSE inspectors?

Saddam never actually came out and admitted to having a Nuclear Bomb. We KNOW North Korea has nukes. We also know that Iran has been purchasing Uraniam and other black market nuclear parts.

All we have is our intel, which is, apparently, not exactly airtight. We know Saddam was seeking yellocake in Africa. We know that he had used nerve gas on the Kurds.

 

Unlike Iran or N. Korea, Saddam USED WMD.

I wouldnt mind seeing Bin Laden captured before anything else...

And, while nice, it's hardly an overwhelming necessity. AQ doesn't exactly have firm leadership at the top --- and studies indicate that OBL isn't exactly their only source o' money.

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

More than anything else, I would like to see him brought to justice. Im sure we both agree on that Mike, as we can both agree that hes probably little more than an 'inspirational figurehead' at this point.

[Guest MikeSC]

More than anything else, I would like to see him brought to justice. Im sure we both agree on that Mike, as we can both agree that hes probably little more than an 'inspirational figurehead' at this point.

Oh, he's a martyr (for lack of a better term) for them at this point. Saddam was it for years and now Osama is it.

 

I, honestly, think he's dead. I thought he died LONG ago and we either cannot find him --- or do not wish to make him a martyr for terrorists.

 

I'd love to see his corpse brought to the light --- but I have some doubts about whether we'll ever find them if we have not found them as of yet.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Come ON Mike, revisionist history is soooo tired.

 

The weapons were the entire fucking point, back in '02.

 

The weapons he had, the weapons he'd used, the weapons he was making, and the resolutions regarding those weapons he was breaking.

 

But the weapons weren't there.

 

Hell I supported this war a year ago (for some reason) and if you look back a year you'll find that out. But guess what. Nothing has gone properly since mid to late 2003. There were no weapons, no imminant threat. No immenant threat means no need for speed, means no need to invade. Nothing we've found in Iraq has pointed to a need for an invasion.

[Guest CronoT]

And?

-=Mike

Mike, just admit you, and they, shoved thier collective feet in their mouths, and move on.

[Red Baron 0]

You know he used him, but the reason was to search for WMD, not taking out a threat.

 

Quite a difference.

[Guest MikeSC]

Come ON Mike, revisionist history is soooo tired.

 

The weapons were the entire fucking point, back in '02.

Nope. You'd be wise, just for a suggestion, to actually READ Bush's comments. He gave NUMEROUS reasons. Like it or not.

The weapons he had, the weapons he'd used, the weapons he was making, and the resolutions regarding those weapons he was breaking.

 

But the weapons weren't there.

 

Hell I supported this war a year ago (for some reason) and if you look back a year you'll find that out.  But guess what.  Nothing has gone properly since mid to late 2003.  There were no weapons, no imminant threat.  No immenant threat means no need for speed, means no need to invade.  Nothing we've found in Iraq has pointed to a need for an invasion.

Except Bush never referred to them as an imminent threat. And Iraq is being rebuilt. Building democracies don't often tend to be clean events --- especially when the neighbors vehemently oppose it.

You know he used him, but the reason was to search for WMD, not taking out a threat.

Actually, eliminating a threat was a more regularly cited reason.

Mike, just admit you, and they, shoved thier collective feet in their mouths, and move on.

Because you choose to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore what is stated, that is your problem.

 

It is not mine.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I think Bush claiming this situation could end in a mushroom cloud, pretty much took care of his credibility a long time ago on this matter.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think Bush claiming this situation could end in a mushroom cloud, pretty much took care of his credibility a long time ago on this matter.

Because a Middle Eastern country developing a nuke is BEYOND the pale of rational thought.

 

Hey, if I said PNAC argued that it would happen, would you buy it then?

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I think Bush claiming this situation could end in a mushroom cloud, pretty much took care of his credibility a long time ago on this matter.

Because a Middle Eastern country developing a nuke is BEYOND the pale of rational thought.

 

Well, of course not, but that country would be IRAN. So I guess we invaded the wrong country.

[snuffbox 0]

I think Bush claiming this situation could end in a mushroom cloud, pretty much took care of his credibility a long time ago on this matter.

Because a Middle Eastern country developing a nuke is BEYOND the pale of rational thought.

 

Well, of course not, but that country would be IRAN. So I guess we invaded the wrong country.

Hey, the countries are only one letter different...an honest mistake.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think Bush claiming this situation could end in a mushroom cloud, pretty much took care of his credibility a long time ago on this matter.

Because a Middle Eastern country developing a nuke is BEYOND the pale of rational thought.

 

Well, of course not, but that country would be IRAN. So I guess we invaded the wrong country.

Nope. We had EVERY reason to suspect that Saddam had WMD --- seeing as how he worked rather hard to keep that image alive and well so he could hold power.

 

And, lord, if we went into Iran and the intel ended up being wrong, you'd happily lead the brigade bitching about THAT, too.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I think Bush claiming this situation could end in a mushroom cloud, pretty much took care of his credibility a long time ago on this matter.

Because a Middle Eastern country developing a nuke is BEYOND the pale of rational thought.

 

Well, of course not, but that country would be IRAN. So I guess we invaded the wrong country.

Nope. We had EVERY reason to suspect that Saddam had WMD --- seeing as how he worked rather hard to keep that image alive and well so he could hold power.

 

And, lord, if we went into Iran and the intel ended up being wrong, you'd happily lead the brigade bitching about THAT, too.

-=Mike

and rightfully so. It is not like going to war should be an, "oops, we'll try harder next time" kind of mistake. Soldiers are dead, civilians are dead, terrorists are dead(well that one at least makes everyone happy).

 

I am waiting for Bush to announce the "Absolutely True Intel Cabinet" for all future intelligence gathering.

[EricMM 0]

And if they dropped a modicum of honesty at this point, maybe they'd show they've got a bit of class.

 

Hey, we thought they had a bio-bomb. Oops. They don't, and wouldn't have. We had no reason to invade.

 

Stop saying you're proud of everything you've done. This whole thing was a mistake. A M-I-S-T-A-K-E not something to be proud of.

[Guest MikeSC]

and rightfully so. It is not like going to war should be an, "oops, we'll try harder next time" kind of mistake. Soldiers are dead, civilians are dead, terrorists are dead(well that one at least makes everyone happy).

 

I am waiting for Bush to announce the "Absolutely True Intel Cabinet" for all future intelligence gathering.

So, you presently advocate attacking Iran --- but if they do it and the intel that everybody has is wrong, it's their fault?

 

Got it.

 

Nice Catch-22. You don't want Iran to have nukes --- but you will oppose us attacking them until they ACTUALLY have them.

 

Which is pretty much what we do not want.

 

Well, that mentality led to World War II, so it's not a new school of thought.

 

Just one I assumed had been thoroughly discredited by now.

And if they dropped a modicum of honesty at this point, maybe they'd show they've got a bit of class.

 

Hey, we thought they had a bio-bomb. Oops. They don't, and wouldn't have. We had no reason to invade.

 

Stop saying you're proud of everything you've done. This whole thing was a mistake. A M-I-S-T-A-K-E not something to be proud of.

What's to apologize for? A thug is behind bars. I have far more relevant things to stress myself over.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

What's to apologize for?

 

Dead Iraqi civilians?

 

Dead American soldiers?

 

Billions of tax dollars spent?

 

All to catch a man that Cheney himself said wasn't worth American lives.

[Guest Shoes Head]

The biggest concern was that Saddam was a threat --- which he was.

Were we watching the same State of the Union address?

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Apparently not, because Weapons of Mass Destruction didn't become a household phrase until BUsh said it 14,328 times.