Ya just gotta wait of it!!

[Rooster7]

From all indications, it was all destroyed prior to the war.

 

Perhapsbut what makes WMDs so easy to find? We have fugitives in this country that have managed to allude being detected by millions of law enforcement agents. These are individuals who presumably need water, air, and food and eventually must go about in the public to find the same. Whos to say what might be buried in the desert? With billions of oil revenues to spend and a neglected populace, you find it so improbable that Hussein found a way to hide these weapons indefinitely for a rainy day? Dont you think these people were smart enough to prepare for such an invasion?

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I know its simplistic, but if Saddam didnt have WMD, why the shell game with the UN weapons inspectors?

[scoutingagain]

"Whos to say what might be buried in the desert?"

 

The President's own inspection team. I mean if you can't trust folks appointed by the President of the United States to do a job right, who can you trust.

 

SA

[Rooster7]

So you have quotes from the Presidents inspection team stating that its impossible for there to be any hidden WMDs in Iraqthat theres no way to hide them in the ground undetected.

 

And by the way, this has nothing to do with doing the job right. It has to do with our limitations. I know we all like to believe that the US government can control all events as long as we have the right administration overseeing it but lets get real for a second.

 

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

Yes, individuals allude the police all the time. They are one person out of millions of US citizens and they have the ability to move across 48 states at will. Now, if the police were looking for say 1,000 people as a group, it would be much harder to allude detection. Let's remember, Saddam was supposed to have bunkered "stockpiles" of WMD's and factories to produce them with. We are not talking about a single vial of anthrax. Let's also remember that about 99% of the deck of 55 or whatever it was were captured. Many of these people were the leaders of his WMD programs. Let's remember that we "own" the country and can go wherever we want, whenever we want without restriction. Don't you find it interesting that with all of the top leadership and scientists captured, crack US inspection teams having free movement about the country and three years to look, we have no stockpiles of WMD's to show for it or even a single factory. Do I think Saddam never had WMD's? Of course not. There is no question that he had them at one time and even used them once against his own people a decade or more ago. What many don't want to acknowledge is that the sanctions actually worked. If Saddam were such a threat to US national security, why did he do nothing to harm us in the 12 years after Gulf War 1? What was he waiting for? Each year his infrastructure, military might and power rusted away. He used the fear of WMD's to keep his people and his neighbors in line. He never used them and/or destroyed them because he knew what the US would do if he did use them. I think he destroyed them, but kept the fact secret as insurance to keep his enemies guessing. GWB came along and decided to call his bluff and to shoot first and ask questions later. Even when Saddam said he didn't have them, the admin's take is that he is a liar and can't be trusted. He was damned if he did and damned if he din't. The war was on the agenda and would happen regardless of the status of WMD's.

[SR540Beaver]

One other note for the "WMD's buried for a rainy day folks". Dig a hole in your backyard 10 to 15 feet deep. Place your car and a jar of pickles down there. Fill the hole back up with all of that heavy dirt. Come back in 5 years an dig them up. See if the pickles are edible and if the car will drive. WMD's (even of the nuclear variety) have a limited shelf life even under optimum conditions. You can't just bury them in the sand, dig them up years later and use them. It just oesn't work that way according to the weapons inspectors I've heard talk about it.

[packsaddle]

SR540Beaver, Exactly. The reason the Bush team couldn't accept that Saddam might be telling the truth may be that THEY were so invested in their lie and didn't want truth to get in the way of their agenda. (reaching into my bag of delicious ironies) So when the bad guy was pulled out of his hole he was telling the truth and the 'good guy' who caught him was a liar.

[Rooster7]

SR540Beaver,

 

Yes, individuals allude the police all the time. They are one person out of millions of US citizens and they have the ability to move across 48 states at will. Now, if the police were looking for say 1,000 people as a group, it would be much harder to allude detection.

 

Except were not looking for 1,000 people or even one person, were looking for an inanimate object which has no going needs to address. Barrels of chemical or biological weapons do not require upkeep.

 

Let's remember, Saddam was supposed to have bunkered "stockpiles" of WMD's and factories to produce them with. We are not talking about a single vial of anthrax.

 

Whether or not the Bush administration and/or the media used the term stockpiles is irrelevant. WMDs can be stored and hidden. And the existence or non-existence of factories does not mean that they are no such weapons in the country.

 

Let's also remember that about 99% of the deck of 55 or whatever it was were captured. Many of these people were the leaders of his WMD programs. Let's remember that we "own" the country and can go wherever we want, whenever we want without restriction. Don't you find it interesting that with all of the top leadership and scientists captured, crack US inspection teams having free movement about the country and three years to look, we have no stockpiles of WMD's to show for it or even a single factory.

 

So, this lovely group of individuals willingly performs all sorts of heinous acts whenever Saddam Hussein beckons, but theyre not willing to lie to Americans on his behalf. Yeah, I see your point.

 

Again with the factoriesIf you acknowledge that Hussein had weapons at one point, why do you need to see functioning factories to be convinced that he still possesses them? If hes trying to convince the world that he doesnt, the first thing hes likely to do is to dismantle the means to make them.

 

Do I think Saddam never had WMD's? Of course not. There is no question that he had them at one time and even used them once against his own people a decade or more ago.

 

Oh, and since murdering thousands of Kurds, he suddenly became a man of sensibility and peace. Do you really believe that?

 

What many don't want to acknowledge is that the sanctions actually worked.

 

And explain to me how did these sanctions work? Saddam could not stand to see his people suffer? The poor people of Iraqthe people which he allowed his sons to prey upon to murder, rape, and torture.

 

If Saddam were such a threat to US national security, why did he do nothing to harm us in the 12 years after Gulf War 1? What was he waiting for? Each year his infrastructure, military might and power rusted away.

 

It seems very plausible to me that he waiting until he was strong enough to put up a good fight. His infrastructure was not getting weakerthats just bogus. His infrastructure was growing.

 

He used the fear of WMD's to keep his people and his neighbors in line.

 

Doesnt that argument support the idea that Saddam wanted to keep his weapons?

 

He never used them and/or destroyed them because he knew what the US would do if he did use them.

 

He may not have wanted to use themat least not anytime soon on usbut he wanted the WMDs just the same - to gain strength in the region and to nullify our influence in the region.

 

I think he destroyed them, but kept the fact secret as insurance to keep his enemies guessing.

 

Again, he did this out of the goodness of his heart?

 

GWB came along and decided to call his bluff and to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

Man, is your memory shortor perhaps you didnt read the papers. Bush gave Hussein numerous opportunities to comply with the UN inspectors.

 

Even when Saddam said he didn't have them, the admin's take is that he is a liar and can't be trusted.

 

Given his actions in the previous months, the administration had every right to believe him to be a liar. All signs indicated that he had something to hide.

 

He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

 

I remember when Hussein didnt. When exactly was it that he did?

 

The war was on the agenda and would happen regardless of the status of WMD's.

 

Yes, were all familiar with the liberal revisionist construction of events, but the fact is it didnt happen that way. We begged Hussein to comply with the inspectors. He refused to allow them full access.

 

One other note for the "WMD's buried for a rainy day folks". Dig a hole in your backyard 10 to 15 feet deep. Place your car and a jar of pickles down there. Fill the hole back up with all of that heavy dirt. Come back in 5 years an dig them up. See if the pickles are edible and if the car will drive. WMD's (even of the nuclear variety) have a limited shelf life even under optimum conditions. You can't just bury them in the sand, dig them up years later and use them. It just doesn't work that way according to the weapons inspectors I've heard talk about it.

 

What difference does that make? His goal would be to hide the evidence of his non-compliance. If they work when he finally digs them up (wherever or however he has hide them) then Hussein can triple his pleasure. His pleasure being 1) He looks as if he had complied as the UN requested, 2) He embarrasses the U.S. by making it appear as they were the aggressors, and 3) He has working WMDs. If they dont work, two out of three, aint bad. In the end, Hussein has created a win/win situation thanks mostly to the liberal American media, an incredibly progressive thinking Europe, and the extremely gullible who live amongst us.

 

packsaddle,

 

So Hussein was a victim? The "Bush lied" accusation is old and tiresome. He acted on the intelligence that was given him. And, there is still plenty of reason to believe that the intelligence was accurate.

[packsaddle]

For the record:

Saddam was a bad guy. Duh!

So are quite a few others scattered around the planet. We haven't made a move on N. Korea. We haven't rescued the people of Iran. We haven't liberated Myanmar. And there are plenty more. We didn't take Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy. He was a bad guy back when we were supplying arms to him and he was an ally. That didn't seem to bother us then.

The spin that Bush was the victim of bad advice doesn't hold up - it's just a feel-good self-deception for some of us to maintain the faith. The reports containing the faulty intelligence also included statements of uncertainty. But Bush and his cronies told us there was no doubt. When someone in authority - in command of deadly force and about to use it - says there is no doubt, I take that as an absolute. And I bought the lie along with most of the rest of us. I am at least honest enough to admit I was duped by them.

Kahuna was correct in saying there is a difference between something that is not true and a lie. The difference is knowing that a statement is false when you make it. And unless Bush didn't read the reports before making the decision (which would have been apocalyptically stupid...do you like that option?), he knew there was doubt.

 

Saddam, having destroyed the WMD, was then required to prove they didn't exist. But there's no way to prove a negative and although his bluster was stupid, he HAD actually destroyed them. Yes, the WMD were there during the Clinton years. Yes, he used them on the Kurds. But they were destroyed. He said so and in that, at least, he was correct. If you think you know more than Bush's own WMD team, show us the evidence. Prove it. Produce a single gram of enriched uranium, or just 100 ml of some biological agent. You can't. All you have is an unshakable conviction based on blind faith in a liar.

Another irony: the WMD was destroyed as a result of, get this, DIPLOMACY, the UN, and international pressure.

 

Sadly, as of today the US body count stands at 2285, the US maimed and wounded number 16,653, and the Iraqi civilian body count is somewhere around 30,000. And thanks to the lie, I too am partly responsible. At least I'm honest enough to admit it.

[Rooster7]

Saddam was a bad guy. Duh!

So are quite a few others scattered around the planet. We haven't made a move on N. Korea. We haven't rescued the people of Iran. We haven't liberated Myanmar. And there are plenty more. We didn't take Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy.

 

Are we to take on all enemies at the same time? Is this the WWF?

 

He was a bad guy back when we were supplying arms to him and he was an ally. That didn't seem to bother us then.

 

So its black and white when it comes to U.S. diplomacy? We either declare war or we fully support our allies? Please you really have no idea what our government was saying to Hussein at that time.

 

The spin that Bush was the victim of bad advice doesn't hold up - it's just a feel-good self-deception for some of us to maintain the faith. The reports containing the faulty intelligence also included statements of uncertainty. But Bush and his cronies told us there was no doubt. When someone in authority - in command of deadly force and about to use it - says there is no doubt, I take that as an absolute. And I bought the lie along with most of the rest of us. I am at least honest enough to admit I was duped by them.

 

No doubt some reports were less certain than others, but there were sources that expressed certainty. And your bias is showing when you reference Bush aids and advisors as cronies. Lastly, you have no way of knowing if any intelligence was faulty. The British still stand by their reports.

 

Kahuna was correct in saying there is a difference between something that is not true and a lie. The difference is knowing that a statement is false when you make it. And unless Bush didn't read the reports before making the decision (which would have been apocalyptically stupid...do you like that option?), he knew there was doubt.

 

Some reports expressing doubt does not translate into all or most reports expressing doubt. You accuse Bush of picking and choosing to fit his needs Perhaps you do so because of your familiarity with the tactic.

 

Saddam, having destroyed the WMD, was then required to prove they didn't exist. But there's no way to prove a negative and although his bluster was stupid, he HAD actually destroyed them. Yes, the WMD were there during the Clinton years. Yes, he used them on the Kurds. But they were destroyed. He said so and in that, at least, he was correct. If you think you know more than Bush's own WMD team, show us the evidence. Prove it. Produce a single gram of enriched uranium, or just 100 ml of some biological agent. You can't. All you have is an unshakable conviction based on blind faith in a liar.

 

Yeah right you take the word of a man who murders thousands (Hussein) over a man who seeks to rid the planet of murders (Bush).

 

Another irony: the WMD was destroyed as a result of, get this, DIPLOMACY, the UN, and international pressure.

 

Oh yes, the great human achievement called the U.N. the U.N. that forms a human rights commission that includes Libya and Syria. Get serious. The U.N. is an outdated organization which has become so phony that dictators and despots exploit them at will and sadly, much of the organization willingly participates in their own exploitation. To state that UN diplomacy caused Iraq to disarm, only goes to show how truly blind you are to reality.

 

Sadly, as of today the US body count stands at 2285, the US maimed and wounded number 16,653, and the Iraqi civilian body count is somewhere around 30,000. And thanks to the lie, I too am partly responsible. At least I'm honest enough to admit it. So are quite a few others scattered around the planet.

 

Grieving over the sacrifices made by our military, the families of those serving, and the death of innocent civilians, is not a sentiment which can only be appreciated by those who wish to retreat from war. I dare say that those who understand why the sacrifices are being made feel this pain as much or more than those who wish to run from it.

 

[packsaddle]

Rooster7, You know, don't you, that the spectacles of the WWF are staged? Around here I call it 'redneck ballet'. If you turn the sound down and play the music for Swan Lake on the stereo, it works so well, it's amazing.

 

If even a few expert advisors express doubt, that doubt nevertheless exists. As you suggested, to selectively ignore those doubts or as you put it, "picking and choosing to fit his needs", constitutes a lie if he proclaims that the doubt does not exist. A lie.

 

But I am completely accessible to real evidence. So produce some. Show everyone here one tangible thing that today indicates the presence of WMD in Iraq. The search has come up empty-handed and so has your baseless opinion. Produce some evidence so other persons can embrace your opinion that WMD are still out there somewhere. I would love to see it. I would love to be able to change my mind and admit I was wrong about Bush. Show me. I'll bet Bush would give you a big smooch if you did. His team sure hasn't.

It might be easier, though, to get a prima ballerina into the ring. Now that'd make a believer out of me. About WWF, that is.

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

International weapons inspectors roamed Iraq for years, and our own inspectors have had the run of the country for 3 years now. Along with intelligence gathering and everything else at our disposal, don't you think we'd have come up with SOMETHING by now if there was something to find? Missiles, warheads, and the payloads are not the easiest things to hide, after all. They have volatile fuels, and some of the biologic and chemical payloads are volatile as well. Maybe Iraq has their own version of Area 51 that is shielded from our view using alien technology? Or, maybe there's just nothing to be found. 15 years ago, sure, Saddam had the weapons and used them. There wasn't any evidence that he still had that capability anytime in the near past.

 

Since there were opposing intelligence views before the war began, don't you think the prudent thing to do would have been to verify absolute proof of a threat before invading and destroying another sovereign nation?

 

Something was mentioned about "taking on all of our enemies at the same time". When the only reason an administration can come up with to invade a country is that their leader is a bad guy, that opens you up to wondering why we're not assisting all these other countries who have bad guys as leaders, in just as aggressive a manner.

 

The U.N. loses credibility when it's strongest member, the U.S., refuses to participates in the global process. That's what hurts the U.N. Participants in various committees within the U.N. are usually arranged by membership rotation. Given our recent record, we wouldn't belong on such a human rights commission, either.

 

"Yeah right you take the word of a man who murders thousands (Hussein) over a man who seeks to rid the planet of murders (Bush)."

Excuse me, I'm laughing so hard over this one I can hardly type. Bush, the man who had his lawyers find loopholes in the Geneva Conventions so we could "legally" torture prisoners. Bush, the man who's team created a "1st strike" policy for the first time in our history so that we can invade other nations basically when we feel like it. Sorry, I have a real hard time seeing our President as some sort of Ultimate Patriot, trying to save the world from evil. He's basically just turned the U.S. into the world's single biggest bully. We can do better.

[GernBlansten]

We know Saddam had WMD because we sold him them. We have the invoice marked "Paid in Full" and even a picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with him. Now where that pesky scamp put them, that's another story altogether.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Part of the problem is just keeping track of who's who in the Middle East. You've got the Taliban, dreaded enemy, except that we helped to get them set up in Afghanistan. And then, of course, you've got Iraq, who is/was an enemy. Or was that Iran? No, wait, that was before. Somebody's a friend, we happily sell them our weapons, and lo and behold, they use them on us a couple of years later.

 

One of the neo-conservatives that was at one time a part of Bush's "think tank" is publishing a book about how their policies were basically a good idea that got out of hand. Should be an interesting read.

 

Now, maybe we should move on to another topic. I'd hate to have Rooster burst his aorta or something Just lookin' out for ya, bro! Maybe we can talk about something less painful, like gays in Scouting, or uniforms

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

The depth of your denial is utterly astounding. Be my guest to visit the website of The Project For The New American Century which is chaired by William Kristol of The Weekly Standard. The site is http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html. This group of "conservatives" (actually neo-cons) have been urging war with Iraq since their founding in 1997. You can read their letter to Clinton from 1998 at http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm. you can read their letter to Bush in 2001 at http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm. Many of the men who signed the first letter to Clinton became part of the Bush administration inner circle. They didn't sign the second letter to Bush because they were already part of the admin and already advocating for the war on Iraq that they couldn't get Clinton to wage. In the letter to Bush, they allude to the possibility of Saddam being part of 9/11. This war WAS on the agenda and it was going to happen one way or another. You can deny it, but the facts are the facts.

 

The sad thing is that people honestly believe that Bush, Congress and toay's Republican party are true conservatives. They are not. They wrap themselves in the flag, the military and call anyone who disagrees with them a traitor and not a patriot. Around Oklahoma, we have what we call Drugstore Cowboys. They are wannabes. They are the guys who put on starched jeans, $400 boots, $200 cowboy hats and a big buckle and strike Marlboro Man poses. They've never been outside the city and gotten their hands dirty. That is what the "conservatives" of today have become. People like Pat Buchanan are conservative, yet they have been marginalized by today's "conservatives" and are considered kooks because they espouse true conservative ideals and oppose the war.

 

Here is a little true conservative reading for you. It won't match the talk show talking points you are familiar with. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49030