Still think Saddam had WMD's?

The US government now says otherwise!

Published on October 6, 2004 By thatoneguyinslc In Politics

I was reading my complimentary copy of USA Today at the hotel this morning and found this little nugget of info. Now bush 2.0's own people are contradicting him.

Link

thanks for reading,
Thatoneguyinslc

Comments (Page 3)

Draginol

on Oct 07, 2004

I for one am glad Saddam is gone for the reasons I have stated countless times before the war began and since.

Daiwa

on Oct 07, 2004

If you read the full Duelfer report, as opposed to the headlines, you'll find out that it actually supports most of the pre-war intelligence assessment. It confirms, for those who might have been inclined otherwise, that Saddam maintained as much of the machinery for WMD development as he could possibly hold onto in the face of the sanctions and calls for inspections, and actively tried to give the impression that he was hiding something all along for what he perceived to be leverage. That he was dealing behind his back with French & Russian elements to gain the finances for reconstituting his weapons programs is plain as day.

Any President, given the overwhelming intelligence estimates available from both his own and other allied intelligence services, knowing what Saddam had already done, that he was sympathetic to and supportive of America's enemies, including al Qaeda (sorry, read the 9/11 Commission Report), and knowing the risks of leaving terrorists safe haven anywhere, who failed to intervene in Iraq would have been derelict in his duty to us. Kerry himself has said, given the same set of circumstances, he would have done the same thing, just "smarter," whatever that means. That Saddam had managed to fool the world's intelligence services, being defiant enough to maintain the fiction that he was hiding fully-constituted WMD, doesn't post-facto negate the wisdom of toppling his regime; it just puts the lie to the so-called wisdom of those who castrated our intelligence capabililities in the late 1980's and 1990's. The strident "Wrong war, Wrong place, Wrong time" mantra is just sickening political posturing.

And it is the height of hypocrisy to bash Bush 1.0 for "failing to get Saddam when he had the chance" while supporting the Kerry Doctrine, which would have absolutely precluded doing so. People forget, for all the talk about the "broad coalition" behind Desert Storm, a lot of that commitment and support was specifically conditioned on the requirement that we not take Saddam out. Had Bush 1.0 gone to Baghdad and taken him out in defiance of the express wishes of many coalition members, the Left would have been apoplectic.

Guess you know where I stand.

Solitair

on Oct 08, 2004

Daiwa,
the report does indeed give many positive reasons for why Saddam should have been removed. These need to be seriously looked at and were known before the war. Indeed many people felt these were truer reasons than WMD from the start. The report on these peripheral issues though, like CIA intelligence on WMD in 2002, needs to be seen as indicators not facts. Most of these reasons are not backed up with firm intelligence as this was outside the scope of the inspectors. They therefore may make the exact same mistakes the CIA made in 2002 by using indicators to proof the existence of WMD. For example, the report cut and pastes a list of individuals who received food for oil vouchers from a single document found in Iraq, but there is currently zero proof that the list itself is accurate. There are many names on that list that are known NOT to have received vouchers, and there are people known to have dealt in Iraqi oil who are not on that list. More importantly, receiving vouchers itself is not wrong as this was how the food for oil programme worked. Interestingly they don't publish the US names on the list as that's illegal under US law

. People are willing to use that list to point fingers at Russia, China and France though.

I also have a problem with the assumption that the first gulf war ended because coalition members or the UN didn't want Iraq conquered. I have never seen proof or even suggestion of this. The French were definitely very upset when a ceasefire was called (and publically stated so) as their foreign legion was only about 50 miles from bagdad and Saddam. They for one wanted the war finished. No, i think it was the US that decided not to finish the job for fear of creating a vacuum that Iran might use. They probably felt Saddam would fall anyway.

I personally belive in right war, wrong reasons, too many lies

Paul.

thatoneguyinslc

on Oct 08, 2004

Grim,

You're still missing my point. We should have taken saddam out in 91, not played the UN game for 13 years. You would have thought our government wouldhave learned after vietnam when you fight a war, you fight to win, not to please the UN.

bakerstreet

on Oct 08, 2004

"You're still missing my point. We should have taken saddam out in 91, not played the UN game for 13 years. You would have thought our government wouldhave learned after vietnam when you fight a war, you fight to win, not to please the UN."

and your gonna vote for... kerry??

You understand that Kerry voted AGAINST the Gulf War the first time, and proposed waiting for sanctions to drive Hussein out of Kuwait, right? I wonder where the Kuwaiti people would be today after 10+ years of living with Hussein's angst...

thatoneguyinslc

on Oct 08, 2004

Yes im voting for kerry. you can be a dem and believe that wars should be won the right way. I know that is a strange concept for you repubs to grasp...but get used to it, theres a lot of us out there.

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 08, 2004

You're still missing my point. We should have taken saddam out in 91, not played the UN game for 13 years. You would have thought our government wouldhave learned after vietnam when you fight a war, you fight to win, not to please the UN.

Kerry wanted to keep playing that UN game with Iraq, so how am I missing the point, Carter diplomacy didn't work worth shit period. Even if we ousted Saddam in '91, we still would have lost alot of personnel in the reconstruction process or do we just forget about that part?

- GX

thatoneguyinslc

on Oct 08, 2004

Dr. you just got your last comment deleted. Childish comments like that serve no purpose. Sorry but you had it coming.

thatoneguyinslc

on Oct 08, 2004

Grim.....weak logic. A hell of a lot less people would have died with the Shia militias not even existing. Al Qaida wasn't around at the time, so your arguement holds no water. I also noticed you left bush 1.0 off your list of negotiating presidents. Oversight? i think not!

drmiler

on Oct 08, 2004

Reply #38 By: thatoneguyinslc - 10/8/2004 7:44:26 PM
Dr. you just got your last comment deleted. Childish comments like that serve no purpose. Sorry but you had it coming.

Like that's supposed to bother me? Personally I don't care if you delete every comment I've made on your blog. Just goes to show me you take the heat.

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 08, 2004

How in the hell did I list Presidents or when did I? My logic is not weak your understanding is weak. Al Qaida was not around that time, so last time I checked Al Qaida is not the only terrorist organization or was Beirut just a dream to you? How about TWA flights? Did you know that more than one terrorist organization exists or does that not factor into YOUR LOGIC? Shia schmia, it still would have cost us alot of lives, since he had already been in power for over 15 years in 1991, or was that not a factor in your logic either? Seriously see the big picture once in while will you, you might see something you missed when only using tunnel vision on the small picture, how about that, hmm?

Reply #30 By: Citizen Grim Xiozan - 10/7/2004 10:35:56 PM
It's not Kerrys diplomacy, it was just the right thing to do. Shoulda been done in 91. End of story.

You are right it is not Kerry's diplomacy, the credit goes to the original author of that diplomacy, Jimmy Carter.
It didn't work than during Carter, didn't work with Bush Sr. and WON'T WORK NOW!!

- GX
The Anti-Demican Anti-Republicrat Libertarian

Oh wait I thought I left off Bush 1.0, damn somebody can't read and understand, sounds like a double whammy, no Big Bucks for you!!

- GX
The Anti-Demican Anti-Republicrat Libertarian

Daiwa

on Oct 08, 2004

Solitair -

You are correct. The fear of what would follow the vacuum in Iraq should Saddam be taken out was a concern cited by Bush 1.0 at the time.

Cheers,
Daiwa

thatoneguyinslc

on Oct 08, 2004

My bad on the presidents thing Grim. I meant the carter and bush thing. but your logic is still weak. Beirut? TWA? Were talking IRAQ here. Whos the ones killing soldiers? Hamas? i think not. Islamic Jihad? Nope! Try Muqtada al Sadr and his shia militias, and Al Qaida and /or Al Qaida backed terror groups! Lets not get too far off subject here folks, the post is about bush 2.0 and what i feel is how he lied to the american public about the reasoning for the 2nd Iraq war. Not hypothesis about what we would have faced if we had done the job in 1990.

And Dr.? The only reason i deleted your post was because of your childish comment about John Kerry. I don't mind profanity on my blog, but when its a derogatory comment like that, i reserve the right to delete it. I rarely censor anyone on my blog wether i like what they have to say or not. But you seem to think you have the right to act like a moron on other peoples blogs? Do it on your own..

And i can take plenty of heat. I do it all the time on JU. I actually enjoy the reparte' with the right. I just think its a waste of time to do it with people who can only sink to the bottom level when they have no legitimate arguement and act like they're in high school. Grow up, get a clue, and if you don't like what i do with my own blog...Don't read it! It's just that simple!

I like to think that those on the right on JU are intelligent, thoughtful types who have valid points to make. And for the most part it holds true. I have battled with (examples) Drag and Baker on many occassions, and even though i don't agree with them, i admit they are both intelligent and believe in their cause. I respect that. I look foreward to seeing them post in my blogs and like sparring with them. What i don't like is when sombody (not particularly you either DR, but anyone) who comes into my blog and acts like that. I don't do it in yours, out of respect to your beliefs. If you want to comment and make valid arguements like you have in the past, i have no reason to censor you in any way. In fact i have deleted quite a few entries from folks on the left who behave in the same manner.

End of story

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 08, 2004

Nope! Try Muqtada al Sadr and his shia militias, and Al Qaida and /or Al Qaida backed terror groups!

Hmm, I wonder why Sadr is killing US troops, could it be because he wants power? No not that, and his predecessor in '91 would have done the same; no way they wouldn't do that (IRAN)? No these religious leaders don't want power, whether we helped them yesterday or today there is no way this leaders would have fought the US to gain power in Iraq, and that is what we should beLIEve!

Seriously though 'all power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' (thank Eric Blair for that quote).

- GX

thatoneguyinslc

on Oct 08, 2004

I agree with you on the shiite leaders beliefs as far as current times go, but back in 1990's they were being slaughtered by the thousands by Saddam. We pulled a Bay of Pigs on them. We convinced them to uprise, and we would have their backs. When the time came, we abandoned them. To say they don't begrudge us just a little bit is just naive. Which is why i say we should have taken Saddam out in 1990, at least the Shia moderates would have been a hell of a lot more supportive then, as opposed to how they are behaving now.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!