Did Iraq have WMDs prior to US invasion?

[Variable]

Would it be at all possible for Democrats and Republicans or pro-Iraq War and anti-Iraq War to both shut the fuck up about the existence or lack therof of WMDs until we get about ten years out and can look back at the situation with real perspective and possibly examine some real facts?

It's quite possible that there are some WMDs in Iraq, in Syria, in underground bunkers in Tikrit, in the anal cavities of Uday and Qusay and God knows where else. BUT WE DON'T KNOW.

We went to war with what we thought was good intelligence, but turned out to be really shitty intelligence. Did the CIA purposely doctor photos and mis-interpret intelligence to give Dubya what they thought he wanted? Did Dubya ignore clear warning signs about bad intelligence in a lust for war that he wanted for ________ reason? Did Bush purposely play Colin Powell by sending him before the UN with info he knew was bogus? Was the whole war push a plot by Dick Cheney and the Carlisle Group to make money for their cronies at Halliburton? At some point in the next five to ten years, some mid-management fucker will write a tell-all book about it. Until then WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW!

I think we've all gone round and round on this subject enough in the past three years to have kicked a fucking hole in the horse. Just shut the fuck up about it already...or start a new thread. Either one.

[Miss Demeanor]

^^^^^^ A plausible explantion no doubt--if he had them.

But I agree with Vari

We simply won't know for some time.

[DrDetroit]

I'm not insisting anything. Bush and the rest insisted they possessed them and to date, none have been found--that's a fact, it's not presumption, it's not speculation, it's fact. Now, produce anything that disputes this FACT and I'll give Bush the credit you feel he deserves.

I apologize, but I much more reasonable than this.

However, the weapons were catalogued by the UN and Saddam had an obligation to verify their destruction. He failed.

The question remains...where did they go?

Bush has no affirmative obligation to demonstrate they were there. That was Saddam's obligation.

Bush based this war, in part, on Saddam's violation of 16 UN resolutions regarding Iraq's wmd's and wmd programs. We knew the wmd's existed. Saddam had an obligation to destroy them and verify it. That he refused to verify it can only mean that it didn't happen.

Link?

No. It has been posted here before. I do not play this game with you people who ignore reports when they are posted so you can continue running your unreasonable argument.

So now you're SPECULATING what might have happened to them.

Based on the information that has been reported, yes I am. So what?

Again, the Bushites claimed they KNEW where they were. Rumsfeld didn't say "We think" he said "we know". I've asked this before and I feel compelled to ask it again: If they KNEW where these most destructive of weapons were, why wouldn't they keep them under survelience?

I'm not sure why the weapons they had intelligence there were not there after the invasion. Knowing the Saddam made it a point to move weapons during inspections and also moved his air force to Iran it stands to reason that he moved them.

Takes us to your next question...electronic intelligence can only do so much and we have only limited ability to surveil. Hence, it's unreasonable that the US could blanket the country with 24/7 sat coverage in order to perform that surveillance.

Again, these are the weapons that Bush insisted posed the biggest threat the world has ever known, yet they didn't feel it necessary to know where they were every second of every day? Why do you suppose that is?

Okay, stop with the exaggerations.

While he may have wanted to know where they were at all times the US simply does not have the capability to manage such an operation.

Are you seriously arguing that Bush didn't care and therefore didn't feel it neceesary to want them under constant surveillance? Puhlease.

As well, that he couldn't ensure total coverage doesn't mean he didn't want to.

They could. Then maybe you might explain to me why Saddam possessed all of these weapons, yet chose not to employ them when he knew the US was coming for him. Why do you suppose that is?

They could what?? Have searched the entire country while simultaneously attempting to defeat the Iraqi army while also securing what they captured while simultaneously fighting foreign terrorists?? We need many more hundreds of thousands of troops to do all of this....come on. Be reasonable.

Re: Saddam not employing the weapons...several possible explanations - his people chose not to pull the trigger despite being ordered to knowing full well that Baghdad would end up as a smokin hole in the ground? Perhaps because Saddam had a moment rational clarity? Perhaps because he couldn't deploy them for some other reason.

Yet the Bushites chose to ignore the UN when they said not to attack. They use a UN resolution to invade, yet ignore the UN when they tell him not to. Why do you suppose that is.

You're trying to point out an inconsistency where none exists. We think the UN is useless in many ways however the US continues to adhere to many of the UN's protocols and other resolutions. It's not inconsistent to determine that the UN is wrong on the one hand and right on the hand.

The administration, however, believed that such a resolution really was not necessary because 1441 provided that in the event of material breach there would be serious consequences which everyone knoew to mean military action (the action actually debated during deliberation on 1441). But it considered another resolution despite this.

No resolution to invade was ever voted on btw. It was not introduced because we knew that France, Germany, and China would not authorize military action. We also knew that France and Germany would not vote yea because 1) they were receiving kickbacks from the UN oil-for-food scheme; and 2) they had already been working to rescind the inspections regime to make it easier to expand their military sales to Iraq. You know, conflict of interest and all prevented these nations from objectively considering the issue.

Which charade is that? Simply supply a list of the wmds found to date in Iraq in Iraq and I won't bring it up again.

That Bush lied about wmd's.

And where did the information they led them to these conclusions come from? Apparently, every country was wrong.

The intelligence data came from their own intelligence agencies.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that for one the US intelligence community disagreed with their Germany peers that Iraq was only three years from a nuke. US intelligence didn't think that Iraq was that close.

That demonstrates that one these intelligence agencies used their own data to draw their own independent conclusions/estimates and two that the US certainly didn't have the most aggressive estimates.

It also demonstrates that Bush didn't "lie" about intelligence nor mislead anyone.

I'm trying to make some sense of this last sentence, but again I'm not well versed in gibberish. I think what you're implying is that I'm somehow accusing Bush of lying--which again, is a total bunch of horseshit.

The statement I made is quite clear.

Bush was only going on the information supplied by the likes of Cheney and Wolfowitz.

How do you know this? You don't.

I see that you conveniently ignore the fact that Tenet told Bush that the wmd intelligence was slam dunk, eh?

So much for your lie you just posted.

[Variable]

Since nobody else wanted to start a new thread, I did. And, since no one likes to be first on a child thread, I split it off at my bitchy rant post.

Happy Friday

[Miss Demeanor]

Since nobody else wanted to start a new thread, I did. And, since no one likes to be first on a child thread, I split it off at my bitchy rant post.

Happy Friday

Why I thought it was good.

[Mister Bushice]

We went to war with what we thought was good intelligence, but turned out to be really shitty intelligence. Did the CIA purposely doctor photos and mis-interpret intelligence to give Dubya what they thought he wanted? Did Dubya ignore clear warning signs about bad intelligence in a lust for war that he wanted for ________ reason?

Don't know about the CIA. Would not surprise me if they had.
YES to the lust for war on bushs part. He clearly planned on invading iraq long before he did, and despite them being less of a threat than Iran and N Korea, WMD potential-wise, he used whatever reasons he could to justify it.

[Variable]

Why I thought it was good.

Because the title of the thread regards MoveOn.org and the thread has clearly moved on to a solid discussion about something else. Other people might want to contribute and wouldn't have a clue that the discussion was even going on.

[Variable]

I never liked you.

[Miss Demeanor]

Am I supposed to give a fuck?

Oh by the way, just who in the fuck are these "other people who might want to contribute" and where are they?

And if they're too fucking stupid to determine that a thread has taken off on a tangent without your "help", what could they possibly hope to contribute anyway?

Ouch!!!!

Is this the point in the day where we start browbeating the mods

[DrDetroit]

We went to war with what we thought was good intelligence, but turned out to be really shitty intelligence. Did the CIA purposely doctor photos and mis-interpret intelligence to give Dubya what they thought he wanted? Did Dubya ignore clear warning signs about bad intelligence in a lust for war that he wanted for ________ reason?

Don't know about the CIA. Would not surprise me if they had.
YES to the lust for war on bushs part. He clearly planned on invading iraq long before he did, and despite them being less of a threat than Iran and N Korea, WMD potential-wise, he used whatever reasons he could to justify it.

Lust for war?? LMAO!!!

Dipshit...having the military draft plans for war is not only reasonable, but should be expected.

Whatever reasons??

Dude, we all know that you wouldn't have approved of the war except in the instance where a Democrat was President.

Less of a threat than Iran?? That's debateable...among reasonable people. But you're wholly unreasonable.

It's hilarious that you'd have us believe that you would have approived of war with either.

As well, by not going to war with either Bush was adhering to your guys' vision of the proper route...diplomacy. Did he not?

So on the one hand we have you idiots screaming that these two were more dangerous, though you demanded that Bush act diplomatically, but on the other Bush does just that and you condemn him.

Can you please make up your minds...

No wonder American voters feel that you have abdicated any authority or responsibility for protection American interests and securing the US.

[DrDetroit]

Am I supposed to give a fuck?

Oh by the way, just who in the fuck are these "other people who might want to contribute" and where are they?

And if they're too fucking stupid to determine that a thread has taken off on a tangent without your "help", what could they possibly hope to contribute anyway?

Ouch!!!!

Is this the point in the day where we start browbeating the mods

No, but what should have happened was that variable should have admonished you for hijacking that thread.

Though in an effort to "appear" to be fair he decided to be a limp-wristed twat and start tickling your taint...

[Variable]

Am I supposed to give a fuck?

Overreact much? I was joking. In retrospect, I shouldn't have bothered.

Oh by the way, just who in the fuck are these "other people who might want to contribute" and where are they?

And if they're too fucking stupid to determine that a thread has taken off on a tangent without your "help", what could they possibly hope to contribute anyway?

I realize you and your spamming ilk only like the sound of your own voices/keyboards, but believe it or not, neither this planet, nor this forum revolves around you. If you don't like the way I do things, send me a whiney PM like other do, or eat a dick...your choice. Either way, believe me, the last thing I worry about is pleasing someone who is a dead ringer for the "Before" picture in a Xanax ad.

[Miss Demeanor]

No, but what should have happened was that variable should have admonished you for hijacking that thread.

Though in an effort to "appear" to be fair he decided to be a limp-wristed twat and start tickling your taint...

This coming from the only poster on these boards that can actually lay a claim to have killed more threads than shutyomouth and SG combined.

[Mister Bushice]

now, now. play nice. :)

You know throwing bags of piss at the monkeys only irritates them.

[DrDetroit]

Am I supposed to give a fuck?

Overreact much? I was joking. In retrospect, I shouldn't have bothered.

Oh by the way, just who in the fuck are these "other people who might want to contribute" and where are they?

And if they're too fucking stupid to determine that a thread has taken off on a tangent without your "help", what could they possibly hope to contribute anyway?

I realize you and your spamming ilk only like the sound of your own voices/keyboards, but believe it or not, neither this planet, nor this forum revolves around you. If you don't like the way I do things, send me a whiney PM like other do, or eat a dick...your choice. Either way, believe me, the last thing I worry about is pleasing someone who is a dead ringer for the "Before" picture in a Xanax ad.

Well, you sure were intent on pleasing those "other people who might want to contribute" by splitting this off...bitch.

[DrDetroit]

No, but what should have happened was that variable should have admonished you for hijacking that thread.

Though in an effort to "appear" to be fair he decided to be a limp-wristed twat and start tickling your taint...

This coming from the only poster on these boards that can actually lay a claim to have killed more threads than shutyomouth and SG combined.

Relevance?

Can you ever stay on track? I swear, you're worse than a ADD kid, retard.

[DrDetroit]

now, now. play nice. :)

You know throwing bags of piss at the monkeys only irritates them.

Hence your irritation lately, douche.

[Variable]

If you don't like the way I do things, send me a whiney PM like others do, or eat a dick...your choice.

[Miss Demeanor]

No, but what should have happened was that variable should have admonished you for hijacking that thread.

Though in an effort to "appear" to be fair he decided to be a limp-wristed twat and start tickling your taint...

This coming from the only poster on these boards that can actually lay a claim to have killed more threads than shutyomouth and SG combined.

Relevance?

Can you ever stay on track? I swear, you're worse than a ADD kid, retard.

I've got some late breaking news for ya tard--this thread was derailed a long time ago. I'm just having fun now.

[Mister Bushice]

I think perhaps if we have a "PMS thread of the day", the bitchy whiners can have a place to vent.

I'd nominate this one, but its topical. ;)

Miss Demeanor wrote:
Then maybe you might explain to me why Saddam possessed all of these weapons, yet chose not to employ them when he knew the US was coming for him. Why do you suppose that is?

The most simple reason for that is he no reliable means of delivering them against us.

Yet he was more of a threat than Iran or North Korea was?

[Variable]

Yet he was more of a threat than Iran or North Korea was?

Not fair. You're analyzing 2001-2002 decisions using 2005 intelligence.

[Mikey]

I think perhaps if we have a "PMS thread of the day", the bitchy whiners can have a place to vent.

I'd nominate this one, but its topical. ;)

Miss Demeanor wrote:
Then maybe you might explain to me why Saddam possessed all of these weapons, yet chose not to employ them when he knew the US was coming for him. Why do you suppose that is?

The most simple reason for that is he no reliable means of delivering them against us.

Yet he was more of a threat than Iran or North Korea was?

Maybe not, but he was a lot more convenient.

[DrDetroit]

I think perhaps if we have a "PMS thread of the day", the bitchy whiners can have a place to vent.

I'd nominate this one, but its topical. ;)

Miss Demeanor wrote:
Then maybe you might explain to me why Saddam possessed all of these weapons, yet chose not to employ them when he knew the US was coming for him. Why do you suppose that is?

The most simple reason for that is he no reliable means of delivering them against us.

Yet he was more of a threat than Iran or North Korea was?

As though you would have approved of war with either in the first place.

[DrDetroit]

I think perhaps if we have a "PMS thread of the day", the bitchy whiners can have a place to vent.

I'd nominate this one, but its topical. ;)

The most simple reason for that is he no reliable means of delivering them against us.

Yet he was more of a threat than Iran or North Korea was?

Maybe not, but he was a lot more convenient.

Convenient for what, knob?

[Mister Bushice]

Yet he was more of a threat than Iran or North Korea was?

Not fair. You're analyzing 2001-2002 decisions using 2005 intelligence.

No I'm not. Bush himself called it the "axis of evil" back then.

But getting back to why Iraq, why Saddam,

If Rumsfeld said "we know" where the WMDs are, we should have been able to keep track of them, easily. So either he was telling the truth and we fucked up big time, losing track of the very proof to justify the war, or he was lying, and there really was no WMD reason to invade iraq in the first place.

Which then leads us back to: what WAS the reason, if it was not WMDs?

[BSmack]

Yet he was more of a threat than Iran or North Korea was?

Not fair. You're analyzing 2001-2002 decisions using 2005 intelligence.

No I'm not. Bush himself called it the "axis of evil" back then.

But getting back to why Iraq, why Saddam,

If Rumsfeld said "we know" where the WMDs are, we should have been able to keep track of them, easily. So either he was telling the truth and we fucked up big time, losing track of the very proof to justify the war, or he was lying, and there really was no WMD reason to invade iraq in the first place.

Which then leads us back to: what WAS the reason, if it was not WMDs?

Never mind that Colin Powell showed PICTURES of an alleged WMD plant in Iraq. Anybody ever wonder what happened to that so called "Top Secret" shit? You think the spooks could have kept tabs on that place.

Of course, if Bush was lying, then I suppose we know why they never bothered to keep track of it.

[Mikey]

I think perhaps if we have a "PMS thread of the day", the bitchy whiners can have a place to vent.

I'd nominate this one, but its topical. ;)
Yet he was more of a threat than Iran or North Korea was?

Maybe not, but he was a lot more convenient.

Convenient for what, knob?

Convenient both logistically and politically, knob polisher.

[Mikey]

Which then leads us back to: what WAS the reason, if it was not WMDs?

Don't you remember?

Once the WMDs whose locations were known to Rumsfeld et al weren't found it became a war to free all of the wonderful Iraqis from a tyrannical dictator. Democracy on the march, you know. Pip pip. Oh yeah, and all that evidence that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. Don't forget that solid 9/11 connection.

[Variable]

I thought you were referring to the current situations with N.K. and Iran and saying "in retrospect, who was the bigger threat?" But in 2002, of the three Iraq was most definitely the biggest threat of the three. Iran, until recently, was only a threat because they were financing terrorist organizations. N.K., until recently, couldn't do more than hurl harsh language at someone.

One thing I don't get about the anti-Bush crowd is why do he and his staff always have to be liars? Isn't it possible that Rumsfeld was just WRONG when he said "We know where they are?" Maybe he THOUGHT that he was correct, but it turns out that instead of barrels of botulism, Saddam was just making the world's biggest batch of meth and needed lots of ether...

Of course, it would help if the Bush Admin would acknowledge SOME wrongdoing sometime. I think their reluctance to do so feeds the conspiracy theories and is one of the primary factors in driving his approval rating lower.

[Mister Bushice]

Which then leads us back to: what WAS the reason, if it was not WMDs?

Don't you remember?

Once the WMDs whose locations were known to Rumsfeld et al weren't found it became a war to free all of the wonderful Iraqis from a tyrannical dictator. Democracy on the march, you know. Pip pip. Oh yeah, and all that evidence that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. Don't forget that solid 9/11 connection.

Thus the reason he called it a "War on Terror"

I get it now. :)

[Mikey]

I thought you were referring to the current situations with N.K. and Iran and saying "in retrospect, who was the bigger threat?" But in 2002, of the three Iraq was most definitely the biggest threat of the three. Iran, until recently, was only a threat because they were financing terrorist organizations. N.K., until recently, couldn't do more than hurl harsh language at someone.

One thing I don't get about the anti-Bush crowd is why do he and his staff always have to be liars? Isn't it possible that Rumsfeld was just WRONG when he said "We know where they are?" Maybe he THOUGHT that he was correct, but it turns out that instead of barrels of botulism, Saddam was just making the world's biggest batch of meth and needed lots of ether...

Of course, it would help if the Bush Admin would acknowledge SOME wrongdoing sometime. I think their reluctance to do so feeds the conspiracy theories and is one of the primary factors in driving his approval rating lower.

Whether they lied about it first, or were wrong and then lied about being wrong, they're both liars and wrong, and should be held accountable for it.

[Mister Bushice]

we should have been able to keep track of them, easily.

Why would you assume that?

OK. Let's begin with the assumption that Rumsfeld was telling the truth, that we knew where the WMDs were. From there it's just a matter of tracking the location by satellite and monitoring the site 24/7. You can't tell me we don't have the capability or man power to do that.

[Miss Demeanor]

we should have been able to keep track of them, easily.

Why would you assume that?

Because

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.

These are Bushes words, not mine. If in fact they were some of the most lethal weapons ever devised, don't you think it would be a good idea to keep an eye on them?

And you know as well as I do that we had the people on the ground in Iraq that could have accomplished that task relatively easily.

[Miss Demeanor]

You can't tell me we don't have the capability or man power to do that.

We don't. Not even close.

Bullshit, we had people on the ground prior to invading Iraq and they should have been monitioring them. So which is, did they know where they were and simply drop the ball, or did they actually not know where they were?

[Miss Demeanor]

What people and where?

You mean to tell me there were no coverts or special ops people in Iraq prior to our invasion? Did we have any "friendlies" in Iraq prior to invading? Was there no one in Iraq to watch the weapons on which the invasion was based?

If your response to any of the above questions is no, then I would have to seriously question the competence of upper management.

[Variable]

We don't. Not even close.

Exactly. Nevermind that watching the same truck via satellite day after day would be so mind-numbingly dull that even the most dedicated caffeine hound couldn't possibly stay awake long enough to notice something being moved, but there's far too much intelligence coming through to analyze in real time. For the most part you have intelligence folks comparing satellite photos taken at various times of the day to determine what, if anything has been moved. If something has been moved, they search other images to try to determine how it was moved and where it was moved to. It's an extremely difficult task.

It's another example of the fact that even in today's world of supercomputers, analysts and satellites, there is still no substitute for having someone on site.

Oh, and mvscal is right on about duping satellites. You think those guys don't watch CNN and see aerial photos of their bases and stockpiles from the air and divise methods of diversion? How hard is it for Achmed and Mahmoud to figure out that they can move cargo from a white box to a grey box during a storm or a heavily overcast day to make the cargo disappear? Or better yet, to put an empty white crate in the place of a white crate full of missle parts? All they have to do is not move the stuff around during the ten seconds or so that the satellite is snapping pics.

[Mister Bushice]

What people and where?

You mean to tell me there were no coverts or special ops people in Iraq prior to our invasion? Did we have any "friendlies" in Iraq prior to invading?

Yes. They referred to them as "weapons inspectors"

Was there no one in Iraq to watch the weapons on which the invasion was based?

If your response to any of the above questions is no, then I would have to seriously question the competence of upper management.

Especially if they refer to them as some of the most lethal weapons ever devised, and "we know where they are"

Good thing they don't operate a pre school day care.

[Variable]

they're both liars and wrong, and should be held accountable for it.

Again, why are they liars? Because they didn't admit that they were wrong?

And "held accountable for it" how?

Statements like that don't carry a lot of water when you don't hold your side of the aisle to the same standard (i.e. call them out for lying) and don't demand any accountability for them for their wrong choices and their lies.

[Mister Bushice]

Well for one thing, their wrong choices and their lies didn't quagmire us into an expensive war.

[Mister Bushice]

The question is far less a matter of where than it is one of when and how.