Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs

My son was part of the initial invasion into Iraq. After several weeks of desert and homesickness, he said one of the guys found a child's slingshot. He picked it up and said, "Sarge, call the president...I found a weapon of mass destruction, maybe we can go home now".

Nothing like USMC humor.

 

At first, I thought this opening paragraph was a parody of a Larry rant. Oh my!

No, the thread still exists - did you try the link? I also posted the pertinent snippet. Nice attempt at redirection, though.

Yeah, I did, you had said that former inspectors Blix and Kay supported your contention that WMDs had been found.

I'm a bit surprised that you are so sure of what you said even though you couldn't find the post. Some of the comments they made in 2004 were about their belief prior and some of the comments were about their beliefs post. So?

When you made that argument the implication is that someone said or implied otherwise.

Um, you're certainly welcome, although wrong - the point was that he suspected that there were none, kept repeating that and thought the invasion was premature. That you believe that proves you are right proof that you're delusion-prone.

Context and exact words:

Kay believed that there were WMDs, Blix was not so sure. Earlier this year, as I said above, Kay recanted his belief after actually performing the inspections, yet you insist that, on the contrary, he reiterated them.

No, you were arguing that WMDs did exist and were found.

You said that they believed that recently, and said so in March. You even provided a different article, dated June 2004, to prove that evidence of WMDs were found.

Except that the comments weren't made in March 2004 and you said that they both repeated their belief that the WMDs were there to support your contention that WMDs had been found after March 2003.

No, past tense means before this moment, not necessarily before March 2003.

He was clearly saying that inspections, not war, were in order.

How can I answer a question that is based on a lie? When you ask a question based on a faulty premise, I do not have a chance to answer.

What did Larry said when Daisy said Kay had recanted? Larry said Kay reiterated his belief.

Still wrong.

Blix said at that time, by March 2003, that there was no proof, no evidence that they existed and that he suspected that they did not. Suspecting something does not exist is NOT the same as believing that it does.

Oh, how clever of you to expand WMDs to include programs, now!!!

The <snip> poster has said several times in his post that Blix believed in March 2003 the WMDs were there. Somehow the <snip> poster equates "believed" with "was skeptical". Scary.

[ October 08, 2004, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Sad and funny.

 

They may have been planning something, but they were not the Bush administration. As for what they did, I don't know. I already said that. I will take your word for it. I don't think it greatly matters at this point. But that's my opinion.

 

That you have ... but only because you refuse to actually deal with issues. You would rather resort to personal issues.

That is a flat out lie and you know it.

Again, just a flat out lie.

The truth is that you cannot answer the arguments, so you bail out on them. That's fine. But just realize that I am not fooled by it, and I don't think most others are either.

I can only hope so ...

 

You don't appear to have posted a link. In fact, I asked you for a link to it so we could all see what I actually said. Post it this time, please.

They did, as I showed. Those words were not mine, Daisy. Those were reputable news sites. I didn't make those quotes up.

Why are you surprised? Did you think I didn't know what I was talking about? I know exactly what i said. I want you to post the link.

So??? Are you following the discussion here??? That is exactly what I said. In 2004, both of them said that they believed prior to the war that Iraq had WMDs. That was the whole point of it, Daisy. I think you are confused here.

No that isn't the implication. You wrongly inferred that, perhaps. But that wasn't the implication at all. What you just saw was my integrity that presented the whole picture. Blix believed there was some evidence that warranted a postponement of the war and a continuance of the inspections. Blix was not for the war. I never said he was. He believed there was evidence that may have indicated that WMDs did exist and he wanted to continue the inspections.

No, yo uare wrong. Blix believed the evidence was conflicting. When he was asked if he believed there were none, he said not to pin him down on that. The fact is that I am right. I am sorry. But I am ... You misunderstood.

This brings me back to the discussion about English. When I said that they both reitereated that they believed they were there, "were" is past tense. Why do you not understand that? It is so simple, a first grader can grasp it. Listen carefully: Blix and Kay reiterated that they believed (past tense) that the WMDs were there (past tense). That is clearly a reference to March of 2003, and if you would post the link, I bet that would be very clear.

Your first statement is right. It is what I have been saying all along and you keep telling me I don't know what I am talking about. It is now true because you say it?

Your second statement is flat out wrong. I would characterize it as a lie, since I specifically explained that in this thread already, when I said that Kay was referring to his beliefs prior to the war. Read the thread and quit making stuff up.

And that is a proven fact. You can see that in the list I posted on the previosu page where mustard gas and other chemical weapons were found. They were not found in stockpiles. But they were found.

No, you are lying. I never said that they believed that recently. I said that they said that recently, referring to their beliefs prior to the war. You are simply wrong.

Sheesh ... You just don't read well apparently. The interview I saw was around March 2004 (which is what I said). In it, they referred to their beliefs held in March 2003. I did not use their comments concerning their beliefs in March 2003 to support the fact that some WMDs were found. You are so confused.

Not in the context. I bet if you would post the link, you would see very clearly what was said.

No kidding, Daisy. At least you got something right. I said that a long time ago.

How can I answer a question that is based on a lie? When you ask a question based on a faulty premise, I do not have a chance to answer. </font>[/QUOTE]What kind of response is that? It is illogical. What is going on over there? I asked you why you didn't post a link. I want to know why you didn't. I see no link to the comments of mine that you posted. Why didn't you post a link?

Larry didn't say that anywhere that I remember. If you have a place where I said that, please post it. Otherwise, apologize for lying.

You did not read closely. He said he was not ready to say that they did not exist. He was clearly allowing that they did exist. He said the finding of the missiles in early 2003 might be the tip of the iceberg. In retrospect, he believed it was not.

That wasn't clever, nor was it now. That has long been the charge.

This was another shameful attempt by you to attack me. You failed miserably again. You should give it up. You have shown yourself to be unwilling to read what was actually said. You have lied about what I said. You have distorted what I said. You have failed to post links to what I said, even though you quoted it. These things are unethical and inappropriate for any debate, much less here.

 

I don't understand why this issue always has to degenerate into personal attacks.

The facts are that there were no WMDs. The facts are that many sources doubted that they existed all along.

If this nation knew that there were no WMDs before the invasion, do you think there would have been support?

"They can attack us with 15 minutes preparation" is a pretty scary concept. Who wouldn't support action with words like that?

 

Mustard gas is a WMD and it was found and documented by Blix. The missiles were possibly the tip of the iceberg according to Blix. The sarin gas was a WMD. THere were not many WMDs found, certainly not the stockpiles that the whole world believed existed. But there were WMDs found. I already documented that. In addition, banned programs in pursuit of WMDs were found.

But again, remember that the intelligence gathering bodies of the world were virtually unanimous. There was not real doubt among the people charged with knowing. While I like you a great deal, brother Roger, I can't give your personal opinion much weight on this matter. Remember who concurred: UN weapons inspectors; the UN Security Council (unanimously); both Democrats and Republicans. The truth is that the intelligence was faulty. But there was no way to know that at the time.

Probably not, but that wasn't the case. There was a strong case made and the whole world looked at the intelligence and agreed.

I believe Egypt was the source of this claim. Tommy Franks saw the intelligence and heard this claim. He was convinced it was true.

The problem here is that we have good hindsight and can be very critical. But those charged with making the decision did not have that luxury. We cannot superimpose our knowledge back on them. They had to make good faith decisions with the decisions they had. I wish they had a do-over. I imagine they probably wish they did. But life doesn't work that way.

My point in even arguing this point right now is not to say that Bush was right to do what he did. I am, quite frankly, agnostic on that. I am glad that Hussein is gone. The world is better off. But I think the foundation turned out to be faulty though there was no way to know that at the time.

 

Thank you for an articulate response Pastor Larry.

The weapons of mass destruction that you have properly documneted were is such small quantities that they hardly classify as weapons of "mass" destruction. Weapons of destruction, yes.

I agree on hindsight, though I still contend that bt the time the decision to invade was made a great deal of the world was already doubting the existance of weapons. I have no use for the UN, that is not the issue here, however.

What concerns me the most is the idea that "we got rid of Saddam so it was okay." My fear is for the future. Where will this lead?

My other fear is this. Have we created a "little boy who cried wolf" scenario? What happens the next time there is a percieved threat? What if this time it is real? Have we not shot ourselves in the foot with the handling if Iraq? Who is going to believe it next time?

I think we flat "blew it" in Iraq.

 

I woudl respond simply by saying that WMD is a class of weapon, not a quantity of weapon. It doesn't become a WMD when enough of them exist. It is a WMD by virtue of what it is.

Which is more use than I have for them. But alas, that is not the issue.

I agree to a large degree. Though the world will have no problem running to us when they need help. They won't hate us that much.

I don't think we "flat blew it" in Iraq. I think it could have been handled better to be sure, but hindsight is always 20/20. It is always hindsight too, unfortunately.

 

Honest question PL,

What are your thoughts on this part of my post:

 

Hmmm ... I don't know why I skipped that one. It was not intentional ...

My thoughts are No, we haven't. Virtually the whole world agreed with us. The evidence for WMDs was substantial enough to get 15 members of the UNSC to agree. It was substantial enough to get John Kerry and George Bush to agree (back then). It was substantial enough to get Clinton, Biden, and numerous other democrats to agree with numerous republicans.

In other words, it wasn't a case of "take my word for it." They all saw the same intelligence and agreed. The intelligence turned out to be wrong, but there was no way to know that at the time. We found out the intelligence was wrong because we took action. We found out it wasn'r real only because we took decisive action.

I also think the world is a pretty forgetful place in these kinds of things. If we had truly "gone it alone" as Kerry continually suggests, then I think there would be a problem. But fortunately (and unfortunately for Kerry), we didn't "go it alone." We had substantial backing for it. And the next time the world needs something, they will come to the US and want our money and soldiers for it.

There was a great article recently in the Detroit Free Press about Europe not have strong militaries primarily because they don't need it .. the US always bails them out. Unfortunate, but it seems to be true.

So the short answer is No, I don't think that will be a problem.

 

Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs...

They must have missed the Newsmax article.

 

Have you noticed how blind everyone was in regard to WMD before the war and how much clearer they can see now.

It made no difference if Saddam actually had those weapons systems. Thats right, whether he had them or not is beside the point.

The point is that Saddam led everybody to think he did by his constant hindering and attempted evasion of the inspectors. Thats why you saw people like Kerry saying Saddam was a threat. Yep, Kerry and Edwards thought him a definite threat just like President Bush did. Both voted to go to war with Iraq.

The Bush response was correct. Saddam had numerous chances but decided to go with deception in order to make himself a big man in the middle east by defying the United States. Big mistake, especially after 9-11. The full responsibility of the Iraq war lies with Saddam.

 

This being the case, what is our exit strategy?

 

This being the case, what is our exit strategy? </font>[/QUOTE]Stay the course until we have finished just as the President has said.

 

Stay the course?
Exactly what does that mean?

I asked for an exit strategy.

 

Stay the course?
Exactly what does that mean?

I asked for an exit strategy. </font>[/QUOTE]You don't know what "stay the course" means?

It means don't get blown in diffferent directions by every wind that blows. It means set your mind to the task at hand and accept nothing less than success and victory as your final goal. Thats our exit strategy. Leave when the job is done.

 

The same as it always has been. This nonsense that Bush didn't have a plan is foolish. He always had a plan.

The exit strategy has always been to help establish a legitimate government (elections in Jan), train Iraqi police and armed forces to defend themselves (250,000 by the end of next year), and get out. That has never changed.

Kerry keeps saying he has a plan, but when he talks about it, it is merely an echo of what the US is already doing.