U.S., Russia: Iraq had no WMDs

I thought it was obvious to you since you posted it first.


QUOTE
...
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
...
Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded
that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs
threatened vital United States interests and international
peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the President
‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution
and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations’’;
...
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use
weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise
attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide
them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme
magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by
the United States to defend itself;
...
(Source: AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARYFORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002)

 

Could be, but you asked why we were there and you have your answer.

 

Perhaps, some of the information we have was wrong but the sum of all the information we had was not wrong and there were many reasons for the actions taken aside from the then current status of WMD. All the reasons were carefully detailed in the Congressional resolution. What's wrong is to imply that we "lied" about the WMD issue just to go war in Iraq and that, therefore, our whole basis for being there is wrong. It is just not so!

 

Let's not forget the role of Hans "ignorance is" Blix in all of this.

 

Nice sweeping condemnation, but just as untruthful as you claim the government has been.

State it as an opinion and you're fine. State it as a fact and you'll be called on to prove it , which everyone here knows you can't do.

 

That's a big lie for sure!

 

[SIZE=+1]
It's clear now - but not then - that Iraq did not have WMD to the extent we honestly believed. There's not much doubt about where they were headed or how they'd used previous WMD which they did have. Iraq had already shown the entire world what it was capable of doing. There's not much doubt about their own saber rattling that supported the belief they were developing and would deploy WMD. They were, under the Saddam regime, a serious threat.

Yes, it does seem that the intelligence data - and not just ours either - was faulty but it's not an honest conclusion that this was done purposefully in order to deceive anyone or to create a pretext for an otherwise unjustified attack. A substantial burden for the misinformation about WMD rests squarely with Iraq itself because it failed to permit the open inspections demanded by the UN resolutions that would have revealed the actual status of their WMD. It seems they wanted us to believe they had the weapons ready to unload on us much as they did during the Gulf War a decade before. As an analogy: If you imply that you're carrying a weapon when engaged in a crime but you're really not then you're certainly not justified to use that excuse when appropriate force - even deadly force - is used against you.

Yes, we want the truth from our intelligence agencies but we also have to understand that intelligence is more that just gathering data. The data is not always clear and is rarely openly available since the enemy doesn't want to give it up willingly. Intelligence involves analyzing data and reaching conclusions. Even the best intentions can lead to the wrong conclusions. There's immense pressure when there's grave concern that an error in favor of the enemy could lead to dire consequences. This happens even with small unit military intelligence much less something a big and serious as the situation in Iraq had become and especially on the heals of 9/11 when everyone was primed to be extra cautious.

Americans would have been very angry if the President had not taken the action he did and it turned out that Iraq had completed development and deployment of WMD. They'd have been even madder than they were about 9/11. People still ask: "Why didn't they stop 9/11 before it happened? Didn't they know it was going to happen?" It's strange how unforgiving the public is of their leaders and how viciously they attack them instead of their true enemies.

It is absolutely untrue to say: "The government of the United States of America lied about WMD in Iraq, which was used as a pretext for the preemptive attack and invasion of a sovereign nation." [/SIZE]

 

There is not much doubt that the neo-"conservatives" and their fellow travelers within the Bush administration and those influencing the Bush administration from without really didn't care if Iraq had WMDs or not. They wanted the United States government to order the invasion of Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein.

And that is all they cared about because we know for a fact that they made no plans for what to do after the invasion and the removal.

 

Iraq did have WMDs. If you want to know where they went, ask the Russians.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15713

http://www.billingsgazette.com/newd.../2004/10/28/build/world/75-missingweapons.inc

 

I would be believe that if credible proof was provided. The Bush administration and neo-"conservatives" would be all over the news daily if they could prove this. But they can't. Therefore, I don't believe that WMDs were removed from Iraq prior to the U.S. government ordering the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

 

'It has been said that hindsight in 20/20. Unfortunately, it is also hindsight. It means you don't have it up front.

Leaders must make decisions based on the information in front of them, not the information that they don't have. If reasonable efforts have been made to gain available information, decisions have to be made.

In this case, based on the information available at the time, it was the right thing to do. Every intelligence gathering nation agreed that Saddam had and was pursuing WMDs. People from the previous administration agreed, as did people on both sides of the aisle. So yes, it was the right thing to do, given what we knew at the time.

It later turned out to be wrong apparently (though we should recognize we can never prove that he didn't have them. It may well be that he hid them, or transported them, or some other such thing. They may still exist somewhere.)

What do we do now? Finish the job. It was not just about WMDs. We must do what we can to provide safety for a stable government. The violence is likely not coming from Iraqis, but from outside the country. Iraq needs to tighten up border security and that would probably lessen.

But we must finish. To say that because we shouldn't have gone means we should stay is naive to the highest degree.

 

Diehard Bush haters clearly have a problem distinguishing betwee a lie and faulty intelligence.

You have proved nothing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufus_1611
The government of the United States of America lied about WMD in Iraq, which was used as a pretext for the preemptive attack and invasion of a sovereign nation. ...

Of course it is.

 

It is clear that that is your opinion but the facts say otherwise.

 

Not the facts that have come out about how Team Bush has already laid plans to invade Iraq prior to 9/11, which was then used as an excuse. Never mind that Iraq had nothing to do with it.

 

Why bring me into it? I'm trying to be nice and let you guys have a couple threads to discuss things all by yourselves for awhile. Anyways, I told y'all you'll be seeing more people starting to grasp the truth in the future. Get used to it. There are more on the way.