WMDs the final word?

[Taxman]

Kay has officially stated that he believes it unlikely that there were any WMDs. The repsonse of the Bush administration sounds pretty weak considering the extended discussion we've had here. Yes it's good that Saddam is gone but that doesn't justify declaring war unless the administration plans on doing so against all of the opressive regimes of the world. A link to CNNs article is below.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...kay/index.html

[Taxman]

As an aside, I also find it hopelessly ironic that Clinton lying about sleeping with another woman resulted in all kinds of problems for him (perjury or not, it was not an impeachable offense. He was disbarred as he should have been but give me a break. I want my tax dollars spent on the investigation back) while Bush if not lying, heavily misleading the American public about something that resulted in 500+ American deaths, garners a little contreversy but no major problems. Also why didn't the administraion ever provide the information requested by congress concerning the intellegence they had about a possible terrorist attack pre 9/11? I do know that some evidence is currently building against the administration in this arena as well. If nothing else, he was, to borrow a favorite phrase of adios, stating opinion as fact (a grave offense) and this opinion was based on tenuous evidence at best. You can't just cite WMDs as a primary reason of invading Iraq and then recant and give other reasons as equally or more important after it appears that there were no WMDs.

[MMMMMM]

"Kay has officially stated that he believes it unlikely that there were any WMDs."

No, he stated that he does not think there are any WMD's in Iraq now.

Kay definitely does think there were WMD's (or WMD components) in Iraq, and he thinks they were transported to Syria.

On Jan. 25, 2004, David Kay said this:

(excerpt)
Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 25/01/2004)

David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." (end excerpt)

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../25/wirq25.xml

[Taxman]

Yes you've already provided this information. Say what you will about this slight swing, but he has stated now (today) that he does not believe there ever were WMDs in Iraq. It's all over the news as we speak. "unspecified materials" doesn't really mean much anyway, even if some of them potentially could be used in the formation of WMDs.

[MMMMMM]

"WMD components" don't count anymore then? heh.

Don't worry, we'll find them when we go into Syria (probably after the election).

[andyfox]

Even if weapons of mass destruction are never found in Iraq, the U.S.-led war was justified because it eliminated the threat that Saddam Hussein might again resort to "evil chemistry and evil biology," Attorney General John Ashcroft said Monday.

Saddam's willingness to use such weapons was sufficient cause to overthrow his regime, Ashcroft told reporters, alluding to the use of chemical and biological arms against Iraqi Kurds in 1988 and during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war.
"Weapons of mass destruction including evil chemistry and evil biology are all matters of great concern, not only to the United States but also to the world community. They were the subject of U.N. resolutions," Ashcroft said.

So, according to our chief law enforcement officer, it doesn't matter if we went to war to eliminate the WMDs and they're not found; Saddam might resort to evil science once again, since he did it in the 1980s.

Mr. Ashcroft neglected to point out, of course, that the United States supplied components of the evil science used in the 1980s, as well as the aircraft with which to deliver it. And after all he had it then, abetted by us, why not go to war over it two decades later?

If Bush were smart, he'd tell Ashcroft to shut up; Ashcroft has Howard-Dean-Foot-in-the-Mouth Disease.

Can you imagine the ridicule, had Hussein invaded the United States and overthrown its government, a statement like the following would have been greeted with by the world community, especially if Hussein had supplied the chemical components and transportation equipment used to deploy them?:

"Even if weapons of mass destruction are never found in the United States, the Iraq-led war was justified because it eliminated the threat that the U.S. government might again resort to "evil chemistry and evil biology," Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein said Monday.

The U.S. governnment's willingness to use such weapons was sufficient cause to overthrow his regime, Hussein told reporters, alluding to the use of chemical and biological arms against the Vietnamese in the late 1960s and 1970s during the Vietnam War. "Weapons of mass destruction including evil chemistry and evil biology are all matters of great concern, not only to Iraq but also to the world community. They were the subject of U.N. resolutions," Hussein said.

Let's face the facts:

-All governments lie, especially when going to war.

-All governments distort intelligence to make it conform with what they already know and/or believe and would like the public to know and/or believe.

-All governments cover up some of their true reasons for going to war, especially governments that are facing reelection.

-Many of the primary figures in the current Bush administration had been calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein for many years, long before 9/11. One cabinet member has said that the administration had made up its mind to go to war against Hussein long before 9/11. Rumsfeld called for war against Hussein only hours after the 9/11 attacks.

-The administration sent its own people into the intelligence services to hand pick the intelligence it wanted, even when those services insisted the intelligence they wanted was of poor quality. This information was then presented as gospel at cabinet meetings and to the American people.

-No WMDs have been found. The chief weapons inspector says they won't be because they don't exist, certainly not in the quantities or the quality alleged by the administration, because our intelligence was faulty.

-Several administration officials have backed off from their professed certainty that Hussein had WMDs and that we would find them. The president himself used very different language in his most recent State of the Union speech than he did one year ago.

-Either our intelligence was faulty or the use of it by the administration was faulty, or both.

-Claims that the war was necessary because Hussein was a threat to us and others because of his WMD program are clearly untrue.

-The administration refused to face up to the problems of post-war Iraq before the invasion because it knew paying attention to this issue would create doubt as to the wisdom of the invasion. Every problem that has come up from looting to elections was analyzed and addressed by intelligence agencies and analysts prior to the war, and ignored by the administration.

Looks like the conservatives can fvck foreign policy up just like the liberals. One wouldn't have believed it had one not experienced it.

[Utah]

Of course, this topic has been discussed to death...brought back to life...and bludgeoned to death again several times over. However, I cannot resist

perjury or not, it was not an impeachable offense

Sure it is. I think a felony should be an automatic removal from office. You don't?

I think the sex alone was enough to remove him from office. Its not sex in itself, but rather that he was in a position of supreme power over this women. I bet if it became public that a Fortune 500 CEO was sleeping with an intern he would be removed and noone would accept the B.S. argument that it was a private matter. Many professions have morality clauses built into conditions of employment as they correctly realize private acts have consequences on the business. The president is a wholly public figure and his actions as a whole have an effect on the nation.

That being said, that isn't the big reasons. Heck, I don't think perjury is the biggest reason - although agian it was enough for removal. The two big reasons are:

1) He was engaged in a strategy to destroy Monica Lewinsky. He was willing to do whatever it took to destroy her to save his own skin. The White House was in full operation executing a strategy to make M.L. seem like a nut job. Sex is one thing. Engaging is acts to destroy another innocent persons life to protect your hide is something completely different.

2) He put the nation at risk. Whether it was a private act or not, he would have to have known that the public reaction would be incredible. It is prima facia evidence he knew this reaction by the great lengths he went to cover it up. This jepordized his ability to act politically and militarily, as he decisions would lack credibilily. Thus, his actions were incredibly reckless in terms of health and security of the nation.

I want my tax dollars spent on the investigation back

You should ask ole Slick then for the money, because it was his actions and lying that caused the spending. Also, the costs were so minimal in terms of national spending that it is laughable. Simple PR from the Clinton team.

while Bush if not lying, heavily misleading the American public about something that resulted in 500+ American deaths, garners a little contreversy but no major problems

Faulty argument. Maybe Bush deserves to be removed from office just as much as Clinton. You can attack the Republicans for being hypocritical. However, Clintons actions and the proper reaction cannot be connected to Bush and they need to be addressed seperately.

You can't just cite WMDs as a primary reason of invading Iraq and then recant and give other reasons as equally or more important after it appears that there were no WMDs

Good thing he did not do that and instead stated that the main reason was failure to live up to the resolutions that ended the hostility in the first place.

The evidence concerning WMDs is still very much an open question. Remember that Iraq and the WMD issue was very much alive during the Clinton administration. It is eerily similiar what Clinton said during Desert Fox as Bush said before Gulf 2. To condemn bush as a murderer is to condemn Clinton for the same thing. As I have recently said, it is so strange that the democrats are so silent on this. You dont think that maybe they are playing a political angle shot do you? Nahhhh.

[andyfox]

"he was in a position of supreme power over this women"

Pun intended? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

When caught in such situation, the first instinct of a politician (of anyone?) is to lie. (When the U-2 was shot down over Russia, Eisenhower told the press conference it was impossible, we don't have any spy planes over Russia.)Clinton, of course, had this strategy refined to a fine art of the most exquisite proportions, having been lying about his private life for most of it. A small-time con artist catapulted onto the world stage for all to observe.

The Democrats had no guts. And no brains. None. They should have walked into the Oval Office and asked Clinton to resign. How could anyone look him in the face after what they found out about him? Gore would have been president and probably still would be.

I don't think Clinton's actions were impeachable, but they were certainly enough to have caused his party to ask him to resign. It would have saved us the ugly spectacle of the Republican/Ken Starr fiasco. The Republicans had guts, but no brains either.

I have addressed the WMD issue in another (long and ranting) post. But the United States didn't care one bit about the U.N. resolutions. We said we would go to war with or without the support of the U.N.

I don't understand why some are finding it so hard to believe that governments lie when they're going to war. The real world is rarely only black and white. The white is accentuated and the gray deaccentuated to make it appear black and white. The Republicans just aren't as good at it as the Democrats because they come across as less intellectual and more hard-assed. Can you imagine a Republican president named Jimmy or Bill?

[andyfox]

The White House retreated Monday from its once-confident claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and Democrats swiftly sought to turn the about-face into an election-year issue against President Bush [gee, really? af].

The administration's switch came after retired chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said he had concluded, after nine months of searching, that Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of forbidden weapons. Asked about Kay's remarks, White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to repeat oft-stated assertions that prohibited weapons eventually would be found.

McClellan said the inspectors should continue their work "so that they can draw as complete a picture as possible. And then we can learn - it will help us learn the truth."

-Would have been nice if we had had a complete a picture as possible and had we learned the truth, and had the truth been related to us, before we went to war. But again, not too many governments in history have told the truth about why they go to war.

[daveymck]

You also missed the fact that Saddam also used the fact the US was the only country to ever deploy nuclear weapons and was expanding the nuclear program to put missles into space.

As well as having programs to design smaller nuclear devices to penetrate underground bunkers.

I'll also add not signing the treaty to reduce global pollution as well.

Better stop I'll get accused of being anti US, which I'm not I just dont agree with everything that is done in the US or the UK for that matter.