michaelr
Well-Known Member
I know, it's an old story. Well may hap it is may hap it isn't. Judge for yourself.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
- Thread starter michaelr
- Start date
Werbung:
Here is the story through the eyes of Iraqi leaders. It really sheds light into how the mistakes were made by both sides in the lead up to war and the misinformation coming out of both sides.
Taken from declassified documents of Saddam's inner circle meetings in the lead up to war.
Saddam's Delusions
Hard Driver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2007
- Messages
- 74
Yes, Bush pushed for war using lies.
I want to point out several FACTS
1) There was lots of intelligence that Saddam did not have WMD
Besides the story in the first post. You also have Gen. Hussein Kamel, the high ranking Iraqi defector, saying that all WMD were destroyed.
See: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1845
2) Iraq was complying with inspections, despite what the right wing says.
Here is the final report to the UN from Hans Blix BEFORE the war.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
Quote:
at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.
Quote:
There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991.
Quote:
It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”
Quote:
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
The only conclusion is that Saddam was complying, albeit under threat of war.. But wasn't that what the threat of war was for. Allow inspectors back in and finish the job or face the consequences.. That is what the Congress voted for... The problem is that Saddam then did allow the inspectors back in and gave co-operation and unfettered access, but Bush invaded anyway... That is why the war is illegitimate.
3) Bush distorted and lied about the intelligence
Going back to my first point... The defector who said WMD were destroyed. This same defector was used by President Bush to claim just the opposite... That is called an intentional distortion..i.e. a LIE. In Bush's definitive speech in Cincinnati where he laid out the justification for war, he said
Quote:
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
This is an outright distortion of what the defector said... He said all WMD were destroyed. Bush is taking what he said about WMD produced prior to the first Gulf war, ommiting for the purpose of distorting the claim they were destroyed, and using this to claim there are WMD... This is the definition of "Cherry picking" intelligence. Taking just pieces from the same source and using what you want, while discarding what does not suit your pre-conceived notion.
4) The Main justification for the war WAS WMD despite the revisionist claims of the right wing
Just look at the Cinncinatti speech I linked to above. This was the supposed to be the significant speech stating the reasons for war.. Sure, deep down he does mentin bringing democracy to Iraq. But 90% of this speech is detailing the threat of WMD from Iraq. This WAS the most significant reason given BY FAR, and without it, there would be no war...
Be real... If President Bush had not touted WMD, and just said we need to invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people and bring democracy to them, would the congress or the American people supported this war?
I want to point out several FACTS
1) There was lots of intelligence that Saddam did not have WMD
Besides the story in the first post. You also have Gen. Hussein Kamel, the high ranking Iraqi defector, saying that all WMD were destroyed.
See: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1845
2) Iraq was complying with inspections, despite what the right wing says.
Here is the final report to the UN from Hans Blix BEFORE the war.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
Quote:
at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.
Quote:
There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991.
Quote:
It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”
Quote:
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
The only conclusion is that Saddam was complying, albeit under threat of war.. But wasn't that what the threat of war was for. Allow inspectors back in and finish the job or face the consequences.. That is what the Congress voted for... The problem is that Saddam then did allow the inspectors back in and gave co-operation and unfettered access, but Bush invaded anyway... That is why the war is illegitimate.
3) Bush distorted and lied about the intelligence
Going back to my first point... The defector who said WMD were destroyed. This same defector was used by President Bush to claim just the opposite... That is called an intentional distortion..i.e. a LIE. In Bush's definitive speech in Cincinnati where he laid out the justification for war, he said
Quote:
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
This is an outright distortion of what the defector said... He said all WMD were destroyed. Bush is taking what he said about WMD produced prior to the first Gulf war, ommiting for the purpose of distorting the claim they were destroyed, and using this to claim there are WMD... This is the definition of "Cherry picking" intelligence. Taking just pieces from the same source and using what you want, while discarding what does not suit your pre-conceived notion.
4) The Main justification for the war WAS WMD despite the revisionist claims of the right wing
Just look at the Cinncinatti speech I linked to above. This was the supposed to be the significant speech stating the reasons for war.. Sure, deep down he does mentin bringing democracy to Iraq. But 90% of this speech is detailing the threat of WMD from Iraq. This WAS the most significant reason given BY FAR, and without it, there would be no war...
Be real... If President Bush had not touted WMD, and just said we need to invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people and bring democracy to them, would the congress or the American people supported this war?
This is one great post with the breakdown of what people need to understand when they look back on the Bush administration... or go to the voting booth the next time!
I've referred to some of this before but it makes an even greater impact when you see it all written out like this.
Castle
Well-Known Member
YES YES YES YES YES!
Everyone has their own juicy little quotes to prop up their one dimensional views of the Iraq war. Here is why I refuse to give these pile-on parties another second of my time.
Everyone remembers the first point from the congressional testimony of chief weapons inspector David Kay shortly after the war began. "No WMD's were discovered in Iraq". But hardly anyone recalls his second crucial point at that very same hearing. Why? Because it, among many other conveniently discarded facts, extinguishes the mobs torches.
Well here is another bucket of water in the form of Kay's second point.
the Coalition rightly invaded Iraq nonetheless because the overall situation there after 1998 was much more unstable, much more chaotic and menacing than international intelligence had even supposed. The looming threat posed by a tyrannical regime out of internal control posed a danger only too real and increasingly ominous for the entire Middle Eastern region as well as for the rest of the world.
Interesting that this was played DOWN to the point that it's not worth mentioning. Interesting indeed!
-Castle
Everyone has their own juicy little quotes to prop up their one dimensional views of the Iraq war. Here is why I refuse to give these pile-on parties another second of my time.
Everyone remembers the first point from the congressional testimony of chief weapons inspector David Kay shortly after the war began. "No WMD's were discovered in Iraq". But hardly anyone recalls his second crucial point at that very same hearing. Why? Because it, among many other conveniently discarded facts, extinguishes the mobs torches.
Well here is another bucket of water in the form of Kay's second point.
the Coalition rightly invaded Iraq nonetheless because the overall situation there after 1998 was much more unstable, much more chaotic and menacing than international intelligence had even supposed. The looming threat posed by a tyrannical regime out of internal control posed a danger only too real and increasingly ominous for the entire Middle Eastern region as well as for the rest of the world.
Interesting that this was played DOWN to the point that it's not worth mentioning. Interesting indeed!
-Castle
Hard Driver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2007
- Messages
- 74
Hmmm
I would not call an opinion of a man appointed by Bush and working for the CIA in Iraq as the most independent source.
David Kay was qualified to lead inspections and told the truth factually that Saddam did not have WMD... But his opinions about the concept of "pre-emptive" war and justifications for it based upon suspicions is not conclusive of anything.
I would argue that WAR is hell and the concept of "pre-emptive" war is ridiculous. I guess if there was a 100% proven knowledge that attack was immenent, than a "pre-emptive" war is justified. But not one based upon suspicions, especially when you have an entire international team of inspectors on the ground with all the resources they need and a "proactive" government helping them investigate these suspicions.. Under these conditions, war was not justified.
I would not call an opinion of a man appointed by Bush and working for the CIA in Iraq as the most independent source.
David Kay was qualified to lead inspections and told the truth factually that Saddam did not have WMD... But his opinions about the concept of "pre-emptive" war and justifications for it based upon suspicions is not conclusive of anything.
I would argue that WAR is hell and the concept of "pre-emptive" war is ridiculous. I guess if there was a 100% proven knowledge that attack was immenent, than a "pre-emptive" war is justified. But not one based upon suspicions, especially when you have an entire international team of inspectors on the ground with all the resources they need and a "proactive" government helping them investigate these suspicions.. Under these conditions, war was not justified.
Just because this man has said there is a huge threat, doesn't mean there is one. If he could back it up with real, current evidence I could believe it. Was this man in Iraq doing the weapons inspections just before the war?
Werbung:
As compared to the peaceful and stable situation that an invasion and never ending occupation by a superpower seen as Christian Crusaders into a totally Islamic Muslim territory has created??????????????????
COME ON! History will show... This dog won't hunt!
