Gore Lied, People Died!

[USMC the Almighty]

Gore condemns President Bush for "blatant disregard for brutal terrorism, a dangerous blindness to the murderous ambitions of a despot."

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1602.html

That war mongering, hate mongering politician who preyed on our fears that just wanted to invade a perfectly innocent, sovereign country that was just minding its own business!!!!

...If nothing else, just watch the last 35 seconds.

[PLC1]

Which goes to show that the mess we're in in Iraq is not solely the fault of the Bush administration, nor of the Repbulicans.

I think most of us knew that.

Wasn't Gore talking about Bush I at that point? Bush I was right, Gore was wrong, Bush II is wrong, and the Congressional Repbulicans and Democrats who voted for the war were wrong. The question is, where do we go from here?

[Justinian]

"Where do We go from here?" That's definitely the question everybody is asking and wants to know the answer of. Personally, I think America in the long run is in a lot of trouble. More trouble than most people think or are willing to admit. Cracks are already beginning to undoubtebly show in America's core strength which is mostly due to internal social rot and prominent radicalism. One of the problems America has is its public diversity in thinking which is leading to political indecisiveness. A country that is so divided will not unite to fight an understood cause effectively which is what we've seen in this new War on Terror. Americans don't want to fight anymore. The core values that gave America its fighting spirit are being slowly eradicated and the people are suffering from it. Family structure is decaying, church attendance is at an all-time low, the kids are taught to discard everything their parents have taught them and America has become severly secularized and liberalized. There has never been such a diverse population that was voluntarily willing to fight because it goes directly against the nation's core strength and helps destroy it. What will America do? ....Nothing. America will chug along until it eventually becomes so divided and crushed by massive government that another nation will eventually pass us by and America is sucked dry of its money that will move away to the next world power. I'm pretty sure that's how it's going to go and it's a damn shame because I believe it's far too early for that if America would have made better past decisions. My two cents.

[Rokerijdude11]

that was 15 years ago sparky?

what does Gores 15 yr old speech have to do with TODAYS war?

[USMC the Almighty]

It's significant for a couple of reasons.

(1) To show how this isn't "George Bush's War" as many on the left are fond of calling it.

(2) President Bush didn't "lie" about anything. EVERYONE thought that Saddam was a despot who needed to be removed, was supporting terrorism, and was developing nukes (he'd already displayed his willingness to use WMDs in the Iran-Iraq War).

(3) Serve as a reminder of the dishonesty and hypocrisy of all of the self-serving liberals who are on record saying that we needed to go into Iraq before 2003 and they are all now saying that Bush misled the public into this war.

[Coyote]

Of course Bush lied.


When the case was made for war rumours leaked that there were links to Sadaam and 9/11. A majority of Americans firmly believed it by the time we invaded and it was a major factor in gaining the public's support for the war.

It was not until 6 months after the war that the Administration announced there was no link and never had been.

Golly gee.

[Coyote]

that was 15 years ago sparky?

what does Gores 15 yr old speech have to do with TODAYS war?

Exactly.

[USMC the Almighty]

Of course Bush lied.


When the case was made for war rumours leaked that there were links to Sadaam and 9/11. A majority of Americans firmly believed it by the time we invaded and it was a major factor in gaining the public's support for the war.

It was not until 6 months after the war that the Administration announced there was no link and never had been.

Golly gee.

First of all -- I still don't agree that there was no link. Secondly, there is a difference between being wrong and lying. All the intelligence said that there was a link and that Saddam had nukes, so he acted on it. If it had been proved wrong, then he was wrong. That doesn't mean he lied.

[PLC1]

First of all -- I still don't agree that there was no link. Secondly, there is a difference between being wrong and lying. All the intelligence said that there was a link and that Saddam had nukes, so he acted on it. If it had been proved wrong, then he was wrong. That doesn't mean he lied.

It has been proven wrong, and, so he was wrong. It doesn't mean that he lied. A lot of other people were also wrong, including some of the presidential hopefuls who are trying to distance themselves from the war as much as possible. They didn't lie, either, but they would if their positions at the time of the invasion could somehow be hidden.

[Coyote]

First of all -- I still don't agree that there was no link. Secondly, there is a difference between being wrong and lying. All the intelligence said that there was a link and that Saddam had nukes, so he acted on it. If it had been proved wrong, then he was wrong. That doesn't mean he lied.

You may not agree, but all credible evidence, and experts, and the President himself declared that there is no link and never was.

There are lies of commission, and lies of ommission. Knowing the truth, and refusing to correct an powerful and erronious misunderstanding that helped shape public support for a war is ethically wrong and it's every bit as much of a lie as a lie of commission.

See...what I don't get is this: everytime Bush is wrong - it's bad intellegence, or he was "misled". He takes no responsibility. He knew there was no link - he was careful to never actually say anything to confirm or contradict the rumor until well after the invasion when he finally came clean.

Don't you find that reprehensible?

[vyo476]

There are lies of commission, and lies of ommission. Knowing the truth, and refusing to correct an powerful and erronious misunderstanding that helped shape public support for a war is ethically wrong and it's every bit as much of a lie as a lie of commission.

Please provide some evidence that George Bush knew that the intelligence on connections between Saddam and Bin Laden and the presence of WMDs in Iraq was false prior to the 2003 invasion.

See...what I don't get is this: everytime Bush is wrong - it's bad intellegence, or he was "misled". He takes no responsibility. He knew there was no link - he was careful to never actually say anything to confirm or contradict the rumor until well after the invasion when he finally came clean.

Don't you find that reprehensible?

He certainly does take responsibility for it, by trying to make the best of a bad situation. Iraq is a mess today and it's a mess because we went in and ousted Saddam, who aside from being a despicable despot (try saying that five times fast) was the only person seemingly capable of keeping a lid on the internal violence. So, with American troops sitting on a boiling Iraq, what was Bush supposed to do? Just wave and say, "Oops, sorry, we had bad intel. Have fun killing each other now," or try to do something about it?

Put yourself in his shoes. You had intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. When he fails to co-operate with inspectors you decide to invade his country to find them and get him out of power. Once there, you discover that the intelligence reports were faulty and there are no WMDs and no strong links to al-Qaeda.

What would you do? Leave, and let the Iraqis slaughter each other? Or stay and try to help build Iraq into a decent place to live?

[TVoffBrainOn]

First of all -- I still don't agree that there was no link. Secondly, there is a difference between being wrong and lying. All the intelligence said that there was a link and that Saddam had nukes, so he acted on it. If it had been proved wrong, then he was wrong. That doesn't mean he lied.

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks. - Bush 2003 after the invasion
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml

Is it not true that the administration waged a war of propaganda to convince the public that there was a major link between 9/11 and Iraq?

The intelligence you speak of is cooked. plain and simple. Whether it was Douglas Feith at State or Cheney himself. The plain truth is that there was intelligence that said their were links, and there was intelligence that said he had nukes. It's the rest of the truth that gets left out. There was just as much if not 10x as much intelligence to the contrary. and in the Bush administration it's the intelligence that fits the goal that is used.

The air campaign began a year before congress approved the war. The war plan itself was literally sent to clinton in 98.

The intelligence was cherry picked to justify a philosophy, a policy, and agenda. That's the truth.

The public version of the NIE and the formerly classified version of the NIE are drastically different with literally all dissent from the intelligence community removed from the public version that was used to generate public support for war.

I think Bush and the administration were careful not to "lie" they chose to represent an opinion as fact. and opinion that was not a majority amongst the intelligence community.

[Rokerijdude11]

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks. - Bush 2003 after the invasion
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml

Is it not true that the administration waged a war of propaganda to convince the public that there was a major link between 9/11 and Iraq?

The intelligence you speak of is cooked. plain and simple. Whether it was Douglas Feith at State or Cheney himself. The plain truth is that there was intelligence that said their were links, and there was intelligence that said he had nukes. It's the rest of the truth that gets left out. There was just as much if not 10x as much intelligence to the contrary. and in the Bush administration it's the intelligence that fits the goal that is used.

The air campaign began a year before congress approved the war. The war plan itself was literally sent to clinton in 98.

The intelligence was cherry picked to justify a philosophy, a policy, and agenda. That's the truth.

The public version of the NIE and the formerly classified version of the NIE are drastically different with literally all dissent from the intelligence community removed from the public version that was used to generate public support for war.

I think Bush and the administration were careful not to "lie" they chose to represent an opinion as fact. and opinion that was not a majority amongst the intelligence community.

Exactly Nice post

[TVoffBrainOn]

Please provide some evidence that George Bush knew that the intelligence on connections between Saddam and Bin Laden and the presence of WMDs in Iraq was false prior to the 2003 invasion.

the differences between the public NIE and the formerly classified NIE are proof that the intelligence community was far from unanimous and in many instances unanimously against the acersions made public. I quote, "The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."

The above is from the now declassified NIE, the public version before the war had statements like this and dozens of others omitted. The CIA released the public version, titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," in October 2002, when the Bush administration was making its case for war. The White House declassified and released portions of the NIE's key findings in July 2003. It is largely ignored in the dabte about the case for war.

The public version contained the alarming warning that Iraq was capable of quickly developing biological warfare agents that could be delivered by "bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland."

No such warning that Iraq's biological weapons could be delivered to United States appeared in the classified version.

Also missing from the public report were judgments that Iraq would attempt "clandestine attacks" on the United States only if an American invasion threatened the survival of Saddam's regime or "possibly for revenge."

Intelligence is touted all the time as the excuse for this war. I wish all the intelligence was debated.



Put yourself in his shoes. You had intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. When he fails to co-operate with inspectors you decide to invade his country to find them and get him out of power. Once there, you discover that the intelligence reports were faulty and there are no WMDs and no strong links to al-Qaeda.

No. He chose the Intelligence that fit his administration's neocon dreams. He didn't find out that the intelligence was faulty. He found out that he CHOSE the wrong intelligence.

The Bush administration played roullete with the USA. They bet on black, the intelligence landed on red.

[TVoffBrainOn]

Gore condemns President Bush for "blatant disregard for brutal terrorism, a dangerous blindness to the murderous ambitions of a despot."

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1602.html

That war mongering, hate mongering politician who preyed on our fears that just wanted to invade a perfectly innocent, sovereign country that was just minding its own business!!!!

...If nothing else, just watch the last 35 seconds.

15 years ago? seriously?

Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.

"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."


Dick Cheney is a flip flopper :rolleyes:

[Coyote]

I think Bush and the administration were careful not to "lie" they chose to represent an opinion as fact. and opinion that was not a majority amongst the intelligence community.

True...but they lied through trickery and ommission, it still as vile as a straight out lie since the intent was to decieve....good post btw:)

[jb_1430]

major[/B] link between 9/11 and Iraq?



Nonsense.



On Sept. 13, 2001, a Time/CNN poll found that 78 percent suspected Hussein's involvement --

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32862-2003Sep5


and the percentage went nowhere but down after that. Or is it your complaint the administration waged a war of propaganda, even though it had no effect whatsoever? MARK

[Justinian]

It's significant for a couple of reasons.

(1) To show how this isn't "George Bush's War" as many on the left are fond of calling it.

(2) President Bush didn't "lie" about anything. EVERYONE thought that Saddam was a despot who needed to be removed, was supporting terrorism, and was developing nukes (he'd already displayed his willingness to use WMDs in the Iran-Iraq War).

(3) Serve as a reminder of the dishonesty and hypocrisy of all of the self-serving liberals who are on record saying that we needed to go into Iraq before 2003 and they are all now saying that Bush misled the public into this war.

Very true such as the old old saying, "The Mob is fickle"

[TVoffBrainOn]

Nonsense.



and the percentage went nowhere but down after that. Or is it your complaint the administration waged a war of propaganda, even though it had no effect whatsoever? MARK

There are many fronts to a war of propaganda. If you don't think propaganda is used by the United States Government on all issues you're kool aid drinking.

[jb_1430]

There are many fronts to a war of propaganda. If you don't think propaganda is used by the United States Government on all issues you're kool aid drinking.

????Cant imagine what I said that any rational person could interpret as saying that I "don't think propaganda is used by the United States Government"? MARK

[USMC the Almighty]

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks. - Bush 2003 after the invasion
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml

What does this prove? "We have no evidence that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks." So what? That says nothing about his links to al Qaeda which was involved with the 9/11 attacks.


Is it not true that the administration waged a war of propaganda to convince the public that there was a major link between 9/11 and Iraq?

I don't recall. Convince me.

The intelligence you speak of is cooked. plain and simple. Whether it was Douglas Feith at State or Cheney himself. The plain truth is that there was intelligence that said their were links, and there was intelligence that said he had nukes. It's the rest of the truth that gets left out. There was just as much if not 10x as much intelligence to the contrary. and in the Bush administration it's the intelligence that fits the goal that is used.

This doesn't make any sense. How can you have evidence that Saddam was not involved with terrorists at the same time you have evidence that he was?


The intelligence was cherry picked to justify a philosophy, a policy, and agenda. That's the truth.

You can't just declare "that's the truth" without any kind of evidence. What was this "agenda" or "policy" exactly?

...and opinion that was not a majority amongst the intelligence community.

Sure it was. EVERYONE thought that Saddam was developing nukes.

[Napoleon]

Secondly, there is a difference between being wrong and lying. All the intelligence said that there was a link and that Saddam had nukes, so he acted on it. If it had been proved wrong, then he was wrong. That doesn't mean he lied.

The Bush Administration sought out the most unreliable sources imaginable and paid them to say what they wanted to hear. Ahmed Chalabi, a convicted fraudster and a source which was widely known within the intelligence community to be extremely unreliable, was paid more per month than the Vice President of the United States makes in an entire year and was given a cushy government position, despite his overwhelming unpopularity among the Iraqi people, in exchange for services rendered. Then of course there's Curveball. A source which the German government repeatedly told the CIA and FBI was "crazy", a "fabricator", a "drunk", and that nothing he said could be verified. Yet EVERYTHING he said was presented as undeniable fact by the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration lied.

[USMC the Almighty]

When you have the General of the Iraqi Air Force saying that Saddam had nukes (and moved them to Syria), I think you've got a right to act on that.

[Napoleon]

When you have the General of the Iraqi Air Force saying that Saddam had nukes (and moved them to Syria), I think you've got a right to act on that.

Yes, isn't it interesting that a man which had been exiled from Iraq since 1991 claims to know all of the juicy details about what Saddam's regime was doing in the 12 years leading up to the Iraq War. Mr. Sada has no clue what he's talking about and hasn't ever provided any evidence to support his claims which are in direct contradiction with the information retrieved both before and after Saddam's regime was toppled. The "captains of the Iraqi airway" from which he claimed to have received his information never materialized either and he has yet to provided names.

[USMC the Almighty]

Yes, isn't it interesting that a man which had been exiled from Iraq since 1991 claims to know all of the juicy details about what Saddam's regime was doing in the 12 years leading up to the Iraq War.

No.

Mr. Sada has no clue what he's talking about and hasn't ever provided any evidence to support his claims which are in direct contradiction with the information retrieved both before and after Saddam's regime was toppled.

Direct contradiction to what information retrieved? We know he had WMDs because he used them and we found leftovers, but the real question is whether he had nukes or he stopped developing them after Israel took out his nuclear reaction back in '81.

The "captains of the Iraqi airway" from which he claimed to have received his information never materialized either and he has yet to provided names.

What does this prove? There were plenty of people who made similar claims. And even if these do come out to be false, it doesn't mean Bush lied.

[Napoleon]

Direct contradiction to what information retrieved?

Haven't you read the final report of the ISG or the Addenda?

We know he had WMDs because he used them and we found leftovers, but the real question is whether he had nukes or he stopped developing them after Israel took out his nuclear reaction back in '81.

We know he had WMDs until 1991 but all evidence points to the fact that they were destroyed. We know he had a limited capability to produce them, at least in comparison to his capability prior to 1991, but that he didn't because he was waiting for sanctions to be lifted and that the dual-use materials, which were not banned by sanctions, were, in some cases, being used for legitimate purposes. We know that his regime had neither the intellectual or material capability to produce nuclear weapons for many years. It's all in the ISG report.

What does this prove?

Nothing and thats the point. Mr. Sada's allegations prove nothing. He hasn't provided anyone with any evidence to support his claims or the names of his alleged contacts. This discussion is irrelevant anyway since Mr. Sada didn't even start making such claims until 2006.

There were plenty of people who made similar claims.

Such as?

And even if these do come out to be false, it doesn't mean Bush lied.

Never said it did.

[USMC the Almighty]

Haven't you read the final report of the ISG or the Addenda?

No.


We know he had WMDs until 1991 but all evidence points to the fact that they were destroyed.

That's not true. As late as last June we were still uncovering WMD stockpiles in Iraq.

We know he had a limited capability to produce them, at least in comparison to his capability prior to 1991, but that he didn't because he was waiting for sanctions to be lifted and that the dual-use materials, which were not banned by sanctions, were, in some cases, being used for legitimate purposes. We know that his regime had neither the intellectual or material capability to produce nuclear weapons for many years. It's all in the ISG report.

They were very close to having nuclear weapons in 1981 thanks to French scientists at the Osirak reactor so you're wrong about them not having the capabilities to produce nukes.


Nothing and thats the point. Mr. Sada's allegations prove nothing. He hasn't provided anyone with any evidence to support his claims or the names of his alleged contacts. This discussion is irrelevant anyway since Mr. Sada didn't even start making such claims until 2006.

Such as?

In addition to Iraqi Gen. Georges Sada making thee claims, you have former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, General Yaalon (chief of staff of the IDF), Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti (southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia), John A. Shaw (Deputy Undersecretary of Defense), weapons inspector David Kay, and I'm sure there are others.

[Coyote]

That's not true. As late as last June we were still uncovering WMD stockpiles in Iraq.



What WMD stockpiles?

[Coyote]

We're still uncovering stockpiles of old WMD's left over from WW2...

[USMC the Almighty]

What WMD stockpiles?

The ones they released knowledge of last June...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html
http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2006/press20060623.asp

[Napoleon]

No.

I suggest you do so.

ISG Final Report (http://https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html)

That's not true. As late as last June we were still uncovering WMD stockpiles in Iraq.

Chemical munitions which had been abandoned decades ago, were forgotten by Saddam's regime, and are so degraded that they pose no significant danger. As David Kay told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "I suspect in your house, and I know in my house, I have things that are more toxic than sarin produced from 1984 to 1988." Then of course, there's this little gem:


"Iraqis seeking rewards have added toxic chemicals to unfilled pre-1991 chemical munitions to fool Coalition Forces into believing that they had found CW munitions." (http://https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/addenda.pdf)

They were very close to having nuclear weapons in 1981 thanks to French scientists at the Osirak reactor so you're wrong about them not having the capabilities to produce nukes.

The Osirak facility was obliterated during the Gulf War, along with the rest of Iraq's wmd facilities, and was never rebuilt.


"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program"

"Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years."

"Iraq did not possess a nuclear device, nor had it tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991."

"ISG has uncovered no information to support allegations of Iraqi pursuit of uranium from abroad in the post-Operation Desert Storm era."

"Iraq did not reconstitute its indigenous ability to produce yellowcake."

"Post-1991, Iraq had neither rebuilt any capability to convert uranium ore into a form suitable for enrichment nor reestablished other chemical processes related to handling fissile material for a weapons program." (http://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html#sect1)

etc. etc.


In addition to Iraqi Gen. Georges Sada making thee claims, you have former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, General Yaalon (chief of staff of the IDF), Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti (southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia), John A. Shaw (Deputy Undersecretary of Defense), weapons inspector David Kay, and I'm sure there are others.

None of which have ever provided any evidence to support their claims.

[USMC the Almighty]

We're still uncovering stockpiles of old WMD's left over from WW2...

So what? He said that all of Saddam's WMDs have been destroyed (in an effort to prove that Saddam couldn't have possibly moved them to Syria since they were all destroyed). I said this isn't true since we have been finding WMDs since we first moved in, though they aren't the nukes we thought he had.

[USMC the Almighty]

I suggest you do so.

ISG Final Report (http://https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html)

Nah, I think I'll pass. There's not much that I hate more than reading bureaucratic, government bloviating that goes on for hundreds of pages.


Chemical munitions which had been abandoned decades ago, were forgotten by Saddam's regime, and are so degraded that they pose no significant danger. As David Kay told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "I suspect in your house, and I know in my house, I have things that are more toxic than sarin produced from 1984 to 1988." Then of course, there's this little gem:



It doesn't matter. You said that all of his WMDs were destroyed:

We know he had WMDs until 1991 but all evidence points to the fact that they were destroyed.

Clearly not if we're still uncovering them.



The Osirak facility was obliterated during the Gulf War, along with the rest of Iraq's wmd facilities, and was never rebuilt.

But it was really Israel's 1981 raid that removed his nuclear capabilities.

[Coyote]

So what? He said that all of Saddam's WMDs have been destroyed (in an effort to prove that Saddam couldn't have possibly moved them to Syria since they were all destroyed). I said this isn't true since we have been finding WMDs since we first moved in, though they aren't the nukes we thought he had.

We've been finding old crap left over and forgotten apart. Hardly stockpiles.

[USMC the Almighty]

We've been finding old crap left over and forgotten apart. Hardly stockpiles.

No, we've been finding stockpiles. For instance, that big one found in June had something like 500 tons of munitions of chemical WMDs.

[Coyote]

No, we've been finding stockpiles. For instance, that big one found in June had something like 500 tons of munitions of chemical WMDs.

link?

[Napoleon]

Nah, I think I'll pass. There's not much that I hate more than reading bureaucratic, government bloviating that goes on for hundreds of pages.

An aversion to facts? You don't have to read the whole thing if you don't want to. Just skip to the Key Findings.

It doesn't matter. You said that all of his WMDs were destroyed:

Thats because they were. Even those which weren't directly destroyed by Saddam's regime were rendered useless by their degradation.


Clearly not if we're still uncovering them.


Clearly so because they're all too degraded to even remotely qualify as weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqis have been filling empty shells and declaring them to be Saddam's wmds for reward money.

But it was really Israel's 1981 raid that removed his nuclear capabilities.

Hardly. The Gulf War is what removed his nuclear capabilities both materially and intellectually.

[USMC the Almighty]

link?

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/21/santorum-military-has-found-500-chemical-munitions-shells-in-iraq/

[USMC the Almighty]

An aversion to facts? You don't have to read the whole thing if you don't want to. Just skip to the Key Findings.

I've heard it discussed so many times, I've just about read it. And anyway -- what makes this ISG report gospel?


Thats because they were. Even those which weren't directly destroyed by Saddam's regime were rendered useless by their degradation.

Clearly so because they're all too degraded to even remotely qualify as weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqis have been filling empty shells and declaring them to be Saddam's wmds for reward money.

You can't have it both ways. Either he had destroyed all the WMDs or they were too degraded to be harmful.


Hardly. The Gulf War is what removed his nuclear capabilities both materially and intellectually.

No. It was the IDF's tactical strikes in what I consider to be the most impressive air mission post-WW2.

[Coyote]

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/21/santorum-military-has-found-500-chemical-munitions-shells-in-iraq/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008

June 23, 2006

The Duelfer report concluded that "old, abandoned chemical munitions" found in Iraq -- such as the ones hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra -- are not part of a "chemical weapons stockpile." According to the report [emphasis in original]:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

* The scale of the Iraqi conventional munitions stockpile, among other factors, precluded an examination of the entire stockpile; however, ISG inspected sites judged most likely associated with possible storage or deployment of chemical weapons.

[USMC the Almighty]

No. It was the IDF's tactical strikes in what I consider to be the most impressive air mission post-WW2.

In fact, following Desert Storm, Cheney sent a letter to Israel thanking them for taking out Saddam's reactor because facing a nuclear-armed Saddam would've made the conflict a lot more painful, he said.

[USMC the Almighty]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008

June 23, 2006

The Duelfer report concluded that "old, abandoned chemical munitions" found in Iraq -- such as the ones hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra -- are not part of a "chemical weapons stockpile." According to the report [emphasis in original]:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

* The scale of the Iraqi conventional munitions stockpile, among other factors, precluded an examination of the entire stockpile; however, ISG inspected sites judged most likely associated with possible storage or deployment of chemical weapons.

So, in essence it's come down to a matter of one politico's opinion versus that of another. One guy says they are WMDs, another says they aren't. We're never going to get anywhere like this.

[Coyote]

So, in essence it's come down to a matter of one politico's opinion versus that of another. One guy says they are WMDs, another says they aren't. We're never going to get anywhere like this.

Hardly. The Duelfer report was produced by the Iraq study group and published by the CIA. I'm not sure that is exactly one "politico's" opinion.

[USMC the Almighty]

Hardly. The Duelfer report was produced by the Iraq study group and published by the CIA. I'm not sure that is exactly one "politico's" opinion.

Well the ISG is certainly political in nature and should be seen in that light. the CIA also claims that there were WMDs.

[Coyote]

Well the ISG is certainly political in nature and should be seen in that light. the CIA also claims that there were WMDs.

The ISG was bipartisan - and under a Republican dominated Congress and president and yet they still found no WMD's worthy of note.

[Napoleon]

I've heard it discussed so many times, I've just about read it. And anyway -- what makes this ISG report gospel?

Because they thoroughly investigated the issue and supported their conclusions with documents seized after Saddam's fall from power, interviews with members of Saddam's regime, visiting and analyzing sites, etc etc.

You can't have it both ways. Either he had destroyed all the WMDs or they were too degraded to be harmful.

It's not a two-way issue. It's the same thing. Abandoning munitions in the desert is tantamont to destruction. If a munition is no longer capable of inflicting mass destruction then it is no longer a weapon of mass destruction.

No. It was the IDF's tactical strikes in what I consider to be the most impressive air mission post-WW2.

You can consider them to be that but it doesn't change the fact that they didn't end Saddam's nuclear program.

[USMC the Almighty]

The ISG was bipartisan - and under a Republican dominated Congress and president and yet they still found no WMD's worthy of note.

Hardly bipartisan. They threw in a couple of token Republicans for diversity, not to substantiate that side of the policy debate.

Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush's war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy... http://www.meforum.org/article/1034

On their three day visit, only one member even left the GZ.

[USMC the Almighty]

Because they thoroughly investigated the issue and supported their conclusions with documents seized after Saddam's fall from power, interviews with members of Saddam's regime, visiting and analyzing sites, etc etc.

The ISG really didn't do anything significant. They went on a short visit to Iraq in order to gather some "evidence" for their predetermined conclusion.


It's not a two-way issue. It's the same thing. Abandoning munitions in the desert is tantamont to destruction. If a munition is no longer capable of inflicting mass destruction then it is no longer a weapon of mass destruction.

And that's the gray area. What constitutes "mass destruction". These weapons, according to Col. Hunt were still capable of doing serious damage to our troops.


You can consider them to be that but it doesn't change the fact that they didn't end Saddam's nuclear program.

For all intents and purposes, yes, the 1981 raid on the reactor killed Saddam's nuclear program.

[Coyote]

Hardly bipartisan. They threw in a couple of token Republicans for diversity, not to substantiate that side of the policy debate.

Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush's war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy... http://www.meforum.org/article/1034

On their three day visit, only one member even left the GZ.

That's according to a source that describes itself as:

The Middle East Forum, a think tank, seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. It defines U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, whether terroristic or lawful; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; improving the management of U.S. democracy efforts; reducing energy dependence on the Middle East; more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia; and countering the Iranian threat. The Forum also works to improve Middle East studies in North America.


I would say that source has a very right-leaning agenda which makes me take whatever they say with a grain of salt.

Is there any unbiased source out there that analyzed the study group?

[USMC the Almighty]

Is there such thing as an unbiased source? I vaguely recall reading an article on RealClearPolitics a while back on it. I'll try to find it.

[Napoleon]

The ISG really didn't do anything significant. They went on a short visit to Iraq in order to gather some "evidence" for their predetermined conclusion.

Why would a group hand picked by the Bush Administration have a predetermined conclusion in contradiction with the claims of the Bush Administration?

And that's the gray area. What constitutes "mass destruction". These weapons, according to Col. Hunt were still capable of doing serious damage to our troops.

Mr. Hunt can spout all of the alarmist bs he wants but those who actually analyzed and tested the munitions came to a completely different conclusion.

For all intents and purposes, yes, the 1981 raid on the reactor killed Saddam's nuclear program.

Yet it remained functional until 1991.

[TVoffBrainOn]

What does this prove? "We have no evidence that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks." So what? That says nothing about his links to al Qaeda which was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

What's a link? I drive a KIA. Do I have links to Kim Jong Il?


This doesn't make any sense. How can you have evidence that Saddam was not involved with terrorists at the same time you have evidence that he was?

I never said there was evidence. There's difference between intelligence and evidence.

You can't just declare "that's the truth" without any kind of evidence. What was this "agenda" or "policy" exactly?

I provided evidence. Read the NIE. It's pretty cut and dry.

Here's the Agenda/Policy : http://www.scribd.com/doc/9651/Rebuilding-Americas-Defenses-PNAC

It's a document called Rebuilding America's Defense. Im sure you've read it.

Sure it was. EVERYONE thought that Saddam was developing nukes

EVERYONE IS DEVELOPING nukes. ****ing Paraguay is probably "developing" Nukes.

[Coyote]

Hardly bipartisan. They threw in a couple of token Republicans for diversity, not to substantiate that side of the policy debate.

Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush's war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy... http://www.meforum.org/article/1034

On their three day visit, only one member even left the GZ.

The ISG consisted of two co-chairs - 1 Repub, 1 Dem (it was proposed by a Republican) and it's members were 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Sounds bipartisan.

Both ideological extremes were less then enthusiastic about the final report's recommendations.

From Wikipedia:

At a news conference with the British Prime Minister Tony Blair in Washington on December 6, 2006 President George W. Bush commented on the Iraq Study Group's report and admitted for the first time that a "new approach" is needed in Iraq, that the situation in Iraq is "bad" and that the task ahead was "daunting". [13] President Bush said he would not accept every recommendation by the ISG panel but promised that he would take the report seriously. President Bush is expected to wait for three other studies from the Pentagon, the US State Department and the National Security Council before charting the new course on Iraq. [14] On US foreign policy, President Bush warned that he would only talk to Iran if it suspended uranium enrichment and bring Syria on board if it stops funding the opposition in Lebanon, extends support to the Lebanese government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and provides economic help to Iraq. [15]

Antonia Juhasz noted the study's focus on Iraqi oil in the opening chapter and in Recommendation 63 and concluded that the Iraq Study Group would extended the Iraq War until American oil companies have guaranteed legal access to all of Iraq's oil fields.[16]

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani called the group's conclusions "very dangerous" to Iraq's sovereignty and constitution, according to CNN. "As a whole, I reject this report," Talabani said.[17]

All in all, it sounds quite bipartisan.

[ArmChair General]

First of all -- I still don't agree that there was no link. Secondly, there is a difference between being wrong and lying. All the intelligence said that there was a link and that Saddam had nukes, so he acted on it. If it had been proved wrong, then he was wrong. That doesn't mean he lied.

Your an idiot then.


It was lying, they just used the cowardly kind of lying, that you use through other people.