We all know that Saddam intentionally misled us to believe he had WMD's, right?

Buy a TV and be sure to watch CBS 60 Minutes regularly and you'll be better informed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-3749494.html?pageNum=4

 

Wow, you are able to link to site where a person is expressing an opinion that agrees with yours, impressive...
How about we deal with actual facts, there were no WMDs in Iraq.
That's an actual fact. That's actually been proven.
Saddam said all his WMDs had been destroyed, even your link says that.
At the point where Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, UN weapons inspectors had free run of the country, and were about 6 months away from giving Iraq a clean bill of health.

Bush needed a war for the 2004 elections, because the economy sucked, and he believed that Afghanistan was going to end in victory in 2003, and all the hoopla and celebration would have died down and by 2004, the voters would be focused on the economy and he'd be a one term president, like Daddy.

 

Then why all the restriction on the UN inspectors?

You may have a bad memory, but I do not. Repeatedly between 1991 and 2003, Iraq and the UN were in constant battle over it's weapons programs. They went over and over from no weapons, to admitting that they had weapons, to not having any again. Only to be caught with them again. The UN Inspector in charge of this program resigned in protest because not enough was being done to find and dispose of the weapons, and even the UN Secretary General stated that Iraq was not complying with most of the agreements in the 1991 Cease Fire in regards to it's chemical and biological weapons programs.

And all weapons inspectors had been evicted from Iraq in 1998. And even the UN report after the war was concluded admitted that both chemical weapons and prohibited delivery systems were indeed found.

If Iraq wanted to show that they have no weapons, why all the games with the Weapons Inspectors?

 

Individuals like yourself seem to go about things in a bass ackwards fashion.

I adopted my beliefs based on this evidence.

I didn't just emotionally decide to support the Bush WMD rationale and then find a quotation which supported my belief.

First, you seek the truth. Then you decide if what you've found makes sense and seems credible. Then you weigh the evidence some more. Then, once your deliberation is done you arrive at a conclusion and you state your reasons for subscribing to that belief.

That's how Conservatives usually go about it.

What you seem to do is to let your emotions guide you to a belief. Then you scramble around looking for ways to justify your often irrational, nonsensical or just plain dumb headed or incorrect decisions.

The fact that you'd post as you have here shows your failings, clearly.

 

That was 2000.


In late 2002 Saddam Hussein, in a letter to Hans Blix, invited UN weapons inspectors back into the country. Subsequently the Security Council issued resolution 1441 authorizing new inspections in Iraq. The carefully worded UN resolution put the burden on Iraq, not UN inspectors, to prove that they no longer had weapons of mass destruction. The United States claimed that Iraq's latest weapons declaration left materials and munitions unaccounted for; the Iraqis claimed that all such material had been destroyed, something which had been stated years earlier by Iraq's highest ranking defector, Hussein Kamel al-Majid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

 

Of course, it also helps if you read your entire reference:

Of course, once again people try to claim "No chemical weapons were found". And you consistently ignore the other proscribed weapons that were declared by the UN as "Weapons of Mass Destruction", specifically the Al-Samoud 2 (which the UN outlawed, Iraq claimed it destroyed them all in compliance, yet still had around 50 of them (many of which it fired at coalition troops) in 2003.

Believing anything Saddam said is like believing anything Hitler said.

 

They weren't restricted in the end.

Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said in January 2003 that "access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect" and Iraq had "cooperated rather well" in that regard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The UN inspectors were given free reign in Iraq, including the presidential palace, and made hundreds of unannounced, spot inspections throughout the country, and did not find the WMD the Bush administration claimed Iraq had.

 

Evidence, like the complete absence of WMDs in Iraq, Saddam Hussein claiming to have no WMDs and Pentagon sources telling Knight-Ridder that they had no evidence that there were any WMDs in Iraq, before the invasion?

No emotion, they give you the talking points and you rebleat them...

I did that, and I arrived at the conclusion that you are a hopeless tool of the right wing noise machine.

That's why conservatives have serious questions about Obama's place of birth, they have grave doubts about global warming, and they have been predicting that the US will experience massive hyperinflation in the near future for the last 5 years.

You talking to the mirror?

First of all, there were no WMDs in Iraq, that has been established in the real world, do you accept that ?
Second, Saddam insisted all WMDs had been destroyed, and gave the UN weapons inspectors free run of the country, do you accept that?
Third, Knight-Ridder's Penatgon sources told them, before the invasion that the Pentagon knew of no WMDs in Iraq, do you dispute that?

 

The issue here is not whether Hussein was believable (why believe him when he said he had them?) but whether Iraq in fact denied having them. None of what you posted contradicts the main point that the Iraqis, in the end, did not claim to have WMD as you asserted, but claimed they had destroyed it.

As to the irrelevant comments in your post, the Bush administration did not argue we needed to invade Iraq because of 500 munitions of degraded chemicals. That was not the kind of WMDs that Bush claimed made Iraq an "urgent threat" to US security, justifying the invasion.

 

I did not say that Iraq claimed to have WMDs. I in fact say the opposite, that they claimed to have none.

Which was a lie, which shows what their credibility was to the rest of the world.

 

So what are you arguing with me about when I argued the exact same thing.

WMD = "Weapons of Mass Destruction", not "Weapons, Moldy and in Disrepair"

 

There was one usable artillery shell found in a cabinet in the chemistry department of Baghdad University, it had been sent there for testing in the 1980's and had been misplaced. There were 13 usable artillery shells that had been turned over to the UN, but fell into the hands of resistance forces.
There were 500 degraded shells dug up from disposal sites from the Iraq-Iran war.
There was no WMD capability in Iraq. just life's losers

 

And it was not just WMDs, it was for multiple violations of multiple UN Resolutions. Including UNSCR 1441.

 

And no Al-Samoud 2 missiles.
And no bunkers of weapons turned over by the new Iraqi Government in 2009.
Funny, how this argument keeps changing. "There were no WMDs in Iraq! Oh, other then those, but those do not count!"

There should have been none.
He repeatedly violated multiple UNSCR resolutions.
He fired proscribed weapons in 2003.

Funny how the butcher murderer lovers continue to try and justify his actions and evasion. I wonder how many that scream the innocence of Saddam also scream about the lies of the Holocaust. Because I consistently find the same kind of denials in that camp as well.

 

How so?

 

http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf

 

There were no WMDs, it's not a game, "Oh, I found a mortar shell from 1980, with traces of Sarin, so it was all worth it"
The war was because Saddam had a nuclear program that was months away from a bomb, because he had thousands of chemical weapons stockpiled and ready for use, it wasn't because there was some degraded mortar shells that had been buried in 1983 that could be dug up.

What exactly could have been done with the "WMDs" that they found?

 

For the life of me, the only reason I can think of to explain why SO DAMN MANY Bush bashers can not wrap their brains around the idea of why Bush couldn't leave the matter of Saddam possibly having WMD's to chance is that they were too young in 2003 to comprehend ANY complex circumstances that adults must often face.

So to their simple brains it was just "Bush = bad. Why? No WMD's."

And why do they persist in being unable to understand this sensible reasoning on the President's part?

Because liberals are wired to FEEL, not think.

And as stupid as they can appear, it's obviously more important that they FEEL they are doing the right thing.

So, they make that asinine argument, "but there weren't any WMD's found" and just look stupid.

Or, maybe they really are dense.

In which case, I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't know you were born that way.

 

There weren't any WMDs in Iraq, and the evidence suggests that the US knew it.
That means Bush had 4,486 US soldiers killed and another 100,000 ruined for life, for something other than WMDs.
The Pentagon told Knight Ridder that they had no idea what WMDs Bush was talking about, the Pentagon didn't have any evidence of WMDs.
Cheney lied about Mobile Bio-Warfare labs, for like six weeks after it was clear the "Mobile Bio-Warfare" trailers were hydrogen generators.
Clearly, lying was his job, he continued to do it after all but the most severely delusional realized he was lying.

Curveball told a lot of lies, and that is the primary source that Bush uses to excuse his war crimes, but most of what Curveball had told the CIA had been checked out, and everything that was checked out was clearly lies.
I understand you believe Bush, you have demonstrated your complete devotion to the cult, you will not let facts interfere with your thinking.

 

On CBS's TV newsmagazine, 60 Minutes, host Scott Pelley interviewed George Piro, who was Saddam's FBI interrogator. In the following passage cited here for you, Piro clearly states that Saddam DID try to mislead the world into believing he had WMD's.

And he reveals why.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-3749494.html?pageNum=4

Therefore you are going to have to give W the benefit of the doubt or else keep plugging away with that outdated evidence you have which convinces no one and impresses no one except maybe cousin, Gomer.

 

And so your theory is that Bush was right to consider the implications of Saddams 2000 speech, and ignore everything that had happened in the next 3 years.
You think Bush was right to ignore all the known facts, and go by an old speech.
Not surprising, that's what you do.

 

If all you got from the passage I posted SPECIFICALLY for you was the speech Saddam gave in the year 2000, one wonders how you manage to make heads or tails of anything.

Saddam had to maintain the false illusion that he had WMD's throughout the entire period leading up to our invasion because he ddn't want the Iranians to attack him.

That means he maintained this bluff in 2000 and in 2001 and in 2002 and even in 2003!

He bluffed so well that NONE of the world's best intelligence services knew for sure whether he had WMD's or not.

If he DIDN'T have any WMD's we would not have any reason to try to protect our ally, Israel. And Israel wouldn't have had to worry about an existential attack. And they wouldn't have had to contemplate a preventative strike on Iraq.

If Saddam DID have WMD's we had to keep Israel from going up in smoke from a nuclear missile. And if we hadn't invaded Iraq the Israeli's would have been forced to protect themselves by launching a pre-emptive strike on Saddam's forces before they could nuke Tel Aviv. But if Israel attacked Iraq (especially if it apeared to be without provocation) the entire Middle East and maybe all of Islam could have erupted in violence, involving the whole world, including US.

Therefore, we had to determine whether Saddam was bluffing or if he really did have WMD's.

Yet, after many months of investigating no one knew for sure if Saddam had WMD's or not.

Therefore, the ONLY responsible course to take was to launch an invasion.

So, you should thank GWB for keeping you from being drafted to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan or even on the streets of the town where you live.

Do you get it now?

 

You are being willfully delusional, ignoring the facts to maintain your fantasy.

You ignore the fact is that Iraq had no WMDs. So there were no sightings, there were no traces, there was no technical information that could be gathered to suggest that Iraq had WMDs.
We spend billions every year on the CIA, the CIA supposedly justifies this largess by bringing back information from areas where it's difficult to get information.
The CIA sent agents into Iraq, and they all returned and reported that the WMD programs had been dismantled.
The Curveball information had been passed on to the UN weapons inspectors and the UN Weapons inspectors had visited the sites that Curveball had called Chemical Weapons production facilities, and had found that the sites were not chemical weapons production facilities. Curveball was a liar, and that was known.
The aluminum tubes had been debunked, the yellowcake from Niger had been debunked.
There had been no reliable report of an Iraqi WMD since the 1990's.
By 2003, it should have been clear to anyone who had access to all the data that Iraq had dismantled it's WMD programs.
If it wasn't, the UN Weapons inspectors had free run of the country, and they were 6 months away from completing their mission, and they had found nothing.

 

You just can't seem to be able to grasp the main point here which is that until we invaded and searched for the WMD's, and found none in any serious quantities, that Pres. Bush had to assume there were WMD'S.

When you get to that understanding let me know. Until then, I'll be busy walking my cat.

 

Specifically what was violated?