Al-Qaida Leader Captured

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Jeff, the Bush Administration’s public rationale for going into Iraq was NOT that there were a few scattered, “degraded” (according to the article you quoted) remnants of an old WMD program. They claimed that Iraq had a robust ongoing weapons program and might be less than a year away from having a deployable nuclear device – THESE are the claims for which no evidence has been found. Unfortunately, these are also claims that, if true, might have been worth going to war over.

Anyone who knows anything about what’s required to actually deploy chemical or biological weapons realizes that certain things that techinically qualify as WMDs don’t represent much of a threat to anyone – certainly not anyone in this country. The idea that there were a few hundred old mustard gas shells spread throughout various Iraqi ammo dumps has nothing to do with Iraq’s having a current, menacing WMD program.

42

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Bweep bweep!!

[/quote]

Why do you hate freedom Pookie? Saddam could of taken out London in 45 minutes!!! Yellow Cake! LET THEM EAT CAKE!!1!

43

[quote]WhiteCaesar wrote:
Jeff, the Bush Administration’s public rationale for going into Iraq was NOT that there were a few scattered, “degraded” (according to the article you quoted) remnants of an old WMD program. They claimed that Iraq had a robust ongoing weapons program and might be less than a year away from having a deployable nuclear device – THESE are the claims for which no evidence has been found. Unfortunately, these are also claims that, if true, might have been worth going to war over.

Anyone who knows anything about what’s required to actually deploy chemical or biological weapons realizes that certain things that techinically qualify as WMDs don’t represent much of a threat to anyone – certainly not anyone in this country. The idea that there were a few hundred old mustard gas shells spread throughout various Iraqi ammo dumps has nothing to do with Iraq’s having a current, menacing WMD program.

[/quote]

Hey WC,

I appreciate your post. I am fully aware that the amount of WMD that was suggested by the world’s intelligence community was not what was ultimately found.

However, I want you to answer me this question: If going to war for stockpiles was worth it, is it that different that the man obviously was intent on mass production of said stockpiles?

Seriously. Would it have been better to wait until they were stacked to the hilt with the weapons and then go in? Don’t you think it would have been MORE dangerous to the troops?

That is what I have a hard time understanding. Duefler was crystal clear that the dictator was pouring money into R and D. saddam was bypassing Oil for Food. Duefler makes it quite clear he was ready to restart mass production. Further, saddam was asking his scientists how long to reinstitute the weapons. You can read the transcripts.

Then start thinking about the situation in 2003. The world believed this man to be in possession of WMD. We had just been hit hard by a regime supporting al qaeda (again see the tapes).

What would your average dictator/American hater have taken from the fact that this guy (saddam) was being allowed his nefarious schemes?

Think about it.

You do seem like a reasonable person. However, if you’ve got the pookie, turbo, marmaprick syndrome, let me know. (aka not interested in an alternative viewpoint).

I’ll save my time.

Thanks.

JeffR

44

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Then start thinking about the situation in 2003. The world believed this man to be in possession of WMD. We had just been hit hard by a regime supporting al qaeda (again see the tapes).[/quote]

I think this is key.

Most folks who hate President Bush refuse to remember that just about everyone who had any intelligence on the matter at all believed that Saddam was a threat.

Fast forward a few years and they forget that important point.

45

[quote]ZEB wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Then start thinking about the situation in 2003. The world believed this man to be in possession of WMD. We had just been hit hard by a regime supporting al qaeda (again see the tapes).

I think this is key.

Most folks who hate President Bush refuse to remember that just about everyone who had any intelligence on the matter at all believed that Saddam was a threat.

Fast forward a few years and they forget that important point.[/quote]

Here we go again…

46

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
This is really great news.

However, we both know that there are folks who would rather shove a hot poker up their ass than give any credit to the war on terror.

<cue jlesk, JTF, and 100m>
[/quote]

How do we ‘fight’ terrorism? Can you not see the argument being made by these people who think the “War on Terror” is a joke? Killing or capturing someone does not end the actions’ of ideals. We must change the ideals–or at least recognize the ideals that need to be changed; however, it is extremely hard to change a person’s opinion about ideals especially when they’ve been brainwashed; just ask any prior military member or fundamentalist Christian.

Here is the definition of terrorism as provided by dictionary.com:

terrorism?noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

47

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Most folks who hate President Bush refuse to remember that just about everyone who had any intelligence on the matter at all believed that Saddam was a threat.[/quote]

Based mostly on “evidence” that was manufactured out of whole cloth by the Bush adminstration. So your “evidence” is that everyone believed that no U.S. President would lie to the entire world?

48

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey WC,

I appreciate your post. I am fully aware that the amount of WMD that was suggested by the world’s intelligence community was not what was ultimately found.

However, I want you to answer me this question: If going to war for stockpiles was worth it, is it that different that the man obviously was intent on mass production of said stockpiles?

Seriously. Would it have been better to wait until they were stacked to the hilt with the weapons and then go in? Don’t you think it would have been MORE dangerous to the troops?

That is what I have a hard time understanding. Duefler was crystal clear that the dictator was pouring money into R and D. saddam was bypassing Oil for Food. Duefler makes it quite clear he was ready to restart mass production. Further, saddam was asking his scientists how long to reinstitute the weapons. You can read the transcripts.

Then start thinking about the situation in 2003. The world believed this man to be in possession of WMD. We had just been hit hard by a regime supporting al qaeda (again see the tapes).

What would your average dictator/American hater have taken from the fact that this guy (saddam) was being allowed his nefarious schemes?

Think about it.

You do seem like a reasonable person. However, if you’ve got the pookie, turbo, marmaprick syndrome, let me know. (aka not interested in an alternative viewpoint).

I’ll save my time.

Thanks.

JeffR
[/quote]

Jeff, I understand that Saddam was a bad guy and that he may very well have wanted to restart his WMD program. The reason that this is so different than his actually having had the weapons is that we insisted he had them; that is, our governement disdained all doubters and rejected a great deal of contradictory intelligence and hammered home the idea that he had huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was closing in on a nuke. (Zeb, by the way, is right that many of the world’s intelligence agencies were wrong about the state of Iraq’s weapons programs, but he willfully ignores that the Bush Administration willfully ignored anything or anybody that contradicted its views of the situation.) It’s not much of a stretch to say that this contributed to the Iranians’ conclusion that the only way they could avoid invasion would be to develop their own nuclear program.

It is also not much of a stretch to say that this situation has hurt our credibility with our ALLIES, who might be less likely to support our next action – say, against Iran, who really does appear to have a serious WMD program.

I guess the other thing that so upsets me about this Iraq war is that I was screaming in late 2001 for us to invade Afghanistan with even a fraction of the force we brought to bear in Iraq. (I understand we didn’t have time for such a massive build-up, but we could have scrambled tens of thousands of troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, Germany, South Korea, etc.). I think it’s pretty shameful that we didn’t surround Tora Bora and wrap it up tight enough that nothing could get out alive and that Osama (or his body) wasn’t the one we pulled out of a spider hole.

I understand that Saddam probably wanted to hurt us (although I do think it’s important that he was far from being able to) and that sooner or later we would have had to deal with him; what I don’t understand was why we got so fixated on him before we finished dealing with the guys (Osama and friends) who DID hurt us and are trying to do it again.

49

[quote]tme wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Most folks who hate President Bush refuse to remember that just about everyone who had any intelligence on the matter at all believed that Saddam was a threat.

Based mostly on “evidence” that was manufactured out of whole cloth by the Bush adminstration. So your “evidence” is that everyone believed that no U.S. President would lie to the entire world?

Fast forward a few years and they forget that important point.

Yeah, pretty convenient how you folks forget that it was based on lies and falsified documents.

[/quote]

Honestly tme, I have not seen any evidence that President Bush was aware of any falsified information regarding wmd’s in Iraq. If you can point me to some credible information that would clearly point this out I would be more than happy to give it a read.

Do you have this information or is this just more high pitched screeching from the left?

50

[quote]100meters wrote:
The war in Iraq will have nothing to do with saving us from other attacks, just like it hasn’t helped our allies. To prevent the attacks that Iraq will(has) inspire will require LAW ENFORCEMENT.

[/quote]

We can arrest them when they blow up a building. That will stop them.

We know how well it worked out after the 1993 bombing of the WTC. Thank God we arrested all the terrorists and the WTC is standing tall today.

51

[quote]tme wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Most folks who hate President Bush refuse to remember that just about everyone who had any intelligence on the matter at all believed that Saddam was a threat.

Based mostly on “evidence” that was manufactured out of whole cloth by the Bush adminstration. So your “evidence” is that everyone believed that no U.S. President would lie to the entire world?
…

[/quote]

He must have a time machine because Clinton believed Saddam’s WMDs were a threat in the late 90’s.

52

[quote]ZEB wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Then start thinking about the situation in 2003. The world believed this man to be in possession of WMD. We had just been hit hard by a regime supporting al qaeda (again see the tapes).

I think this is key.

Most folks who hate President Bush refuse to remember that just about everyone who had any intelligence on the matter at all believed that Saddam was a threat.

Fast forward a few years and they forget that important point.

[/quote]

Which is different than such a threat to our security that we need to invade, and overthrow him to install a jeffersonian democracy with 135,000 troops without the president ever having known anything about what a sunni or shia is.

Even our military commanders were WTF? pre-invasion (and then sent a memo stating that Iraq would now be part of the GWOT).

53

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tme wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Most folks who hate President Bush refuse to remember that just about everyone who had any intelligence on the matter at all believed that Saddam was a threat.

Based mostly on “evidence” that was manufactured out of whole cloth by the Bush adminstration. So your “evidence” is that everyone believed that no U.S. President would lie to the entire world?
…

He must have a time machine because Clinton believed Saddam’s WMDs were a threat in the late 90’s.[/quote]

Clinton believed they were such a threat that he continued using no fly zones. That’s weird.

54

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey pookie,

You do realize that your response makes you look very silly.

Which part are you arguing about?

Before you answer: You can either search my responses. They are full of links.

Or you could google these keywords: Hoekstra + WMD, Duefler+restarting WMD, 500 WMD found in Iraq, “There’s much we don’t know about Iraq.”

If you can’t manage to do any research, please don’t respond.

Thanks!!!

JeffR[/quote]

Dear Jeffr:

"Fox News? Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra?s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are ?not the WMD?s for which this country went to war.?

They were wrong about wmd. They admit it. You can walk away…

55

[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey pookie,

You do realize that your response makes you look very silly.

Which part are you arguing about?

Before you answer: You can either search my responses. They are full of links.

Or you could google these keywords: Hoekstra + WMD, Duefler+restarting WMD, 500 WMD found in Iraq, “There’s much we don’t know about Iraq.”

If you can’t manage to do any research, please don’t respond.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

Dear Jeffr:

"Fox News? Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra?s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are ?not the WMD?s for which this country went to war.?

They were wrong about wmd. They admit it. You can walk away…[/quote]

Hey, lumpy.

Who was the Defense Department official?

Was he in the know?

If you know, please let me in on it.

JeffR

56

Hey lumpy,

I found where you got your quote.

www.thinkprogress.org.

Everyone go take a peek at lumpy’s “sources.”

I’m laughing!!!

If I ever hear one more comment about “faux news” from you, I’m going to post www.thinkprogress.org.

JeffR

57

I hate to do this to you, lumpy.

But, I have to.

Here is the June 29th, 2006 article from the Department of Defense website.

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 ? The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center’s commander said here today.
“These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes … they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,” Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

“Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent,” he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person’s lungs.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

While that’s reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. “We’re talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect,” he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It’s not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it’s still toxic.

“Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic,” he said. “Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal.”

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn’t believe Iraq is a “WMD-free zone.”

“I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions,” he said. “The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons.”

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.

Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.

There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center’s report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center’s report.

Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning.

Sorry, lumpy.

JeffR

58

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I hate to do this to you, lumpy.

But, I have to.

Here is the June 29th, 2006 article from the Department of Defense website.

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 ? The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center’s commander said here today.
“These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes … they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,” Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

“Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent,” he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person’s lungs.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

While that’s reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. “We’re talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect,” he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It’s not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it’s still toxic.

“Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic,” he said. “Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal.”

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn’t believe Iraq is a “WMD-free zone.”

“I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions,” he said. “The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons.”

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.

Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.

There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center’s report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center’s report.

Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning.

Sorry, lumpy.

JeffR[/quote]

Yes, this totally debunked what Jim Angle found out…I guess Thinkprogress should apologize…hey wait a minute this doesn’t effect the DOD statement at all: These weren’t the “WMD” we were looking for. (in other words, the made up ones the weapon inspectors couldn’t find).

Also Thinkprogress was the easiest place to get the quote, since FOX doesn’t really keep transcripts on it’s site, but here’s a video clip of Colmes(of all people) giving Santorum the jim angle smackdown.

Should I take your word on this, or the DOD’s? Hmmm… I wonder who knows more JeffR or DOD? Gee, this is tough…

nice try JeffR.

59

lumpy,

I got this from the Department of Defense.

Please look it up.

I have to admit, I feel bad taking advantage of you this way.

However, I’m still your friend.

JeffR

60

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy,

I got this from the Department of Defense.

Please look it up.

I have to admit, I feel bad taking advantage of you this way.

However, I’m still your friend.

JeffR[/quote]
I understand where you got it from.
It doesn’t change the fact that these aren’t the weapons we were looking for does it?