WMD in Iraq

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

JusttheFacts,

I read your post.

First of all, I’d like you to ask your doctor for some testosterone injections.

Then look up West Side Training.

Start it.

Then take five months off the forum.

Eat and train. Eat and train.

The only thing in that article that I find REMOTELY disturbing, is the allegation that the intelligence was “fixed.”

That I view as serious.

That’s exactly the charge you and the rest of the 150 pounders have been trying to lay at his door from day one.

Produce facts on that one.

You are more than willing to deny the existence of WMD in Iraq (especially troubling considering saddam’s history). However, you are right there throwing charges in the face of the U.S. President.

Let me tell you this in no uncertain terms:

OF COURSE THEY WERE GAME PLANNING TO INVADE IRAQ. They made it quite clear that regime change was their goal.

Did anyone here seriously think that the military option hadn’t been discussed in detail throughout the period between the end of Gulf War I and 2003?

The SOB was firing on our planes!!! He tried to assassinate #41!!! He was harboring Zarqawi!!!

When Bush was talking in the days after 9/11 about “regimes that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves” DID ANYONE SERIOUSLY DOUBT HIS FOCUS WAS IRAQ?

I know, I know, hussein was a nice man who didn’t have a pattern of megalomania and the usual pattern of “seize thy neighbor.” He wouldn’t have done anything wrong!!! It was just a frantic twelve year RUSH TO WAR!!!

Didn’t POX just say that we didn’t have a “game plan” for going into Iraq?
Had the military operation gone less smoothly, I can hear you crying about the “lack of military planning.” Now the liberal battle cry is: “Hey we didn’t plan for the peace.”

So which is it? Did they overplan or underplan? Please try to keep your “parisian” rhetoric consistent.

Let me know how your training goes. I hope it progresses better than your political science “understanding.”

Have a wonderful day!!!

JeffR

P.S. I told you I reserve the right to be a prick!!!

42

JeffR,

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Makkun,

I wanted to respond to your last paragraph.

“Which deductions can we take from this? Well, the obvious one is that intelligence on Iraq was not good - to bad it was part of the argument for war.”

Well stated and I agree.

“The other one might be - and I would leave that open for discussion - that the UN sanctions (in spite of the OFF misuse) actually did work.”

As it stated in the Duefler report, prior to OFF, the Iraqi economy was on the way to collapse. After 1995/96, the OFF breathed new finances and life into the regime. It goes on to state that key areas of WMD research/devlopment received money. That includes upping finances of said scientists.

I would go as far as saying that the sanctions were working until OFF and the joke it became. Further, the lack of sustained political will from this and other countries to effectively contain Saddam, led to these sanctions becoming a joke.

Further you can read the line in the report that as of “1999, Saddam was in striking distance of getting sanctions removed.”

Many of us fear that that is exactly what would have happened had George and friends had not internvened.[/quote]

Yeah, but couldn’t they just have kept up the sanctions? The report clearly states that Saddam had no WMD, only the vision (not even proper plans) to get his programmes started again, when/if the sanctions were gone. That completely rules the WMD argument for the war out.[quote]

The report points unambigously to what would have happened had this happend.[/quote]

Yes, but according to the report, it didn’t happen. So it makes the WMD reason to go to war a clear mistake.

Yes, but due to the Duelfer report he neither had the means nor concrete plans to do that. If I, for once, accept the historic Hitler comparison, it makes him a wannabe mini-Hitler at best, wanting to raise another dangerous army despite the fact that he just couldn’t do it. All other possible reasons aside - the WMD one is definitely out after the Duelfer report.

Makkun

43

Whoa, Jerffy pulls out the big guns. Go hit the gym. Bahahahahaha. What a buffoon.

44

[quote]JeffR wrote:
It’s important that Howard, Blair, and Bush won re-election.

Damn, twice in two days!!!

JeffR[/quote]

Yeah, but look how much he got his ass whipped for Iraq:

"Remarkable achievement as this was, Mr Blair’s parliamentary majority was slashed to an expected 66 seats (one constituency had still to declare its result on Monday) in a House of Commons of 646 seats?from a 165-seat margin at the 2001 election. At around 36%, Labour’s expected share of the national vote is the smallest to provide a parliamentary majority in Britain’s democratic history. The slimmer majority will mean that the next Parliament, which Mr Blair insists will be his last as prime minister, could be more of a struggle for the government than the last two. The slump in Labour’s majority prompted some malcontents on the party’s parliamentary bench to call for Mr Blair to step down sooner rather than later.

Mr Blair clinched victory despite accusations from his opponents that he lied to the British public over Saddam Hussein?s supposed weapons of mass destruction, to justify sending troops to Iraq in 2003. In the closing stages of the election campaign, the issue was given fresh life by the leaking of the attorney-general?s advice to the government on the eve of the war, which seemed to express doubts about its legality. In election week, the widow of the most recent British soldier to die in Iraq blamed the prime minister for her husband?s death. The father of another soldier killed in Iraq stood against Mr Blair in his constituency in north-east England."

It’s pretty clear - at least in the UK - that he mostly lost these seats for his Iraq adventure. Losing 99 seats - that hurts. He just got off, as there is no real alternative.

Makkun

45

[quote]Professor X wrote:
JeffR wrote:
John,

Thanks for taking the time to read the link.

I appreciate that.

JeffR

I do believe this is my first “LOL”, but goodness, does it fit. Ok, now that we have all read this informative essay, what was the point? That burned computers during a bunch of explosions, DURING A WAR with nothing in them are evidence of…what?

May Johnnie Cochran rest in peace, but if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit. I must admit though, it was great just to repeat that there were no weapons of mass destruction.[/quote]

Because we root for our country to be wrong, to be publicly humiliated!

46

[quote]vroom wrote:
Whoa, Jerffy pulls out the big guns. Go hit the gym. Bahahahahaha. What a buffoon.[/quote]

Have to be careful with that stuff. You posted pics. It sounds like a reasonable criticism.

47

Cream, I know I am one of your favorites, but two or three points…

  1. The Jerfster was not referring to me.
  2. Hitting the gym does not preclude voicing an opinion.
  3. Progress takes time, which any serious lifter knows.

Thanks for your usual brilliant insights though.

48

So if he could get up his lifting total, he would share your(obviously correct) political views?

Perhaps we should give up the whole electoral process and use the bench press instead to pick our leaders.

49

JeffR… just another Bushie in denial face it dude the administration fucked up when it came to WMD! The whole Bush presidency was best put by Chappelle as President Black Bush. M-A-R-S Mars Bitches!

50

Makkun wrote:

“Yeah, but couldn’t they just have kept up the sanctions? The report clearly states that Saddam had no WMD, only the vision (not even proper plans) to get his programmes started again, when/if the sanctions were gone. That completely rules the WMD argument for the war out.”

I think you know (and I have pointed out) that the sanctions appear to have been effective up to the middle of the 90’s.

Here from Duefler:

“Iraq?s CW program was crippled by the Gulf war and the legitimate chemical industry, which suffered under sanctions, only began to recover in the mid-1990s. Subsequent changes in the management of key military and civilian organizations, followed by an influx of funding and resources, provided Iraq with the ability to reinvigorate its industrial base.”

Further:

“The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals,”

More? Of course:

“Iraq?s chemical industry surged in the late 1990s, when more financial resources became available to the Regime. Although Iraq still lagged behind its pre?Gulf war capabilities, it was able to divert a portion of its revenue to purchase new plants and renovate existing ones to renew its basic chemical industry.”

“Yes, but according to the report, it didn’t happen. So it makes the WMD reason to go to war a clear mistake.”

It does no such thing.

From Duefler:

“ISG judges, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months.”

Further:

“In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dual-use process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.”

“Yes, but due to the Duelfer report he neither had the means nor concrete plans to do that. If I, for once, accept the historic Hitler comparison, it makes him a wannabe mini-Hitler at best, wanting to raise another dangerous army despite the fact that he just couldn’t do it. All other possible reasons aside - the WMD one is definitely out after the Duelfer report.”

Forgive me if I’m piling on (you know that I love you!!!)

From Duefler:

"we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted. All sources suggest that Saddam encouraged compartmentalization and would have discussed something as sensitive as WMD with as few people as possible.

Huwaysh claimed that in 1999 Saddam asked how long it would take to build a production line for CW agents. Huwaysh tasked four officials to investigate, and they responded that experts could readily prepare a production line for mustard within six months. VX and Sarin production were more complicated and would take longer. Huwaysh relayed this answer to Saddam, who never requested follow-up information. An Iraqi CW expert separately estimated Iraq would require only a few days to start producing mustard?if it were prepared to sacrifice the production equipment."

I know that some people aren’t as responsible as Makkun. They read the beginning and end of my posts.

Let me summarize:

Duefler clearly states that the intent to mass produce WMD was always in the cards.

The report states in unambigious terms, that Saddam was in material breach of UN resolutions on multiple levels.

The lack of effectiveness of sanctions and the joke that was OFF allowed him to pour money back into weapons.

As you can see, Saddam retained his expertise, had started reconstituting his WMD base (plants/scientists/importing weapon systems etc…)

My Anti-George Bush friends are entitled to their opinions.

However, it seems very obvious that this guy was a “clear and gathering threat to the region.”

Saddam’s past actions (I found an entire page detailing use of chemical agents) and his circumventing of UN resolutions make it quite clear that blood and terror were in the cards for the future.

W., Blair, Howard and others made the right call.

JeffR

51

Hey JeffR,

Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Powell, Rice have all acknowledged that there were no WMDs.

Get over it.

52

Soco wrote:
"So if he could get up his lifting total, he would share your(obviously correct) political views?

Perhaps we should give up the whole electoral process and use the bench press instead to pick our leaders."

Great post!!! If he lifted more weights, he would be less likely to be picked on. When he didn’t have to worry about being pushed around, he’d have more energy to devote to his thinking beyond CNN headlines.

Then, he’d be on his way to a more thorough understanding of the issues.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

P.S. The bench press is, at best, a questionable marker of total body strength (if you lifted, this would be obvious).

53

Buck Nasty wrote:
“JeffR… just another Bushie in denial face it dude the administration fucked up when it came to WMD! The whole Bush presidency was best put by Chappelle as President Black Bush. M-A-R-S Mars Bitches!”

Wonderful post!!! I appreciate the variety.

Actually, the intelligence failed W. in the quantity of WMD uncovered.

I’ll give Chappelle a call.

Jeff “Loves me a good Bush” R

54

“A total of 97 vials-including those with labels consistent with the al Hakam cover stories of single-cell protein and biopesticides, as well as strains that could be used to produce BW agents-were recovered from a scientist’s residence.”

Consistent with the cover story? woa there’s some spin.

My old roommate is a biotechnology student and has better WMD capabilities then this–she doesn’t even get good grades. There are only a hand full of techniques for reproducing bio-agents–be them bio-weapons or bio-herbicides.

I think even the most die-hard liberals amongst us (i.e. me) will agree, Sadam was a bad man who would have loved to terrorize his neighbors (and the world) with WMDs. But there is no evidence of successful creation of WMDs–sanctions and inspections were working and successfully stopping his regime from creating them.

The “bad intelligence” was most likely because the Bush government wanted regime change and used WMDs as an excuse. I have no idea what the real reason was–I hope it wasn’t because they actually believed the “bad intelligence”. I find that creepier then them just plain lying about the reason (assuming it was oil, or wanting a base of power in the middle east, or to distract from their inability to locate Osam Bin Ladden).

The worst part of the war in Iraq is that the reason for it–WMDs–is so flimsy, while just a few years ago an invasion into Iraq to try and stop the Kurdish genocides could have been justified in Humanitarian terms: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/#Anfal

Dustin.

55

Right Side Up(ILOVEGEORGEWBUSH1) wrote:
"Hey JeffR,

Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Powell, Rice have all acknowledged that there were no WMDs.

Get over it."

Hate to (actually, I love) correct you here, but they said no such thing. They said we haven’t found large stockpiles of WMD.

Please read what they actually said.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

56

Dustinw wrote:
“A total of 97 vials-including those with labels consistent with the al Hakam cover stories of single-cell protein and biopesticides, as well as strains that could be used to produce BW agents-were recovered from a scientist’s residence.”

Consistent with the cover story? woa there’s some spin.

“My old roommate is a biotechnology student and has better WMD capabilities then this–she doesn’t even get good grades.”

I doubt it. Reasonable people will conclude that a former Biological Warfare scientist with Biological agents at his home is suspicious. Especially, when you consider what Saddam told such scientists.

See my previous posts.

“There are only a hand full of techniques for reproducing bio-agents–be them bio-weapons or bio-herbicides.”

The point being?

“I think even the most die-hard liberals amongst us (i.e. me) will agree, Sadam was a bad man who would have loved to terrorize his neighbors (and the world) with WMDs. But there is no evidence of successful creation of WMDs–sanctions and inspections were working and successfully stopping his regime from creating them.”

They were. Until 1995-1996. Please read Duefler. If you won’t, then I have recently posted sections for you to peruse.

“The “bad intelligence” was most likely because the Bush government wanted regime change and used WMDs as an excuse.”

Along with breaking UN sanctions, murdering his own people, repeatedly firing on our planes, arming and harboring terrorists, attempting to assassinate George H.W. Bush (by the way, anyone else think it’s not an act of overt war when they try to assassinate our leaders?) and on and on and freakin’ on.

Please see 2002 speeches by W.

“I have no idea what the real reason was–I hope it wasn’t because they actually believed the “bad intelligence”.”

If you are pulling the old “George invaded so that Halliburton could enrich Cheney” save your breath.

Or if you are trying to say the intelligence was “doctored,” produce some proof. The defeated and dispirited Democrats would pay you handsomely for said information!!!

Oh, and you’d have to prove that all the major intelligence agencies around the world were under the thumb of W. and he was able to “doctor” their information.

“I find that creepier then them just plain lying about the reason (assuming it was oil, or wanting a base of power in the middle east, or to distract from their inability to locate Osam Bin Ladden).”

I would too if it wasn’t hogwash.

“The worst part of the war in Iraq is that the reason for it–WMDs–is so flimsy,”

Wrong. Oh, you’d fit right in with the ABB crowd here in the U.S.

Are you unable to absorb the multiple reasons to invade?

Or is one all that you can comprehend?

“while just a few years ago an invasion into Iraq to try and stop the Kurdish genocides could have been justified in Humanitarian terms:
Dustin.”

Sorry to break it to you, but that wasn’t under W’s watch.

Oh, it would be hard to say that mass murder wasn’t occuring in 2002 and 2003.

Please see torture chambers and mass graves.

I’m sorry, do Kurdish deaths give the only “humanitarian” reason for invasion?

In summary, multiple reasons to invade Iraq. To people who don’t have their “I hate W” blinders on, these reasons are obvious.

Said invasion has borne out said reasons (minus K-mart size storehouses of clearly marked stockpiles of WMD).

Thanks!!!

JeffR

57

Now Jerffy, this one is not true. I specifically remember other countries expressing doubt about the interpretation of the intelligence being offered.

58

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Great post!!! If he lifted more weights, he would be less likely to be picked on. When he didn’t have to worry about being pushed around, he’d have more energy to devote to his thinking beyond CNN headlines.

Then, he’d be on his way to a more thorough understanding of the issues.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

P.S. The bench press is, at best, a questionable marker of total body strength (if you lifted, this would be obvious).
[/quote]

Not sure if I am quite following you.

If he wasn’t so worried about being picked on he would have less time to spend reading CNN headlines?

Hmmmm…while I have heard of numerous coping mechanisms to bullying before, reading CNN headlines isn’t one of them.

You aren’t really one to criticize over having too much time on their hands. You are the one reading through every report on the web relating to WMD’s.

59

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Buck Nasty wrote:
“JeffR… just another Bushie in denial face it dude the administration fucked up when it came to WMD! The whole Bush presidency was best put by Chappelle as President Black Bush. M-A-R-S Mars Bitches!”

Wonderful post!!! I appreciate the variety.

Actually, the intelligence failed W. in the quantity of WMD uncovered.

I’ll give Chappelle a call.

Jeff “Loves me a good Bush” R

[/quote]

So now the intelligence failed W. in the “QUANTITY” of WMD uncovered! Jeff you are grasping at straws! You believe what you want to believe but I’ll bet you still believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus too!

60

“I’ll bet you still believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus too!”

I do.

JeffR