Saddam’s WMDs: The Left’s Iraq Lies Exposed

We should have enjoined the Commerce Clause. There was no reason to simply aid and abet any "entitlement" mentality of the wealthiest in the US.

 

Don't tell the wingnuts that.

Even Bush admitted it. But it's not good enough for the looney right wingers.

 

But they might have had WMDs in an alternate universe. And if a wormhole had opened up between the universes Saddam might have obtained the weapons so a preventative war was clearly necessary.

 

Out of context and selective reporting.

"But Dr Kay was not saying Saddam was therefore no threat on the WMD front. On the contrary, not only did he say it was possible that smaller WMD stockpiles remained hidden in Iraq, but that 'right up to the end' the Iraqis were trying to produce the deadly poison ricin. 'They were mostly researching better methods for weaponisation', he said.

Not only that, Saddam had re-started a rudimentary nuclear programme. And he had also maintained an active ballistic missile programme that was receiving significant foreign assistance until the start of the war.

Such revelations corresponded with Dr Kay's interim report last autumn, which detailed 'dozens of WMD-related programme activities' which had been successfully concealed from Dr Hans Blix's UN inspectors. These included a clandestine network of laboratories containing equipment suitable for chemical and biological weapons research, and new research on the biological agents Brucella and Congo Crimean Haemorrhagic Fever. And a scientist who had hidden a phial of live botulinum in his house had identified 'a large cache of agents that he was asked but refused to conceal' and for which the ISG was now searching.

This all suggested, said Dr Kay, that after 1996 Saddam had focused on 'smaller covert capabilities that could be activated quickly' to produce biological weapons agents. And last week, he told this paper that he had discovered from interrogating Iraqi scientists that before the war Saddam had hidden WMD programme components in Syria.

So according to Dr Kay, Saddam had posed a very live threat indeed from WMD. Yet this evidence has been almost totally disregarded, as an almost unanimous chorus of journalists has asserted that Dr Kay said Iraq had no WMD.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/the-selective-reporting-of-dr-david-kay



Go back and read the OP. And again we never found out exactly what happened to the WMD UNSCOM had cataloged for destruction, they were never accounted for and there was certainly every reason to believe he had usable WMD in 2003. The ones Blix was looking for.

And again you ignore the fact that the threat he posed did not begin and end with only those WMD. Quote Dr. Kay stating that Saddam was not a WMD threat that there were no ongoing programs, that there were no proscribed items and there was no evidence of Saddam's intent to rearm himself with WMD.

Then go back and address the points I have made such as the organphosphate cache's and what we found in the documents which Kay had no knowledge of at the time.

- - - Updated - - -

There was no might about it, it is indisputable that not only did Saddam have hidden cache's of the chemical precursors and biological agents he needed to rearm his WMD, he was actively researching new ways to weaponize them.

 

What Bush said no matter how you try to frame does not mitigate what we found after Saddam was removed and what I have fully documented here.

Where did you get the idea that the threat he posed began and ended with the relatively small amount of WMD, could have fit in an olympic size pool, UNSCOM was looking for? Do you really believe that had Blix found the hidden bunker with all the WMD they had been looking and blew it up the threat Saddam posed would have been over? Sanctions and inspection could have ended and he would have been a good little boy from now on never threatening anyone again?

 

It is amazing that even the dumbest president in the history of the United States has figured out that there were no WMDs and yet his supporters soldier on with imaginary evidence about precursors and imaginary research projects and hidden bunkers.

My advice would be just go directly to asserting that Saddam had precursor atoms that could someday have been combined to make WMDs and thus threaten the security of the US.

 

funny, bush knew about this old dismantled stash before he went in, but never thought it worth cleaning up in ALL THOSE YEARS... but now all of a sudden the right is gonna call them WMD? do I have that about right?

doesn't seem Bush thought those were WMD or they would not be there today...

admit it, Saddam was a big mouthed nobody that when push came to shove he hid in a hole in the ground


.

 

Your hyperbole about Bush only feeds those that have concluded that the left has no interest in reasonable discussion, but only disparagement of those they disagree with. No reasonable person considers a person dumb that gets elected twice. And this counts for those who would call Obama dumb as well. Both have done some really dumb things, but I hardly consider either of them dumb/stupid.

I posted in another thread about this subject about a dozen quotes from democrats that also believed Saddam had WMD, and many of these quotes before Bush even became president. 81 house democrats voted FOR the “Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq”. 29 senate democrats voted for it. So, by your standard, there are an awful lot of dumb democrats.

Either the intel was severely flawed or Saddam managed to hide them. According to a 60 Minutes segment, Saddam has admitted to his interrogator that he purposely deceived the world that he had stockpiles of WMD in order to keep Iran abated.

People are going to believe what they want, typically not based on any sort of facts, but more based on their ideology and a desire to see the opposition as wrong and ‘stupid’.

 

Anybody in possession of a modicum of intelligence was well aware that Iraq was a broken country as late as 1999 following Gulf War 1 and the implementation of UN sanctions. Expert analyists on the ground such as Scott Ritter and others were telling us in 1998/99 that Saddam's threat had been neutralized and that the policy of sanctions had worked. This was later reiterated by people like Powell and Rice in on the record public statements prior to 9-11. It was only after 9-11 that their statements began to shift. Here is Powell and Rice putting the lie to their own propaganda:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ

 

Nothing imaginary about what we found, refute it. And Bush was talking about the WMD UNSCOM had said he had but they could not find. As cite even Dr. Kay said he probably had small hidden stocks that the inspectors would never have found.

Again where do you get the idea that the WMD threat he posed began and ended with just those WMD that Blix was looking for?

 

What was the rush to do so once under our and the new Iraq government control and they belonged to IRAQ not the US.

Nothing sudden about it they were always WMD. So what about the claims there were NO WMD AT ALL?

Yes after he was removed, but admit it a Saddam free from sanctions and inspections would have quickly rearmed using the hidden proscribed materials and once again posed a WMD threat. That is fully documented. And we could not allow that to happen.

 

Scott Ritter who went to work for Saddam? Spare me.

Anybody in possession of a modicum of intelligence and not ignorant of the matter was well aware Saddam was bribing the UN and other countries to get the sanctions lifted and the inspections halted and was using the money from the oil for food program to gain the materials he needed to rearm his WMD arsenal and already had hidden from inspectors all he needed to rearm his chemical and biological stocks within a matter of weeks. We could not allow that to happen.

And if you are going to claim Powell and Rice were lying then add Hillary to your list.

You can skip to about 6:15 to get to her statement

[video=youtube;HtK9AzcU42g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g[/video]

 

It's not just the American left citing the failure to find WMD, but the Old Right (paleoconservatives) and libertarians as well. So, ISIS (who was trained and funded by the U.S. government in Jordan to fight Assad) was able to do what Bush and Cheney couldn't. We know how the rest of the war in Iraq went. Thousands of our soldiers died, many more maimed, dead civilians, almost two trillion dollars spent just on the war alone and not included the costs of after effects, a regime providing stability and keeping Iran in check replaced with a Shia government friendly toward Iran and Iraq ends up in utter chaos. But, at least Cheney made money.

 

I came close to liking this post other than the "GD" and assigning this to the rightwing. There are many conservatives who do not pull the neocon party line of the G.O.P. Bush and Cheney were not conservatives and certainly not right wing.

 

I'm not CLAIMING Powell and Rice lied. The words uttered from their OWN mouths, as the clip shows, PROVE it. The rest of your post is equally as idiotic and not worthy of further comment.

 

Yes you are claiming they lied.

How does it prove the LIED. By that measure Hillary LIED as did Al Gore as did Bill Clinton and a host of other Democrats.

White flag noted

"Anybody in possession of a modicum of intelligence and not ignorant of the matter was well aware Saddam was bribing the UN and other countries to get the sanctions lifted and the inspections halted and was using the money from the oil for food program to gain the materials he needed to rearm his WMD arsenal and already had hidden from inspectors all he needed to rearm his chemical and biological stocks within a matter of weeks. We could not allow that to happen."

That is fact, now you tell me your plan to deal with Saddam after the sanctions were lifted the inspections ended and him left to his own devices with all the materials necessary to rearm himself.

 

Like what, the country was secured and those weapons were secured and owned by the Iraqi's.

The war WITH Iraq or the war with al Qaeda in Iraq? We won both.

Actually a little less than a trillion to fight both wars, so what was the limit we were going to spend to fight al Qaeda, at what amount were we supposed to give up?

How did Cheney make money?

 

OK in 1998 Saddam kicked out the inspectors and refused to cooperate and disarm, by 2002 he was bribing the UN and several other countries and would shortly have the sanctions lifted and would be able to rearm using all the hidden proscribe materials he had cache'd away. His illegal missile program was far more advanced that we had anticipated and his weaponization of ricin was more advanced than we had imagined. And as our intelligence had postulation he was building ties with terrorist groups pledged to attack western states.

What was your plan to deal with him?

 

yeah right, Bush would of had a photo op, wmd found ... blah blah blah, nice try though

 

Actually no, just as when Saddam was caught he didn't go around bragging about it like Obama did with OBL.

That being said do you have anything of substance to add here? What about the claims there were no WMD AT ALL when in fact Saddam was in control of the factory and the over 1500 sarin shells along with other materials there?

 

This is one of the more interesting discussions I've seen here !

In my opinion , Saddam was trying to bribe his way clear of sanctions-and was having considerable success.

The Right and the Left in the USA knew this, and agreed he'd have to go ..... but -------it wasn't a neat little 3-4 day campaign this time, and The Beautiful People started feeling uneasy in their little tum-tums: almost stumbling over one another as the raced to say : " This wasn't what I wanted !"

That started a "Whine and Cheese Party" - cut the cheese, and whine about the smell---and lie like ever-loving rugs.

 

the inspectors were in Iraq, they found nothing, bush kicked them out and went to war anyways

that must of pissed the Bush admin off when Sadam gave in and let the inspectors in after congress gave bush the power to use force

needless to say, the bush demands were not real, he was gonna attack either way

.

 

Pesticides, precursors, and a few obsolete unusable shells was worth three thousand American lives and four trillion dollars? Even if you are willing to pretend what was found constituted WMDs ( even Bush doesn't ) they could not in any stretch of the imagination constitute a threat to anyone.

 

His building ties to terrorists pledged to attack western states turned out to be just as illusory as his WMDs.

 

- to get Iraq to comply with ceasefire terms
- to stop Iraq’s Inadvertence to UNSC resolutions
- to force Iraq to cease it’s violation of human rights
- to stop Iraq’s material breaches of UNSC resolutions
- to end Iraq’s WMD capability and aspirations
- to end repression of Iraq’s civilian population
- to force Iraq to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals
- to force Iraq to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
- to end Iraqi Support for terrorism
- to show America has the will to help allies and destroy foes
- to depose a regional threat take in Saddam that would have to be dealt with sooner or later
- to force action from SA to take care of it's radicals
- to pressure other regimes in the area not to provide passive or active support to Jihadists
- to position US troops in the region in force to enable that pressure
- to aid their global and NATO mission by placing a Strategic Air Support base in the area
- to support and help create an Arab democracy as an example to others