Kay Steps Down No Wmd Found

[KrustyKidd]

What's with you Lefties? Have I got to do your work for you ? Yet again?

Thanks for the Memories...

Damm! This is so well done that it puts tears in my eyes! Slightly biased though, I think the message is that Saddam shuld be in power because he was once an asset. I figure that once you stop being an asset then you should be canned.

Anyhow, drumroll please.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Rasputin,

Read "The Politics of Heroin", I forget the name of the author, because I read the book while on 'rent' from the library. Yes, indeed, the CIA peddles heroin. And cocaine. How else do you think the Pathan Tribesmen of Afghanistan paid for $75,000 stinger missiles? Hashis and opium. Also read "Soldiers of God" by Robert Kaplan. Not as telling as the first book I listed, but very ggod regardless. The main character focused on in Kaplan's book is one Abdul Haq, a 'freedom fighter' against the soviets. If you'll recall, he was the one the CIA/US gov't sent in at the beginning of the Afghan incursion, and poor Abdul Haq was captured and hung in Kabul.

[KrustyKidd]

And Oliver North. He was part of all this crap too right? Damm, they have some shady deals going on. It's like it takes evil to fight evil almost.

[Rasputin]

Hard to believe that the US sponsoring of bringing down the Soviet invasion of Afgh. is now fast forwarded to 2003 to include the current buying of opium !!

So let me understand this. The US invades Afgh. in 2001 and contrary to media nonsense conquers the place in 3 weeks and sets the cave dwellers running for their lives. There is a good chance contrary to CNN hysteria that Tiny Laden is as dead as the Islamic intention to conquer the world. [The CBC and CNN are upset about this, hoping that the US loses it war and we are all forced go to Mosques]. Those stupid Americans do this, not out of 9-11 or security concerns but so they can pay more money to heroin chiefs, buy them off and control the lucrative Afghan opium trade !! Let me finish the loop, the largest opium firm in the world is controlled by Cheney's former company Halliburton and is based in the Cayman Islands. Its operating chief is the cousin of Bush's wife and was last seen in Texas financing Enron !

Now i get it, thanks guys for informing me of the real reasons why the US is engaged in a war - it is not about oil, but opium and Bush's business connections !!!

And you wonder why I and others think that your ideas are idiotic ???

Me thinks that the conspiracy theorists have bought and imbibed the said heroin and are rather delirious. Maybe you should post your ideas on fantasy.com

[righturnonred]

As has been suspected all along, France and freinds' oppostion to the war was based not on high moral ground but rather on a high profit margin. Suprise, surprise.

As of now this breaking story has not appeared on any major network news site.

Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac

Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The oil ministry papers, described by the independent Baghdad newspaper al-Mada, are apparently authentic and will become the basis of an official investigation by the new Iraqi Governing Council, the Independent reported Wednesday.

"Oil runs thicker than blood," is how one former ambassador put his suspicions about the French motives for opposing action against Saddam.

Al-Mada's list cites a total of 46 individuals, companies and organizations inside and outside Iraq as receiving Saddam's oil bribes, including officials in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Sudan, China, Austria and France, as well as the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian Communist Party, India's Congress Party and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Whether or not WMDs are found is irrelivent. We thought he had them, Saddam played along, he needed to go regardless, and now he's gone. Good riddance. The region, and hence the US and the rest of the world are more secure with him out of the way. Libya has capitulated as a direct result of the US led war. Iran and Syria will follow as the pressure builds on them to reform.

The Arabs deserve and desperatly need democracy and freedom and it is insulting and ethnocentric to suggest that they are incapable of embracing such a universal concept.

[Rasputin]

Right, great post. This ties in nicely with other posts on here about the perfidy of the French-German-Russian and Sino positions. They were making billions not only from direct bribes, but from contracts, oil concessions, military hardware exports and service contracts of all varieties.

And they talked of peace !

Kay has come out and also stated that the French believed that WMD existed in Iraq. Between Chirac being bribed [Le Monde is convinced as well that he took money for his Paris Mayorial compaign from Hussein and don't forget it was Chirac who sold Hussein 4 Nuclear reactors - no doubt for kickbacks], Primakov being bribed [there are wire transfers substantiating this], and $21 billion of UNO money sitting in French banks, the world community should be outraged.

But will you read of all this in any Cdn media ? Outside of NP, probably not.

“We were almost all wrong,” said the inspector, David Kay, noting that intelligence services in France and Germany, both of which opposed the war, also were convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion.

But Kay told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that he found no evidence to suggest that the Bush administration influenced the intelligence community to inflate the assessment of Saddam’s arsenal as a pretext to go to war.

MSNBC Jan 28 2004

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear rightturnonred and Mr. Read, er, Rasputin,

So it seems that Iraq's great folly was to buy arms from France instead of the US? (not to mention trading exclusively in euros) No wonder they got labeled 'terroristic'. One used to be labelled 'red' if one didn't allow the US to rape one's country. Now the euro is gone and the mighty (and over-inflated) US greenback rules in Iraq once again!

[SirRiff]

its boggles the mind to have the US goverment rant about WMDs for months citing them as why WAR was NEEDED right now, and not hold them responsible for the lie.

bush and his admin cited a very serious issues that concerns the whole world. they obviously misled the world as they wanted to go to war really really bad. the world needs to hold them responsible for thier lies. they can blame the intelligence all they want, but they certainly get it right when it benefits them.

if they cited humanitarian issues as a reason the world needed to go in, THEN you can cut them some slack on exact details. but when you repeatidly cite specific claims about massive WMD stockpiles that turn out to be lies, there is no slack. the world is not stupid enough to believe this is an honest mistake.

sirriff

[KrustyKidd]

SirRif

its boggles the mind to have the US goverment rant about WMDs for months citing them as why WAR was NEEDED right now, and not hold them responsible for the lie.

Good point and one that the people of America and all us pro Iraq War people will have to deal with.

I take it that you simply don't like the fact that there has been no vast amount of WMD found so far and believe that is an indication that there was not an immenent threat.

I explained numerous times the real reason why Iraq was freed so won't get long winded about it unless you question the reason.

Iraq had WMD in the past and they were found during the UN inspections as late as 27 Jan 2003. Missing weapons were unaccounted for and no destruction evidence was given by Saddam. Missile engines exceeded ranges perscribed and outlawed 'dual purpose' facilities were found after they had been declared non-existant by Iraq. Everytime Blix showed up, new things were found. Great as long as you are not footing the bill for a couple hundred thousand soldiers to intimidate Saddam but bad for the US. It was time to come clean and he did not.

Based on intelligence that came from a lot of sources, WMD were a valid assumption. For certain, the US was planning an invasion of a Middle East country scince the early nineties (I even suspect earlier) and with 9 11 had a real motivation. Saddam, I believe, was played like a violin. The case for WMD didn't have to be strong. It was for all intents and purposes real enough, legal enough and could be played down or up, whatever transpired. Was it real? Concievably, it could have been. Was it the reason for the war? Not a chance. Saddam's fate was decided long before Blix came back in January.

He was a sap in the making and he didn't even see it comming. the war on Iraq was legally a continuation of the Gulf War, in that Iraq did not comply with UN resolution 687. In this resolution, which the ceasefire agreement was dependant upon, stated that Iraq had to rid itself of all WMD "eequipment and material" and to fully coperate with UN inspectors. It did not on a myrad of occasions and Pre war inspections as well as post turned up lots of wicked stuff, labs, documents and intentions. Hence, Gulf II was actually a 'resumption' of Gulf I.

So much for legalities. Bush is exonnerated.

The true reason for Iraq was not explained using diagrams and pictures before the war. Matter of fact, even with my helping you here, you have had a very difficult time seeing it. It is a complex and dangerous task as you have already observed and with the anti war sentiment at play prior to the war would not have been understood nor thought possible.. It was an opportunity that was presented when Saddam did not adhere to the UN resolutions passed against him.

they obviously misled the world as they wanted to go to war really really bad

Nobody wants a war Riff. Anymore than we like to pay bills. It's very bad for credibility as you have all these peaceniks really on your ass when you do even if Hitler is gassing millions of Jews..

but they certainly get it right when it benefits them.

But they never got it right according to the Left. there is not ONE SINGLE THING that the left can say that Bush has done right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day yet Bush hasn't tripped over one right policy in three years? Hmmmmm. Almost think they are ranting. Who is lying the most is a question we all should be concerned with.

Anyhow, really, Saddam had little to do with terrorism. At least the crew that we are interested in right now. He was however, an unfortunate dupe who got played like a violin. Outside of Syria (who did not flaunt 14 UN resolutions) he sat on the only country in the ME that could be ripped apart government wise and rebuilt with it's own resources - oil.

Like Lenin, Saddam was evil. Like Lenin, he changed the world, but like Lenin, in a way he never, in his wildest dreams would expect.

[Rasputin]

I find it distasteful that Libs feel that Hussein, the Franco-Germanic-Russo-Sino axis making money, the torture of people and the direct funding and training of terror groups by Hussein is better than the current situation.

Bush's mistake was making WMD a centrepiece of the war. To me WMD is not the central issue. The central issue is funding, abetting and encouraging terrorism as well as destabilising the Middle East - all of which Hussein was engaged in.

He railed weekly against Israel, tried to revivify Pan Arabism a la Nasser this time under Iraqi leadership and funded terror groups throughout the middle east including AQ affiliates.

He broke enough UN resolutions to justify his regime's removal, and he broke the cease fire agreement of 1991 - which also should have meant his speedy removal.

A cease fire is in place when the victor tells the vanquished that he will act in accordance with various rules. Once the vanquished breaks those rules, the war is back on.

I don't quite grasp the Lib argument. Let's see:

-The world was better with Saddam

-International law should not be applied to 17 broken UN resolutions but only to the US

-Human Rights violations [a core of the UN world] should never be taken seriously

-The Middle East is NOT exporting terror and does not need reforms

-9-11 never happened and anyways we are to blame for it.

Such logic is worthy of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

Must be depressing these days to be a liberal. But then again you can always go and watch Tim Robbin's new Play !

And to follow on from Right TR's post on Chirac being bribed here is another story from UPI:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The oil ministry papers, described by the independent Baghdad newspaper al-Mada, are apparently authentic and will become the basis of an official investigation by the new Iraqi Governing Council, the Independent reported Wednesday.

"I think the list is true," Naseer Chaderji, a governing council member, said. "I will demand an investigation. These people must be prosecuted."

Such evidence would undermine the French position before the war when President Jacques Chirac sought to couch his opposition to the invasion on a moral high ground.

A senior Bush administration official said Washington was aware of the reports but refused further comment.

French diplomats have dismissed any suggestion their foreign policy was influenced by payments from Saddam, but some European diplomats have long suspected France's steadfast opposition to the war was less moral than monetary.

"Oil runs thicker than blood," is how one former ambassador put his suspicions about the French motives for opposing action against Saddam.

Al-Mada's list cites a total of 46 individuals, companies and organizations inside and outside Iraq as receiving Saddam's oil bribes, including officials in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Sudan, China, Austria and France, as well as the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian Communist Party, India's Congress Party and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Time to hang Chirac.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Rasputin,

He broke enough UN resolutions to justify his regime's removal, and he broke the cease fire agreement of 1991 - which also should have meant his speedy removal

Dare I say Iraq did not break the most UN resolutions? Are you aware of which country has?

Bush's mistake was making WMD a centrepiece of the war. To me WMD is not the central issue. The central issue is funding, abetting and encouraging terrorism as well as destabilising the Middle East - all of which Hussein was engaged in.

of the countries that were proven to have abetted 9/11, which have been focused on? Afganistan, where the Taliban were based, (the US scores +1) Saudia Arabia (the US scores -1, ) The US is still on freindly terms with nations that created 9/11 as long as oil greases the wheels of the American system. Iraq was looking to stop greasing America, adopted the Euro and was forund to have the world's largest untapped oil reserves. Time for some name-calling and invasion if they won't satisfy the demands opf the US. they were being downright un-American.

[KrustyKidd]

Dare I say Iraq did not break the most UN resolutions? Are you aware of which country has?

Yes I am. That was not what Raz was talking about though Lonius. He broke resolutions that were the mainstay of a cease fire. A ceasefire that was contingent on his adherence to those resolutions. As well, Israel was not a prime candidate for democracy seeding for obvious reasons.

of the countries that were proven to have abetted 9/11

Let me try to put this into another scenario for you so that you understand. Then when you address your esteemed collegues at moveon.org they might understand as well.

of all the countries that were proven to have abetted Pearl Harbor

Get it? The war was already happening for crying out loud! 911 was the catalyist that set the US in motion.

[Rasputin]

Here is a direct transcript from a Fox News interview with Kay 02-01-04. Kay maintains that Iraq was a threat and a direct one at that - regardless if WMD stockpiles are found. Funny how this information never makes CNN and the CBC.

KAY: I think Iraq was a dangerous place becoming more dangerous, because, in fact, what we observe is that the regime itself was coming apart. It was descending into worse the part of moral depravity and corruption. Saddam was isolated in a fantasy land capable of wreaking tremendous harm and terror on his individual citizens, but corruption, money gain was the root cause.

At the same time that we know there were terrorist groups in state still seeking WMD capability. Iraq, although I found no weapons, had tremendous capabilities in this area. A marketplace phenomena was about to occur, if it did not occur; sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been very dangerous if the war had not intervened.

WALLACE: But what could the sellers have sold, if they didn't have actual weapons?

KAY: The knowledge of how to make them, the knowledge of how to make small amounts, which is, after all, mostly what terrorists wants. They don't battlefield amounts of weapons.

No, Iraq remained a very dangerous place in terms of WMD capabilities, even though we found no large stockpiles of weapons.

Pre-emption regardless of what Dean and Kerry will announce does work and is the only adult response to 9-11. The terrorist food chain of money, support and training has been disrupted. The US has seized about $3 billion in cash in Iraq since the war, this is monumental in deranging terrorism.

[SirRiff]

so because david kay a scientist says iraq is "Dangerous" that justifies an invasion of a soveriegn arab state by the US?

uh no, america has spread alot of violence of its own in the last 50 years, doest give other nations the right to bomb it and kill its citizens because one of their scientists declares its dangerous.

the obvious reality is that IRAQ WAS NOT DANGEROUS

no useable army

no useable WMDs

sanctions keeping the country ruined

no fly zone patrols constantly watching

and no moves by saddam in 12 years against anybody

the crazy neo cons are so stupid. they should have made a case that the humanitarian crisis is a future threat just like afganistan. nobody can really debate that after 9-11. but this lying just shows they dont give a rats ass about anything other then some crazy power grab/oil bath/neo con party.

[KrustyKidd]

To tired to argue with you Riff, instead, I'll just give you an assignment. I know we have discussed these before so I'll let you make the case this time.

no useable army

So you are saying that Saddm's pathetic army could not fight a smaller, more pathetic army say, from Syria, Kuwait or Jordan?

no useable WMDs

So many people, including Chirac, Clinton, Rockerfeller and more agreed that he had them. Blix could not account for them and Saddam never came forth with any indication of what had happened to his WMDs, what proof did you have that they were not there?

sanctions keeping the country ruined

Was Saddam able to end the sanctions? Why did he not?

and no moves by saddam in 12 years against anybody

Why not? Did he find religion? How do you know that he had given up his quest for power? Are you say8ing that having all sorts of military ready to pounce on him was not the main factor in a peaceful Saddam?

no fly zone patrols constantly watching

Watching what Riff?

so because david kay a scientist says iraq is "Dangerous" that justifies an invasion of a soveriegn arab state by the US?

Kay did not justify the war, he merely said that his findings indicate that Iraq had tremendous WMD capabilities. Why does that not make you wary of intent and capabilities when they were supposed to have none?

Why do you think that Saddam's personal ATM and brothrel was a 'soveriegn nation?' Were the citizens of Iraq free to do what they wanted? Did they have a voice to address their desires, dreams and the freedom to implement them? Or were they simply prisoners of Saddam's wishes?

And why do you think there was only ONE reason? There was at least five of them?

power grab/oil bath/neo con party.

OK, explain the power grab please. Who and how is it implemented and kept?

Oil bath? Show us how the US is taking oil from Iraq and how long it is going to take to have their money invested in this venture to be repaid if they are grabbing oil.

Neo Con Party. Explain please.

[Rasputin]

KK, you can't argue with Liberals using Facts, you must yell, scream, stamp your feet and then if that fails, cry and mumble something about love.

Some commentators are convinced that WMD was sent into hiding in Syria. Others still believe that WMD will be found in Iraq. In fact the ISG team in Iraq is apparently flabbergasted that Kay is so negative. The ISG group says most sites have not yet been investigated.

It is NOT clear that WMD will NOT be found. This is a very premature conclusion from Mr. Kay;

We judged that Iraq probably possessed one hundred to five hundred metric tons of CW munitions fill. One hundred metric tons would fit in a backyard swimming pool; five hundred could be hidden in a small warehouse.  We made no assessment of the size of Iraq's biological weapons holdings but a biological weapon can be carried in a small container. ...When the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), led by David Kay, issued its interim report in October, acknowledging that it had not found chemical or biological weapons, the inspectors had then visited only ten of the 130 major ammunition depots in Iraq; these ammunition dumps are huge, sometimes five miles by five miles on a side.  Two depots alone are roughly the size of Manhattan.  ...

The purposeful, apparently regime-directed, destruction of evidence pertaining to WMD from one end of Iraq to the other, which began even before the Coalition occupied Baghdad, and has continued since then, already has affected the ISG's work. 

..And finally, finding physically small but extraordinarily lethal weapons in a country that is larger than the state of California would be a daunting task even under far more hospitable circumstances.  .....it will be necessary to integrate all the new information with intelligence and analyses produced over the past fifteen years before we can determine the status of Iraq's WMD efforts prior to the war. 

sce; CIA and Stu Cohen -- intelligence professional with 30 years of service in the CIA, Chairman of the National Intelligence Council when the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction was published.

In other words finding a swimming pool sized store of chemicals is rather complex. Especially if Hussein shipped them to Syria.

From 01-31-04

CANBERRA : Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer believes weapons of mass destruction could still be found in Iraq , despite Washington 's chief weapons inspector saying Saddam Hussein likely had no such arms.

"I think it remains to be seen and the Iraqi survey group's work will continue," Downer told Australian Broadcasting Corp radio .

.......

However, Kay also reiterated his conclusion that Saddam had "a large number of WMD programme-related activities."

sce: AP 01-26-04, 8:30 am EST.

and from last week, as Kay was making his vague confessions that Hussein was a threat, but did not know where the WMD was:

VESELIN ZHELEV Associated Press Writer

SOFIA, Bulgaria (AP) - Iraq's foreign minister warned Thursday that weapons of mass destruction could still be found in Iraq, but the search could take time because of the sophistication of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari made his comments only days after the expert who led the CIA's search for banned weapons in Iraq said he found no evidence Saddam possessed such weapons in recent years. That expert, David Kay, said he found no traces of chemical or biological stockpiles.

But Zebari said that because Saddam used chemical gas against his own people, he remains certain that stockpiles of such weapons still exist.

"We in Iraq have seen Saddam Hussein develop, manufacture and use these weapons against us with impunity," Zebari said.

"The system of hiding, of concealment was very sophisticated in Iraq. So I really believe some of those weapons could be found."

Zebari, a Kurd and longtime critic of Saddam, has said in the past the Iraqi ruler had such weapons and used them. Saddam's regime used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and killed an estimated 5,000 Kurdish civilians in a chemical attack on the northern city of Halabja in 1988.

and keep in mind that WMDs were not the main reason for the war - this is a new and entirely CNN version of reality - if people bother to read the speeches by the Bush Admin. it is clear that many impulses gave rise to the war - WMD is selected by the media since the UNO focused on WMD.

Kay even says that ChIRAQ and friends agreed that insane Hussein had WMD:

Jacques Chirac warned last February about "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq" and added "the international community is right . . . in having decided that Iraq should be disarmed." David Kay has spoken of German and Russian intelligence reports that "painted a picture of Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction." The Israelis procured gas masks for every citizen. If Saddam actually disposed of all his weapons and stocks of chemical and biological agent well before last year's war began, many countries were deceived.

sce; Dow Jones 02-01-04

This once again points to the failure of the UNO as a useful organisation:

Indeed, according to last week's congressional testimony by former US weapons inspector David Kay, it was what Saddam Hussein believed. If there was deceit, it was neither in Blair's "dodgy dossier" nor in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, but somewhere in the middle-to-higher reaches of Iraq's own scientific establishment.

WMDs were stressed, Wolfowitz said, because it was "the one issue that everyone could agree on." By "everyone," the deputy secretary meant US government agencies, but he may as well have added the UN.

Jerusalem post 01-31-04.

WMD will be found i believe. If i was a liberal i would put away the poms poms for a while. Too early to try and spin this story.

Liberals were wrong about everything else to do with Afgh. and Iraq - I still think they are wrong on WMD.

[Communist_boy]

Q Mr. President, yesterday in an interview I guess with Scott, you described Iraq as the enemy.

THE PRESIDENT: I described them as the axis of evil once. I described them as an enemy until proven otherwise. They obviously, you know, desire weapons of mass destruction. I presume that he still views us as an enemy. I have constantly said that we owe it to our children and our children's children to free the world from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of those who hate freedom. This is a man who has poisoned his own people, I mean he's had a history of tyranny.

Q I'm sorry, if I could follow up. Are you surprised that you haven't been able to build more support within the region and within Europe for taking action?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Stretch, I think most people understand he is a danger. But as I've said in speech after speech, I've got a lot of tools at my disposal. And I've also said I am a deliberate person. And so I'm -- we're in the process of consulting not only with Congress, like I said I do the other day, but with our friends and allies. And the consultation process is a positive part of really allowing people to fully understand our deep concerns about this man, his regime and his desires to have weapons of mass destruction.

Last question, and then I've got to go chip and putt for a birdie. (Laughter.) It was a good drive.

Q It looked kind of right.

Q Do you think the American people are prepared for casualties in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that that presumes there's some kind of imminent war plan. As I said, I have no timetable. What I do believe the American people understand is that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of leaders such as Saddam Hussein are very dangerous for ourselves, our allies. They understand the concept of blackmail. They know that when we speak of making the world more safe, we do so not only in the context of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but nations that have proven themselves to be bad neighbors and bad actors.

Thank you. Have fun today.

7:22 A.M. CDT

The only reason i can see here are his weapons, It is not just the medias spinning what he said, he stated it.

President Bush Discusses Iraq

Saddam Hussein's regime continues to support terrorist groups and to oppress its civilian population. It refuses to account for missing Gulf War personnel, or to end illicit trade outside the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. And although the regime agreed in 1991 to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, it has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

Today this regime likely maintains stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, and is improving and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical and biological weapons. Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.

The former head of the U.N. team investigating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, Richard Butler, reached this conclusion after years of experience: "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

By supporting terrorist groups, repressing its own people and pursuing weapons of mass destruction in defiance of a decade of U.N. resolutions, Saddam Hussein's regime has proven itself a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

President Discusses Growing Danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Regime

He seems pretty hung up on WMD there.

Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the world. He's a threat to the neighborhood. He's a threat to Israel. He's a threat to the United States of America. And we're just going to have to deal with him. And the best way to deal with him is for the world to rise up and say, you disarm, and we'll disarm you. And if not -- if, at the very end of the day, nothing happens -- the United States, along with others, will act.

President Stresses Need for Strong Iraq Resolution

Once again the only reason in this PC is WMD.

If you would like more, then just ask, you can not just say the media is putting a spin on it. Of course the news is focussing on a major part. Obviously this administartion has talked about WMD as a source for war.

The media is now just showing that they are wrong so far. Whether or not they will find them, I dont know, however it seems that if he had of trumpeted the idea of human rights, the war would have been easier to justify, and he probably would have gained the support from other nations which opposed iot. The people that claim that he did it for hummanitarian reasons, are just making an excuse for him, which is what you are in effect doing to all the "liberals" on this site.

Oh and BTW whatever remaining respect I had for you is gone after this lovely narrow sighted point that you made:

KK, you can't argue with Liberals using Facts, you must yell, scream, stamp your feet and then if that fails, cry and mumble something about love.

[Rasputin]

Commie, i don't understand the point of your post. If you had read my post you would have read:

1. Every agency in the world pre war felt that Hussein had WMD and was a threat.

2. WMD might very well still be found - it is far too early to determine as Kay as done, that none will be found.

When the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), led by David Kay, issued its interim report in October, acknowledging that it had not found chemical or biological weapons, the inspectors had then visited only ten of the 130 major ammunition depots in Iraq; these ammunition dumps are huge, sometimes five miles by five miles on a side.  Two depots alone are roughly the size of Manhattan. ...

The purposeful, apparently regime-directed, destruction of evidence pertaining to WMD from one end of Iraq to the other, which began even before the Coalition occupied Baghdad, and has continued since then, already has affected the ISG's work.

3. WMD could easily have been shipped to another country or sold or stored or hidden. We don't know - which is why the ISG needs many more months to investigate on the ground in Iraq.

4. WMD has been made the central issue for the UNO - why ? Because though the French and Germans agreed that Hussein was a threat they would only agree with the US that an attack was warranted by the threat of WMD. Yet US speeches and presentations listed a number of reasons to invade Iraq.

From your post:

The former head of the U.N. team investigating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, Richard Butler, reached this conclusion after years of experience: "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

So in effect US policy which was a tripod policy - WMD, humanitarian and geopolitical - was effectively cut down in the public perception by the UNO to one issue - WMD.

This episode is just another reason why the UNO is a nonsense on important international political matters.

Your post addresses none of these points and adds little value to the discussion. In fact you don't attach any proof or commensical arguments to refute the above 4 points. If you read the full text of Bush's speeches he makes it clear that WMD is one of many reasons to invade:

For example Bush's speech, from Oct. 7 2002 in Cincinnatti:

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's 11-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We must also never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September 11 2001, America felt its vulnerability even to threats that gather on the other side of the Earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat from any source that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.

Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is how best can we achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions about the nature of the threat, about the urgency of action. Why be concerned now? About the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror and the wider war on terror.

............

Over the years Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.

Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who is responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.

Some al-Qaida leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11 Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

There were and are many good reasons to invade, liberate and reconstitute Iraq. Iraq was a definite threat. In order to get the UNO world on side the US made a grievous mistake in emphasising WMD. They should have stayed with the tripod policy.

The Libs have been wrong on all major issues pre, during and post war - WMD will be no different. You might be surprised if the 90 % of sites still to be inspected turn up some WMD evidence.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, a good cry will make you feel better.

[righturnonred]

Saddam Hussein's regime continues to support terrorist groups and to oppress its civilian population. It refuses to account for missing Gulf War personnel, or to end illicit trade outside the U.N.'s oil-for-food program.

and

By supporting terrorist groups, repressing its own people

and

Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the world. He's a threat to the neighborhood. He's a threat to Israel

Of course WMD was not the only justification for the war, althought no one can deny it was a major one. I don't think Rasputin can seriously deny that WMD was not a central selling point for the war.

Never the less, the disappearance of WMD doesn't evaporate the justification for the war. Saddam's had this coming for 12 years and everyone knows it. Anyone one who didn't want him gone is either protecting their own financial interests, shares Saddam's sadistic nature and is afraid they may be next, or is simply confused which is the case with most liberals, IMO.

The fact is that Bush repeatedly made the humanitarian argument along with WMD, UN resolutions, 1991 ceasefire violation, etc.

As is painfully obvious to those of us who understand the larger purpose for this war, it wasn't so much about WMD as it was about the reconstruction and moderization of a region that so desperately needs it. Iraq and Saddam were the perfect candidate for this much needed revival.

[Rasputin]

RTR i agree that the war is justified and in fact was 12 years overdue. I don't deny that WMD were central to the argument - but WMD was one of 3 legs of the stool so to speak. Bush made an error by allowing his EU 'Allies' and the UNO to force the conflict over WMD - or at least to use WMD as the driving rationale behind regime change. It would have been much smarter to stay with a tripod approach and use many arguments to underline the threat that Iraq posed to the world. Colin Powell and the State dept. did Bush a disservice by allowing the UNO to armtwist the US over how to 'frame' the issue. It is also not clear to me that WMD will NOT be found. It is too early yet to say this definitively though the Liberal media is doing its best to turn this into an early election poll on Bush's leadership.

In any event, Bush should now pursue and keep selling his plan of waging the war on terror and regime change through pre-emption if necessary. Iraq is only the first of many steps. American voters will understand this.

[KrustyKidd]

As is painfully obvious to those of us who understand the larger purpose for this war, it wasn't so much about WMD as it was about the reconstruction and moderization of a region that so desperately needs it. Iraq and Saddam were the perfect candidate for this much needed revival.

Intelligent Leftists understand this. However, they show in their weak arguments and unrealistic expectations that they simply complain for the sake of complaining. I will be the first to admit that things could have gone better, even without hindsight. Yet, instead of discussing these points and becomming a better nation with a more postive effect on the world, we and the Administration have a full time job making things work and refuting these stupid points.

Ever notice that we have the same effective counter arguments WITH PROOF to the same tired mealy mouthed garbage that is thrown out by Leftists? Ever notice that the Right always has the last word on these threads? Then ever notice how a week, month or whatever the same ineffective argument appears again, by the same Leftists?

The discussions are merely a repeat, it's the same in the States. Wonder why the Democrats are going to lose? Easy, not because they are wrong or weak, only that they havn't come up with anything new. Their whole plan is to discredit the Bush Admin.

Meanwhile, look what Bush is doing, he makes silly laws to attract minorities, he knows he has the right already. He just reaches out and steals potential Democratic voters away. Meanwhile, the Left keeps on harping on about the same tired crap, "Wheres the WMD?" I guess they don't get papers where they are. Otherwise they would know what is contained in res 687,1441, Kays, Blix's report and how Syria is a very suspicious possibility.

The further ridiculousness is that Bush cannot be touched. He legally invaded Iraq under the afore mentioned resolutions. Ever wonder why, Rockerfeller, with all the inside intelligence of the CIA and a well publisized mission to undermine Bush, has not turned up a damm thing? Instead, he barely escaped charges of being a traitor and holding onto his position as Vice Chief of the Senate Intelligence Sub Committee. It's because he did it legally, not dishonestly.

I'm sure that this para will echo the sentiments of a lot of us. I , for one am getting increasingly good at cutting and pasting previously posted counter evidence/logic/proof/links in order to refute the same stupid points that didn't work for the leftists beofe. It's a cycle of redundency. If you find that you cannot bring something new to the discussion, know that it didn't work before, why try it again with the same eveidence? Furthermore, if it didn't work, you have no argument, and are presented with all sorts of proof to counter your points, why not attack it with something new, and lacking that, figure out you might be wrong and think about that possiblity?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

suspicious possibility.

Hmm, the left gets branded as paranoid conspiracy-mongers for using terms like this. What shall we brand the 'right'?

Bush cannot be touched. He legally invaded Iraq under the afore mentioned resolutions.

Hmmmmmm, actually, there has been nothing legal done yet. The use of force was to be recommended by the UN security council, not by a delinquent member. Further since no official declaration of war was issued, the actions of the US constitute a breach of borders of a sovereign nation. Further, if no official war was declared, Saddam cannot possibly be a POW.

The reason the US chose to not to declare war was that international conventions dictate that the 'winner' is responsible for the populace. Rebuilding costs would have solely fell to the US. The UN did not declare Iraq 'in material breach', the US/UK did. With the absence of proof of WMDs, even granting ample extra post-conflict time for investigations, the US acted erroneously, if they choose to use UN resolutions as a factor. If they do not use the UN resolutions as a factor, then they illegally invaded another country. Hence, they should have had to declare war.

they are trying to play both sides of the fence to their sole advantage, (as usual) and have been caught lying before the orld. But what can anyone do? They have the ability to kill anyone that opposes.

[Rasputin]

Flea your statements are false you said:

The UN did not declare Iraq 'in material breach', the US/UK did.

This is wrong. Resolution 1441 and many resolutions before 1441 clearly stated that Hussein did not comply with UN resolutions and regulations pertaining to the ceasefire.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

  [Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

          The Security Council,

          Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

          Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

          Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

          Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

          1.      Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

This is diplomatic mumbo jumbo that says - comply or die.

There were many reasons - all of them justifiable for the war. What is not justifiable is your immorality in not recognising some obvious facts;

1. Iraq's support of terrorism.

2. Iraq's anti-Israeli pronouncements for jihad and pan Arab expulsion of the Jews. [but in Canada that is okay, they are only Jews !]

3. The use of chemical weapons internally and against Iran.

4. The threat to the entire region's economic and political systems.

5. Cooperation with other unsavoury regimes around the world.

6. Bribery of French, Russian and no doubt UNO officials.

I don't see you and your like minded socialists with your inane sandwich boards decrying the cost of Iraqi life during the 1990s nor shedding many tears for the victims of 9-11.

This is moral equivalency at its worst. To substantiate your claims you make up facts like the one i just quoted above.

[KrustyKidd]

Further since no official declaration of war was issued, the actions of the US constitute a breach of borders of a sovereign nation.

Lonius, you are missing both a good argument and a lot of current events.

A declaration or War was given - iin 1991. Resolution 687 was the conditions of the ceasefire agreement.

Syria is a very suspicious possibility.

I didn't say that Adolf Hitler bombed the WTC Lonius, I said that Kay has said that for good reason he thinks that WMD have been moved to Syria,. That is not a conspiracy theory but, a rational possibility.

[SirRiff]

its odd that people here have all the "real" reasons for war.

if the people actually launching the war cited a false reason for war: direct current WMD threat, which according to this thread is the false reason for war, how exactly are some people certain they know the "real" reason for war.

i cant be certain what information the conclusion of the "real" reasons are based on.

i think its more reasonable to conclude that while the stated reason has obviously been proven false, no "Real" reason can be determined without insight into Bush & Cos minds. which isnt available. thus any conclusions are really just guesses based on the same garbage pile of information that is available to everyone. i think its unreasonable to think you alone can deduce the "correct" answer, firstly- when you believed the previous lies in the first place, and secondly- because an equal number of reasonable people come to dissimilar conclusions.

who knows what devious thought processes are behind the WMD lies.