WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz

[10Bears]

The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged

more

Oh so it was politically convenient... well that's cool...

Rumsfeld: Iraq May Have Destroyed Weapons

By RICHARD PYLE

Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction may have been
destroyed prior to the war.

While he asserted Tuesday that ``we don't know what happened,'' Rumsfeld said, ``It is also possible that they
(Saddam Hussein's government) decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict.''

more

Makes perfect sense.. destroy all your weapons days before your invaded by the worlds largest super power...

Hey Toad get that checkbook ready.. --suckah--  Had you looked into it a little more, like I did, you would've seen they were lying from the get go.

[OIO]

Iraq was a nation led by dictator openly hostile to the US which had developed AND USED chemical weapons, very surely had some bio's in stock (they are easier to make than chem's) and was dang well on the road to develop nuclear weapons. So:

How would you get rid of the threat of WMD's falling into the hands of those like bin laden (another whacko extremist openly hostile to the US and non-quran-thumping people)?

A: You find the source/likely source of WMD's that has a high probability of providing said WMD's to the likes of bin laden and you ELIMINATE said threat.

And the only way to eliminate the threat is not by demanding the destruction of the current stockpile of WMD's that they KNOW exist (as proven by their use on humans a few decades earlier) and relying on some love muffin international organization (UN) to make it happen. No, the threat is only eliminated by taking over their facilities and neutralizing their scientists. You can bet your wiener that dozens of those scientists found in Iraq are no longer breathing or if they are they are *very* well incarcerated in the US mainland.

And if you were Hussein, knowing that the most powerful military in the world is coming a-knockin' on your door after making a drama worthy of a 10 year long soap opera about how evil you are by having WMD's stockpiled up and you knew there was no chance in hell your pathetic conscripted 3rd rate military could stop them...

how do you win? Hussein is not stupid. The only victory he could pull was to bring down US credibility by destroying his WMD's and making it appear he was just an innocent little dictator swatted because chimpy in the white house wanted his oil. boohoo. Never mind it would also rattle all the other arab states and such.

So far, Hussein is winnning the Public Relations war, which is the only one the average citizen in the world with access to TV sees. The REAL war, the one to eliminate the threat of terrorrism, is so far being won by the US and its true allies.

Really 10bears, think.

[Raubvogel]

*Belch*

[ra]

From David Letterman:

Top Ten President Bush Excuses For Not Finding Weapons of Mass Destruction


10. "We've only looked through 99% of the country"

9. "We spent entire budget making those playing cards"

8. "Containers are labeled in some crazy language"

7. "They must have been stolen by some of them evil X-Men mutants"

6. "Did I say Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? I meant they have goats"

5. "How are we supposed to find weapons of mass destruction when we can't even find Cheney?"

4. "Still screwed up because of Daylight Savings Time"

3. "When you're trying to find something, it's always in the last place you look, am I right, people?"

2. "Let's face it -- I ain't exactly a genius"

1. "Geraldo took them"

[straffo]

Originally posted by OIO
blah ... blah blah

Anyone know how to translate "hors sujet" ?

[OIO]

its not 'hors sujet' (off subject?).

Its a copy/paste from another thread

[straffo]

Originally posted by OIO
its not 'hors sujet' (off subject?).

Its a copy/paste from another thread

That's why I didn't undertood  !


naughty boy

[john9001]

yes, and the mobile weapons labs they found hidden the desert were really baby food factories.

[weazel]

Bush lied and exaggerated in making his argument for war, he spun the facts to sell his case, he betrayed the public trust, and he diminished the credibility of his office and our country.

What we lost in this will end up being far more important than what we gained.

It would be easy to lose sight of this issue, but it is critically important.

I can imagine no greater breach of public trust than to mislead a country into war.

A strong case might have been made to go after Hussein just because he posed a potential threat to us and the region, and because of his oppression of his own people.

But this is *not* the case Bush chose to make.

Truth in public life has always been in short supply. We expect campaigning politicians to spin.

Facts are gathered to support arguments and causes....convenient ones are trumpeted and inconvenient ones played down or ignored.

But when the President of the United States addresses the nation and the world, I expect the spinning to stop.

He represents not just a party or a cause, but the American people....or at least he's *supposed* to.

[blue1]

I think Weazel is 100% correct. This whole business is beginning to smell. I bought into the WMD argument even if I believed getting rid of Saddam was as good as reason as any.

As it happens I still believe the war was in some ways the lesser of two evils and in the end may be a catalyst for a better future. But then I'm an optimist.

OIO's and Rumsfeld's argument that Saddam may have destroyed all the WMD's sounds so much like an excuse, a feeble one at that.

This is all beside the point because is actually, as Weazel pointed out, a question of trust. Did Bush mislead the American people? If he didn't, who mislead him and what was their motivation? What does the fact that he was mislead say about him as a leader and a President?

Just who is running the country? The NeoCons?

This issue will run and run. I'm taking bets now on no second term for GWB.

Ironically I do think they will in fact find some WMD's, just not in the quantities we were all led to believe. They'll be hyped but I think the damage is done now.

On top of that, there are the beginnings of resistance to US occupation. Bombs and gun attacks. How many American soldiers have died during the 'peace', four this week, now 12 or more? Just how much of this will be tolerated and for how long?

[Yeager]

Whatever....just remember, Clinton is a rapist and a murderer

[Furious]

Originally posted by weazel
Bush lied and exaggerated in making his argument for war, he spun the facts to sell his case, he betrayed the public trust, and he diminished the credibility of his office and our country.

What we lost in this will end up being far more important than what we gained.

It would be easy to lose sight of this issue, but it is critically important.

I can imagine no greater breach of public trust than to mislead a country into war.

A strong case might have been made to go after Hussein just because he posed a potential threat to us and the region, and because of his oppression of his own people.

But this is *not* the case Bush chose to make.

Truth in public life has always been in short supply. We expect campaigning politicians to spin.

Facts are gathered to support arguments and causes....convenient ones are trumpeted and inconvenient ones played down or ignored.

But when the President of the United States addresses the nation and the world, I expect the spinning to stop.

He represents not just a party or a cause, but the American people....or at least he's *supposed* to.

Holy wow!!

A rational Weazel with very good points.

[Dowding]

The mobile labs had no trace of biological agent.

I'm willing to be patient. Let's say three months since the declaration of the end of the war. (pokes Toad )

The latest stuff around embellishment of intelligence reports and the departures from the considered opinions of the intelligence community concern me more.

[medicboy]

Ahhh, who cares, we came we kicked prettythang!!!!!!!  That is the lesson we should all take to heart.  It's not how you play the game just so long as you win!  

No really, the guy was a POS and needed to be dusted, even if they used the wrong reason (which they didn't).

When a country gets rid of it's WMD programs it is obvious (ie South Africa)  If a country takes 12 years, 17 UN (another worthless POS) resilutions and still comes up with the same old balking and stalling, sorry, 17 strikes and your out!

[Nash]

I'm really curious to see if, ultimately, truth matters. I'm bracing myself for dissapointment, sadly. It's a big deal. A really REALLY big deal. It goes well beyond the scope of partisan bickering. In fact it goes beyond the government itself. It'll be about us. About who we are as a society and what we demand of the people who represent us. I can't even word this right. How we come out of this will almost be precedent setting in terms of how our leaders measure our expectations and act based on (or in spite of) them. Do we care? Yegads I really can't word this right. It's a huge deal.