WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz

[weazel]

The report also notes that, in order to produce biological weapons, each trailer would have to be accompanied by a second and possibly a third trailer, specially designed to grow, process, sterilize, and dry the bacteria. Such trailers would "have equipment such as mixing tanks, centrifuges, and spray dryers"—none of which were spotted in the trailers that were found. The problem, the CIA acknowledges, is that "we have not yet found" these post-production trailers. Question: Is it that they haven't been found—or that they don't exist?

It could well be that the CIA is right about its inferences. Either way, these trailers—simply by being capable of producing biotoxins—constituted violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions barring such technology. However, we're beyond U.N. resolutions at this point. We're looking for evidence that Iraq actually did produce such weapons. From what we know so far, the trailers constitute less than airtight proof.

[GRUNHERZ]

So now you are saying no first term president should enage in a serious war...  Is that why AlQeada waited till after the election so they couldnt be attacked?

[crowMAW]

Grun...you are the straw man king bud!

[OZkansas]

Saddam had WMD and used them in the Iran, Iraq war and on his own people.  Why would he not have them today? Why would he let Iraq be invaded and put himself on the run if he didn't have anything to hide?

Where is all the stuff Saddam had?   We need to know where it is today!

[Nash]

"Saddam had WMD and used them in the Iran, Iraq war and on his own people. Why would he not have them today?"

Just try, momentarily, to apply some intellectual flexibility here...  Just for a second. And after this little exercise you can go back to regurgitating old 'facts' that have since been proven false yet  that somehow have escaped your notice. I'm talking in the general 'you'... not you specifically Oz.

Just consider that maybe, just maybe, Hussein really DID disarm.

Despite the initial arms inspectors getting thrown out of Iraq in 1997 or 1998, they inspected, monitored and destroyed tons of Hussein's toys.*see below.

"Writing in the journal Arms Control Today (2000), Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector and chief of the “concealment unit” for UNSCOM (the inspections organization created as a result of the cease-fire) claims that by 1997, Iraq was effectively disarmed."

You might dismiss this, and it might very well be a bunch of bunk. However, it could actually be the explanation for what is starting to become evident - that there just doesn't seem to be any WMD in Iraq. Whether it's true or not - we don't yet know - but it IS within the realm of possibility.

So you're asking why he doesn't have them today? There's one explanation. Keep in mind, the only reason many today believe differently is simply because Bush is telling us otherwise - an assertion that is not bearing itself out, and one that the intel community seems to be distancing itself from.

Next question:

"Why would he let Iraq be invaded and put himself on the run if he didn't have anything to hide?"

I'm not sure what you mean. He said he didn't have anything to hide. The UN asked him to open up to inspections to demonstrate that. He did so. But that wasn't enough for the Bush administration - they cut the inspections short... ostensibly because the threat posed by Iraq's WMD program was such that they couldn't afford to wait for the inspections to conclude. The threat grew daily; the obvious implication.

So (a) he wasn't hding, and (b) he could do nothing more than he did (which was everything the UN asked) to prevent the invasion.

"Where is all the stuff Saddam had? We need to know where it is today!"

I won't mention the fact that Bush et al professed to "know where it is today"... Oops I just did.

But one explanation is simply that it just aint there.

-----------------------------------------------
*"During the weapons inspections of the nineties, there were 7,800 site inspections; 340 locations regularly monitored, including surprise visits; over 130 cameras installed in another 30 locations; air-sampling devices used that can detect minute traces of chemicals; the destruction of a key laboratory and tons of chemicals;  and the destruction of 817 of 819 missiles purchased from Russia.

Writing in the journal Arms Control Today (2000), Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector and chief of the “concealment unit” for UNSCOM (the inspections organization created as a result of the cease-fire) claims that by 1997, Iraq was effectively disarmed. In other words, Iraq’s capacity for building chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, as well as key delivery systems such as ballistic missiles had been destroyed as a result of inspections.

[GRUNHERZ]

Nash if you belive that Hussein really did dusarm and was honest about disarming in the past 12 years then why did he not make that case clearly to the UN, why did he foster conditions in Iraq that forced the UN insperctors out, why did they consistentlty lie about the satus of varius WMD items?  And he did this even though it was costing him billions and billions in oil revenues due to the embargo put in place so he would disarm....

Tell me why would a truly disarmed Saddam Hussein continue to forego billions in oil revenues by acting in a way that he knew would prolong the sanctions and embargo and increse losses of oil revenues indefintely?

All he had to do was state plainly that he was disarmed and allow the inspectors 100% free access to any facility or personell of interest. He never did that, not even close, not before 1998 and not in last round of inspections.

[blue1]

Good question Gruny, why did he? It's a genuine imponderable. Only he can answer and maybe when (if) he's caught. He might tell us.

Possibly like many a dictator he was increasingly out of touch with the reality on the ground. Maybe sanctions suited him in that the suffering of the people could be blamed on the UN or America or Israel or whoever.  Maybe he believe it didn't matter and that any attack would either be repelled or suffer heavy casualties. Maybe he had illusions that Bagdhad would be like Mogadishu in 'BlackHawk Down' Whatever the reason he badly miscalculated.  

But meanwhile it's become increasingly obvious that he had little or no WMD's whatever he and the rest of us believed or were led to believe. I still believe there must be some there. But I also now believe that we were lied to about the extent of it.

The real reason for the war was NOT WMD's but to remove Saddam and realign the current situation in the Mid East. Now I personally think that is a good reason but it's not a legal reason to invade another country.

I got back to my original point though. This is no longer about whether the war was good or bad, legal or not.

The question is whether or not the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain started a war on the basis of a lie.

Right now Tony Blair is in big trouble at home on this issue and I suspect that unless WMD's are found soon his career is over.  Ditto for Bush at some point in the future.

Yeager, what on earth is this constant evocation of Clinton. He is the ex president, off playing golf no doubt. He had nothing to do with this. He had his failings but he didn't invade any country during his tenure.
Maybe it's all the Gore supporters moaning, you remember him? He's the canditate who got more votes than GWB in that election.

[GRUNHERZ]

Blue I think that uncertainty of why he acted the way he did is what leaves room for WMD to be found.

But it is perfectly clear that he was in touch with reality enough to want the sanctions and embargo lifted because he would greatly benefit from that both financially and politically.

But for 12 years he did not want to be honest about it and defied the winners of the war by not keeping up his disarmament agreements - both of these are facts.

That alone was enough to be a politicaly expedient cause to start this war.

IMO this war was obviously not only about WMD even if that was the most used justification, it was about many things including the general stability of the region and peace and yes about long term oil issues - but remember if we just wanted the oil the USA had the influence on UNSC to drop embaro/sanctions in a second. I think that the removal of Hussein is what has enabled the current move towards renewed peace talks in Israel/Palestine - it showed the world that the USA was dead seriois about tackling regional issues seen as a threat to our country and allies.  

Im very happy with the outcome and I think it was the right thing to do and a good opportunity to take for starting a process in solving larger regional issues.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Nash

Just consider that maybe, just maybe, Hussein really DID disarm.

Or try this possibility.  As we have yet to find a dictatorial leader since the fall of Baghdad, Hussien did not exist at all.  He was a affectation of Industrial Light and Magic under contract with the Bush junta and the CIA.

Sure are a lot of people that know the truth on this BBS.

Perhaps we should let all the chips fall before we see where they lay.  Last I heard, 700+ sites, known of before the war have yet to be inspected.  Lots of shells under which to hide a few peas.

[Nash]

Lol Holden.

Hey... I'm just saying it's a *possibility*. Because it is. More time needed? Absolutely. But there will come a time when this may wind up to be the only possible explanation. We'll see. I mean, because we really will see. And if you're ruling this out, already, then I guess you're prepared to accept anything even if that anything bears little resemblence to the truth. A common affliction.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GScholz

Hortlund, do you accept my apology?

Of cource I do. And please accept mine too, and lets leave it behind us.

[Hortlund]

Weazel, Nash, et al. Please dont put words in my mouth.

I was talking about this nuclear material. Stored in Iraq..protected by a mighty IAEA-seal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,934503,00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0520-05.htm

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L19209307.htm

One of the sources stored at Tuwaitha is caesium 137, a highly radioactive powder that would be especially dangerous in a dirty bomb. In 1987, a canister of caesium powder found in a Brazil junkyard exposed 249 people to radiation, killing four.

Kinda weird that no one told us before the war that there was nuclear material in Iraq, allowed by the IAEA, dont you think?

[GRUNHERZ]

Yes I found it hillarious how the UN secured nuclear materials in Iraq - just sealed of with some sort of super secret UN duct tape....  Very safe...

[Nash]

Grun - those are really interesting questions. I don't know the answer to them.

They require speculation though because there's simply no way you or I... or anyone besides Hussein himself can know why this man behaved like he did. Besides just guesses as to his motivation, there's no way to answer them.

So on the one hand you've got what may look to you like exculpatory evidence based on nothing more than speculation ("he must be hiding them because otherwise he wouldn't have done yada yada...")

And on the other hand you may have a situation where the WMD and related weapons programs just never.... ever.... turn up.

Lets say that happens. That WMD never turns up...

We've now got these two conflicting things. So the question is, will our foray into the mind of Hussein and the attendant "would he haves" and "why didn't he's" trump the simple absence of the material he's charged with having? No way.

Basically in a nutshell my friend I'm saying that yer questions are moot. It doesn't matter what the answers are. If WMD turns up in some warehouse next month, okay. If they never turn up, Hussein's behavior leading up to the invasion doesn't matter, and doesn't make him guilty of having something that isn't there.

[Nash]

"Weazel, Nash, et al. Please dont put words in my mouth." - Hortlund

Huh? You've lost me. Where?