WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz

[Sandman]

Originally posted by medicboy

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!

Compared to every other military on the planet, ours is a weapon of mass destruction.

[anonymous]

if there were no wmd then why all the games with blix and his guys? the un attitude toward iraq was alot more friendly than with the first group of inspectors. what possible reason for the activity that iraq was involved in that pointed to wmd? and when that activity was shown to un by USA why didnt iraq refute it in detail on the spot? how can you discuss something when you ignore every lie and every action performed by one of the two parties involved? why in the hell did iraq screw around with un inspections for years if they had nothing to hide?

[Sandman]

How do you hide something that doesn't exist?

How do you prove it?

[capt. apathy]

``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.''

wasn't that the whole point of the conflict.  "destroy your WMD or we will invade"

now rumsfeld says well they must have got rid of them before we invaded.

if what he says is true then he just said we had no justification

[Fishu]

Rumsfelds speech gave me some chuckles, when he mentioned the iraqis might've destroyed their WMD's before coalition attacked.

Doesn't that mean they would've obeyed the UN resolution? :>

[Nash]

I can't even remember anymore what the reason was that the inspectors couldn't be given just a bit more time (ie. a month or two) as proposed by some to reach a middle ground between the camp that wanted indefinite inspections and the camp that wanted to invade immediately. Was it because the 'threat' was time critical, or was it more just because of the principle of it? Like I said, I can't remember - but it's sure looking silly in retrospect.

[OIO]

the threat is NOT the stockpile of weapons, its the know-how to make them.

that is my whole point if you didnt bother to read my first post.

[Nash]

So what does that mean? Countries should start killing off their scientists because the thought of them frightens the US? Where is the line between legitimate take-action threat and "too f&cking bad" territory? Anywhere ya want it to be, I suppose....

Nevertheless, I don't buy that rationale in the 1st place. It certainly wasn't articulated as such by Bush. It was "They have WMD"...not "Arrest and turn over your scientists".

[10Bears]

Originally posted by OIO
the threat is NOT the stockpile of weapons, its the know-how to make them.

that is my whole point if you didnt bother to read my first post.

Oh well in that case, everything is alright then... nevermind..

[Sandman]

Originally posted by OIO
the threat is NOT the stockpile of weapons, its the know-how to make them.

that is my whole point if you didnt bother to read my first post.

Not according to Colin Powell.

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.

Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan.

[bigUC]

Let's get all the other countries that have WMD's...

[Nash]

....or don't have them, as it were.

[blue1]

Let's reiterate the point for the likes of Medicboy and OIO. The issue here is no longer whether or not there are WMD's or were  WMD's or whether America is the greatest kick bellybutton country in the world or the war on terrorism.

No, the issue now is: Did the President lie to or mislead the people on the reasons for the war? That is the question.  If he didn't who misled him?

What is going on here? Is Wolfowitz lying?

Where's Nuke and Grunherz, explain this little lot, why don't ya!

[Toad]

LOL.

I told you I'm a patient man.

If you recall... and I think the text is all still there... I had one heck of a time getting you to wager even a measley amount in support of  your "absolutely certain" beliefs.

You must have been soooooooooooo confident!

Two bio lab trailers found so far.

I'm patient.

[crowMAW]

It's impressive that Wolfie and the War Party are confident enough to admit they were lying all along and think that there will be no repercussions.  I recall a pundit saying that it wasn't the fact that Clinton got a blow job that caused him to get impeached or the fact that he lied about it...rather it was because he got caught lying about it.  Americans hold their President to a higher standard than your average Joe, and rightfully so.  When they get horny we expect them to do their wife (and if not then we expect them not to get caught)...when they have delusions of grandeur we expect them to keep their military guns holstered (and if not then we expect them to have an excuse that holds water)...when they are given bad advice we expect them to do something else (and if not then we expect them to fire the guy that gave them the bad advice).  

So now the question is:  will the rabid conservatives who blasted Clinton for lying be hypocrites or will they try to find someone who at least has enough moral fiber to not lie us into unnecessary wars.

The only thing I have left to say is: ALL HAIL PNAC!