Saddam Hussein 'clearly' had WMD

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Thompson: Saddam Hussein 'clearly' had WMD


HaHaHa... breath... HaHaHa...


I guess ole fred only watchs Fox. Yea lets put him in the WH, I am sure he will do much better then ole George.
Fox news viewers at the bottom of the list. Guess this IS fred only sourse of "news"

For those 30% of you who still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11, remember his WMD stash was a lot closer to 1985 then 2003. BTW - he got them from your hero Ronald Regan

What does this have to do with 9/11?

 

[bamacre]

I find this quite disturbing as well (from the OP's link)....

"Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson blamed inadequate intelligence for not sending a larger U.S. invasion force into Iraq, but said he supported the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

"Clearly we did not go in with enough people, with the right strategy," Thompson told reporters after a campaign event in this rural city in central Iowa. "We did not foresee what was happening there. Part of that has to do with the fact that our intelligence capabilities were not what they should have been."

I wonder if the "intelligence capabilities" he is referring to are the very limited intelligence capabilities of the administration, after all they were the one's who refused to listen to experts who said we needed 500K troops to get the job done right.

But then, I am assuming above that the Bush administration wanted the job done correctly, and thus, quickly. And all the evidence I see leads me to believe that this is not the case. The longer the war, the more expensive it is, and the more profitable it is for those with the gov't contracts.

 

[eits]

by the way, the topic title is misleading.

just because fred thompson said so doesn't make it true or shed new light on the fact that saddam didn't have any wmd. the title implies that it does.

 

[Lemon law]

The point is that anyone can be paranoid and decide someone is out to get you. And if you just get them first you can be sure they will never get you. That does not mean I go to the new born ward of the local hospital and kill all the newborn children

With Saddam, we made him into a threat to world peace back when he was our man in the mid-east, Rummy was shaking his hand, and we were helping him buy WMD. We even helped him invade Iran. Then we finally fired him when he grabbed Kuwait and thereafter he was safely in a box. His army was decimated, he did destroy much of any WMD, and he was very limited in his ability to do anything. And all we had to do is maintain the no fly zones and the embargo.

So instead of maintaining a good thing, GWB&co. ginned up an option war and lost the peace. And now we are saying he could have been a threat? The point being, anyone else other than Saddam Hussein could be a threat. Saddam was too closely watched to do anything other than shoot off his mouth.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
And why would Sadaam trumpet it everywhere? With all the scrutinizing of his regime that would be the last thing he would do.

He was afraid of Iran and his other neighbors. This has been well documented in the numerous books written on the subject over the years.

There is no ignoring of facts here except by people who agree with Fred. It's sad that we are still even having this conversation.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

If our intelligence was that poor, why did we invade them?

Notice none of the righties will answer you.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

He didn't send them anywhere. He *did* have them, but they were destroyed or monitored throughout the 90s.
There were very few unaccounted for. Additionally, he had *no* infrastructure to mass produce anything, nor did he really have any research programs in place. You'd think that if he did, then they would have trumpeted it everywhere. I guarantee you that we would have found something.

Sure, he was being an uncooperative ass, but that's because he felt violated and didn't want to cooperate fully. You can't prove you don't have something if you don't have it. The situation was akin to police harassing you, saying you have drugs in your house. You let them rip your house apart, but after a while you get tired of it and refuse to comply with their full searches. They even go through your wife's underwear drawer. Eventually you get tired of them snooping in her lingerie, so you kick them out. However, instead of being constitutionally protected, like we are, you just get accused of more wrong-doings.

Eventually, your house is repossessed, your children killed (no matter how good or evil they were), your house is then razed, and you are hung. You might have been the most evil person on the face of the planet, but that doesn't mean that the unreasonable search and seizure was correct.

A perfect example of chickenhawk alarmism was the yellowcake thing. Saddam had tons of the crap sitting in a warehouse monitored by the UN. He could have easily kicked the UN out and used it. Yet, he didn't and we falsely accused him (knowing it was false) of trying to get more.

This is nothing more than Missile Gap/Red Scare/Domino Theory/Terrorist scare tactics used over and over again by politicians.

Sorry LK youre off path here. I fully understand your explaination of plausable deniability. It's the core of ANY security. However, there is sufficient evidence in the way of testimony and satellite footage to support what you call "Missile Gap/Red Scare/Domino Theory/Terrorist scare tactics".

In your example above, it would be akin to surveillance footage of trasportation of drugs into the home as well as eyewitness testimony. Just because the house toss doesnt produce evidence doesnt mean it didnt happen.

And why would Sadaam trumpet it everywhere? With all the scrutinizing of his regime that would be the last thing he would do.

And you can see where that intelligence got us. However, I am not so naive to think that the intelligence we were fed was complete and utter BS. Our fathers and grandfathers were fed the same crap with the missile gap. OMG OMG OMG, THE REDS HAVE MORE AND BETTER MISSILES ACCORDING TO THE U2 AND OTHER INTELLIGENCE, PISS YOUR PANTS OMG OMG OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please, it's all the same crap. Intelligence is nothing but a mosiac with a liberal amount of glue that you attempt to piece together a full picture. The problem with that picture is that you eventually have more glue than pieces, that glue is politics. It's now obvious that politics played a bigger part of the picture building than actual pieces. We see that everywhere now, from pressures on analysts to fudge analysis, to liberal interpretation of minor military events, to outright belief in knowingly falsified memos.

That surveillence tape would have shown the same chemicals used in making meth going into the house, or a big drum used to stir it being seen in the back yard. On the first search you would have found some prescription drugs that were bought illegally. However, when it comes down to actually finding drugs and arresting somebody, you completely fall flat on your face in proving you had any solid evidence or reason to do what you did.

You can say that it's hindsight, or you can admit that you really had nothing on the guy and you were using circumstantial evidence, massive leaps in faith, and political bullcrap to spur people into action, which, without that scare tactic, would have not resulted in invasion.

Had we found even a shred of evidence that Saddam had any active programs, we would have parroted it. However, as you can see, we don't. Why? Because.

1. We knew it was bullcrap.
2. We know there was nothing at all.
3. We are now too ashamed to admit we used a lot of glue and had no real substantial evidence.

 

[StageLeft]

Hehe, see my sig, Fox demonstrably makes people ignorant. Stop watching it, people!

I'm glad he said this. Now I have a reason to hate Thompson, too. I think the only presidential hopefuls I do not yet think are morons on some degree are obama, paul, and biden (because he is cool). I am ignorant of most of them, but when I come on tidbits of idiocy, I keep a tag on it

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The point is that anyone can be paranoid and decide someone is out to get you. And if you just get them first you can be sure they will never get you. That does not mean I go to the new born ward of the local hospital and kill all the newborn children

With Saddam, we made him into a threat to world peace back when he was our man in the mid-east, Rummy was shaking his hand, and we were helping him buy WMD. We even helped him invade Iran. Then we finally fired him when he grabbed Kuwait and thereafter he was safely in a box. His army was decimated, he did destroy much of any WMD, and he was very limited in his ability to do anything. And all we had to do is maintain the no fly zones and the embargo.

So instead of maintaining a good thing, GWB&co. ginned up an option war and lost the peace. And now we are saying he could have been a threat? The point being, anyone else other than Saddam Hussein could be a threat. Saddam was too closely watched to do anything other than shoot off his mouth.

Exactly. It doesn't matter if Saddam did have some WMD's, they were not a threat to the US, nor was Saddam a threat to the US.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

If our intelligence was that poor, why did we invade them?

Notice none of the righties will answer you.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Ya'll do realize that WMDs also comprise delivery systems as well as the actual weapons.


Hey, Congress thought he had these WMDs, Clinton did, and so did the majority of the world. The only one supposedly wrong about believing it was Bush and any Republican candidates? Okaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

True. We know because we are pretty sure and because it makes the whole war look more meaningful. He also *did* have entire plantations run by gnomes producing unheard of volumes of chocolate marshmallow treats, which he'd torture prisoners with (give them one bite, but not two; drives them bonkers!). The only thing is, we don't know where all these gnomes went. Probably Syria. Maybe Iran. Certainly somewhere, because we're pretty sure they existed. Colin Powell showed us satellite pics of them.

I know I praise daily for the fall of Saddam because it's a known fact he was only 12-24 months from unleashing hordes of 12' trolls upon the world, hundreds of thousands of them and their sole sustenance is Westerners, their favorite snack in particular American Freedom.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

If our intelligence was that poor, why did we invade them?

Notice none of the righties will answer you.

This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Ya'll do realize that WMDs also comprise delivery systems as well as the actual weapons.


Hey, Congress thought he had these WMDs, Clinton did, and so did the majority of the world. The only one supposedly wrong about believing it was Bush and any Republican candidates? Okaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy.

the one with the pen is the one who matters.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.

Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

True. We know because we are pretty sure and because it makes the whole war look more meaningful. He also *did* have entire plantations run by gnomes producing unheard of volumes of chocolate marshmallow treats, which he'd torture prisoners with (give them one bite, but not two; drives them bonkers!). The only thing is, we don't know where all these gnomes went. Probably Syria. Maybe Iran. Certainly somewhere, because we're pretty sure they existed. Colin Powell showed us satellite pics of them.

I know I praise daily for the fall of Saddam because it's a known fact he was only 12-24 months from unleashing hordes of 12' trolls upon the world, hundreds of thousands of them and their sole sustenance is Westerners, their favorite snack in particular American Freedom.

Have you forgotten the 80's and the Iran/Iraq war? ~WE~ supplied the technology. So yes. We know he had them. Unless of course you believe after the Iran/Iraq war Saddam said "well, we dont need these anymore!" LOL

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

If our intelligence was that poor, why did we invade them?

Notice none of the righties will answer you.

This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.

But your claiming the WMD's were magically transported somewhere else. When, before, after, or during the invasion?

Where to, the Twilight Zone?

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

If our intelligence was that poor, why did we invade them?

Notice none of the righties will answer you.

Because Bill, Hillary, and even Al "Gulfstream" Gore said he had 'em.

With absolutely solid references like that, how could we *not* invade ...

They wouldn't lie to us, would they?

Sheesh ...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.

Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.

Wrong, not just as many lefites believed it as righties so your claim of people trying to rewrite history are, like most of your claims, totally unsupported.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Where to, the Twilight Zone?

Is that what you lefties call Syria these days? :laugh:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

He didn't send them anywhere. He *did* have them, but they were destroyed or monitored throughout the 90s.
There were very few unaccounted for. Additionally, he had *no* infrastructure to mass produce anything, nor did he really have any research programs in place. You'd think that if he did, then they would have trumpeted it everywhere. I guarantee you that we would have found something.

Sure, he was being an uncooperative ass, but that's because he felt violated and didn't want to cooperate fully. You can't prove you don't have something if you don't have it. The situation was akin to police harassing you, saying you have drugs in your house. You let them rip your house apart, but after a while you get tired of it and refuse to comply with their full searches. They even go through your wife's underwear drawer. Eventually you get tired of them snooping in her lingerie, so you kick them out. However, instead of being constitutionally protected, like we are, you just get accused of more wrong-doings.

Eventually, your house is repossessed, your children killed (no matter how good or evil they were), your house is then razed, and you are hung. You might have been the most evil person on the face of the planet, but that doesn't mean that the unreasonable search and seizure was correct.

A perfect example of chickenhawk alarmism was the yellowcake thing. Saddam had tons of the crap sitting in a warehouse monitored by the UN. He could have easily kicked the UN out and used it. Yet, he didn't and we falsely accused him (knowing it was false) of trying to get more.

This is nothing more than Missile Gap/Red Scare/Domino Theory/Terrorist scare tactics used over and over again by politicians.

Sorry LK youre off path here. I fully understand your explaination of plausable deniability. It's the core of ANY security. However, there is sufficient evidence in the way of testimony and satellite footage to support what you call "Missile Gap/Red Scare/Domino Theory/Terrorist scare tactics".

In your example above, it would be akin to surveillance footage of trasportation of drugs into the home as well as eyewitness testimony. Just because the house toss doesnt produce evidence doesnt mean it didnt happen.

And why would Sadaam trumpet it everywhere? With all the scrutinizing of his regime that would be the last thing he would do.

And you can see where that intelligence got us. However, I am not so naive to think that the intelligence we were fed was complete and utter BS. Our fathers and grandfathers were fed the same crap with the missile gap. OMG OMG OMG, THE REDS HAVE MORE AND BETTER MISSILES ACCORDING TO THE U2 AND OTHER INTELLIGENCE, PISS YOUR PANTS OMG OMG OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please, it's all the same crap. Intelligence is nothing but a mosiac with a liberal amount of glue that you attempt to piece together a full picture. The problem with that picture is that you eventually have more glue than pieces, that glue is politics. It's now obvious that politics played a bigger part of the picture building than actual pieces. We see that everywhere now, from pressures on analysts to fudge analysis, to liberal interpretation of minor military events, to outright belief in knowingly falsified memos.

That surveillence tape would have shown the same chemicals used in making meth going into the house, or a big drum used to stir it being seen in the back yard. On the first search you would have found some prescription drugs that were bought illegally. However, when it comes down to actually finding drugs and arresting somebody, you completely fall flat on your face in proving you had any solid evidence or reason to do what you did.

You can say that it's hindsight, or you can admit that you really had nothing on the guy and you were using circumstantial evidence, massive leaps in faith, and political bullcrap to spur people into action, which, without that scare tactic, would have not resulted in invasion.

Had we found even a shred of evidence that Saddam had any active programs, we would have parroted it. However, as you can see, we don't. Why? Because.

1. We knew it was bullcrap.
2. We know there was nothing at all.
3. We are now too ashamed to admit we used a lot of glue and had no real substantial evidence.

Of course we know NOW the intel we got was flawed. We certainly didnt think so at the time. What do you suggest? Just scrap all intel gathering? Hell, the same people who give GWB shit about relying on bad intel (even though the majority of the planet thought it was true) are the same people who give GWB shit for ignoring the small amount of intel we had warning of 9/11. You cant have it both ways.

And no. Im not tying Saddam to 9/11 so dont go there.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Wrong, not just as many lefites believed it as righties so your claim of people trying to rewrite history are, like most of your claims, totally unsupported.

History doesn't square with that. I could post the list of all the lefties who voted for the war and made stinging rebukes of Saddam and Iraq before the invasion. But I think we both know that a significant amount of both sides were in favor.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Where to, the Twilight Zone?

Is that what you lefties call Syria these days? :laugh:

Is that what your righties call an intelligent answer these days? :laugh:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.

Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.

Wrong, not just as many lefites believed it as righties so your claim of people trying to rewrite history are, like most of your claims, totally unsupported.

Holy shit are you serious? That almost qualifies as a Dave comment....

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Wrong, not just as many lefites believed it as righties so your claim of people trying to rewrite history are, like most of your claims, totally unsupported.

History doesn't square with that. I could post the list of all the lefties who voted for the war and made stinging rebukes of Saddam and Iraq before the invasion. But I think we both know that a significant amount of both sides were in favor.

I never got to vote, so whatever you post is meaningless to my point, unless you know we have Congressmen posting on this forum?? :laugh: