Saddam Hussein 'clearly' had WMD

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 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?

I'm waiting for your "rewrite". :laugh:

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: 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:

sadly, it's more of an intelligent answer than a majority of our legislators and executive officers have given us. the best they've given us is "whoops... we learned our lesson.... wait, no we didn't."

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: 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

Right, he did have them, and I think they've even found some recently in Iraq, but the thing is, they were old and crap and obviously he had no extensive WMD program, the crux of this recent mess.

So, I guess we need to be talking about the same weapons. You're talking about the old ones and I was talking about the "New" ones, which were made in the gnome factories and kissed on the way out by fairies. I assumed you were talking about the new magical ones, too, sorry

At the time, the evidence (pre mar/03) was relatively solid for WMD AS WE THE PUBLIC saw it. Clearly, we're not privy to much and it's all filtered. This needs to be a lesson for our generation. Based on what we were told and fed by the media, it seemed quite clear he had an extensive WMD program. We all, reasonably, thought this. Those who were privy to the real details must have known the reality and those people, like Bush, did base the war on dubious info. Or maybe he was fed crap by the CIA and the entire CIA brance tasked with Iraqi intel should be fired and have their pensions taken away for total incompetence, but the public does not have the same info as the security-cleared leaders and I do not believe that things were as black and white for them as they appeared to us.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

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

Do you know how easy it is to find traces of such an activity (it's impossible to hide, not virtually impossible, not almost impossible, IMPOSSIBLE)? He didn't have them and he didn't send them anywhere PERIOD.

I'd consider anyone who thinks anything different (that it wouldn't have been known and touted like hell from the propaganda machines of politics) to be as insane as the people who think the US intentionally brought down WTC.

And I consider anyone who ignore facts to the contrary to be a sympathizer. *shrug*

A sympathiser of what exactly? There are no facts to the contrary.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 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:

Even if you *could* have voted, you would have been in such a minority your vote would have been worthless. You know this right?

 

[eits]

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, you're the idiot... the world is DEFINITELY more chaotic and out of control than it was whenever saddam was in power. our country's economy wouldn't be the hole it is now, we wouldn't have nearly as many soldiers dead, we wouldn't have extremists going around to various countries blowing shit up because their country supported america's unjust war in iraq, there wouldn't be a growing number of terrorists, we'd have more friends in the world...

 

[NoStateofMind]

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.

:thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

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.

Well the number I have seen tossed around is about 1500 tons of mustard, 200 tons of VX, and smaller stockpiles of other agents. These were declared by Saddam's regime but never accounted for. So they are either in Syria, in a bunker out in the desert, or he destroyed them. Problem is he never provided proof of destruction. Yes, I understand ths standard retort is, how do you prove it? Well for starters the Iraqi's were very good on paperwork. If something left their stockpile, it would be shown and where it went. All he had to do was point the UN to the place of destruction and we could verify by testing the area that what he said is true. But he couldnt do that.

So I think it is probably in Syria or a bunker nobody knows about. Just hope some terrorists organization doesnt find out about it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eits

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, you're the idiot... the world is DEFINITELY more chaotic and out of control than it was whenever saddam was in power. our country's economy wouldn't be the hole it is now, we wouldn't have nearly as many soldiers dead, we wouldn't have extremists going around to various countries blowing shit up because their country supported america's unjust war in iraq, there wouldn't be a growing number of terrorists, we'd have more friends in the world...

Really? Can you please list list the attacks on America post 9/11 for me? I see the list pre 9/11 is pretty long it must have continued afterwards no? Especially now since the enemies of our country hate us more now? Please list them.

1979: 8 dead before release of hostages in the Embassy in Tehran

April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.

January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.

April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.

September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).

December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.

June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.

Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996,

224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998

17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

Militant Islam attacks that took place on US soil:

July 1980: an Iranian dissident killed in the Washington, D.C. area.

August 1983: a leader of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam killed in Canton, Mich.

August 1984: three Indians killed in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash.

September 1986: a doctor killed in Augusta, Ga.

January 1990: an Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz.

November 1990: a Jewish leader killed in New York.

February 1991: an Egyptian Islamist killed in New York.

January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va.

February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center.

March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.

February 1997: a Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.

October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an EgyptAir flight near New York City.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: 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:

Even if you *could* have voted, you would have been in such a minority your vote would have been worthless. You know this right?

For the sake of argument, say your right and that the anti-invade iraq folks were in a minority. It still doesn't deter from the fact that they were right then and are not trying to rewrite history.

Face it, Pabster was making one of his infamous, ignorant, stupid generalizations to try to support his point of view.

The facts are that they skewed the intelligence that people got to see. I even remember the administration stating at one point they knew where the WMD's were but if they told the weapons inspectors they would be moved before they could get there to check. They screwed the pooch on that one and i don't et the lying SOB's off the hook for it either.

Now, if they moved the WMD's as your claiming, when and where to?

 

[yllus]

United Nations Security Council, 27 January 2003: An Update On Inspection
Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix

The resolution adopted by the Security Council on Iraq in November last year asks UNMOVIC and the IAEA to ?update? the Council 60 days after the resumption of inspections. This is today. The updating, it seems, forms part of an assessment by the Council and its Members of the results, so far, of the inspections and of their role as a means to achieve verifiable disarmament in Iraq.

As this is an open meeting of the Council, it may be appropriate briefly to provide some background for a better understanding of where we stand today.

With your permission, I shall do so.

I begin by recalling that inspections as a part of a disarmament process in Iraq started in 1991, immediately after the Gulf War. They went on for eight years until December 1998, when inspectors were withdrawn. Thereafter, for nearly four years there were no inspections. They were resumed only at the end of November last year.

Chemical weapons

I would now like to turn to the so-called ?Air Force document? that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

Biological weapons

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq?s Foreign Minister stated that ?all imported quantities of growth media were declared?. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.

Missiles

I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that programme or data on the consumption of the missiles.

In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Don't get me wrong, guys. The intelligence on the status of WMD in Iraq was clearly faulty, and President Bush stands to shoulder the blame for taking the nation to war on incorrect assumptions (or worse, blatant disregard and twisting of the facts). That said, let's not pretend that the evidence at the time wasn't often in support of Iraq secreting away those weapons. Unless you count Dr. Blix as amongst the conspirators... Rather unlikely.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eits

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, you're the idiot... the world is DEFINITELY more chaotic and out of control than it was whenever saddam was in power. our country's economy wouldn't be the hole it is now, we wouldn't have nearly as many soldiers dead, we wouldn't have extremists going around to various countries blowing shit up because their country supported america's unjust war in iraq, there wouldn't be a growing number of terrorists, we'd have more friends in the world...

Really? Can you please list list the attacks on America post 9/11 for me? I see the list pre 9/11 is pretty long it must have continued afterwards no? Especially now since the enemies of our country hate us more now? Please list them.

1979: 8 dead before release of hostages in the Embassy in Tehran

April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.

January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.

April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.

September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).

December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.

June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.

Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996,

224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998

17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

Militant Islam attacks that took place on US soil:

July 1980: an Iranian dissident killed in the Washington, D.C. area.

August 1983: a leader of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam killed in Canton, Mich.

August 1984: three Indians killed in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash.

September 1986: a doctor killed in Augusta, Ga.

January 1990: an Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz.

November 1990: a Jewish leader killed in New York.

February 1991: an Egyptian Islamist killed in New York.

January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va.

February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center.

March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.

February 1997: a Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.

October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an EgyptAir flight near New York City.

my statement was in reference to the world... not just the united states. also, the iraq war started 4 years ago. you just posted stuff that's happened in the past 28 years... great job.

by the way, saddam didn't have shit to do with almost all of those.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Face it, Pabster was making one of his infamous, ignorant, stupid generalizations to try to support his point of view.

No, I was citing fact. The words and votes are all public record.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Face it, Pabster was making one of his infamous, ignorant, stupid generalizations to try to support his point of view.

No, I was citing fact. The words and votes are all public record.

based on the fact that YOU cited these "fact," chances are that they're completely taken out of context and are misleading as hell. that's your trademark... you fudge stuff bigtime. that's why taking stuff out of context to try and make an argument is called "pulling a pabster".

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: 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

You know all that garbage has to be maintained to actually work, don't you? You remember all of the Scuds that couldn't even make it to Israel in the first Gulf War? It wasn't because of the Patriot missile, it was because those missiles weren't properly maintained. Now try to imagine how poorly all that junk would work over a decade later.

Saddam didn't have anything left that was usable as a threat. If you think he somehow turned those 20+ year old weapons into an arsenal of deadliness then you are delusional.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eits
based on the fact that YOU cited these "fact," chances are that they're completely taken out of context and are misleading as hell. that's your trademark... you fudge stuff bigtime. that's why taking stuff out of context to try and make an argument is called "pulling a pabster".

Well, look here.

With roll call here.

And in the HOR here, with roll call.

Got any facts?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: yllus
United Nations Security Council, 27 January 2003: An Update On Inspection
Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix

The resolution adopted by the Security Council on Iraq in November last year asks UNMOVIC and the IAEA to ?update? the Council 60 days after the resumption of inspections. This is today. The updating, it seems, forms part of an assessment by the Council and its Members of the results, so far, of the inspections and of their role as a means to achieve verifiable disarmament in Iraq.

As this is an open meeting of the Council, it may be appropriate briefly to provide some background for a better understanding of where we stand today.

With your permission, I shall do so.

I begin by recalling that inspections as a part of a disarmament process in Iraq started in 1991, immediately after the Gulf War. They went on for eight years until December 1998, when inspectors were withdrawn. Thereafter, for nearly four years there were no inspections. They were resumed only at the end of November last year.

Chemical weapons

I would now like to turn to the so-called ?Air Force document? that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

Biological weapons

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq?s Foreign Minister stated that ?all imported quantities of growth media were declared?. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.

Missiles

I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that programme or data on the consumption of the missiles.

In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Don't get me wrong, guys. The intelligence on the status of WMD in Iraq was clearly faulty, and President Bush stands to shoulder the blame for taking the nation to war on incorrect assumptions (or worse, blatant disregard and twisting of the facts). That said, let's not pretend that the evidence at the time wasn't often in support of Iraq secreting away those weapons. Unless you count Dr. Blix as amongst the conspirators... Rather unlikely.

Hans Blix asked for time, everyone but Bush and Blair wanted to give it to him. What was the hurry?

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: 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?

You already get it, sort of. Remember how Bush sold the war, WMD, imminent attack, talk up 9/11 attacks, Saddam and Iraq in the same sentence until people believe Saddam had something to so with 9/11.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
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.

But we did know during that time that it was BS. Read the book Collusion.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eits
based on the fact that YOU cited these "fact," chances are that they're completely taken out of context and are misleading as hell. that's your trademark... you fudge stuff bigtime. that's why taking stuff out of context to try and make an argument is called "pulling a pabster".

Well, look here.

With roll call here.

And in the HOR here, with roll call.

Got any facts?

i don't even know wtf you were talking about or what you cited... i just posted that whatever it was was probably taken out of context and that's why no one trusts anything you post because it's always a joke with you ending up being the punchline.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eits
i don't even know wtf you were talking about or what you cited... i just posted that whatever it was was probably taken out of context and that's why no one trusts anything you post because it's always a joke with you ending up being the punchline.

Anotherwards, you were trolling, as usual.

Don't accuse me of spinning or making things up when the facts are right on the table.

And just for you, let us have a look at the lefties own words on Iraq:

We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry ,among others, on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos, among others.

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eits
based on the fact that YOU cited these "fact," chances are that they're completely taken out of context and are misleading as hell. that's your trademark... you fudge stuff bigtime. that's why taking stuff out of context to try and make an argument is called "pulling a pabster".

Well, look here.

With roll call here.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23


And in the HOR here, with roll call.

Got any facts?

Tell you what.

Since you are suggesting that Congress is in FACT Congress In Chief

Then let's let Congress pull the U.S. 110% out of Iraq right now.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Hans Blix asked for time, everyone but Bush and Blair wanted to give it to him. What was the hurry?

That's a fair question. However I don't think Hussein was innocent in the way things went at that juncture. The cat and mouse game he engaged in from day one with inspectors was detrimental to both his credibility and UNMOVIC's - a full decade of playing games with inspectors. The sentiment that it was time to end his game once and for all was a pretty reasonable one.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eits
i don't even know wtf you were talking about or what you cited... i just posted that whatever it was was probably taken out of context and that's why no one trusts anything you post because it's always a joke with you ending up being the punchline.

Anotherwards, ... blah blah blah blah

wtf is "anotherwards"? :laugh:

dubya, is that you?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eits
based on the fact that YOU cited these "fact," chances are that they're completely taken out of context and are misleading as hell. that's your trademark... you fudge stuff bigtime. that's why taking stuff out of context to try and make an argument is called "pulling a pabster".

Well, look here.

Got any facts?

From YOUR article:

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Where are the WMD's? Find them or it's you who are trying to rewrite history.