Replies

Why didn't GWB say this at all to the American public during an ENTIRE ELECTION

Because he knew he could win without wading into this WMD mess?

This shows clearly where your opinion doesn't hold up - What mess is there if it is as clear and dry as you claim?? - There would be no mess - President GWB would have just addressed the Nation and won reelection very easily. Both GWB and Cheney would not have sat back and been grilled in TV shows to every WMD question if it were as clear and dry as you claim. That is just silly for you to suggest he didn't want to wade into the "WMD mess" - Just ridiculous.

Wait, it is because President GWB is an man of integrity and honesty - He knows that the World was well aware of Saddam's late 80's WMD production (and aware of much of its destruction) - He also knows the premise (regarding WMD) prior to going into Iraq in 2003 was based on the notion of Saddam having an "active" WMD program -

And that is where you can't stay consistent (or where you act like you know better than President Bush and VP Cheney).

The fact is the older WMD's we have found (shells basically) we know come from Saddam's late 80's production - They were not what President Bush had in mind when CIA director Tent told him finding an active WMD program within Iraq was a SLAM DUNK -

This is why President GWB never claimed "we found them" nor did VP Cheney - Because they know that is not being intellectually honest as to what were expecting to find -

As for the notion "could" some WMDs (if produced) have made their way to Syria - I have never said that is an impossibility (heck, they also could be right down the street from me as well) - The point is there is no concrete information suggesting such a thing - There isn't even adequate information suggesting such -

Again, do you remember the detailed list Sec State Powell provided to the UN (his speech was almost an hour long) - Yet much of this Intelligence turned out to be grossly wrong and or inaccurate -

So one willing to be intellectually honest must admit that even with all that Intel we thought we had....we still didn't have a clear picture of the WMD situation within Iraq - Yet, with not even 1/10th of that Intel you are still willing to act as if Syria is a viable (if not strongly viable) notion to where Iraqi WMDs from an active program went -

Lets just say I'm glad we have men like GWB, Cheney and Rumsfeld in office - Men who look at actual facts and reality and don't simply chase "what ifs" -

As for Saddam not abiding by UN 1441 - We are in complete agreement - I have said over and over removing Saddam from office was the right thing to do - The World is safer because of it - I have also stated we have fought the most successful unconventional war in history -

[Bush didn't want to wade into WMD mess] What mess is there if it is as clear and dry as you claim??

I'm NOT claiming it's clear and dry. Can you read? It's murky and wet, I agree, but WMD is a possibility, and it is a reasonable inference to draw.

He also knows the premise (regarding WMD) prior to going into Iraq in 2003 was based on the notion of Saddam having an "active" WMD program -

That is not true. Read the War Powers Resolution.

The fact is the older WMD's we have found (shells basically) we know come from Saddam's late 80's production

Right! So, we agree: Iraq had WMDs. Thanks for playing.

They were not what President Bush had in mind when... [etc]

Wow! So you can read President Bush's mind? Amazing.

As for the notion "could" some WMDs (if produced) have made their way to Syria - I have never said that is an impossibility

Ok then why the hell do you argue with me?

The point is there is no concrete information suggesting such a thing

That is correct, there is no "concrete" information. There is simply sketchy, overlapping information, coming from multiply-sourced, mutually-reinforced reports that materials were sent to Syria. You also have quotes from David Kay such as,

“Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them.”

So, that WMD were moved out of Iraq, is a consistent, and reasonable, inference to draw from this sketchy data. I am saying no more and no less. What's your problem with that?

Again, do you remember the detailed list Sec State Powell provided to the UN (his speech was almost an hour long) - Yet much of this Intelligence turned out to be grossly wrong and or inaccurate -

Even if true that doesn't mean Iraq had "NO WMDs".

So one willing to be intellectually honest must admit that even with all that Intel we thought we had....we still didn't have a clear picture of the WMD situation within Iraq

I agree, of course. We didn't have a "clear picture of the WMD situation within Iraq". That would have been impossible; Iraq was led by a secretive, Stalinesque regime. It is notoriously difficult to obtain intelligence in such a context and nobody should expect otherwise.

So you and I agree, we didn't (and don't) have a "clear picture". What we do have are multiple reports suggesting that Saddam had something to hide and that WMD were moved to Syria. From this, I draw the reasonable inference that Iraq indeed had some WMD materials and moved them to Syria. That's my interpretation of what is known. If you don't like that, shove it!

Yet, with not even 1/10th of that Intel you are still willing to act as if Syria is a viable (if not strongly viable) notion to where Iraqi WMDs from an active program went -

Of course I'm willing to act as if Syria is a viable notion. Why wouldn't I be willing to act as if Syria is a viable notion? What the hell is your problem with my doing that?

Lets just say I'm glad we have men like GWB, Cheney and Rumsfeld in office - Men who look at actual facts and reality and don't simply chase "what ifs" -

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I too am glad that such people are in office. I trust they also look at facts and don't "chase what ifs".

But I don't "chase what ifs" either! What am I "chasing"? Explain that. I am a lay-person. I am a guy sitting at a computer keyboard. If I think that WMDs were moved to Syria... so the hell what? How is that "chasing" anything? I do not control troop movements. I do not pull the strings of our military.

So, I think that Iraq moved WMDs to Syria. SO WHAT? If I were in Bush's position, I would probably still think that Iraq moved WMDs to Syria. SO WHAT? Bush himself probably thinks that Iraq moved WMDs to Syria. SO WHAT? Noticed that DOESN'T mean he has ordered a full-scale invasion of Syria - and I'm not saying I would either!

Do you understand the difference between "thinking WMDs were moved to Syria" and "ordering a full-scale invasion of Syria"? If I were doing the latter - if I had the power to do the latter - then maybe you could accuse me of "chasing what ifs". But I don't, so what the hell are you talking about?

I simply think that Iraq had WMDs and moved some WMDs to Syria. There is no cost or bad effect of my thinking this. It has no effect whatsoever on anything. You seem to think it does. What is wrong with you??