The Case of the Missing WMDs

www.4ranters.com ^ | 12-Jun-2003 | xagent

[xagent]

An article I wrote for my website www.4ranters.com

http://www.4ranters.com/detail.php?id=76

[meenie]

Too bad Bush didn't use some other logic than WMD's. When none are found it gives the impression that he committed a breach of the truth (lied like hell). After chastising Blix for failing to find any and the fit at the UN, eating crow is hard to do.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Too bad Bush didn't use some other logic than WMD's.

Maybe, but there are always tradeoffs in life. If he hadn't "used" WMD as the "logic", he wouldn't have been able go through the UN at all (because that's what the "resolutions" were about), which would have meant no help from Tony Blair and Britain (since Blair evidently thought at least attempting to use the UN was necessary for him politically), which perhaps would've meant more dead American soldiers.

So, take your pick: increased American casualties, or decreased American casualties + yapping critics afterwards. Hmm, toughie.

[PISANO]

Cogent and logical argument. However the NAYSAYERS on FR as with other more liberal entities throughout the land will NOT stop this hunt for BLOOD and will continue criticizing GW until WMD are found or until something puts it off the front burner or until their pound of flesh is taken.

The SAME people that criticized GW for NOT using sparodic, non-specific and ghostly intelligence to PREVENT 911 are the SAME people who are criticizing him NOW for using SPECIFIC and STEADY intelligence from MANY sources to wage war with IRAQ. Can't please those who are aim to destroy, no matter what the circumstances.

[Dr. Frank fan]

P.S. I should add that if he hadn't "used WMD as the logic", i.e. hadn't gone to the UN at all, he'd have yapping critics on his heels if only for that (the "unilateralism"), right now. There was no critic-proof way of invading Iraq.

[alloysteel]

The WMDs existed in 1998. There was no accounting provided regarding the disposal of the quantities indicated at that time. Therefore, in the absence of any credible evidence of their destruction, the WMDs still exist somewhere.

Let us hope their existence is not revealed by a massive terrorist attack on Berlin or Paris or Riyadh or Tokyo.

[prairiebreeze]

Let us hope their existence is not revealed by a massive terrorist attack on Berlin or Paris or Riyadh or Tokyo.

Or New York, LA, Chicago or Boise.....

Prairie

[palmer]

Excuse me? The debate was never whether Iraq has these weapons.

No indeed, the real debate was over those weapons posed a threat requiring us to go to war. We could have continued our policy of boxing Iraq in at far less cost and risk. We chose to go to war and now we are stuck nation building unless we jump ship and let the country turn into a terrorist haven.

[backhoe]

-Weapons of Mass Destruction ( or Distorsion or Deception? You decide...)--

[alnick]

When none are found it gives the impression that he committed a breach of the truth (lied like hell).

Except for all of that circumstantial evidence that has come up during and after the war. The anti-Bush crowd likes to pretend that that evidence doesn't exist. Doesn't fit their agenda.

• Mobile labs
• Caches of atropine vials
• Caches of chem/bio suits
• Large amounts of mustard and cyanmide in the Eurphrates
• Large stocks of suicide vests

[alnick]

The SAME people that criticized GW for NOT using sparodic, non-specific and ghostly intelligence to PREVENT 911 are the SAME people who are criticizing him NOW for using SPECIFIC and STEADY intelligence from MANY sources to wage war with IRAQ.

Exactly. They're even using the same slogan for their completely contradictory arguments: "What did Bush know and when did he know it." They're vile.

[meenie]

Anybody that sees a picture of one of those weapon lab trucks and imagines them being a WMD has to have an overactive imagination. We have wrecks all over the country sitting in salvage yards that are WMD. How can mustard gas or cyanide in the Tigris and Euphrates be considered an WMD?

I think that we had large caches of chem/ bio suits when we went into the Gulf with our troops, we had WMD's? Ditto, atropine. Suicide vests constitute WMD? Come on, you are in a state of denial. Bush and his administration told a big whopper and you are making them look all the more ridiculous.

[KevinDavis]

Basicall for Bush is: Damned if he did something, Damned if he doesn't do something.

[meenie]

Wrong, according to Karmel, the weapons existed in 1991 and were desroyed shortly thereafter. The UN inspectors left in 1998 and hadn't found any prior to their leaving. Any WMD's would have to have been made since then. With constant satellite surveillance, airflights in the no fly zones, and opposition Iraqis on the ground and we did not know whether Saddam had WMD's? Come on! You surely aren't that gullible, are you?

[meenie]

No critic-proof way of invading Iraq should tell you something. There was no critic proof way of invading Poland by Germany in the late thirties, no critic-proof way of attacking Pearl Harbor, no critic-proof way of destroying the Twin Towers in 9/11.

These were all acts of agression justified by the logic of the individuals that committed them. When the logic is rationalized by misleading the public to approve the actions, this is when the problem gets out of hand. This is where the Bush administration made its mistake. If you cannot make a reasoned argument for your actions and have to rely on mistruths to make your case, you are treading on pretty thin ice.

It is going to take a pretty good period of time for Bush and his entourage, plus some honesty, to regain the trust of the public, here and overseas. Trying to weasel out of it by blaming the intelligence community will not do it. A direct apology to the American people and the families who lost love ones in a cooked up war would be a good start.

[alnick]

I think that we had large caches of chem/ bio suits when we went into the Gulf with our troops, we had WMD's? Ditto, atropine. Suicide vests constitute WMD?

Well, you're determined to take a position contrary to GWB, regardless of what that may be.

We had chem/bio suits and atropine because Saddam was known to have chem/bio weapons. But you already know that.

The stockpile of suicide vests shows SH's regime to be a TERRORIST regime. You remember the war on terror, don't you?

As I said, you've blinded yourself to the facts, so you're not worth my time.

[meenie]

It seems to be a given that we had to invade Iraq. If they had no WMD's, what would have been the logic? This defies any reason. Did we have to go because we disliked Saddaam? Did we have to go because we wanted to kill some of the Iraqi people? Did we have to go because Iraq was a danger to our country? What is the reason?

I just cannot understand the logic of defending a war based on mistruths. We saw it in Vietnam with Johnson and the Tonkin incident which was proved to be false and destroyed his administration. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Trying to defend it, places the Republicans in the same box as the party that we so roundly criticize for not being able to tell the truth.

[alloysteel]

You want the truth? Here it is, naked and unadorned. George W. Bush made a unilateral decision to invade Iraq, to strengthen his position politically here at home, and to undermine the Democrats and reduce them to a permanent minority party status. Once the Bush Administration could declare victory, this would encourage the national economy to rebound, and this had in fact happened.

The BBC and many among the British elite have stopped comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler, and instead have been saying that by establishing a Gulag at Guantanamo, he unmistakeably has become much more like Josef Stalin, a towering icon in the eyes of the British left. So by their estimation, this may very well be as close to admiration as they are able to muster.

[2nd Amendment]

Lets be thankful our swift invasion forced the Iraqis to get rid of or hide their WMDs. Another great victory for Bush! If the democrtats can ride this to victory, we are, indeed, a pathetic country!

[Dr. Frank fan]

Anybody that sees a picture of one of those weapon lab trucks and imagines them being a WMD has to have an overactive imagination.

No one's saying they're "a WMD". What they're saying is that they could be used to produce a WMD. Which is just as bad, from our point of view. You understand that, right?

It's not like we would've been perfectly safe if Iraq "had no WMD" but could produce them in a matter of days...sheesh

How can mustard gas or cyanide in the Tigris and Euphrates be considered an WMD?

It's evidence that they had them. Which was the issue.