[neccen]

Incredibly an honest observer would have to admit its starting to look like Scott Ritter was right. Surely the claim that the WMDs were an immediate threat have been disproven. The CIA, DIA and Delta Force have been scouring Iraq for months and have yet to find even a rusty old mustard gas shell from the Iran Iraq war. Even if one feels, as I do, that getting rid of Saddam was justified, it does look like we got snookered on the WMD issue. Anyone else remember the maps during the war with the red rings around Baghdad? How many times did some empty suit on FNCMSNBCNBCCNN report that Saddam had given the order to use chem/bio weapons as soon as the troops crossed the line?

[Principled]

Incredibly an honest observer would have to admit its starting to look like Scott Ritter was right.

You mean he was right when he was saying the weapons were there? Or do you mean he was right when he did an about face (at the same time Saddam give him $400,000) and suddenly said saddam has no weapons???

[Dog]

Welcome to FR BTW!

Answer me this did you think the UN inspectors should have had more time??

Think maybe Hans Blix could have helped?

[Dog]

How many times did some empty suit on FNCMSNBCNBCCNN report that Saddam had given the order to use chem/bio weapons as soon as the troops crossed the line?

This is an easy one........Saddam was bluffing.......cross this line I dare you and I'll huff and I'll puff..

[EGPWS]

...its starting to look like Scott Ritter was right.

I disagree.

When has Dubya' failed to follow through with his determined statements? Granted they haven't been found as of yet, but Scott Ritter and the most potent UN inspectors were at it for 12 years and were very adamant in the idea that it takes time. Why, oh, why is it NOW an issue to produce tomorrow? We all know it takes time and at least now we have our military and a CIC that is willing to be patient and do it right.

If Dubya' says they will be found, then they will be found. He isn't a student of "The Chirac Doctrine"!

[eyespysomething]

Surely the claim that the WMDs were an immediate threat have been disproven

Bush didn't say that. He said we needed to act before the threat was imminent. This is a well propagated misconception repeated by many. Besides, the UN inspectors said they saw the WMD before they left in 1998.

I can find the source, hold on

[Normal4me]

Ritter was right and 15 UNSC countries were wrong? If you recall, all that was requested from good 'ol Saddam was to Prove what had happened to the wmd's.

Welcome to FR BTW hope ya fit in.

[eyespysomething]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/931783/posts?page=42#42

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People (Updated) ^

Posted by eyespysomething to steve50
On News/Activism ^ 06/19/2003 10:42 AM EDT #42 of 78 ^

Actually, if he didn't have the weapons, materials, means, then he did an amazing snow job on the entire world, including the whole UN security council.

Of course, they could have been lying, because the UN made quite a bit of money off the oil-for-palaces program. Surely they didn't want that discontinued. Of course, that may be why the protested the actions of the US also. I tend to believe our politicians more than other countries. Plus, we don't see Pootin, Chretin, Chirac and Schroder saying that Bush lied. Don't you think they would. This is all an issue created by the Dems because none of the other gazillion ones stuck.

Now, if you want to complain about Bush's spending - I'll complain with you. But this, nah.


From a Canadian gov. website:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/middle_east/iraq_weapons-en.asp

< snip >
According to UNSCOM, Iraq began its programs to develop biological and chemical weapons in the early 1970s. In 1995, following the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, inspectors gained greater knowledge about Iraq's biological weapons program, which was far more extensive than previously thought. Activities related to BW are the most difficult to detect because they require much more limited infrastructure. UNSCOM destroyed Iraq's declared BW facilities and set up monitoring of dual-use equipment at other facilities. However, UN inspectors were unable to determine the full extent of the Iraqi program prior to their departure in 1998.

UNSCOM also uncovered a vast Iraqi chemical weapons program. Between 1991 and 1998, it supervised the destruction of over 40,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions and 411 tonnes of bulk CW agents. However, UNSCOM reported that the destruction of about 2,000 unfilled munitions was uncertain, that the destruction by melting of 15,000 rockets was not verifiable, and that 500 mustard-filled shells remained unaccounted for. In addition, the unilateral destruction in 1991 by Iraq of 242 tonnes of precursors for VX production was only partly accounted for. While Iraq claimed that it never turned VX into a weapon, in 1998 degradation products of VX were found by a U.S. laboratory on missile warhead remnants.

< snip >

Before 1991, Iraq was also actively purchasing, developing and producing long-range missiles that could have been used to deliver its chemical and biological weapons, as well as future nuclear weapons. UNSCOM destroyed Iraq's declared stock of ballistic missiles, however discrepancies and the absence of inspectors for stocks declared destroyed by Iraq indicate that Iraq may have retained a small number of long-range missiles (up to 650 km), perhaps as many as a dozen.

< snip >



The evidence is out there, and anyone who says different is as foolish as someone saying we needed the permission of the UN to do what we did.

[eyespysomething]

This was in another thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930515/posts?page=21#21
We were told we were in imminent danger and that was why we had to go on the offense quickly.

Not quite...seems you have fallen for a Krugman line...I had a heck of a time finding the info again, but here is some info that was posted previously on FR about the "imminent threat":


I'm sure others have picked up on this, but in the off-hand chance they haven't, there's a major problem with Krugman's most recent column. He says:

"The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran- contra."
I did some checking and found the text of the President's most recent State of the Union address. Here's the exact quote regarding the "imminent" threat:


"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"
Here, it's crystal clear that Bush is not making the claim that the threat was imminent. He's striking before the threat is imminent -- and that was the gamble Bush took. A strike against an imminent threat would not have generated the controversy the Iraq invasion generated.
At first I thought that Mr. French was making a mistake by limiting his search to this year’s State of the Union Address. So I did a Google search using the terms “Bush” “imminent” and “Iraq”. I did find news articles claiming Bush was saying the Iraqi threat was imminent. For example, one article referred to the State of the Union speech, while another referred to the October 7th address. But, as Mr. French pointed out, Bush didn’t say the Iraqi threat was imminent in the State of the Union. And Bush never used the term in the October 7th address. The same held true for Bush’s speech last year to the United Nations, his speech/press conference of March 6th, and his speech as the war was beginning. Either Bush didn’t use the word “imminent,” or he used it to argue that we should not wait until the threat is imminent.

Looks like media spin, not anything Bush specifically said. And it looks like Krugman’s quote problem continues…


Source

20 posted on 06/17/2003 2:14 PM EDT by ravingnutter

[Hugin]

So anyone who disagrees is dishonest?

neccen
Since Jun 16, 2003

[Consort]

They got you hooked already. It didn't take much to do it.

[ContentiousObjector]

Maybe OJ Simpson can help

[Matchett-PI]

"Surely the claim that the WMDs were an immediate threat have been disproven.."

Where did those "claims" come from?

There are lots of news articles to be found claiming that Bush said that the Iraqi threat was imminent.

However, I'm providing you with his exact words below:

President G.W. Bush's most recent State of the Union address (this year):

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

[Trace21230]

Hmmm, if Saddam didn't have WMD, why were we trying to inspect for 12 years?

Try again, newbie.

Trace

[Jodi]

Hans Blix said that Saddam had WMDs. The whole security council at the precious UN said that Saddam had WMDs. Are both these saviors of the left LYING?

[VOA]

Surely the claim that the WMDs were an immediate threat have been disproven.

Well, that all depends on what the meaning of the word "immediate" "is".

I think I've heard the best explanation of what Saddam's WMD program actually was
last night.

Laura Ingraham, on her radio show, reviewed the article arms policy expert
Kenneth Pollack had in The New York Times (sometime in the last couple of days).

Pollack clearly connects the dots on what not only the USA, but Russia, China, France, and a
lot of other developed countries thought about Saddam's WMD program:
It existed and was a danger.
The only real disagreement? What to do about it.
And Saddam.

I think Pollock lays out the best picture of what Saddam's WMD program relaly looked like.
Saddam rebuilt a number of pharmaceutical facilities after Gulf War I...that could
be quickly converted for the production of chemical or bio-weapons. Thus, Saddam had the means
to generate a fair amound of labile (limited-lifetime) chemical and biological
weapons once he thought he either was ready to go off to war or was in danger.

The same goes for a nuclear program. The underlying knowledge base and a fair amount
of infrastructure (probably more than we now know) was ready to go at the
opportune time.

Thus, like Dubya sums up, we can't afford to wait for the first blow.
Amd the American public, Gawd-Bless-Em, mostly seems to have the horse-sense
to realize that even if we don't find WMDs sitting on a launch-pad, Saddam
and his threat-level had to be removed from the world stage.

If for no other reason than to let Iran, North Korea, and aother future
peckerwoods learn that there's not much of a future in trying to play a Dr. Evil dictator.

Rape and pillage your own country. But don't even let the USA think you're
a threat.

[A CA Guy]

That announcement I THINK means we now know exactly were they are and will find them (reveal them) very quickly as soon as enough democrats get aboard the wrong train in slamming our President.

As soon as they try to bury the President more harshly, they will reveal the WMDs and the democrats will have buried themselves instead.

[VRWC_minion]

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Latest: June 17-18, 2003. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.
"All things considered, do you think the United States going to war with Iraq has been worth it or not?"
		Worth It	Not Worth It	Not Sure
		%	%	%
	6/03	53	31	16
	4/03	64	25	11
.
"On the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, do you believe Iraq currently has weapons of mass destruction, had weapons of mass destruction before the war but has moved or destroyed them, or that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction?"
			%
	Currently has WMD		25
	Has moved or destroyed WMD		54
	Did not have any WMD		12
	Not sure		9
.
"Which one of the following do you believe is most likely to be true? President Bush exaggerated the dangers of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The intelligence agencies exaggerated the dangers of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to President Bush. Both President Bush and intelligence agencies exaggerated the dangers. OR, Neither President Bush nor the intelligence agencies exaggerated the dangers."
			%
	Bush exaggerated		8
	Agencies exaggerated		11
	Both exaggerated		24
	Neither exaggerated		43
	Not sure		14

[Prodigal Son]

Does anybody remember during the Iraqi Freedom we had a U2 spy plane flying over the former Soviet State Georgia? What was that all about?

If you were Hussein, what would you have done? Use your chemicals even though they would not have stopped our military? Prove everybody right and go down in a blaze of glory? Or would you have had that stuff hauled out of Iraq when it became obvious that the US/UK were serious about coming in? I think it is entirely rational to suppose that he would have taken the chemicals somewhere else and sold them. Al Qaeda would pay millions and millions for them. It would be like a bag full of diamonds on the black market. They would be too valuable to simply leave behind if there was a way to get them out.

I think Hussein escaped into Iran early in the war and bugged out to Russia on board a Russian plane. His WMD are looking for a new owner in the underworld.

[RightWhale]

it does look like we got snookered on the WMD issue

The issue is as dead as the above's account.