WMD's have been found
- Thread starter Hawkeye
- Start date
NtheSticks
Active member
Yes, Lalli, just don't be surprised at the results of that action/comment.
Quandolak, I haven't *begun* to lecture. THAT is a whole different line of commentary where you are NOT allowed to comment, hence the term 'lecture'
I never said nor implied that ONLY USofA responds to world emergencies.
Quandolak, I haven't *begun* to lecture. THAT is a whole different line of commentary where you are NOT allowed to comment, hence the term 'lecture'
I never said nor implied that ONLY USofA responds to world emergencies.
Lalli
Well-known member
Quote:
whatever u have to say falls on deaf ears. so im not intrested. again boils down to the fact i have my opinions on certain things and you have yours.
| Originally Posted by shimmer You certainly do. However, when you make statements such as the ones above, don't be surprised when they're met with less than open arms. |
whatever u have to say falls on deaf ears. so im not intrested. again boils down to the fact i have my opinions on certain things and you have yours.
blueyedlady87
Well-known member
I wish more papers would publish this! I get so sick and tired of hearing about how Bush is such a horrible president. He's a great man and he is he first president to actually have some cajones! He has steered our country in the right direction.
rubixio
Well-known member
He did lie, but I thought the reason it wasnt "big news" was this (from June 21):
"Defense Department Disavows Santorum’s WMD Claims
Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.
Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”
Fox’s Alan Colmes broke the news to Santorum.
Transcript:
COLMES: Congressman, Senator, it’s Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group — let me go to the Duelfer Report — says that Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle reported this for Fox News quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded. And the official went on to say these are not the WMD’s this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD’s for which this country went to war. So the chest beating at this Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department.
SANTORUM: I’d like to know who that is. The fact of the matter is, I’ll wait and see what the actual Defense Department formally says or more important what the administration formally says."
If they find others, I hope we find out about it. I'm just hard up to take Santorum seriously. I mean, he did bring his wife's dead fetus/baby home so they could all cuddle it. I'm just not down with that I guess.
"Defense Department Disavows Santorum’s WMD Claims
Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.
Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”
Fox’s Alan Colmes broke the news to Santorum.
Transcript:
COLMES: Congressman, Senator, it’s Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group — let me go to the Duelfer Report — says that Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle reported this for Fox News quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded. And the official went on to say these are not the WMD’s this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD’s for which this country went to war. So the chest beating at this Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department.
SANTORUM: I’d like to know who that is. The fact of the matter is, I’ll wait and see what the actual Defense Department formally says or more important what the administration formally says."
If they find others, I hope we find out about it. I'm just hard up to take Santorum seriously. I mean, he did bring his wife's dead fetus/baby home so they could all cuddle it. I'm just not down with that I guess.
caffn8me
Well-known member
Well, I've just read the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report; "Postwar findings about Iraq's WMD programs and links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments". It has just been published and you can read a summary from the BBC here and download the full report as a PDF file direct from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence website here. It's about a hundred and fifty pages and took me a couple of hours.
The main conclusions are that;
I know these conclusions aren't what some people want to hear but they are the result of far more intelligence analysis than ever happened prior to the decision to topple the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. They are also the conclusions of a properly established senate committee with full access to the intelligence provided prior to the decision to wage war on Iraq and evidence gathered from within Iraq and from Iraqi detainees after the war.
In this post I have tried carefully to stick to statements of fact based on the report and I haven't voiced my own opinions on the matter but offer the report as a subject for discussion.
I think anyone who now wishes to comment on the presence or absence of WMDs in Iraq prior to the second gulf war should read the report carefully before they comment.
The main conclusions are that;
- Iraq did not have an ongoing nuclear weapons research program nor any nuclear weapons
- Iraq did not have an ongoing biological weapons research program nor any biological weapons
- Iraq did not have an ongoing chemical weapons research program nor any chemical weapons
- Iraq did have an ongoing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle program but this was for reconnaissance rather than delivery of biological or chemical warfare agents
- Iraq did not have links with and did not support Al-Qaeda
- Iraq played no part in the 9/11 attacks
I know these conclusions aren't what some people want to hear but they are the result of far more intelligence analysis than ever happened prior to the decision to topple the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. They are also the conclusions of a properly established senate committee with full access to the intelligence provided prior to the decision to wage war on Iraq and evidence gathered from within Iraq and from Iraqi detainees after the war.
In this post I have tried carefully to stick to statements of fact based on the report and I haven't voiced my own opinions on the matter but offer the report as a subject for discussion.
I think anyone who now wishes to comment on the presence or absence of WMDs in Iraq prior to the second gulf war should read the report carefully before they comment.
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
I only left the part about chemical weapons because I find it very strange. Considering that my husband was part of a group of military personnel that was in the area when they FOUND chemical weapons in Iraq, I'm curious as to how that statement is backed up. Are they saying that the mustard gas and sarin that they found aren't considered chemical weapons?
No arguments as to the validity of what you are extrapolating from the report, just curiousity as to why there are discrepancy.
I also thought it was accepted that old Chemical Ali and whatsherface (the woman doctor) were both running programs? I may be recalling that incorrectly.
| Originally Posted by caffn8me Well, I've just read the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report; "Postwar findings about Iraq's WMD programs and links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments". It has just been published and you can read a summary from the BBC here and download the full report as a PDF file direct from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence website here. It's about a hundred and fifty pages and took me a couple of hours. The main conclusions are that; [*]Iraq did not have an ongoing chemical weapons research program nor any chemical weapons . |
I only left the part about chemical weapons because I find it very strange. Considering that my husband was part of a group of military personnel that was in the area when they FOUND chemical weapons in Iraq, I'm curious as to how that statement is backed up. Are they saying that the mustard gas and sarin that they found aren't considered chemical weapons?
No arguments as to the validity of what you are extrapolating from the report, just curiousity as to why there are discrepancy.
I also thought it was accepted that old Chemical Ali and whatsherface (the woman doctor) were both running programs? I may be recalling that incorrectly.
caffn8me
Well-known member
Quote:
Read the report and it will answer this question fully in detail. Please bear in mind that the committee has slightly more Republican than Democrat members (details here) but is intended to be politically neutral. Their conclusions on the presence or absence of WMDs were not politically motivated but evidence based.
| Originally Posted by Ladybug10678 I only left the part about chemical weapons because I find it very strange. Considering that my husband was part of a group of military personnel that was in the area when they FOUND chemical weapons in Iraq, I'm curious as to how that statement is backed up. Are they saying that the mustard gas and sarin that they found aren't considered chemical weapons? |
Read the report and it will answer this question fully in detail. Please bear in mind that the committee has slightly more Republican than Democrat members (details here) but is intended to be politically neutral. Their conclusions on the presence or absence of WMDs were not politically motivated but evidence based.
Hawkeye
Well-known member
I looked over this and I admit I didnt read it word for word but the jest is that I highly question the hearings and the report. Why? because even back through the clinton administration there is evidence that there were issues with Saddam.
Basically what we have here is One side saying one thing, Another side saying another thing and then we have people who claim they know whats going on saying a completely different thing.
Also the republican thing doesn't fly with me that well because There are some that will back george bush (as with democrats) but there are also that don't like him.
So the political bias isn't going to affect the problem that much (as you indicated)
What concerns me is if he did not have WMD-what the hell was he doing with the items to make the WMD? What was he doing with them?
It's kind of like Iran right now-they say they are using Uranimum for generators. To even think logically you gotta say thats the biggest load of BS you ever heard. We all know good and well that's what Iran is doing. Same with North Korea.
Now the question here is: Was Hussain going to use it against the US? Chances are probably not. Granted. Was he going to use it against his own people or an ally of the US? Probably so.
We can all agree that Saddam is a dictator. It's been proven he killed thousands of Shiites. If you give someone who has no problem killing people tools to use to make a nucular weapon I have a strong suspicion he's not going to sit there and let it gather dust. It's just not in his nature-period.
So whether these reports are accurate-Honestly, to be perfectly blunt-I've learned not to trust a damn thing Congress or their committees ever say. I don't even care anymore to be perfectly honest because everyone is going to have an opinion. Do I respect their findings? Yes! They did their homework, they looked through it themselves, they decided what they thought was accurate.
I'm very glad they released this and I'm very glad Caffn8me you posted a link (You beat me to it no fair! LOL) to it because now we can all go through, read it, educate ourselves look at the history of Iraq as well look at the economical situation the political situation everything as I assume THEY did and we can form our own opinions and thoughts.
Basically what we have here is One side saying one thing, Another side saying another thing and then we have people who claim they know whats going on saying a completely different thing.
Also the republican thing doesn't fly with me that well because There are some that will back george bush (as with democrats) but there are also that don't like him.
So the political bias isn't going to affect the problem that much (as you indicated)
What concerns me is if he did not have WMD-what the hell was he doing with the items to make the WMD? What was he doing with them?
It's kind of like Iran right now-they say they are using Uranimum for generators. To even think logically you gotta say thats the biggest load of BS you ever heard. We all know good and well that's what Iran is doing. Same with North Korea.
Now the question here is: Was Hussain going to use it against the US? Chances are probably not. Granted. Was he going to use it against his own people or an ally of the US? Probably so.
We can all agree that Saddam is a dictator. It's been proven he killed thousands of Shiites. If you give someone who has no problem killing people tools to use to make a nucular weapon I have a strong suspicion he's not going to sit there and let it gather dust. It's just not in his nature-period.
So whether these reports are accurate-Honestly, to be perfectly blunt-I've learned not to trust a damn thing Congress or their committees ever say. I don't even care anymore to be perfectly honest because everyone is going to have an opinion. Do I respect their findings? Yes! They did their homework, they looked through it themselves, they decided what they thought was accurate.
I'm very glad they released this and I'm very glad Caffn8me you posted a link (You beat me to it no fair! LOL) to it because now we can all go through, read it, educate ourselves look at the history of Iraq as well look at the economical situation the political situation everything as I assume THEY did and we can form our own opinions and thoughts.
caffn8me
Well-known member
Yes, Saddam did have WMD programs during the Clinton presidency but the report makes it very clear that these had subsequently been halted and it gives the reasons and provides full supporting evidence.
Bear in mind that when Clinton was in power (which was a very long time ago) Saddam never expected that the USA would fight a war with Iraq and he had ongoing issues with Iran. His use of chemical weapons during the Iran Iraq war allowed him to defend his country from invasion by a force which greatly outnumbered Iraq's own army. That he used those same weapons against his own people is another matter entirely. It's all explained in the report.
Bear in mind that when Clinton was in power (which was a very long time ago) Saddam never expected that the USA would fight a war with Iraq and he had ongoing issues with Iran. His use of chemical weapons during the Iran Iraq war allowed him to defend his country from invasion by a force which greatly outnumbered Iraq's own army. That he used those same weapons against his own people is another matter entirely. It's all explained in the report.
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
I tried, but I couldn't get the PDF open last night. I took a look at it this morning and it seems to me that the general idea is that items that can called chemical weapons were indeed found but deemed to be too degraded to be a threat to the US.
Personally, because of the way I have been affected by this war, have never looked at it from the perspective of whether or not the evidence was correct but rather that since we couldn't undo the fact that we were there, we should handle things in a manner that supports the Americans on the ground. In that manner, and many others, the US govt has failed its military miserably. I certainly support the troops that are fighting it but I do not support the manner in which they are equipped and managed. If you pushed me to ask whether or not I support the war in general, I would have to say no to that as well.
I also wonder, if the UN were a more effective and less corrupt entity, if things like this invasion could have been prevented.
Sorry, that was all over the map, but I tend to have verbal diarrhea when I find an adult willing to listen to me LOL
| Originally Posted by caffn8me Read the report and it will answer this question fully in detail. Please bear in mind that the committee has slightly more Republican than Democrat members (details here) but is intended to be politically neutral. Their conclusions on the presence or absence of WMDs were not politically motivated but evidence based. |
I tried, but I couldn't get the PDF open last night. I took a look at it this morning and it seems to me that the general idea is that items that can called chemical weapons were indeed found but deemed to be too degraded to be a threat to the US.
Personally, because of the way I have been affected by this war, have never looked at it from the perspective of whether or not the evidence was correct but rather that since we couldn't undo the fact that we were there, we should handle things in a manner that supports the Americans on the ground. In that manner, and many others, the US govt has failed its military miserably. I certainly support the troops that are fighting it but I do not support the manner in which they are equipped and managed. If you pushed me to ask whether or not I support the war in general, I would have to say no to that as well.
I also wonder, if the UN were a more effective and less corrupt entity, if things like this invasion could have been prevented.
Sorry, that was all over the map, but I tend to have verbal diarrhea when I find an adult willing to listen to me LOL
