(NFR) WMD's and a little perspective

WMD's and a little perspective

>>"...and I was especially glad to get the feeling that our troops still feel there's an important job to be done."


I'm particularly distressed by people who make statements about the war being a self-serving contrivance of the "war machine"; the entire mission being an effort in futility on par with Vietnam; and the Commander in Chief being a moron -- and then following up such statements with "I support our troops." Supporting our troops means a helluva lot more than just wanting them to come home alive. Every American wants that. I can't think of anything less supportive of our troops than telling our boys that their commander is an idiot and their efforts are futile at best and complicit in war crimes at worst.:reallymad

Sorry everybody. I'm just pissed off because I couldn't go fishing today (will T-ball season ever end?). I'm going to sit down and try to write something funny.

I told myself I was going to take a break from these threads...


Dana Miller
WMD's and a little perspective

>For me, the issue is that GW Bush declared Iraq an
>"immediate threat",

President Bush NEVER declared Iraq an "immediate threat". In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said that Iraq must be stopped BEFORE it became an immediate threat.

If you disagree, please show a transcript of any speach by the President stating otherwise.

>Documents show that before Bush ever took office, his
>administration had already decided to invade Iraq.

How does an administration decide on something BEFORE there is even said administration??? In the 1990's, some of the people who would later become part of the current administration, wrote a policy paper saying that the best interests of the US and Middle East would be served by Saddam's removal.

This policy, part of the PNAC papers, was presented to President Clinton who acted upon it by declaring Iraqi regime change to be official American foreign policy. Clinton further acted on this policy by bombing Iraqi targets for four days in December 1998, using thousands of missles and bombs launched by British and American forces. According to Iraq, thousands were killed.

By the way, Clinton neither seeked nor obtained UN "approval" for this action.

>America thought we would sustain heavy casualties
>because Iraq threatened to use WMD's.

Why did we anticipate "heavy casualties" if President Bush "lied" and we "knew" that Iraq had no WMD's?

Every credible source felt certain that Iraq still had signifigant quantities of WMD's, including France, the UN, Bill Clinton and John Kerry.

>Undoubtedly, Saddam would have used them if he
>had had them.

Why? Saddam still had a large army but he refused to send it out to fight. Maybe Saddam hid them in anticipation that the American resolve would falter and he would resume power at a later date. Appart from Saddam resumming power, the faltering of resolve is becomming more and more apparent unfortunately.

>Let's not forget that just prior to the war with Iraq,
>North Korea claimed to have 2 nuclear bombs. These
>claims were verified by scientists working for the UN.
>For whatever reason, the Bush administration had their
>sites set on Iraq.

Would you prefer a nuclear war to what is happening in Iraq? Unfortunately, due to Clinton's failure to prevent N. Korea's from building the nukes, our options with N. Korea are severely limited unless we wish to see Seoul vaporized.

Clinton prefered the "negotiation and sanction" approach to N. Korea's nuclear program. It was a miserable failure. It is my belief that the eventual outcome in Iraq would have been the same if we had continued with the sanctions in Iraq. This can be backed up by the fact that Libya was near completion of it's nuclear weapons program despite 20 years of sanctions.

Contrary to your belief, Saddam was NOT contained. The facts coming out regarding the corruption of the "Food for Oil" program prove this. The sanctions against Iraq were constantly being violated and some European nations and many in this nations political left were calling for elimination of the sanctions. It was only a matter of time before it was "business as usual" for Saddam.

If President Bush had failed to act and Iraq had developed nuclear weapons, Democrats would be calling for Bush's impeachment. Most conservatives, myself included, would also have been irate.
>Scott Ritter was the chief inspector of UNSCOM in
>1998. He was very much against the invasion of Iraq
>because of his knowledge that Iraq could not have built
>WMD's in the short time since UNSCOM left the country.

Scott Ridder has absolutely NO credibility what so ever! Prior to 2000, he was stating that Iraq still had massive quantities of WMD. Only AFTER he accepted money from Iraqi sources to make a "documentary" did he change his tune.

>Certainly, nobody on this board or anyhere knows all
>that there is to know on this topic.

On that, we both can agree!

>Furthermore, I can't blame the insurgents for rising up >against this invasion as we would do the same thing in >this country if the roles were reversed.

How sad! If the roles were reversed, I would be fighting on the side that was attempting to bring some semblance of democracy to the nation. Not the side that was trying to return it to a murderous dictatorship.
WMD's and a little perspective

got to agree with cactus. i didn't vote for bush and haven't voted republican since i was 18 and voted for nixon x( although gw is looking more and more incompent(and more importantly the guys who run him are looking more and more like fools) they took the right path. dicking around with these guys has not worked and 9/11 proved that. butt kicking is the only way to deal with them. it's just looking like the current administration is not capable of doing it. niether are the democrats and that is a sad commentary. we need a real leader like rome needed another julius caesar. my nephew just left iraq and i hope the rest can follow soon. this is not a part of the world which has ever been at peace for long and it is unfortunate that we are dependent upon it for our energy supply. as long as that dependence exists we will have no peace either.

Steve Buckner

Mother Nature's Son
WMD's and a little perspective

Per your request, I've included a laundry list of quotes from Bush, Dick Cheney, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan and others stating that Iraq posed an "imminent threat". GW Bush and his administration also used other synonymous phrases such as "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," .

You are correct that he does not mention an imminent threat during his state of the Union address, these quotes were made in addition to that speech, most of them to get congress to turn over the power of declaring war on Iraq.

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

So why did we anticipate heavy casualties? Because in Bush's state of the union address, he mentions the quantity of weapons that Iraq supposedly had. Here is the quote from his January 2003 State of the Union Speech:

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

13 months later, how much have we found?

I will concede that I was unaware that Ritter did change his story. Thank you for enlightening me on that.

Steve Buckner


...has several mistresses.
WMD's and a little perspective

My WMD is a rubber leg stimi on the Big Hole when hoppers are everywhere. You heads NEED to get out more, put down the paper, the t.v remote, your latest edition of "Soldier of Fortune" and your Tom Clancy books! Pick up your flyrod, your buddy and a fat sack and get to it!

"If you can't duct it, fuckt it".

Steve Buckner

Mother Nature's Son
WMD's and a little perspective

Amen SAK!

I find it genuinely interesting though to be able to have conversations with so many people with differing opinions. Everyone has their points to make and sometimes one is able to reconsider one's position on various topics.

Steve Buckner
Dems quotes regarding Iraq...

Since we seem to be going down this path of Bush bashing... Let's bring to light what the dems and other Bush bashers have said recently.

"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

"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

"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

"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

And some of your liberal hero's:

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

"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

"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

"(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

So why do I bring this up? Why do I feel like I need to get brought into this?

Because there seems to be an awful lot of people with blinders on out there... Maybe it is just the liberal NW, but jesus people, use your friggin brain. It's there for a reason. Are you really going to vote for someone who only stands to tell each audiance what they want to hear in their persuit to the white house? I'm tired of hearing "Bush isn't doing this... Bush isn't doing that..." What is the solution from the left? What are your ideas? I never hear any. -- And yes I read the paper, and yes i listed to the news. Granted, Bush is NOT a good speaker. Bush probably is not the best for the environment. But for Christ sakes, do you actually trust Kerry to protect us and make our nation more secure? Do you ACTUALLY think that by handing Iraq over to the UN, these terrorist thugs are going to say let's leave the US alone now? They have been trying to kill you and me for years... They will not stop. They are twisted and deranged. Why are we fighting? Because we have had WAR declared on US. Open your eyes people...


Dana Miller
WMD's and a little perspective

>You are correct that he does not mention an imminent
>threat during his state of the Union address, these
>quotes were made in addition to that speech, most of
>them to get congress to turn over the power of
>declaring war on Iraq.

So in other words, President Bush NEVER stated that Iraq was an imminant threat. That is the charge that has been repeated over and over by his opponents, and it is just not true! If you repeat a lie often enough, people may just believe it but it's still not true.

>"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam
>Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce
>over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill
>several million people. He hasn't accounted for that
>material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed

So President Bush is to be condemned for believing the UN regarding WMD? Yet the left now turns around and condemns him for NOT doing it the UN's way? You can't have it both ways!

It seems to me that ones you should be condemning is the UN. They lead the entire world to believe that Saddam has WMD, in direct violation of numerous UN sanctions, capable of causing the death of millions. Yet when the UN had the oportunity to stand firm with the US and maybe, just maybe, cause Saddam to relent, they backed down.

Of course now we know why they did. It's because they were in Saddam's back pocket. The UN, along with France, were taking billions in kick backs from Saddam. The UN is nothing but a bunch of morally bankrupt cowards. Just look at the tragedys in Ruwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, etc.! Look at the millions of his own people that Saddam killed! Where was the UN?

The UN condemns Israel for killing a relatively small number of terrorist bent on the elimination of Israel, while turning a blind eye to the slaughter of millions of innocents elsewhere in the world. Disgusting!

American soldiers are dying in Iraq today because the UN was too corrupt to do it's job! It wanted to keep the billions of dollars in blood money flowing from Saddam.

The UN has an abhorant record of solving world conflicts; they haven't solved one! It has taken US leadership and blood. Under President's Bush and Clinton: the Kosovars are no longer being murdered by Milosovic; there is relative peace in Northern Ireland; the woman of Afghanistan can now attend school; the Libyans have renounced WMD; and hopefully, soon the Iraqis will be able to elect there own leader.

The question shouldn't be why "the world" hates the US, it should be why in the hell they like the UN!

>13 months later, how much have we found?

To quote William Safire; "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Just two weeks ago, the left was calling President Bush a lier because there were NO WMD's in Iraq. That is no longer the case but I doubt the President will be holding his breath in expectation of an apology.

No the left just raises the bar. Now the charge is that he's lying because we haven't found enough. Why do I get the impression that if we found 90% of the WMD's that the UN said were in Iraq, the left would still call him a lier because 'there weren't as many as he said'? :rolleyes

Steve Buckner

Mother Nature's Son
Dems quotes regarding Iraq...

Good points Scott and thanks for posting the quotes from the liberal left. I'm guilty of being on the left (like that was a surprise) and it's healthy for me to see things like you've posted.

By their nature, politics and religion are topics that people feel passionate about. It's better to be passionate than indifferent. Like many, I wish we had other options besides Kerry or Bush. It always seems like choosing the lesser of two evils.

Steve Buckner
Dems quotes regarding Iraq...

Skinny.... You forgot beer.

One should always be passionate about beer. Not all beer, but beer non the less. :thumb

Steve Buckner

Mother Nature's Son
WMD's and a little perspective

You make good points as well Cactus. I maintain my argument that Bush and or his spokemsan made declarations of Iraq being an "imminent threat" however. Bush himself may not have used that exact term, but used synonyms.

Steve Buckner

Gabriel Burgi

doesn't live in WA anymore :(
Attn: Bob and Luv2FlyFish, and all others....

Now, if we can find a nice blend of Luv2FlyFish's initial post, and Bob Lawless' inital post, we might get something done. Cheers to both for points well made. Someone really important said this to me when I was entering the toughest military school in the country: "This too shall pass". Take that to heart. It will all get worked out. These things take time. We've got the best of the best out there, and history--as Bob pointed out--to guide us in our decisions(Thanks to Bob for doing what noone else wanted to do). This is not worth fighting amongst ourselves about. Just enjoy the fact that there are VOLUNTEERS out there doing the dirty work for us while we await summer steelhead season, or enjoy the last of the spring chinooks (out here in Pullman/Moscow). Trust me, when my time comes to step up to the plate, I'll be ready and willing. And I won't remember these arguments, or who made them. I will remember the people and things that I cherish that are worth fighting for.

By the way, that PRK laser eye surgery sucks (get the LASIK it heals quicker). I'll be out of flyfishing for about 3 weeks, but it will all be worth it when I get selected to be a naval aviator. For now I gotta go. I'm on deck.

- Gabe:professor


Idiot Savant
Breifly, pre-emptive strikes are aggression, period.

It's wrong, period.

Sunni and Shitheads, oops I mean Shiites have been at odds for centuries, we're not gonna change that, period.

Read the Koran, this shit is not in there...period.

PYA brother, PYA!


Life goes on, enjoy it...