LS1GTO Forums banner

1 - 20 of 106 Posts

·
Captain Thread Killer returns
Joined
·
21,898 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/

Inspector: Iraq had no WMD before invasion
Final report says Saddam had ambitions but no chem or bio arms.


Not to venture into anything political, this is not going to be good for ole Georgie come voting day.........reminds me of another great BUSH
mis-statement
"Read my lips, No new taxes" :gr_jest:
 

·
2004 Torrid Red GTO
Joined
·
1,119 Posts
stay on topic guys!...unless Bush started driving a GTO (I hear they're pretty popular in Texas). ;)
 

·
Captain Thread Killer returns
Joined
·
21,898 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
RedThunder said:
stay on topic guys!...unless Bush started driving a GTO (I hear they're pretty popular in Texas). ;)
this is in the lounge, not everything we talk about it gto........ :gr_jest:
 

·
Yellow Goat
Joined
·
410 Posts
Isn't the fact that no WMD existed old news by now? I thought this was determined months ago.

But you must be really ticked off at the Democrats then!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 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. 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Saddam tortured parents in front of children. He put live people in huge shredders. His animal sons raped women then killed them for fun. But if Kerry, the French, and the Germans had their way, this would still be going on while babies were left to die under the corrupt food for oil program. That's the real story. Not WMD. Oh, and 25 million Iraqis now have a chance to create a new democratically based form of government.
 

·
Old GTO Owner
Joined
·
2,812 Posts
Well, if they didn't exist then it was the biggest con job in the history of the world.

But then again, having studied people in school, his pattern of behavior tells me that the inspectors are wrong and that he got rid of everything in the months leading up to the war.

YOu can clean out a warehouse or two in a week with enough people. He had a tad more time than a week.
 

·
Growing up is an option
Joined
·
17,296 Posts
a lie implies that he knew otherwise. that is entirely different than stating something that proved later to be false. so to say lie is a lie. sadam tried hard to make everyone believe that he had WMD and indeed fooled everyone (including absentee senator kerry, germany and france). kerry is the perfect candidate to be president. . . of the past. he has perfect hindsight.
 

·
Resident Ass-Clown
Joined
·
662 Posts
Does anyone remember the pictures of the Kurds Hussein gassed?
 

·
Go Tigers!
Joined
·
2,455 Posts
Dbluegoat/ said:
Not to venture into anything political, this is not going to be good for ole Georgie come voting day.........reminds me of another great BUSH lie
"Read my lips, No new taxes" :gr_jest:
You really need to get informed. It was not George Bush who originally
said he had WMD. The Clinton Administration, the CIA, I can go on and on.
With the events of 9/11 things have changed. Why do people not get this.
President Bush is not taking any chances. If you think for one minute Saddam would not have loved to give a nuke to Al Quaeda, your on crack.
There is a lot of misinformation out there people. You need to do the research yourself. Oh, and come voting day, we will see. Yeah, George
Bush lied, OMFG, do some research and get the facts. He's a president with
some balls, and he's got my vote!
 

·
Yes, it has a car seat
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
I saw an ad last night where Kerry was talking about all these things he was going to fix - blaming them on Bush. Funny thing was, they were all things that were carry through from the Clinton administration. But people in general don't seem to remember anything since last week, so his campaigning will fool some people.

And as far as Irag - Hussein played the biggest poker bluff in the world. Whether he actually had WMD or not, he played like he did. It just happened to be we called his bluff before any of his neighbors did.
Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,255 Posts
Sorry Guys. Bush has mislead and outright lied along with Cheney, Rumsfield, and Ashcroft. They are not any different then any other administration. To deny the fact is silly.
:drink::drink:
 

·
Est. Apr 2004
Joined
·
5,861 Posts
Boefadeez said:
Does anyone remember the pictures of the Kurds Hussein gassed?

I do! Everytime I hear someone say "there were no WMD!" I see those pics in my head and visualize the tens of thousands of unmarked mass graves. The point is HE is/was a WMD. The tool doesn't make a difference if the end result is the same.
 

·
May I quote you on that?
Joined
·
22,046 Posts
Tails said:
Sorry Guys. Bush has mislead and outright lied along with Cheney, Rumsfield, and Ashcroft. They are not any different then any other administration. To deny the fact is silly.
:drink::drink:
That's why we pay them the big bucks. :D
 

·
Captain Thread Killer returns
Joined
·
21,898 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
Yellow Jacket M6 said:
You really need to get informed. It was not George Bush who originally
said he had WMD. The Clinton Administration, the CIA, I can go on and on.
With the events of 9/11 things have changed. Why do people not get this.
President Bush is not taking any chances. If you think for one minute Saddam would not have loved to give a nuke to Al Quaeda, your on crack.
There is a lot of misinformation out there people. You need to do the research yourself. Oh, and come voting day, we will see. Yeah, George
Bush lied, OMFG, do some research and get the facts. He's a president with
some balls, and he's got my vote!
look you guys really need to lighten up, I posted the story as more of a OOps another bad thing right before election time. Now I dont really like bush, and I think we have more important things to take care of here at home than running out everytime some country is in disarray and trying to fix it. A much more worthy cause to me would have been spend all that money and time and hunt down the entire upper cells of Al-quaeda since we know for fact they are running around terrorizing americans, sorry but I need to see some real hard evidence that saddam and bin laden were linked. Who killed 3000 americans on our own soil? I am not saying saddam was a great person and it was not good to get him out but I dont see that being the biggest problem for us at this time. Bin laden should have been taken care of long before saddam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
I have never liked the Iraq war. You can say your reasons why we did it.

America up to this time had not done a preemptive strike. America was not the big bully, the attacker, until now. We attacked a sovereign nation that had not attacked us. Over 200 years without a preemptive strike gone forever and we can never take it back.

If you say we did it to protect ourselves, I say from what, that country had nothing to attack us with. If you say we did it to free the Iraqi people, I say there are many other nations in need of that and after what happened at the Abu Ghaib prison, the Iraqi's don't want us there.

I say this war happened for one reason OIL. Up until the time it was pointed out that the American military had lost control of the cities in Iraq because they were gaurding the Oil pipelines, refineries, storage facilities nothing was being done in those cities except at the checkpoints. Then it gets pointed out and now we are trying to regain control of the cities. If we were there for the people we would have made sure the cities were secure, we didn't.

This Administrations policies don't work for me. A change is in order, if not it will be more of the same.

These are difficult times and difficult topics, everyone believes that they are right even me. Politics brings out passion almost as much as our GTO.

Just my opinion, not meant to offend anyone.
GranTurismoOmologato
 

·
Captain Thread Killer returns
Joined
·
21,898 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
GranTurismoOmologato said:
These are difficult times and difficult topics, everyone believes that they are right even me. Politics brings out passion almost as much as our GTO.

Just my opinion, not meant to offend anyone.
GranTurismoOmologato
all very well said.

yes we can discuss some political issues and still be friends. I dont think anyone here is really offended or out to offend.
 

·
Yes, it has a car seat
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
Tails said:
Sorry Guys. Bush has mislead and outright lied along with Cheney, Rumsfield, and Ashcroft. They are not any different then any other administration. To deny the fact is silly.
:drink::drink:
Oh, I don't deny that fact. It makes it even funnier that Kerry is blaming things on the administration that they didn't do.
Dan
 

·
297kW User
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
Everyone should read the report itself, it's only 19 pages.

It states Saddam had ambitions to restart his WMD programs after the UN and US lost interest in his country, and that he also bribed UN member nations with the Oil For Food program.

Don't forget that President Clinton made the same speeches against Saddam that President Bush did during his time, and that everyone in our government spoke out against him including John Kerry.

This was not something made up by the President, this was all accepted facts from our intelligence, UN intelligence, and intelligence services abroad that Saddam had weapons.
 

·
297kW User
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
A huge failure of intelligence



By Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent

The report of the Iraq Survey Group should put an end to a saga which will go down as one of the great failures in the history of intelligence.

Saddam was a potential not an immediate threat, says the ISG report

The group concluded it was unlikely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It also concluded that he probably meant to make chemical weapons again one day, if sanctions had been lifted.


"The emphasis is on capability and intention not on immediate threat," said one British official familiar with the report.

While the technical assessment is over, barring some unexpected discovery, the political argument is not.

Opponents of the war will quite simply feel vindicated. For them it was an open and shut case which has now been finally shut. Iraq had no weapons and the inspections would have revealed this if they had been allowed to continue.

The assessment that Saddam Hussein was a potential threat provides an escape clause for proponents of the war, even though it was not the basis on which the decision to attack was taken. The basis for war was that he was an imminent, not a potential threat.

Already the Foreign Office in London is saying that Saddam Hussein was in striking distance of ending sanctions, that he had a secret oil distribution programme amassing him some $2bn, had never abandoned his intention of acquiring chemical weapons and would resume his WMD activities once sanctions had gone, something fully understood by his lieutenants.

"On the basis of the report, we should accept that Saddam had the capacity to develop WMD," British officials said.

Why did intelligence fail?


Iraq once had Scuds and planned more rockets, says report

As well as being a huge failure of intelligence, it is also a huge mystery. How could intelligence services have been so wide of the mark? Rarely have so many been so wrong about so much.

The blandly named Iraq Survey Group, made up of weapons experts led by the Americans and with input from the British and Australians, does go some way to providing part of the answer.

The group tried to penetrate the psychology of the Iraqi regime and had access to interrogations with Saddam Hussein and with his associates like his former Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.

It came up with the theory that Saddam Hussein's dark mind was convinced that his power lay in his special weapons and that, even though he had to give them up after the first Gulf War in 1991, he was determined to preserve an ability to manufacture them.

At the same time, he wanted to maintain the myth of invincibility which the weapons had brought him. He always believed that it was the threat of the weapons which stopped the Americans from going to Baghdad in 1991. So he obscured what he had and did not have.

Saddam's intentions

His priority was not to rebuild his weapons. That would have ensured the continuation of sanctions. It was to get rid of sanctions and to subvert them in the meantime. He was prepared to wait his time until the outside world lost interest and left him alone.

This, and the system of fear and rewards he ran which was unfamiliar to the West, made his regime hard to read.
He did not, as South Africa and Ukraine did, throw open his doors willingly and allow easy inspection. Indeed, the inspectors left at the end of 1998, so hard was their task.

Suspicion therefore remained and suspicion led to errors of judgement in which Saddam Hussein was not given the benefit of any doubt, even when the inspectors returned and found nothing.

It proved a disastrous strategy for Saddam Hussein because the uncertainty about his weapons could be exploited by an administration in Washington quite prepared to go to war.

It turns out that the only area in which a reasonably accurate assessment was made was in rocketry. Here, ironically, the threat was probably underplayed. Iraq had plans, according to the Survey Group, for a rocket with a range of 1,000km (620 miles), far in excess of the 150km (90 miles) he was permitted by the United Nations sanctions rules.

Then and now

The road to this conclusion has been a long one.

It is a long way from the confidence of the British government document in 2002 called Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In that dossier, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed: "What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme."

It is a long way too from the CIA document, also from the autumn of 2002, whose first line read: "Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions."

 
1 - 20 of 106 Posts
Top