Iraq's WMD: Straight From the Experts

[ankitovich]

"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 invigorated 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, December 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 mandated 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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

[El Duderino Diablo]

I love raspberry jam. I die for it every day.

and...

I truly believe that the Jesus and Mary Chain were criminally underated.

and...

This thread sucks.

[Geo]

This was great. Check it out. (http://reagan.com/ronald/video/blame.avi)

[ankitovich]

Originally posted by The Dude
This thread sucks.

Well the truth hurts.

[Jeremy Knox]

I was surprised as anyone that Saddam didn't have WMD's. However the question was never about WMD's or Saddam's brutality towards his people. Both are well documented.

No, the problem is spending 85 billion dollars going off on a big scavenger hunt when the war against terrorism in Afghanistan is barely won. Right now you're stuck, if you leave Iraq there's a power vacuum and you'll have another Taliban scenario just waiting to enter the frey.

What's stupid about going to Iraq is what happens if there's another terrorist attack? What are going to do? From what I read you're completely stretched across Iraq and Afhanistan, troop morale is down, people are leaving the armed forces at such an alarming rate that the military has decided to cancel retirements and force some of the better trained people to stay whether they want to or not, troops are confused at what the objective is... so what do you do in case there's another attack and it's shown that the terrorists are hiding in (for example) southeast asia? Who do you send? Troops? Which ones?

I never considered the war in Iraq a bad thing, I just considered it a waste of time and money and manpower. You're stuck there until at least 2007, like it or not. Who knows how long Afghanistan is going to take? Right now you've managed to secure Kabul, that only leaves about 400,000 square miles left to go. See the inherent problem here?

Here's a little quote you didn't use. Dick Cheney said it "For every million they spend, we spend a billion."

This kind of uneven battleground needs level thinking and judicious use of power and military. Storming into Iraq was not the best tactic in the world. It was a gamble, pure and simple.

JK13

[El Duderino Diablo]

Originally posted by ankitovich
Well the truth hurts.

You're hilarious.

[lovesun]

It’s silly to believe Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. Imagining you can find such weapons is even more ridiculous. Some lethal viruses, which have been weaponized, can be stored in a container the size of a mason jar – where would you begin searching for them?

Here’s a funny survey comparing apple and orange issues.

1. Do you think taxpayer dollars should be used to ensure all U.S. citizens and their children can receive healthcare benefits with co-payments and coverage comparable to HMOs? Why or why not?
2. If you do believe all U.S. Citizens should receive health care, what percentage of the annual budget and how many billions do you think should be spent toward that end, and why that percentage and amount?
3. How many billions or trillions of dollars of taxes and how many American soldiers are you willing to spend/lose in the continuing fighting and rebuilding of Iraq, and why? What percentage of the annual budget are you willing to designate for fighting/rebuilding in Iraq?
4. Which cause are you willing to spend more money on – healthcare for U.S. citizens and their children or continuing the fighting and rebuilding of Iraq? Why?
5. If continuing the fighting/rebuilding of Iraq required allocating 99.9% of the total amount of spending approved in the U.S. federal budget for 2004, would you be willing to continue?
6. Are you be willing to borrow 100% percent of the amount allocated for Iraq, thereby incurring interest charges on a loan from a private institution?

[ankitovich]

Single payer healthcare and Iraq are mutually exclusive and unrelated. Contrary to what politicians have you believe we are not choosing Iraq over healthcare per se. We wouldn't have socialized healthcare even we hadn't gone into Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and Somalia. The reason why we will not and should not have a socialized healthcare system, and the reason why a bill by Hillary Clinton proposing one in the Clinton years was mercilessly minced, is because socializing healthcare in this country will do three things.

- First it will wreck healthcare. Anything the government touches goes to hell in a handbasket. That is the nature of red tape, of bureaucracy and of waste, all staples of government control. All of the evidence that you need to substantiate this is public schools, municipal hospitals and government entities like AMTRAK, the SEC, the IRS and so on.

- Secondly it will wreck the tax system. Income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and every other tax under the sun will either have to be raised or in some cases created to fund yet another massive entitlement program. This country does not need another massive entitlement program because we have several already that are busting our budget. Despite my distrust in government I am and remain a big supporter of both Medicaid and Social Security, because I believe that it is a solemn duty of this country to care for its elderly, its indigent and its disabled. But we don't need to raise taxes on everybody to see to it that some 35 year old lawyer in Tuscaloosa making a killing chasing ambulances gets free health care. The private system of HMOs and PPOs can be reformed to adequately care for those who can afford them. What we need to do is to expand the population of Americans who can afford these private plans, and the way to do that is to create caps on medical malpractice awards, ensure free trade practices in global pharmaceuticals and to impose Anti-Trust statutes on the otherwise unregulated insurance industry.

- The third and quite possibly gravest reason why socialized healthcare is disastorous is simple. Howard Dean mentioned that the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world without socialized healthcare, and he cited Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Norway, Canada and Sweden as examples. What he failed to mention is that these nations have something else in common. They have ZERO medical or pharmaceutical innovation going on in their countries. There are British, Swedish or German pharma companies that innovate a bit, but the only place that they are able to reap the rewards of innovation (in the way of patents and profits) is here in teh U.S. If we become like these other nations, we will effectively stifle and eliminate the world's last and only bastion of pharmaceutical and medical innovation. I, for one, am not prepared to do that under any circumstances.

These are the three reasons why you are wrong. Socialized healthcare is a pipedream. It will never be feasible so long as we desire the best that modern medicine has to offer for years to come.

[judex]

Great. If I ever have any money, I will be able to afford the best healthcare in the world. For now, I am loading up on the everclear so I can saw off my own gangrene infected leg.

[Jeremy Knox]

- The third and quite possibly gravest reason why socialized healthcare is disastorous is simple. Howard Dean mentioned that the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world without socialized healthcare, and he cited Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Norway, Canada and Sweden as examples. What he failed to mention is that these nations have something else in common. They have ZERO medical or pharmaceutical innovation going on in their countries. There are British, Swedish or German pharma companies that innovate a bit, but the only place that they are able to reap the rewards of innovation (in the way of patents and profits) is here in teh U.S. If we become like these other nations, we will effectively stifle and eliminate the world's last and only bastion of pharmaceutical and medical innovation. I, for one, am not prepared to do that under any circumstances.

These are the three reasons why you are wrong. Socialized healthcare is a pipedream. It will never be feasible so long as we desire the best that modern medicine has to offer for years to come.


I don't think you understand socialized health care. Well, actually when it comes to Canadian health care, neither do I.

However, let me correct something. In Canada, at least, drug companies can and are encouraged to sell their products at full price. It's just that companies that make generic drugs are allowed to make knockoffs 5 years or so after the drugs have been introduced. That way the company has plenty of time to make a profit and people get to actually benefit from the drug if they couldn't afford it before.

What's the point of having these great new drugs if you can't use them? Personally I'm all for survival of the fittest, however when I'm old and sick I know for a fact that I'll change my tune.

It's like when you have cancer and the drugs are 1000$ a pop. Use them and you're broke, don't use them and you die. What do you choose?
Worse yet is if you can't afford to choose. The drugs are too expensive and you die.

Making money is good, but doing anything to make as much money as you possibly can is bound to get you into trouble.

JK13

[Furious D]

Here's an interesting fact that I discovered that aren't being covered by the major media.

Saddam was ordering his troops to use biological and chemical weapons. The troops themselves were told by their generals that the Iraqi military had the weapons. They were just based with other units. They would then tell the other units, that the first bunch had the weapons. Hence creating an elaborate shell game where nobody knew where the WMDs are.

Now there are some theories about what happened to these phantom WMDs.

1. Iraqi scientists and military officials were actually conning Saddam into thinking that he was buying or making these weapons while they pocketed the cash. Hence all the interference with UN inspectors and silly bugger games during the 90's.

2. These same scientists and generals had sold the WMDs and the equipment under Saddam's nose to Syria and Iran for a tidy profit before the war, but didn't tell Saddam about it.

3. Remembering former Sec. of State James Baker's message during the 1st Gulf War that the use of bio or chemical weapons would result in the nuking of Baghdad and Tikrit these same high mucky mucks destroyed, sold or buried the WMDs and is praying that nobody finds them.

Other Interesting Facts About the War They Don't See on the News: And these I got from a Democrat.

1. Saddam had broken every commitment he made in the cease fire agreement for Gulf War 1. That legally means that the war never ended, with or without UN approval.

2. Saddam was regularly commiting genocide agains the Shi'ite in the southern marshes, and was only prevented from killing more Kurds because they had direct Yankee air cover. The potential for genocide was used as justification by the Clinton Administration's unilateral decision to invade Kosovo. Ironically, the Clinton Administration actively inhibited UN operations to stop the genocide in Rwanda.

3. Saddam fired on American planes several times a week. Every shot was a violation of the ceasefire and an act of war.

4. Saddam supported terrorism. Now he wasn't directly involved in 9/11, but he did often assist Al-Quaida backed factions, as well as openly rewarding the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, with special cash bonuses if the body count was extra high.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now i'm no fan of the Bush administration, but there's more to this issue than the usual Michael Moore style arguments that Bush is a drooling warmonger out to kill for no reason. The UN has no real legal standing to justify or condemn any conflict. Half the member nations are ruled by dictators and the bulk of the other half are dominated by corporations profiting from those dictatorships. This is the same organisation that elected LIBYA as chair of the Human Rights Commission. Quadafi probably laughed his ass off over that one.

My advice for Dubya, ditch Cheney, he's become a liability, recruit Giuliani, and start using the real reasons they went to war.

[ankitovich]

An excellent analysis Furious. You, sir, are enlightened, and I wish that the latte swilling lunatic fringe LALA land liberals that typically populate this forum would appreciate your good sense. It is about time that the Barbara Streisand wing of the Democratic party put up or shut up on the issues that truly matter.

[judex]

Actually, I agree with Furious in that this whole Iraq issue is very complex and hard to decipher. A lot of that is due to both liberal and conservatives being more interested in proving they are right than critically examining the facts. Ankitovich it doesn't help when you just sling right-wing radio inspired ad hominym attacks at those who disagree with you. The left is also guilty of this tactic, to be sure.

Once again I must direct folks to www.spinsanity.org. These guys take both liberals and conservatives to task for the current state of soundbite politics

[Jeremy Knox]

Originally posted by judex
Actually, I agree with Furious in that this whole Iraq issue is very complex and hard to decipher. A lot of that is due to both liberal and conservatives being more interested in proving they are right than critically examining the facts. Ankitovich it doesn't help when you just sling right-wing radio inspired ad hominym attacks at those who disagree with you. The left is also guilty of this tactic, to be sure.

Once again I must direct folks to www.spinsanity.org. These guys take both liberals and conservatives to task for the current state of soundbite politics

Judex is correct, the problem is not the issues but the politicians themselves. You look at Iraq, of course the US was justified in going. In fact, since when does ANY country have to ask permission to go to war with people they hate and want to kill? So, with that in mind, why didn't the Bush administration TELL PEOPLE what Furious D listed? I'll tell you why, because everything D listed is linked to the first Gulf war and it would bring up the uncomfortable question "Why the hell are you going in Iraq?". They have weapons of mass destruction? Well, North Korea's dangling nukes in front of our noses, most Arab countries have some sort of WMD programs.

As for human rights, the middle east is NOT a bastion of free speech and liberty. Last I checked they still cut your fucking hand off when you're convicted of thievery. Or better yet, go to China. They jail people for sneezing the wrong way. What Iraq did and was still doing was horrendous, but it was no different than what other countries do every single day.

So the question remains "WHY Iraq?"

Furious also mentionned them sneaking WMD's out of the country. I see this as VERY unlikely. What with about a gazillion spy satellites combing ever inch of the country and neighboring nations very unreceptive to having those things in THEIR countries. It's easier and safer to offer asylum to the scientists who created them, rather than have the actual, physical weapons themselves.

JK13

[Furious D]

Sadly, political debate everywhere has gecerated into nothing more than schoolyard name calling and constant repitition of what Goebbels called "The Big Lie." That's where if you lie about something loud enough and often enough people will start to believe it's true.

There are a lot of lies going on about the war, and they're not about WMDs.

One of the key ones is that the USA is dependent on Mideast oil. The bulk of US oil consumption is domestically produced. The percentage of oil that is imported over 90% comes from Canada and Venezuela. If Dubya just wanted oil he could have invaded either country. Neither could put up much of a fight, and in the oil producing areas at least, they'd probably be welcomed.

Another myth is that the sanctions were working to hurt Saddam's regime. During the time of the sanctions, where oil was supposed to be traded for food and medicine, starvation and disease ran rampant through Iraq. Delegates in the UN criticized the USA for the sanctions, but when the US offered to end the sanctions by taking down Saddam, those sanctions suddenly became untouchable sacred cows. The reason: several nations with key positions in the UN (eg: France, Russia) were making billions off black market Iraqi oil. Oil that was supposed to go for food and medicine. Saddam didn't have to give up one palace during the sanction era, in fact, he built dozens more, and lived a lifestyle beyond Robin Leech's deepest wet dreams. Sure his people were sick and hungry, but when you're a psychopath, you really don't care about such things.

Now the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq is going to be costly, and it's going to be a royal pain in the ass. But there's already been some positive changes because of it. In Libya, old Moammar Quadafi is chilling out, turfing the terrorists from his country and being the model of cooperation with disarmament experts.

In Iran, the Ayatollahs who have ruled the country since the 70's are flailing in terror as democratic opposition groups grow in strength and confidence thanks to a large US military presence next door. Things have gotten so desperate for the Iranian Rulers that they've had to employ Chechen and Palestinian mercenaries because they can't trust their own police and military to crush opposition any more.

The leadership of Syria is quaking in its boots because thanks to terrorist factions it's backing, it's now on the shit lists of Turkey, Israel and the USA, the 3 biggest military powers in the region. So now the Syrians are acting all friendly and trying to negotiate their way out from under their icy gaze.

Sadly, the only Democratic candidate who didn't subscribe to the party's mythology about the war was Joseph Lieberman, and he just dropped out of the race.:(

[Furious D]

Originally posted by Jeremy Knox
Furious also mentionned them sneaking WMD's out of the country. I see this as VERY unlikely. What with about a gazillion spy satellites combing ever inch of the country and neighboring nations very unreceptive to having those things in THEIR countries. It's easier and safer to offer asylum to the scientists who created them, rather than have the actual, physical weapons themselves.

JK13

Spy sattelites are all well and good, but as a line in the Simpsons said, "All our satellites could confirm was that it's not on the roof." They were designed to monitor movements of Soviet and Chinese armies, not figure out the contents of a single delivery van. For that you need human agents on the ground, and sadly they're few and far between in the middle east.

A biological or chemical weapon agent could fit inside a container no larger than a pop can and you could fit all the contents of a lab in the back of truck, buried under bales of hay and reconstruct it in a room no bigger than an apartment kitchen. It all depends on how much you want to move and where. Also Iraq's border is more porous than a sponge and their neighbours aren't completely unreceptive. Iran's trying to start its own nuclear weapons program and has been dabbling in bio & chem weapons for years. They'd love to get their hands on Saddam's stash and getting it out from under his very nose only sweetens the deal.

[ankitovich]

Furious you make more sense to me every day. :D