Pre-war intelligence and doubt that Iraq had WMD

What bothers me most is that this war was started on weak/flawed evidence that mostly related to WMD and that this was already known before.
I have given additional reasons before which I am too tired to search or repeat.

Yes, you have given those reasons but since your country is not even involved, why the big concern. We aren’t forcing you to play a role in this (cowardly leeches that you are) so what’s the big damned deal?

It’s our bed and we will lie in it. I am willing to do that.

Another escape attempt? Wasn’t it you who said he supported the war but would not want to fight, yet claims a right to voice his opinion on the matter?
What has my country of origin to do with anything? Nothing. And thus I reserve the right to speak my opinion as an individual as you do. :raspberry:

But why are you so obsessed about the American action? What does it have to do with you? And if you are a concerned international citizen as you so frequently claim to be, why are you silent when more egregious examples surface. We have proved that it cannot be concern for Iraqi civilians, UN actions, pre-emptive policies, oil, etc. so what is it with you Rascal? What is it?

[quote]U.S. Army Says It Founds Shell with Sarin Agent in Iraq

A small amount of the nerve agent sarin was found in a shell that exploded in Iraq, the U.S. army said Monday in the first announcement of discovery of any of the weapons on which Washington made its case for war.

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told a news conference the substance had been found in an artillery shell inside a bag discovered by a U.S. convoy a few days ago. The round had exploded, causing a small release of the substance, he said. [/quote]

spook,

If there are no WMD found it is a non-issue for those of us who support the invasion on more than one ground and who understand that the burdon of proof re WMD was on the Iraqis, not on the UN or US.

However, if there are WMD in Iraq, then this is an issue for 1) those who have opposed the invasion based on the belief that there are no WMD in Iraq and 2) those who have accused the Bush administration of lying.

It appears that there are indeed some WMD in Iraq. How many? I don’t know. But two shells have been found recently with sarin. I doubt those are the only two shells that still exist.

As it appears those might be old shells that Iraq admitted to having before back in the early 90’s and the quantity seems to be rather low. The ‘insurgents’ that used them probably didn’t know what they were dealing with as the gas is inside artillery shells.
At least, based on the current information, it does not correspond to the bleak scenarios painted by the Bush administration (mobile weapons lab, active programs, nukes etc).

And just to remind you - I never said there aren’t any WMD in Iraq nor did I claim that none will be ever found, I just said the evidence regarding the WMD was to weak to make a case for war based on that.
And I maintain this position even the US would be lucky enough to stumble over some old shells with sarin or a vial of BT in somebody’s fridge.

Rascal:

Did you say that there were no wmds in Iraq? I don’t recall. You might have mentioned it once. I will grant you in all fairness that you disagreed with the evidence to go to war, but this seems like back tracking on your part or certainly a major shift in emphasis. I take your point though but even if this was manufactured BEFORE 1991, the fact that it remains is one of the problems that Bush addressed in the lead up to the war. It was ALL supposed to have been destroyed and accounted for by Saddam. Clearly, then it was not and that was the administration’s entire point. Can we take a chance and believe this man that it was. Now, obviously it was not all destroyed. That means then that the administration may have overplayed its hand but it did have a hand to play with. It is very interesting that these materials are emerging now. Could it be that this stuff is being smuggled in from Syria?

EXTRA EXTRA

get your news today! Hey mister! EXTRA EXTRA.

2 Shells dating from the 80s found somewhere in Iraq said to contain Sarin!

Pres. Bush is vindicated!

Not vindicated. He would have had to have done something wrong to be vindicated.

He was right. Iraq had/has WMD that it failed to disclose and or account for.

JB:

haha very funny. But remember that all of these were supposed to be destroyed and Saddam was obligated under the threat of war to prove that he had. Obviously the existence of these two shells raises some serious questions then and remember after all, it was up to Saddam to prove that he had gotten rid of these. Perhaps there are more out there. Remember that the poisonous cloud over Amman that was planned. The types of chemicals involved might have come from Iraq as well. So… what then exactly is your point? That the US did not have a reason to worry about Saddam? Obviously, not true. But cynicism is so fashionable these days, be sure to adopt a supercilious attitude while you chain smoke Gauloise. It is after all so chic. so Left Bank so sophisticated.

Never said as far as I recall, I just expressed my doubt.

No doubt though that Saddam was a man who’s word you can be trusted, the UN inspections had found discrepancies to Iraq’s report before but the final verdict if this warranted a breach and thus ‘consequent actions’ (or whatever the term was) was still pending.
One should also remember that stuff found but considered illegal was immediately destroyed. If the UN inspections would have been finished we could have been pretty sure that Iraq would be “clean” (regardless of what you think about the UN or Blix) and no war would have been necessary. And should Saddam have “passed away” somehow at any given time I wouldn’t have shed a tear.
If a breach had been confirmed I would not have opposed action taken that would have been approved by the UNSC.

Regardless of that the stuff found is still far from the hand Bush & Co. played, “overplaying” is quite an understatement in this regard.

Dunno, but as mentioned the insurgents that intended to use the shells probably didn’t even know what was in there (according to a report in the German media). We will see.

Disagree as we don’t know yet where these shells came from and if Saddam actually knew about them. The low quantity and age would suggest that this might be a forgotten batch, not a stock pile for future use by Iraq’s armed forces.

Fair enough. I guess we will have to wait and see. I still think that Saddam was a threat and after him we would have had a choice of one of his two lovely sons.

We won. He is gone. His sons are gone. His ability to develop wmds is gone. This is a separate issue.

Now, we must look to the nation-building efforts that people like me hoped would bring real reform to the Middle East. We are behind schedule and facing setbacks. Let’s see. I think it is worth a try. Let’s see what happens.

Yeah, just like the vial of BT in someone’s fridge.

But since you always defend Bush for not being able to know because he was given information from somebody else (CIA, DIA etc.) why don’t you apply the same to Saddam? Maybe the people in charge told him that they destroyed all the WMD and materials - so he never lied, too. :smiling_imp:

In other news, govt auditors are recommending withholding Pentagon payments to Halliburton partly because the company charged the US money for meals it never served to troops in the middle east.

how many more scandals from halliburton do we need before it sinks.

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … urton_iraq

Actually JB:

Where is the scandal with Halliburton. The first supposed overcharging was revealed to include an influential Kuwaiti intermediary that was paid top dollar for getting a large amount of fuel together in a short time. The ultimate profits went therefore not to Halliburton but to the Kuwaiti intermediary. There was a big write up about this in the NY Times. So rather than Halliburton being found guilty of any wrong doing, a explanation was provided and case closed. But people like you seem to have forgotten to follow up on that case and are now looking for new “atrocities” and “corruption” where little is likely to be found. (we are too smart for that)!

Yeah, just like the vial of BT in someone’s fridge.

But since you always defend Bush for not being able to know because he was given information from somebody else (CIA, DIA etc.) why don’t you apply the same to Saddam? Maybe the people in charge told him that they destroyed all the WMD and materials - so he never lied, too. :smiling_imp:[/quote]

That’s possible, Rascal. And that is precisely the situation that David Kay referred to when he indicated that Iraq might actually have been even more dangerous than we thought originally… if Saddam actually was not aware of what was going on… what would there have been to stop a rogue scientist or soldier from dealing with al Qaeda (if you insist that Saddam and OBL would never cooperate?

[quote=“fred smith”]Actually JB:

Where is the scandal with Halliburton. The first supposed overcharging was revealed to include an influential Kuwaiti intermediary that was paid top dollar for getting a large amount of fuel together in a short time. The ultimate profits went therefore not to Halliburton but to the Kuwaiti intermediary. There was a big write up about this in the NY Times. So rather than Halliburton being found guilty of any wrong doing, a explanation was provided and case closed. But people like you seem to have forgotten to follow up on that case and are now looking for new “atrocities” and “corruption” where little is likely to be found. (we are too smart for that)![/quote]

So your logic is, even assuming that this earlier fuel charge was legitimate, it makes all subsequent accusations against Halliburton patently false?

I see.

That’s not what I said JB:

But here we go again. The media is ganging up on the administration and anyone connected to it. If Halliburton were just any company, without the Cheney connection, would it be under this kind of scrutiny? I don’t think so. The previous claim has been discounted so here we go again with new “evidence.”

Despite all the liberal wailing and shrieking, we have only been caught on two things:

First, no wmds. Maybe. Everyone however realized that Saddam was a threat, but as usual no one wanted to do anything other than have dialogue about it.

Second, we are not on schedule for rebuilding Iraq nor for drawing down troops.

But look at all the endless claims made by the yes Liberal Media and how many of these have actually come up wrong, false, etc.? Almost all of them.

Now, again, there is a possibility that we will be seeing some revelations on the wmd front and we will just have to keep soldiering away on the security front, but … I am sure that the media will be there every step of the way to blame us for each and every oversight.

I think that Bush should invade another country just to give all of these media hacks a new arena to focus on. With Iraq, no one pays any attention to Afghanistan, with another country, no one would pay the ridiculous and negative kind of attention that they do to Iraq so we would have a free hand there while the focus was shifted elsewhere. I suggest invading France.