« doomdoomdoomdoom | Main | more anguish over that book »

he said, they said

The commenters at Democratic Underground are cheering this column by Molly Ivins, which lists quotes by Bush and others in the administration in regards to finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. She says:

...but I think it is important to remember how we got here. May I remind you of what we were repeatedly told?

And then there's the listing of the usual Cheney, Bush, etc. sound bites on the WoMD.

Perhaps Molly Ivins and her fans over at DU should go take a look at this, a list of quotes by Gore, Clinton and the rest of the admired cotillion of the DU members. Such as:

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
-- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

And there's more over here:

"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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

Now, what were you saying about Bush lying?

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference he said, they said:

» Lies, all lies from Inoperable Terran
Molly Ivans has a typical column whinging about WMDs. Michele has a reminder of what the Smartest People In History had to say on the subject.... [Read More]

» Thank You, Once Again, Michele from Various Orthodoxies
Once again, Michele reminds us how two-faced Kerry (who, by the way, served in Vietnam) can be.... [Read More]

» The Letter Of The Day Is F from Electric Venom
F is for four: the number of planes allegedly occupied by members of the bin Laden family that flew out of the U.S. just after 9/11. F is for facts. F is for fanatics: amazing, the stupidity they blame on God. F is for familiar: yes, it does sound so. ... [Read More]

Comments

michele, michele, michele.....have you not learned by now that democrats and liberals can do no wrong? if Clinton was seen kicking a crippled old woman and Bush was seen handing out sandwiches to homeless hungry people, well then quite obviously the woman had it coming and Bush must have slipped something into the sandwiches that will oppress the homeless.

argueing with people like Molly Ivins and DU is as futile and pointless as trying to find anything even APPROACHING logic in their insane rantings.

All politicians lie. Show me an honest politician, and I'll show you someone who will no get re-elected.

The difference is that Bush acted on his lies (at the tune of $10 billion/month, hundreds of soldiers killed and thousands maimed, as well as 37,000 Iraqi civilians killed), rather than 'just' lie.

DU are full of nutcases, but the Democratic party are not responsible of this mess.

What's lots of fun is to tell them that you have other quotes from their enemies. They will grab up these so called quotes and rush out to show them to every one. As they come to rely on you for material, the quotes you give are more and more inane until it is very obvious these people are morons. (Obvious to everyone, not just to me.)

I laugh at this:

The difference is that Bush acted on his lies (at the tune of $10 billion/month, hundreds of soldiers killed and thousands maimed, as well as 37,000 Iraqi civilians killed), rather than 'just' lie.

First I don't buy the 37000 civilians dead, but beyond that, to declare a war some horrid abomination because "hundreds of soldiers died" is stark raving lunacy. I suppose in the next 30-50 years we will have perfected the art of warfare so that a nation can be overtaken with "dirty looks" only so NOBODY will die.

Give me a break. Far greater numbers of Iraqi civilians were being killed regularly by Saddam Hussein. You're argument is a losing one, by a landslide at that.

Here goes nothing:

First, perhaps there were WMD's in 1998 as Cohen suggests. It does not appear that there were WMD's in 2003. Hopefully, we update our national intelligence more often than every 4 or 5 years.

Second, as for Kerry, his statement is accurate even based on faulty data. IF there were an arsenal of WMD, THEN there would be a "real and grave threat to our security." As it is turning out, there was no aresenal of WMD hence no "real and grave threat." Kerry's statement was both qualified and based upon the Bush's administrations assertions.

Finally, I believe deposing Hussein was a good thing to do. Was it the right time? Did we have better uses for our military at this time? I don't know. What I cannot accept is that Bush and his inner circle wanted this war and, to achieve their personal goals, felt it appropriate to mislead, most importantly, the US citizenery, as well as the entire world. They should have laid the real cards on the table and let the American people decide if we wanted to deal with Hussein now or later. The Bush admin saw that Clinton could not draw the requiste support providing a realistic case for war and, therefore, deecided they needed to lie and/or mislead. Would any of you accept this type of behavior from an employee/subordinate working for you? Nor should we.

Finally (again), why is it that the Bush admin was so intent on this war? Could it be that attention needed to be diverted from the fact that we hadn't, (and still have not) found Bin Laden or determined his fate?

Sherard:

37,000 dead Iraqi civilians - http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2855

355 dead coalition soldiers - http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/index.html

Your remarks are rather flippant, but no suprise. As long as you don't have to do the actual fighting, everything is OK!

Actually, Vince, I would love to be over there. It would be the ultimate honor and payback for 9/11. I was very close to military service, as an officer in the Navy, but it just wasn't in the cards. My father served in Vietnam, my three best friends were active in the Gulf in the Marines during Operation Desert Storm, and my brother drove M1A1 tanks in Germany during the Gulf War as well.

And they share my sentiments.

Yes, if I were a fool, I would blindly accept as fact a report from Iraqi Propaganda, i.e. anything from the "General coordinator of the Iraqi Freedom Party".

Yes, Norm, this is an interesting theory:

First, perhaps there were WMD's in 1998 as Cohen suggests. It does not appear that there were WMD's in 2003. Hopefully, we update our national intelligence more often than every 4 or 5 years.

Apparently, Saddam was complying with the UN resolution, just keeping this fact a secret. Obviously because he enjoyed the economic sanctions so much.

"Actually, Vince, I would love to be over there. It would be the ultimate honor and payback for 9/11."

Ah, there lies the rub. Repeat after me: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. This is fact. Saudi Arabia, however, had everything to do with 9/11. Ad what happened? An invitation to Bush's ranch, that's what.

And spare me the "my papa this, my brother that'. You still have other people fighting for you. Whether you would love to be over there or not is irrevelent; to paraphrase Yoda, you either do or you don't, there is no try. And you aren't.

I would be more willing to stomach the whole war if the reasons from the beginning were based solely on humanitarian ones. However, when you look at how frenzied the Bush administrations declarations about Iraq's weapons were, and then how suddenly vague they were after 'major combat' was over, it's laughable. If you use base something of this magnitude almost completely on one argument, and then that argument falls apart... what else can you expect but doubt?

Bottom line: Will Iraq be better off without Saddam? I can't see how it would be worse, at any rate. Was it a good idea for the States to decide to attack unilaterally (yes, yes, they had Blair and a handful of other small countries, but considering Bush declared they would go alone without support you can hardly say they were committed to finding it)? Probably not. One thing that it seems many pro-war folk don’t’ seem to realize is that a lot of liberals aren’t necessarily upset that Saddam was overthrown, but how Bush went about doing it.

well that's some outstanding logic you got going there Vince. i take that from now on since you aren't ACTUALLY IN the white house sitting in the oval office you can no longer say anything about Bush's actions. Got a problem with racism? your comments are now limited to your race alone. job industry comments will now be restricted to whatever it is you do for a living.

and as for the dems not having any responsibility in this? they damn well do. to the tune of 8 years of hacking our military and intelligence to pieces. to the tune of 8 years of letting saddam thumb his nose at us. to the tune of letting osama and his buddies bomb whatever they liked and then laugh at us as we crawled away like whipped puppies.

before you start on an accountability spiel you better make damn sure you include EVERYONE.

Ah, yes, Vince, the tired and ultimately stupid argument that "If you're not there fighting, you should have no say in the matter." Under that reasoning, the people who kept the war machine spewing out tanks and munitions during WWII should have, instead, sat on their asses and not had opinions on the war. How ridiculous is your argument? Well, you paraphrased Yoda, a green muppet who stole Grover's voice. Pretty unconvincing.

So you are saying that Bush doesn't lie? He'd have to be a good lier with twins like he has. snicker

Vince, unlike you, I don't CARE if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The country is full of Islamic extremist nutcases no different than Afganistan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Syria, you name it. If they want to go join Allah as a martyr, I am more than willing to oblige them.

My point was not if someone else was fighting for me. I can tell you of 5 individuals in this country to whom I have a personal connection who all share my opinion. They DO have a right to their opinion and they WOULD think you were an asshat if they were to waste their time listening to your idiotic argument.

Quoting yoda, now there's an intelligent response. ROTFLMAO!!!!

The Bushies kept saying "WE KNOW FOR A FACT" that there were weapons in Iraq like nukes that could reach New York in minutes, so we had to invade NOW NOW NOW. Not "we don't know for sure, but better safe than sorry"; but rather we KNOW. It's not a matter of lying per se, but rather a frenzied attempt to hype up the scare factor in order to gain support for the war - a war that has been in the planning stages since at least 1996. It wasn't about 9/11; 9/11 merely provided a further impetus for the neocons' feverish dream.

What are indeed facts are that Saddam is alive, Osama is still alive, the Taliban is regrouping, our troops are being blown up and shot at every day, and the Iraqis aren't exactly embracing Democracy: "But after the majestic handoff of democracy to the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council, it seems the puppets (now nervous about bodyguards) don't even want to work late, much less govern. As one aide told The Times, "On the Council, someone makes a suggestion, then it goes around the room, with everyone talking about it, and then by that time, it's late afternoon and time to go home." (Moonbat Dowd, NYT). Had there been a President Gore who invaded Iraq, the Right would be nuking him for the facts detailed above.

C'mon, guys, our current situation is becoming less of a Righty-Right Bloggers vs. Treasonous Moonbats proposition and more of one where any sensible citizen should be alarmed, or at least awfully concerned. Anything less is denial, if you ask me.

Oh Sherard, so misinformed...

"Vince, unlike you, I don't CARE if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The country is full of Islamic extremist nutcases no different than Afganistan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Syria, you name it. If they want to go join Allah as a martyr, I am more than willing to oblige them."

Saddam's only redeeming quality was that he put a very large hammer down on Islamic militants. Now that he's gone they've risen up. Instead of draining a swamp, the AUS has created one.

Besides, Pakistan and SA are your friends, remember?

But you don't care. Neither did the 19 highjackers. You both have something in common!

As far as Yoda goes, for a piece of plastic with a hand up his ass, he is still way smarter than you.

Those who say you can not comment on (esp. advocate) military actions unless you are military are advocating a fascist state similar to "Starship Troopers."

Well, it's nice to say you believe there are weapons - especially when it's because former Governor Bush keeps insisting there are. But as far as I can tell, the people you quote didn't invade a country based on deliberately falsified evidence.

Cant wait till the Grown ups run the White House Again.

On a side note:

Say what you will but we are not able to continue in Iraq without more support from the international community. N.Korea was always the bigger threat to our security and right now we dont have more the a troop of boy scouts to throw at them

Let's not get too hasty. Along about the middle of September, I think we’ll see Bush nuke the “no WMD” whiners with……evidence.

Wow, Michele, you've been invaded by asshats!

Better call the exterminator!!!

"The Bushies kept saying "WE KNOW FOR A FACT" that there were weapons in Iraq like nukes that could reach New York in minutes"

They did?

"What are indeed facts are that Saddam is alive, Osama is still alive"

They are?

JasonD - for a guy who rails against supposed absolute statements (that were never made), you sure can make some absolute statements about "facts"

Osma and Saddam alive? Why, of course they are, Jason told us so!

Along about the middle of September, I think we’ll see Bush nuke the “no WMD” whiners with……evidence.

Bullshit. If they had found anything by now, it would have been on every front page in the world within 12 hours. There is no way in hell that, after all this time, they would sit on their evidence and wait for an opportune moment to spring it on the doubters. (That's why I never believed the "plant" rumors -- if they were going to do that, they would have done it right away.)

But it's touching to see that you still have faith in this administration. Makes me wonder what they need to do to make you lose it.....

Hmmm...the date says September, but it seems to me that I've heard all this before. In order:

37,000 dead Iraqi civilians... Vince, there are no words for how unimpressive that source is. 37,000 is just delusional.

The Bushies kept saying "WE KNOW FOR A FACT" that there were weapons in Iraq like nukes that could reach New York in minutes... more delusion, this time from JasonD. No one with three functioning brain cells would assert that the Iraqis had nukes that could reach New York in minutes---that requires an ICBM, which they most certainly did not have. If I could find some sort of point in your comment, I'd urge you not to make it with such transparent drivel.

Finally, John says: N.Korea was always the bigger threat to our security and right now we dont have more the a troop of boy scouts to throw at them. Well, fine. If we took every soldier from Iraq and sent them to North Korea, would that be OK with you? Or would you then complain that we were beating up on poor Kimmy and his starving millions? No blood for kimchee!

Cant wait till the Grown ups run the White House Again. Eisenhower's dead, John.

Sigh.

The Fact is North Korea has always been a country we should have invaded first. After all it was even on the "axis of evil" list along with Iraq. The fact that N.Korea is exporting its missles, went back on the agreeement not to reprocess spent nuclear rods and now by most estimates has 1-2 nuclear bombs ready and another 2-3 before years end.

Even China is concerned by N.Korea. The rash of border violations and robberys by N.Korean troops and starving citizens has so concerned China that they have sent troops up to renforce the boarder. The situation is S.Asia is quite serious and not going away.

Prehaps we can talk about this without the flame war Angie?

Well, this is interesting, via Daimnation, and since I was gone over the weekend, I really don't know if it got any play:

"Dr. Kelly's sister, meanwhile, has testified that her brother persuaded skeptical members of his family that military action against Saddam was necessary:...."

"Earlier, she had said that, though approaching 60, her brother had been reluctant to retire because his feeling was that there was "an awful lot of work to be done in Iraq in uncovering the weapons of mass destruction that he was absolutely convinced were buried in the sand in the desert in some way or concealed in some way."

--

So, even the late David Kelly whose comments were going to bring down the Blair admin thought he still had them. And wanted to find them. And Britain still stands behind its intel, plus more.

The Chinese just found chemical weapons buried by the Japanese during WWII and WWI ordinance is still being found in phrawnce. And you guys are antsy after not even 6 months. And those dual use tubes? Well some were on the way to the NorKs. And Japan's actually thinking of clarifying its pacifist constitution.

John,

I was going to try to respond to your last post... but it's not worth it. Next time, think before you post. (Hint: use cost vs. benefit analyis, or pragmatism or the slightest understanding of foreign policy.)

JFH

Jason, if you are so worried about Bush's honesty, why is it that you yourself lie above about what the Bush administration stated? Could it be that it isn't the Bush administration that is lying but just you.

Coming somewhat to Jason's defense, although the claim of nukes capable of reaching the US in minutes is most certainly an exaggeration, Bush clearly stated that Iraq possessed WMD. Go to www.whitehouse.gov and select Iraqi Threat under Major Speeches down some on the left hand side. While there are as number of quotes, this one will do: "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do..." Is it agreed that Bush and his administration definitively stated that Iraq had WMD? Is it agreed that none have been found to date?

Furthermore, the lack of "nukes that could reach the" US in minutes simply further reduces the immediacy of the threat from Iraq.

Again, I'm not at issue with taking out Hussein. But I do take issue with "appointed" leaders misleading us to get their way (btw--I did vote for Bush but have since changed my opinion of him). How many here would tolerate their children misleading them in such a way as this to get what they wanted?

JFH: I was only expressing my view. You can disagree but its all good.

"well that's some outstanding logic you got going there Vince."

Apparently Vince believes that all the 150 million people who supported the war on Iraq should have fought personally.

Better tell the Pentagon to buy a lot more C-130's.

Yes, the Bush Administration has been nothing but foursquare for the truth, and it is I who am lying to the American people. Damn me to hell, I should have known the Righty-Righteous Bloggery troops would sneer the truth out of me.

Then again (rhetorically speaking), my lies aren't going to cause much harm on an international level, whereas Bush's can. So, the opposite of one ain't necessarily the same as the other.

Also, I said it wasn't a matter of Bush lying as much as it was a matter of stirring up war support with unproveable assertions. But, keep the "yer a hypocrit" internet rhetoric coming; it's really got me on the ropes, kids.

Besides, I didn't lie. It's true, the Bushies didn't say anything specifically about nukes reaching New York in minutes. Now, had I said so in quotes, by golly you right-thinkers would have me, but I didn't. I also said "weapons LIKE" nukes. In any case, I was overstating on purpose, to express the hysteria of the claims involved. Sloppy writing on my part. My apologies. I'll stick to quotes from now on.

"We know he's got ties with al Qaeda," Bush said at an election rally in November 2002. "A nightmare scenario, of course, is that he becomes the arsenal of a terrorist network, where he could attack America and he'd leave no fingerprints behind." There, see? We KNOW he has ties to Al Qaeda. How do we know? 'Cause Bush says so, and that should be good enough for any whining Moonbat.

(Quotes following taken from the Ivins article, which means they're probably made-up Moonbat lies, unless they aren't, but anyway shut up! because the Administration is about to speak some more shining truths:)

"We know for a fact there are weapons there." -- Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003. We KNOW. We know, we know, we know FOR A FACT. How do we know? See Bush entry above.

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." -- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003. THERE IS NO DOUBT. Ibid.

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." -- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003. WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. Or, not.

Texdriver, when the Government declares Hussein and Osama dead, I'll accept that they're dead. The official betting seems to be "likely alive" in the first case and "possibly alive" in the second. My point was (and you already knew anyway) that we have yet get either of these guys.

One other thing Clinton did - by way of Richard Clarke, who so impressed Rice that she kept him on as an advisor - was to brief the incoming Bushies that Osama and terror in general would be the new Admin's main concern. These warnings were batted away as being the product of a "feckless and naive" Democratic administration (TIME, August 2002).

"One other thing Clinton did - by way of Richard Clarke, who so impressed Rice that she kept him on as an advisor - was to brief the incoming Bushies that Osama and terror in general would be the new Admin's main concern. These warnings were batted away as being the product of a "feckless and naive" Democratic administration (TIME, August 2002)."

I can just imagine the briefing. "Hey Condie, just to let you know, Sudan offered to ship this Osama bin Laden guy to us. We turned them down. Then we got bombed in Yemen and didn't do jack about it. So watch out for that Al Qaeda bunch." "Okay, thanks Richard!"

WMD is a moot topic now. The Pentagon is sending in the bees to find them.

http://news.mysanantonio.com/global-includes/printStory.cfm?xla='saen'&xlb=180&xlc=1049261

Ah the IndyMedia crew has taken up residence at Michele's. Let the word go forth that all America-hating despots with nuclear ambitions and a burning desire to murder as many of their own people as possible will always find a home with the American left.

No need to let the word go forth on that one, Chico. Most everyone already knows that.

Jason: None of those quotes talk about reaching New York in minutes.

And, uh, one imagines that since the US wasn't in Iraq when those quotes were made, they were based on intelligence reports. Like communications intercepts and satellite photography. Now, it seems undeniable that the Iraqis thought they had chemical weapons - some have suggested that they didn't actually have any, but nobody dared report that to Hussein, for fear of being killed.

But, uh, even if we assume that, can you tell me that Rumsfeld is lying because he believes the intelligence, when no source on earth with the slightest credibility claimed that Iraq had no chemical weapons? He may well be wrong - intelligence reports are like that, but lying? Everyone was unanimous in belief that Iraq had chemical weapons, prior to the war. There was disagreement about how much, and about Iraq's nuclear and biological programs, but even France, Germany, and the UN Inspectors seemed to be willing to admit that Iraq certainly had chemical weapons.

And because "The Bushies" (what a great, unbiased and neutral term you have - but remember, if someone calls those on the self-described Left "lefties", well, that's indicative of a shallow mind!) believed what every source of information on the subject, as well as basic logic (if Hussein had disarmed, he had nothing to lose and everything to gain by saying so!), told them, they're "lying to the American people"?

All this because after months of warnings and preparation, the weapons can't be found? If they never existed, then the whole world was fooled and there's no "lie". If they did exist, well, then obviously they're well hidden or moved to Syria or dumped in the sea (remember those "mystery ships" that Instapundit keeps mentioning?). Either way, no "lie".

Gonna talk your way out of that one? If so, I expect logic and for you to address all the major points. We can wait.

BTW, Jason, if the Administration was relying on CIA reports before the war, what about the boxcars that left in Jan/Feb and the CIA didn't know?

So, one could argue that they knew where they thought they were at the time the statement was made. However, if they are now in the Bekka Valley, that's CIA's fault.

Oh, you don't scare me, Sandy. Plus, you're not in charge of me, so go ahead and "expect" and "wait" all you want, bossyboots.

For the record, I use "Bushies" because it's easier to than typing out "Certain Members of the Bush Administration". Yeah, it's not devotionally respectful of our Great and Flawless President, but it's hardly a cutting insult. Thanks for going after those who called me an "asshat" and a supporter of tyrants and a member of Indymedia, though. Good to know you're out there looking over all the other pupils' shoulders.

Again (and again and again and again), I did not accuse Bush of lying. I accused Certain Members of the Bush Administration (there, happy?) of purposely ratcheting up the fear level concerning the question of Hussein's imminent threat (and he was a threat; how imminent is another question altogether, which is exactly the point). All I can do about your snitty demand that I report back to you with a thorough addressing of the argument YOU want to have is to say that the absence of WMDs does NOT vindicate the claims ("We KNOW for a FACT") that the Bushies (oops) made. And so we return to my original post, in which I objected to C.M.O.T.B.A's dead-on assuredness concerning what they KNEW FOR A FACT and their insistence that we believe them.

Skepticism and and expectation of accountability are not commie-lefty-moonbat acts of treason. They're part of the function of citizenry.

I was going to point out that everytime you post something on this topic, all you do is point out that there is proof that politicians lie. But Vince and John above already pointed that out.

Now if only some of your commenters could get through a post without calling people of the opposite opinion "asshats," maybe we'd come to some creative discussion here.

And isn't that what it's all about? Creative discussion?

Golf clap for Jason..

Be sure to use some dramatic gestures when pontificating most pompously about the evil "Bushies" and such on an "enemy" site even. Sure, it won't be seen by anyone, but it's the thought that counts and it helps guarantee victory. (not)

Oh btw: just because latest intelligence is confident enough that "We KNOW for a FACT" that something is there, doesn't mean it can change before up to date intel can come in reporting that... the items were moved. Or hidden elsewhere.

Do you think this is some sort of James Bond film? Intelligence work isn't quite as certain as you seem to think it is.

But no, you have some grudge against the President so he must be lying. Oh, and anyone who dares to disagree with you must be one of his blind supporters. How convenient.

I still have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for the following scenario:

In 1980, Iraq orders a nuclear power plant, capable of refining weapons-grade nuclear material, from France. This deal includes French personnel to build the plant and train workers. Bear in mind that France has been a nuclear power since the early sixties. Despite massive and completely unfair world criticism (shamefully, from the US as well) Israeli fighter pilots bomb the place out of existence in 1981 with a minimal loss of life.

Iraq invades Kuwait in 1990. By 1991, the coalition (at the time, US, UK, France, Kuwaiti troops and a host of Arab armies) drives Iraq out of Kuwait. The victorious forces find physical evidence of gas-shells and substantial evidence of Iraqi research into biological warfare. This includes perfectly legal (at the time) orders of anthrax and other biological warfare materials from private US labs, presumably for peaceful research.

Under the terms of the cease fire, Iraq must unilaterally disarm their WMD programs and submit to a humitiating sanctions regime, which can be lifted if and when Iraq provides proof they are complying with all terms of the armistice.

So Iraq does everything in its power to prevent open inspections. The UN (not the US, I might add) institutes no-fly zone patrols over northern and southern Iraq, and inflicts strict sanctions to prevent further development of WMD programs or the rebuilding of Iraq's conventional armed forces. Despite this, Russia, France and Germany are later implicated in ignoring sanctions, or turning a blind eye to private companies which do business with Iraq.

Iraq keeps up their efforts to thwart the UN from fully inspecting the place, even at the cost of stiff sanctions and the resulting deaths of civilians due to the perfidy of the Hussein regime. In 1998, Pres. Clinton withdraws inspectors and initiates Operation Desert Fox, a massive, but short, bombing campaign. Iraq's conventional forces, particularly air defense, are furher weakened.

Skip ahead to 2003. The new coalition (US, UK and Australian and Polish Special Operations Forces) invades and occupies the place. There is evidence that WMD production material and personnel have been dispersed throughtout the country, but no WMD per se. Iraq is the size of California, and despite the best efforts of the allied forces, incontrovertible evidence of WMD has not been found a mere three months after the end of major combat operations.

Now, if the WMD never existed, we are forced to accept the following. That Hussein allowed his country to be subject to economic sanctions, which greatly affected the quality of life of his subjects, for no obvious reason.

We are forced to believe that after the UN observers were withdrawn in '98, he told his sons and generals, "Now that the Western interlopers are gone, we can destroy the WMD evidence, and still be subject to deleterious sanctions."

Does ANYONE actually believe this scenario? That despite concrete evidence that Iraq tried to produce nuclear weaponry, despite concrete evidence that Iraq used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, that despite concrete evidence that Iraq possessed chemical weapons in Desert Storm, despite concrete evidence that Iraq had (at one time) a biological warfare program, and despite substantial evidence that Iraq was still working on these programs, that Iraq kicked inspectors out and then decided to kill their WMD prorgams and not tell ANYONE? Despite the sanctions, no-fly zones and imminent threat of invasion Iraq chose to bluff and claim they had WMD?

Does this scenario make sense to anyone? Anyone at all?

Patrick: Geez, talk about dramatic, son.

- I never used the word "evil", not once, which negates your use of quotes. It would've been cool if I had, but I didn't.

- I'm not looking for "victory" (not even a "small" one, ha ha). I came here to express my opinion and engage in discussion. I'm sorry my opinions differ from yours; it can be scary.

- Until the WMDs are accounted for, the burden of proof lies with those who claimed they "knew" they existed and claimed we were in "imminent" danger. I'm not saying the WMDs won't be found, but until they are I don't have to just accept the President's say-so that we were in mortal danger. (Or yours, either.) In a democracy, accountability is a leader's responsibility and a citizen's right.

- In James Bond movies, you don't have intelligence personnel complain they were ordered to fashion intelligence to support an administration's predetermined goals. In real life, we have.

- So everything I've said means I have a "grudge" against the President? What is this, middle school? Is it possible that an individual can take issue with the actions of a sitting President, and do so in good conscience and honesty? Or is it that anyone who dares to disagree with YOU must be one of his blind haters?

---Oh, you don't scare me, Sandy. Plus, you're not in charge of me, so go ahead and "expect" and "wait" all you want, bossyboots.--

Where'd that come from? All I posted about was the late David Kelly agreeing w/Brit intel and the CIA screwing up again. Go read al-Guardian for the story.

Saddam had at least 6 months to get rid of the stuff.

We're not flushing coke/heroin down a toilet here because the cops are banging on the door. Takes a little longer to dismantle this stuff and bury it in a garden the size of California.

And frankly, all I ever heard was 45 minutes. Never said where the stuff would hit. We're almost everywhere. As evidenced by 86, 95, 96, 98, 2000. American property and personnel, but not in America.

We know he had the weapons, we don't know where they are now-but is that really what matters, anyway? Isn't the willingness to USE WMD's the issue?

Britain has the Bomb, but we're not afraid of them, for good reason. N. Korea has or will soon have the Bomb, and we're concerned, as well we should. It's the nature of the regime that matters.

A rich, rapacious dictator (which Saddam would've been, ultimately, since France and China were all too happy to undermine the sanctions existing before we attacked Iraq) with the willingness to use these weapons is extraordinarily dangerous over the long run, even if his weapons are well hidden (and perhaps unusable) at the moment.

Sandy, "where'd that come from" is here:

"Gonna talk your way out of that one? If so, I expect logic and for you to address all the major points. We can wait."

Maybe you were talking to David Kelly.

I think it is clear that we were mislead about the urgency of going to war in Iraq and about how imminent and immediate the Iraqi threat was.

Seems to me there are two possibilities here.

First possibility is that the Bush adminitration deliberately mislead the American people. If this is the case, it is inexcuseable.

Or, the American people were mislead because the Bush administration honestly misinterepeted the intelligence data available. A mistake on this order of magnitude, hundreds of US casualities, billions of taxpayer dollars is, well, also unexcuseable.

Either the Bush administration lied to us or they made a mistake of epic proportions with unfathomable costs. Either way, we have a huge problem with our leaders.

--"Gonna talk your way out of that one? If so, I expect logic and for you to address all the major points. We can wait."

Maybe you were talking to David Kelly.--

It wasn't me who wrote that. Maybe you should check the poster.

I went back and checked my 2 postings again.

You're absolutely right. I connected your post with the one above because you started with a "BTW". Sloppy of me, and I apologize.

Iraq kicked inspectors out and then decided to kill their WMD prorgams and not tell ANYONE?

Mr. Litchfield - I am coming to this, um, edifying discussion late, but you ask a serious question and I see no one has tried to reply so far.

The answer to me seems fairly obvious: Hussein was a bad guy with lots of enemies. If you were such a person, who in fact had fought protracted wars with a neighbor and had used chemical weapons in that war, would you announce to the world that you were unarmed? Would you suffer the loss of face that goes along with it, especially given the macho nature of the society in which you operate? Or would you let the world continue to believe that you were thus armed, hoping the bluff would suffice?