Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests WMD+...revisited

The 2003 Iraq Survey Group report by Charles Duelfur reported that no significant numbers of WMD were found. They did report that Sadam likely had retained the intent and means to reconstitute WMD after sanctions were lifted. They were, of course, actively bribing UN and foriegn officials to achieve that goal (with UN oil for food money)and most agree that sanctions were degrading more rapidly than the WMD just reported in a newly unclassified document. In my view, the WMD issue was always 2 fold..new WMD production since 1991, which has not materialized. But of signifiacnt importance was the documentation of destruction of pre 1991 WMD. Thousands of sarin filled shells and thousands of liters of anthrax were never accounted for (as required by UN resolutions and the terms of "surrender" in 1991. Sadam reported that all were destroyed. He lied..

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

Senior officials report more are being discovered and that many more likely exist. Recall that 3 Sarin filled rounds killed >5000 Kurds in a single village attack. I wonder what else Sadam lied about? There exist credible reports (from Isrielli intel, US satellites and a former Iraqi air force general) of air and ground truck conveys moving toward Syria in the pre war runup. There are millions of pages of captured Iraqi intel documents..some recently tranlated refering to Al Qaeda/Iraqi intel meetings. And millions of square miles of sand left unsearched...

I bring this up to point out that 3 years after the invasion, we still do not know the whole Sadam story. I have maintained that we know he was a mass murder (300,000+), a sadistic torturer, that he tried to kill 2 heads of state (including a US President), shot at US warplanes, that he had corrupted the US funded Oil for food program and bribed the UN, that he funded Hamas & Hezbolah suicide bombers, had several terrorist training camps on his soil, and was a destabilizing influence in an unstable region. We now know he lied about WMD. So, perhaps the next talking points lefty that says Bush is a liar, torturer, and mass murderer will at note that Sadam..did it first.

PS..I must again say that creating a democracy in Iraq was perhaps the best STATED reason to invade (even if it was not the most QUOTED reason).

Quote:

---

So, perhaps the next talking points lefty that says Bush is a liar, torturer, and mass murderer will at note that Sadam..did it first.

---

So it's all good!

If they find the WMD, great!! I will not be such a [censored] about Bush being a moron.

As far as your comment about creating a democracy a great reason to invade....that is idiotic.

You cannot force democracy onto people. They have been raised to believe A. and to change their beliefs to B. isn't going to be easy or even possible!! Look at what has happened since the Brits partitioned India. Pakistan has worked out really well...

Iraq is going to be no better than it was under Saddam for some time to come. 10+ years easy.

Dr. Nixon: Seemed to work out in Germany? Are we talking about the country which was rather democratic before Hitler rose to the Chancellorship via elections? Are we talking about the country which had a rather Western-valued, Western religion following healthy and educated middle class which held respect for authority? A country which had gotten its religious-sectarian violence out of its system a century or two before?

Wow. So if it worked in Germany, are we supposed to assume it WILL work in Baghdad?

The degree to which that assumption is shaky is the degree by which our Cowboy in Chief compounded the bungling of Rumsfeld by adding naivete. Some might even suggest recklessness.

There have been other administrations previously, plagued by philosophical cleansings yielding loss of expertise yielding stupid decisions by the new administration. Lots of analysts were canned after China turned red, like it was their fault or they let it happen on their watch, etc. Lots of valuable insights regarding Korea and Nam were lost in those housecleanings. Bush and our service people are now paying for Bush celebrating philosophy over competence with his housecleanings. Or did you think Rumsfeld's done a bang up job? And what about Cheney and his cronies knowing more than Colin Powell in Powell's areas of expertise? What a wasted asset Bush made of Powell.

If indeed Iraq was invaded to "spread democracy" like we're military missionaries, thank goodness that means we're NOT like Castro sending Cuban troops to Angola in the old days to be military missionaries of his political model.

You say we tried cut and run in Lebanon and it didn't work out... Lebanon is on the way to having elements of democracy and a substantial middle class. And Nam? Were we supposed to invade the North and put in our own SVN puppet government, as it seemed everyone running the SVN gov't was corrupt and ineffective. You might have a stronger point with Somolia.

I have no magic bullet cure for the jihaddist movement. But if we are going to make do in the meantime by selectively applying our military, my enthusiasm for doing more of the same or staying the course is severely dampened when the track record of the executive branch team applying it stinks. The military did/does its job: it told Bush and Rummy what was needed and then executed the plan/orders Bush and Rummy gave them. Maybe we still need to put more troops into Iraq and Afghanistan than we have there now, although 3 years ago would have been better. But to trust that Bush/Cheney/Rummy team to NOT bungle up further? Excuse me while I hedge my bets.

If Iraq turns into a model secural democracy and a beacon to the Arab middle east over the next 30 years, I'm sure GWB will get his credit. But remember who gets that credit if Iraq turns into the new Iran instead.

Powell laid out the administration's rationale for the invasion pretty clearly. Much of what has been written since then have been attempts to expand on Powell's original presentation. Some points have been legitimate, but as for the actual rationale the administration had at the time, it's pretty much all there in Powell's presentation.

I've said the same things since day one of this invasion...

1) WMD's will be hidden everywhere in that country. You will need to check the entire desert before you can ever say "there are no WMD's in Iraq".

Hell, they found a whole fighter wing of combat aircraft buried in the desert -- and those were found by accident. (They were also sold to Iraq in the late 90's, but that's for Russia and France to explain another day.)

2) Only history will be able to judge this Presidency. The President has put into place long-term goals, these are not all things that will be solved in his terms, but he got the ball rolling, and got us started.

Anyone remember how popular the "War on Drugs" was? People just thought that was a GREAT idea at the time... How good of an idea do you think it was now? Do you truely believe its helped curtail the drug problem in America?

E1

So what's with this recent state department memo from Baghdad?