Weapons of Mass Disappearance

[theburningliberal]

Before everyone gets hot about it, this is from Dems.org. But, I please ask you to look at the outlets it has cited, instead of the website behind the collection.

That is, unless people are going to tell me that AP, the Washington Times, TIME Magazine, the Washington Post and the New Yorker are all heavily liberal and heavily partisan?

In an effort to drive us into war, President Bush and his staff repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (which have yet to be found), and that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of our country. The Bush administration pressured analysts into reaching conclusions that supported their own beliefs, ignoring warnings from the intelligence community about their misuse of data, all the while failing to plan for post-war chaos.

Bush Hyped Iraq Threat To Lead Americans Into War
Bush Claims Proved False. In various public speeches before the Iraq war, President Bush insisted that Iraq was developing an arsenal of weapons that included biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. No evidence of such programs has been found. According to chief weapons inspector David Kay, "we were almost all wrong," about the Iraqi weapons threat. [Washington Post, 8/10/03; Kay Testimony, 1/28/04]
Bush Falsely Claimed Iraq Sought Uranium In Africa. During his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush falsely asserted that Iraq "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," to demonstrate the supposed urgency of the Iraq threat. Bush made his claim despite repeated warnings from his own CIA that the claim was false. [Bush State of the Union, 1/28/03; Time, 7/21/03; Hadley/Bartlett Gaggle, 7/22/03]
The Bush Team Manipulated Intelligence
Former Intelligence Officials Said Intelligence "Deliberately Warped for Political Purposes." Former intelligence officials issued a statement saying, "While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes, never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war." During the summer of 2002, "Vice President Cheney made several visits to the CIA's Langley headquarters, which were understood within the agency as an attempt to pressure the low-level specialists interpreting the raw intelligence." [Kristof Op-Ed, New York Times, 5/30/03; Agence France Presse, 5/1/03, emphasis added; The New Republic, 6/30/03]
Pentagon Formed Intelligence Group To Prove Its Own Beliefs. Soon after the September 11 attacks, the Pentagon created an Office of Special Plans, which was "in charge of drafting Pentagon policies and plans in connection with the war in Iraq." A Pentagon official admitted to The New Yorker that "Special Plans was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true." [New Yorker, 5/12/03, emphasis added; Los Angeles Times, 10/25/03, emphasis added]
Postwar Iraq Is A Disaster
Bush Failed To Plan For Postwar Iraq. A secret Joint Chiefs of Staff report in August 2003 blamed "setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process," and noted that "planners were not given enough time to put together the best blueprint" for postwar reconstruction. [Washington Times, 9/3/03; www.globalsecurity.org]
Americans Continue To Die. As of March 2004, more than 400 Americans have been killed in postwar Iraq -- since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003. In January 2004, Army Chief Peter Schoomaker admitted that more than 100,000 troops would have to serve in Iraq at least through 2006. [www.globalsecurity.org; Associated Press, 1/29/04]

[Gunter45]

Not really much to discuss here, both sides acknowledge that nobody has found any WMDs in Iraq. I don't see the discussion value in this one.

[theburningliberal]

I was hoping someone would take issue with the some of the stuff in the latter half of the article... Post war Iraq is a disaster? I know some neo cons like to think everything in Iraq is just peachy... I was hopin one of them would come along so I could rip them a new asshole.

[Gunter45]

I guess you could get into that topic from here, but I don't see this as anything really debate stirring. I would save it for an argument where you need support for things not being peachy in Iraq, not starting one. I guess that's just me. So to kinda help you out, here goes:

After one of the justifications for the war in Iraq has been, thus far, been proven to be completely false, what grounds does this put the United States for continuing occupation of Iraq?

[theburningliberal]

The only justification is that after systematically lieing to the international community to start an unprovoked war, we now have to stay the course in Iraq because the results of pulling out now are too disastrous to even contemplate.

We would be looked upon, even by our allies as the country that sent Iraq into a death spiral. Even now, the citizens of many countries are looking at America as if it were a country that just wanted to finish a vendetta.

But irregardless of why we went there, we can't pull out now. All that would do is bring civil war to Iraq, between the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shias. Maybe al-Qaeda, depending on how badly they wanted a traditional Islamic state there. If we pull out, that is one of the major consequences in Iraq. If we stay the course, we have the opportunity to help establish a government that the various groups in Iraq can live with -- and avert a very bloody Iraqi civil war. I opposed the war in Iraq from the outset, because I knew what it would mean if Bush was wrong. Now that we know he was, it falls on the US to spend time and money rebuilding a country that we invaded without due cause. That is pushing us even further into the hole fiscally. And if we leave Iraq and send it into civil war, the Arabs and the Muslims, already not very supportive of the US, would be pushed further away from America. Our allies may begin to cut ties with us, as they would see us a country that doesn't fulfill its duties and obligations.

Even though Iraq was unjustified, it would be diplomatic suicide for America to pull out of Iraq now. The consequences of pulling out, in summation, greatly outweigh the advantages of pulling out. And we cannot afford to suffer the consequences of pulling out in an international community where our credibility is falling as fast as a boulder falling off the side of a cliff. Therefore, we must stay the course and do everything we can to help Iraq resettle themselves.

[Spookshow]

So noone else ever lied?

Bill Clinton
Russia
UK
etc?

[HappyBull]

Actually, the war in Iraq was justified as Saddam broke 17 U.N. Resolutions and we had a legal right to take Saddam out.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/24/04 06:32 AM, Spookshow wrote: So noone else ever lied?

Bill Clinton
Russia
UK
etc?

Yeah, and wasn't there a great deal of fuss over lies. I mean, come ON. Clintom was almost impeached for getting head! That's a TINY lie, relative to some other whoppers.

[theburningliberal]

But that could only be used as a justification if it were a UN force that invaded Iraq. It wasn't. Therefore, that justification is null and void.

[Devaint-Lucifer]

At 7/24/04 07:36 AM, Alpha6 wrote: Actually, the war in Iraq was justified as Saddam broke 17 U.N. Resolutions and we had a legal right to take Saddam out.

thier were two treaties.
one states that we are not to act agressively without the UN

the second states that without cold hard evidence and substantial threat we are not to act agressively

afganhistan is where the origanal fight was.
iraq is just for oil.

he never did anything to us.

[antiklaus]

At 7/24/04 07:36 AM, Alpha6 wrote: Actually, the war in Iraq was justified as Saddam broke 17 U.N. Resolutions and we had a legal right to take Saddam out.

We have broken over 312 U.N. resolutions in the last decade, many of them involving unprovoked use of force.

Do we deserve to be 'taken out'?

[JudgeDredd]

At 7/24/04 07:21 PM, antiklaus wrote: The US has broken over 312 U.N. resolutions in the last decade, many of them involving unprovoked use of force.

Do we deserve to be 'taken out'?

i've thought about it....

*paints a big target on forehead*

[Wraith]

At 7/24/04 08:38 PM, I7I23I7I7brs wrote: i've thought about it....

*paints a big target on forehead*

It's shit like this that makes me wish I was Canadian... Because when that nuclear holocaust gets started up, we'll be the first to go. The only ones that'll be left are Greenland, Canada, and Australia. Because, let's be honest, who in the hell would waste missiles on the Canadians?

[JudgeDredd]

At 7/24/04 08:45 PM, -Wraith- wrote: Because when that nuclear holocaust gets started up, we'll be the first to go. The only ones that'll be left are Greenland, Canada, and Australian kangaroos..

except Australia would be Doomed in either case without American backup.

But it does make one wonder if chemical, biological, or nuclear (WMD capability) is just the first stage in the anti-weapon plan. For example, countries who; decomission nuclear power stations without authorisation, talk or trade with so-called rouge nations, are geographically unfortunate enough to live upwind of the US, or countries with foreign or suspicious sounding names (Iranian / Uranium) ..that might be next on the list for reconstruction.

[witeshark]

At 7/24/04 08:45 PM, -Wraith- wrote:

Greenland, Canada, and Australia. Because, let's be honest, who in the hell would waste missiles on the Canadians?

Suppose it happened and those were left. Would not the air and environment render even those and any untouched places unliveable? As to WMDs, Saddam had forms that he proved willing to use on Iran. Obviously whatever he had he destroyed knowing his regime was doomed

[Wraith]

At 7/24/04 09:38 PM, witeshark wrote: Suppose it happened and those were left. Would not the air and environment render even those and any untouched places unliveable?

Of course, but I was simply using it as a joke.

Anyone read that book where everything takes place in the 60's, and the whole world has nuked itself to oblivion, and the only livable place left is Australia? But, however, due to ocean current and wind, the radiation is slowly being blown south, and everyone in Australia has only a few months to live? What's the name of that book? It's a really good book...

[HappyBull]

At 7/24/04 07:21 PM, antiklaus wrote:
We have broken over 312 U.N. resolutions in the last decade, many of them involving unprovoked use of force.

Do we deserve to be 'taken out'?

Actually, we're a superpower! We aren't "Santioned" so we broke no resolutions. Why do Democrats make the worst comparisions? I'd pick being a moderate Democrat or Conservative anyday over being a far right or leftest!

[JoS]

At 7/25/04 01:29 AM, Alpha6 wrote:

At 7/24/04 07:21 PM, antiklaus wrote:

Actually, we're a superpower! We aren't "Santioned" so we broke no resolutions.

OK and being a superpower means you dont have to lay by the rules? Does Roger Clemens still have to follow the rules? And I am assuming you mean sanctioned? Well sanctions arer usually economical, and frankly who wants to cut off trade or econmomci relations with the US?

[Gunter45]

Going too far on either side of the politcal spectrum leads to not being able to see things for what they really are, in my opinion. You're more likely to believe a biased source in your favor and write off a (not quite but close to, there's no such thing as an unbiased article) unbiased article that disagrees with your opinion. I like to hang around the middle. I won't say that I don't have biases, everyone does, but I try to keep them to a minimum to stay as well informed I can.

[exide-edge]

At 7/23/04 02:03 AM, theburningliberal wrote:

... According to chief weapons inspector David Kay, "we were almost all wrong," about the Iraqi weapons threat. [Washington Post, 8/10/03; Kay Testimony, 1/28/04]

Well if they were almost all wrong then the blame doesn't fall just on bush now does it?

[robowing]

I without a doubt hate bush, but when he sais iraq had WMD, he is actually telling the truth, after gulf war 1 they counted all the WMD's they destroyed and realised that saddam still had WMD's left which. How do they know what they have you ask? simple america sold alot of WMD stuff to them, that and france has been known to sell things ti Iraq, the Americans were a bit pissed of when they went into gulf war II they found a state of the art french built anti-aircraft missle system.

[CliffBar]

the reason we went to iraq was to steal their scrumpcious black bean soup recipe

[bombkangaroo]

At 7/25/04 04:50 PM, CliffBar wrote: the reason we went to iraq was to steal their scrumpcious black bean soup recipe

don't be ridiculous, we went to war so that we could procure iraqi children for a paedophile ring operating out of the european parliament. where do you think all the embezzled money goes?

At 7/25/04 04:16 PM, exide_edge wrote:

At 7/23/04 02:03 AM, theburningliberal wrote:

... According to chief weapons inspector David Kay, "we were almost all wrong," about the Iraqi weapons threat. [Washington Post, 8/10/03; Kay Testimony, 1/28/04]

Well if they were almost all wrong then the blame doesn't fall just on bush now does it?

that's why the reports were wrong, they've got the guy who plays the voice of megatron in beast wars, armada, energon, and charles xavier in x men evolution looking for WMDs.(doh!)