Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
PS: Technically, it's proven that Saddam Hussein really did have WMD's. He used chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds. This is a well-documented fact. But what we were really looking for was nuclear weapons, not chemical. I'd still like to know where that chemical weapons stockpile went. We know it existed, so where did it go?
The Iranians & the Kurds were in the 80s, and UNSCOM roamed Iraq between 1991 - 1998, gleefully destroying every chemical weapon, warhead, precursor chemical and facility they could get their hands on.
(Along with all the elements of the nuclear program, of course.) They were quite successful - we know this, because no program recovered.
The Iranians & the Kurds were in the 80s, and UNSCOM roamed Iraq between 1991 - 1998, gleefully destroying every chemical weapon, warhead, precursor chemical and facility they could get their hands on.
(Along with all the elements of the nuclear program, of course.) They were quite successful - we know this, because no program recovered.
They destroyed nothing. They weren't allowed to. What the **** do you think Saddam was doing by not adhering to the inspections.
I knew the evidence was skimpy when Clinton Powell offered the UN as evidence of WMDs a conversation overheard between two Iraqi junior officers. Iraq War II was by far the biggest blunder of American diplomacy in history. The most amazing aspect is that W was re-elected anyway.
I am curious if any polls were taken on how many Americans believed Bush? My feeling is that the majority of us were notfooled! We were too busy thinking oil and money!
I don't have a poll from back then, but I remember the general climate in America was one of going along with it. Many Americans were very frustrated with all the games Saddam played with inspectors for the 10 years leading up to the invasion. But I really couldn't tell you any numbers there. Here's what the vote in Congress looked like.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Republicans: 215 Yea, 6 Nay, 2 did not vote
Democrats: 82 Yeah, 126 Nay, 1 did not vote
Independents: 0 Yea, 1 Nay
TOTALS 297 Yeah, 133 Nay, 3 did not vote
It's surprising to see that so many Dems voted for it. In general, if it's a Republican idea then the Dems almost all vote against it -- and vice versa -- largely just out of spite for the opposition. Even some of your more bipartisan bills look a lot more partisan than that. I think the big question in people's minds was whether WMD's was enough of a reason to actually invade Iraq.
It was a lousy excuse. George W could have had far more success selling it as an extension of the War on Terror since at that point in time Saddam Hussein was the single largest sponsor of terrorism in the entire world.
But ultimately, I think it was a mistake no matter how he sold it. We're seeing that now. We're seeing the unintended consequences. We've got a destabilized Iraq and now we have ISIS. Probably would have been vastly better to just leave well enough alone. And I'm not arguing in favor of the Iraq war in any way, shape or form. Just pointing out that it was pretty popular idea at the time.
This isn't news and it certainly isn't a bombshell. It's more or less what we already new: There was a whole lot of "smoke" so everybody assumed there was a fire. The French, the British, the Russians and the USA all believed that Saddam Hussein absolutely did have WMD's.
That's wrong. Only the Brits accepted the US intelligence. The French and the Russians both explicitly and hotly denied it.
Quote:
Democrat and Republican members of Congress that looked at the evidence all unanimously agreed as well. That's why they all voted for it.
There isn't an intelligence analyst among them. None of them was looking at primary intelligence data ("evidence"), they were looking at the same cooked report Bush saw.
Quote:
It seems that Saddam himself thought he had them. That's why he was always acting like he had something to hide in the decade leading up to the US led invasion. What we know now: His scientists were scamming Saddam. They were telling him they were making progress, knowing full well that Saddam couldn't actually verify it. They took the money and ran. Like you're source pointed out, they were 90% sure that Saddam was hiding WMD's.
As I said earlier, both government leaders were scammed by lower officials into overestimating Iraq's WMD capabilities.
Quote:
PS: Technically, it's proven that Saddam Hussein really did have WMD's. He used chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds. This is a well-documented fact. But what we were really looking for was nuclear weapons, not chemical. I'd still like to know where that chemical weapons stockpile went. We know it existed, so where did it go?
Technically all Iraq had were decrepit, obsolete warheads from before the Gulf War that had to be stored because they had no way to safely destroy them (which we knew in the early 90s, as well as knowing the locations of those storage areas). The delivery vehicles had been destroyed during and after the Gulf War.
Chemical warheads are perishable. They have to be stored properly and maintained properly or they become unstable. Those decrepit warheads didn't go anywhere--they were stumbled upon by US forces after the invasion.
45. A significant number of chemical weapons, their components and related equipment were identified and destroyed under UNSCOM supervision in the period from 1991 to 1997. This included over 38,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, 690 tons of chemical warfare agents, more than 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals and over 400 pieces of production equipment...
That's 38,000 actual weapons, destroyed without a bullet being fired. Sorta puts GWB's little war in perspective, doesn't it?
And that's just chemical weapons. I would offer to cite the corresponding figures for biological, nuclear and missile technology, but something tells me it would be wasted efforts.
Technically all Iraq had were decrepit, obsolete warheads from before the Gulf War that had to be stored because they had no way to safely destroy them (which we knew in the early 90s, as well as knowing the locations of those storage areas). The delivery vehicles had been destroyed during and after the Gulf War.
Chemical warheads are perishable. They have to be stored properly and maintained properly or they become unstable. Those decrepit warheads didn't go anywhere--they were stumbled upon by US forces after the invasion.
A lot of people seem unable (or unwilling) to discern the difference between a warhead that's usable in a military sense vs. one that's essentially just dangerous to be around.
According to an autobiography from one of Powell's aides, Dept of State intel (they have them, also part of the foreign intelligence community) didn't buy the WMD story any more than DIA did. Powell went back to Tenet four times for assurance that what Cheney had browbeaten them to say was valid. Tenet assured him that it was.
That was Powell's error--not sticking with his own people. Powell should have said, "If your people can convince my people, I'll be on board."
I clearly remember those times. Colin Powell was visibly uncomfortable with the whole affair, but like a good soldier he followed orders and presented the "evidence" for WMD.
I also remember that the hard-line Republicans kept implying that anyone who didn't support the invasion was somehow unpatriotic. Democrats who voted 'yes' were afraid of getting painted with that brush. So I blame Powell and th Dems for being spineless, but the real blame lies with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, who deliberately misled the American people. You can't tell me they didn't know there were no WMD.
Annnnd, again, Congress relied on the same fake information and intell that the American people did.
Which tells me that your elected Dems are too stupid to question, if that's your excuse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
