For The Record, Here's What They Said (Justification for Iraq War)

For a nice history of the rhetoric used to justify the Iraq war, check out:Daily Kos: Access Denied (403)Here's a few choice nuggets, go to the link above to see the entire extensive list:But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
George W. Bush, President
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have
George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas
George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty. Robert Kagan, Neocon scholar
Washington Post op-ed
4/9/2003And my favorite:But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003

Hi,Zhim, loved the last par best of all
(I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003 ) Lol.

I personally like this one taken from a clip from Face the Nation. Rumsfeld caught lyingThis message has been edited by DBlevins, 01-15-2005 03:50 AM

Zhimbo:Thanks for providing the link to the long list of lies the current adminstration foistered on us to validate their war.My favorite is Rummie's characteristic vaguerism by which we certainly know what he knows is only knowable by its unknowledgable knowability:"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; ABC Interview, 3/30/2003.Thank goodness he's not a mass media meteorologist!

You guys make it too easy.This message has been edited by Tal, 01-15-2005 07:03 AM

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

You understand that your quotes...1) Do not change the fact that the case for war presented by the Bush administration was false, and has changed over the course of time,2) Do not necessarily require anyone to agree with the analyses presented in all of them, just because they are democrats (or non US) does not mean that they must be believed by someone that disagrees with Bush,3) Actually argue for resumption, strengthening, and strict enforcement of inspections regimes, and that was in fact what was achieved before we stopped them in order to invade, which is not what all these quotes advocate,4) Include quotes from those who actively opposed Bush's choice to go to war and in their quotes you can seem them mentioning the tentative nature of our information, which Bush and co argued was solid (which was a lie).It is really quite easy. The facts are in and hindsight should be 20/20.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-15-2005 07:48 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Whatever makes you sleep at night holmes.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

???? Where was I wrong? While your quotes do add up to certain democrats not being in a place to throw bricks at Bush, my points were sound.Is it not true that some of those quotes are specifically about resuming inspections, and not positive about the quality of evidence? Is it not true that just because these people said what they did, changes what Bush and Co said?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

You do have a strong argument for the lack of WMD, but that is not the only reason we came to Iraq. It was just one reason.Are the WMD here in Iraq like we thought? No. Score one for you.Are/were there some WMD and the means to deliver them? Yes. One for me.Have the inspectors left and found nothing? Yes. Chalk one for you.Is that the final say in the WMD drama? No. More info will come out on where they went. But I know you guys are jumping all over the headline that the inspectors have now left and found doodle. Keep that in mind for the future, because I'm going to come back and post a big "see I told you so" when they find somemore, use some on us, or finally decide to declassify intel reports (which won't happen with the insurgency going on).

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Don't confuse me with everyone. My position is pretty refined. I am not merely anti-war, and I was not pro Gore in 2000. I am not against the military and have a very strong interest in good intelligence.When you want to criticize my position, make sure you get it right and don't slide into generic arguments. I agree that in reality there were more reasons. The problem is that WMDs were the major rationale for war, and pretty much the only one which would allow us to invade according to international law. Remember that until the WMD search went sour we referred to this as a preemptive invasion. There was a threat and it was imminent, or potentially imminent. Without that it was not pre-emptive, it was simply an invasion. That is against international law. The real question is were the assertions that we actually knew, that we had definite evidence of WMDs and where they were, real? The answer is no.That is not only a point for me (and all of the other war critics, including some top US intel officers) which pointed out that our intel was not as strong as was being made out, but an actual indictment for those that said we were wrong and the US had hard data to back up claims. It simply didn't. That means they lied. This is actually a point for me as well. War critics stated that there was a definite possibility that old stock did exist, and it could be a large amount. That is why inspections were needed. We did not know how much and in what condition they were in.The claim from the administration is that we knew exactly how much and where, as well as a potential for more, and that in addition to a general "means to deliver them" had the capability of using those means in a rapid basis.As it turns out there are scraps of the old stock WMDs, which is NOT against what many war critics advanced as a possibility. The problem for "your side" is that they were not in the quantities and qualities and deliverable by means as had been suggested.Remember your argument was that Hussein was a madman with all of this stuff at his disposal and was readily willing to use it. Yet he did not use it when his very regime and life were coming to an end? Does that make any common sense to you?The only way it makes sense is that he simply did not have the vast amounts of WMDs being discussed, nor had the ability to deliver them, at least not in any rapid and useful (for him) degree.The fact that he had rockets here, or artillery there, and then way over some other places he had some remnant stocks which were degraded material, some just forgotten shells with chemicals so weak they were no longer lethal, is a far cry from a nation with WMDs and the capability to deliver them.I will point out once again, even the insurgents have been misusing them in the cases when they use shells with degraded chemicals.None of this has been outside the parameters of the threat discussed by the UN, France, Russia, etc etc... and that includes me. What it seriously falls beneath is the parameters of the threat discussed by Bush an co. Nothing is not exactly correct. Nothing along the lines of any claims that Bush and Co advanced to the world and the nation in a way that justified a "pre-emptive" invasion, is more accurate. There may be more remnant stocks found and used. That does not fall outside the parameters of the critics. Even if another shell, or lets say a barrel, of chemical toxins gets used against US troops that will not vindicate anything, and I am confused why you think it would.No one is arguing that there could have been chemicals at all, or that chemicals could be used at all. The whole point is if there were enough and with delivery systems capable of Iraq posing an imminent, or potentially imminent threat to the US or its neighbors such that the ONLY method of dealing with the situation was an invasion which would invariably kill thousands of innocent people.The small scale attacks which may occur will be by insurgents and not the Iraqi army, which proves beyond a doubt that the Iraqi army did not pose a WMD threat, even within their own nation as the regime was falling and the lives of the leaders were at stake.That said, if what gets declassified is that there were humongous stocks of WMDs which everyone knew about and deliberately lied about in order to protect insurgents from getting at them, or insurgents using the stocks they found of WMDs just waiting to be used manage to take out half the nation, or a surrounding nation, then we can start talking points for your side.Someone setting off a shell, or a barrel with chemical or radioactive material, or pouring such a thing into a local water supply simply does nothing but score more points for my side which said that such a thing was more likely to occur after an invasion than if we just use new and more robust inspections.Remember the claim was WMDs gave him global strategic possibilities, not insurgents local tactical possibilities.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

He didn't use them in the Gulf War, and he definately had them then. I'll answer that with a quote from President Bush. Just a point of clarification. Most of the shells we've found and/or were exploded as IEDs are artillery shells. They could have been fired out of any of his artillery pieces. The rounds are designed to airburst, but detonating them on the ground will have a much less dramatic effect. I'm fairly sure the guys exposed to nerve agent can tell us how weak the chemicals were. You mean like he had already done before?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Doesn't that rather undercut the position that "he would definately have used them if he had them?" I mean, if the guy doesn't use WMD's on us even when he has them and we're right at his doorstep, how much of a threat to us could he have been?

Tal writes:

quote:

---

He didn't use them in the Gulf War, and he definately had them then.

---

But that's just it. It seems he didn't even really have them then, either. There was work in dealing with production facilities, but he didn't really have much in the way of actual results.Didn't you read the report?

quote:

---

I'll answer that with a quote from President Bush.

​

"I think he dispersed them...."

---

But that's just it: He didn't. You can't disperse what you don't have. They were all gone by 1991. Didn't you read the report? Iraq didn't have any WMDs, hadn't had any for 10 years, and didn't disperse them to any other country.[more from the Bush quote]Yes. He used them against Iran and against the Kurds. And then he didn't have any anymore. And he used them in the 80s during Bush, Sr.'s regime. By the time the first Gulf War came around, he didn't have any.Didn't you read the report? Every single statement out of the Bush Administration regarding Iraq and WMDs turns out to have been wrong. Iraq didn't have any, we certainly didn't know where they were (which only makes sense since there weren't any), they weren't scattered to the winds (again, which only makes sense since there weren't any), and the idea that Iraq as an imminent threat (which Rumsfeld said) was a lie.

quote:

---

You mean like he had already done before?

---

Nearly 20 years ago! We invaded not in the 80s when he had these weapons and were using them against the Kurds. We invaded in 2002 when we had absolutely no indication that he had anything! And he didn't even have them in 1991 when we invaded the first time!

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Other people have already addressed this, but I will repeat the points... This really does undercut the theory that he was a madman willing to use them anytime anywhere. However lets forget that for a second, or the implications that he may not have had sufficient WMD munitions at that time.Let's assume that he had full WMD stocks at the time and was willing to use them. There is still a huge chasm between the first gulf war and this war. And I am not just talking about time.The first gulf war did not put his nation or his regime in direct threat. He annexed Kuwait and then was thrown out of Kuwait. There was no drive toward his seat of power, and he managed to get some of his forces back intact.This war was it. It was the end. The outcome of this war determined whether his regime stayed in power and even whether he would stay alive. There would have been no reason to hold back, none at all. Yet not one chemical munition was used, or indicative of having been prepared for use.That should tell you something, about his having them in strength and/or his madman attitude toward using them. As Rumsfeld himself said: The proof is in the tasting of the pudding. We took a heck of a big bite. Bush's pudding did not live up to its billing. This will not help. He is discussing what everyone knew, and then speculates what happened to them. Others disagreed and it is turning out that they are right. Even Bush has backed off such speculations. You do know that right?That's the thing I don't get, Bush and Co (with the exception of Cheney and FoxNEWS) are readily admitting they were wrong, then passing the buck as to why. Again, woulda coulda shoulda. If he could, but he did not, then your argument he was a madman that would is proven false. That he did not is evidence of at least that, if not that he simply had no serious stocks to use.It is current theory (as far as I understand) that the Iraqis were not even sure that those were chemically filled shells and were not being stored with ammo for ready use. That again, makes the point that they could be fired, moot.It had also been stated that the chemicals were in a degraded state due to poor storage (which chemical rounds need). That means it was unlikely to be a vast danger.And unfortunately whether they are for use at altitude or not, has no impact on whether it would be effective at short range on the ground. The reason they are meant for detonation at altitude is so that it can spread around to reach as many people as possible. It diffuses. A short range release means a more concentrated release, unless not all got out.The men exposed did not die, they became sick. If that is all that was to happen, then they would be better classified as WMSs. Again, there is no dispute that he killed a lot of people a long time ago. He had purges to secure power (which we helped him with), and he had a war against the Iranians (which we also helped him with). The mass graves are primarily from when we were helping him and defending his actions. This is a matter for public record and I can't believe you have missed the infamous photo of a smiling Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein. This was around the time of the gassings of his own people and we defended him from human rights groups.Since the Gulf War, he continued purges and smaller scale actions against insurgents, but then you must realize that is EXACTLY what we are doing now. We are securing our power base, or should I say the power base of the representative democracy we want to see rule the nation. We are also creating mass graves.However, since the first GulfWar he was not active in the mass killings and invasions he had been engaged in before. This isn't to argue he was a nice guy. He was a bastard. Just you can't point to a long time ago and then say that proves he is a grave threat right now.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

If he had used them we wouldn't be having this discussion. Using the WMD on the US, or any of his neighbors, would simply have solidified everybody against us.It's the same logic for N. Korea. They have nukes, but if they ever launch one, against anybody, we'll turn N. Korea into a glass parking lot.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us