NO WMD! Say Kay & Powell (uh-oh)
Well, what do you know? David Kay concluded that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (Reuters), giving the President's case the quintessential kick in the balls.
We knew this, so it's not surprising to many of us here. According to the article, Kay's replacement has already expressed doubts that WMD will ever be found. It also noted that the Democrats could draw strength from the news, particularly Howard Dean. Pretty commonsensical to me. You lie about going to war, you get impea- I mean suffer politically.
Hope I didn't overstate anything, but the news seems pretty big to me, especially considering Kay's direct contradiction of President Bush's little lie in the State of the Union address:
Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.?
Quote:
"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.
"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.
We knew this, so it's not surprising to many of us here. According to the article, Kay's replacement has already expressed doubts that WMD will ever be found. It also noted that the Democrats could draw strength from the news, particularly Howard Dean. Pretty commonsensical to me. You lie about going to war, you get impea- I mean suffer politically.
Hope I didn't overstate anything, but the news seems pretty big to me, especially considering Kay's direct contradiction of President Bush's little lie in the State of the Union address:
Quote:
Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictatator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.
Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictatator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.
Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.?
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.?
yep, and with the usa having the attention span of a gnat, they'll somehow gets duped into believing that's what bush said all along.
SPJ I think you're caught in some kind of time warp where the latest best information is available in the past.
"I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production and that's what we're really talking about."
All Iraq's bio and chem weapons were destroyed in 1991. Period. This information was well known to MI6, CIA etc etc, yet Bush, Blair etc used their lies to dupe the US people and the world into starting an illegal and unconstitutional war that is now causing Iraq to become a haven for terrorists. Bush should be remembered, as the president who not started a war against terror, but instead a war for and on behalf of terrorists.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Be reasonable, Scott. David Kay said,
Which he knows now not back then.
Daily Show clip... requires Real Player
and don't give me a "daily show is so pro-left" excuse, either. they've been just as brutal with the democrats and dean and the republicans have been, but with WAY more style.
Originally posted by sammi jo
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html
All Iraq's bio and chem weapons were destroyed in 1991. Period. This information was well known to MI6, CIA etc etc, yet Bush, Blair etc used their lies to dupe the US people and the world into starting an illegal and unconstitutional war that is now causing Iraq to become a haven for terrorists. Bush should be remembered, as the president who not started a war against terror, but instead a war for and on behalf of terrorists.
Sammi
Now suppose everything you said is 100% true. Why the heck wasn't Clinton "duped" as well. I mean he launched plenty a missle at Iraq. Not only did he launch them, but he must have seen the same evidence from the same agencies and knowingly lied while acting as he did.
On top of his he remained silent about Bush and his actions while having seen the actual evidence of Iraq not having had a single weapon of mass destruction.
CBS Clinton on Bush
You know claimed hindsight is a beautiful thing, but I just find it so laughable that Bush and Blair duped the world and somehow Clinton didn't. You are right that Clinton didn't start a war and take Saddam out, but he certainly ordered multiple strikes against Iraq and has always claimed they had weapons of mass destruction as well. While having seen the same information that Bush made his decisions with.
Nick
I think John Stewart should run for president and amend the constitution so you can have more than just two choices. a) an idiot b) another idiot. c) someone else.
I love the daily show.
Originally posted by trumptman
Sammi
Now suppose everything you said is 100% true. Why the heck wasn't Clinton "duped" as well. I mean he launched plenty a missle at Iraq. Not only did he launch them, but he must have seen the same evidence from the same agencies and knowingly lied while acting as he did.
On top of his he remained silent about Bush and his actions while having seen the actual evidence of Iraq not having had a single weapon of mass destruction.
CBS Clinton on Bush
You know claimed hindsight is a beautiful thing, but I just find it so laughable that Bush and Blair duped the world and somehow Clinton didn't. You are right that Clinton didn't start a war and take Saddam out, but he certainly ordered multiple strikes against Iraq and has always claimed they had weapons of mass destruction as well. While having seen the same information that Bush made his decisions with.
Nick
So what? I don't recall Clinton starting a war based on lies and deceptions. Sure he lied about his sex life (which should have remained private), but that didn't cost the lives of 507 US troops, nearly 10000 Iraqi civilians and $200 billion in taxpayer's money by big sepnding Republicans. Incidentally, those missile attacks were primarily in response to infringements of the no-fly zone, or Iraq firing on Coalition aircraft, which was more in self defense than starting a war.
Originally posted by sammi jo
So what? I don't recall Clinton starting a war based on lies and deceptions. Sure he lied about his sex life (which should have remained private), but that didn't cost the lives of 507 US troops, nearly 10000 Iraqi civilians and $200 billion in taxpayer's money by big sepnding Republicans. Incidentally, those missile attacks were primarily in response to infringements of the no-fly zone, or Iraq firing on Coalition aircraft, which was more in self defense than starting a war.
Yes I'm interested in this item as well! For Bush supporters it seems it's ok for a president to lie to start a war, cost many lives and dollars as long as there are undisclosed, long term goals that " they " think are just. On the other hand it's a cardinal sin for a president to lie about fooling around on his wife.
Interesting world we live in isn't it?
Originally posted by trumptman
Sammi
Now suppose everything you said is 100% true. Why the heck wasn't Clinton "duped" as well. I mean he launched plenty a missle at Iraq. Not only did he
[une snipe]
le strikes against Iraq and has always claimed they had weapons of mass destruction as well. While having seen the same information that Bush made his decisions with.
Nick
Nick:
The first Gulf War was fought to expel Saddam from Kuwait; the no-fly zones were instituted to protect Marsh Arabs and Kurds from reprisals. Allied planes dropped bombs and shot missiles aplenty but I genuinely don't recall weapons of mass destruction being a pretext. It was all 'keep Saddam in his box' and 'we got a radar lock on one of our planes'. What's everyone else's recollection?
I remember people were worried he'd try and gas American troops, true, but for the life of me I don't remember Iraq being painted as the kind of threat that necessitated invasion.
I do remember people were saying we should take Saddam out because he was A Very Bad Man, but Iraq was not painted as a direct threat to us until comparatively recently, surely?
Originally posted by talksense101
You can expect the media to bad mouth David Kay soon. Remember Hans Blix? The UN weapons inspector who said the same thing before the war? Now all Bush needs to do is find someone who is willing to plant evidence.
I think John Stewart should run for president and amend the constitution so you can have more than just two choices. a) an idiot b) another idiot. c) someone else.
I love the daily show.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Now all Bush needs to do is find someone who is willing to plant evidence. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
I've thought of this also but at this point it would be so obvious. I would hope that they would have more sense than this. If they got caught it would be far worse than Watergate.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Nick:
The first Gulf War was fought to expel Saddam from Kuwait; the no-fly zones were instituted to protect Marsh Arabs and Kurds from reprisals. Allied planes dropped bombs and shot missiles aplenty but I genuinely don't recall weapons of mass destruction being a pretext. It was all 'keep Saddam in his box' and 'we got a radar lock on one of our planes'. What's everyone else's recollection?
I remember people were worried he'd try and gas American troops, true, but for the life of me I don't remember Iraq being painted as the kind of threat that necessitated invasion.
I do remember people were saying we should take Saddam out because he was A Very Bad Man, but Iraq was not painted as a direct threat to us until comparatively recently, surely?
My recollection seems to be the same as yours.
I am overcome with sympathy.
Originally posted by sammi jo
So what? I don't recall Clinton starting a war based on lies and deceptions. Sure he lied about his sex life (which should have remained private), but that didn't cost the lives of 507 US troops, nearly 10000 Iraqi civilians and $200 billion in taxpayer's money by big sepnding Republicans. Incidentally, those missile attacks were primarily in response to infringements of the no-fly zone, or Iraq firing on Coalition aircraft, which was more in self defense than starting a war.
What do you mean SO WHAT? You don't think Bush would have been able to do what he did if the previous President of the United States had spent 8 years claiming Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction?
The political callousness of some of you is disgusting. Worse yet you complain that those you argue against won't have an open mind, yet here are some questions about actions on both sides and all we get is "So what, I'm closing my eyes."
You tell me. Would Bush have had any credibility BEFORE the war if Clinton had claimed there were no weapons?
I'm not making this about sex at all, so YOU stop tossing it up as a diversion. I'm not even trying to argue who was justified in doing more or less on Iraq. I'm asking quite clearly, if what you claim is true regarding the information available on Iraq and having no WOMD, why isn't Clinton just as guilty for extending that lie to the time when Bush could use it?
In Sammi's world, the guy that stood beside the killer and handed him the gun and ammo has no responsibility.
Nick
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes I'm interested in this item as well! For Bush supporters it seems it's ok for a president to lie to start a war, cost many lives and dollars as long as there are undisclosed, long term goals that " they " think are just. On the other hand it's a cardinal sin for a president to lie about fooling around on his wife.
Interesting world we live in isn't it?
I would love for you to find where I mentioned anything about Clinton and sex in this thread. You are using it as a diversion to avoid the question. If Clinton knew for 8 years that Iraq had no WOMD and LIED about it, didn't he enable Bush to do what he did?
I mean which is more credible, Bush saying Iraq has the programs when Clinton has also been saying that for 8 years, or Bush saying Iraq has programs when Clinton had been denying it for years?
Address the issue please.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
What do you mean SO WHAT? You don't think Bush would have been able to do what he did if the previous President of the United States had spent 8 years claiming Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction?
The political callousness of some of you is disgusting. Worse yet you complain that those you argue against won't have an open mind, yet here are some questions about actions on both sides and all we get is "So what, I'm closing my eyes."
You tell me. Would Bush have had any credibility BEFORE the war if Clinton had claimed there were no weapons?
I'm not making this about sex at all, so YOU stop tossing it up as a diversion. I'm not even trying to argue who was justified in doing more or less on Iraq. I'm asking quite clearly, if what you claim is true regarding the information available on Iraq and having no WOMD, why isn't Clinton just as guilty for extending that lie to the time when Bush could use it?
In Sammi's world, the guy that stood beside the killer and handed him the gun and ammo has no responsibility.
Nick
Hmmm? I don't ever remember Clinton saying that Saddam was a threat to us in the U.S. so we should go bomb him. That's what you're implying by making this statement. What I do remember is that they were ignoring the no-fly zone and were taking aim at our planes.
Originally posted by BRussell
Clinton and Blair did have their Desert Fox in 1998, which was essentially based on the same arguments made by Bush 4 years later: That Iraq had violated post-Gulf-War international agreements and had WoMD that needed to be destroyed. I've heard the theory that one of the reasons no WoMD have been found is that any remaining ones were destroyed at that time.
Fair enough. However this would mean there is no justification for the Bush invasion.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Nick:
The first Gulf War was fought to expel Saddam from Kuwait; the no-fly zones were instituted to protect Marsh Arabs and Kurds from reprisals. Allied planes dropped bombs and shot missiles aplenty but I genuinely don't recall weapons of mass destruction being a pretext. It was all 'keep Saddam in his box' and 'we got a radar lock on one of our planes'. What's everyone else's recollection?
I remember people were worried he'd try and gas American troops, true, but for the life of me I don't remember Iraq being painted as the kind of threat that necessitated invasion.
I do remember people were saying we should take Saddam out because he was A Very Bad Man, but Iraq was not painted as a direct threat to us until comparatively recently, surely?
I'm sure that was said about lots of issues before 9/11. We can argue whether preemption is right or wrong all day. I'm not trying to rehash that, but instead address the issue brought up in the title and postings by Shawn and Sammi. I just want an answer to the claims they make.
There are a couple scenarios here.
A) Bush had the same information as Clinton.
In this scenario we see that both Clinton and Bush thought Iraq had WOMD. If this is true and proves wrong, then they both spoke the same way about the same bad information.
Clinton would then have had to have spoken up, claimed Iraq wasn't a threat of any sort and demanded proof while condemning the actions of Bush BEFORE the war.
Obviously B didn't happen. A former president claiming that the current president didn't have a justification would have been VERY LARGE news. The (A) scenario is not permissable to those here because it basically lets Bush off the hook for acting on bad information. However it also lets Clinton off the hook as well for not saying anything bad about going to war. It also lets pretty much every Democrat off the hook who voted for the war acting on that bad information.
So the only people who can't accept scenario (A) is some very strong anti-war types or hard core Dean supporters. Shawn obviously supports Dean and even mentions in the opening post that this would help Dean while implying it would damage Kerry, Edwards, and others.
So basically harm Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and other Democrats to advance Dean.
Nick