Iraq? A Mistake????

[dilloduck]

Ummm... that the CIA used data that supported the position the Bush Administration asked them to support, and that it did not excercise normal, or even any, checks to make sure this data was valid?

Basically what the CIA did was to provide fantasy data knowing they might take a hit for it later when it didn't turn out correct. Their response now is to claim it was an "honest mistake" and claim they are doing something about the problems which cause these "accidental errors".

Any fool should be able to see they are trying to sell us bullshit.

apparently only the left can see this----hmmmmmmmm

 

[wade]

What about the 17 violated un resolutions? Those are not debatable. He kicked out inspectors. That alone should have been reason enough for any thinking person.

Reason enough for any person who does not care about the loss of over 1000 US troops, several hundred US contractors, something around 15,000 Iraqi civilians, and a financial burden exceeding $200 billion and counting.

The inspectors were inspecting in the days immeadiatly prior to the war. Saddam was not violating the resolutions at that time.

Wade.

 

[anubis]

Who actually reads - and trusts - anything the NY Times has to say?

It beats Al Jazeera not to mention the New Republic .

 

[wade]

apparently only the left can see this----hmmmmmmmm

No, apparently the right is wearing a blindfold and cannot see anything. The left and the center see it pretty clearly.

 

[anubis]

Why is it that no matter how right my facts, how strong my argument, how scintillating my rhetoric my incredible contribution will result in not one change of mind of a committed person. Since only the committed would be on a site such as this I doubt any conversions will occur. It's a good place to vent and maybe learn however.

 

[wade]

...it is a fact that Saddam possessed ongoing chemical and biological programs and retained the ability to construct biological and chemical weapons.

There is no evidence Saddam had ongoing chemical and bio weapons programs.

That he had the ability to construct them? Come on Zhukov, that is a ridiculous justification for the Iraq war. Any and every nation has the ability to construct bio and/or chemical weapons. It's easy.

Give me a $20,000 budget and I can make bio and chemical weapons. I imagine you could too. There are at least 1,000,000 Americans who could, and at least 50,000 who could make extremely potent chem and bio weapons. Any MD, bio or chemical lab tech, or members of a host of other professions can do this.

Pointing at the "ability to construct" such weapons could justify invasion of ANY country!

Wade.

 

[wade]

Why is it that no matter how right my facts, how strong my argument, how scintillating my rhetoric my incredible contribution will result in not one change of mind of a committed person. Since only the committed would be on a site such as this I doubt any conversions will occur. It's a good place to vent and maybe learn however.

Well, it does make you research and think.

I believe I've though up a new weapon as a result of this thought. I'm doing some math now, if it looks good I'm going to submit the idea to an arms company.

 

[poebassman]

Zhukov,

I can see how you might misinterpret my post.

The mention of conventional weapons was purposeful and I don't think you understood what that implies. The sanction policy was effective in preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbors and that would imply that it could not threaten the U.S.. Note the statement in its context.

"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place,"

Now David Kay confirmed the intelligence that Powell received in his January 2004 report. To say that Powell was wrong here is highly unlikely since Kay and the U.N. came to the same conclusion as I noted in my previous posts. Kay and the U.N. did note that there were no large (Kay) or small (U.N.) stock piles of WMDs.

By using multiple reports from different organizations and countries, you can see the picture more clearly.


Now as for the quotations of David Kay by Warner.

Kay says it best in his interview with Jim Lehrer.

JIM LEHRER: And do you feel that the political on both -- the political folks on both sides share your serious feeling or is it too -- this is just an awkward time. It's called a presidential election campaign time. Is it possible to do what you want right now?

DAVID KAY: It's certainly an awkward time, but I think if you listened to yesterday's hearing in full as I had to as I was sitting there, there was obviously a political game being played by both sides but on the other hand every senator I think had serious questions that they raised and wanted answers to.

That's what gives me hope is that if we can transcend this -- and I think it's really going to require the American people speaking out and demanding it. Quite frankly very few answers come from Washington on their own. This is a democracy and it is a government that responds, regardless of political party to pressure from the outside. If the American people do not demand an answer through their elected representatives, wait for the next crisis and the next event I'm afraid.

 

[dilloduck]

Zhukov,

I can see how you might misinterpret my post.

The mention of conventional weapons was purposeful and I don't think you understood what that implies. The sanction policy was effective in preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbors and that would imply that it could not threaten the U.S.. Note the statement in its context.

"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place,"

Now David Kay confirmed the intelligence that Powell received in his January 2004 report. To say that Powell was wrong here is highly unlikely since Kay and the U.N. came to the same conclusion as I noted in my previous posts. Kay and the U.N. did note that there were no large (Kay) or small (U.N.) stock piles of WMDs.

By using multiple reports from different organizations and countries, you can see the picture more clearly.


Now as for the quotations of David Kay by Warner.

Kay says it best in his interview with Jim Lehrer.

JIM LEHRER: And do you feel that the political on both -- the political folks on both sides share your serious feeling or is it too -- this is just an awkward time. It's called a presidential election campaign time. Is it possible to do what you want right now?

DAVID KAY: It's certainly an awkward time, but I think if you listened to yesterday's hearing in full as I had to as I was sitting there, there was obviously a political game being played by both sides but on the other hand every senator I think had serious questions that they raised and wanted answers to.

That's what gives me hope is that if we can transcend this -- and I think it's really going to require the American people speaking out and demanding it. Quite frankly very few answers come from Washington on their own. This is a democracy and it is a government that responds, regardless of political party to pressure from the outside. If the American people do not demand an answer through their elected representatives, wait for the next crisis and the next event I'm afraid.

I sincerely hope that any American canNOT access US intel anytime they are interested. Could it be that the answers you seek would endanger lives if made public?

 

[poebassman]

You disagree with our invasion of Iraq and are desperately trying to subtantiate your belief. Don't feel alone, your conspiracy buddies are out there everywhere. You nor Kerry can say for certain what he would have done as evidenced by the fact that you are suggesting that Kerry do certain things regarding the UN which Kerry himself has not suggested. Why do you have to tell your candidate what he should do? Where is you evidence that Iraq is in chaos? Would you agree that many areas are secure, free and prosperous ?

Desperately trying to substantiate my beliefs? NO There was no reason for the invasion of Iraq by United Nations forces as Iraq had complied with resolution 1441. Bush using incorrect intelligence on Iraq and its weapons programs formed a coalition to attack unprovoked.

Is this not true?

I have no conspiracy but I do agree with David Kay that there needs to be greater investigations.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/kay_01-29.html

JIM LEHRER: You also in your back and forth with Senator McCain yesterday, you said -- and I mentioned in the news summary -- that you are now in favor of an outside investigation of the intelligence failures on Iraq. The White House says no, Condoleezza Rice said no, no, no, no, the inspections are not even over yet. It's too early to talk about that. Does that make sense to you, the White House position?
DAVID KAY: It really doesn't. In some ways I'm brought back to Apollo 13 in which the response was Houston we have a problem and if the response back from Houston had been, well, ride it out, we'll see how serious it is when you get to the moon.

I think we know enough to know we have a problem and now is the time to start the investigation. My reason for believing it has to be outside -- there are many variations of how you can do it outside -- is my reading on history is that closed orders and secret societies, whether they are private, religious or governmental, do not reform themselves internally very often.

You are correct... I can't say for certain exactly what I would do if I were president. I would however, have to believe that I would not invade another country unless all diplomatic means have been exhausted. Prior to using U.S. diplomatic means, I would exhaust all United Nations means. In the case of Iraq, it is solely a United Nations issue and not a United States issue.

As for Kerry... the truth is I don't like him and I don't what he'd do. He has given his position and the right seems not to be able to read well enough to understand his position or they just like to lie. SO here is a synopsis.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9743513.htm


No I can't give you any examples where there is a free, secure and prosperous area of Iraq. Can you? Seems to me you need national security and a stable police force to secure the citizens rights.

Here's a few good things!


UMM QASR, Iraq (AP) - Iraq regained sovereignty over its territorial waters Thursday, with the U.S.-led coalition handing over responsibility for safeguarding adjacent seas to the country's navy.

The handover was celebrated with the raising of the Iraqi flag at a naval base in the southern Persian Gulf port of Umm Qasar. U.S., British and Iraqi officers attended the ceremony.

The coalition handed over political sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government June 28 but kept control over Iraqi territorial waters.

"Iraqis have taken responsibility for protecting territorial waters today and actual work will begin tomorrow," said Col. Hamid Sarhan, commander of the Iraqi Coastal Defense Force. "Our first mission will be to protect oil ports in Basra and Khor al-Amaya from saboteurs and infiltrators."



Chaos examples.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040930/D85E4I300.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A series of bombs killed 35 children and seven adults Thursday as U.S. troops handed out candy at a government ceremony to inaugurate a new sewage treatment plant. Hours earlier, a suicide blast killed a U.S. soldier and two Iraqis on the capital's outskirts


http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040930/D85E5MP81.html

FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) - U.S. forces on Thursday attacked a suspected safehouse used by an al-Qaida linked group in Fallujah, the military said. Hospital officials said at least four Iraqis were killed and eight wounded.

Also, witnesses said U.S. forces opened fire Wednesday on a car passing Fallujah on the road west from Baghdad. The driver was shot in the head and lost control of the car, which plunged into a canal, said witness Hussein Alwan, who lives near the scene.

A man was brought to Fallujah General Hospital late Wednesday with a bullet wound to the head, Dr. Ahmed Khalil said. Later, the bodies of two women and five children arrived.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040930/D85E3LB80.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The Arab news network Al-Jazeera showed video Thursday of 10 new hostages seized in Iraq by militants.

Al-Jazeera said the 10 - six Iraqis, two Lebanese and two Indonesian women - were taken by The Islamic Army in Iraq. The group has claimed responsibility for seizing two French journalists last month.

The video showed three of the hostages, who were not identified, and two masked gunmen pointing weapons at them. There was no mention of demands by the militants or when or where the hostages were captured.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040930/D85DRU380.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Insurgents fired a rocket at a logistical support area for coalition forces Thursday, killing one soldier and wounding seven, the military said in a statement.

The attack happened outside the capital, Baghdad, the statement said. No further information was disclosed.


I suppose you'll say its the media's reporting of only chaotic things.

 

[poebassman]

I sincerely hope that any American canNOT access US intel anytime they are interested. Could it be that the answers you seek would endanger lives if made public?

Where did I ever mention that any American should be allowed to access U.S. intel anytime they are interested?

If you wish to argue that point, go ahead.. I'll watch.

My point I was trying to make is that there are people in the intelligence agencies that poorly read the intelligence of Iraq and passed along the incorrect information to the president. These people are a danger to the U.S.. The 9/11 commission didn't look for them and so they are still there.

A president should never receive the poor intelligence that bush received.

Again.. I don't blame bush just his administration for letting him get duped.

 

[poebassman]

Here we go again, the answer is NO!

What United Nations Forces? you speak of an irrelevant world body that is soon to be exposed for the corrupt orginaizations that ther are.

Everytime one of you newbies come on here it's the same old rhetoric that there were no weapons of mass destruction,have any proof to back up the fact that there never will be either???

There is no proof that there could never be WMDs however there was substantial proof that the U.N sanctions were working to prevent further proliferation of WMDs in Iraq.

See David Kay's Jan 2004 Senate hearing
See Colin Powells Feb 2001 press conference

Sorry if I came to this site a little late. My premise of Iraq being a United Nations issue still stands.

 

[dilloduck]

Desperately trying to substantiate my beliefs? NO There was no reason for the invasion of Iraq by United Nations forces as Iraq had complied with resolution 1441. Bush using incorrect intelligence on Iraq and its weapons programs formed a coalition to attack unprovoked.

Is this not true?

I have no conspiracy but I do agree with David Kay that there needs to be greater investigations.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/kay_01-29.html

JIM LEHRER: You also in your back and forth with Senator McCain yesterday, you said -- and I mentioned in the news summary -- that you are now in favor of an outside investigation of the intelligence failures on Iraq. The White House says no, Condoleezza Rice said no, no, no, no, the inspections are not even over yet. It's too early to talk about that. Does that make sense to you, the White House position?
DAVID KAY: It really doesn't. In some ways I'm brought back to Apollo 13 in which the response was Houston we have a problem and if the response back from Houston had been, well, ride it out, we'll see how serious it is when you get to the moon.

I think we know enough to know we have a problem and now is the time to start the investigation. My reason for believing it has to be outside -- there are many variations of how you can do it outside -- is my reading on history is that closed orders and secret societies, whether they are private, religious or governmental, do not reform themselves internally very often.

You are correct... I can't say for certain exactly what I would do if I were president. I would however, have to believe that I would not invade another country unless all diplomatic means have been exhausted. Prior to using U.S. diplomatic means, I would exhaust all United Nations means. In the case of Iraq, it is solely a United Nations issue and not a United States issue.

As for Kerry... the truth is I don't like him and I don't what he'd do. He has given his position and the right seems not to be able to read well enough to understand his position or they just like to lie. SO here is a synopsis.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9743513.htm


No I can't give you any examples where there is a free, secure and prosperous area of Iraq. Can you? Seems to me you need national security and a stable police force to secure the citizens rights.

Here's a few good things!


UMM QASR, Iraq (AP) - Iraq regained sovereignty over its territorial waters Thursday, with the U.S.-led coalition handing over responsibility for safeguarding adjacent seas to the country's navy.

The handover was celebrated with the raising of the Iraqi flag at a naval base in the southern Persian Gulf port of Umm Qasar. U.S., British and Iraqi officers attended the ceremony.

The coalition handed over political sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government June 28 but kept control over Iraqi territorial waters.

"Iraqis have taken responsibility for protecting territorial waters today and actual work will begin tomorrow," said Col. Hamid Sarhan, commander of the Iraqi Coastal Defense Force. "Our first mission will be to protect oil ports in Basra and Khor al-Amaya from saboteurs and infiltrators."



Chaos examples.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040930/D85E4I300.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A series of bombs killed 35 children and seven adults Thursday as U.S. troops handed out candy at a government ceremony to inaugurate a new sewage treatment plant. Hours earlier, a suicide blast killed a U.S. soldier and two Iraqis on the capital's outskirts


http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040930/D85E5MP81.html

FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) - U.S. forces on Thursday attacked a suspected safehouse used by an al-Qaida linked group in Fallujah, the military said. Hospital officials said at least four Iraqis were killed and eight wounded.

Also, witnesses said U.S. forces opened fire Wednesday on a car passing Fallujah on the road west from Baghdad. The driver was shot in the head and lost control of the car, which plunged into a canal, said witness Hussein Alwan, who lives near the scene.

A man was brought to Fallujah General Hospital late Wednesday with a bullet wound to the head, Dr. Ahmed Khalil said. Later, the bodies of two women and five children arrived.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040930/D85E3LB80.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The Arab news network Al-Jazeera showed video Thursday of 10 new hostages seized in Iraq by militants.

Al-Jazeera said the 10 - six Iraqis, two Lebanese and two Indonesian women - were taken by The Islamic Army in Iraq. The group has claimed responsibility for seizing two French journalists last month.

The video showed three of the hostages, who were not identified, and two masked gunmen pointing weapons at them. There was no mention of demands by the militants or when or where the hostages were captured.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040930/D85DRU380.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Insurgents fired a rocket at a logistical support area for coalition forces Thursday, killing one soldier and wounding seven, the military said in a statement.

The attack happened outside the capital, Baghdad, the statement said. No further information was disclosed.


I suppose you'll say its the media's reporting of only chaotic things.

Bush has certainly taken steps that have challenged the norm. I find these to be necessary and courageous when compared with how the threat of Islamo-Facism had been dealt with in the past. The UN has lost all relevance to me for reasons that you must be aware of. Bowing to corrupt administrators and ambassadors has only served to make them rich and given terrorism WORLD WIDE a chance to plan, arm and train.
It's really a simple decision. What should we do when a world wide organization of terrorists declares war on America and procedes to attack America numerous times? Bush says we attack back to include those who would support them. The terrorists are NOT ONLY AL QUEDA ! They are a whole group of Islamo-Facists who operate primarily in numerous mid-east countries but also exist elsewhere.
The president and his advisors chose to look at Iraq very closely as they had already been enemies of the US and were shooting at our planes almost daily. They decided there was enough intelligence to attack Saddam IF HE WOULDN"T LEAVE IRAQ. HE CHOSE NOT TOO.
Be as picky as you like about the lead up to the war but the truth is that there ARE Islamo-Facists there now. (nice of em to all come there so we didn't have to chase em all over the place). Bush chose to fight the battle there and on our terms. Where do you think we should have started to fight it or would you have continued to let the terrorists operate at will while the UN took money intended for starving sick people? THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE FOR YOU.

 

[poebassman]

Yep, the sanctions were working alright. 13 years later and still little if any compliance.

There were still unanswered questions pertaining to Anthrax & VX poison, Blix himself said that Iraq was not cooperating on this matter! Well I guess that's ok though since that stuff is really not harmful anyway!

There has been many reports saying that there were no weapons in Iraq, there were just as many suggesting what happened to them!

How about the missles that were found to be out of the range forced by sanctions? Sure they claimed to of destroyed them, yet they were still found hidden!

This has much more to it then Just WMD's but it does seem to be the favorite argument by the libs as it is the only thing left to argue.

The missles could extend their reach only by removing the guidance. Blix and his team were dismantling any they found. They had to leave because bush started a war. None of the missles reported to be outside the range were fired at U.S. Coalition forces.

David Kay answered the VX issue

KAY: It's still a subject of investigation. It looks specifically -- deal with the VX. And interesting enough, the Iraqis -- we now have the records of the Iraqis as they tried to investigate that in order to get the evidence to answer UNSCOM and later UNMOVIC on that.

And this is what happens. Remember, they had the ends of two chaotic wars. They had the end of the Iran-Iraq War and they had the end of Gulf War, too.

One large amount of VX apparently as they were moving it back -- it had been forward-deployed in Iraq toward the Kuwaiti border -- as they were moving it back in 1991, there was a traffic accident. The truck carrying it was totally consumed in a fire. They documented it in part, but there was the usual embarrassment of, "Do we tell Saddam we just burned up a large amount of chemical warfare agents?" So it wasn't fully reported and fully documented. They didn't do analytical sampling, so they had nothing -- and only partial records.

That now looks like an explanation that increasingly looks like it was true.
Some of it was simply accounting errors that were wrong in material balance. Others are going to be in what I call this unresolved ambiguity; that we may simply never know.


He did mention anthrax and the Iraqis try to get it into a dry form in his testimony but he didn't give light to where it went. If you have some info.. please feel free to shed some light.


As for the compliance, have you read the 1441 resolution? It recalls all the previous resolutions and disregards their compliance. Iraq complied with 1441.

 

[dilloduck]

The missles could extend their reach only by removing the guidance. Blix and his team were dismantling any they found. They had to leave because bush started a war. None of the missles reported to be outside the range were fired at U.S. Coalition forces.

David Kay answered the VX issue

KAY: It's still a subject of investigation. It looks specifically -- deal with the VX. And interesting enough, the Iraqis -- we now have the records of the Iraqis as they tried to investigate that in order to get the evidence to answer UNSCOM and later UNMOVIC on that.

And this is what happens. Remember, they had the ends of two chaotic wars. They had the end of the Iran-Iraq War and they had the end of Gulf War, too.

One large amount of VX apparently as they were moving it back -- it had been forward-deployed in Iraq toward the Kuwaiti border -- as they were moving it back in 1991, there was a traffic accident. The truck carrying it was totally consumed in a fire. They documented it in part, but there was the usual embarrassment of, "Do we tell Saddam we just burned up a large amount of chemical warfare agents?" So it wasn't fully reported and fully documented. They didn't do analytical sampling, so they had nothing -- and only partial records.

That now looks like an explanation that increasingly looks like it was true.
Some of it was simply accounting errors that were wrong in material balance. Others are going to be in what I call this unresolved ambiguity; that we may simply never know.


He did mention anthrax and the Iraqis try to get it into a dry form in his testimony but he didn't give light to where it went. If you have some info.. please feel free to shed some light.


As for the compliance, have you read the 1441 resolution? It recalls all the previous resolutions and disregards their compliance. Iraq complied with 1441.

Guess what--THEY WERE TOO FREAKIN LATE !!!!!!!!!

 

[poebassman]

Bush has certainly taken steps that have challenged the norm. I find these to be necessary and courageous when compared with how the threat of Islamo-Facism had been dealt with in the past. The UN has lost all relevance to me for reasons that you must be aware of. Bowing to corrupt administrators and ambassadors has only served to make them rich and given terrorism WORLD WIDE a chance to plan, arm and train.
It's really a simple decision. What should we do when a world wide organization of terrorists declares war on America and procedes to attack America numerous times? Bush says we attack back to include those who would support them. The terrorists are NOT ONLY AL QUEDA ! They are a whole group of Islamo-Facists who operate primarily in numerous mid-east countries but also exist elsewhere.
The president and his advisors chose to look at Iraq very closely as they had already been enemies of the US and were shooting at our planes almost daily. They decided there was enough intelligence to attack Saddam IF HE WOULDN"T LEAVE IRAQ. HE CHOSE NOT TOO.
Be as picky as you like about the lead up to the war but the truth is that there ARE Islamo-Facists there now. (nice of em to all come there so we didn't have to chase em all over the place). Bush chose to fight the battle there and on our terms. Where do you think we should have started to fight it or would you have continued to let the terrorists operate at will while the UN took money intended for starving sick people? THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE FOR YOU.

Iraq was never known for its Islamo-facists while under Saddam Hussein. The war on terror included Saddam even in the Clinton administration but Saddam had not even the power to project conventional warfare on his neighbors mush less the U.S..

Bin Ladin attacked us and bush was charged with bringing him to justice. Bush didn't succeed. I agree the war on terror isn't all about al qaeda but they are the ones you killed nearly 3,000 people in the WTC. Bin Laden should be the number one priority over a country that had been prevented by United Nations sanctions from harming even its neighbors. Iraq was no where near the threat Bin Laden was and still is. People still fear flying and traveling on mass transit which had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

 

[dilloduck]

Iraq was never known for its Islamo-facists while under Saddam Hussein. The war on terror included Saddam even in the Clinton administration but Saddam had not even the power to project conventional warfare on his neighbors mush less the U.S..

Bin Ladin attacked us and bush was charged with bringing him to justice. Bush didn't succeed. I agree the war on terror isn't all about al qaeda but they are the ones you killed nearly 3,000 people in the WTC. Bin Laden should be the number one priority over a country that had been prevented by United Nations sanctions from harming even its neighbors. Iraq was no where near the threat Bin Laden was and still is. People still fear flying and traveling on mass transit which had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

Bush wasn't "charged" to do anything however he decided rightly to attack terrorism wherever he found it. Did you expect this to be easy? You should have listened when Bush said it was going to be hard and take long time!! Iraq was not a threat but the people who lived there and the ones who received money from Saddam were. All this crap about bin laden--if he were dead now we would be still fighting Islamo-facists. Forget the UN unless you can prove to me that they are an honest organization.

 

[William Joyce]

No, apparently the right is wearing a blindfold and cannot see anything. The left and the center see it pretty clearly.

Wade, an amendment.

The REAL right sees clearly as day that this war wasn't fought because of "intelligence failures" but because Jews wanted it fought. The SILLY right thinks it was because "they hate us for our freedom."

 

[William Joyce]

by Richard O. Spertzel
NEW YORK POST

Like I was saying.

 

[Zhukov]

There is no evidence Saddam had ongoing chemical and bio weapons programs.

The work of the Iraq Survey Group has shown that Saddam Hussein had WMD intentions, had WMD programs that did survive, and did outwit for 12 years the United Nations Security Council and the resolutions -- indeed, the inspections, in large measure.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KAY401A.html

That he had the ability to construct them? Come on Zhukov, that is a ridiculous justification for the Iraq war.

In and of itself perhaps, but of course that is merely a single element of the overall problem which consisted off: 1.) the retention of the ability to make chemical and biological weapons in massive amounts, despite sanctions, 2.) the obvious intent to make said weapons, and 3.) known associations with islamo-fascist terrorists.

That's good enough for me.

The sanction policy was effective in preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbors and that would imply that it could not threaten the U.S.

No it does not. The inability to conquer Saudi Arabia with tanks does not imply that he hasn't the ability to deliver to terrorists the means to strike the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons. The two are wholly disparate matters.

With respect to Powell in Feb., lets think about the situation.

Iraq developed/bought and used chemical weapons sometime during the '80's.

After the first Gulf War ended Iraq was required to submit a list of all of it's chemical and biological weapons and then destroy them. Which Saddam seemed to be doing.

But it turns out he was lying, and after about a year of hiding stuff and lying to inspectors, Hussein finally releases the so-called "Full, Final, and Complete Disclosure" in June '92.

But it turns out he was lying, but still managed to weasle around for about three more years before releasing the second so-called "Full, Final, and Complete Disclosure" in May '95.

But it turns out he was lying, but only gets away with it for about a year before releasing the third so-called "Full, Final, and Complete Disclosure" in June '96.

But it turns out he was lying, though this time he doesn't bother releasing anymore FFCD's because he had more or less outlasted everyone and the world has lost interest in large part, just as I'm sure he suspected, planned, and hoped it eventually would.

In the end, by 2001, there existed no definitive proof that Iraq had destroyed all of it's chemical and biological weapons and no one honestly believed they had.

Then Sec. Powell says:

"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

Well, clearly he isn't saying Saddam can't make chem or bio weapons, nor is he saying Saddam doesn't have chem or bio weapons, because conventional wisdom alone at the time seriously objected to either of those premises. It sounds like he's saying, that at that time, to the best of his knowledge, Saddam Hussein had not significantly rebuilt his ability to attack his neighbors with weaponized chemical or biological agents, an ability he possessed at the end of the first Gulf War.

However, once again, the nature of the threat with respect to Iraq, was completely re-evaluated after 9/11. We were no longer concerned just with whether or not he could hit Tel Aviv with a VX Scud. Suddenly we became worried he could give VX to a terrorist to smuggle into the U.S. They were right to be concerned, because he did indeed retain that ability, and they were right to remove him from power.

Now as for the quotations of David Kay by Warner.

Kay says it best in his interview with Jim Lehrer.

And just because Dr. Kay recognizes the politics involved with the WMD issue in Iraq in no way invalidates his own words relating how Saddam retained weapons programs in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions and was, in his estimation, a much greater threat than even the administration claimed he was prior to the invasion.