Wikileaks reveals WMDs

[JakeStarkey]

The buck stops with George W. Bush, the then President of the United States. Harry Truman would consider you a toid, Weapon of Minuscule Deception.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Chemical weapons are not WMDs.

Yeah I know that people call them WMDs but they're really not.

They're tactical weapons at best.

Yes they are.

Weapon of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

\
You didn't read that very thoroughly.

However, there is an argument that nuclear and biological weapons do not belong in the same category as chemical and "dirty bomb" radiological weapons, which have limited destructive potential (and close to none, as far as property is concerned), whereas nuclear and biological weapons have the unique ability to kill large numbers of people with very small amounts of material, and thus could be said to belong in a class by themselves

.

Do remember that the designation Weapon of MASS destruction is the key to deciding.

No chemical weapons do not fit into the catagory of MASS destruction any more than normal ordanance, does.

I don't give a flying fig what other people call it, the name itself tells you what the weapon must be capable of doing.

MASS destruction.

Chemical weapons do not have that much potential.

I read it completely. There is debate about where mass comes in. That does not change the fact that I can kill more people with a smaller chemical or biological payload than I can with a nuclear one. If you want to measure mass in property damage versus people killed, feel free, but i think people count for more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The buck stops with George W. Bush, the then President of the United States. Harry Truman would consider you a toid, Weapon of Minuscule Deception.

Now you are an expert on what dead people think. What next? Alien psychology?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are an expert on nothing but a tool for anyone who points you in a certain direction. That's what I mean about common sense and character. You appear deficient in both.

 

[DiveCon]

You are an expert on nothing but a tool for anyone who points you in a certain direction. That's what I mean about common sense and character. You appear deficient in both.

projections from jokey again

 

[HinduPatriot]

and btw, the WMD are all in syria.

Iraq hid some of its WMDs in Iran and Pakistan, which is why we need to nuke those two terrorist countries.

God Bless Israel.

I agree, Pakistan has the WMDs. We should nuke Pakistan.

But we should not nuke Iran, it is India's friend.

I am neutral on Israel. I do not mind if we nuke them or don't nuke them.

 

[R.C. Christian]

My god you people are so stupid you make africans look like Einstein.

 

[JiggsCasey]

My god you people are so stupid you make africans look like Einstein.

Racist much?

 

[JiggsCasey]

Actually the claim was made by Rove in his book.

Rove on Iraq: Without W.M.D. Threat, Bush Wouldn't Have Gone to War - NYTimes.com

Karl Rove, the chief political adviser to President George W. Bush and architect of his two successful campaigns for the White House, says in a new memoir that his former boss probably would not have invaded Iraq had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.


“Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it,” he writes. “Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal with Iraq’s horrendous human rights violations.”

So, did GWB lie, or did Rove lie?

Both, of course.
Bush about not knowing there were no WMD, and Rove about Bush not invading if he knew there were no WMD.

Author: Bush knew Iraq had no WMD - TODAY People - TODAYshow.com

By Bob Considine
TODAYshow.com contributor TODAYshow.com contributor
updated 8/5/2008 919 AM ET

President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war in the form of a backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, an explosive new book claims.
The charge is made in “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism” by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, released today.
Suskind says he spoke on the record with U.S. intelligence officials who stated that Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, his book relates, Bush decided to invade Iraq three months later — with the forged letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam bolstering the U.S. rationale to go into war.




Prelude to war
Suskind reports that the head of Iraqi intelligence, Tahir Jalil Habbush, met secretly with British intelligence in Jordan in the early days of 2003. In weekly meetings with Michael Shipster, the British director of Iraqi operations, Habbush conveyed that Iraq had no active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
When Tenet was informed of the findings in early February, he said, “They’re not going to like this downtown,” Suskind wrote, meaning the White House. Suskind says that Bush’s reaction to the report was: “Why don’t they ask him to give us something we can use to help make our case?”
Suskind quotes Rob Richer, the CIA’s Near East division head, as saying that the White House simply ignored the Habbush report and informed British intelligence that they no longer wanted Habbush as an informant.
“Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq from the very first days he was in office. Nothing was going to stop that,” Richer is quoted in the book.
Suskind also writes that Habbush was “resettled” in Jordan with help from the CIA and was paid $5 million in hush money.




The letter
On page 371 of “The Way of the World,” Suskind describes the White House’s concoction of a forged letter purportedly from the hand of Habbush to Saddam Hussein to justify the United States’ decision to go to war.
Suskind writes: “The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq — thus showing, finally, that there was an operation link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, something the Vice President's office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade.”
He continues: “A handwritten letter, with Habbush's name on it, would be fashioned by CIA and then hand-carried by a CIA agent to Baghdad for dissemination.”
CIA officers Richer and John Maguire, who oversaw the Iraq Operations Group, are both on the record in Suskind’s book confirming the existence of the fake Habbush letter.

^^ This.

No one ever disputed that Iraq contained some old, rotting traces of a defunct WMD program. Heck, we largely sold it to them. 20+ years prior.

But that's not what Powell lied about to the UN in early 2003. Gotta love pro-war con men, desperately twisting whatever angle they can find 7-8 years later for an argument long-since crushed.

Their heroes lied, yet their loyal little disciples have FAR too much invested at this point to ever admit they were wrong. Deny, deny, deny, deflect, spin, distort, extrapolate, pretend, fake.

Sorry, Bush Leaguers... You're not fooling anyone anymore.

 

[HinduPatriot]

America can make up for its phoney war against Iraq, by attacking a country which actually has WMDs... PAKISTAN is next !!

India will be willing to give the USA a list of targets. Here it is: All of Waziristan, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad.

 

[Marc39]

and btw, the WMD are all in syria.

Iraq hid some of its WMDs in Iran and Pakistan, which is why we need to nuke those two terrorist countries.

God Bless Israel.

I agree, Pakistan has the WMDs. We should nuke Pakistan.

But we should not nuke Iran, it is India's friend.

I am neutral on Israel. I do not mind if we nuke them or don't nuke them.

Iraq's WMD were transported to Syria. Bomb Syria back into the Middle Ages. Oh, that's right, they're already there.

 

[Bonano]

America can make up for its phoney war against Iraq, by attacking a country which actually has WMDs... PAKISTAN is next !!

India will be willing to give the USA a list of targets. Here it is: All of Waziristan, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad.

US should nuke Pakistan and India, then blame it on each other. Fucking rags heads are dumb enough to fall for it.

 

[DiveCon]

America can make up for its phoney war against Iraq, by attacking a country which actually has WMDs... PAKISTAN is next !!

India will be willing to give the USA a list of targets. Here it is: All of Waziristan, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad.

US should nuke Pakistan and India, then blame it on each other. Fucking rags heads are dumb enough to fall for it.

just what we need, another racist asshole on this board

 

[Bonano]

America can make up for its phoney war against Iraq, by attacking a country which actually has WMDs... PAKISTAN is next !!

India will be willing to give the USA a list of targets. Here it is: All of Waziristan, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad.

US should nuke Pakistan and India, then blame it on each other. Fucking rags heads are dumb enough to fall for it.

just what we need, another racist asshole on this board

Why not? Because India and Pakistan bring so much positivity to the world?

 

[Charles_Main]

It always gets me how Democrats conveniently forget about their own Democrat Party Leaderships belief in WMD's.

I'm not surprised though..(an inconvenient truth... I suppose).

believing there might be something, and invading a country because you believe there might be something are not the same.

the little difference is the invasion.

an inconvenient truth, i suppose.

Those same Democrats also voted to authorize the war. Another Inconvenient truth.

 

[HinduPatriot]

America can make up for its phoney war against Iraq, by attacking a country which actually has WMDs... PAKISTAN is next !!

India will be willing to give the USA a list of targets. Here it is: All of Waziristan, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad.

US should nuke Pakistan and India, then blame it on each other. Fucking rags heads are dumb enough to fall for it.

Haha. Nah, this one is better: India bombs American bases in Afghanistan and blames it on the Pakistani Taliban.

This way the USA takes decisive military action against the Pakistani fuckers.

The fucking rednecks are dumb enough to fall for it.

 

[Bonano]

America can make up for its phoney war against Iraq, by attacking a country which actually has WMDs... PAKISTAN is next !!

India will be willing to give the USA a list of targets. Here it is: All of Waziristan, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad.

US should nuke Pakistan and India, then blame it on each other. Fucking rags heads are dumb enough to fall for it.

Haha. Nah, this one is better: India bombs American bases in Afghanistan and blames it on the Pakistani Taliban.

This way the USA takes decisive military action against the Pakistani fuckers.

The fucking rednecks are dumb enough to fall for it.

How is India going to bomb shit in Afghanistan? Drop it on them from a rickshaw?

 

[JBeukema]

So, basically... there was no WMD program, he didn't kill everyone who had any knowledge of the subject, and- shockingly- not every last item was destroyed?

Oh, and after we invaded they desperately tried to use what they could still find or brew anything they could?


That about sum it up?

 

[JBeukema]

Gotta love Wikileaks.

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.
Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”
Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

Myabe Bush did lie to us after all, if you call keeping evidence that will exonerate him lying.

Chemical weapons are not WMDs.

Yeah I know that people call them WMDs but they're really not.

They're tactical weapons at best.

When machine guns came out, they were considered weapons of mass destruction. So, too tanks and bunker busters.

He had nothing we needed to be afraid of.

 

[JBeukema]

Yep, a real WMD capability there.

Of course there were WMDs. The man used them. He only needed a delivery system however crude (... connect the dots ... ) and willig religious zealots to make them dangerous even to us.

He was working with the Hutaree?