Question: why do liberals always say Bush started TWO unwarranted wars?

[TemplarKormac]

Bush recognized what would happen if we pulled out too early. He called for a surge and it worked. By 2011, Iraq was pacified, that is until Obama ordered a complete withdrawal of US troops from the country. Everything happening now was forewarned against by President Bush in 2007.

As sectarian violence threatened to destroy this young democracy, our coalition faced a choice. One option was to help the Iraqi government tamp down the sectarian violence and provide them with the breathing space they need to achieve reconciliation -- provide them the breathing space they need to take the political and economic measures necessary to make sure our military efforts were effective. The other option was to pull back from the capital, before the Iraqis could defend themselves against these radicals and extremists and death squads and killers. That risked turning Iraq into a cauldron of chaos. Our enemy, the enemies of freedom, love chaos. Out of that chaos they could find new safe havens. Withdrawal would have emboldened these radicals and extremists. It would have confirmed their belief that our nations were weak. It would help them gain new recruits, new resources. It would cause them to believe they could strike free nations at their choice.

Withdrawal would have increased the probability that coalition troops would be forced to return to Iraq one day, and confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. Failure in Iraq should be unacceptable to the civilized world. The risks are enormous.

So after an extensive review, I ordered a new strategy that is dramatically different from the one we were pursuing before. I listened to our military commanders; I listened to politicians from both sides of the aisle. I made a decision. I appointed a new commander, General David Petraeus, to carry out this strategy. This new strategy recognizes that our top priority must be to help the Iraqi government secure its capital so they can make economic and political progress.

-President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition Conference, MacDill AFB, May 1, 2007

President Bush Addresses CENTCOM Coalition Conference

Iraq was never "pacified".

Some violence went down because the US began bribing the Sunnis.

But it never abated.

Then why were you guys claiming credit for it then? "Al Qaeda is on the run"? I swear, it's like you guys have Alzheimer's or something.

 

[Camp]

After a decade in Iraq, now we will CONTINUE the ridiculous debate about how the war in Iraq is related to al Qaeda.

 

[boilermaker55]

No wonder you are so "right" lol you are so full of yourself and your self-proclaimed brilliance.
Must be so frustrating to be the only one that knows the "real" truth.

I don't think anyone had a problem with President Bush using military force to attack al Qaeda's bases in Afghanistan in an effort to kill of capture those responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

After Tora-Bora, and bin Laden's escape in to Pakistan, the propaganda to invade Iraq began it's year+ long journey to convince America that Saddam was the next Hitler, had operational ties with al Qaeda, had reconstituted his old WMD programs and was actively producing and stockpiling Chemical, Biological and even Nuclear weapons to give the terrorist to hit us with. While that was going on the mission in Afghanistan changed to an occupation and an attempt at Nation Building. But because the focus had shifted to the upcoming (Planned) invasion and occupation of Iraq, both efforts in Afghanistan took second fiddle to the upcoming Iraq war. Of course the finest military in the world (which had majority support from congress and the people) made quick work of the decimated Iraq military. Once the military was finished, the Bush appointees simply fucked up the occupation and sparked the sectarian civil war, that is still going on. After that all the Bush talking points about the threat Iraq posed began to be exposed for the lies they were based on. That's when the citizens began questioning their support for Bushes two wars.

First of all you do not understand one thing about logistics of war, so stop pretending you know something when you don't. It makes look like a hack.

Second there was a lot of evidence of Saddam keeping his programs in place and he violated 17 UN resolutions per UNSCOM. It is clearly spelled out in the report.

Third the democrats propagated the existence of wmds before Bush ever took office, highlighted by Clinton signing the Iraq Liberation Act for wmds.

Fourth, Obama increased the war in Afghanistan not Bush.

I have hardly seen any of you double talking hypocrites talk about the mass drone strikes on terrorists that you all once claimed were myths.

All of the liberals saying Bush started two unwarranted wars are morons. They are truthers. Period.

 

[flacaltenn]

The biggest crime of the Bush Administration was that their foreign policy diminished our global presence.
Invading Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan resulted in two stalemates instead of one victory. The forces deployed were clearly inadequate from the beginning, we showed the whole world that the United States of America is no longer capable of fighting two major campaigns at once. Effectively ending a strategic policy that had been in place since the Second World War. Our rivals and potential adversaries have certainly noticed the resulting power vacuum and will adjust their policies accordingly.....most likely not to our advantage.

Somehow -- everyone (mostly you) forgets the situation PRIOR to Bush's decision and how entirely SUCKY those policies were. We had Iraq buttoned up in containment at the cost of keeping a couple carrier groups in the Gulf and a permanent AirBase in Saudi. And we BOMBED THEIR ASSES every other day.. So much so -- we were literally running out of bombs. Did this sorry act for TWELVE ******* YEARS. And when the Sec State was confronted with the conservative estimates of 200,000 dead Iraqi children from the bombing, and lack of medical supplies and other embargoed goods, Mad. NotsoBright just said it was "worth it".. Containment was falling apart. Our Euro partners were holding commercial tradeshows in Baghdad, The UN was stealing from the Oil for Food program and bin Laden was citing our airbase in Saudi as a PRIME REASON for his declared war on America.

THAT -- was truly sucky policy.. It was time for a change of policy.. Either let Saddam out of containment as the Euros wanted, or kick his sorry ass out. ME? I was for letting him out of containment because I NEVER BELIEVED the fantastical WMD stories.

But now the Repubs are TOO STUPID to point out the failed 12 previous years of policy and the Left is just ignorant of what Clinton said and did DAILY about Saddam and Iraq. And NEITHER SIDE HAD THE BALLS to let him out of containment at the time. Today? There is just a MOUNTAIN of hypocrisy on both sides here.. Knowing what we know now -- we had NO BASIS to run that 12 year sucky policy.

SOMETHING had to change. And because of Bush's decision, we are no longer starving Iraqis and locking them up with a madman in charge and the UN stealing their oil. And there are NO LONGER Air bases in Saudi or a permanent extra carrier group bombing them every day..

 

[Discombobulated]

The biggest crime of the Bush Administration was that their foreign policy diminished our global presence.
Invading Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan resulted in two stalemates instead of one victory. The forces deployed were clearly inadequate from the beginning, we showed the whole world that the United States of America is no longer capable of fighting two major campaigns at once. Effectively ending a strategic policy that had been in place since the Second World War. Our rivals and potential adversaries have certainly noticed the resulting power vacuum and will adjust their policies accordingly.....most likely not to our advantage.

Somehow -- everyone (mostly you) forgets the situation PRIOR to Bush's decision and how entirely SUCKY those policies were. We had Iraq buttoned up in containment at the cost of keeping a couple carrier groups in the Gulf and a permanent AirBase in Saudi. And we BOMBED THEIR ASSES every other day.. So much so -- we were literally running out of bombs. Did this sorry act for TWELVE ******* YEARS. And when the Sec State was confronted with the conservative estimates of 200,000 dead Iraqi children from the bombing, and lack of medical supplies and other embargoed goods, Mad. NotsoBright just said it was "worth it".. Containment was falling apart. Our Euro partners were holding commercial tradeshows in Baghdad, The UN was stealing from the Oil for Food program and bin Laden was citing our airbase in Saudi as a PRIME REASON for his declared war on America.

THAT -- was truly sucky policy.. It was time for a change of policy.. Either let Saddam out of containment as the Euros wanted, or kick his sorry ass out. ME? I was for letting him out of containment because I NEVER BELIEVED the fantastical WMD stories.

But now the Repubs are TOO STUPID to point out the failed 12 previous years of policy and the Left is just ignorant of what Clinton said and did DAILY about Saddam and Iraq. And NEITHER SIDE HAD THE BALLS to let him out of containment at the time. Today? There is just a MOUNTAIN of hypocrisy on both sides here.. Knowing what we know now -- we had NO BASIS to run that 12 year sucky policy.

SOMETHING had to change. And because of Bush's decision, we are no longer starving Iraqis and locking them up with a madman in charge and the UN stealing their oil. And there are NO LONGER Air bases in Saudi or a permanent extra carrier group bombing them every day..

No doubt all this somehow mitigates the epic failures of the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

 

[flacaltenn]

The biggest crime of the Bush Administration was that their foreign policy diminished our global presence.
Invading Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan resulted in two stalemates instead of one victory. The forces deployed were clearly inadequate from the beginning, we showed the whole world that the United States of America is no longer capable of fighting two major campaigns at once. Effectively ending a strategic policy that had been in place since the Second World War. Our rivals and potential adversaries have certainly noticed the resulting power vacuum and will adjust their policies accordingly.....most likely not to our advantage.

Somehow -- everyone (mostly you) forgets the situation PRIOR to Bush's decision and how entirely SUCKY those policies were. We had Iraq buttoned up in containment at the cost of keeping a couple carrier groups in the Gulf and a permanent AirBase in Saudi. And we BOMBED THEIR ASSES every other day.. So much so -- we were literally running out of bombs. Did this sorry act for TWELVE ******* YEARS. And when the Sec State was confronted with the conservative estimates of 200,000 dead Iraqi children from the bombing, and lack of medical supplies and other embargoed goods, Mad. NotsoBright just said it was "worth it".. Containment was falling apart. Our Euro partners were holding commercial tradeshows in Baghdad, The UN was stealing from the Oil for Food program and bin Laden was citing our airbase in Saudi as a PRIME REASON for his declared war on America.

THAT -- was truly sucky policy.. It was time for a change of policy.. Either let Saddam out of containment as the Euros wanted, or kick his sorry ass out. ME? I was for letting him out of containment because I NEVER BELIEVED the fantastical WMD stories.

But now the Repubs are TOO STUPID to point out the failed 12 previous years of policy and the Left is just ignorant of what Clinton said and did DAILY about Saddam and Iraq. And NEITHER SIDE HAD THE BALLS to let him out of containment at the time. Today? There is just a MOUNTAIN of hypocrisy on both sides here.. Knowing what we know now -- we had NO BASIS to run that 12 year sucky policy.

SOMETHING had to change. And because of Bush's decision, we are no longer starving Iraqis and locking them up with a madman in charge and the UN stealing their oil. And there are NO LONGER Air bases in Saudi or a permanent extra carrier group bombing them every day..

No doubt all this somehow mitigates the epic failures of the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

I opposed the Iraq incursion. Largely because I didn't see how a nation that we BOMBED AND STARVED for 12 years would ever trust us an occupier. And coincidentally, the stinky suggestions that Iraq was a storehouse of WMD high technology. BUT -- Bush made a decision to END a bad policy that I opposed ever more.. That's much better than the leftist options at the time to pretend that we could lock up an entire country and bomb them daily indefinitely.. Hard choices actually.. Not to be used today for trivial pissing contests..

Want a laugh? I actually believe we chose to take Saddam out for reasons you and I will never know. We had evidence of Iraqi involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, a possible connection to the downing of Flt 800 or the Anthrax attacks that followed 9/11 and a proven attempted assassination attempt at Bush #1.. Any or ALL of these incidents COULD HAVE been known to be followed back to Saddam and just never revealed to the public. Because the WMD excuses were SOOO bad , there had to be a better explanation than gross incompetence on the part of the BOTH parties allowing the incursion..

Not a conspiracy theory -- just grasping for straws trying to make EITHER party look less dumb...

 

[Discombobulated]

Somehow -- everyone (mostly you) forgets the situation PRIOR to Bush's decision and how entirely SUCKY those policies were. We had Iraq buttoned up in containment at the cost of keeping a couple carrier groups in the Gulf and a permanent AirBase in Saudi. And we BOMBED THEIR ASSES every other day.. So much so -- we were literally running out of bombs. Did this sorry act for TWELVE ******* YEARS. And when the Sec State was confronted with the conservative estimates of 200,000 dead Iraqi children from the bombing, and lack of medical supplies and other embargoed goods, Mad. NotsoBright just said it was "worth it".. Containment was falling apart. Our Euro partners were holding commercial tradeshows in Baghdad, The UN was stealing from the Oil for Food program and bin Laden was citing our airbase in Saudi as a PRIME REASON for his declared war on America.

THAT -- was truly sucky policy.. It was time for a change of policy.. Either let Saddam out of containment as the Euros wanted, or kick his sorry ass out. ME? I was for letting him out of containment because I NEVER BELIEVED the fantastical WMD stories.

But now the Repubs are TOO STUPID to point out the failed 12 previous years of policy and the Left is just ignorant of what Clinton said and did DAILY about Saddam and Iraq. And NEITHER SIDE HAD THE BALLS to let him out of containment at the time. Today? There is just a MOUNTAIN of hypocrisy on both sides here.. Knowing what we know now -- we had NO BASIS to run that 12 year sucky policy.

SOMETHING had to change. And because of Bush's decision, we are no longer starving Iraqis and locking them up with a madman in charge and the UN stealing their oil. And there are NO LONGER Air bases in Saudi or a permanent extra carrier group bombing them every day..

No doubt all this somehow mitigates the epic failures of the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

I opposed the Iraq incursion. Largely because I didn't see how a nation that we BOMBED AND STARVED for 12 years would ever trust us an occupier. And coincidentally, the stinky suggestions that Iraq was a storehouse of WMD high technology. BUT -- Bush made a decision to END a bad policy that opposed ever more.. That's much better than the leftist options at the time to pretend that we could lock up an entire country and bomb them daily indefinitely.. Hard choices actually.. Not to be used today for trivial pissing contests..

Want a laugh? I actually believe we chose to take Saddam out for reasons you and I will never know. We had evidence of Iraqi involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, a possible connection to the downing of Flt 800 or the Anthrax attacks that followed 9/11.. Any or ALL of these incidents COULD HAVE been known to be followed back to Saddam and just never revealed to the public. Because the WMD excuses were SOOO bad , there had to be a better explanation than gross incompetence on the part of the BOTH parties allowing the incursion..

Not a conspiracy theory -- just grasping for straws trying to make EITHER party look less dumb...

Absolute ******* horseshit. There was no immediate imperative to invade Iraq, no WMDs, no link to 911, no threat to our security, nothing. It was a completely unnecessary distraction from our primary mission in Afghanistan.

 

[rightwinger]

No doubt all this somehow mitigates the epic failures of the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

I opposed the Iraq incursion. Largely because I didn't see how a nation that we BOMBED AND STARVED for 12 years would ever trust us an occupier. And coincidentally, the stinky suggestions that Iraq was a storehouse of WMD high technology. BUT -- Bush made a decision to END a bad policy that opposed ever more.. That's much better than the leftist options at the time to pretend that we could lock up an entire country and bomb them daily indefinitely.. Hard choices actually.. Not to be used today for trivial pissing contests..

Want a laugh? I actually believe we chose to take Saddam out for reasons you and I will never know. We had evidence of Iraqi involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, a possible connection to the downing of Flt 800 or the Anthrax attacks that followed 9/11.. Any or ALL of these incidents COULD HAVE been known to be followed back to Saddam and just never revealed to the public. Because the WMD excuses were SOOO bad , there had to be a better explanation than gross incompetence on the part of the BOTH parties allowing the incursion..

Not a conspiracy theory -- just grasping for straws trying to make EITHER party look less dumb...

Absolute ******* horseshit. There was no immediate imperative to invade Iraq, no WMDs, no link to 911, no threat to our security, nothing. It was a completely unnecessary distraction from our primary mission in Afghanistan.

The imperative was Bush needed to invade before the UN proved there were no WMDs

 

[Theowl32]

Somehow -- everyone (mostly you) forgets the situation PRIOR to Bush's decision and how entirely SUCKY those policies were. We had Iraq buttoned up in containment at the cost of keeping a couple carrier groups in the Gulf and a permanent AirBase in Saudi. And we BOMBED THEIR ASSES every other day.. So much so -- we were literally running out of bombs. Did this sorry act for TWELVE ******* YEARS. And when the Sec State was confronted with the conservative estimates of 200,000 dead Iraqi children from the bombing, and lack of medical supplies and other embargoed goods, Mad. NotsoBright just said it was "worth it".. Containment was falling apart. Our Euro partners were holding commercial tradeshows in Baghdad, The UN was stealing from the Oil for Food program and bin Laden was citing our airbase in Saudi as a PRIME REASON for his declared war on America.

THAT -- was truly sucky policy.. It was time for a change of policy.. Either let Saddam out of containment as the Euros wanted, or kick his sorry ass out. ME? I was for letting him out of containment because I NEVER BELIEVED the fantastical WMD stories.

But now the Repubs are TOO STUPID to point out the failed 12 previous years of policy and the Left is just ignorant of what Clinton said and did DAILY about Saddam and Iraq. And NEITHER SIDE HAD THE BALLS to let him out of containment at the time. Today? There is just a MOUNTAIN of hypocrisy on both sides here.. Knowing what we know now -- we had NO BASIS to run that 12 year sucky policy.

SOMETHING had to change. And because of Bush's decision, we are no longer starving Iraqis and locking them up with a madman in charge and the UN stealing their oil. And there are NO LONGER Air bases in Saudi or a permanent extra carrier group bombing them every day..

No doubt all this somehow mitigates the epic failures of the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

I opposed the Iraq incursion. Largely because I didn't see how a nation that we BOMBED AND STARVED for 12 years would ever trust us an occupier. And coincidentally, the stinky suggestions that Iraq was a storehouse of WMD high technology. BUT -- Bush made a decision to END a bad policy that I opposed ever more.. That's much better than the leftist options at the time to pretend that we could lock up an entire country and bomb them daily indefinitely.. Hard choices actually.. Not to be used today for trivial pissing contests..

Want a laugh? I actually believe we chose to take Saddam out for reasons you and I will never know. We had evidence of Iraqi involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, a possible connection to the downing of Flt 800 or the Anthrax attacks that followed 9/11 and a proven attempted assassination attempt at Bush #1.. Any or ALL of these incidents COULD HAVE been known to be followed back to Saddam and just never revealed to the public. Because the WMD excuses were SOOO bad , there had to be a better explanation than gross incompetence on the part of the BOTH parties allowing the incursion..

Not a conspiracy theory -- just grasping for straws trying to make EITHER party look less dumb...

You raise some decent points, and of course leave out a whole lot of stuff. While it has been a bad endeavor, Saddam was a tyrant, and regardless of what is happening now, the world is a better place with out him. The one big advantage that many have is he is dead and it is impossible to know if whether or not he would have succeeded in getting his programs back. There was more than enough evidence he was trying. His son in laws both revealed his intentions and he executed both of them.

One of the things you leave out are the clear violations of at least 17 resolutions. Not according to Bush but according to UNSCOM which was an independent UN security council. Now, we may have the hindsight of 20/20 however as I stated the paradigm shifted on this country's foreign policy post 911 in regards to how nations that sponsored terrorism or were a perceived threat. Hence the reason why many democrats were on board, why the UN security council voted 15-0 for the use of force and why action was taken.

Now, you can go ahead and pretend there was no responsibility held by the democrats, which you did not do. You held them accountable. The fact that Clinton did sign the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs is something that many either ignore or do not know, or both.

The fact is this country has little to no clue what we are actually fighting in regards to these fundamentalist jihadist fanatics. The only hope is long term education and the only hope for that is our influence. At no point has this country "occupied" the middle east.

This is turning out to be another situation very similar to the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. After heavy political pressure we left South Vietnam to their own devices. The killing fields is what resulted and the spread of tyrannical communism ensued. I am sure to the delight of many leftists around the world.

The situation is far more complex and the omission of certain realities is ridiculous. If you only cling to cliches like the demented left that this is all about OIL or that it is ALL BOOOOSH and republicans then you are ignorant as hell. Not saying you think this is all about BOOOOSH, but you should consider that it is more complex than your simplistic biased point of view which omitted a lot of factors.


Either way, this is a cluster **** and this president is in way way over his head. The country's enemies know what they have and they running roughshod over this president who they know is trying to placate his ignorant peacenik naive base in an election year.

 

[flacaltenn]

No doubt all this somehow mitigates the epic failures of the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

I opposed the Iraq incursion. Largely because I didn't see how a nation that we BOMBED AND STARVED for 12 years would ever trust us an occupier. And coincidentally, the stinky suggestions that Iraq was a storehouse of WMD high technology. BUT -- Bush made a decision to END a bad policy that opposed ever more.. That's much better than the leftist options at the time to pretend that we could lock up an entire country and bomb them daily indefinitely.. Hard choices actually.. Not to be used today for trivial pissing contests..

Want a laugh? I actually believe we chose to take Saddam out for reasons you and I will never know. We had evidence of Iraqi involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, a possible connection to the downing of Flt 800 or the Anthrax attacks that followed 9/11.. Any or ALL of these incidents COULD HAVE been known to be followed back to Saddam and just never revealed to the public. Because the WMD excuses were SOOO bad , there had to be a better explanation than gross incompetence on the part of the BOTH parties allowing the incursion..

Not a conspiracy theory -- just grasping for straws trying to make EITHER party look less dumb...

Absolute ******* horseshit. There was no immediate imperative to invade Iraq, no WMDs, no link to 911, no threat to our security, nothing. It was a completely unnecessary distraction from our primary mission in Afghanistan.

I didn't say 9.11.. I gave you the FIRST WTC bombing which DID have an Iraqi connection.
The threat to our security was conducting the containment in the presence of a CRUMBLING coalition with the Euros. It was 12 years of pissy policy that needed to be fixed.

Your outburst just places you square in the "dont' care about 200,000 dead Iraqi children" -- GIVE ME MORE --- camp ---- or the corruption found in the UN Oil for Food program. Not possible to claim that our forces in Saudi and the Arabian Gulf wouldn't be taxed by Saddam whilst we were busy in Afghanistan anyway..

 

[flacaltenn]

I opposed the Iraq incursion. Largely because I didn't see how a nation that we BOMBED AND STARVED for 12 years would ever trust us an occupier. And coincidentally, the stinky suggestions that Iraq was a storehouse of WMD high technology. BUT -- Bush made a decision to END a bad policy that opposed ever more.. That's much better than the leftist options at the time to pretend that we could lock up an entire country and bomb them daily indefinitely.. Hard choices actually.. Not to be used today for trivial pissing contests..

Want a laugh? I actually believe we chose to take Saddam out for reasons you and I will never know. We had evidence of Iraqi involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, a possible connection to the downing of Flt 800 or the Anthrax attacks that followed 9/11.. Any or ALL of these incidents COULD HAVE been known to be followed back to Saddam and just never revealed to the public. Because the WMD excuses were SOOO bad , there had to be a better explanation than gross incompetence on the part of the BOTH parties allowing the incursion..

Not a conspiracy theory -- just grasping for straws trying to make EITHER party look less dumb...

Absolute ******* horseshit. There was no immediate imperative to invade Iraq, no WMDs, no link to 911, no threat to our security, nothing. It was a completely unnecessary distraction from our primary mission in Afghanistan.

The imperative was Bush needed to invade before the UN proved there were no WMDs

That was a large part of it --- and why I'm still looking for the REAL reasons that both political camps signed off on such phoney premises. If the UN SUCCEEDED in giving Saddam a clean cert -- we would have no basis for keeping him in containment either -- would we??

Go back and listen to Clinton's speeches prior to the Monica Lewinsky Bombings of Iraq.. He was making the SAME EXACT CLAIMS that Bush and his Admin made. I believe that Clinton and Bush KNEW that Saddam was behind some or all of the events I mentioned. And the public was never told the truth..

 

[Discombobulated]

I opposed the Iraq incursion. Largely because I didn't see how a nation that we BOMBED AND STARVED for 12 years would ever trust us an occupier. And coincidentally, the stinky suggestions that Iraq was a storehouse of WMD high technology. BUT -- Bush made a decision to END a bad policy that opposed ever more.. That's much better than the leftist options at the time to pretend that we could lock up an entire country and bomb them daily indefinitely.. Hard choices actually.. Not to be used today for trivial pissing contests..

Want a laugh? I actually believe we chose to take Saddam out for reasons you and I will never know. We had evidence of Iraqi involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, a possible connection to the downing of Flt 800 or the Anthrax attacks that followed 9/11.. Any or ALL of these incidents COULD HAVE been known to be followed back to Saddam and just never revealed to the public. Because the WMD excuses were SOOO bad , there had to be a better explanation than gross incompetence on the part of the BOTH parties allowing the incursion..

Not a conspiracy theory -- just grasping for straws trying to make EITHER party look less dumb...

Absolute ******* horseshit. There was no immediate imperative to invade Iraq, no WMDs, no link to 911, no threat to our security, nothing. It was a completely unnecessary distraction from our primary mission in Afghanistan.

I didn't say 9.11.. I gave you the FIRST WTC bombing which DID have an Iraqi connection.
The threat to our security was conducting the containment in the presence of a CRUMBLING coalition with the Euros. It was 12 years of pissy policy that needed to be fixed.

Your outburst just places you square in the "dont' care about 200,000 dead Iraqi children" -- GIVE ME MORE --- camp ---- or the corruption found in the UN Oil for Food program. Not possible to claim that our forces in Saudi and the Arabian Gulf wouldn't be taxed by Saddam whilst we were busy in Afghanistan anyway..

Any thoughts on the number of Iraqi casualties since?

 

[Theowl32]

No doubt all this somehow mitigates the epic failures of the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

I opposed the Iraq incursion. Largely because I didn't see how a nation that we BOMBED AND STARVED for 12 years would ever trust us an occupier. And coincidentally, the stinky suggestions that Iraq was a storehouse of WMD high technology. BUT -- Bush made a decision to END a bad policy that opposed ever more.. That's much better than the leftist options at the time to pretend that we could lock up an entire country and bomb them daily indefinitely.. Hard choices actually.. Not to be used today for trivial pissing contests..

Want a laugh? I actually believe we chose to take Saddam out for reasons you and I will never know. We had evidence of Iraqi involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, a possible connection to the downing of Flt 800 or the Anthrax attacks that followed 9/11.. Any or ALL of these incidents COULD HAVE been known to be followed back to Saddam and just never revealed to the public. Because the WMD excuses were SOOO bad , there had to be a better explanation than gross incompetence on the part of the BOTH parties allowing the incursion..

Not a conspiracy theory -- just grasping for straws trying to make EITHER party look less dumb...

Absolute ******* horseshit. There was no immediate imperative to invade Iraq, no WMDs, no link to 911, no threat to our security, nothing. It was a completely unnecessary distraction from our primary mission in Afghanistan.

I do not even know why I am communicating with such a fuckhack like you. I am really not. I am just throwing this in your ******* face, cause it will piss your ignorant ass off.

Let us see what the UN found, shall we, and why the UN security council voted 15-0 for the removal of Hussein. A tyrant that you and your pathetic sorts seem to miss and actually think was a "good guy."


Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction | Gunning For Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS

In its 1999 final report to the U.N. Security Council, UNSCOM noted that Iraq's biological warfare program was "among the most secretive of its programs of weapons of mass destruction." It said that Iraq "took active steps" to conceal the program, including "inadequate disclosures, unilateral destruction, and concealment activities." Therefore, the Commission concluded, "it has not been possible to verify" Iraq's statements about the extent and nature of its biological weapons program.

A 58 page annex to the final report describes what the Commission was able to learn about the BW program, despite Iraq's concealment activities, and documents discrepancies between what Iraq claimed to have developed, or destroyed, and the physical evidence. Some of the findings include:

Extensive BW program: Iraq had an extensive BW program from 1973 until at least 1991. In mid-1995, Iraq admitted that it had weaponized BW agents, but claimed that the entire BW program had been in "obliterated" in 1991 and that all BW weapons had been destroyed and all bulk BW agents had been deactivated. The Commission found, however, that the evidence produced in support of this claim was not credible, and that Iraq "retained suitable growth media, BW facilities, production equipment, teams of expert personnel, and the essential technical knowledge" after 1991.

Bulk production: In July, 1995, Iraq acknowledged that between 1988 and 1991, it had produced two BW agents in bulk: botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax). Iraq reported 19,180 liters of botulinum toxin (10-20 fold concentrated) and 8445 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores (10 fold concentrated).

UNSCOM found, however, that "bulk warfare agent production appears to be considerably understated," given the resources available to Iraq's BW program, including growth media and fermenter capacity. The Commission said that the production rate of Botulinum toxin could be as much as double the stated amount, and 3 times greater than that stated for Bacillus anthracis spores.

Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed more than 7500 liters of the Botulinum toxin and 3412 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores in 1991; UNSCOM noted that there was not evidence to support quantities claimed to be destroyed. The report concludes "the Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed... and that a BW capability does not exist in Iraq."

Iraq also claims to have produced lesser quantities of clostridium perfringens spores, ricin, and wheat cover smut.

BW Warheads: Iraq claimed to have produced 25 Al-Hussein missile warheads and filled them with BW agents. The Commission found that there was no credible evidence to show that only 25 missiles were produced and filled. Iraq declared that the 25 missiles were unilaterally destroyed; the Commission found enough physical evidence to account for the declared quantities of BW warheads, but the location of the remnants were inconsistent with Iraq's story.

BW bombs: Iraq declared that 200 R-400 aerial bombs were manufactured for BW purposes, but acknowledged that the numbers of bombs filled with particular agents (100 with botulinum toxin, 50 with bacillus anthracis spores, and 7 with aflatoxin) were "guesses." UNSCOM did find evidence of the destruction of some BW bombs at the site declared by Iraq, but found that the remnants account for less than one third of the bombs Iraq claims to have destroyed. In addition, UNSCOM found evidence of R-400A bombs carrying BW at an airfield where no BW weapons were declared.

Aircraft drop tanks: Iraq claimed that it produced 4 aircraft drop tanks to disseminate BW agents, and was developing a pilotless aircraft that could carry the tanks, holding either BW or chemical weapons, and release the toxins at a preset time. UNSCOM found that there was no evidence corroborate that only 4 were produced, and noted that interviews indicated that 12 were planned. Remnants of only three destroyed tanks were recovered. UNSCOM also rejected the evidence offered by Iraq--a letter thanking the project workers--that the pilotless aircraft project was shut down.

Aerosol Generators: Iraq developed aerosol generators for the dispersal of BW agents by modifying helicopter-borne commercial chemical insecticide disseminators. Although Iraq claimed the devices were ineffective, UNSCOM received documentation that they were successfully field tested. Interview evidence suggests that there were 12 devices produced; none were destroyed by UNSCOM.

Remaining Bacterial Growth Media: UNSCOM determined that there remained substantial bacterial growth media imported into Iraq which remains unaccounted for: 460 kg. of casien; 80 kg. of thioglocollate broth; 520 kg. of yeast extract; and 1100 kg of peptone. The report says that "the amounts that are 'missing' are significant, and would be sufficient to produce quantities of agent comparable to that already declared by Iraq."


IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS (CW) PROGRAM

UNSCOM was more successful in its pursuit of Iraq's CW program largely because Iraq was more cooperative with its disclosures. The final report notes that a "significant number" of chemical weapons, their components, and related equipment were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision between 1991 and 1997. In addition, the report found:

Extensive CW program: Iraq acknowledged that it carried out a large scale CW program between 1982 and 1990. It claims that more than 50% of its chemical weapons stocks were consumed during the 1980s, and that the majority of its production facilities were destroyed by aerial bombing during the Gulf War.

Bulk CW agents: Iraq said that it produced 3,859 tons of CW agents during the entire implementation of its CW program, and that 3,315 tons of these agents were weaponized. Agents produced in large quantities included mustard, tabun, and sarin.

According to Iraq, 80% of the weaponized CW agents were consumed between 1982 and 1988. In addition, they claim to have unilaterally discarded 130 tons of non-weaponized CW agents during the 1980s. UNSCOM found that these numbers could not be verified.

After the Gulf War, Iraq claimed that it had 412.5 tons of CW agents remaining. Four hundred eleven tons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision; 1.5 tons of the CW agent VX remain unaccounted for.

Special Munitions: Iraq claimed that between 1982 and 1988, 100,000 munitions filled with CW agents were consumed or disposed of. UNSCOM found that this number could not be verified.

After the Gulf war, Iraq declared that there remained over 56,000 special munitions which could carry either CW or BW agents (22,000 filled, 34,000 unfilled). These munitions are all accounted for. They were either destroyed or converted for conventional weapons purposes.

Iraq claimed that there were 42,000 special munitions destroyed in the Gulf War. UNSCOM was unable to verify that number, and found that the destruction of 2,000 unfilled munitions remains uncertain, and 550 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.

Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed 29,000 special munitions; UNSCOM found that of these, 100 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that I give a shit that a pathetic hack like you will read all of that, or the bold faced parts I highlighted.

The fact is this world and country is controlled by pathetic pigs like you and politicians that placate your ignorant asses for your votes.

The sad part is how you all think you just know it all while you ignore actual evidence. Like I said, this entire thread shows the ignorance of you left wing hacks, your hypocrisy and your pathetic double talk.

The fact that all of you keep shifting your arguments in order to make a point proves it. You all still think Bush started two wars and you still have no idea what I am referring to. Which means you are nothing but an ignorant hopeless hack.

 

[Discombobulated]

I opposed the Iraq incursion. Largely because I didn't see how a nation that we BOMBED AND STARVED for 12 years would ever trust us an occupier. And coincidentally, the stinky suggestions that Iraq was a storehouse of WMD high technology. BUT -- Bush made a decision to END a bad policy that opposed ever more.. That's much better than the leftist options at the time to pretend that we could lock up an entire country and bomb them daily indefinitely.. Hard choices actually.. Not to be used today for trivial pissing contests..

Want a laugh? I actually believe we chose to take Saddam out for reasons you and I will never know. We had evidence of Iraqi involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, a possible connection to the downing of Flt 800 or the Anthrax attacks that followed 9/11.. Any or ALL of these incidents COULD HAVE been known to be followed back to Saddam and just never revealed to the public. Because the WMD excuses were SOOO bad , there had to be a better explanation than gross incompetence on the part of the BOTH parties allowing the incursion..

Not a conspiracy theory -- just grasping for straws trying to make EITHER party look less dumb...

Absolute ******* horseshit. There was no immediate imperative to invade Iraq, no WMDs, no link to 911, no threat to our security, nothing. It was a completely unnecessary distraction from our primary mission in Afghanistan.

The imperative was Bush needed to invade before the UN proved there were no WMDs

I don't mind so much that they lied, I expect politicians to do that. What I mind is that they stupidly wasted a great historic opportunity to bolster our position as a world leader with real moral and legal authority. That we could shape the course of events in ways that others would want to follow and emulate. Instead we are reviled and despised by our so called allies nearly as much as our enemies. We are an empire in decline.

 

[Theowl32]

Absolute ******* horseshit. There was no immediate imperative to invade Iraq, no WMDs, no link to 911, no threat to our security, nothing. It was a completely unnecessary distraction from our primary mission in Afghanistan.

The imperative was Bush needed to invade before the UN proved there were no WMDs

I don't mind so much that they lied, I expect politicians to do that. What I mind is that they stupidly wasted a great historic opportunity to bolster our position as a world leader with real moral and legal authority. That we could shape the course of events in ways that others would want to follow and emulate. Instead we are reviled and despised by our so called allies nearly as much as our enemies. We are an empire in decline.

You stupid ignorant ******* hack.

 

[TheJedi]

Actually, he started 2 UNFUNDED wars and then cut taxes TWICE after that. One of those wars was a a case of the Bush admin intentionally lying and misleading the public and Congress about WMDs in Iraq. No one screamed impeachment then. The irony.

 

[Discombobulated]

I opposed the Iraq incursion. Largely because I didn't see how a nation that we BOMBED AND STARVED for 12 years would ever trust us an occupier. And coincidentally, the stinky suggestions that Iraq was a storehouse of WMD high technology. BUT -- Bush made a decision to END a bad policy that opposed ever more.. That's much better than the leftist options at the time to pretend that we could lock up an entire country and bomb them daily indefinitely.. Hard choices actually.. Not to be used today for trivial pissing contests..

Want a laugh? I actually believe we chose to take Saddam out for reasons you and I will never know. We had evidence of Iraqi involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, a possible connection to the downing of Flt 800 or the Anthrax attacks that followed 9/11.. Any or ALL of these incidents COULD HAVE been known to be followed back to Saddam and just never revealed to the public. Because the WMD excuses were SOOO bad , there had to be a better explanation than gross incompetence on the part of the BOTH parties allowing the incursion..

Not a conspiracy theory -- just grasping for straws trying to make EITHER party look less dumb...

Absolute ******* horseshit. There was no immediate imperative to invade Iraq, no WMDs, no link to 911, no threat to our security, nothing. It was a completely unnecessary distraction from our primary mission in Afghanistan.

I do not even know why I am communicating with such a fuckhack like you. I am really not. I am just throwing this in your ******* face, cause it will piss your ignorant ass off.

Let us see what the UN found, shall we, and why the UN security council voted 15-0 for the removal of Hussein. A tyrant that you and your pathetic sorts seem to miss and actually think was a "good guy."


Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction | Gunning For Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS

In its 1999 final report to the U.N. Security Council, UNSCOM noted that Iraq's biological warfare program was "among the most secretive of its programs of weapons of mass destruction." It said that Iraq "took active steps" to conceal the program, including "inadequate disclosures, unilateral destruction, and concealment activities." Therefore, the Commission concluded, "it has not been possible to verify" Iraq's statements about the extent and nature of its biological weapons program.

A 58 page annex to the final report describes what the Commission was able to learn about the BW program, despite Iraq's concealment activities, and documents discrepancies between what Iraq claimed to have developed, or destroyed, and the physical evidence. Some of the findings include:

Extensive BW program: Iraq had an extensive BW program from 1973 until at least 1991. In mid-1995, Iraq admitted that it had weaponized BW agents, but claimed that the entire BW program had been in "obliterated" in 1991 and that all BW weapons had been destroyed and all bulk BW agents had been deactivated. The Commission found, however, that the evidence produced in support of this claim was not credible, and that Iraq "retained suitable growth media, BW facilities, production equipment, teams of expert personnel, and the essential technical knowledge" after 1991.

Bulk production: In July, 1995, Iraq acknowledged that between 1988 and 1991, it had produced two BW agents in bulk: botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax). Iraq reported 19,180 liters of botulinum toxin (10-20 fold concentrated) and 8445 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores (10 fold concentrated).

UNSCOM found, however, that "bulk warfare agent production appears to be considerably understated," given the resources available to Iraq's BW program, including growth media and fermenter capacity. The Commission said that the production rate of Botulinum toxin could be as much as double the stated amount, and 3 times greater than that stated for Bacillus anthracis spores.

Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed more than 7500 liters of the Botulinum toxin and 3412 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores in 1991; UNSCOM noted that there was not evidence to support quantities claimed to be destroyed. The report concludes "the Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed... and that a BW capability does not exist in Iraq."

Iraq also claims to have produced lesser quantities of clostridium perfringens spores, ricin, and wheat cover smut.

BW Warheads: Iraq claimed to have produced 25 Al-Hussein missile warheads and filled them with BW agents. The Commission found that there was no credible evidence to show that only 25 missiles were produced and filled. Iraq declared that the 25 missiles were unilaterally destroyed; the Commission found enough physical evidence to account for the declared quantities of BW warheads, but the location of the remnants were inconsistent with Iraq's story.

BW bombs: Iraq declared that 200 R-400 aerial bombs were manufactured for BW purposes, but acknowledged that the numbers of bombs filled with particular agents (100 with botulinum toxin, 50 with bacillus anthracis spores, and 7 with aflatoxin) were "guesses." UNSCOM did find evidence of the destruction of some BW bombs at the site declared by Iraq, but found that the remnants account for less than one third of the bombs Iraq claims to have destroyed. In addition, UNSCOM found evidence of R-400A bombs carrying BW at an airfield where no BW weapons were declared.

Aircraft drop tanks: Iraq claimed that it produced 4 aircraft drop tanks to disseminate BW agents, and was developing a pilotless aircraft that could carry the tanks, holding either BW or chemical weapons, and release the toxins at a preset time. UNSCOM found that there was no evidence corroborate that only 4 were produced, and noted that interviews indicated that 12 were planned. Remnants of only three destroyed tanks were recovered. UNSCOM also rejected the evidence offered by Iraq--a letter thanking the project workers--that the pilotless aircraft project was shut down.

Aerosol Generators: Iraq developed aerosol generators for the dispersal of BW agents by modifying helicopter-borne commercial chemical insecticide disseminators. Although Iraq claimed the devices were ineffective, UNSCOM received documentation that they were successfully field tested. Interview evidence suggests that there were 12 devices produced; none were destroyed by UNSCOM.

Remaining Bacterial Growth Media: UNSCOM determined that there remained substantial bacterial growth media imported into Iraq which remains unaccounted for: 460 kg. of casien; 80 kg. of thioglocollate broth; 520 kg. of yeast extract; and 1100 kg of peptone. The report says that "the amounts that are 'missing' are significant, and would be sufficient to produce quantities of agent comparable to that already declared by Iraq."


IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS (CW) PROGRAM

UNSCOM was more successful in its pursuit of Iraq's CW program largely because Iraq was more cooperative with its disclosures. The final report notes that a "significant number" of chemical weapons, their components, and related equipment were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision between 1991 and 1997. In addition, the report found:

Extensive CW program: Iraq acknowledged that it carried out a large scale CW program between 1982 and 1990. It claims that more than 50% of its chemical weapons stocks were consumed during the 1980s, and that the majority of its production facilities were destroyed by aerial bombing during the Gulf War.

Bulk CW agents: Iraq said that it produced 3,859 tons of CW agents during the entire implementation of its CW program, and that 3,315 tons of these agents were weaponized. Agents produced in large quantities included mustard, tabun, and sarin.

According to Iraq, 80% of the weaponized CW agents were consumed between 1982 and 1988. In addition, they claim to have unilaterally discarded 130 tons of non-weaponized CW agents during the 1980s. UNSCOM found that these numbers could not be verified.

After the Gulf War, Iraq claimed that it had 412.5 tons of CW agents remaining. Four hundred eleven tons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision; 1.5 tons of the CW agent VX remain unaccounted for.

Special Munitions: Iraq claimed that between 1982 and 1988, 100,000 munitions filled with CW agents were consumed or disposed of. UNSCOM found that this number could not be verified.

After the Gulf war, Iraq declared that there remained over 56,000 special munitions which could carry either CW or BW agents (22,000 filled, 34,000 unfilled). These munitions are all accounted for. They were either destroyed or converted for conventional weapons purposes.

Iraq claimed that there were 42,000 special munitions destroyed in the Gulf War. UNSCOM was unable to verify that number, and found that the destruction of 2,000 unfilled munitions remains uncertain, and 550 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.

Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed 29,000 special munitions; UNSCOM found that of these, 100 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that I give a shit that a pathetic hack like you will read all of that, or the bold faced parts I highlighted.

The fact is this world and country is controlled by pathetic pigs like you and politicians that placate your ignorant asses for your votes.

The sad part is how you all think you just know it all while you ignore actual evidence. Like I said, this entire thread shows the ignorance of you left wing hacks, your hypocrisy and your pathetic double talk.

The fact that all of you keep shifting your arguments in order to make a point proves it. You all still think Bush started two wars and you still have no idea what I am referring to. Which means you are nothing but an ignorant hopeless hack.

So in other words: no nuclear program, no yellow cake, no weapons that could present a credible threat. No weapons with delivery or dispersal systems.....no WMDs.

 

[Theowl32]

Absolute ******* horseshit. There was no immediate imperative to invade Iraq, no WMDs, no link to 911, no threat to our security, nothing. It was a completely unnecessary distraction from our primary mission in Afghanistan.

The imperative was Bush needed to invade before the UN proved there were no WMDs

That was a large part of it --- and why I'm still looking for the REAL reasons that both political camps signed off on such phoney premises. If the UN SUCCEEDED in giving Saddam a clean cert -- we would have no basis for keeping him in containment either -- would we??

Go back and listen to Clinton's speeches prior to the Monica Lewinsky Bombings of Iraq.. He was making the SAME EXACT CLAIMS that Bush and his Admin made. I believe that Clinton and Bush KNEW that Saddam was behind some or all of the events I mentioned. And the public was never told the truth..

Just for one moment consider there are things that we will never know. There are aspects that have been revealed and Saddam was indeed attempting get wmds. Period.

Read this piece from an official report from the UNSCOM independent investigations. There were defectors that revealed much. Like I said, including Hussein's son in laws.

Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction | Gunning For Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS

According to former U.N. inspector David Kay, Iraq spent over $10 billion during the 1980s in an attempt to enrich uranium and build a nuclear weapon. However, the Agency concludes that as of December, 1998, "There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons," or "that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." However, the IAEA did find that "Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of [highly enriched uranium] ... and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon." Despite the fact that the facilities and nuclear material had been destroyed or removed, as early as 1996 the IAEA concluded that "the know-how and expertise acquired by Iraqi scientists and engineers could provide an adequate base for reconstituting a nuclear-weapons-oriented program."

Nuclear physicist and Iraqi defector Khidhir Hamza agrees. He told FRONTLINE that Iraq did not relinquish certain critical components of the nuclear program to the inspectors, and that it retains the expertise necessary to build a nuclear weapon. He believes that Iraq may have one completed within the next couple of years.

Note: IAEA was allowed back into Iraq in January 2000 and again in January 2001. But its inspectors were blocked from full access inspections.


============================

That report came out in 2000 and 2001, before Bush took office.

 

[flacaltenn]

The WMDs in Iraq were not on these balance sheets. The real WMDs would be the thousands of scientists and specialists required to work all these projects. And I'm SURE they would be easier to find than 100 chem warheads. But NONE of these guys with special nuclear, chem , or bio abilities was EVER produced to the press or spoke out after we ousted Saddam. Couldn't keep them all quiet if we tried. No books? No labs? No press conferences with these guys behind a curtain?

 

[Theowl32]

Actually, he started 2 UNFUNDED wars and then cut taxes TWICE after that. One of those wars was a a case of the Bush admin intentionally lying and misleading the public and Congress about WMDs in Iraq. No one screamed impeachment then. The irony.

Here you go, you ******* puppet.


Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction | Gunning For Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS

In its 1999 final report to the U.N. Security Council, UNSCOM noted that Iraq's biological warfare program was "among the most secretive of its programs of weapons of mass destruction." It said that Iraq "took active steps" to conceal the program, including "inadequate disclosures, unilateral destruction, and concealment activities." Therefore, the Commission concluded, "it has not been possible to verify" Iraq's statements about the extent and nature of its biological weapons program.

A 58 page annex to the final report describes what the Commission was able to learn about the BW program, despite Iraq's concealment activities, and documents discrepancies between what Iraq claimed to have developed, or destroyed, and the physical evidence. Some of the findings include:

Extensive BW program: Iraq had an extensive BW program from 1973 until at least 1991. In mid-1995, Iraq admitted that it had weaponized BW agents, but claimed that the entire BW program had been in "obliterated" in 1991 and that all BW weapons had been destroyed and all bulk BW agents had been deactivated. The Commission found, however, that the evidence produced in support of this claim was not credible, and that Iraq "retained suitable growth media, BW facilities, production equipment, teams of expert personnel, and the essential technical knowledge" after 1991.

Bulk production: In July, 1995, Iraq acknowledged that between 1988 and 1991, it had produced two BW agents in bulk: botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax). Iraq reported 19,180 liters of botulinum toxin (10-20 fold concentrated) and 8445 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores (10 fold concentrated).

UNSCOM found, however, that "bulk warfare agent production appears to be considerably understated," given the resources available to Iraq's BW program, including growth media and fermenter capacity. The Commission said that the production rate of Botulinum toxin could be as much as double the stated amount, and 3 times greater than that stated for Bacillus anthracis spores.

Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed more than 7500 liters of the Botulinum toxin and 3412 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores in 1991; UNSCOM noted that there was not evidence to support quantities claimed to be destroyed. The report concludes "the Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed... and that a BW capability does not exist in Iraq."

Iraq also claims to have produced lesser quantities of clostridium perfringens spores, ricin, and wheat cover smut.

BW Warheads: Iraq claimed to have produced 25 Al-Hussein missile warheads and filled them with BW agents. The Commission found that there was no credible evidence to show that only 25 missiles were produced and filled. Iraq declared that the 25 missiles were unilaterally destroyed; the Commission found enough physical evidence to account for the declared quantities of BW warheads, but the location of the remnants were inconsistent with Iraq's story.

BW bombs: Iraq declared that 200 R-400 aerial bombs were manufactured for BW purposes, but acknowledged that the numbers of bombs filled with particular agents (100 with botulinum toxin, 50 with bacillus anthracis spores, and 7 with aflatoxin) were "guesses." UNSCOM did find evidence of the destruction of some BW bombs at the site declared by Iraq, but found that the remnants account for less than one third of the bombs Iraq claims to have destroyed. In addition, UNSCOM found evidence of R-400A bombs carrying BW at an airfield where no BW weapons were declared.

Aircraft drop tanks: Iraq claimed that it produced 4 aircraft drop tanks to disseminate BW agents, and was developing a pilotless aircraft that could carry the tanks, holding either BW or chemical weapons, and release the toxins at a preset time. UNSCOM found that there was no evidence corroborate that only 4 were produced, and noted that interviews indicated that 12 were planned. Remnants of only three destroyed tanks were recovered. UNSCOM also rejected the evidence offered by Iraq--a letter thanking the project workers--that the pilotless aircraft project was shut down.

Aerosol Generators: Iraq developed aerosol generators for the dispersal of BW agents by modifying helicopter-borne commercial chemical insecticide disseminators. Although Iraq claimed the devices were ineffective, UNSCOM received documentation that they were successfully field tested. Interview evidence suggests that there were 12 devices produced; none were destroyed by UNSCOM.

Remaining Bacterial Growth Media: UNSCOM determined that there remained substantial bacterial growth media imported into Iraq which remains unaccounted for: 460 kg. of casien; 80 kg. of thioglocollate broth; 520 kg. of yeast extract; and 1100 kg of peptone. The report says that "the amounts that are 'missing' are significant, and would be sufficient to produce quantities of agent comparable to that already declared by Iraq."


IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS (CW) PROGRAM

UNSCOM was more successful in its pursuit of Iraq's CW program largely because Iraq was more cooperative with its disclosures. The final report notes that a "significant number" of chemical weapons, their components, and related equipment were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision between 1991 and 1997. In addition, the report found:

Extensive CW program: Iraq acknowledged that it carried out a large scale CW program between 1982 and 1990. It claims that more than 50% of its chemical weapons stocks were consumed during the 1980s, and that the majority of its production facilities were destroyed by aerial bombing during the Gulf War.

Bulk CW agents: Iraq said that it produced 3,859 tons of CW agents during the entire implementation of its CW program, and that 3,315 tons of these agents were weaponized. Agents produced in large quantities included mustard, tabun, and sarin.

According to Iraq, 80% of the weaponized CW agents were consumed between 1982 and 1988. In addition, they claim to have unilaterally discarded 130 tons of non-weaponized CW agents during the 1980s. UNSCOM found that these numbers could not be verified.

After the Gulf War, Iraq claimed that it had 412.5 tons of CW agents remaining. Four hundred eleven tons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision; 1.5 tons of the CW agent VX remain unaccounted for.

Special Munitions: Iraq claimed that between 1982 and 1988, 100,000 munitions filled with CW agents were consumed or disposed of. UNSCOM found that this number could not be verified.

After the Gulf war, Iraq declared that there remained over 56,000 special munitions which could carry either CW or BW agents (22,000 filled, 34,000 unfilled). These munitions are all accounted for. They were either destroyed or converted for conventional weapons purposes.

Iraq claimed that there were 42,000 special munitions destroyed in the Gulf War. UNSCOM was unable to verify that number, and found that the destruction of 2,000 unfilled munitions remains uncertain, and 550 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.

Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed 29,000 special munitions; UNSCOM found that of these, 100 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.
------------------------------------------------

I doubt you will read that. You stupid piece of shit.