Remember folks when you read this ...THERE WERE NEVER NEVER any WMDs!!!

[NotfooledbyW]

What a foolish thing it was for Healthmyths to have cited the link to that 'emboldment effect' study from Harvard.

He obviously did not read it. He took the WSJ summary to heart.

An important qualification to this empirical finding is that it does not represent a full account of the costs and benefits of open public debate about military strategy, or address the overall effect of public debate on the likelihood of defeating an insurgency. In the context of counterinsurgency campaigns, an unconditional commitment by an external force may have an unintended effect of reducing the incentive for the host nation to take greater responsibility for its own security (Byman 2006; Posen 2006). Extensive empirical research also suggests that open debate, independent scrutiny of official policy, and transparency improves the quality of decisions in democracies relative to closed political systems, and may at times be necessary to force changes in a flawed war strategy (e.g., Snyder 1991). Public criticism and policy reviews may therefore be net beneficial if the resulting improvements in strategy produce an overall reduction in attacks and fatalities.

Without knowing how to weigh the gains from open debate against the cost of revealing information about the US sensitivity to costs, it is not possible to determine if public criticism is on balance bad.

http://people.rwj.harvard.edu/~riyengar/insurgency.pdf

Well during Liberation of Iraq we had Members of Congress HELPING the terrorists !

I expect our enemies to lie about what our politicians say, not Americans.

Its bad when an American does not read some study and then lie about it proving that dissent and concern about the costs of the unnecessary Iraq war is what made the war drag on and on.

Just got to post that last line from the study one more time.

"it is not possible to determine if public criticism is on balance bad. "


This statement provides an excellent perspective on withdrawing troops fron Iraq for those of us that want It.

"In the context of counterinsurgency campaigns, an unconditional commitment by an external force may have an unintended effect of reducing the incentive for the host nation to take greater responsibility for its own security (Byman 2006; Posen 2006)."

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM 10017332 regarding NF 10017243, HM422 10010505 NF 10009840

Thank God Bush did put an end to it because to Saddam's dying day HE WOULD NEVER ADMIT Iraq never had WMDs!

Why would he not admit that? I mean on his death days, he had every chance to laugh at Bush and poke fun at going after WMDs that didn't exist... But Saddam didn't!

again.. The person that ordered WMD attacks on thousands of Kurds would according to the guy interrogating him...

Proof is in what Saddam told Piro...which was ....Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did.
Because, says Piro, "For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley.

He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "[Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMDs to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

Interview with FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Archive - AnandTech Forums

So just like that you went from

Inspectors NEVER found ANY proof WMDs were destroyed.

as justification for war to

Thank God Bush did put an end to it because to Saddam's dying day HE WOULD NEVER ADMIT Iraq never had WMDs! Proof is in what Saddam told Piro...which was ....Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did.

Do you see the fallacy in your reply ? Here is a clue. The Piro Interview came after Bush decided to invade Iraq and I have pointed out that SH had for months been publically been telling the entire world that he did not have the WMD that Bush said he knew was being concealed there.

 

[Mac1958]

Still waiting on the photos of all those nukes we found.

Why are they being held back?

 

[healthmyths]

HM 10017332 regarding NF 10017243, HM422 10010505 NF 10009840

Thank God Bush did put an end to it because to Saddam's dying day HE WOULD NEVER ADMIT Iraq never had WMDs!

Why would he not admit that? I mean on his death days, he had every chance to laugh at Bush and poke fun at going after WMDs that didn't exist... But Saddam didn't!

again.. The person that ordered WMD attacks on thousands of Kurds would according to the guy interrogating him...

Proof is in what Saddam told Piro...which was ....Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did.
Because, says Piro, "For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley.

He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "[Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMDs to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

Interview with FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Archive - AnandTech Forums

So just like that you went from

Inspectors NEVER found ANY proof WMDs were destroyed.

as justification for war to

Thank God Bush did put an end to it because to Saddam's dying day HE WOULD NEVER ADMIT Iraq never had WMDs! Proof is in what Saddam told Piro...which was ....Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did.

Do you see the fallacy in your reply ? Here is a clue. The Piro Interview came after Bush decided to invade Iraq and I have pointed out that SH had for months been publically been telling the entire world that he did not have the WMD that Bush said he knew was being concealed there.

Fallacy?
AFTER Saddam was captured, Saddam still wouldn't admit the WMDs were destroyed. Why would he not admit it then?
Do you understand?
Saddam allowed 576,000 children to starve because HE would not simply acknowledge WMDs had been destroyed. Now I can understand
why he didn't admit the WMDs were destroyed while he was in power...but after he was captured and knew he was going to be executed,
why didn't he plea bargain for example show all the documents that proved that all the WMDs were destroyed? Why didn't he?
He knew the WMDs were NOT destroyed. He knew Iraq may not have possessed WMDs but he couldn't show they WMDs were destroyed.
Where are the documents even to this day showing the methodical destruction of WMDs?

 

[BlindBoo]

I expect our enemies to lie about what our politicians say, not Americans.

Yet you and Obama have lied incessantly.

Fact is, you have zero honor or integrity. Party is too important to you to allow ethics or honesty interfere.

Hey man get some new material. Your feeble insults have become very stale. Are you even trying?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hey man get some new material. Your feeble insults have become very stale. Are you even trying?

Insult? I figured that was the greatest complement I could pay you? Isn't the goal of every party member to subvert all to the promotion of the party? No bourgeois ethics to interfere with your service to the party.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM 10018761 regarding NF 10018507, HM 10017332, NF 10017243, HM422 10010505, NF 10009840

Fallacy? AFTER Saddam was captured, Saddam still wouldn't admit the WMDs were destroyed. Why would he not admit it then?

Interview with FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Archive - AnandTech Forums


Why don't you read the Piro Transcripts. I posted them earlier yet you refuse to accept the context, the timeline and the reality they provide. You are citing Saddam Hussein's response to Piro's question about his speech in June 2000. Don't you understand how time and calendars work? Or when someone is referring to what they were thinking at a previous point in time.



Its all right here:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/24.pdf

US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation
Baghdad Operations Center
June 11, 2004
Para 1: While engaging SSA George L. Piro in casual conversation, Saddam Hussein providing the following information regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD):
Para 2: [conversation about Saddam’s Speeches]
Para 3: SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech. Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and an operational purpose. Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraqs regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to his enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must be able to defend himself. Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraqs compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Para 4: [Hussein discusses Iran’s threat to Iraq & other nations in the region are too weak in the face of Iran.]
Para 5: Hussein continued his dialogue on the issues relating to the significant threat to Iraq from Iran. Even though Hussein claimed Iraq didn’t have WMD, the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors. Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq. In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq. [Hussein gives an analogy about the forearm and wrist] Hussein indicated he was angered when the United States struck Iraq in 1998. Hussein stated Iraq could have absorbed another United States strike for he viewed this as less of a threat than exposing themselves to Iran.
Para 6: [discussion about Iran’s weapons capabilities and the war of the cities between Iraq and Iran.]
Para 7: Hussein recognized that Iran continued to develop its weapons capabilities, to include its WMD, while Iraq had lost its weapons capabilities due to the UN inspections and sanctions. Hussein was asked how Iraq would have dealt with the threat from Iran once the UN sanction were lifted. Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran, and would have sought a security agreement with the United States to protect it from threats in the region. Hussein felt such an agreement would not only have benefitted Iraq, but its neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia. SSA Piro agrees that such an agreement would have assisted Iraq immensely. SSA Piro noted due to the history between the two countries, it would have taken some time before the United States would have entered into such an agreement with Iraq.
Para 8: Further, SSA Piro advised Hussein that paragraph 14 of UN Resolution 687 states that the disarming of Iraq was part of a total disarmament of the entire region, however , that portion of resolution was not enforceable. The threat from Iran would have loomed over Iraq, especially as Iran had continued to advance its weapons capabilities. SSA Piro commented that under those circumstances, it would appear that Iraq would have needed to reconstitute its own weapons program in response. Hussein replied that Iraq would have done what was necessary and agree that Iraq’s technical and scientific abilities exceeded others in the region.
Para 9: Hussein commented he allowed the UN inspectors back into Iraq to counter allegations by the British Government. Hussein stated this was a very difficult decision to make, but the British Government had prepared a report containing inaccurate intelligence. It was this inaccurate intelligence on which the United States was making their decisions. However, Hussein admitted that when it was clear that a war with the United States was imminent, he allowed the inspectors back into Iraq in hopes of averting war. Yet, it became clear to him four months before the war that the war was inevitable.
Para 10: Hussein reiterated he had wanted to have a relationship with the United States but was not given the chance, as the United States was not listening to anything Iraq had to say. Further he was concerned about the United States advanced technological capabilities and resources.

And look at para 3. Heatlhmyths. Does someone need to comeover and read and translate what it means for you?

Para 3: SSA Piro then asked Hussein ....... what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech. Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and an operational purpose. ....... Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraqs compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).


What does 'demonstrating Iraq's compliance with the UN in its 'DESTRUCTION' of its WMD's mean to you?

 

[healthmyths]

HM 10018761 regarding NF 10018507, HM 10017332, NF 10017243, HM422 10010505, NF 10009840

Fallacy? AFTER Saddam was captured, Saddam still wouldn't admit the WMDs were destroyed. Why would he not admit it then?

Interview with FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Archive - AnandTech Forums


Why don't you read the Piro Transcripts. I posted them earlier yet you refuse to accept the context, the timeline and the reality they provide. You are citing Saddam Hussein's response to Piro's question about his speech in June 2000. Don't you understand how time and calendars work? Or when someone is referring to what they were thinking at a previous point in time.



Its all right here:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/24.pdf

US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation
Baghdad Operations Center
June 11, 2004
Para 1: While engaging SSA George L. Piro in casual conversation, Saddam Hussein providing the following information regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD):
Para 2: [conversation about Saddam’s Speeches]
Para 3: SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech. Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and an operational purpose. Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraqs regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to his enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must be able to defend himself. Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraqs compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Para 4: [Hussein discusses Iran’s threat to Iraq & other nations in the region are too weak in the face of Iran.]
Para 5: Hussein continued his dialogue on the issues relating to the significant threat to Iraq from Iran. Even though Hussein claimed Iraq didn’t have WMD, the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors. Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq. In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq. [Hussein gives an analogy about the forearm and wrist] Hussein indicated he was angered when the United States struck Iraq in 1998. Hussein stated Iraq could have absorbed another United States strike for he viewed this as less of a threat than exposing themselves to Iran.
Para 6: [discussion about Iran’s weapons capabilities and the war of the cities between Iraq and Iran.]
Para 7: Hussein recognized that Iran continued to develop its weapons capabilities, to include its WMD, while Iraq had lost its weapons capabilities due to the UN inspections and sanctions. Hussein was asked how Iraq would have dealt with the threat from Iran once the UN sanction were lifted. Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran, and would have sought a security agreement with the United States to protect it from threats in the region. Hussein felt such an agreement would not only have benefitted Iraq, but its neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia. SSA Piro agrees that such an agreement would have assisted Iraq immensely. SSA Piro noted due to the history between the two countries, it would have taken some time before the United States would have entered into such an agreement with Iraq.
Para 8: Further, SSA Piro advised Hussein that paragraph 14 of UN Resolution 687 states that the disarming of Iraq was part of a total disarmament of the entire region, however , that portion of resolution was not enforceable. The threat from Iran would have loomed over Iraq, especially as Iran had continued to advance its weapons capabilities. SSA Piro commented that under those circumstances, it would appear that Iraq would have needed to reconstitute its own weapons program in response. Hussein replied that Iraq would have done what was necessary and agree that Iraq’s technical and scientific abilities exceeded others in the region.
Para 9: Hussein commented he allowed the UN inspectors back into Iraq to counter allegations by the British Government. Hussein stated this was a very difficult decision to make, but the British Government had prepared a report containing inaccurate intelligence. It was this inaccurate intelligence on which the United States was making their decisions. However, Hussein admitted that when it was clear that a war with the United States was imminent, he allowed the inspectors back into Iraq in hopes of averting war. Yet, it became clear to him four months before the war that the war was inevitable.
Para 10: Hussein reiterated he had wanted to have a relationship with the United States but was not given the chance, as the United States was not listening to anything Iraq had to say. Further he was concerned about the United States advanced technological capabilities and resources.

And look at para 3. Heatlhmyths. Does someone need to comeover and read and translate what it means for you?

Para 3: SSA Piro then asked Hussein ....... what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech. Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and an operational purpose. ....... Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraqs compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).


What does 'demonstrating Iraq's compliance with the UN in its 'DESTRUCTION' of its WMD's mean to you?

OK... So if Saddam said it was true it had to be true! "A demonstration"... of "Iraq's compliance".. DEMONSTRATION!
And this was from Saddam's mouth right??? "Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraqs"? What does that mean?
A demonstration of how they were destroying WMDs? Right....

 

[healthmyths]

I can demonstrate the destruction of a WMD. Or maybe two WMD. Or three... BUT that is still a "demonstration"!
Saddam was to have DESTROYED ALL WMDs... not no longer possess WMDs that were somewhere other then Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"it is not possible to determine if public criticism is on balance bad. "

Just a kind reminder in case Healthmyths somehow missed the post where those words appeared.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM416 10002132 regarding NF 10002106, HM 10001227

AGAIN read what Saddam SAID...still wouldn't admit he had no WMDs... ....

HM468 10023901 regarding NF 10023557, HM 10018761 regarding NF 10018507, HM 10017332, NF 10017243, HM422 10010505, NF 10009840

OK... So if Saddam said it was true it had to be true! "A demonstration"... of "Iraq's compliance".. DEMONSTRATION And this was from Saddam's mouth right??? "Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraqs"? What does that mean? A demonstration of how they were destroying WMDs? Right....

HM469 10023924 regarding HM468 10023901

I can demonstrate the destruction of a WMD. Or maybe two WMD. Or three... BUT that is still a "demonstration" ! Saddam was to have DESTROYED ALL WMDs... not no longer possess WMDs that were somewhere other then Iraq.

First off, Piro did not report that SH told him that Iraq was demonstrating "the destruction of WMD". Piro very clearly wrote in his report that SH claimed to have been 'demonstrating Iraqs compliance' . So why re-write Piro's report?

Para 3 is SA Piro's summation of his conversation with SH about a speech SH made in 2000. Getting you to understand that is a remarkable achievement. Now is it your intent to quibble over the meaning of 'demonstrating' that was translated into English by, I am sure, a qualified FBI agent. Instead, let's just stick with the actual verbiage that has been posted here shall we. No need for you to revise what was written.

{Para 3: SSA Piro then asked Hussein ....... what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech. Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and an operational purpose. ....... Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraqs compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD)}

Piro is reporting that Saddam told him that by destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (before June 2000) Iraq was demonstrating compliance with the UN.

You have been saying that Saddam after his capture has never admitted that he had no WMD. Have you accepted the fact that your argument is all wrong?

 

[healthmyths]

" Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraqs compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD)}
How did this "operationally demonstration" occur?
Were inspectors standing by watching Iraqis DESTROY WMDs? Is that what this means?
How many WMDs were destroyed? Surely there are records of "WMDs" being destroyed.
I am a literalist. If the UN said Inspectors were to oversee the destruction of WMDs then there should be records by UN inspectors that
saw the entire WMDs inventory. Verified they existed. Then oversaw the destruction. Now the physical shreds of destroyed WMDs would be radioactive I would assume. Where was the "destroyed" WMDs radioactive material stored?

Finally and more importantly EVEN IF UN inspectors were supervising the active destruction of WMDs how would they know they had ALL of Iraq's WMDs? Take Saddam's word?

NO there are still to many unanswered questions regarding the "destruction of Iraq's WMDs" that beg to be answered!
Where are the records of these destroyed WMDs?

Again remember what YOU pointed out:
From Naji Sabri Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq
I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions. ... The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."September 16, 2002

Saddam had since 1995 opportunities to prove that all their WMDs were destroyed.
Now you say they were destroyed.
Show me the records of the destruction activities and where the destroyed radioactive material is stored.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM 10025198 regarding {." Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraqs compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD)}

How did this "operationally demonstration" occur? Were inspectors standing by watching Iraqis DESTROY WMDs? Is that what this means?

How something happened according to SH's recollection is not the point here. The point is tfat you have been arguing among many, the invalid point that SH did not admit that he had no WMD after his capture. You have been reading the Piro interview wrong. There is no excuse for that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM 10025198 regarding {." Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraqs compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD)}

. How did this "operationally demonstration" occur?
Were inspectors standing by watching Iraqis DESTROY WMDs? Is that what this means?

The point is SH told Piro that operationally his intent was to destroy the WMD to demonstrate compliance with the UN. You continue to be confused by the fact that Iraqis also explained that tons of nerve agent and chemicals were destroyed immediately following the First Gulf War. That destruction was done without records and without UN supervision. It was a violation but that violation was also included in UN Resolution 1441 wherein Bush agreed to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply. When no definitive proof from Iraq was possible on the unilateral destruction of WMD in the early nineties then the inspectors and Iraq desired to find a satisfactory means to verify that destruction. Both sides were in the way to that verification when the US and UK invasion of Iraq put an end to that peaceful process. You argument is in a colossal mess when facts and reality are applied to it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM 10025198 regarding {." Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraqs compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD)}

.

How many WMDs were destroyed? Surely there are records of "WMDs" being destroyed.

Surely you are blatantly uninformed on major matters of the UN's long ordeal of disarming Iraq since the First Gulf War through Res 1441 and up until the day of the US invasion to disarm Iraq began on March 19, 2003 on the order of President George W. Bush.

There were no records. Iraq tried to do it in secret. That was the problem that the UN inspectors were trying to work out when Bush obliterated that peaceful process and started a war instead. Bush clearly did not choose war as the last resort.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM 10025198 regarding {." Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraqs compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD)}

.
Finally and more importantly EVEN IF UN inspectors were supervising the active destruction of WMDs how would they know they had ALL of Iraq's WMDs? Take Saddam's word?

This argument means that Bush was never serious about disarming Iraq peacefully. Signing onto UN Res 1441 was then indeed a charade. A charade is a lie. Bush lied. Are you openly admitting that now?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

{Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraqs compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD)}

"

I am a literalist. If the UN said Inspectors were to oversee the destruction of WMDs then there should be records by UN inspectors that
saw the entire WMDs inventory. Verified they existed. Then oversaw the destruction.

Knowledge regarding the 1990s unilateral undocumented destruction of chemical weapons and agents was universally known to all signatories and affirmative voting states on the UN Security Council when Res 1441 was passed. That includes the United States. You are making an argument that makes no sense. There were no recirds kept at the time of the destruction so following the passage of IN Resolution 1441 there was no link to the missing records as any kind if justification for war and Bush knew that. The question is why don't you know that Healthmyths?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Too Bad Youch is unable to continue the discussion:

OR 9976677

Bush's own team stated that Iraq had no WMD. So what are you silly asses trying to prove stating otherwise?

NY 9976873

Rightwingers can never admit they were wrong. If they do, they get kicked out of the cult.

Yo189 9976945

Nimrod., Please cite examples. Otherwise you are simply full of emotional TV bull stein. ADVANCE THE DEBATE.

NY 9976959

90% of the rightwingers on this board won't admit that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, even though Bush himself admitted it. Read the forum.

Yo 9977493

Nimrod, The consensus of the forum is irrelevant. Saddam is documented to have used WMD against the Kurds, and likely some Iranians. I know, I was there, This is basic stuff. You cannot refute this. I disagree with your simpleton descriptions of "right-wingers" as it is inaccurate by all measures. Do some idiots on both sides fail to understand? Of course, because emotion is more powerful than knowledge. Sad.

NF 10000117 regarding Yo 9977493, NY 9976959, Yo 9976945, NY 9976873, OR 9976677

None of the above and myself were or are arguing that Saddam did not use WMD in the past. You have not been paying attention to the content of this thread.

Actually the power of knowledge is within the first post. It is highlighted in blue. It refutes the entire contention and argument in favor of the OP. Bush wrote in his memoir that he is sickened by the thought that the WMD he claimed was there was not there. Bush wrote it in late 2010. That is far beyond all the presently discussed 'finds' of old rusty chemical shells that were apparently haphazardly buried or piled up alongside tons of conventional shells after the Iraq/Iran war.

You demonstrate your emotional zeal and lack of knowledge by calling others nimrods right off the bat. You are hitting nothing but foul balls. Try to do better on the knowledge part.

 

[Youch]

Too Bad Youch is unable to continue the discussion:

OR 9976677

Bush's own team stated that Iraq had no WMD. So what are you silly asses trying to prove stating otherwise?

NY 9976873

Rightwingers can never admit they were wrong. If they do, they get kicked out of the cult.

Yo189 9976945

Nimrod., Please cite examples. Otherwise you are simply full of emotional TV bull stein. ADVANCE THE DEBATE.

NY 9976959

90% of the rightwingers on this board won't admit that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, even though Bush himself admitted it. Read the forum.

Yo 9977493

Nimrod, The consensus of the forum is irrelevant. Saddam is documented to have used WMD against the Kurds, and likely some Iranians. I know, I was there, This is basic stuff. You cannot refute this. I disagree with your simpleton descriptions of "right-wingers" as it is inaccurate by all measures. Do some idiots on both sides fail to understand? Of course, because emotion is more powerful than knowledge. Sad.

NF 10000117 regarding Yo 9977493, NY 9976959, Yo 9976945, NY 9976873, OR 9976677

None of the above and myself were or are arguing that Saddam did not use WMD in the past. You have not been paying attention to the content of this thread.

Actually the power of knowledge is within the first post. It is highlighted in blue. It refutes the entire contention and argument in favor of the OP. Bush wrote in his memoir that he is sickened by the thought that the WMD he claimed was there was not there. Bush wrote it in late 2010. That is far beyond all the presently discussed 'finds' of old rusty chemical shells that were apparently haphazardly buried or piled up alongside tons of conventional shells after the Iraq/Iran war.

You demonstrate your emotional zeal and lack of knowledge by calling others nimrods right off the bat. You are hitting nothing but foul balls. Try to do better on the knowledge part.

I'm ready, willing and able. Sorry if I missed this thread.......every time I log on I am dragged in many directions via the "alert" icon in the upper left hand corner.

I disagree with what someone above claims Bush wrote in his memoir. Ney, it was his political staff, Rove and others, that decided to not push the issue. Of course Iraq had WMD, of course they used them against the Kurds, of course they disappeared (into Iran? into Syria, yes). Why do I say 'of course,' aside from the obvious point that Iraq used WMD on the Kurds, a known fact? Because we sold him the WMD to be used against Iran.

I know many of you are incapable of acknowledging this factoid. Get over it. Reality trumps ideology every time.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yo470 10045300 regarding NF 10000117

I disagree with what someone above claims Bush wrote in his memoir. Ney, it was his political staff, Rove and others, that decided to not push the issue. Of course Iraq had WMD, of course they used them against the Kurds, of course they disappeared (into Iran? into Syria, yes). Why do I say 'of course,' aside from the obvious point that Iraq used WMD on the Kurds, a known fact? Because we sold him the WMD to be used against Iran.

Why can't you respond to the actual points that I directed to you?

NF 10000117 regarding Yo 9977493, NY 9976959, Yo 9976945, NY 9976873, OR 9976677

None of the above and myself were or are arguing that Saddam did not use WMD in the past. You have not been paying attention to the content of this thread.

Yo470 10045300 regarding NF 10000117,

I disagree with what someone above claims Bush wrote in his memoir. Ney, it was his political staff, Rove and others, that decided to not push the issue.

Bush is quoted directly from his memoir. Bush himself accepts the fact that the WMD used to justify the invasion were not found. He says it makes him sick every time he thinks about that. If it was Rove doing a political stunt then Bush would not admit that the failure to find WMD that were the reason to invade and occupy makes him sick. And the fact that Bush admits that the WMD were never found means that the rumors that they were moved just before the invasion are not true either.

And if every last trace of WMD were moved to Syria or Iran then it means that Bush did not have indubitable undoubted intelligence that WMD were inside Iraq as Bush said he had on March 17, 2003. To say he knew WMD was being hidden from inspectors has to mean he had intelligence that pinpointed where the WMD was located. He should have therefore halted the invasion of Iraq and invaded Syria if the WMD he thought existed were such a threat but in various stages of being moved out of the country.