Please forgive me asking you to rehash, but help with debunking some myths told to me by freeper...

[FormerDittoHead]

My friend, and he really is a friend, has been brainwashed by O'Reilly, who as you know projects this "no-spin" image...

The issue in the conversation was how we got into Iraq. I claimed that Bush (etc) LIED about the WMDs.

He complained that many of my secondary sources were "left wing", and I pointed out, however, unlike the right wing, they were RIGHT, and if one DID put aside ideology, then one would have to respect those who were, after all, CORRECT.

Onto the exchange.

He said that Saddam threw out the inspectors. I was able to shoot that one down easily. He had the talking points all lined up.

The issue was Bush LYING us into war.

Of course, after the conversation was over I remembered the Downing Street Memo, but the point which I had a hard time with was, "Everyone thought that they had WMDs" (Not FRANCE, I said. "But France had DEALS with them".

To finish up the conversation, but not the query, he rebuked the "war for oil" theory in that we weren't (PRESENTLY) getting any oil from Iraq. "What about the FUTURE?" "I don't know about that," he retorted, "...but PRESENTLY..."

But the sticking point was that other intelligence agencies also believed they had WMDs.

I know we've been wrapped up with Bush and what's OUR responsibility, but this was a question left unanswered. What DID other countries' intelligence agencies say about Iraq's WMD's? (excluding France)

Can someone point me to any summary of information regarding this? I've Googled a lot of bits and pieces, but I'd like to find an overview, if you know of one. Thanks for your help.

[havocmom]

1. Search and read Scott Ritter

for starters

[Montauk6]

10. And he's a great reference point because you can't dismiss him as a "left-winger"

[havocmom]

11. Precisely! He WAS THERE, knows what was and wasn't going on

and cannot be dismissed for the sin of being left.

The freepers can sit on their rage and spin. Ritter told the truth.

[papau]

2. Most depend on US intel so to quote them is to quote ourselves - the Brits

claimed they had separate intel supporting WMD, apart from that which we gave them - but nothing has ever come out that I know of which says what that intel was saying, much less where it was coming from.

On specific points of intel the EU told us they disagreed or felt the credibility of the intel weak - as in the Niger yellow cake and the Prague visit that wasn't (indeed the video of the non-appearance in Prague taken by the airport security cameras was on the net - so it is hard to understand why our media did not challenge the VP on that one).

for direct on topic stuff I'd suggest this report

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435

not on topic but a read that may be of interest:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

[Gregorian]

3. I can say one tiny thing that I know is true.

And forgive me for not having more, since I am notorious for being unable to defend myself. Years ago I had a roofing company, and an employee would show up every morning with the Limbaugh lies. I just didn't have the ability to fight back. I knew it was bs, but felt powerless. We've come a long way since 1996. The forums are invaluable.


Saddam was not an imminent threat. Period. Not to us, and not to his neighbors.

And Ritter and Blix both knew that he hadn't had WMDs since the early 90's.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. That's Not Exactly The Issue

The real issues were:
1. the degree of certainty as to whether or not they had WMD
2. how much WMD they might have had

It's true that nobody was particularly convinced that they were totally free of WMD. Heck, I'm sure that most homeowners in the US have something lying around in the basement that would qualify as WMD - some old pesticide or cleaner or something. It was likely that Iraq had something lying around - and there was even a possibility that they might have a small-scale WMD program of some sort.

But let's take a step back. In the US (other than in Texas), we don't execute people for overdue library books. Execution is simply not an appropriate response to petty offenses.

Most of the rest of the world thought that it was entirely possible that Iraq had something - but they were also quite convinced that, if it existed, it wasn't much of anything. We can't fight wars against every regime ever does something naughty. Sane people save wars for the big stuff.

So other countries were sane. We were not. There are a lot of dead people as a result.

[angry_chuck]

5. try this

google "cia pretext" or some variation thereof. Look at maybe TerrorStorm even though the guy takes it into a pretty speculative realm to conclude his facts which he uses to get there are well documented.

We fucked the oil production up in order to slow down the total world oil production thereby reducing supply with an enormous and ever increasing (india, china, et al) demand which raised the price of everything made out of oil.

We don't need to steal Iraq's oil as your simple freeper friend has suggested. If we fuck up their ability to distribute it as a result our oil becomes more expensive. In this you must realize that bush and cheney align themselves far more with chevron and texaco than with liberty and America.

Look at who has ultimately profited from the events and consequences of 9/11...

bush has almost unlimited power as a result of PATRIOT act and other Exec Orders
Halliburton has gotten 90% or so of gov contracts for reconstruction in Iraq
Chevron posted a profit of 5 billion in the last quarter alone

Numbers don't lie even if Bush did. The proof is in the pudding. Big business (banks, military, gov) and oil are all prospering while real wages in America are in decline while inflation rises. Inflation caused greatly in part by the actions pursued by Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are no coincidences. look up pretexting and tell your friend to shut the f8ck up.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. yes google Ritter. I second that. Our own intel agencies couldn't come up

with good evidence for WMDs until the White House opened their own intel cooking office and even then is was all BS.

[stillcool]

7. arm yourself....

with all that your brain can hold by going here:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justifindex.htm
Justifications for War: WMDs and Other Issues
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair sitting in Parliament listening to the House of Common’s committee report on Iraq weapons row. (Picture credit: BBC)

The US and UK government fabricated information to justify their military strike on Iraq. US congressional and UK parliamentary investigations look into the false information circulated by the Bush and Blair governments, especially concerning weapons of mass destruction. This section covers the controversies and changing reasons put forward in Washington and London to justify the war.

[Allyoop]

8. WMDs

Exactly what was our understanding of and definition of WMDs at the build-up to the war? Since Saddam had produced and had used chemical weapons (and biological weapons?) in the past on Iran and the Kurds, it was pretty much accepted that he probably still had a stockpile of these materials somewhere. There were all kinds of stories and illustrations about his hardened bunkers where these could be hidden, etc. The inspectors found nothing that was usable - just old outdated and degraded stuff.

But what convinced those who voted on the war resolution was the threat of Nuclear weapons. There was no hard evidence at all - just "information" that was manufactured and hyped. In othere words - we were lied to. In the aftermath of 9/11, many bought into the scare tactics. The "smoking gun" in the form of a mushroom cloud if Saddam gave these weapons to terrorists was enough to convince many who should have known better.

[seabeyond]

9. wmd was NOT supported by americans. they needed more. mushroom cloud

the american people were not going to support the war with wmd. bushco had to make the threat greater. three things he lied about. mushroom cloud. aluminum tubes for nuclear. drones would carry them to our shore. otherwise he did not have the support from americans. about all thought they would find old weapons and that was not part of the wmd. 1998? saddam kicked out inspectors. they went back in 2001? they were doing their job. it was bush ready to bomb iraq that got inspectors out.

btw, a note many dont know or remember. saddam cried uncle in oct. said he would go off to another country in exile and tell troops to cooperate with america. bush didnt try, didnt listen, didnt explore. he wanted war

[question everything]

12. Even if we thought that he had WMD

which is why most in Congress voted to support the invasion - it did not take many months to realize that this was wrong. So what are we still doing there?

Why didn't we mobilize the support of other nations, mostly neighboring Arab states but also France and Germany, in rebuilding Iraq and really setting it on the road to recovery?

Because of oil!

[Virginian]

13. From 9/11/01 to 9/12/02 Bush was constantly

talking about "Osama, Osama, Osama."
Suddenly on 9/13/02 it was "Saddam, Saddam, Saddam." That is where people think we are paying back Iraq for the 9/11 attack. Bush was able to morph Osama into Saddam.
Bush didn't say "Osama" again for nearly a year. That is probably why, when a reporter asked him about Osama, he said he didn't "think about him much." Bush didn't want Osama mentioned because that might make people realize that they were two separate people.

[zbdent]

14. Bet he used the "point" that Bill Clinton "said" that Iraq had WMDs ...

to which should be thrown ... "And you say he wouldn't be able to tell the truth to save his life ... and yet you screamed about him bombing Iraq because of that intel ..."

Of course, your brain-damaged friend (Faux causes brain damage) said "France had deals with" Iraq ... well, so did Unca Dick and his Halliburton crew ... all through the time that we were "at war" with Iraq, due to the "U.N. resolution" that Repukes always throw around, not two minutes after they blast the U.N. as irrelevant ...

[Beausoleil]

15. Try these bits of wisdom

The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."


But Powell wasn't the only senior administration official telling the truth before the truth became highly inconvenient. On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer. Then King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. "


I forget where I grabbed this from, so I don't have a link, but I'm sure the Google could be useful here.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vyan]

17. The War they Wanted

by Vanity Fair does a good job of tracking down how the WMD threat was sold to us.

France is critical because they are the ones who own the Uranium Mines in Nigeria. The Yellowcake story was bogus, based on an Italian forgery some view as specifically intended to create a war with Iraq (just as the PNAC demanded back in 1998).

Germany was the country that had direct access to Curveball, who was the prime source for allegations linking Saddam to continued WMD and WMD programs. Their intelligence operatives told member of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) that he couldn't be trusted. Yet Rumsfeld didn't bother to tell this to Colin Powell before he used Curveball's info before the UN and embarrissed himself?

Then of course there was Ibn Sheik al-Libi, the prime source of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, who it turns out was tortured in an Egyptian Prison and may have given a false confession and was considered a fabricator by - you guessed it - the DIA. Colin Powell used his claims before the UN after viewing a video of his confession, but was never told about the torture or the DIA doubts about his credibility. None of his claims have been confirmed.

The famous Aluminum Tubes for centerfuges charge? Debunked by both the Energy Dept and State Dept's INR well before he war, a fact which was covered up by Steven Hadley and Karl Rove during the 2004 election.

Meanwhile in September of 2002 we had the head of CIA Operations in Europe, Tyler Drumheller (who is a Republican), gaining access to the Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri who specifically told us they had no active WMD programs, a message which was relayed personally by Tenet to Cheney & Bush - and was ignored.

"The group that was dealing with the preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said, 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said, 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.'"

In December of 2002, Saddam released a Full and Complete Disclosure of the status of their weapons programs in accordance with UN Resolution 1441 - which pointed out that these programs had been completely shutdown for over a decade, exactly as Sabri had claimed and as had been originally revealed in 1995 by an Iraqi Defector named General Hussein Kamel. (All of this was later completely confirmed by the Dulfer Report)

The Bush Administration ignored Saddam's declaration and called it a "more lies" based on the arguement that he "failed to explain where the Niger Uranium was"!!! Which of course, is the Uranium he never tried to buy.

During his 2003 State of the Union Speech Bush claimed...

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.

This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. (No they didn't - WE did! Clinton pulled the inspectors out in 1998, not Saddam) This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. (No, he didn't - see Dulfer) He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. (Actually, all of those worked!)

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. (No he didn't because he would have been overrun by the Kurds and Shia Militia, kinda like the way things are right now! He was bluffing them!)

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. (They lied) These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. (That's because they didn't exist)

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. (Oh, really?)

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. (Or regular missles exactly like the Italians use)

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

Early in 2003 the second UN Resolution that the Brits had called for was blocked by Russia, China, France and Germany. All of whom were doubtful of the US claims of Iraqi WMD. (France and Germany in particular for very good reason obviously - claims that they were all bought off have been debunked.)

February of 2003 the UN inspectors had still found nothing and were growing frustrated with US intelligence. "It's Garbage"

In April, with no WMD yet found, Bush decides "he can't trust Saddam", orders the inspectors out and the attack on Iraq to begin.

Vyan