Did you know that there was no threat from Iraq before the war?

I did. Even if Hussein had WMD of some kind, unless he had been actively threatening others with them, there was no threat to justify an invasion.

This war angers me greatly. And it's destroying two countries: Iraq, and our own. It must end, as soon as possible. So, of course, vote for Kerry, regardless of your feelings for him (I don't care for his foreign policy one bit).

But I do want to know if people can think back to before the war, before the IWR, during the "Saddam = Osama" pre-war stage, and remember why they were opposed to war then. Or, indeed, if they weren't sure, and later came around.

We'll only avoid another war by understanding how we got into this one. Did you know there was no threat worth invading Iraq over?

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

By listening to folks like Scott Ritter, I knew.

By listening to the IAEA, I knew.

By reading up on Hussein Kamel, I knew.

The list goes on. Remember, I asked if people knew there was no THREAT from Iraq, not if Iraq had WMD. If mere possession warrants invasion, we would have been invaded decades ago.

I'm disappointed that you attacked the fact that I and millions of others knew there was no threat, and instead chose to insult me rather than discuss the issue (or not respond at all, which would have been fine, too). I'm not attacking Kerry (I even said "vote for Kerry", in case you missed it).

Peace.

Before Oct 2002? Because the IAEA did not say there were no WMD before Oct 2002. And Scott Ritter changed his story between 1998 and 2002. Based on what? There was no evidence to base a factual opinion before the inspectors went into Iraq, that was in November 2002. By the time of the war, yes. At the time of the vote, no. That's the difference.

Those are the dates in my post.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

Published on Saturday, July 20, 2002 in the Boston Globe
Is Iraq a True Threat to the US?

Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections.

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

(More at the link.)

Clearly, pre-IWR, Ritter was warning us.

And, again, I never argued that there were no WMD. I argued that there was no threat from Iraq that justified invasion, and that this was known to those who studied the situation both pre-war and pre-IWR vote.

Clearly there was good info out there on the lack of a threat (as if the fact that Hussein had never attacked us wasn't a good indicator itself).

What changed after his claim in 1998 that Iraq would have WMD in 6 months if the inspectors left? What about his testimony that more inspections needed to take place in 1998? What about all of that? What changed in those 4 years?

Since it was known there were no nukes, and there are ways to indicate such research is ongoing without being inside the country (which I know Ritter has touched on - I heard him say it live at Cal State), and since the shelf life of whatever biochem weapons Hussein might have had before Butler unilaterally withdrew the inspectors prior to Desert Fox was passed, Ritter's story naturally changed. It's called the evolution of one viewpoint.

And, again, the argument is "no threat", not "no WMD". Even if Hussein had possessed tons of WMD, as long as he wasn't using them to attack other countries, he was not an imminent threat. And the fact was that his military was a shadow of its former self and he wasn't going around attacking other countries.

The whole "invade to disarm" thing is a huge joke, because we have no right to invade just because a country has weapons we don't want them to have if they are not threatening us. That is what has me so concerned about Iran and North Korea: because they learned that getting weapons would stop an invasion, they have or are getting them (and who can blame them?) and people may fall for the idea that, because these countries have them, we have to attack them.

That's madness. It makes us hypocrites on a grand scale, with our thousands of nukes and military-manufactured biochem weaponry.

Hussein was never a threat. We should never have invaded. Most of us here knew this before the war, and before the IWR.

Not the invasion. The resolution was for disarmament, which is a whole process and means more than just finding WMD. But yes, if the world community believes a particular county is dangerous with WMD, and decides to invade to disarm, then we should.

But yes, if the world community believes a particular county is dangerous with WMD, and decides to invade to disarm, then we should.

Should the U.S. be invaded?

By your rationale, we should.

For god's sake, get this lunatic out of office. He's a danger to the world. YES, if the world really thinks so, they most certainly should.

I feel the same way. He's got to go. One example of why is the fact that he invaded and occupied a nation that we pretty much knew, pre-IWR, wasn't really a threat to us.

But when you talk about INVASION... Don't you know that you can COUNT ME OUT!

no threat to their neighbors and had no weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

"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."

We were specifically TOLD that Iraq posed no threat.

Thanks for making the point so clearly and succinctly. Excellent post.

And that's the whole point. They weren't working anymore. Nobody knew what Iraq was doing. The situation had become untenable for all concerned. As I've said before, even Dennis Kucinich believed we needed inspectors in Iraq. He just never had a plan to get them there.

That's why they were still in place. That's why the "no-fly" zones were still in effect. That's why Powell said that the sanctions were WORKING.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/ngo.html

and

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm

It's a big site. :)

EDIT: AHA! That sneaky edit, adding the other link while I'm posting this one! You fiend! ;)

Those are all left leaning groups in the first link, those are the problems sanctions were causing. The second link has more of that, plus some evidence that they weren't working to stop stuff from getting into Iraq anyway.

were trying to get sanctions lifted for humanitarian reasons and use that as your only evidence that they were "deteriorating?"

Sorry, doesn't quite work that way.

Saddam was completely contained, he had no weapons and posed no threat to the United States.

We are not discussing his domestic policy, we are discussing whether he posed a threat to the US.

To prove sanctions were working when they were fighting the left wing NGO's? Is that what you're saying? They weren't working for both reasons, they were hurting the Iraqi people and pissing off the region AND all kinds of illegal stuff was getting into Iraq anyway. I know you know it, I know people around here are better read than that. The sanctions were deteriorating, it was necessary to do something different in Iraq. Not a war for chrissake, but move forward with a full and honest disarmament and new policies for the people.

disarmament. No weapons is a pretty good indicator of that.

Good plan. Run on that in 2008, 'kay?

That's foresight.

I'm happy to see that you are so staunchly behind Bush's justifications though.

This is one of the most underreported stories of the 90s, IMHO.

The US/UK continued enforcing their self-created "no-fly zones", and continued to attack "targets" in Iraq after Desert Storm-- waging a defacto terror war against the innocent people of Iraq. Many civilians died in these attacks, and much of Iraq's infrastructure was destroyed by US/UK air attacks on Iraqi territory.

If more people actually knew about the human cost of our continued low-intensity war post-Desert Storm (500,000+ dead), maybe they would have realized that Iraq was not a threat to any other nation.

The US now alleges that Iraq possesses (or that it will soon acquire) weapons of mass destruction. This concern cannot be categorically rejected as implausible, in view of such weapons programs by Iraq in the recent past. But considerable doubt exists, among well-informed experts, like former weapons inspector Scott Ritter. (140) CIA reports recently concluded that there is no hard evidence for such claims. (141) And Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee of the US Senate was reported on May 14, 2002 by USA Today to have said that “Based on the intelligence briefings he has received… Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is not on the verge of developing weapons of mass destruction.” (142)

It should be recalled that other countries have actually developed and deployed weapons of mass destruction without US-led military threats. Israel, South Africa under apartheid, India and Pakistan are cases in point. Such programs are extremely dangerous to world peace wherever they emerge, but Washington has applied drastically different standards in appraising them and claimed “global responsibilities” to act (or not) against each as its sees fit. Regional and international disarmament agreements would be far better guarantee of peace than unilateral decisions of a single superpower.

In the present political climate, the “hawks” in Washington are ready to disregard the weak evidence concerning Iraqi rearmament. Instead, they insist that Iraq poses such a grave and immediate danger that humanitarian considerations do not count and that a military strike is urgently necessary. (143) In such a heated atmosphere, the opportunity for lifting Security Council sanctions against Iraq may have temporarily diminished. Many Council delegations, though critical of the sanctions, are concerned primarily about averting a full-scale invasion of Iraq by the United States.

Such a dismal prospect need not prevail for long, however. The United States may draw back from the dangerous war option and members of the Security Council may again raise their voices for sound policy and for conformity with international law. The temporary unity of the Permanent Members is likely to weaken, making room for elected members of the Council to advance such proposals successfully, with broad backing from the international community. Public opinion, acting directly and through governments, is likely to pressure the Council in a more critical direction. A new dynamic can promote the values that gained ground in the late 1990s, a dynamic of far-reaching reform inspired by humanitarian concerns and legal mandates, not cynical commercial interests or expansionist geopolitical strategies.

"Considerable doubt", "no hard evidence", "not on the verge of developing WMD".

They wanted the sanctions changing fro humanitarian reasons, not because they thought Saddam was a threat to other countries.

no one knew for sure. The inspectors were not finding anything though - they were inspecting before the war started but they were not allowed to finish.

And the post includes the IWR. There were no inspections before that vote. That's my sticking point.

The war, in 2003, whole different ballgame. Plenty of evidence by that time that there were no WMD in Iraq.

Pre-IWR, by the way...



http://web.archive.org/web/20021011095316/news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=335219

Bush fails to win Russian support for tough stance

After meeting President George Bush in the Oval Office, Igor Ivanov, Russia's Foreign Minister, said merely that the two sides would pursue their exchange of views on how to make the work of the inspectors more effective. The formulation indicates that, in contrast to the US, Russia does not believe a new resolution is required after Saddam Hussein's about-face on Monday on readmitting the inspectors.

Mr Bush's meeting with Mr Ivanov, accompanied by Sergei Ivanov, the Defence Minister, was a main element of the US diplomatic offensive to win support for a new resolution. Russia, with its veto powers on the Security Council and economic ties with Baghdad, represents the biggest single obstacle in the way of that goal.

White House officials were optimistic afterwards that Russian readiness to keep talking was a sign that Moscow could be flexible. Before meeting the defence and foreign ministers, Mr Bush spoke by phone to President Vladimir Putin, pressing his arguments and, some suspect, offering promises on a post-Saddam Iraq that could win over Moscow.

If agreement is not reached, Washington will play tough. In a thinly veiled threat, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell – regarded as the spokesman of the moderates within the Bush administration – bluntly told a congressional committee that America would prevent the inspectors' return unless they were armed with a resolution spelling out the consequences if Iraq did not grant them full and unfettered access to all sites.



Strange - if there had been a threat, don't you think any delay whatsoever would have been dangerous? And yet, the White House was stalling to try to ensure there would be a resolution demanding "serious consequences" - which they would use to justify an invasion, of course.

Such a threat, and yet not rushing to meet it. How interesting.

Looks like Putin thought the same thing:



But Russia for the moment remains adamant. According to the Kremlin, Mr Putin again told Mr Bush that the priority was to secure the fastest possible deployment of UN inspection and monitoring missions. The disagreement is the greatest test yet of the new rapprochement between the former Cold War superpower adversaries which grew closer after 11 September.


Logic dictates that a threat so at the ready as to force us to invade would have allowed for no delay. And yet this administration delayed repeatedly to get its way in setting up an invasion. It was fairly obvious to most informed viewers that there was no imminent threat.

I'm not arguing the war, so don't even bother.

"Mr Putin again told Mr Bush that the priority was to secure the fastest possible deployment of UN inspection and monitoring missions."

Even Russia was concerned about the possibility of Iraq WMD. Every leader in the world was. The IWR was right because it allowed the necessary pressure to force the UN to get inspectors into Iraq. With a sane President, that would have been sufficient, the goal would have been met. Bush isn't sane, we know that.

You're intentionally obscuring the two.

Well, of course, there's no way you can know such an allegation to be true. And in fact you are wrong - I am arguing there was no threat, not that there were no WMD.

Even Russia was concerned about the possibility of Iraq WMD.

Or perhaps Putin was calling b*sh's bluff.

Bush isn't sane, we know that.

Indeed! We knew this pre-IWR. So, why didn't Kerry? (Answer: he did. Kerry's not dumb.)

In the end, we knew in the beginning there was no threat.

I repeat Putin's words about inspections, and you blow it off with your own clairvoyant "bluff" interpretation. I suppose you'd do that if I quoted every leader in the world. Kind of tough to argue that kind of "logic".

So, Bush is the President. Sucks doesn't it? Curiously, should we have just sat on our thumbs and done nothing for four years because Bush is nuts. Come on world, we can't trust this asshat to do anything so do what you will because we're not going to give him the vote on anything. Good plan?

And I'd like to reiterate that I never claimed there were no WMDs, though I suspected at best Hussein might have residuals (after all, the shelf life of anything he would have had since 1998 was long passed).

My main point here is that there was no THREAT, not that there was no WMD. And I think most people on DU knew at the time there was no threat.

EDIT: The main reason I've brough this up is IRAN. The saber-rattling is getting loud, and I wanted to take a look back on the threat aspect of the Iraq invasion, rather than what weapons he might have possibly had.

You should clarify the difference, it matters. Iran has told the IAEA about its centrifuge program, despite promising to freeze it. Are you saying Iran is complying with the IAEA?

Of course, you're not saying that. Just like I'm not saying something I didn't say.

However, let me ask you directly: if Iran aquires a nuke, should we attack them for possessing WMD?

"Of the war, or the vote?"

I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're asking here (it's late :) ).

You don't want to differentiate the situation before the vote and before the war. They were drastically different. You keep acting as if everything we knew in 2003, we knew in 2002. It's just not true.

I read my post that you replied to, and then that question again. Made no sense to me. That's just my stupidity, I suppose.

However, I am differentiating by posting pre-IWR evidence that qualified people thought Iraq was not a threat.

I never argued that we knew everything we knew in 2003 back in 2002. I argued that we knew much, enough to know there was no threat. For example, see the post upthread about Powell (and, not mentioned, Rice) stating flat-out that Iraq was not a threat. If the mere possession of WMD makes one an imminent threat, I expect us to be invaded any day now.

You are just one of those who wants that vote to be a vote for war, even though it wasn't. It wasn't even presented as a vote for war at the time, not by Bush. The goal was full disarmament, no WMD in the ME. I think it's an admirable goal, if it had been carried out with the cooperation of the ME countries and UN. Honestly and peaceably. Including Israel. Obviously Bush had no intention of ever doing that. Still, as I said earlier, he's the only President we've got and it is the tradition of this country to not play politics with matters of war. Partisan hatred usually doesn't equate into a complete breakdown of Presidential leadership the way it has with Bush.

You are just one of those who wants that vote to be a vote for war, even though it wasn't.

Of course, you're wrong - I believe the vote was a stupid mistake, in that trusting a proven liar and thief like b*sh was just a bad idea on all accounts. I don't know if Kerry was voting for war, I just know he's smarter than to have trusted b*sh when he helped investigate b*sh's people like the NSC's Michael Leeden during Iran-Contra.

It wasn't even presented as a vote for war at the time, not by Bush.

I'm fully aware of that. Still was easy to see the fucker wanted war. Anyone familiar with PNAC, or its members in the White House, knew that.

The goal was full disarmament, no WMD in the ME. I think it's an admirable goal, if it had been carried out with the cooperation of the ME countries and UN. Honestly and peaceably. Including Israel.

Kudos on including Israel. Very commendable, and very fair. But disarmament through invasion? Bad idea.

Still, as I said earlier, he's the only President we've got and it is the tradition of this country to not play politics with matters of war.

True - but it's not about playing politics (which, of course, the administration did anyway, see the 2002 elections). It's about the basic question: was Iraq a threat to us? Even people like Powell and Rice said it was not.

EDIT: spelling

It was a response to the subject line itself.

ME: The more they inspected, the more Hussein complied, the less the "danger".

YOU: Of the war, or the vote?

Obviously, of the war, since the vote had already taken place to approve the inspections.

I see where some of the breakdown happened between our points. Yes, we knew more after the IWR. However, there was also a lot of strong evidence (including from members of the administration itself) pre-IWR that there was NO threat.

Hope that helps clarify my position some.

No imminent threat, absolutely. Never was.

Regional threat, bad situation, not helpful in trying to engage the region in marginalizing terrorism; that was the problem of Iraq. A problem, not an imminent threat directly to the US. If handled correctly, the ME would have been much easier to deal with today. I always supported confronting Saddam in order to change the situation in the country and the region, for the people there, for long term stability, not because I thought we were being threatened. Honest disarmament, meaning continued monitoring for many years to guarantee no new programs, seemed to be a legitimate part of the process to me. But it still annoys me when people say they "knew" he had no WMD, they just couldn't possibly "know".

...which reflected Ritter's argument of 95% disarmement.

I knew there was no threat. I didn't know 100% there were no WMD.

And that was never my argument anyway. That's yours. I understand where you're coming from. What you seem to have trouble with is my understanding, prior to the IWR, that there was no threat from Iraq.

Not certain how to resolve that issue. :shrug:

Knowing must be 100%. Otherwise it's suspicion. That's point 1. And your original post is about "knowing" there was no WMD. So it is the argument, seems to me.

Yes we should only go to war unilaterally if there is an imminent threat. I agree totally. The IWR did call for all peaceful means, etc. Bush didn't follow that resolution at all. It did not have to be a rush to war and wouldn't have been if almost anybody else in the entire world had been President.

Iraq and WMD and economic sanctions, nobody ever wants to legitimately talk about alternatives in 2002. Ongoing containment wasn't likely to work, not with the ME the way it is today.

as has been pointed out to you before. it was about knowing there was not a threat - and the poster said that even if Iraq did have WMD, it wasn't a threat.

You seem determined to construct a strawman here.

NT!

that there's no mortal threat to this country from Iceland. Have there ever been inspections there? Maybe we ought to invade, just to be on the safe side.:shrug:

I think we actually did know more about Iraq than N. Korea. We had inspectors in Iraq, and had had them in the relatively recent past as well. Besides the fact that we had pretty much obliterated their military a decade before. We don't have any of those things with N. Korea.

I wasn't aware Iceland invaded neighbors and had secret WMD programs. Stupid comparison. The post refers to the vote, the vote was before inspections resumed. We didn't know anything about Iraq in Oct 2002, just like we didn't know anything in 1991. Plenty of reason to confront the situation, until we found there was no reason to invade, which was in March 2003. Maybe we need a permanent timeline around here.

were pretty aggressive. You never know when they might revert back to their old ways.}(

I was really just trying to make a point about absolute certainty by using argumentum ad absurdum (or whatever it's called) since that's what you were talking about in your original post. There's no absolute certainty about any country not being a threat.

And I realize that alot can happen in 4 years, but that is still a vastly far cry away from the situation we are in with respect to N. Korea.

Comparing the situations of Iraq and N. Korea is a little like, well, maybe comparing Iceland and Iraq.

(Don't mind me right now, I'm just babbling.)

I'm no more convinced that N Korea is a threat than Iraq. They have nukes, then they don't, then they do, bla bla. Bush is screwing up N Korea worse than Iraq, we had some real promise there a few years ago. All pissed away.

No, it refers to both the time before the war and the time before the war before the IWR.

And, as proven above, and easily investigated via Google, we most certainly DID know things about Iraq pre-IWR. You aren't seriously suggest we didn't keep as close tabs on Iraq as possible even without inspectors, are you? That would be silly.

We knew there was no reason to invade before the war, and we had a 95% knew prior to the IWR.

A permanent timeline would be nice, but only if it includes the full truth, not the whitewashed kind - on EITHER side of the aisle.

That you keep obscuring. No, we did not know as much before the vote as we did before the war. There were suspicions before the vote, there was factual refuting of those suspicions before the war. Two totally different scenarios that you keep merging together.

despite the claims of American intelligence to know the sites that supposedly had the weapons or the manufacturing capability, it seemed pretty sure Iraq had no armed chemical or biological capability, and as good as certain no nuclear capability whatsoever.

Before Blix went in, you could have suspicions, and opinions on whether he'd use them - I thought he'd have a small amount of chemical, and maybe biological, weapons, but wouldn't have dared use them unless invaded.

You're right - we don't know more about N Korea than we did about Iraq - we had better information on Iraq. With sanctions, and a fair knowledge of the indigenous industry, we had much better ideas on what Iraq was and was not then capable of manufacturing; and foreigners had much freer access to Iraq.

That's what the post says, people mix up before the IWR and before the war as badly as Bush mixes up terrorists and Iraq. Very annoying. Do people care about the facts or war bashing? Never quite sure. Confronting dangerous regimes is important to me. It's preferable to turn them into friends, which we are miserable at doing. But it doesn't change the fact that there are dangerous regimes and, yes, George Bush is one of them.

I should have formed the poll better, I agree. One choice with "did you know there was no threat before the IWR" and one with "did you know there was no threat before the war".

You know, my point here was to ask if people remembered being certain there was no threat back when the administration was doing everything in their power to make us think there was one. I was on DU then, and there was a lot of work done, pre-IWR as well as post-IWR, refuting the allegations "supporting" a threat.

It seems we'll be arguing this one for decades to come...

eom

and "knew" too. The "I knew" people are the ones who are assinine. Nobody knew in October 2002. I don't care how much people try to delude themselves into believing they "knew", they didn't. Totally impossible.

doesn't mean it isn't known. Millions of people around the world KNEW the truth. I'm sorry you weren't one of them. Did you support the war? I bet you did. Those of us who took the time to look at the available evidence knew without a doubt that there was no threat from Iraq.

See, you really need to stop mixing the two because it isn't the same thing. I supported the vote, I still support the vote. I support the elimination of WMD from the planet, including from the US. It does take a little muscle to get it accomplished sometimes, not a war, just a show of unity and determination. We had that with the UN. Bush obviously had other agendas. You can have 20 good cops doing the right thing on a police force, you can't blame them when one cop goes off and does something crazy. Getting inspectors into Iraq was the right thing to do. Trying to stop N Korea and Iran from producing nuclear weapons is the right thing to do. I don't want to live in a nuclear armed world, I'm surprised anybody finds it acceptable. It was bad enough when it was just us and the Soviets, can't believe people support countries all over the world having nukes. Then call themselves peace lovers and anti-war. Bizarre.

Everyone knew that. Even if Saddam had had nukes, that would not have made him a threat to the United States . Deterrence works. From the tone of your post it's obvious that you were taken in by the rhetoric.

North Korea is NOT a threat to the US. 5 or 6 nukes would not destroy the untied States but the US retaliation would destroy North Korea. Deterrence works.

Stay away from the kool-aid.

Take your insults somewhere else ......

Is that it? That's an interesting political view. Tell me more. Oh, and tell me whether you think a terrorist cares about deterrence while you're at it. I don't think they do.

It is true that nobody knew if Iraq had WMD. That was justification for sending weapons inspectors into Iraq. It was not justification for pulverizing the country. WMD was not the reason we went to war, it was the excuse, which has now been exposed as a lie.

The situation in North Korea and Iran today are not similar to the situation in Iraq back in 2002, that is a misleading statement because it implies these are emerging threats that were not present at the time we invaded Iraq. The truth is that the situation in North Korea and Iran in 2002 were the same as in Iraq in 2002, or worse. Yet we chose to invade Iraq, Ignore Iran, and negotiate with North Korea. Why? Because the threat from North Korea was more credible. There was and is the real possibility that if we attempt to disarm North Korea they WILL let loose their WMD. They may not be able to reach the continental US, but they can certainly reach South Korea and Japan, completely disrupting the world economy and possibly unleashing WW III.

Iran has taken this lesson to heart. They know that they are at risk while developing WMD, but not afterward. Once they have WMD we will not dare invade them anymore.

If you don't believe this, look at Pakistan. Before they developed and demonstrated their own nuclear weapon they were a country sponsoring terrorism. Now they are our buddies, our partners, our chums, and even the fact that Pakistan was responsible for the spread of WMD technology to Libya, that is a violation we are willing to overlook. Why? Because we have no choice.

"It is true that nobody knew if Iraq had WMD. That was justification for sending weapons inspectors into Iraq."

Never justified this war, not one time. I've consistently differentiated between the UN goal of disarmament in 2002 and Bush's rush to war in 2003. Two different scenarios.

I've already made so many posts on this, but it comes down to the fact that we knew exactly where Saddam lived and would have nuked him. Saddam may have been a jerk, but he wasn't an idiot.

There's a huge difference between dictators of countries one can find on a map and roaming terrorist groups with no authority over the country they live in.

Besides, he had no motive.

Pure foreign policy, no war talk. What about the situation in Iraq in 2002? What do we do with a country with a Saddam type as leader without hurting the people?

countries simply because they're ruled by dictators. We don't have that many troops, or enough money.

.

If threat is anyone with WMD (nuclear weapons) we are going to be one busy country bombing a good deal of the rest of the world.

PS... I knew Iraq was no threat and I think your charge of grandiose self indulgent ass is a nice bit of projection.

were lying through their teeth, and were determined to have their war no matter what. I knew that the going to the UN was just a tactic for buying a little time and trying to build some sort of international legitimacy. I knew they were going to invade no matter what.

I wouldn't have been opposed to the invasion if they had genuinely made a good case for it, but they never did. I could tell they were lying just because there were so many contradictions, and obvious attempts at manipulating perceptions.

I pretty much figured that things would end up really fucked the way they have too. The whole thing was like watching an oncoming train wreck, and being powerless to stop it.

Sorry for the rambling. I'm up too late.:)

Edit: I didn't "know" there were no WMD, I just knew that know adaquate case had been made to justify the invasion. I was actually kind of surprised that they found nothing at all. I had expected that they would find small residual amounts of something, just nothing that would have justified the invasion. I felt that whatever they might have could be dealt with adaquately by inspections.

the fact that Hussein's dictatorship was suppressing competing religious groups that would take it to civil war to gain control over the country.
Hussein was not religious and kept the Suuni's (sp?) and Shia under tight control. The secular Baathists would be in there too.

Just about eveything that is going on now was predicted.

I knew it all along, all of it. Seriously. I couldn't believe Congress fell for their B.S. Just goes to show you even Congressmen don't have enough time to follow the political issues.

they were just going for what they felt was politically expedient at the time, and weren't thinking about longer term consequences. I think that politicians in general have an unfortunate tendency in that direction.

the threat seemed pretty slim at best. With Hans Blix in there as well it was being confirmed there was no threat. So awol* could not have that and kicked him out and had his war. I seem to recall the sadam/911 link as growing louder as the WMD threat was getting smaller.

And from the very good analyses given, I was convinced the reason for invading Iraq was Bogus. We who were listening and informing ourselves knew Bush was lying and that military action in Iraq would be a disaster.

I knew that * was lying.
I did say to anyone that would listen, "Yes, Saddam is a bad man, but the world is full of bad men terrorizing their countries and some of them we are in bed with."

George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dickless Cheney, Carl Rove...

Here is the critical point:

*Even if Hussein had WMD of some kind, unless he had been actively threatening others with them, there was no threat*

So often this gets lost, even among people opposed to the war. All the "so where are the WMD" criticisms leave this big one standing. And unless we face this head on, theres nothing to protect us from more hysterical folly if we find somebody who really does have a few jugs of anthrax lying around.

On Charlie Rose, Republican General Zinni /laughed/ at the idea that Saddam was a threat, even though much of the WMD evidence was collected while he headed CENTCOM. He believed 100% that Saddam had the weapons, yet he laughed.

"No WMD" might be a simpler message for getting that fool out of office, but "no threat" is the crucial lesson. Until Americans can understand it, we are open to the same kind of manipulative scaremongering that herded us into this pit.

Because it's a faulty premise. Nobody could know anything in 2002 and they're just kidding themselves if they think they did. Like I said, 95% suspicion is not KNOWING. I suspect most people didn't even have 95% suspicion, probably 75% suspicion more likely. In fact, I came here in March 2003 and you might be surprised to know that over half the board was in a panic over finding WMD. I was among those telling them they weren't there and it didn't matter because they certainly didn't pose an imminent threat. So DU most certainly DID NOT "know" there was no WMD in Iraq before the war or the vote, not by a long stretch.

Powell and Rice told us there was no threat.

Ritter told us there was no threat.

There was never a threat, and yes, we DID know there was NO THREAT before the IWR.

I never argued that I knew there were no WMD. You're the one trying (and failing, by the replies) to prop up that straw man argument.

My post was always about the lack of a THREAT, not the lack of WMD. And you surely must know that, since it's in the initial post. Unless you can't read, which we both know isn't the case.

There was never a threat from Hussein, and we most certainly knew pre-IWR there was none.

You remember the old joke about the mathematician and the engineer in the room with a lovely naked lady who promises the experience of a lifetime if they will only approach her in successive distance increments, with each increment being half the distance of the previous one.

The mathematician realizes that this is an infinite series, and that it is theoretically impossible to get there, and leaves the room muttering about skanky cockteasers. The engineer decides to give it a try. The mathematician, listening at the door, eventually hears a lot of giggling and moaning and groaning, and much later, a very satisfied looking engineer stepped out of the room.

"How in heaven's name did you do that?" sez the mathematician. The engineer sez "I know it was an infinite series and that I could never really get there, and I never did. But after a while I got close enough for all practical purposes."

In a mathematical sense, we could never be sure that Iraq was not a threat, but in an engineering sense it was apparent from the gitgo to anyone not a flaming idiot that Iraq was no threat. The most important evidence to that effect is that Bush wanted to attack it at all.

This BS about nobody being able to "know" 100% is just semantic nonsense. I mean, I don't "know" with 100% certainty that Iraq really even exists. I've certainly never been there and seen it with my own eyes. But despite how much we rail against the media here, there is a certain amount of fact, evidence and journalism that we all believe in and accept as "the truth."

Going by all of the evidence that was available at the time and using a little common sense, it was painfully obvious to anyone who actually bothered to look at the situation that there would NOT be a mushroom cloud over NYC.

And the pre/post IWR distinction is meaningless. I remember at the time reading many well reasoned articles that clearly, scientifically argued that A: The only possible threat (the only true WMD) to the US would be nuclear and B: Judging from the evidence available when the weapons inspectors left, assuming the worst-case scenario in the meantime, and taking into consideration the time necessary for Iraq to get a nuclear program up and running, there was still no way that Iraq was a nuclear threat in 2001. If there was a program it would have still been in its infancy and no immediate threat to the US.

Anybody who'd even done a cursory search of the web on the subject of Iraq's WMDs would have easily determined that either A) Saddam did NOT possess WMD, and had no means to make them; or B) Even if he did possess WMD, he had no way to deploy them outside of Iraq.

I get so sick of this argument that "we were misled by BushCo" or that "we trusted Shrub".

Why the hell would ANYBODY trust a man who stole a presidential election?

How could you possibly trust a man who lied about his National Guard service?

How could you trust an administration that had several convicted felons, who previously served in the Nixon, Reagan and Bush I administrations?

How could you trust the CIA's information at face value, when it failed to predict the fall of the Berlin Wall-- even though people on both sides of the Wall in Berlin were openly talking about its fall months before it occurred?

It simply boggles the mind. :crazy:

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

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

How about if I keep my opinion to myself and let people like you that don't share my "post count" express you opinions with impunity? Is that enough of a sacrifice to "prove you wrong"?

There have been a lot of trolls here lately (with low post numbers) who do "hit and run" type posts, just to agitate. On the surface, your post looked like one of them. I apologize for making that assumption.

Second, to single out Iraq as the cause of Israel's suffering ignores the nearly 40 years of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, and the oppression of the population in those territories. It also neglects to mention that many of Israel's neighbors support peaceful relations with Israel-- if it will allow a sovereign Palestinian state in the territories it occupied in 1967.

Also, most experts in the intelligence community acknowledge that only one middle-eastern nation has WMD-- Israel. Israel also has a history of aggressive behavior towards its neighbors and has also oppressed minority populations within its occupied territories. Not to mention that it too, like Iraq, has received billions of dollars in military assistance from the US.

And yet, we're not trying to get weapons inspectors into Israel. Israel won't even ALLOW the IAEA in to look at its weapons programs-- something that someone as evil as Saddam allowed in his last days.

Sure, Saddam may have given aid to the families of Palestinian terrorists, but our tax money is being spent to destroy the homes and livelihoods of innocent Palestinians whose only crime is being Palestinian.

I had to alert a few times to point out this OBVIOUS disruptor.

--and we didn't invade them, did we?

So "them too!" All terrorists need brought down.

Saudi Arabia not only gives the biggest bucks to suicide bombers' families, they also supplied most of the 9-11 hijackers.

What in bleeding hell was the point about invading Iraq aqain?

How about we concentrate on what causes terrorism, instead of trying to hunt down every last terrorist and kill them off?

Why does the US government create men like Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran? Why do we subvert grassroots democratic movements to maintain "stability"-- especially in places that sit atop "our oil"?

Saddam would not exist if not for the US. Same with Al-Qaeda.

Bin Laden has repeatedly said that he turned against the US after Desert Storm. Before that, he was one of our most valuable clients inthe region.

Bin Laden (and many other Muslims) saw the presence of US troops in the most holy land in Islam as a travesty. They also saw the continued presence of our Army in Saudi as the beginning of a permanent US military presense in the Middle East. This affront turned him against the US, and began the bombing campaign against US targets around the world, starting with the embassy bombings in East Africa in the 1990s.

Remember, the US "made" Bin Laden in the 1980s, when he was involved in the Afghanistan resistance. He even volunteered his fighters to help expell Iraq from Kuwait. He never would have gotten as powerful as he was without the ample assistance of the US government and the help of right-wing congressional Republicans in the 1980s.

Is that what you're saying? Because if this is the threat you believe justified invasion, that's the logical conclusion.

When I heard George W. Bush talking about the need to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam in MARCH of 2000 while he was running againt Gore I thought "what kind of nut is this Bush guy". Iraq was clearly off of the radar screen until Bush brought it up again. It was obvious that the Gulf War early destroyed Saddams ability to be a threat to anything outside of Iraq, and that the sanctions o Iraq after the Gulf War left him with a military equipemtn that was rapidly becoming totally useless due to lack of replacement parts. I sincerely thought Bush was completely lacking in any foreign affairs experience after hearing that.

His statements about no longer focusing on terrorism as the main threat to the U.S. but the War on Drugs being the main threat he would focus on strengthened that view. Finally his statements about getting out ot the nation building business clinched it for me.

On the morning of September 11th, I had my radio on , tuned to Radio Canada International while I was shaving, and when I realized that they were discussing an actual atack on the World Trade Center and not doing a show on the attempt to blow up the Trade Center in 1993, my first thoughts were that this was caused by Bush's disengaging in the Peace Process between Israel and Palestine ,and it happened because he changed the focus from looking for terrorism to one of searching for dope.

That was what I thought was the cause at that moment. After listening to hours of 9/11 Comission Meetings, and power point pictures of mobile bioterrorism laboratories, in the end, I think my first impression was correct.

No matter what Clinton did, his focus was on terrorism, not drugs. He was engaged in the Middle East, Bush was not.


In the end, September 11th happened on Bush's watch, no one elses. It is my absolute beleif that had Gore been president, the tragic events of September 11th would not have occured at all. The attempt would have been made, but I an certain given all of the antiterrorism programs that Clinton started, and Bush elminated, would have continued uder Gore, and in all likelihood, those who perpetrated the dreadful acts of September 11th would have been prevented from doing so, in one way or the other like Zacharias Moussaouai, they would have been caught before being able to act.

Clinton's programs to catch or kill Bin Laden and the leadership of Al Qaeda would have been operational on September 11th, not dismantled. And no matter what, on Clintons watch, an attempt to perform an act or terrorism in California or Washinton State during the Millenium celebrations was foiled.


It was the Bush Administration that failed to keep us safe from terrorism. It was Clinton and the Democrats who were actively working to prevent terrorism.

The belief that George Bush will somehow keep the U.S. safe from terrorism is the most dangerous belief that the American people can cling to.

They had been defeated, their weapons removed or destroyed, they had been in years of sanctions, and Hussein only controlled about a third of his country (with no fly zones, daily flyovers by US and British warplanes, not to mention satellite surveilance). Damn near impossible for them to take on the world's super power. My problem is I'm a rational thinker.

The rush to war was bogus in the face of the then current facts.

A lot of the debate on this thread seems to be between two groups.

One group interprets "before the war" to mean before the Iraq war resolution of 2002.

Another group interprets "before the war" to mean before the shooting started in late feb 2003.

Excellent goggling by Chris Bowers

2000 Presidential Debate

The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He'd better not be or there's going to be a consequence, should I be the president.


This quote dates from October 11, 2000 exactly eleven months before the attacks that supposedly changed everything. Now, look at this quote from the third debate one week later:

Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. The man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don't know because inspectors aren't in.

This is almost exactly the same line he used in the second debate. Although there were only 26 entries on Google for the search "going to be consequences, should I be the president," one blogger noticed the similarity between these two lines in August of 2003 and noted:
Note the similarities in wording between Debates II and III. Bush was not speaking off the cuff. This was a rehearsed effort and his first attempt to convince Americans that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" and presented a risk to national security.




Of course, the Bush WMD justification to invade Iraq goes back even before the 2000 Republican Convention:

Asked during a Jan. 26 candidates' forum about Saddam Hussein's staying power, George W. Bush warned that, "If I found in any way, shape or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take 'em out."


Once again, this was not a new line for Bush, since he had said exactly the same thing in a December 2, 1999 debate:

GOV. BUSH: I wouldn't ease the sanctions, and I wouldn't try to negotiate with him .
I'd make darn sure that he lived up to the agreements that he signed back in the early '90s. I'd be helping the opposition groups. And if I found in any way, shape or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take 'em out. I'm surprised he's still there. I think a lot of other people are as well.

MR. HUME: Take him out?

GOV. BUSH: To out the weapons of mass destruction.

Edit to add link
http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/8/12/22752/1826

and believed him..that he thought these people really were trying to hurt us..then I woke up...I felt like a fool to believe him when I found him to be repulsive and I never voted for him in 2000 and thought he stole the election...

but I was confused because I didn't think Saddam had ANYTHIGN to do with 9/11 I knew that...I feel stupid basically! LOL!

If it helps, I decided after 9/11 to cut b*sh some slack. Took ten months and "Bush Knew" to jolt me awake.

I would never have imagined I'd know all I do today back then. I really had a lot of catching up to do!

I never thought there was any connection with any government other than the Saudis who were financing things.

I'm one of the people (along with Al Franken) who bought the WMD and Al Qaeda BS stories. I didn't trust Bush, but I though Colin Powell was an honorable guy. Wrong. Not something I'm proud of. Unfortunately, human nature is such that people don't like to admit that they were wrong or dumb enough to be fooled. So my guess is that there are more Ed Koches out there than Al Frankens. Hope I'm wrong.

All that matters is that you woke up. The lies and propaganda of a lifetime are thick and sometimes hard to see through.

Welcome to DU!

or the will to attack us.

All that crap about imminent threat was just that-crap. My blood boils all over again.

Saddam's pathetic military couldn't even defend his capital city for more than a few days and only managed to get a few planes into the air (which were almost immediately shot down by our superior technology).

Liechtenstein is a bigger threat than Iraq was.

"Fuck George Bush" and found all these great sites - here, smirkingchimp, bartcop, buzzflash, etc.- and read all about Scott Ritter etc. Plus- one of my good friends went to Johns Hopkins SAIS grad school under Dean Wolfowitz and she knew these bastards wanted to go to Iraq - this was in 2000 summer-

Point being, I suspected a bait-and-switch was underway early on.