The Lies of The Bush Goons

[BenBurch]

For your listening enjoyment;

Wargate (aka Lies) from 2003

Courtesy the Mike Malloy Show, http://www.WhiteRoseSociety.org/ and the late ie America Radio Network.

[Puppycow]

I think they were deluded and misled and suffering from groupthink.
If they really knew the truth going in, wouldn't they have manufactured fake WMDs to be planted and then "found" when they went in?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I think they were deluded and misled and suffering from groupthink.
If they really knew the truth going in, wouldn't they have manufactured fake WMDs to be planted and then "found" when they went in?

They just thought we have short memories and insufficient guts to deal with them as they deserve. And so far, they're right.

[corplinx]

Saddam had not accounted for some stockpiles of his WMD. Scott Ritter estimated 10-15%. Ritter believed they did not constitute a threat and lobbied against the war.

The true "big lie" is that the administration lied about the existence of WMD. Nobody including the _leading_ anti-war authority (Ritter) thought Saddam had privately destroyed all of his WMD.

Recent reports have made clear that the only humint available said Saddam was working on new programs (and this humint turned out to be Chalabi propaganda).

Ben, you are becoming a tiresome shill on this forum. A skeptic, when presented with evidence that counters his remarks concedes. Did BushCo exaggerate the threat of Iraq? Absolutely. But did they lie about Saddam's WMD? Current evidence says no.

Now is your chance to rise about looking like a 2 dimensional shill on this subforum (like skeptigirl, joeellision, conspiraider, cicero, pomperoo). This is the part where you admit you are wrong and leave Plato's cave.

[BenBurch]

If you weren't LYING you might have a point.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

If you weren't LYING you might have a point.

What, specifically, do you think he is lying about?

[JoeEllison]

At minimum, they were lying to themselves, and we can assume from past performance that Bush was a clueless parrot. But, they also clearly lied to the American people, and it is disturbing at this late date that some people contest that fact. Every time they said "absolutely" when they said "maybe", those were lies. Especially after the invasion, where they continued to claim that they had found one false smoking gun after another, they were very clearly and blatantly lying.

I can imagine no reason why a sane and honest person would ignore the simple reality of the situation.

[BenBurch]

*We* had absolutely accounted for all the stockpiles in two ways;

1. We had bombed the crap out of any site even suspected of having chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, and had been doing so for years and years. As we have now learned with certainty, this was extremely successful. Most people who knew what was up knew there was nothing left.

2. The UN Inspectors had visited every single site they asked to visit in the run up to this war, and reported there was NOTHING to be found.

3. We now know that the intelligence was "fixed" to make the case for war.

4. That is a misrepresentation of Ritter's statements, but I will have the opportunity to put the question to him by representative in a few weeks, and I will get a clear statement from him on this question and post the audio clip here.

In other words a lie. And an insulting post to boot.

-Ben

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by corplinx

The true "big lie" is that the administration lied about the existence of WMD. Nobody including the _leading_ anti-war authority (Ritter) thought Saddam had privately destroyed all of his WMD.

Originally Posted by BenBurch

*We* had absolutely accounted for all the stockpiles in two ways;

By golly, we have two opposing positions on an issue. I'd call that a debate.

Gentlemen, present your evidences!

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

4. That is a misrepresentation of Ritter's statements, but I will have the opportunity to put the question to him by representative in a few weeks, and I will get a clear statement from him on this question and post the audio clip here.

In other words a lie. And an insulting post to boot.

-Ben

Source Wikipedia (which sources another publication you are free to buy):

His views at that time are well summarized in War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know a 2002 publication which consists largely of an interview between Ritter and anti-war activist William Rivers Pitt. In the interview, Ritter responds to the question of whether he believes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction:

There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

Which is exactly what I said and straight from Scott Ritter's lips and onto the written page. So now, not only do you owe the forum a retraction, but you also owe me an apology for calling me a liar.

[BenBurch]

I'll have Mr. Ritter's answer to this question in a couple weeks;

"On the eve of the war with Iraq, did you believe that Iraq had any significant capability for Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons? And why did you believe this?"

Being a Liberal Media Mogul has its perquisites.

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

By golly, we have two opposing positions on an issue. I'd call that a debate.

Gentlemen, present your evidences!

I don't have an opinion on the topic. I just go with what the best and most current information on the topic has to say since I am not a weapon inspector or intelligence agency worker.

[BenBurch]

No, just an apologist for anything and everything Bush has ever done.

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I'll have Mr. Ritter's answer to this question in a couple weeks;

I just gave you his answer. Why are you stonewalling?

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by corplinx

I don't have an opinion on the topic. I just go with what the best and most current information on the topic has to say ..

you know ol' buddy, some o us round here'd call that a dad gum opinion, speccilly as ya got to decide what's 'best'

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

No, just an apologist for anything and everything Bush has ever done.

corp has his faults, but that just isn't true. Check Post #4, paragraph 4 of this thread.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by corplinx

I just gave you his answer. Why are you stonewalling?

You gave me a third hand source. Feb 23rd, I will have that for you first hand, and on tape.

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

you know ol' buddy, some o us round here'd call that a dad gum opinion, speccilly as ya got to decide what's 'best'

Yeah, that post of mine was kinda dumb and poorly conveyed what I was trying to say which was "I don't care enough to debate with Ben, Ill probably put him on ignore soon since he doesn't seem to be very reasonable".

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

corp has his faults, but that just isn't true. Check Post #4, paragraph 4 of this thread.

Yeah, he's just randomly always wrong about things, not always wrong according to a party platform or identifiable ideology. I've decided that he pretty much hates and has contempt for everyone and every thing... so arguing with him is a recipe for pretty much nothing.

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

You gave me a third hand source. Feb 23rd, I will have that for you first hand, and on tape.

Dismissing it as third hand makes me believe you are not interested in talking about this subject in ways that don't agree with your notions of it.

Quote:

His views at that time are well summarized in War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know a 2002 publication which consists largely of an interview between Ritter and anti-war activist William Rivers Pitt.

Wikipedia quotes this interview with page numbers.

So why are you stonewalling?

[gtc]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I'll have Mr. Ritter's answer to this question in a couple weeks;

"On the eve of the war with Iraq, did you believe that Iraq had any significant capability for Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons? And why did you believe this?"

Your question is about whether Ritter believed that Iraq retained a significant amount of WMD. That question won't resolve this debate as it just rehashes the point of agreement between you and Corplinx and ignores the real point of disagreement.

Corplinx's position is that Ritter believed that while Iraq retained some WMD, he believed that there was not a significant amount of WMD left in Iraq.

Your position is that there was no cause to believe that there any WMD (significant or otherwise):

Originally Posted by BenBurch

*We* had absolutely accounted for all the stockpiles in two ways;

[BenBurch]

Nobody doubts that there were some samples somewhere in Iraq. Or chlorine in about every water treatment plant. Samples do not constitute a weapon. Nor does water chlorination supplies. Not Significant. Absolutely no reason to kill or maim over 40,000 American Soldiers. And a damned lie when used to imply that there was any weaponry that could be used. "Mushroom cloud" my ass!

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Nobody doubts that there were some samples somewhere in Iraq.

Source please?

I gave you the most reliable source on the subject and he said 10-15 percent. That isn't samples. The problem was, Saddam destroyed them without UN inspectors present so they were unaccounted for. That is what the latest findings on the subject of WMD agree on as the most likely case based on witness accounts.

I am still awaiting your apology for calling me a liar.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Nobody doubts that there were some samples somewhere in Iraq. Or chlorine in about every water treatment plant. Samples do not constitute a weapon. Nor does water chlorination supplies. Not Significant. Absolutely no reason to kill or maim over 40,000 American Soldiers. And a damned lie when used to imply that there was any weaponry that could be used. "Mushroom cloud" my ass!

I think the distinction you are looking for is between "weapons" and "weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION"...

There's little doubt that there were surely some weapons laying around Iraq here and there. Our own military has a ridiculously bad habit of being unable to account for things. It is also a fact that Iraq was perfectly within its rights under international law to keep certain types of weapons on hand for potential defensive purposes. The Iraqi military was allowed, under UN rules, to keep small arms and short-range weapons like short-range missiles and artillery.

So, when we examine the claim that "Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction", we have to ask a couple of questions. Beyond the existence of potentially illegal weapons, we should examine the meaning of "weapons of mass destruction." A weapon able to kill people from a distance? Those were legal for Iraq to have. Illegal weapons? Sure, possibly, but were those hypothetical weapons capable of "mass destruction"? Stockpiles? When you find a 2 hour supply of artillery shells that had mustard gas in them 20 years ago, that hardly constitutes a stockpile.

So, we can see that the claims of "Iraqi stockpiles of WMDs" was ALWAYS known to be false, based on reasonable definitions of terms. A missile doesn't become a WMD because its range is increased 20%. A chemical agent isn't automatically a WMD, unless it is in sufficient quantities and contained within a dispersal device that can deliver the agent to inflict "mass casualties."

[gtc]

Joe,

I see what you are saying. The definition that I was using and, I suspect Corplinx, is that one shell (or whatever) loaded with a biological agent (or chemical or nuclear) is a WMD. But only one shell is not a significant quantity of WMD. I wouldn't classify water chlorination supplies as WMD unless it was clearly not destined for the chlorination of water.

From Corplinx's quote it seems that Ritter thought that Iraq had some WMD but not a significant quantity.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by gtc

Joe,

I see what you are saying. The definition that I was using and, I suspect Corplinx, is that one shell (or whatever) loaded with a biological agent (or chemical or nuclear) is a WMD. But only one shell is not a significant quantity of WMD. I wouldn't classify water chlorination supplies as WMD unless it was clearly not destined for the chlorination of water.

From Corplinx's quote it seems that Ritter thought that Iraq had some WMD but not a significant quantity.

If it isn't a significant quantity, how does it qualify as a weapon of MASS destruction? Take anthrax, for example. Is a standard-sized envelope containing anthrax a WMD? how about 7 of them? 15?

ETA: Remember, Iraq had perfectly legal and acceptable stockpiles of high-explosive munitions, that no one contested or had a significant problem with.

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by gtc

From Corplinx's quote it seems that Ritter thought that Iraq had some WMD but not a significant quantity.

What Ritter says is that he didn't consider their remaining stocks to be threatening enough to go to war over. I don't want to make an uninformed opinion about what how much you have to have for it to be "significant".

You can get more detailed notes on the facts and figures of what was unaccounted for.

[Ion]

To:

Originally Posted by BenBurch

If you weren't LYING you might have a point.

and to:

Originally Posted by BenBurch

*We* had absolutely accounted for all the stockpiles in two ways;

1. We had bombed the crap out of any site even suspected of having chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, and had been doing so for years and years. As we have now learned with certainty, this was extremely successful. Most people who knew what was up knew there was nothing left.

2. The UN Inspectors had visited every single site they asked to visit in the run up to this war, and reported there was NOTHING to be found.

3. We now know that the intelligence was "fixed" to make the case for war.

4. That is a misrepresentation of Ritter's statements, but I will have the opportunity to put the question to him by representative in a few weeks, and I will get a clear statement from him on this question and post the audio clip here.

In other words a lie. And an insulting post to boot.

-Ben

I agree with both quotes.

The evidence that Saddam's W.M.D.s were not any good in 2003, was overwhelming in public information, just before the war.

These who don't agree with your and my stance are irresponsible.
No different than claiming they knew that 2+4=9, but alas, they were wrong.
Otherwise known as lying fanatically, no matter the evidence available at the time.

Just a sample on Ben's 2. and a peaceful alternative to war (i.e.: the peaceful exile of Saddam) comes from Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward with world positions just before the war.

In page 293:

"...Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said, "We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program since its elimination in the 1990s."..."

In page 312:

"...Tenet added that he was receiving information from French intelligence, and that he did not have a problem with the current French intelligence..."

In page 313:

"..."I am positive about the Saudi proposal," Chirac said referring to the recent suggestion that Saddam be allowed to go in exile, "because it sought to avoid war."..."

In page 317:

"...Blix's central conclusion -that disarmement through inspections was possible..."

In page 316:

"...Blix reported. "All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly."...the inspectors had "not found any such weapons,..."..."

In page 222:

"...De Villepin insisted on a two-step process. First a resolution for a new round of inspectors...A second resolution would have to be passed to authorize the use of force...
the French position was that a false declaration "and" a general failure to cooperate would constitute a material breach...De Villepin wouldn't budge..."
(note: the first resolution is 1441)

In page 241, regarding Bush:

"..."Chirac says that Sharon is pulling the blinds over my eyes."..."

In page 313:

"...AT 11:35 A.M. Friday, February 7, Chirac called Bush.
"I do not share your spirit for why we need war," Chirac said coolly. "War is not inevitable. There are alternative ways to reach goals. It's a question of morality. I am against war unless it is inevitable and neccessary.".."

"..."Noting today justifies war," Chirac said.

Also consider this:

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd77/77iraq.htm

"...In contrast, according to Blix, President Chirac had a healthy scepticism about intelligence...His thinking "seemed to be dominated by the conviction that Iraq did not pose a threat that justified armed intervention"..."

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

At minimum, they were lying to themselves, and we can assume from past performance that Bush was a clueless parrot.

"All lies and jest,
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
and disregards the rest . . ."

(excerpted lyric from Simon and Garfunkel, The Boxer)

The usual tripe is being batted back and forth over the net, like a shuttlecock, and as usual the players are blithely ignoring the element of time, intention, and change over time that attends a geopolitical risk assessment.

Ritter's position, in hindsight, and in terms of what level of concern the remaining stockpiles represented based on what he could estimate (given info drying up in about 1998) stands up very well to scrutiny and the demands of time. It is a shame that more folks didn't listen, and his role of Cassandra not averted.

His assessment did not, and could not, accurately forecast a 3-5 year time horizon from 2001 - 2006 with regard to intention. This time horizon was the kind of worst case forecasting that Cheney became adamant about viewing the matter through once 9-11 happened. This is the kind of forecasting that the CIA and other Intel services have to do, and which caused so much internal and external controversey. (Scheuer and other insiders have covered such matters very well.)

Cheney made a remark some time ago about not being willing to accept a "one in a hundred" chance of programs being even modestly restored and becoming a potential source of underground material getting into the wrong hands. (This from the four part series on Cheney the Wash Post did a few months back.)

The profound disagreement, on many levels, of that choice of risk management approach being a suitable basis for the war is never going to end. From an objective point of view, if one takes a process analysis template to Cheney's risk mitigation plan, Cheney was trying to play the zero defects game.

Not much of anyone producing anything, be it security or transmissions for cars, can afford zero defects.

There is no security, there are only relative levels of risk you can accept and mitigate.

Ben, Joe, corp, and other cast members in this farce: y'all feel free to call one another liars. The missing of the point is, once again, the central theme of this thread, as it has been in each successive eruption of this polemical, festering, pus-filled zit. (No, that is not a reference to Ion.)

DR

[Ion]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

*We* had absolutely accounted for all the stockpiles in two ways;

1. We had bombed the crap out of any site even suspected of having chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, and had been doing so for years and years. As we have now learned with certainty, this was extremely successful. Most people who knew what was up knew there was nothing left.
...
-Ben

Below is a sample of evidence supporting Ben's 1..

In page 11 of Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward is this:

"...Cohen, who was leaving the Defense Department in 10 days, (i.e.: Cohen is a Republican, Secretary of Defense under Clinton, and was leaving office in January 2001) believed that the new administration would soon see the reality about Iraq. They would not find much, if any, support among other countries in the region or the world for strong action against Saddam...Cohen predicted the new team would soon back off and find "reconciliation" with Saddam, who he felt was effectively contained and isolated..."

So take it easy when lying about the evidence that Saddam was any threat in 2003, will you?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Ion

Below is a sample of evidence supporting Ben's 1..

In page 11 of Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward is this:

"...Cohen, who was leaving the Defense Department in 10 days, (i.e.: Cohen is a Republican, Secretary of Defense under Clinton, and was leaving office in January 2001) believed that the new administration would soon see the reality about Iraq. They would not find much, if any, support among other countries in the region or the world for strong action against Saddam...Cohen predicted the new team would soon back off and find "reconciliation" with Saddam, who he felt was effectively contained and isolated..."

So take it easy when lying about the evidence that Saddam was any threat in 2003, will you?

Cohen's opinion does not equal fact, nor evidence. You are citing an opinion held by one man as "evidence."

In your defense, he was in a position to have an idea of what things looked like during his tenure at the strategic level, given the conditions of the time.

About his tenure.

Cohen, as a Sec Def, was a disappointment. He could not hold William Perry's jock.

DR

[Ion]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Cohen's opinion does not equal fact.

Cohen, as a Sec Def, was an disappointment. He could not hold William Perry's jock.

DR

Neither are Blix's and El Baradei's positions in U.N. on invesigating weapons in Iraq -which I quoted- once Bush wants to war.

The point is that Bush's opinion was presented as fact.

And Bush's opinion was fanaticism at that time, and is fanaticism today.

Cohen is right and Bush is a fanatic liar, aren't they?

[Molinaro]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

At minimum, they were lying to themselves, and we can assume from past performance that Bush was a clueless parrot. But, they also clearly lied to the American people, and it is disturbing at this late date that some people contest that fact. Every time they said "absolutely" when they said "maybe", those were lies. Especially after the invasion, where they continued to claim that they had found one false smoking gun after another, they were very clearly and blatantly lying.

I can imagine no reason why a sane and honest person would ignore the simple reality of the situation.

I can honestly say that you strike me as totaly insane with your baseless accusations. You aren't describing reality. You are describing how you want reality to be. Not the same at all.

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

[i]"All lies and jest,

Ben, Joe, corp, and other cast members in this farce: y'all feel free to call one another liars. The missing of the point is, once again, the central theme of this thread, as it has been in each successive eruption of this polemical, festering, pus-filled zit. (No, that is not a reference to Ion.)

Edited by Darat:

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

There is nothing farcical about the Ritter's Iraq assessments. In fact, most people don't even know they exist. The real farce is that people like Burch believe the meme that Ritter said there was nothing and the right wingers believe a meme that Ritter was a unreliable flip flopper.

Claiming I am part of a farce is nearly as insulting as Burch calling me a liar for presenting evidence that he dismissed out of hand.

This thread is really simple, it comes down Burch making a claim based on a false pretense and not capitulating when another forum member revealed it to be outright inaccurate.

[steverino]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

2. The UN Inspectors had visited every single site they asked to visit in the run up to this war, and reported there was NOTHING to be found.

-Ben

They asked Saddam for a visit to this place and that in advance, and he prepped the sites, as Chicago's Mayor Daley did when he hid the homeless and planted palm trees along Michigan Avenue when the Democratic Convention visited.

Palm trees for chrissake.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by steverino

They asked Saddam for a visit to this place and that in advance, and he prepped the sites, as Chicago's Mayor Daley did when he hid the homeless and planted palm trees along Michigan Avenue when the Democratic Convention visited.

Palm trees for chrissake.

So, after we bombed the holy crap out of the place and sent in tens of thousands of armed "inspectors" we still found nothing of note.

Nice fantasy life you have, though!

[gtc]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

If it isn't a significant quantity, how does it qualify as a weapon of MASS destruction? Take anthrax, for example. Is a standard-sized envelope containing anthrax a WMD? how about 7 of them? 15?

Fair point, my terminology was wrong. How about Chemical/Biological/Nuclear Weapon (CBNW) and WMD for an amount of CBNW that could pose a significant threat.

I would argue that pool chemicals are not a CBNW unless they are diverted to military uses and the difference between CBNW and WMD would depend on the context.

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

ETA: Remember, Iraq had perfectly legal and acceptable stockpiles of high-explosive munitions, that no one contested or had a significant problem with.

I suspect that the Kurds and Iranians had significant problems with Iran's conventional weapons! But you are right about conventional weapons - they can be just as destructive as WMD.

[Brainster]

Some more liars that I'm sure Ben will get around to denouncing:

Barbara Boxer: "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." November 8, 2002

Robert Byrd: "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." October 2002

Wesley Clark: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." September 26, 2002

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." October 10, 2002

John Edwards: "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." October 10, 2002

Dick Gephardt: "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." September 2002

Al Gore: "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." 2002 (undated)

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." September 27, 2002.

John Kerry: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." October 9, 2002

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

*We* had absolutely accounted for all the stockpiles in two ways;

1. We had bombed the crap out of any site even suspected of having chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, and had been doing so for years and years. As we have now learned with certainty, this was extremely successful. Most people who knew what was up knew there was nothing left.

2. The UN Inspectors had visited every single site they asked to visit in the run up to this war, and reported there was NOTHING to be found.

3. We now know that the intelligence was "fixed" to make the case for war.

4. That is a misrepresentation of Ritter's statements, but I will have the opportunity to put the question to him by representative in a few weeks, and I will get a clear statement from him on this question and post the audio clip here.

In other words a lie. And an insulting post to boot.

-Ben

Just a quick thing- during the period before the war began (actually for years prior to it - about 15 to be exact ) I listened to NPR every morning on the way to work and every afternoon/evening heading home. Time after time - when the inspectors were in Iraq- there would be a story about the latest blocking of inspectors at a site they had come to inspect - even when it had "been approved" by those "in charge". I specify because once the inspectors left, that did not matter - but unless NPR was wrong or lying (and they had not been forced to add that conservative pile of excrement IIRC at the time so that is not likely) inspectors were not being allowed to check any area at any time (the requirement). You may recall that I trust nothing shrub or his handlers say so it is easy to believe they did know the truth, but suspicion that they didn't - based on my news source -still makes me wonder.

[BenBurch]

That was in fact true for years. But as soon as Saddam realized we were serious about an invasion he got a LOT more cooperative. And the inspectors were able to make certain that all of the IAEC-sealed stuff was where it should have been and checked out numerous sites. There was sufficient inspection to determine that nothing significant was happening, and, as events later PROVED, nothing was.