When will conservatives accept the fact that Iraq had no WMD or ties to al Qaeda?

[ProudAmerican]

You do realize that there's no evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda, right?

of course there is evidence of a link. I have shown it to you.

 

[Saboteur]

That is and easy one, when someone proves it.........

You must mean when Savage or Hannity says so.

Iraq is the size of California..........A WMD could be a vial of smallpox you could fit in your hand.It could be buried anywhere.........

Actually the WMD part of the war rationale was that there were working intercontinental WMD's ready to be deployed against the U.S. it was called an "imminent threat"

As far as Saddam's connection with Terrorists we know Zauquawi was in Iraq prior to the war and one can only assume he was not there to have tea, and we also know that Saddam paid 25,000 dollars to the families of suicide bombers in Israel so you bud Saddam was not a good guy....Oh and we also know that if Saddam had WMD he will never use them now and he will not pay the families of suicide bombers 25K anymore.........

The government thinks that bin Laden is in Pakistan yet Pakistan is our ally, you know, like Iraq used to be during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years?

 

[Saboteur]

There were a lot of Liberals who said Saddam had WMD prior to the invasion of Iraq............Bill Clinton and most of the dems in the senate who voted to give the President to invade Iraq thought so.......

Their votes were based on false and or fabricated intelligence.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Their votes were based on false and or fabricated intelligence.

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

was that based on false or fabricated intelligence?

 

[Saboteur]

was that based on false or fabricated intelligence?

I don't know but in 1998 we were bombing Iraq almost daily.... perhaps they were destroyed?

 

[ProudAmerican]

I don't know but in 1998 we were bombing Iraq almost daily.... perhaps they were destroyed?

if they were destroyed, how did we find 500 of them?

hmmmm, maybe they werent ALL destroyed. maybe there are even more that we have yet to find???

 

[Saboteur]

if they were destroyed, how did we find 500 of them?

hmmmm, maybe they werent ALL destroyed. maybe there are even more that we have yet to find???

I'm not aware of 500 in working order WMD's being found. I am aware of Colin Powell telling the U.N. "we know exactly where they are" yet when our troops found those sites they were old and unused with no evidence that they were ever specifically used to manufacture or store WMD's. I remember when they found the serin tipped shell though... It was 30 years old not 5 years old and badly decayed. If there are more to find how come the isurgents and terrorists haven found them either?

 

[easyt65]

I'm not aware of 500 in working order WMD's being found. I am aware of Colin Powell telling the U.N. "we know exactly where they are" yet when our troops found those sites they were old and unused with no evidence that they were ever specifically used to manufacture or store WMD's. I remember when they found the serin tipped shell though... It was 30 years old not 5 years old and badly decayed. If there are more to find how come the isurgents and terrorists haven found them either?

There was enough Sarin found to wipe out all of NYC! Even Iriemon admits we found that stuff that was reportely already destroyed but which was NOT!

And how would YOU know what the Insurgents have or have not found? Is your connection Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi, or U.S.-based?
If your response is 'We would have heard about it in the news' then my rebuttal is a reminder to the link to the story in some obscure paper recently about how Iran has been shelling the Kurds in Northern Iraq because they don't want them forming their own goverment and splitting from Iraq. (The Turks HATE that idea as well because they have a lot of Kurds in Turkey and are afraid they would lose those Kurds and possibly the land they inhabit in such a move.) No major media touched this story or would give escalate it to national media level attention. (Why would they want to hide such an act by Iran?Hmmmm....) But my point is just because you don't hear about things doesn't mean you know what you are talking about or that it ain't happening!

 

[Iriemon]

There was enough Sarin found to wipe out all of NYC! Even Iriemon admits we found that stuff that was reportely already destroyed but which was NOT!

And how would YOU know what the Insurgents have or have not found? Is your connection Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi, or U.S.-based?
If your response is 'We would have heard about it in the news' then my rebuttal is a reminder to the link to the story in some obscure paper recently about how Iran has been shelling the Kurds in Northern Iraq because they don't want them forming their own goverment and splitting from Iraq. (The Turks HATE that idea as well because they have a lot of Kurds in Turkey and are afraid they would lose those Kurds and possibly the land they inhabit in such a move.) No major media touched this story or would give escalate it to national media level attention. (Why would they want to hide such an act by Iran?Hmmmm....) But my point is just because you don't hear about things doesn't mean you know what you are talking about or that it ain't happening!

Bottom line is, you think we should be in Iraq because you argue that the US has the obligation to fight Israel's wars for her. I agree that if we put Israel's interest ahead of America's like you say we should stay in Iraq.

 

[Saboteur]

There was enough Sarin found to wipe out all of NYC! Even Iriemon admits we found that stuff that was reportely already destroyed but which was NOT!

I just plain haven't gleaned the information for a source I'll look for one since no one's going to give up link.

And how would YOU know what the Insurgents have or have not found? Is your connection Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi, or U.S.-based?

I suspect they haven't found them because if they had they would have used them instead of the IRE's on the roadside.

If your response is 'We would have heard about it in the news' then my rebuttal is a reminder to the link to the story in some obscure paper recently about how Iran has been shelling the Kurds in Northern Iraq because they don't want them forming their own goverment and splitting from Iraq. (The Turks HATE that idea as well because they have a lot of Kurds in Turkey and are afraid they would lose those Kurds and possibly the land they inhabit in such a move.) No major media touched this story or would give escalate it to national media level attention. (Why would they want to hide such an act by Iran?Hmmmm....)

Must be due to all those liberal media scum bags like the ones on FOX news.

But my point is just because you don't hear about things doesn't mean you know what you are talking about or that it ain't happening!

Well if I go around speaking what I imagine about whats really happening inside the Bush administration as fact, everybody is going to want supporting evidence.

I don't know why some people can make claims like "they've found WMD's in Iraq, the liberal media's just not telling anyone" (I think I heard that Mike Savage said this somewhere, I'm sure you'll want a link for proof. I'll find one so you don't think I'm just making this up.) and still be credible while someone who thinks that the Bush admin. and the Saudi Gov. might just be running both sides of the war is a wacko conspiracy theorist.

 

[easyt65]

Bottom line is, you think we should be in Iraq because you argue that the US has the obligation to fight Israel's wars for her. I agree that if we put Israel's interest ahead of America's like you say we should stay in Iraq.

No, we are not in Iraq for Israel.

No, I just don't believe like you that we should stand idly by and watch Israel, our ally, get attacked by the same Islamic Extremists who have declared war on us and who have sworn that they will turn their attention to destroying us after they have finished with Israel.

No, unlike you, I do not think the world would be a safer and more secure place if we just let the Islamic Extremists destroy Israel, that they would be appeased if we sacrifice Israel in hopes that would sate their blood-lust and desire to destroy us!

 

[easyt65]

I don't know why some people can make claims like "they've found WMD's in Iraq, the liberal media's just not telling anyone" (I think I heard that Mike Savage said this somewhere, I'm sure you'll want a link for proof. I'll find one so you don't think I'm just making this up.) and still be credible while someone who thinks that the Bush admin. and the Saudi Gov. might just be running both sides of the war is a wacko conspiracy theorist.

Liberal media HAS broadcast that WMD has been found. Iriemon said it. YOU even said it! hans Blix said there was no WMD in iraq because Hussein destroyed it all...but he was proven wrong.

So why do liberals have such a hard time believing there might be more even after finding out they were wrong the 1st time when they declared there was no WMD in iraq.
- 'Because we haven't seen it and there is no proof.'
-- there was no proof to support the claim that all the WMD had been destroyed, but still libs made the claim!

Now we have Iraqis and Syrians who say they have seen it, but the same dems who were exposed as not knowing what THEY were talking about, are demanding that these Iraqis and Syrians not be taken seriously simply because THEY say so and because they don't have WMD intheir pocket as proof! :roll:

 

[Iriemon]

No, we are not in Iraq for Israel.

You said that Israel was like a state and we must fight Israel's wars or we would be abandoning Israel! And now you are trying to say we invade Iraq because of 500 20 year old forgetten bombs! :rofl

 

[Iriemon]

Now we have Iraqis and Syrians who say they have seen it, but the same dems who were exposed as not knowing what THEY were talking about, are demanding that these Iraqis and Syrians not be taken seriously simply because THEY say so and because they don't have WMD intheir pocket as proof! :roll:

Ha ha you said we were fighting Iraq because Israel was like a state and othewise we'd be abandoning Israel. Now you're trying to say it is about old bombs! :rofl Shalom!

 

[easyt65]

Ha ha you said we were fighting Iraq because Israel was like a state and othewise we'd be abandoning Israel. Now you're trying to say it is about old bombs! :rofl Shalom!

You childish freakin' LIAR!

Here's your words AGAIN:

Israel's problems with its neighbors are not America's problems.
I am not aware that Isreal was made a state.

STOP your juvenile behavior and :spin: - take it to The Basement if you insist on continuing, but this lying and cr@p is getting old!

 

[Jack Pott]

of course there is evidence of a link. I have shown it to you.

You mean those documents that do not show that there was a collaborative operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda? You mean those documents that just confirmed what we already knew: there were tentative contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda?

I'll ask again: do you know the difference between "contacts" and "collaborative operational relationship"?

 

[Jack Pott]

if they were destroyed, how did we find 500 of them?

Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq

June 22, 2006

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Santorum said.

The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

 

[ProudAmerican]

You mean those documents that do not show that there was a collaborative operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda? You mean those documents that just confirmed what we already knew: there were tentative contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda?

I'll ask again: do you know the difference between "contacts" and "collaborative operational relationship"?

an open minded, non partisan thinker would say its a smart thing to prevent tentative contacts from becoming a collaborative operational relationship.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq

June 22, 2006

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Santorum said.

The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

good. we agree. they were found, and Iraq did NOT DESTROY them all as they stated.

cool.

 

[Quik]

The shells were abandoned from the Iran-Iraq war and completely forgotten about. This is prior to the First Gulf War, in case you were wondering.

Do you understand that? They were abandoned and forgotten about before any resolutions were made against him having them. They were abandoned and forgotten back when we were still supporting Saddam and his WMD use.

And yet you would use this as a case for war.

 

[Quik]

an open minded, non partisan thinker would say its a smart thing to prevent tentative contacts from becoming a collaborative operational relationship.

Congress released a report that stated Saddam actively tried to pursue and capture Zarqawi and other Al Qaeda members but was unable to locate them.

 

[ProudAmerican]

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

The shells were abandoned from the Iran-Iraq war and completely forgotten about. This is prior to the First Gulf War, in case you were wondering.

I guess we will just take yours, and Saddams word that they were "forgotten about"

I mean a guy that defies 17 resolutions over 12 years is clearly honest and a man of his word. :roll:

 

[ProudAmerican]

Congress released a report that stated Saddam actively tried to pursue and capture Zarqawi and other Al Qaeda members but was unable to locate them.

TOT has done a fine job of showing how partisan congress was in "reporting" on Saddam, but I would still love to see a link to what you claim here.

 

[easyt65]

The shells were abandoned from the Iran-Iraq war and completely forgotten about. This is prior to the First Gulf War, in case you were wondering.

Do you understand that? They were abandoned and forgotten about before any resolutions were made against him having them. They were abandoned and forgotten back when we were still supporting Saddam and his WMD use.

And yet you would use this as a case for war.

The case was made by the U.S. that Iraq had WMD. Clinton, Kerry, and other dems believed so, too and Congress voted to give Bush the power to declare war and go in based on the belief that there was WMD in Iraq.

Hans Blix said ALL the WMD in Iraq has been destroyed (pre-war) - ALL of it. We insisted that he had not done so, so we went in.

After going in, we found that WMD that Hussein AND Blix said had been destroyed. THAT WMD, while being pre-Gulf War WMD, proved that Hussein lied about not having WMD, LIED about getting rid of all of his WMD!

All the LIBS who screamed the 'absolute' that there was no WMD in Iraq, even though they had no proof to support their claim, were proven wrong - there was!

All the libs NOW screaming the 'ABSOLUTE' that what we found is all there was have no proof, have already been proven to have been wrong before. Still they demmand that we take their word as fact because they say so.

If they have no proof yet demand that we believe them, WHY do they insist then that we ignore the Iraqi Generals and Syrian Reps who have come forward to say they have seen the Iraqi WMD, have seen the weapons, and have seen them moved into Syria but have nothing but their own words, just like the libs who insist we believe THEM?

That is my point! The libs said NO WMD...and were wrong. Now they say, the WMD we found wasn't enough and was all there is. Meanwhile we have Iraqis and Syrians syaing they are witnesses to the truth. We even have tapes of Hussein on the issue. But the Libs say the only people who we can believe is THEM, even after they have been discredited?

A different angle? Let's all take out Party Partisan hats off for a second.

If I am Hussein, and I have some of the latest, greatest Bio-Chemical Weapons my scientists can make and have made, sitting beside some pre-desert storm stuff, the Americans are forming up outside the border, the french are in my pocket (they had been taking bribes from Iraq - PROVEN - to vote against every military vote before the U.N.), and I believe there is still a way to not only embarrass the U.S. but to get my power back as well....Am I going to ship the most recent stuff to Syria or the pre-Desert Storm stuff?

There is a theory out that Hussein moved his new stuff to Syria and left the old stuff to creat arguments just like this one! Giving the Bush administration a nibble but ultimately embarrassing him and the U.S.

I personally think that is a load of hogwash!

I personally, based on where I currently work and what I am privy to, KNOW this whole thing is a load of hogwash!

But the only argument I can make right now is to appeal to reason - REASON!

The libs are asking us to believe a dictator who is saying 'the WMD found is all there was'. This is the same guy who told Hans blix while jerking him around, 'We have destroyed ALL our WMD'.

The Libs are asking us to believe, after saying ABSOLUTELY that there was NEVER any WMD in Iraq when we went in, that Hussein had destroyed it all, and then were discredited when we found and presented the old WMD, proving the Libs as well as the rest of the world (to include Hans Blix), to believe them NOW when they ABSOLUTELY say that was all there is and there is NO WAY there could be or could have been anymore!

Does that sound rational or make any sense to you?

If there is anything I have learned, it is this:
1. Liars LIE.
2. Deceivers deceive.
3. If there was a little lying, cheating, and breaking the law going on that was seen/discovered - there was a LOT not seen/discovered!
4. There are NO ABSOLUTES in this world, besides eventual death for the average man or woman!

And in the immortal words of Forrest Gump (at least for now), "That's all I have to say about THAT!"

 

[Quik]

I guess we will just take yours, and Saddams word that they were "forgotten about"

I mean a guy that defies 17 resolutions over 12 years is clearly honest and a man of his word. :roll:

On October 6, 2004, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), Charles Duelfer, announced to the United States Senate Armed Services Committee that the group found no evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had produced and stockpiled any weapons of mass destruction since 1991, when UN sanctions were imposed.[82]

On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad. The Iraq Survey Group investigation reported that it had been previously "stored improperly", and thus the gas was "ineffective" as a useful chemical agent.

Kay also considered it possible that the shell was "an old relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s."[89] It is likely that the insurgents who planted the bomb did not know it contained sarin, according to Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, and another U.S. official confirmed that the shell did not have the markings of a chemical agent.[89] The Iraq Survey Group later concluded that the shell "probably originated with a batch that was stored in a Al Muthanna CW complex basement during the late 1980s for the purpose of leakage testing." (Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program Annex F. Retrieved on 2005-06-29.)

In a July 2, 2004 article published by The Associated Press and reported by Fox News that more WMD not destroyed by the Iraqi Regime were discovered in South Central Iraq by Polish Allies. Sarin Gas warheads dating back to the last Iran-Iraq war were trying to be purchased by terrorists for $5000 a warhead. The Polish troops secured munitions on June 23, 2004.[90] After being tested, it turned out that the warheads did not in fact contain sarin gas. The Coalition Press Information Center in Baghdad announced that the munitions "were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals."[91] The US abandoned its search for WMDs in Iraq on January 12, 2005.

On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded that, "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability."[92] Among the key findings of the final ISG report were:

Evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date;
Concealment of nuclear program in its entirety, as with Iraq's BW program. Aggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender components of the program;
After Desert Storm, Iraq concealed key elements of its program and preserved what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community;
Saddam's ambitions in the nuclear area were secondary to his prime objective of ending UN sanctions; and
A limited number of post-1995 activities would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted.
The report found that "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability." It also concluded that there was a possible intent to restart all banned weapons programs as soon as multilateral sanctions against it had been dropped, with Hussein pursuing WMD proliferation in the future : "There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial, body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted..."[93] No senior Iraqi official interviewed by the ISG believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever.

Another such post-war case occurred on January 9, 2004, when Icelandic munitions experts and Danish military engineers discovered 36 120-mm mortar rounds containing liquid buried in Southern Iraq. While initial tests suggested that the rounds contained a blister agent, a chemical weapon banned by the Geneva Convention,[citation needed] subsequent analysis by American and Danish experts showed that no chemical agent was present.[101] It appears that the rounds have been buried, and most probably forgotten, since the Iran-Iraq war. Some of the munitions were in an advanced state of decay and most of the weaponry would likely have been unusable.

Beginning in 2003, the ISG had uncovered remnants of Iraq's 1980s-era WMD programs. On June 21, 2006 Rick Santorum claimed that "we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," citing a declassified June 6th letter to Pete Hoekstra saying that since the 2003 invasion, a total of "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain ddegraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been found scattered throughout the country.[104][105]

The Washington Post reported that "the U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active." It said the shells "had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988."[2]