Federal Appeals Judge Compares People Who Say Bush Lied To Rise Of Nazis

[KingOrfeo]

Aren't you sort of splitting hairs?

No, that doesn't apply. If Hussein had anything but an active WMD program, there was no reason to invade.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Aren't you sort of splitting hairs? Saddam denied having either stockpiles of WMD's or the means to make any, and that has been proven to be a lie. I don't know how functional the facilities were 12 years ago, but they had been used earlier and there were materials for making weapons, contrary to what Saddam said.

No shit he had chemical weapons and the means to make them at one time. He used them on the Iranians, and later against the Kurds.

This is not in dispute.

However...

No stockpiles of WMDs were found (outside of shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war). Even the articles you linked stated that these were products of that time and were ineffective because they were stored improperly (Buried in the desert). No functional factories for WMDs were found. If there had been caches of these weapons you can bet that Saddam would have used them as his Republican Guard was being overrun.

The claims were that Saddam was hiding caches of WMDs and the means to manufacture more were incorrect. They most certainly would have been discovered and the previous administration would have trumpeted this justification to all corners of the world.

The actual findings in Iraq during the invasion were consistent with the reports of UN Weapons inspectors before they left in advance of the invasion. Coincidentally, those findings were echoed by the Iraq Survey Group after the fact. "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."
On October 6, 2004, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), Charles Duelfer, announced to the U.S. 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.

Iraq became a member state of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2009, declaring "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" according to OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter. No plans were announced at that time for the destruction of the material, although it was noted that the bunkers were damaged in the 2003 war and even inspection of the site must be carefully planned.

The declaration contained no surprises, OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan indicated The production facilities were "put out of commission" by airstrikes during the 1991 conflict, while U.N. personnel afterward secured the chemical munitions in the bunkers. Luhan stated at the time: "These are legacy weapons, remnants." He declined to discuss how many weapons were stored in the bunkers or what materials they contained. The weapons were not believed to be in a usable state.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

He did. He used them on the Iranians and on his own people.

See my post above yours. Pay particular attention to the findings of the Iraq Study Group.

 

[cowslinger64]

He did. He used them on the Iranians and on his own people.

If he had used wmds on his people, there wouldn't have been anything left for Bush to invade, would there?


Lie after lie after lie by that pos... So many wasted lives, so much money squandered... The problems with AL qaeda and ISIS haunting us now.. And you still defend him.

 

[KingOrfeo]

He did. He used them on the Iranians and on his own people.

See post #26.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yes, Bush lied about Iraq: Why are we still arguing about this?

 

[Wrong Element]

I hope you are aware it was JFK who first sent American forces into South Vietnam and LBJ who escalated the war. They were both Dems.

Uh, yeah, I am.

I feel like I'm having to ask this question in here way too much of late, but what does that have to do with my post?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Uh, yeah, I am.

REALLY?


Because it was Eisenhower who first sent M'urican forces to S. Vee-it-nayum.

 

[Boxlicker101]

REALLY?


Because it was Eisenhower who first sent M'urican forces to S. Vee-it-nayum.

It was and he did, but it was only 900 trainers and advisors, not combat troops. JFK increased the forces by about twenty times and LBJ increased them many times after that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Uh, yeah, I am.

I feel like I'm having to ask this question in here way too much of late, but what does that have to do with my post?

I am simply pointing out something that some posters on this forum tend to want to forget.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If he had used wmds on his people, there wouldn't have been anything left for Bush to invade, would there?


Lie after lie after lie by that pos... So many wasted lives, so much money squandered... The problems with AL qaeda and ISIS haunting us now.. And you still defend him.

He used them against Kurds, who were Muslims and Iraqi citizens. There is no question at all about this and he was convicted in a court of law and hanged for it, among other atrocities.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No shit he had chemical weapons and the means to make them at one time. He used them on the Iranians, and later against the Kurds.

This is not in dispute.

However...

No stockpiles of WMDs were found (outside of shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war). Even the articles you linked stated that these were products of that time and were ineffective because they were stored improperly (Buried in the desert). No functional factories for WMDs were found. If there had been caches of these weapons you can bet that Saddam would have used them as his Republican Guard was being overrun.

The claims were that Saddam was hiding caches of WMDs and the means to manufacture more were incorrect. They most certainly would have been discovered and the previous administration would have trumpeted this justification to all corners of the world.

The actual findings in Iraq during the invasion were consistent with the reports of UN Weapons inspectors before they left in advance of the invasion. Coincidentally, those findings were echoed by the Iraq Survey Group after the fact. "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."
On October 6, 2004, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), Charles Duelfer, announced to the U.S. 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.

Iraq became a member state of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2009, declaring "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" according to OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter. No plans were announced at that time for the destruction of the material, although it was noted that the bunkers were damaged in the 2003 war and even inspection of the site must be carefully planned.

The declaration contained no surprises, OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan indicated The production facilities were "put out of commission" by airstrikes during the 1991 conflict, while U.N. personnel afterward secured the chemical munitions in the bunkers. Luhan stated at the time: "These are legacy weapons, remnants." He declined to discuss how many weapons were stored in the bunkers or what materials they contained. The weapons were not believed to be in a usable state.

I'm glad you are admitting Saddam had chemical weapons in 2003, at the time of the invasion. He denied having them and that and his ability to make more were what caused the war to break out in 2003. The manufacturing equipment may not have been functional in 2009 or even 2003, but how easy would it have been for him to start it up again?

According to news reports, ISIS has been using chemical weapons. Where else would they have gotten them? http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/is...ve-access-chemical-weapons-iraq-syria-n234871

 

[cowslinger64]

He used them against Kurds, who were Muslims and Iraqi citizens. There is no question at all about this and he was convicted in a court of law and hanged for it, among other atrocities.

He didn't use wmds against them. That he used chemical weapons is not in question. Did we not invade Iraq because Bush claimed they had wmds?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-inspections-fast-facts/

 

[Boxlicker101]

He didn't use wmds against them. That he used chemical weapons is not in question. Did we not invade Iraq because Bush claimed they had wmds?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-inspections-fast-facts/

If you read the link, you will see chemical weapons are included among WMD's.

 

[cowslinger64]

If you read the link, you will see chemical weapons are included among WMD's.

I did read it.. I'm not vette.

February 6, 2004 - President George W. Bush names a seven-member commission to investigate the nation's intelligence operations, specifically to study the information about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction.

October 6, 2004 - The final Iraq Survey Group report is released. The report concludes that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

December 2005 - U.S. inspectors end their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

March 31, 2005 - The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction reports that the intelligence community was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the U.S. invasion.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Iraq became a member state of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2009, declaring "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" according to OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter. No plans were announced at that time for the destruction of the material, although it was noted that the bunkers were damaged in the 2003 war and even inspection of the site must be carefully planned.

The declaration contained no surprises, OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan indicated The production facilities were "put out of commission" by airstrikes during the 1991 conflict, while U.N. personnel afterward secured the chemical munitions in the bunkers. Luhan stated at the time: "These are legacy weapons, remnants." He declined to discuss how many weapons were stored in the bunkers or what materials they contained. The weapons were not believed to be in a usable state.

I'm glad you are admitting Saddam had chemical weapons in 2003, at the time of the invasion.

You are a very dishonest person, Box.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You are a very dishonest person, Box.

Why do you say that? Based on usually reliable intel, W and everybody else believed Saddam had WMD's, including chemical weapons. For a long time, none were reported found, but this may have been a coverup. because there were such weapons. ISIS found them and has even used them to a limited extant. They were old, and some of the manufacturing plants may have been damaged, but some of the weapons were functional and the facilities probably could have been restored to use.

 

[luvslingerie200]

I always find it amusing, that the left will often claim that GW was the stupidest POTUS ever, and at the same time claim that he had the capability to lead the largest conspiracy in the history of the US that fabricated evidence, garnered support from the majority of Congress and the UN as well, plotted the details of achieving a cover-up of the what they believe is the truth (that no WMD's ever existed) If one had he capability of doing all that.....he must be brilliant.

The biggest reason that most of the WORLD thought Iraq had WMD's???? Because SADDAM fucking claimed he had them!

 

[JackLuis]

I find it amusing that people believe W & Dick, just looking at their body language and formulated pandering, should have announced them a liars and charlatans. Fuck how could so many be so brainwashed.

As for the Dem's who voted for the Iraq War, fuck them too, twice.

 

[PoppingTom]

Why do you say that? Based on usually reliable intel, W and everybody else believed Saddam had WMD's, including chemical weapons. For a long time, none were reported found, but this may have been a coverup. because there were such weapons.

For your consideration: WMD means weapons of mass DESTRUCTION. Chemical weapons may kill a lot of people, but clearly do no DESTRUCTION. The question is not to have chemical weapons, as this is no big deal, but to use them in warfare, as they're banned with the CWC, and even Saddam signed that.

Saddam had no WMDs like atom bombs.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why do you say that? Based on usually reliable intel, W and everybody else believed Saddam had WMD's, including chemical weapons.

No, they didn't, that's the whole point.

For a long time, none were reported found, but this may have been a coverup. because there were such weapons.

. . . The USG under Bush the Lesser invades Iraq on the pretext that Hussein has WMDs, finds them, and covers up that fact why?

 

[BotanyBoy]

It was and he did, but it was only 900 trainers and advisors, not combat troops. JFK increased the forces by about twenty times and LBJ increased them many times after that.

You said US forces, not combat troops.

JFK didn't send ANY combat troops.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No, they didn't, that's the whole point.



. . . The USG under Bush the Lesser invades Iraq on the pretext that Hussein has WMDs, finds them, and covers up that fact why?

Here is the second paragraph of the link:

The memo recorded the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

It quoted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin."

Straw also noted that Iraq retained "WMD capability" and that "Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN."

The military asked about the consequences "if Saddam used WMD on day one," posing Kuwait or Israel as potential targets.

Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith warned that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult. However, the meeting took place several months before the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, the resolution eventually used as the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq. UNR687 also provided a pre-existing basis, as it required Iraq to divest itself of "100%" of all WMD capacity, which the Memo agreed it had not.


It appears to be in agreement with what I have been saying, that Saddam had not divested his country of all WMD capacity, and mentions the possibility of his using some of them.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I always find it amusing, that the left will often claim that GW was the stupidest POTUS ever, and at the same time claim that he had the capability to lead the largest conspiracy in the history of the US that fabricated evidence, garnered support from the majority of Congress and the UN as well, plotted the details of achieving a cover-up of the what they believe is the truth (that no WMD's ever existed) If one had he capability of doing all that.....he must be brilliant.

The biggest reason that most of the WORLD thought Iraq had WMD's???? Because SADDAM fucking claimed he had them!

Nobody accused W of leading shit. He was a puppet who said what he was told to say.
If you want to know who was pulling the strings look toward Cheney and Rove. Again, not a single person ever said that Iraq's WMDs "never existed", he used them on the Iranians and the Kurds. He definitely had them, at one time. But the ISG report states plainly that there had been no manufacture or stockpiling of WMDs since the sanctions began in 1991.

As for congress, they were lied to, likely knowingly lied to by people who knew (according to the Downing Street Memo) that the evidence supporting their claims was thin or nonexistent. They took advantage of fear and hatred fomented by the attack on 9/11 to rally support to attack a country that was not involved.

Posturing by Saddam that wasn't backed up by UN weapon inspectors checking the facilities is not reason to invade a country.