« Boston Globe finds another terrorist to whitewash | Main | Two New Al Qaeda Videos »

Moonbat logic 101

I hate it when I have to spell things out like this...

I) Under the terms of his 1991 surrender, Saddam agreed to surrender all his existing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), all his research into developing more WMDs, and foreswear further pursuit of WMDs.

II) WMDs are defined as nuclear (including radiological) weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons.

III) Chemical weapons are defined as non-nuclear, non-biological weapons that kill through a chemical process other than combustion.

IV) Poison gas, as it kills through a chemical process other than combustion, is considered a chemical weapon.

V) Between 700 and 800 weapons containing poison gas have been discovered in Iraq.

Conclusion?

Bush lied about Saddam having WMDs!

There are two other elements I can't quite explain:

1) Neither Bush nor any of his representatives ever said definitively that Saddam possessed WMDS. They said that his lack of cooperation and other actions made it very likely he was acting to conceal them, but never made conclusive statements.

2) I have no idea why the Bush administration doesn't point this out as vigorously as I believe it deserves. While I, like nearly every single Bush supporter, is secretly on Karl Rove's payroll, that information is held several levels above my pay grade.

3) For the utterly clue-impaired, the last part of that last point is purely sarcastic.


Comments (40)

While I, like nearly eve... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

While I, like nearly every single Bush supporter, is secretly on Karl Rove's payroll,

But you isn't a good grammarian. :)

Rove doesn't pay us for goo... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Rove doesn't pay us for good grammar.

Not to nitpick, but shouldn... (Below threshold)

Not to nitpick, but shouldn't the plural of WMD be WsMD? (Not to be confused with Dubya's M.D.)

I have no idea why the B... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

I have no idea why the Bush administration doesn't point this out as vigorously as I believe it deserves.

The Bush administration has said why it went into Iraq regularly enough against, to put it nicely, the cacophny of naysayers and conspiracy theorists. What's the point of repeating it if the moonbats block it out with their shrill protest?

Moonbat logic...... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Moonbat logic...

Now there's an oxymoron.

Neither Bush nor a... (Below threshold)
kbiel:
Neither Bush nor any of his representatives ever said definitively that Saddam possessed WMDS. They said that his lack of cooperation and other actions made it very likely he was acting to conceal them, but never made conclusive statements.

Do a search for "mission accomplished" on any lefty blog and you'll know why they don't even try any more. We could find eight million sarin gas warheads, a warehouse full of weaponized antrax, and the plans for a nuclear warhead with a map to the location of a ton of weapons grade plutonium hidden in Saddam's anus and the reality distortion field surrounding these idiots would barely flicker as it repelled these facts.

Gosh, I gotta correct mysel... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

Gosh, I gotta correct myself and replace 'protest' with 'protestations' in my last post to assuage the fastidious Mr. Tea. Sorry.

Steve L like the rest of th... (Below threshold)
scrapiron:

Steve L like the rest of the democratic party has no plans, not even a clue, so all they have left is to nitpick, deny and lie. They (democrats) are actually more dangerous to Freedom in America that all of the terrorists in the world. Notice the I have dropped all reference to the left wingers. The democratic party no longer has a left wing, they are all left wing whacko's. Wonder when they will start the rant to stop the development of the massive oil field found in the gulf. Since it will help America, they will definetly be against it.

That would be fine if Bush ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

That would be fine if Bush went on TV and said: "We think that Hussein has some degraded chemical weapons, and we want to invade. Will you support me?"

That's not what he said. He sent his advisors to warn us about mushroom clouds appearing over our cities.

scrapiron,Apparently... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

scrapiron,
Apparently, you failed to notice the smiley at the end of my comment. It was intended as a good-natured ribbing of Jay Tea. Trust me, I am not a lefty. Far from it.

IV) Poison gas, as it ki... (Below threshold)

IV) Poison gas, as it kills through a chemical process other than combustion, is considered a chemical weapon.

V) Between 700 and 800 weapons containing poison gas have been discovered in Iraq.

Conclusion?

Smoking Guns and Mushroom Clouds over America TODAY! To the north and east and south, somewhat. Just make the check out to "Halliburton, Inc." Don't worry about all the dead guys, they don't vote.

2) I have no idea why the Bush administration doesn't point this out as vigorously as I believe it deserves. While I, like nearly every single Bush supporter, is secretly on Karl Rove's payroll, that information is held several levels above my pay grade.

Me: "See? I *told* you he wasn't that high up! You owe me ten bucks, stupid mooner. Pay up, already."
Bartender: "Cursegrumblesweargrumble"

3) For the utterly clue-impaired, the last part of that last point is purely sarcastic.

Well, okay sure, but it was still funny.

-GFO

Some people will never "get... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Some people will never "get" what's going on with the WOT and the geostrategic goals.

I agree with those posters who believe it is a waste of time to try to reply to every nutjob on the left who still doesn't get it.

After awhile, it's just futile trying to talk sense to a bunch of morons.

Jay Tea,From the v... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Jay Tea,

From the very Wikipedia website that you refer us to, we see right at the top:

"A weapon of mass destruction or (WMD) is a term used to describe munitions with the capacity to indiscriminately kill LARGE NUMBERS of human beings."

You left this part out, Jay Tea, in your discussion above. I wonder why.

Could it be that the [expletive deleted] that you stoop so low as to try to pass off as WMD was so degraded that well, they COULDN'T KILL LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE???

And just who believes that these "entities" could no longer kill large amounts of people? Why none other than George W. Bush (who, shockingly, can now point to someone with even less class and honesty):

"...the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't" -- George W. Bush, August, 2006

(Let me digress here. PLEASE NOTE, CONSERVATIVES, THAT BUSH HIMSELF SAYS THAT WMD WERE THE "MAIN" REASON WE WENT TO WAR, so, in the future, please refrain from trying to imply it was something else. When you have someone like Cheney lying about Saddam having "reconstituted nuclear weapons" it makes all other reasons for war trivial).

Okay, back to the degraded [expletive deleted].

Jay Tea, the degraded [expletive deleted] that you're trying to pass off as WMD was known to David Kay (the guy formerly THE HEAD OF THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP), who's gone on record saying that he has more hazardous stuff underneath his kitchen sink. His successor, Charles Duelfer, said that the [expletive deleted] that you refer to posed no more than a local threat, that it did not qualify as Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Jay Tea, you're just embarrassing yourself. Move on to something else.

Nice Herman,You ju... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Nice Herman,

You just slammed Jay-Tea and every poster above you....These guys get their infromation from all the same sources.

Reading this thread was like seeing a bunch of bad guys being thouroughly smacked down by one person. You were like Bruce Lee and they are the guys smeared all over the floor wonsering what just hit them.

Thanks for saving me the time to correct yet another lie these silly reality averse knuckleheads keep trying to perpetuate in the process of protecting the interest their illigitamate party over those of our Great Nation.

Although this is like shooting fish in a barrel I find these neocon blogs helpful to my sanity. It's nice to know they really don't have a clue and we have the facts and truth on our side because you know eventually the truth and rightousness will come out.
Regaurdless of how much these guys are willing to deny while selling out our country.....

So who's the moonbat now Ja... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

So who's the moonbat now JayTea??? HMMM?? Who's the moonbat?? You're an embASSment to the guy who looks back at you in the mirror.

Herman: WMDs is a ... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Herman:

WMDs is a term that refers to the generic group of systems, nuclear (radiological), biological, and chemical weapons.

Whether it has degraded is not relevant to whether it was a WMD.

Frex, the Aum Shin Rikyo group set off a Sarin attack on the Japanese subway system. Total casualties? Less than 20. Does this mean it was not a WMD attack? No, the inability of ASR to properly disperse the nerve agent for maximum effectiveness does not mean that it was not a WMD.

As another example, some white supremacists were trying to develop biological weapons. The samples that they were trying to use, however, were in fact dead cells (useful for culturing antibodies, but not for developing actual bio weapons). Does this mean that they were not trying to develop WMD?


And the fact of the matter, that neither you nor George appear to understand, is that Saddam was responsible for declaring every bit of WMD, including these items which had expired "use by" dates. Failure to do so constituted failure to comply.

To use a legal comparison, a paroled felon is not allowed to own a gun. If he purchases a weapon, but it has a defective firing pin, does this mean that he isn't in violation of the terms of his parole?

Additionally, many of these... (Below threshold)

Additionally, many of these finds (and all of the most recent discovery of 240) cannot be classified as chemical weapons under any definition, since they never contained any chemical agents. They were simply empty shells that could be used to contain chemical agents. From the PM article:

"Searching near an Iraqi construction site, the troops uncovered at least 240 chemical weapon shells. Although they had not been filled with any agents, they were still more remnants from Saddam’s WMD stockpiles."

and

"Munitions recovered - 500."
"Some contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent."

So, Jay Tea's assertion that "Between 700 and 800 weapons containing poison gas have been discovered in Iraq." is incorrect. The actual number that contained any trace of poison gas is actually much lower. It always helps when you RTFA :-)

So, Herman, your contention... (Below threshold)
jpickens:

So, Herman, your contention is that as long as Saddam stored his empty munitions separately from his chemical agents, he gets off scot free?

"To use a legal comparis... (Below threshold)

"To use a legal comparison, a paroled felon is not allowed to own a gun. If he purchases a weapon, but it has a defective firing pin, does this mean that he isn't in violation of the terms of his parole? "

I like that analogy, but you failed to complete it. Here are my additions:

The firing pin of the gun is broken, and it's buried in his front yard from before he committed the felony. He's totally forgotten about it. The entire police force is mobilized to arrest him based on the idea that he might be an international arms dealer responsible holding AK-47's. They send a scout team to search his house. The team finds no AK-47s, but a few issues of "Guns and Ammo" from 1995. Based on that the police mount a huge operation, spending 1/12th of the police budget for the year on the assault.

After 3 years, the police dig up his yard, find the broken gun, and declare that they were right all along, and that the operation was well worth the expense in time and manpower. Anyone who disagrees is obviously a supporter of the illegal international arms trade.

"I know you are but what am... (Below threshold)
epador:

"I know you are but what am I?"

"Sphincter says What?

"Dave's not here, man."

Phrases that come to mind reading the above repartee.

So, Herman, your content... (Below threshold)

So, Herman, your contention is that as long as Saddam stored his empty munitions separately from his chemical agents, he gets off scot free?

I'll assume that was addressed to me, not Herman. I must have missed the part in the article where they found stored mustard gas and sarin (or the components for making them) that had not been loaded in shells. Oh wait, I just went back and read it and there was no such part of the article. So, I guess he stored his empty munitions in a hole in the ground, and he stored his chemical agents in your imagination.

Then the police run the bal... (Below threshold)
buzz:

Then the police run the ballistics of the broken gun and find out it is the same gun he used to kill many hundreds of people a decade ago, and has been holding up small liquor stores by threatning to use that same gun. In fact, he also attempted to kill the former chief of police, and was building reload equipment in his basement, and it appeared once he found his broken gun and got his ammunition factory up, he was planning on make gifts to all the crackheads in town.

Thanks, muirgeo!**... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Thanks, muirgeo!

****************

Lurking Observer,

I recommend that you ask you parents what the word "mass" means. Please do this soon. Your Moron-in-Chief won't even call the degraded shells "WMD," even though, if he knew he could get away with it, it would provide the public with a justification for his stupid war. Think about it.

"Then the police run the ba... (Below threshold)

"Then the police run the ballistics of the broken gun and find out it is the same gun he used to kill many hundreds of people a decade ago, and has been holding up small liquor stores by threatning to use that same gun."

Now you're getting into the spirit of extending analogies. Unfortunately, your analogy is pretty flawed. The police had known about all these crimes for years and that he was involved. In fact, those crimes were how he became a felon to begin with. They certainly weren't linked to this particluar gun. It had never been fired.

"and was building reload equipment in his basement, and it appeared once he found his broken gun and got his ammunition factory up, he was planning on make gifts to all the crackheads in town."

I'm not quite sure what the reload equipment refers to here. I think the "Guns and Ammo" magazines that I referred to are closer to what he actually had at the current time. I'll agree that he had grandiose plans of creating an ammo factory. He had about as much chance of carrying them out as any other ex-felon with a buried, busted gun as his starting point, especially since the police were keeping tabs on him.

I guess you'd be voting to re-elect the current chief of police, then, even though the international arms trade has only expanded under his watch.

Perhaps we could place all ... (Below threshold)
Proud Kaffir:

Perhaps we could place all the liberal trolls here in a single room, ignite one of those degarded non-WMD shells, and see if indeed they do cause mass casualties.

Jay is stating that the moonbats need to update their talking poimts at least once every few years. They can no longer say that no WMD was found in Iraq. It certainly can be argued that the WMD found was not worth the war, but it cannot be argued that it does not exist because it is old.

The entire discussion is somewaht mundane because Bush, like all those now hypocritical Dems who voted for the war before opposing it, had to make a decision based on the available intelligence and that intelligence indicated that Saddam did indeed possess dangerous WMD.

The entire discussion is so... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

The entire discussion is somewaht mundane because Bush, like all those now hypocritical Dems who voted for the war before opposing it, had to make a decision based on the available intelligence and that intelligence indicated that Saddam did indeed possess dangerous WMD.

Posted by: Proud Kaffir


Well yeah except for this "short" list of false intel. And NO they didn't all have access to the same intel.

http://www.motherjones.com/mb/mt-search.cgi?tag=False%20Intel&blog_id=2

Also the complete list of all of Bush's lies;

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/index.html

Jay is stating that the ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Jay is stating that the moonbats need to update their talking poimts at least once every few years. They can no longer say that no WMD was found in Iraq.

They're just repeating what Bush himself has said. Sounds like you're joining the "Bush is a liar" camp.

Perhaps we could place a... (Below threshold)

Perhaps we could place all the liberal trolls here in a single room, ignite one of those degarded non-WMD shells, and see if indeed they do cause mass casualties.

Only if I get to hold hands with you at the end, sweetie.

-smooch-

-GFO

Herman,Let's get thi... (Below threshold)

Herman,
Let's get this straight by getting the quote in context.

Q: A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

Bush: I square it because imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein, who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who had relations with Zarqawi.

Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was ---- the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq. And I also saw the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my answer to your question is that ---- imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and ---- you know, the stir-up-the-hornet's- nest theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned.

The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were ...

Q: What did Iraqi have to do with that?

Bush: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

Bush: Nothing. Except for it's part of ---- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a ---- Iraq ---- the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.

Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill, to achieve an objective. I have made that case.

And one way to defeat that ---- you know, defeat resentment ---- is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.

Now I said, going into Iraq, We've got to take these threats seriously before they full materialize. I saw a threat.

I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now the question is: How do we succeed in Iraq?

And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.

Frex, the Aum Shin Rikyo... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Frex, the Aum Shin Rikyo group set off a Sarin attack on the Japanese subway system. Total casualties? Less than 20. Does this mean it was not a WMD attack? No, the inability of ASR to properly disperse the nerve agent for maximum effectiveness does not mean that it was not a WMD.

In the same vein, a nuclear warhead that fizzles is no less a WMD, or a warhead that decays and degrades. It's specs were designed for massive fatalities, same as the (now) degraded Sarin warheads.

A gun with a jammed chamber makes it no less a weapon.

uuhh guys don't you see tha... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

uuhh guys don't you see that you are not in the same league with "mun-go" (he makes 200K a year) and he has real long posts (want to make you think he is "smart") and he has great "links" which proves that he is ?????? (can't think of what it proves) and he likes "hermie" (must be another nerd that makes $2.00 a year) Hey ! I got a great idea. Lets get some of those "degraded" shells and give old "mun-go one so he does not have to spend any of his 200K. They are not dangerous so they would make him a great paperweight to use by his PC when he makes his informational posts. Dang! Now with this long post people are going to think I am "smart". (wish I knew how to "link" then I would look really "smart" like old "mun-go and "hermie" and--aahh you know who I mean).

Wait wait wait! They did sa... (Below threshold)

Wait wait wait! They did say that stuff about Saddam, Iraq, and WMD! Look!

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Oh wait ... that was Clinton, in a letter also signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry.

Hang on ... I think I know of one ....

OK ... here you go!<p... (Below threshold)

OK ... here you go!

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Oh ... my bad. That was John F'in Kerry. 1-23-03

How about this?... (Below threshold)

How about this?

"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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. 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."


Egads ... that was HRC herself. 10-10-02

I will find the quote! Hold on!

OK, let's do this a bit dif... (Below threshold)

OK, let's do this a bit differently ...

Who said it? Bonus points for naming the date it was said ...

1. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

2. "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

3. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

4. "With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

5. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

6. "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

7. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

8. "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

9. "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

10. "I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Here's a hint, none of the above was said by Bush, Cheney, Rove, Condi, Rumsfield, et al ...

Thanks for those many quote... (Below threshold)

Thanks for those many quotes Lissa. In order, they're from:

Robert Byrd
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Russ Feingold (his comment was followed by, "I am concerned the President is pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action." and "all of the administration's public statements, its presentations to Congress, and its exhortations for action, Congress is urged to provide this authority and approve the use of our awesome military power in Iraq without knowing much at all about what we intend to do with it." Prescient, huh?)
Al Gore
Madeline Albright
Nancy Pelosi
Bob Graham
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton

I'm not a "Bush lied" person. I think he just made a horrible, horrible mistake that we'll be paying for in multiple ways for a very long time. He totally believed that Saddam Hussein had viable WMDs and led a country to war based on that assumption. But let's not forget who it was that made the case, presented the evidence, and chose to go to war, and who were the weak-kneed enablers. I'm not fond of either, but I think one deserves a little bit more of the blame, just as he would have deserved (and certainly claimed) more of the credit if he were right. Also, I believe that all of your quotes are from before UN weapons inspectors re-entered Iraq and found nothing. After that, several of the people on your quotes list suggested that the process be given more time to determine if war was necessary, but the Bush administration refused and went to war over those objections.


As long as you've started the quote game, though, let me provide a few of my own. These are in direct refutation to Jay Tea's bizarre assertion that, "Neither Bush nor any of his representatives ever said definitively that Saddam possessed WMDS." I guess he has a short memory and an inability to use Google.


Let's start with this quote from that bastion of left-wing insanity and biased reporting, whitehouse.gov:
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." -- Dick Cheney

Seems pretty much like a definitive statement that Saddam possessed WMDS. Just in case you don't find that persuasive, here are a few more:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -- George Bush

"The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." -- George Bush

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction." -- George Bush

"The Iraqi regime has acquired and tested the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction." -- George Bush

"We know he's got chemical weapons. He said he wouldn't have them, but we know he's got them." -- George Bush

"The facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction." -- Colin Powell

"We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories. The truck-mounted ones have at least two or three trucks each. That means that the mobile production facilities are very few, perhaps 18 trucks that we know of--there may be more--but perhaps 18 that we know of." -- Colin Powell

"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." -- Colin Powell

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction...leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world." -- Colin Powell

"It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." -- Donald Rumsfeld

("What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?" -- Tim Russert) "Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons." -- Dick Cheney

"Of course as soon as he does [use chemical weapons] it will be clear to the world we were absolutely right, that he does, in fact, have chemical weapons." -- Dick Cheney

Thank you for the calm asse... (Below threshold)

Thank you for the calm assertion of your point of view, thoughtfully backed by quotes, etc. However, keep in mind, the point isn't really "did Bush etal ever say Saddam had WMD or not" ... of course they did, everyone was saying that. And it was true. We do know that Saddam did have WMD in his possession AND used them ... 300,000 dead Kurds are a testament to that fact. Saddam stated on many occassion his intentions to build a WMD program and use it. He repeatedly defied UN resolutions that commanded him to cease production, destroy what he had and provide the evidence to inspectors that he had done so. There is mounting evidence now that Saddam moved his WMD to Syria in the weeks and months prior to the March 2003 invasion, in addition to the 500 - 700 WMD that have actually been found over there.

Ruth Wedgewood, professor of international law at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, wrote in The Financial Times of London on March 14, 2003 an article titled "Legal Authority Exists for a Strike on Iraq." Give it a read ...

And here is one more quote:
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Do you know who said that? The implications of the outcome of that are still resounding and will continue to do so for decades.


Herman: Perhaps it... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Herman:

Perhaps it's your parents who made a mistake. Mine taught me to do research. Yours apparently let things dribble down their legs.

Here's just one example of how "WMD" is defined. This from the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, written back in 1993, when the Dems still controlled the Congress:

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/disk1/1993/9341/934104.PDF

I'd just note that in writing the report, the authors noted that chemical weapons (and bio weapons) had their effectiveness influenced by meteorological conditions, dispersal patterns, etc. That did not mean that CW and BW aren't WMD--sorry, that train left the station long before this report was written.

"There is mounting evide... (Below threshold)

"There is mounting evidence now that Saddam moved his WMD to Syria in the weeks and months prior to the March 2003 invasion, in addition to the 500 - 700 WMD that have actually been found over there." I'd be interested to see it. I'd certainly prefer it be from a government source like David Kay's conclusions to the contrary that pretty much shut the book on this theory when it determined that Iraq had no capacity for producing these weapons.

"However, keep in mind, the point isn't really "did Bush etal ever say Saddam had WMD or not" I was responding more to the article's assertion of this "fact". Untruth's like Jay Tea's assertiion that, "Neither Bush nor any of his representatives ever said definitively that Saddam possessed WMDS," need to be exposed whenever they pop-up. A correction to the original article would be nice. WizBang and Jay Tea are usually better than letting their obvious errors stay up without correction. People will think they're becoming part of the MSM.

Your article on legal authority is interesting from a leagl point of view, but really, the UN itself is usually a little better at determining what its resolutions mean and how they should be enforced than obscure professors at Johns Hopkins. The most salient fact is that Bush and the UN supported inspections of Iraq before Bush turned against them when were showing that Hussein had no WMDs of use. So, he went to war in the face of new evidence that he, and the others you quote, had been wrong. All the while, he and his administration denigrated the work of Mohamed ElBaradei an Hans Blix. In the end though, those men were vindicated and Bush's convictions were shown to be wrong. As Stephen Colbert said, Bush belives on Wednesday what he believed on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday. Personally, I'm not too big on that trait in a president.

LissaKay & Joe Yangtree: Th... (Below threshold)

LissaKay & Joe Yangtree: Thank you. Thoughtful discourse is such a rarity, it's nice to see it can still occur, even if it's about as frequent as a solar eclipse.

Lissa, right on with the quotes - a helpful reminder that the CinC didn't go it alone. Much as I like to assign full responsibility to the Executive, any blame must also be shared by the Legislature.

-GFO




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy