Marijuana.com

Stephanie S.

U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
3-2-04
UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.

The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

The report, to be outlined to the U.N. Security Council as early as Friday, is based on information gathered over more than seven years of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war, plus postwar findings discussed publicly by Kay.


I never heard any reports from the UN suggesting that Iraq possessed WMDs. They were purported to posess materials to do so, but uh, so do lots of nations. I could probably hook up a nice explosive device right out in the garage. The worst reporr I saw was that Iraq was working on a missile to fly more than 93 miles. Like we don't!

peace

__________________
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio)

 

Hiz Highness

I agree with some of what Happyman said. Personally I believed that Iraq probably had some small WMD capability before the war. I also believed their complete inability to hit us with any sort of conventional weaponry rendered that point moot. I never believed that Saddam would waste what small amount of WMD he had by giving them to terrorists to come hit the US. It seemed to me that anything he had he would keep to protect his country from Iran and Isreal.

That having been said, let's have a few quotes:

"There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons....We all know that. A trained ape knows that." -Donnie Rumsfeld

"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes."
- George W. Bush

"The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it." -Ari Fleischer (Whitehouse spokesman)

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -George W. Bush

"raq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have" -George W. Bush

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." -Geroge W. Bush

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." -Ari Fleischer

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." -Colin Powell

There are pages more of quotes like these of course. I know many people want to pretend there wasn't a bunch of hysteria built up around this bogus WMD charge. That's the nature of revisionist history. The government wants us to forget about all the fear they instilled in Americans so they could start this stupid war.

We have months if not years full of quotes like the above. After the invasion we suddenly started hearing about all these other reasons that the war was justified, but before the war the name of the game was WMD.

-HH

Zilos

Yes, a trained ape, trained my the US administraion.

Reminds me of those commercials with a bunch of monkey's in a room with typerwriters, i forget what the commercial was for, but i can picture of bunch of apes in a room leading the intelligence that led to the belief saddam had WMD's.



-Peace

__________________
:: Posting Guidelines :: 420 Lounge :: Hemp Cultivation :: Myths :: Canadian Laws :: U.S. Laws :: Recipes ::

MickityMike

And among other things...

Maybe Hussein wanted the world to believe that this was not the case? Either way, it's obvious that this was not, and due to Iraqi non-cooperation and compliance with multiple UN Title IV (those carrying the threat of military force) Resolutions could not be, known until after the invasion.

David Kay, the former head of the ISG, stated in his interim report (the same where he revealed that he thought it “unlikely” that WMD would ever be found in Iraq) that Iraq would surely have acted as the “arsenal of terror.” Speaking of terror, pre-invasion Iraq was actively funding Palestinian suicide bombers and accepting an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist.

What about the UN resolutions demanding that Iraq declare all WMDs, related materials and provide a measure of reassurance that the rest had been destroyed via full and unrestricted compliance with UN inspectors? Didn’t they kinda suggest that just maybe the UN thought Iraq had some shizznit it was hiding? Iraq failed to do this by the way. For a decade.

Yeah we do have years full of quotes like the above – starting in around 1992. Bill Clinton launched an air war on Iraq in the late 90s and along with Congress codified regime change in Iraq as official US policy. If we're gonna talk about famous quotes in history, let's at least get it all out there.

__________________
I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons. - Glenn Reynolds

Hiz Highness

Excellent way to avoid the pont being made, and change the topic to Bill Clinton.

Do you guys ever learn any new tricks, or is Bill Clinton pretty much the entire playbook?

-HH

 

MickityMike

I voted for Bill Clinton. So bug off.

I'm not trying to ignore your point, just expound on it and place it in the proper historical context. I mean, you're the one concerned about revisionist history right?

Hiz Highness

My point was reviewing the long list of quotes used by the administration that launched this war garaunteeing the American people that Iraq had WMD. Not just that they had them, but that we were under threat by them.

It has nothing to do with Clinton. Clinton is not part of the context of this administrations attempt to panic the people with false information.

Sad attempt there, man. Really sad. Is it just a reflex for you? Bush is under criticism so start yapping about Clinton?

Learn a new trick already.

-HH

MickityMike

And my point is that this is nothing new. Why is that so seemingly offensive a statement to you?

Why does any mention of past official policy cause such a reflex in you? You’re the history guy – you ought to realize how historically relevant the proper context is. I’m not invoking Clinton’s name in some derogatory way (which some might think after reading your visceral reaction to the very mention of the man); but only because he was the first to push for regime change in Iraq and he managed to make it official policy of the United States government.

You see the war in Iraq as the sole doing of this administration, and of course I agree with you. However, I also see it as a predictable result of the crash course the two nations have been on since 1991. That’s the point I was making when, referring to the quotes, I said it “[began] in 1992.”

Hiz Highness

The Bush administration misleading the public to pursue their own agenda is nothing new? Well, I'll have to agree with you there. They started right after 9/11 and have continued to this day (with the recent ONDCP ads).

Is that true, or are you deflecting now? Did you simply mention past official policy, or did you ignore the content and context of my post and start talking about Clinton, adding some sort of snide remark to the effect of:

Translation: Don't show the Bush administration panicking the people into a bogus war without quoting Clinton! Clinton said stuff about Iraq too!

But this isn't the history of Clinton and Iraq thread. This is the No WMD's found even though we were assured they would be by the Bush administration thread.

It's a transparent tactic. The more you defend it the sillier you're going to look.

Don't let me stop you though.

Hmmmm . . . 1992 just happens to be the year Clinton was inagurated. Nothing was going on previous to that?

What about:
For someone who was only pleaing for an honest assessment about the history or the two countries you managed to completely ignore Desert Storm. Amazing.

If you want to talk about Clinton and his quotes about Iraq between the two Bush invasions why don't you make a thread about it.

Transparent, bud. Utterly transparent.

The dancing banana mocks you:

-HH

MickityMike

I talked about Clinton to the extent that WMD in Iraqi hands has been a concern long before George came to office. That was the sole reason for bringing up the “C” word, dude.

I’m not attempting to make this into a Clinton vs. Iraq deal. Just providing context.

No, that was in 1993. In 1992 George I was still president.

No, that’s why I said that the problems began in ’92. You might also note that 1991 was mentioned as well. Yet you claim that I'm trying to turn this into some sort of a Clinton thread? I'm just talking about the history of the situation, that's all. Again, you claim to have a history degree, so I thought you of all people might appreciate that.

I think you’re doing what you usually do – turning everything into some sort of inane semantic argument. Your criticism of me bringing up Clinton (only because he believed what Bush believed) is pedantic to the extreme. But then again, I shouldn’t really expect anything less.

Your claim might be valid if I brought up Clinton as an excuse to something pointed out about Bush, but I did not. He and his administration (along with the comment that concerns over Iraqi WMDs first surfaced in ’92) were brought up for the sole express purpose of making the point that it seems as if war in Iraq had been a long time coming. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree that the present administration is solely responsible for the current war, what else do you want me to say here? Is speaking of Clinton some sort of unpardonable sin?