No WMDs - and no program to develop WMDs either.

raid517

US chief Iraq arms expert quits

Source: BBC News

raid517

So go on, guys, what you got left? You invaded Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy? What about all the other bad guys? Do you think maybe Saddam just drew the short straw? Why do you believe Bush when even those he appoints to back him up, more or less come out and say he is lying to you? At the very least what this guy is saying is a complete contradiction of everything Bush was saying only 3 days ago in his state of the Union address. If he could knowingly lie to you 3 days ago, why isn't it possible that he has been lying to you all along?

Or do you think he didn't know what was in this report then?

GJ

bluelight

Well Bush insisted in his last speech to the nation that they had found.....substantial things or similar.

I think he didnt use the expression substantial evidence.

This is of course just another way of being a liar once again.Unfortunatly the American people bought the lies at almost 100 percent from the beginning (Media hype is useful sometimes if you have money to control it)and nobody will question the lies today since the all chewed them so niclely before the invasion and during The Bush campaign to question the UN weapon inspections and its capability to get rid of the WMD´s

Well we ALL know the result of them Un inspections today.Some of us knew it then because we wanted to know.

They were the reason it took three weeks to get to Bagdad instead of 3 months.The WMD`S AND! the military capacity in general in Iraq was more or less crushed due to the sanctions.

Bush knew that before the invasion too but since his rightwing extreme party has on its agenda to eliminate the UN influence on international matters and take it totally on themselves to maintain security they had to stage all of this to get the US population to accept that (in practice) onlu Us military would be sent to Iraq.Something that was also verified by statments made by Paul Wolfwhat after Bagdads fall.

He said ...we needed something to get this going and the WMD´s was THE THING.

Had the weapon inspection been allowed to be finished and Saddam would continue his bollocks then there would without any doubt whatsoever have been an alliance similar to that of the first Gulf war.


Such an alliace would with 100 percenr security also have incorporated Swedish troops since we look upon the role of the UN as substantial.


Bluelight

raid517

Well I think clearly Bush's subtle (or not so subtle) attempts to move the agenda away from saying that there was weapons of mass destruction, to saying that there was 'evidence of programs to develop weapons of mass destruction', has been shown to have virtually no merit also. Indeed his head honcho, the guy anointed by Bush himself to find evidence of WMDs at any cost, has pretty much now said that Bush's position on this is BS.

Go figure.

What all these drum banging, flag waving, right wing fanatics who came here and mouthed off for months about how they all knew Bush just had to be right have to say about this now, will indeed be interesting to hear.

But I doubt we will hear very much, as they now clearly haven't got anything very much left to say.

And they had the bare faced cheek to call us crazy.

I can wait a long time to tell you I told you so. And guess what, we are finally here, and yes I told you so.

If only this meant that you guys would learn to think things through a little more carefully in future, it might be worthwhile. But somehow I doubt that.

To be honest I think that some of you guys are so fanatical - and so consumed by the pointless propoganda Bush has spouted for these last 4 years, that you may even want him to continue to lie to you. Well that is your choice, but personally its not something I would knowingly buy into.

What other lies will George tell you if he is elected again? This was a whopper - and the thing about lies is if you do tell them, each lie you tell has to be bigger than the last in order to help you cover your tracks. You have to wonder therefore, what George might have in store for the American people next.

GJ

mkk

And lying works especially well when many of those who spot the lies see it as yet another reason not to vote, rather than voting for "the other guy who only lies a bit less". There's a substantial democratic deficit in the political structure.

BluntmaN

The big problem in western politics is the second voice. Most political parties in western world are after the same things they have the same agenda the only difference is how they aply it. Young folks in Greece have lost all hope in the big parties and the system is so bad that it obstracts third parties to activelly involve in politics. The same is happening to britain and many other places in the world. America has it worst though. We must all understand that voting is both a right and a duty (like paying tax). In a democracy whoever doesnt vote is effectively not a citizen. The best way to get people to voting booths though is not takeing away their right to leave the country or to put them in jail. The best way is to issue fines for all non voters or to give tax discounts to all who vote. Get them to a voting booth allow them 10 seconds of thought about politics and make them cast a vote whether it is blank or not.

raid517

Yes, this is all very nice pondering on democratic philosophy etc - and maybe it is worth considering that it was 'dimpled chads' that possibly got us where we are today - but I would appreciate it if you could at least try to stay on topic. We are talking about a real news event here - and while musing about our responsibility to vote and participate in the democratic process may be interesting, it may not be very relevant to the subject at hand.

What we have here is an example where even those Bush personally appoints to back up his story come out and openly say that his position lacks credibility. Let's not forget that Bush refused to allow UN weapons inspectors back in in case they failed to reach the right conclusion for him. So instead he handpicked a bunch of guys he thought he could depend on - who he probably imagined were willing to participate in his charade - only to find that ultimately even their consciences prevented them from doing so.

No matter how much of an ardent Republican this guy may have been, or how carefully selected he was, it seems it still was not worthwhile for him to lie for the President.

One thing is for sure, if Bush continues to insist that this war had anything to do with WMDs, or keeps saying he believes that there were 'programs' to develop them, he is going to look increasingly isolated and silly.

Right up until Bush took power in 2000, the entire intelligence community were openly saying that they did not believe that Iraq posed any significant risk to Western interests.

It is hardly a coincidence that is was only after his election that the brief of the intelligence service abruptly changed. Only then (or so it would seem) were instructions issued to make the available 'facts' fit the agenda. But still the intelligence community protested, with open rebellion on some fronts, as many complained that they believed the intelligence services were being politicized and subverted to meet the Republican party's own predifined goals.

It seems a lot of people preferred to believe George W. over everyone else. What fools they must feel now.

GJ

raid517

Yeah, it's like I thought. You guys aint got nothing. Even Colin Powell is now saying he doesn't think there was any WMDs. Does anybody here seriously believe that this was really such a terrible surprise to him?

GJ

BluntmaN

The only reason I left the topic is simple. There are no news here for me.
I have been standing in this side of the river for so long that I am almost 100% convinced they ll find nothing in Iraq. When Tony said they have WMDs I said let the inspectors work. When Bush invaded Iraq I stood there asking a simple question if Iraq had WMDs why not use them? Now that Bush and Tony reallise their lies dont stand I simply say "told ya". So they lied to the public big deal every person with his eyes and ears open could tell you that. So they used WMDs as an excuse to start a war so what? Most wars start for excuses do you really thing that Richard the Lionheart embarked on crusades to give Jerusalim to Catholics? Or that Hitler was worried that the Germans in Polland were treated badly? It is an excuse coz if they tell the public the real reason nobody will go with them.

raid517

Yes... But it doesn't exactly instill confidence in our politicians now does it.?That's like saying that its OK for politicians to lie - and when they get found out, what the hey, we should all just accept that too. I don't think being voted into power gives anyone any kind of right to lie to us. That would be a very f*cked up world if it did. So OK, politicians lie, nothing new there. But what shouldn't be new also is that they get their ass' kicked when they are found out.

It seems to me though that some of the fruits here are so fanatical and so wrapped up in the propaganda they have been fed this last 4 years, that they would be willing to forgive George W. just about anything. He is their 'great leader' and no doubt is pretty much infallible in their eyes.

Four more years? Four more years of what I wonder? Only yesterday he was accusing Syria of stashing Iraq's WMDs. What is the betting that if they invade Syria they will just end up looking similarly dumb? (Remember their own handpicked chief weapons inspector has said that there was never even any programs to develop WMDs. So what they are talking about is hiding evidence of non-existent WMD programs in Syria. If that isn't dumb I don't know what is).

These people are crazy, completely, utterly, stark staring crazy...

GJ

zerodamage

Tony and Bush lied. Yup.. and so did the other 99% of the world including France, Spain, Germany....

The UN found Iraq in non-compliance. Even Wesley Clark (a real liar btw, caught in a lie and still lies about it to this day) thought what we did was right. The last time I saw, France, Germany and the others signed Resolution 1441.... blah. Nevermind. You guys have your mindset on hating the U.S. no matter what we do. Facts be damned.

BluntmaN

France and Germany lied about the Iraqi war when? Spain is in the same side as you mate dont blame them they followed you.

Resolution 1441 is not a declaration of war it was a program to restart the weapon inspections which off course was not obeyed by Iraq BUT the amazing thing was that a little time after the expiration of Resolution 1441 Iraq allowed inspectors to move in and start working until Bush declared war that is.

Who is Wesley Clark btw?

raid517

Yeah facts be damned indeed.

Let me just remind you of resolution 1441:

If you will recall, the argument was that no one seriously believed that all the options had yet been exhausted. And nowhere here does it say the US had the right to overstep the views of the majority of the UN - and decide that it was OK now to go ahead and do whatever it damn well pleases.

But in any case here we are back at the same old impasse. Whenever right wing Americans run out of arguments they always flip back to the same old rhetoric, that people are only speaking up because they have some deep seated inbuilt hate of America.

Well besides that being the BS that it clearly is (the only thing I hate are the ignorant types that spout this nonsense) there is one small difference on this occasion. And that is that this time YOU WERE WRONG! I mean maybe I should spell it out for you, but how much damn clearer does it have to be? You fucked up big time. You alienated half of the civilized world and for what? For a grateful population that openly embraces your presence and who likes to stick flowers in the barrels of American tanks? Hardly!

No one gave that much of a damn about Iraq up until Bush came into power. We all know he had an agenda to do this long before 9/11. The purpose of which was to establish a Middle Eastern power base, gain influence in OPEC and to secure Israel's Western flank.

No I don't hate America, I but I do hate what America has become. I lived through 25 years of real terror when we feared that the world might come to an end any second through global nuclear war - and even then the levels of paranoia that we encountered were not even close to those we are seeing today. America was a great country then. She stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the world against the threat and went about her business as usual.

We are not dealing with a sophisticated technologically advanced James Bond type terrorist network here, with a Gold Finger type leader as its head, as George W. Bush would have us believe. Effectively what we are dealing with is a bunch of stone age tribal warriors, who, may I remind you hijacked those planes with nothing more sophisticated than some small plastic box cutters. A box cutter is not a weapon of mass destruction, even an airplane is not a weapon of mass destruction, a few backward unsophisticated terrorists are not weapons of mass destruction.

What could have stopped this all along was simply better police work - instead of which we get a typical Conservative Christian overreaction which is to then try to burn down half the world.

Give me an America that can return to its senses, get back on with its life as it did during the 50 years of the cold war, who again stands shoulder to shoulder with the wider family of nations - and yes then and only then will I profess my love for America again.

This paranoid, self interested, self serving bully that we have now is simply far too hard to love.

GJ

zerodamage

This had absolutely nothing to due with Conservatism or Christianity. Don't you know that every one of the Democrats (except a couple) that are now bashing Bush on Iraq a few years ago were for this? You have to understand American politics and how things work. The Democracts were for action against Iraq when Clinton was U.S. President. Now that a Republican is president, everything changes. You also have to keep in mind that this is an election year.

Who is Clark? A former US General who praisded Bush at the end of 2002 and is now claiming he has always been against the war. He is a typical lying Democrat. You claim Bush and Blair lied? How do you figure? Clinton and everyone else had the same information 5 years ago. Long before Bush. You act as though the WMD information was just made up a year ago and seem to forget that this has been an ongoing issue for 10 years. Intelligence has come from many different nations, not just the U.S.

All you need to do is admit that you are just against war. Your anger is directed at the wrong people. You should be angry with the U.N. for being weak and not doing what they are supposed to do. How many mass graves in Iraq?

Yeah, we haven't found any WMD yet (Some have been found with an unknown liquid in them). Are you saying that we didn't all think he had them for years? Long before Bush? Are you saying that Bush just made this up just last year? I can understand the dislike for Bush and his policies. It is the ridiculous idea that he lied and made all of this up that I find funny.

BluntmaN

You have to understand my political standing I am not against Bush only! I am against American foreign policies since 1967. Beside the fact I was born in 1981. Its just that Bush makes an easy target.

I was appauled by the way the US gave Sadam WMDs in 1985-1988 and a few years later tried to take them back when he attacked Kuwait. I hate the way that the Iraqi people had to suffer for what Saddam did with the weapons given to him by the US. I hate the way the US trained Laden in terrorism to fight the Russians and he used it to kill innocent people. I hate the way the Saudis were never held responsible for 9/11 especially when most of these terrorists had Saudi passports. I will never forget how Clinton undermined the EU when he attacked Kosovo while the Europeans were holding talks in order to decide what they should do. I wont forget the way he gave Albanians weapons that were used to attack their neighboors (most of these AK-47s are in the greek black market btw). I hate Bush's bombing of Afganistan one of the poorest countries in the world. I also hate Bush's overwhelming zeal to attack Iraq for possesing WMDs and then changed his song to "liberating" the Iraqi people.

My country is a victim of the US foreign policies and I will not stop fighting these policies till I draw my last breath. Now you see I am not anti republican or anti democrat I am simply against your country's policies no matter who writes them.

zerodamage

That explains it. You are Anti-America and no matter what we do, you will hate us. This is why I rarely debate in these forums. The rage against the U.S. leaves no room for it.

BluntmaN

Wow not anti-american it is not americans I dont like it is the goverment's policies I have nothing against the people I can see your point of view if you see mine zero dont turn this around.

zerodamage

Wait, you have nothing against the people? Are the people not also the voters? Then if what you say above is true, then why did you say this 2 seconds before?

raid517

Well all I can say is it is odd how little interest anyone showed in the subject until Bush was elected in 2000.

If you can't see that this single event - more than 9/11, more than anything else in recent history, has brought about a fundamental change in the way America intends to do business in the world, then you are either blind or extremely delusional.

America used to at least care what it's partners and allies in the world thought. There was a real understanding that if this world is to progress, America cannot simply act alone.

Clearly that is no longer the case. America has signaled her intention to act alone, wherever she feels the need to do so - and apart from perhaps dragging a few reluctant countries along (who undoubtedly only follow in order to preserve their own selfish self interests) if anyone doesn't like it, well the whole world can just go hang.

This was the way things were done in the days of Rome. It is a step back to the dark ages of military might over the rule of international law, treaties and standards.

Dick Cheney has already clearly said on many occasions that he believes the US should not be bound by the same laws and standards as any other country.

If then there are no set of established international laws and standards, then why should anyone else feel the need to adhere to them either?

Things have changed - and as such a lot of people have good reason not to love what America has become.

GJ

zerodamage

America acted alone? I didn't know Russia, France and Germany were the majority of the world.


Now lets all not forget, America acted alone.

Here

Alone at last

Falstaff