No WMDs in Iraq

FWIW, it's official.

In his final word, the CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has "gone as far as feasible" and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

I'm sure there's lots of red faces in wingnutville tonight.

But they can all atone by enlisting in the Army or Marines. It's bad form to let others suffer for your own mistakes.

•  Yeah, Red All Right,

  red with preaching the Wrath of Jay-zus!!

  by Gooserock on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:34:25 PM PDT

  •  Jesus said

    "Love your enemy, do good for them, lend to them and expect nothing in return."

    Luke 6:35

    Banking is a sin.

    by common terry on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:36:11 PM PDT

    •  That ain't what Jayzuz meant.

      I doubt he would object to anyone making an honest living as a banker.  What he meant was, if you lend your buddy (or your sworn enemy who happens to be in a bad way and you feel sorry for him) twenty bucks, you shouldn't be hounding him constantly for your money back, or even expect some form of quid pro quo from him.  You should consider it a gift, given in the spirit of Christian charity.

      I'm sure the Buddha would agree with this sentiment.

      by republicans are idiots on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 06:15:38 AM PDT

      •  Old Testament

        Classical Hebrew idea of interest was it was usury.  You did not lend something that was a store of value and expect more of the value back.

        It was a commodity that did not increase or decrease in value with time.  Simple nomadic society.

        Your brother's need is your need, if you have what is required and can spare it it is good for society.

        He was just reiterating Jewish financial law.

        Modern bankers would be ostaracized.

        by RetLtCol on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 04:27:53 PM PDT

  •  I doubt they're red faced....

    If the small sample of wingnuts I have "discussions" with is any indication, they are all pushing the version that the WMDs were taken out of Iraq, possibly to Syria, before the war.

    If any of you want to have some fun with some very fanatical wingnuts in a "neutral" environment- a moderated Apple computer forum with a "side" politics forum- check out the Apple Outsider forums at appleinsider dot com.

    The latest version is that the Russian special forces smuggled the weapons out to "protect potentially embarrassing secrets" from coming out.

    by xsal on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:42:42 PM PDT

    •  It's been awhile since I've argued

      with wingnuts. I remember spending days pointing out the rather obvious flaws in the whole Trailers of Mass Destruction theory.

      The biggest overriding flaw in all their arguments was their belief in Magical Iraqi Engineers. According to wingnut theories, Iraqi engineers could:

      • Hide weapons factories totally inside fully-functioning innocuous factories. Production could start and stop instantaneously to avoid detection by surprise UN inspections.

      • Eliminate all chemical and radioactive contamination from buildings, storage tanks, and piping.

      • Remove any measurable trace of chemical precurors in the surrounding soil, prevent any release, leakage or spillage into groundwater, and prevent any telltale effluent from escaping into the atmosphere. Also, perfectly hide or destroy all solid waste.

      • Remove from country or perfectly destroy every piece of incriminating evidence, including equipment, manuals, paperwork, photographs, and the memories of everyone associated with the plant's operation or knowledge of its dismantling.

      • Construct, operate and dismantle all of the above under trade sanctions and the constant overflights of the US Air Force.

      In short, the Iraqis had achieved some unimaginable state of Zen engineering-- able to create anything from nothing and turn it back into nothing instaneously. I guess we should count ourselves lucky that they didn't spend their amazing talents on producing portable death rays and forcefields.

      by Olds88 on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:50:44 AM PDT

    •  Same Here

      I've gotten the same argument from my wingnut friends as well.  It must be some talking points memo distributed by the RNC and filtered through fox.

      My response to them is this: If that's the case, then why aren't we invading Syria--today?  The WMDs are no less dangerous in Syrian hands than in Iraqi hands.  Syria has ties to terrorist groups (i.e., Hizballah), and has been shown to be willing to assist those groups.  It's invaded its neighbors; its massacred its citizens, and it has a strategic relationship with Iran.

      I also say to them, if its true that Saddam spirited the WMDs out of the country just prior to the war, then that is even a worse intelligence disaster than saying they were in Iraq in the first place.  I mean, if Saddam was able to do that while (i) we had an army of 250,000 on his borders (ii) while weapons inspectors were on the ground (iii) while we were scouring every inch of Iraq 24/7 with satellites and recon flights, and (iv) while the world was watching--then Pres. Bush needs to be impeached--today!

      by thebrucie on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:37:42 AM PDT

      •  Iraqi War = Racist War

        I think Mandela said this before the war started. It was a racist construct that Saddam (if he had them) would give WMD to terrorists. Why would Saddam be more inclined to give Osama WMD than say Libya or Pakistan or Brazil or North Korea. Osama's money would still be just as green. So the question that should be answered is, given that the Iraqis turned over nearly all their reports in December 2002 showing that they had not done any WMD production since 1991 (which was the truth), given that it was the US (again) who told the inspectors to get out of Iraq after the inspectors could not find WMD (since there weren't any) and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, this was an illegal war both by UN and Congressional standards. The whole lot of them need to be impeached!

        by never forget 2000 on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 02:21:17 PM PDT

        •  I Don't Agree

          While I am opposed to the Iraq War for many and varied reasons--mostly because I think it was an ill-advised war that made the US less, not more, secure, I cannot agree with your thesis that it was a rascist war.

          by thebrucie on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 04:52:23 AM PDT

    •  The myth of

      WMD's being transported to Syria has been debunked.

      http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050426/ts_nm/iraq_wmd_syria_dc_3

      by Philoguy on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 05:07:17 AM PDT

  •  This is all the work of The Almighty...

    ... Jeebus miracled those weapons out of Iraq right before the invasion, so Saddam could not use them on his holy troops.

    Why do you all hate Jeebus so much?

    

    by grytpype on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:35:09 AM PDT

•  Red on their Hands

  but not on their faces. Wingers will have absolutely NO comment other than their pre-approved "Iraqis are better off without Saddam" response. It's programmed, and they lack any feelings of responsibility or remorse beyond this simplistic worldview. Hopefully the news will add the final straw onto the backs of a few wavering moderates, though.

  by RNinNC on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:34:43 PM PDT

  •  There is more

    Didn't they spin off into they moved the WMDs, to the next victim's country, or into; why do you hate America, or was it your un-patriotic to question our  leader. Then something about letting democracy  spread into the ME. I kinda remember them shoving purple fingers up our asses, mission accomplished they chanted. Many more of bush's missions accomplished and our country is doomed.
    Didn't rummy the dummy whisper, we know they have WMDs,  we have the receipts?!?!?  Didn't we even train them to use them ??!!?   How soon we forget.
    This administration needs to be held accountable for their lies, as well as for the rotten fruit; of this un-called for war.          

    by whyBushwhy on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:54:58 PM PDT

    •  Mine was 'Readers Digest' Version. n/t

      by RNinNC on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:22:03 PM PDT

    •  I have 59 million reasons.

      Which one do you want?  Shall we start with the one you stare at in the mirror in the morning?"

      That's what I'm telling the next goober who asks me that idiotic question, "why do you hate America."

      by republicans are idiots on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 06:18:08 AM PDT

  •  Bad form

    It's bad form to let others suffer for your own mistakes.

    Au contraire, my dear Kos.  It is lesson numero uno for admission into the hallowed ranks of Red-ness to let others suffer the slings and arrows of one's outrageous bullshit claims that turn into outright lies.  They will suffer no remorse whatsoever, as the hamsters in their heads exhaust themselves, replenishing that rapidly depleting supply of overweaning pride in their righteousness.

    Freedom for the EYE-RACKEES is a much more worthy thing for our designated schmucks to die for than mere WMD (which was hidden in the desert of an alternate-universe Iraq).  We got Freedom Fried Iraqis now, and they are eternally (since so many of them are fried) grateful.

    by redcloud54 on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:49:23 PM PDT

  •  Hey, there is ONE GUY who is better off...

    this guy.

    Death business booms in Baghdad

    Mon Apr 25,11:16 AM ET

    BAGHDAD (AFP) - Hussein Mohammed never dreamt that roadside bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad would make him a fortune.

    "With every victim that falls to an explosion and suicide attack, the demand for coffins increases and my work flourishes," said the coffin-maker in his tiny shop in the heart of the war-torn capital.

    ...

    "During the days of Saddam (Hussein), I used to make one coffin a day. Now, I make scores of them and the demand increases with every suicide car bomb that explodes," said the 67-year-old Baghdadi.

    See?  It was all worth it.

    by grytpype on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:42:34 AM PDT

    •  It's only a matter of time

      before the big American coffin makers will want a cut of the action.

      by Olds88 on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:25:03 AM PDT

    •  I'm Sure Each Victim

      loves their introduction to American-style capitalism. No doubt they're THRILLED to play such a role in this new democratic society...

      by RNinNC on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:52:46 AM PDT

    •  I'll bet Halliburton is kicking themselves

      for not cornering the market on this.

      by NYC Sophia on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 05:02:31 AM PDT

  •  it goes in circles.

    guy: so, there were no WMDs in iraq then.
    wingnut: they're in syria.
    guy: can you prove that?
    wingnut: doesn't matter, it was never about WMDs in the first place, it was about ties to al-qaeda.
    guy: that's bunk too.
    wingnut: doesn't matter, iraqis are better off without hussein around.
    guy: doesn't look like it to me.
    wingnut: either way, iraq was violating UN resolutions.
    guy: i thought you conservatives always say that the UN is worthless.
    wingnut: but we have to enforce resolutions, if the UN won't.
    guy: so when do we invade Tel Aviv?
    wingnut: it doesn't matter, saddam had tons of WMDs he wanted to use on us.
    (guy's head explodes)
    wingnut: well, my work here is done.

    by chopper on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 05:00:26 AM PDT

•  I'm shocked I tell you.

  Like we didn't know it all along.

  Bring on the repercussions!

  by Spaz Cadet on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:34:54 PM PDT

•  Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

  by Feanor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:35:27 PM PDT

•  Not their week....

  It never rains but it pours.

  by oldpro on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:36:23 PM PDT

•  But....but....Iraq is the size of California!!!

  by Mike from NJ on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:37:21 PM PDT

•  Red Faces...

  ...Nah.

  That WMD thing was so March of 2003.  

  In their eyes, and unfortunately the eyes of many, by June, it didn't matter anymore.  And June is generous, for many it didn't matter even in February.

  Tim

  by ttagaris on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:37:27 PM PDT

•  There is only going to be a billion more reports

  I thought the last report on this matter was done last year.

  And, of course the UN wants to go back in to re-look at some of Saddam's sites.

  And, the joke is that none of these reports are going to change anyones mind.

  by ECH on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:39:46 PM PDT

•  A picture is worth a thousand words

  
  
  
  

  Send to all your wingnut friends.

  by ifkeditor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:40:01 PM PDT

  •  Is that

    Is that Harvard Business School in the background?

    by redcloud54 on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:52:09 PM PDT

    •  Nope. St. Andrews Old Course

      It's the Old Course in St. Andrews (Scotland).

      "Those who fight might lose, those who don't fight have already lost." - Berthold Brecht

      by RavenTS on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 12:27:03 AM PDT

      •  Thought maybe

        You had put Dubya in front of his old stomping grounds, which would explain the shit-eating grin.

        Nice Photoshopping, by the way.  Do you do that professionally?

        by redcloud54 on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 02:37:55 AM PDT

        •  Sorry

          That was meant for the artist.

          by redcloud54 on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 02:39:39 AM PDT

•  When will Sadaam Come Clean?

  We know they are there. We are not going to rely on the word of a madman.

  Wait, we did.

  by muledriver on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:40:22 PM PDT

•  How many times must.....

  Scott Ritter be proven right, before folks wake up and accept Bush lied and our sons and daughters are dying for those lies and the profits of greedy men?

  Ritter has been the most correct in assessing Iraq'a weapons capabilitys since before day 1 of Bush's illegal war.

  No WMD wingnuts, none!

  by boilerman10 on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:42:28 PM PDT

  •  How many times must.....

    Scott Ritter be proven right, before folks wake up and accept Bush lied?

    Well, in Wingerville, only 100 or 200 more times. Then they'll admit that there aren't any weapons there now, but they must have all been smuggled out vefore the invasion.

    by mpayson on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:58:50 PM PDT

    •  ritter is for real

      do any democrats get advice from ritter?

      by common terry on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:40:34 PM PDT

  •  Ritter warns us

    Of an invasion on Iran, in June. The drum beat of war has begun(actually never ended).
    What will there be reasoning be, since most of the good excuses were used up for the Iraq war. Actually they have not come up with an excuse, that holds water. Needless to say they will have to come up with a doozy, since an invasion of Iran, will lead to a draft. I wonder if China will lend us the money to level Iran ??  Doubtful, seems like the great uniter(bush) forgot to mention the mere detail, that he was going to unite the World against America. AS bad as it is, why does it seem to have potential of getting worse. Impeachment may not be good enough; for the treasonuous ways of this Administration.

    by whyBushwhy on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:05:10 PM PDT

    •  Ritter warns but it is more a suggestion than...

      fact at this point.

      If Iran Attack is coming, the preparations have been very poor.

      If Israel attacks, Iran will hold Israel as America's proxy and launch assymetrical warfare against the United States in retaliation.

      Neither option is wise, nor viable even for the US, as we are bogged down in Iraq, and losing the grip outside of our bases in Afghanistan.  I think guerrilla war against the Shia in Iraq PLUS the Iranians would rout us from Central Asia, and I don't think the neos are quite so stupid as to lose Iraq but I could be wrong.  That loony Bolton is more or less in charge of Iran, and I put noting past that wierdo.

      I think Ritter is on to something, and I hope his shouting has made the administration reconsider attacking Iran.

      by boilerman10 on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:17:37 PM PDT

    •  They won't bother

      ...with excuses this time.  

      When one is this cocky, it doesn't doesn't cross the mind to provide explanations.  That's for pussyfied surrender monkeys.  

      They know they are right to invade Iran, because:

      a)  Islam is deficient, as the Pope said

      b)  Jesus told Dubya to "Get it on, boy!"

      c)  That oil is ours, dammit!

      d)  THAT OIL IS OURS, DAMMIT!

      by redcloud54 on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 12:00:43 AM PDT

  •  Wingnut logic:

    Being right isn't about being truthful, it is about being righteous.

    by dss on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:58:55 AM PDT

•  Support the Troops...

  ...impeach Bush!

  by dave on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:42:45 PM PDT

  •  Impeach Bush?

    Do you know who that would put in power (assuming Cheney isn't already in power). Maybe you should watch what you wish for.

    by Appstate on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:54:31 PM PDT

    •  Impeach the bush administration ??

      Might as well impeach a great deal of the Senate as well. Figure out a way to put in BoBo the clown, or Robin Williams into the Oval Office. Whoever inherits this mess, will need a huge sense of humour. Maybe Bruce Springstein as VP, someone who understands real American values.

      by whyBushwhy on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:13:38 PM PDT

      •  Gimme 50 Pink Slips

        and I'd be more than willing to do the dirty work of doling them out to the appropriate offenders! And no droll comments about me in a pink slip - you will go blind if you even ponder that...

        by RNinNC on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:28:24 PM PDT

        •  DEMAND REPUBLICANS QUIT

          after all the war mongers quit government,
          the newly elected speaker of the house will be president.

          i support barbara lee, tho i think cynthia mckinney will give her a good run.

          in 2006 i hope many of you join the greens in our new 2 party system. the democrats have failed earth.

          by common terry on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:45:39 PM PDT

          •  I Desperately Hope

            that by 2006 we've cobbled together a left-wing coalition with you Greens. I have nothing against the party, I just don't want areas where our votes cancel each other out and leave the Repub standing. I doubt that the Dems are gonna be dead by 2006, anyway, so maybe there needs to be a polite forum on finding common ground for both Dems and Greens to stand up on together.

            by RNinNC on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:56:01 PM PDT

            •  As well as

              Independent/Non-partisans like myself...

              Plenty of room in the tent for everyone.  If only we have an opposition candidate next time (please)...

              by quartzite on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:59:46 AM PDT

•  The wingnutes don't care...

  This quote comes from a Ron Susskind article in the New York Times (Oct '04) and an earlier one in Esquire Magazine, and you quoted it on DailyKos at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/16/73538/264
  "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

  It doesn't matter if nukes or chemical or biological weapons are never found in Iraq.  They accomplished what they wanted by lying to the world and doing what they wanted.  They created their own reality.  And the guy is not kidding:  they will continue to do it.  

  And they're getting somewhat more desperate, what with the shakey dollar and peak oil and all.

  It doesn't matter how stupid you think they are.  Get over it.  What matters is that they have the power to do what they want to until we find some way to take that power away from them and lock them up.  

  If sneering at their stupidity is the only power we have, we're in a pretty bad way, because the Republicans have all the guns AND they're a nuclear power, and they brainwash their eighteen-year-old recruits quite effectively.

  by Jim Hill on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:56:45 PM PDT

  •  That's exactly right...

    The neo-cons will use any means at their disposal to get what they want.  Because they believe that they truly are in the right, they have no qualms about lying to the world.  'Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.'

    Anybody who isn't already on the extreme right is over here with us, I think...  because how can you believe a statement like 'Anybody who hates America hates freedom?'  Or saying that the war in Iraq was about freeing the citizens from Saddam's tyranny...  

    For that matter, how many different versions of the invasion exist now?  Last time I heard, our invasion of Iraq was so we could remove the U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia and put them in Iraq instead, which would reduce Saudi intolerance of the United States presence.  Talk about a tangled web!

    by Jensequitur on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:02:15 PM PDT

  •  Wingnuts DO Care

    Why else are they 'freeping' the ratings down at Yahoo!?

    by EastFallowfield on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:00:58 AM PDT

  •  Not all the guns...

    seriously, you have 2nd ammendment rights as well.  I'd highly advise you use them.  I do, and I believe that one should have the freedom to use guns with responsibility.

    Also, I've had acrimonius arguments for the last couple of years regarding this "anti-American" canard whingers so love to pull.  I've been taking the word librul back from them.  Our founding fathers were liberals and atheists, that's fact #1.  One nation under Paine, etc...

    By banning gay marriage and abortions, they are actually anti-freedom and anti-American.  This must be emphasized over and over.  They are the ones going "nuclear" and creating a nanny-state, not us.

    Say it with me, they are anti-freedom.  

    Of course, you have to concede on the gun issue and be a bit of a libertarian to frame this correctly.

    by quartzite on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:45:48 AM PDT

    •  Fine, 90% of the guns, then.

      But I agree with you.  We do have 2nd amendment rights, and I happen to be someone who owns an old rifle somewhere in a storage locker that I haven't fired since I bought it in 1978, when I used it to execute a six-pack of Coors beer.

      Moreover, I agree that the current crop of 'publicans are anti-freedom.  But you have to allow that the two sides in this debate (Us and Them, as aptly described in the Pink Floyd song of the same name) have utterly different definitions of "freedom".  I think we know, broadly speaking, what the left considers freedom, although Kos could probably start a whole blog site on it.

      For the current Republican crop, I think "freedom" means: no taxes; absolute rights to use your property in any way you see fit without regard to harm caused to your neighbors; no regulations or restrictions on corporate freedom; and freedom for religious zealots to impose their beliefs on others, freedom for the majority - as long as it's them - to run roughshod over the minority (assuming they're actually a majority, which is not an established fact).  They do seem to be creating a nanny state for the rich and corporate.

      I'm still not sure where the notion comes from that liberals want to take away all guns.  They do want to subject them to some regulation, much like that applied to automobiles, and to restrict the use and carrying of handguns (which is where the real fight is).  Then, too, it escapes me why I need a machine-gun to kill a deer.

      by Jim Hill on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:28:28 PM PDT

      •  the trouble is

        almost everyone has an old gun or two hanging around their house ( mine is an 1880? 10-ga single shot Damascus twist barrel shotgun left to me by my Dad)  HOWEVER, do we all have enough ammo?  What fits my 10-ga (black powder shells only) won't fit your 30-06 deer rifle.  SO STOCK UP!

        by libbys mom on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 07:09:05 PM PDT

•  Freepers have NOTHING to say...

  What a shock...

  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse

  Or Instapundit, Powerlineblog, or ANYONE ELSE...

  Blood is on their hands...

  by JKU on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:07:47 PM PDT

  •  That is the same crap

    that you say on this side of the isle. Heavy on rhetoric and accusations and oh-so-clever name calling, but with few real ideas to back any of it up with.

    by Joe Phillips on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 05:23:58 AM PDT

•  1,573 soldiers killed

  .......but ZERO WMD's found

  by RumsfeldResign on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:14:32 PM PDT

•  Well

  Did anyone check the 24 hour storage lots in Baghdad?

  by BrianL on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:16:15 PM PDT

•  don't be so sure.

  like they give a shit if there were WMD's or not.  

  by MetaProphet on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:21:10 PM PDT

•  To the Right, now they know

  Thought experiment: forget for the moment everything you know about the Bush administration and the prosecution of the war. Forget the neo-con global crusade and Iranian manipulation of intelligence.  Forget that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the invasion plan was clearly in the works before 9/11.

  If you knew Saddam Hussein had an underground complex built by German contractors in the 1980s totalling hundreds of thousand of square feet of space not visible to satellites or other surveillance technology that he refused to allow UN inspectors to examine because he claimed they were "presidential palaces," would you have been comfortable, in the post 9/11 climate of Islamic insurgency, for the U.S. and the U.N to just let the issue stand?  Particularly when French, German and Russian opposition to the invasion was based on economic interests rather than any diplomatic or moral high ground?

  It's easy to say in retrospect that the Bush team was mistaken about the existence of WMDs and they obviously did mislead the world about the quality of the intelligence they had, but what's really clear is that they just didn't know.  Frightened, overwhelmed "wingers" sleep better knowing there are no Iraqi WMDs, no matter how costly that information turned out to be or how it was originally sold.  You really shouldn't be surprised at their lack of contrition.

  What you should be holding them accountable for is their lack of outrage at how badly their side has managed everything else that followed in violation of all their party's principles and values.

  by baggy on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:38:58 PM PDT

  •  I'd say...

    Particularly when French, German and Russian opposition to the invasion was based on economic interests rather than any diplomatic or moral high ground?

    ...that would be a lie.  Russian objection was more geopolitical (Iraq is almost their back yard) and French and Germans didn't particularly have more economic ties than did the US.  Moreover, French and German trade with the US, which could theoretically be at risk due to their opposition, vastly outweighed what business they'd be doing in Iraq with no sanctions and zero interference.

    by Northwatch on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:59:38 PM PDT

    •  No argument re: relative economic interests

      but we still see how that worked out.  France, Germany and Russia not only kissed all their Iraqi accounts goodbye, they were cut out of all the sweet reconstruction deals.

      by baggy on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:31:55 AM PDT

  •  It's easy in retrospect?

    Is this your first day here? This is a pretty tired argument by the wingers. I apologize if you honestly don't know, but I hear this question from wingnuts and wingnuts only. There has been extensive articles that information was "messaged" in some cases and outright made up in others by this admin to justify a war against Iraq to the people of America. This admin even admitted as much when they say "it was the most viable reason to do what needed to be done." They knew it was false, they fudged the report, then handed it to congress and the American people. And don't forget, as soon as 9/11 happened, Rumsfeld pulled (?) into a room and said, "make this Iraq's fault."

    Dude, they relied on a guy they nicknamed "curveball" for information about the alleged weapons stockpile. In fact, the IEA had said sanctions were working, and Saddam's nuclear program was in worse shape in 2001 than 10 years ago.

    Stop depending on fox for your news.

    by NeoconSemanticist on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 01:00:30 AM PDT

    •  You did read my first graf, right?

      No matter what lies were used to go to war, the fact remains that there was an underground bunker complex that NO ONE had inspected until the U.S. invaded.

      And we also know sanctions (e.g., oil-for-food) were working brilliantly.  And not having a viable nuclear program equates with not having biological and/or chemical weapons that could be used, oh say, in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia during a period when the U.S. is busily engaged with Hussein's rivals?

      Was it the only reason the U.S. had to depose Hussein? No. Was it the one used to mobilize public support? Yes.  

      Dude, don't let DKos stop you from thinking about more than one thing at a time.
       

      by baggy on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 05:05:05 AM PDT

  •  Forget some facts?

    Yeah, everything looks more reasonable in the light of a few forgotten facts...

    More so if you obsess over one carefully chosen fact...

    What if you forget [there was no immediate threat from Iraq] and what if you obsess over [a putative unknown].

    Well, I'd say, if you do that you're a wingnut!

    Congrats!

    by Thinker on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 05:05:56 AM PDT

  •  I get your thought experiment

    but it fails on several levels.

    1.  Saddam was 100% contained.  He had no ability to project power or WMDs.  Even if he did have them they were not a threat.

    2. If he was really such a huge threat why is it that NONE of his neighboring states sent ONE TROOP against him when we invaded!?  

    3. Iraq had no ties to Al Qaida.  

    4. Iraq is / was a distraction from our real target, Al Qaida.  130,000 troops (2/3 of our standing army) is tied down in Iraq. What if UBL strikes again?  How do we go after him?  With what?  Spitballs? /snark

    Think about #2 for just a minute.  Kuwait sent no troops.  Turkey?  Turkey wouldn't even give us over-flight rights.  Jordan, Syria, Iran?  No, no and no.  

    So if this guy was such a huge threat to the region why did the region not cooperate with us?  
    

    by RAST on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 06:57:49 AM PDT

  •  Whoa...

    It's easy to say in retrospect that the Bush team was mistaken about the existence of WMDs and they obviously did mislead the world about the quality of the intelligence they had, but what's really clear is that they just didn't know.  Frightened, overwhelmed "wingers" sleep better knowing there are no Iraqi WMDs, no matter how costly that information turned out to be or how it was originally sold.  You really shouldn't be surprised at their lack of contrition.

    I think you'll find that the majority of people here didn't just begin thinking the Bush administration was wrong in retrospect. To the contrary, most of us beleived they were wrong from the start. While you have a point about the existence of WMD's, they didn't begin to constitute the threat the Bush administration made them out to be. When there are enemy nations with a higher capability for destruction, it doesn't make sense to pick one  low on the totem pole.

    Furthermore, they did know enough about Iraq's weapons munitions to know they didn't pose a serious threat. They purposely trumped up Iraq as a threat by talking about possible mushroom clouds, while knowing that such talk was nonsense. Why did they do it? Because they knew it was the only way to get the people to go along with the invasion.

    I'd like to believe they were just stupid, but when plans were drawn up for the war 7 years prior to the invasion, I find it difficult to believe it was just a simple mistake. And if "wingers" were frightened and overwhelmed, then they should blame the leaders they elected for misleading them and blame themselves for electing their leaders. I don't feel sorry for "wingers" who are frightened when they've caused tens of thousands of innocent people to die because of their stupidity and fear.

    by rogun on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 12:28:53 PM PDT

•  Was it worth it?

  Faces red, nah.  WMD was the old justification for war anyway.  I say this more depressed than sarcastic.  Hard to joke about something that by many estimates has cost the lives of over 100,000 Iraqis, and so many young US men and women.  They are not coming back, we had no reason for sending them there, oil prices are still higher than ever, Bin Laden is a free man, and Iraq is getting closer to civil war than a democratic government.

  Great now I'm pissed off before bed time.  There is nothing more I can say about Bushs actions than criminal and irresponsible.  What a damn waste of life and human effort.  But hey, what the hell, if God was for this @$#&ing mess, who am I to judge?

  I think Marx predicted this a long time ago:
  "The pursuit of profit is a boundless thirst that takes no account of the health and length of life of the worker, unless forced to do so."  "The pusuit of profit chases the bourgeoisie over the surface of the globe." -- not bad for over 150 years ago.

  Sorry to go all commie on you...Warology, Bushebra, Chenomistry, Rovematics, and Oilnomics  bring out the worst in me.

  by Closet VB Coder on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:48:44 PM PDT

•  But... But...

  Saddam himself was the WMD, so that means, they WERE there, and now we have the WMD in prison. WTF are you talking about kos?

  And yes... yes... when Condi and Wolfi were talking about "mushroom clouds" they were really meaning to say that Saddam himself will fly to NY Superman style and spontaniously combust and take half of USA with him. Afterall, his body does contain hydrogen, the essential ingredient of the hyydrogen bomb. Don't you let the liberal media tell you any different.

  And as far as the Al-Qaeda cooperation connection, President Bush has declared war on both Saddam and Osama. What other evidence do you need?

  by Florida Democrat on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 01:05:15 AM PDT

•  Bush administration on WMD

  What did the Bush administration say on WMD?

  See http://dearkitty.modblog.com/core.mod?show=blogview&blog_id=438390

  by dearkitty on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 01:24:43 AM PDT

•  Nothing they say

  is based on reality so this conclusion will not affect the wingnuts and their lying ways one bit, they will just smirk because of another untruth that got them what they want at the expense of everyone else, and the nation they claim to love, LOL!
  PEACE!

  by PC on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 02:37:14 AM PDT

•  Will the gullible

  American voters make the GOP and GWB pay for this inexcusible lie to get the US into the Iraq conflict, not likely, they only make the DEMS pay for mistakes even made up mistakes, go figure, I can't.
  PEACE!

  by PC on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:13:39 AM PDT

•  Get ready

  But, but, but... resolution #1441...
  But Saddam gassed his own people!!
  but, but Uday was a madman!!

  Expect to hear all of these bullshit excuses again in the next few days...

  My recommended response? Fuck you, liar.

  by Burton Halli on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:34:47 AM PDT

  •  "Fuck you, and get your ass over to Iraq.

    Pronto.  Because Iraqification ain't working out, and we'll need a few hundred thousand patriotic wingnut civilian-killers to get that damn country under control.

    by grytpype on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:46:36 AM PDT

    •  Sure

      Right away, sir. I'll be the one in line behind Jenna and Barbara...

      by Burton Halli on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:49:46 AM PDT

      •  Just adding to your response...

        ... that was clear I hope

        by grytpype on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:52:46 AM PDT

        •  Yep

          I had to think about it for a second, though ;)

          by Burton Halli on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:59:53 AM PDT

•  Dancing aboard the Titanic

  The rightness of our cause should not blind us to our true situation.

  Let me postulate that we're all aboard the Titanic. The wingnuts all scream there's no icebergs and even if there were, the ship is unsinkable anyway.

  We, OTOH, know full well there ARE icebergs.

  Should we then be joyful when the ship hits the iceberg (as we predicted all along) and we start sinking? Certainly, watching the wingnuts sink is cause for joy, less we forget that we, too, are sinking...

  America has perpetated monstrous evil; its government is one of the most meretricious and likely the most dangerous on the face of the Earth.  It will be taken down.  Not by sheer power, a confontation anyone else would lose, but by stealth, guerilla, economic retaliation and diplomacy.

  Like the evil Old Soviet Empire, America is going to collapse. If you believe this country will still stand as it does today in ten years, you are dreaming.  For the entire world, America has become the Enemy, and it will fall because ultimately, it cannot stand.

  It mattered little who succeeded Brezhnev because the country was rotten throughout and it matters little who will succeed Bush in 2008. The die is cast.

  The wingnuts' America will collapse and they will scream and likely die with it. Sadly many good, decent Americans will also die -- as did many decent Germans, Japanese and Iraqis -- and pay the price of their leaders' meretriciousness.

  by Lupin on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:59:18 AM PDT

  •  I can only speak for myself

    But watching BushCo fall apart doesn't make me want to "celebrate". It does give me pleasure to watch this administration's hubris get the better of them and cause their downfall, but I am only happy because this is one step towards being rid of these criminals, as opposed to the alternative of letting them operate without a challenge for the next 4 years...

    by Burton Halli on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:05:49 AM PDT

    •  I totally agree

      ...to the point that I now worry almost exclusively about the consequences of what they have already sowed.

      by Lupin on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:08:42 AM PDT

      •  And with good reason

        It will take years to unravel the syndicate this group has put together. We won't know the whole story for quite some time...

        by Burton Halli on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:20:00 AM PDT

  •  Titanic wingnuts to America:

    "Nothing to worry about, folks, we're just stopping for ice."

    by Don Quixote on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:45:00 AM PDT

•  List

  Is ther a list of wingnuts anywhere who promised that there would be WsMD?

  Also, anyone else find it pathetic that the article saying that there are NO WsMD is a soldier in front of a bunch of (albeit conventional) weapons?

  WTF?  Mixed signals to the masses much?

  by MRL on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:39:43 AM PDT

  •  I am certain that a long list could be compiled

    but what you will not find is one single one of these bastards who will be held accountable for their actions.  Not one.

    by Wayward Wind on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 05:17:41 AM PDT

•  The WMDs

  are being stored in Bush's head.

  There's plenty of space...with room to spare.

  by Liberal AND Proud on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:43:31 AM PDT

•  The Operation Iraqi Freedom Monument:

  A sixty-five foot tall statue of Emily Litella, inscribed:

  "Never mind...."

  by Otis Noman on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 05:09:41 AM PDT

•  The final report

  supposedly mentions that there is no evidence that WMDs were moved to Syria or any other nation.  Even that pittard has been laid to rest.

  The WMDs was a selling point to scare the people. And everyone coward at this lie.  The evidence that "everyone" saw, knew, believed... from the intelligence agencies of every country was essentially a bunch of BS guesses, hopes and so on to make the whole spy thing justify itself.  We need enemies so we can have a big military and spy operation... We create, coddle them, and even supply them with weapons...  Then we cite them as reasons to wage war...

  The real reason has always been "empire" and control of oil... and access to world markets for exploitation of cheap labor as well as a place to addict people to our useless crap.

  The motive of power is more power and wealth END OF STORY. They will do WHATEVER it takes, including lying down with whacko fundies for their support.  The power greedy ones don't give a hoot about god or religion... they worship power and wealth.  They USE religion when it suits their purposes.  They use WMD lies when it suits their purposes.  They use torture to intimate innocents to keep silent and meek... They are not interested in finding information.  Torture is a control mechanism for the untortured... or available to be tortured... and ANYONE can be.

  The press is intimadated and killed to keep them silenced... that is the ones who continue to live.

  The US tax payers have forked over hundreds of billions of dollars to the military industrial complex for these wars... and now they will ask for more to replace what they used up.

  They don't care about soldiers... or innocents... To them they are like wooden chess pieces to toss aside.  There is nothing which they will not do to achieve their objects... lie, steal, cheat, torture and of course kill.

  This is who we are and why we are hated around the world.  This is so transparent despite the suck up media.  Americans are content to drive their SUVs, watch their inane sports teams, waste money on muscle cars and pick up trucks... fawn over pop music and pop idols, waste their time viewing inane movies, buy $100 sneakers and $300 jeans and other insipid "fashions"... gadgets, toys, cell phone conversations about nothing, stuff their face with nutritionless  food... and drink and drug themselves stupid to forget what assholes they are.

  We are a few enlightened people amongst a sea of assholes of every type. We are drowning in their excrement.

  by defjef on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 05:28:20 AM PDT

•  Pre-Emptive Reasoning

  Why did we go to Iraq?  Oh... thats right WMD's and the threat of a mushroom cloud in America.

  Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

  The above-mentioned is Pres. Bush at the UN in October of 2002 trying to gain approval from the General Assembly and the Sercurity Council.  The act in itself failed and our government misled us and the international order.  This was "bad" diplomacy and I use the word bad mildly.  There was never any immediate threat or gathering threat from Iraq.  This was a diversion from the War on Terror. Sure... Saddam was a horrible person and his capture has made Iraq safer however the path we took as a country in invading Iraq was misguided and wrong.  This has cost us in terms of reputation, let alone the domestic costs our nation has incurred here at home, across the board internationally.  Lets hope that American people will catch wind of these unfortunate findings for the Bush Administration.

  by J Spitfly on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 06:49:18 AM PDT

•  How many reports..

  ..have reached the same conclusion?

  Honestly, I don't remember now.

  Iraq Survey Group
  Presidential Report

  Am I missing any?

  by RAST on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 07:02:50 AM PDT

•  Don't worry about the trucks to Syria thing...

  I spent several months looking for WMDs and based on some of the imagery I've seen, there's absolutely no way that masses of any-damn-thing could have crossed the Syrian border without us seeing them.

  From the Wikipedia entry on the Iraq Survey Group: "Throughout the life of ISG and SCP-B, only there were only two occasions where chemical weapons were found. The first was a sarin mortar shell which had been reworked into a roadside bomb by unknowing insurgents. The second was a handful of 122mm rocket warheads filled with inert mustard gas that was recovered near Babylon. Both were thought to be remainders from the Iran-Iraq War and were useless as offensive weapons. Both were later destroyed by ISG personnel."

  by NetSerfer on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 07:03:23 AM PDT

•  <b>An Alternate Explanation</b>

  The WMD debate has focused primarily the search and intelligence failures but I think a larger and more important aspect of the story is being missed.  

  The CIA's report   (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/) focuses on Saddam Hussein's desire to produce chemical and biological weapons, on dual use capabilities, and the expertise in country. It also notes that in 1991 and 1992 it destroyed its stockpiles of chemical and biological agents. The report does not state that after 1991, despite its desire and capability, that Iraq produced C/B weapons.

  The conclusions we are supposed to draw from this are, the 1991 Gulf War degraded Iraq's capability to produce C/B weapons and that Saddam Hussein's desire to have sanctions lifted were the motivation for destroying his stockpiles and not producing C/B weapons. All US actions reasonable and justified.

  An alternative explanation is that Iraq never had a viable C/B Weapons program without US support. This explanation is never addressed and ruled out and it is consistent with the facts presented. This explanation also does not require many of the more awkward bit of reasoning in the WMD report like, "ISG has uncovered hardware at a few military depots, which suggests that Iraq may have prototyped experimental CW rounds. The available evidence is insufficient to determine the nature of the effort or the timeframe of activities." If you do not have enough evidence to determine the nature of the effort, what leads you to the conclusion that it is a prototype CW round?

  The fact that you did not find something is not positive proof that it is well hidden, it could also not be there.
  

  by beerm on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:32:12 AM PDT

•  Cognitive Dissonance

  These facts will not budge the entrenched support for invading Iraq.  The wingnuts have already rationalized that invading was good even though the reasons given proved to be false.

  I've tried to resolve the fact that no matter how much hard evidence one throws at the Bush supporters, they still can't budge. I believe I came up with the answer.

  Even with the mountain of evidence that Iraq was not the threat Mr. Bush ballyhooed and no WMD existed, the pro-Bush folks stick to their original views on the war. I've accepted that no matter how much evidence is eventually presented negating Mr. Bush's claims, core supporters will unbendingly maintain that invading Iraq was not only justified but necessary.

  How can this be? The answer rests with understanding the Bush supporter mind. It is a mind heavily invested in believing in President Bush; a mind that filters evidence challenging their faith in him. The psychological term is cognitive dissonance. Cognitive Dissonance is a mental escape mechanism. When two conflicting beliefs exist, or a firm belief conflicts with known facts, the mind must reconcile the conflict. To resolve the mental tension, a person can either modify their belief or if the belief is held firmly, the person will discount the facts to make it consistent with the belief.

  As an example, if I believe that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and I smoke cigarettes, then dissonance should occur. I am then motivated to reduce the dissonance by either stopping smoking or by changing my attitude about the smoking-cancer link ("The research is bad" "The super-light, low tar cigarettes I smoke couldn't possibly cause cancer," etc.). (Source: http://www.uwm.edu/People/hynan/205/205PRESS.html)

  With respect to Bush supporters, dissonance was created when their firm faith that President Bush was honest about his Iraq policies crashed into the brick wall of absolute evidence that there was no imminent danger to justify the war. Instead of losing faith in Mr. Bush, the Bush supporter resolves the conflict by either dismissing the contrary evidence or they shifted blame. "Bad intelligence" fits into that second category. "Mr. Bush can't be at fault because the intelligence was bad;" "We've freed the Iraqi people."  It's very neat and clean how the mind provents facts from interfering with the bedrock of our deepest beliefs.
  

  by jpeskoff on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:52:22 AM PDT

•  Devil's advocate

  Why didn't Bush, et al, "plant" WMDs in Iraq immediately prior to the war? Or in it's immediate aftermath?
  "See! We found them in this mountain!" or something of that ilk?
  Really. I'm serious. I have pro-war friends who bring this up, and I read Komments by people who attribute eclipses to Halliburton. Why couldn't/wouldn't they plant evidence?
  They've lost global credibility where they could've gained immeasurably by lying.
  Has this been covered elsewhere? I'm new at Kos.

  by Respect Dissent on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:58:56 PM PDT

•  My point

  was that to buy the thesis that Saddam might give WMD to terrorists was to ignore that other countries with far more capacity and development could do the same. The subtext was that Saddam would give WMD to his "fellow Arabs".

  by never forget 2000 on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:41:54 AM PDT