This post is section 2 of a prior post of mine which was closed........ http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry228304

Because this entire post here was actually a part of the post in the link above, you will occasionally see references to other parts of the original post not listed below. Just ignore this, I did modify this section somewhat before posting it on its own here. The original post was closed for being too broad, so im breaking down the most important sections into post of their own. This particular section was probably one of the longest in the original post, I know many people do not like scrolling post, but in any case feel free to debate this topic even if its not entirely read. I have presented some interesting sources and info however including video, audio, and text links, to try and make this a well substantiated WMD/Saddam post. Hopefully I can pick up on some more things I didn't know through debate.

=========================================================================== Start


This is an interesting topic I have commented on before here and its important to know why he was a threat, and whether or not he had WMD near the
time we went in to find them. There is no doubt he had these weapons early on, they were used after all, but before I get into that, I'm going to list some
interesting statements from a few key people who today don't support this war for various reasons. This is to show how much of a concern this was even to those whom today are determined to suggest this whole war in Iraq was a mistake, now the fact that we never found WMD is irrelevant, below you will hear things like.....



Thankfully he never was left unchecked because this man was not to be taken lightly and everyone knew it, this was more about the arrogance of Saddam and his regime, and the probability that if left alone he would repeat the arrogance he had already proved capable of. There would have be no sense in ignoring him given his track record which I'll explain soon.

here are some quotes from a few people who are now skeptics of the importance of the war in Iraq ........








So to give you as little spin as possible here, Saddam being a valid threat was the lefts opinion almost as much as the conservatives at the start of the war. So we found no WMD, and there was some incorrect intelligence, however despite this not many were willing to take chances with a man who had thousands upon thousands of deaths to his name already. In 2003 pretty much everyone got it, if you give a man like this an inch he will take a yard. It was only when supporting this war meant you take a hit in the polls that support wavered. Furthermore and most importantly everyone at the start of this war more than understood exactly what we were going in there to do, unlike some claim, and that it involved more than WOMD, as well as long term commitment as this link that I presented earlier proves again.... (Text Link) http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR303A.html

Before I get into WMD specifically Id like to talk about Saddam, who he was, and why he and his regime were a threat regardless of what we found or didn't find, regarding WMD. Many of the arguing points I hear from those both against this war and Dessert Storm is that, why do we care what happens today when we were firm allies with Saddam before, or why do we worry about him having WMD, didn't we give him these WMD?

I've yet to see anything that is proof that the United States gave Saddam Hussein the weapons we went in to find, or that we were the ones most responsible
for him obtaining these weapons. The most I can find is evidence that we gave him funding and supplies which were later misused, as well as used for
purposes in which they were not intended, the following is from.... (Text Link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...ass_destruction





Citation for this is here.... (Text Link) http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationwor...ome%2Dheadlines




Naive? Perhaps so but Beyond this, elaborations have been made by some anti war enthusiast that range from, we are responsible for his WMD program, to something else I've heard and thats we flat out gave him the weapons. Now I'm no expert but I'd just love to see some proof for this, I doubt its there but I will look at anything posted to determine for myself, however my research got me no closer than I already was to believing that. Are we partially responsible? Yes we are, but to elaborate on this we were far from being Saddam's sole contributor here, others that funded Saddam's military before 1990 include, Germany, The United Kingdom, Russia, France, Italy, Brazil, Austria, Singapore, Spain, China, Niger, Portugal, and even Egypt among others.

This can be further read about at the WIKI link I just provided, so the truth is Saddam betrayed and lied to a number of nations about his intentions. I have strong doubts we were even Saddam's primary external source for aid at the time, Ive heard the Soviets were but like I said I'm open to links and open discussion on any of these topics. However the one most responsible for Saddam's WMD ambitions was Saddam and that much can't be argued.

My question is when someone continues to prove their arrogance and evil nature, is this not reason to turn on them? I think so. In fact it seems to me
Ironic that primarily the ones making the argument that we were responsible for aiding Saddam in the 80's, are also the ones in many cases who were against our efforts against Saddam in the first place. I hear it all the time, anti Iraq war Americans continuously pointing out that we were allies with the Saddam regime in the 80's but why point to our hypocrisy here on this? Would have continuing to support Saddam Hussein really been all that much better than a late decision to turn against him? Better late than never if you ask me.

For those who are unfamiliar with Saddam's crimes as a man and as a leader the WIKI link I provided talks about this a great deal but I'll post some more
after explaining these figures here. To put it shortly this man was not bad "which would sooner describe your dog urinating on your carpet" than it
would a mass murderer, I believe he was evil and there is really no other word I can think of that describes Saddam Hussein more accurately.

These are the words of Saddam's own former military adviser, who knew Saddam very well, general Georges Sada......
(Video Link) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBwzQYAGbqs


This is at the end of this video conversation between General Georges Sada and Sean Hannity.....





Other things you will learn about Saddam from that video clip, is that he aparently had WMD up to just prior to our invasion of Iraq in 2003, so here you
have a highly decorated war veteran who was the 2nd ranked pilot in the Iraq air force, as well as one of Saddam's top military advisor's, saying Saddam had WMD up to just prior to our invasion in 2003. That Id say is pretty convincing, so the question is how did he know this and is there any other evidence beyond General Sada that might suggest the same thing?

The answer to that shockingly enough is YES, even the CIA speaks of the possibility of WMD being shipped to Syria just prior to the war in Iraq, being a possible reason we didn't find these weapons.

Furthermore the idea that we found no WMD, when we went in to find them, meaning that he didn't have them, or that he didn't have the interest
in them is a distortion of the facts. All we do know for sure is that we dint find them in 2003, and we had intelligence at the time that suggested it would be unlikely we would find them, however beyond that there is no claim that he wasn't a great concern for his interest in developing WMD.

For one we cant account for these weapons, we know they existed in high numbers and thats not a theory, what we don't know is if they were all destroyed in the 1990's. Some even believe these weapons may have been buried at sites that apparently we never even looked at...

(Text Link) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/us/23bel...nyt&emc=rss

Given this alone, it makes it hard for someone like me to understand someone who claims there were no WMD in Iraq just like that, then presume to base a great deal of there criticisms on this war on that shaky notion.

Beyond the places we didn't look at in Iraq, others believe the remaining weapons were Shipped elsewhere. Here is evidence that the CIA had at least some reason to suspect Saddam Hussein shipped his remaining WMD to Syria just prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in early 2003....

(Text Link) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=38371

from this link here is part of the conversation dated May 6, 2004.......





Here is the same conversation from.....
(Text Link) http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1047 to further its credibility.

So who is John Loftus?

(Text Link) http://www.john-loftus.com/bio.asp





Apart from what John Loftus said, two of the men that were the heads of the Iraq Survey Group, for the CIA, themselves both hint toward the
possibility of weapons being shipped to Syria. Neither demote this at all, and since some anti-war pundits seem fixated on quoting these two individuals in an attempt to discredit the Bush Administration with their belief there was no justified reason for fighting this war I'm going to be as straightforward and honest as I can here, by stating that both these men do in fact believe that there was faulty intelligence here, and they both have their doubts that Saddam had WMD at the time we went in, however what is not being confessed by those who are spending so much time using the comments of people like this to demote this war, is the full extent of what they do believe, so I did some research. To help take the spin out of this yet again here is what both believe regarding our going into Iraq....

This is from Wikipedia about David Kay (former head of the ISG in search of WMD in Iraq).......
(Text Link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kay





So how about Charles Duelfer who wrote the famous "Duelfer Report" used by so many to Demote bushes war ambitions? What did he think? Pretty much the same as David Kay, he says there was faulty intelligence but supported the concern for Saddam with conviction.

The quote below is from...
(Text Link) http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200410/0...007_159245.html





I have looked for an actual copy of the Duelfler report but unfortunately I could only find segments of it, and assessments of it. If anyone has it, I would appreciate a link. To continue this section I will show further information about General Georges Sada who served under Saddam, and list some of the crimes that made Saddam such A concern.

General Sada is important to this particular subject because he served as one of Saddam Hussein's top military advisor's, and additionally he was 2nd ranked
in the Iraqi air force and knew Saddam Hussein on a personal level. So what he says is of some significants to this case, because he was in a unique position
to observe Saddam. So I'm going to share with you video and audio clips of General Sada so you can get a feel for who he is, because this is not a man that
strikes me as a phony or a liar, this simply because he has no left or right wing political agenda like so many in our media or gouvernment do. He is still an Iraqi citizen therefore who it is that looks good or bad in America to him is quite irrelevant. I've posted some of these clips here on a couple of occasions but I will do so again because this is very interesting stuff.

First for fun here you have General Sada on the Daily Show with John Stewart, this was interesting to me because Stewart is considerably more difficult
on conservatives in support of this war than he is on left wing America, yet I do give him respect for this episode where he has General Sada on his show making claims that as John Stewart put it "Gets the Bush Administration off the hook" Given its the truth of course. Naturally John Stewart had his doubts, no surprise there......

(Video Link) http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/sada-tds.wmv (Daily Show)

Here are a couple more short video news clips of General Sada Speaking of WMD among other things....

(Video Link) http://theredvoice.blogspot.com/2006/05/ge...orges-sada.html (Hannity interview,) (listed above)

(Video Link) http://www.kxmc.com/video.asp?Articl...4&VideoId=3449 (kxmc news)

Here are the most in depth interviews I've heard with General Sada, You learn a lot more about Saddam Hussein here than just his WMD ambitions, you learn a lot more about General Sada as well, very very interesting clips. I highly recommend taking a look at these, They are audio, but you will learn some things about Saddam Hussein you might not have previously known. There are three audio clips total at this link.........

(Audio Link) http://exposetheleft.com/2006/03/15/sada-interview-2/

The audio clips I just presented from exposetheleft.com are consistent with every other link I am including on Gen Sada. So while Sada's testimonies may serve the purpose of a right wing site like the one above, I don't believe there is any reason to think this man has some right wing agenda. All His testimonies from what I've read everywhere have been consistent.

Lastly on General Sada a couple text links, the first talks about an American POW of Iraq who vouches for General Sada, the second speaks of many things discussed in previous video and audio clips........

(Text Link) http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/06/18/did...go-to-syria-pa/





(Text Link) http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06036/649858.stm

So I have gone over General Sada, John Loftus, and two men who were the heads of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, and Charles Duelfer all talking about Weapons being shipped to Syria by Saddam prior to our invasion.

To be more Specific , General Sada says he talked to the pilots themselves who shipped the WMD to Syria in late 2002, so he claims he knows for a fact Saddam had them just before we invaded and that Saddam moved them out of Iraq for that very reason, he knew we were coming! On the other hand David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and John Loftus, condone this as a real possibility, leading me to believe there was obviously some intelligence for them to make that claim. Rather Ironic that some of the top dogs in the CIA as well as a foreign General of Iraq all talk about the same thing, happening at the same time. However If either David Kay, Charles Duelfer, or John Loftus have taken back their claims that weapons could have been shipped to Syria in late 2002, in recent years I'm all ears but I couldn't find anything like that in my research.

Since I do love doing analogies I'll equate this whole scenario to a NARC team ready to move in on crack house. Think about it, the NARC team tells a drug lord several weeks in advance that they are going to raid his house for drugs, what does the drug lord do? Move his drugs out the house where they cant be found, or leave them there to be discovered by the NARC team? To me its not rocket science, it would be smart to move the drugs in advance, and the truth is Saddam Hussein knew we were coming, the whole world in fact knew we were going to war so the question is if you have something to hide, and you knew for a fact someone was coming to find it, what do you do? To me the answer is obvious but maybe thats just me.

It is true however that many of Saddam's WMD were destroyed between 91' and 2003, and there quality could have been effected to some extent in the 90's, but if you ask me from what Ive read, there is no reason to believe a man as evil and cunning as this would not hold on to some of these weapons, and some of the testimonies I've presented here paint a pretty convincing picture that he could have shipped his remaining weapons to Syria just before our invasion in 2003.

It may not be proof, but I'm hearing people constantly saying this war was a lie because Saddam never had WMD, as if there proof for that. There is arguably more reason to believe he had these weapons until late 2002, than evidence saying he didn't have them at all around that time. Reports stating he didn't have these weapons, state facts based on what we didn't find when we did go into Iraq to find these weapons. I think they were shipped out of Iraq and there is some evidence for this, but the truth is that as of now we really don't know either way if he had them recently or not, and at this point we may never know for sure. Thats the truth, the only untruth I see here would be basing ones belief on this war on the sole assumption that Saddam had, or didn't have WMD in 2002/2003, when we really don't know.

Now WOMD aside, was he even a threat, and if so who was he a threat to?

Its probably fair to say that he was not really an imminent threat to the United States, thats not what I consider a pin headed left wing remark, I can understand that criticism. From what I can tell there was little reason to believe he would attack the U.S. on our own soil anytime soon. However it was certainly a possibility, friction between the U.S. and Iraq increased dramatically after Desert Storm.

However this train of thought misses the whole point, and It's easy to take the comments of our President too literally, Saddam was a threat to us because he was a threat to the middle east more than anything, and therefore a threat to our progress in this war in the middle east. The actual geographic position of Iraq relative to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and Iran, among other nations made him a great concern given our war was, and still is being fought in what was quite literally Saddam's neighborhood.

To expand on this, Iran for example has been particularly troublesome for us for decades. The Iran, U.S. Hostage Crisis of 1979, during the Carter administration was one of many clear indicators of the tensions between us.
(Text Link) http://www.historyguy.com/iran-us_hostage_crisis.html

Today Iran is governed by Muhammad Ahmadinejad, who has publicly stated that he wants Israel (our Ally) wiped of the map, among many other crazy things. So anyone as radicalized as he is, developing Nuclear Weapons is certainly a concern. He absolutely loathes America as well, as can be figured from this link alone... (Text Link) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../i114353S68.DTL Iran is also currently funding terrorist in Iraq to help them fight us.

So A healthy Iraq means an Ally for our ongoing concern with Iran and in times like these keeping Iraq an ally makes sense, but its also good to have a strong ally in Iraq for our concerns with Al Qaeda, many in Iraq obviously have as much reason to fear Al Qaeda as we do, so taking out Saddam and stabilizing Iraq was important to us for reasons like this more than anything.

So the story goes Saddam was a threat to our security because he was a potential threat to our progress in a war being fought in his neighborhood which had a goal targeted at ensuring Americas safety from Al Qaeda. After Desert Storm Saddam did things such as attempting to assassinate George Bush Sr, so how he felt about America was no secret and therefore had we attempted to address any Al Qaeda presence in Iraq Saddam would have obviously resisted our presence and may have gone as far as interfere with our presence in the middle east outside Iraqi borders, although that is speculation.

Apart from that, as a secondary concern many say this has been a war for our profit, this is not true because this goes far beyond the best interest of the U.S. alone.

Beyond the stability of Iraq being in the best interest to our war effort, its also a war for global stability and thats the more accurate way to put it, and yes this is partly because most of the worlds oil supply is in the middle east, giving dictators there the ability to affect not only the economy of the U.S. at will, but the economy of countless other nations. Japan for example is even more dependent on foreign oil than we are. To put it simply, To keep the area from falling to pieces, makes this a war of prevention if anything, not a war for profit. Unless of course someone here has some kind of creditable evidence that shows we are steeling foreign oil instead of paying for it like everyone else.

Before I get anymore sidetracked the main reason in my mind that he needed to be taken out and Iraq needed to be taken seriously, is because he was a mass murderer, he has killed outside the context of war, and broke probably every rule of the Geneva convention from the ground up, and he didn't bend the rules or flirt with the limits like many claim our president has, he flat out made a mockery of the Geneva convention and thats not really debatable.

Personally I wouldn't feel good at all for a superpower as strong as us standing by and letting someone like Saddam, who was a mass murderer, run a barber shop let alone a country with a military, no matter how strong or weak that military might have been at the time. To me this is the bottom line, and the foundation behind my strong support for the Iraq war. This is the primary reason I believe taking his regime out was the right thing to do, the genocide and death he has caused makes the sacrifices we have made worth it, given we finish this thing the right way of course.

So what do we know for a fact about Saddam that has lead me to this conclusion?

Well his track record is described below, in the number of deaths he has caused with WMD alone, and sources will follow.....









Keep in mind that all this occurs during his rule, he began his presidency in 1979. These deaths listed above do not state the death he has caused without WMD but more war crimes are stated in the links below. The worst part about this is once you start reading up on Saddam you realize how much death and terror he spread outside the rules of the Geneva Convention and in many cases outside the context of war altogether.

He has gassed the Kurds for example on some occasions just to set an example that he should not be opposed. Ali Hassan al-Majid, was one of Saddam's military strategist and advisor's, as well as his cousin. Together they devised a plan to kill as many Kurds as possible in Halabja (a town of 70,000). The plan was simple and it was also carried out.

The plan was drop some conventional bombs loud enough to scare most civilians, who by then were accustom to conventional attacks, into underground shelters. After that, heavily bomb the city with mustard gas until the air is highly saturated. This Heavier than air mix of toxic chemicals then seeped into the lowest points, like the underground shelters where the innocent hid to protect their lives. Little did they know these shelters were to become their coffins.
at least 5,000 men women and children die instantly, and 12,000 within 3 days.
(Text Link) http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html

Thats almost hard to comprehend, in one short occasion Saddam caused a death toll that is 4 times higher than the current American death toll for this entire war, and he did this in 3 days and most the people he killed were non combatants who were unable to defend themselves in any way. We should have taken him out in Desert Storm for this, it was a mistake not to because this man needed to be taken out and I cant see this any other way considering what I know about him.

Beyond this Saddam has been known for various other things like having personally executed those who oppose him, or in many cases simply for saying something he didn't like. This can be gathered from the audio testimonies from General Sada I posted above. This man was in fact very much like Adolf Hitler in his mentality, and thats a scary realization to come to. His military strength was only a fraction of Hitlers of course but anyone with that mind set is dangerous as he proved.

Here are various sources for War crimes of Saddam Husein to support many of the facts stated above.....

(Text Link) http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm
(Text Link) http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm
(Text Link) http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internati...dam_hussein.htm
(Text Link) http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhus...sseincrimes.htm
(Text Link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...ass_destruction (link listed in prior section)

To end this section, was he still up to no good after Desert Storm? The answer is absolutely, people dismiss him far too easily time after time, but if your a skeptic or think Saddam is often made out to be worse than he really was yet you've made it this far into this section I hope you learned something you didn't know about him, because I think those who dismiss him as a concern in many cases don't know his history, I touched on that so I'll wrap this section up with a little info that shows this was not a man who learned his lesson after Desert Storm.

Saddam and his regime suffered great losses and loss of power after Desert Storm but did remain in control of Iraq and still had great support despite the U.S. encouraging Iraqis to stand up against Saddam, and despite his losses, he still had a formidable army and most importantly the mentality of a mad man.
After Desert Storm In 1993 Bill Clinton ordered 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles to be fired at the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in response to an Iraqi plot to assassinate George Bush Sr., for interfering with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991...

(Text Link) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl...line/062793.htm

This plot was foiled thankfully, but this alone shows Saddam and his regime still had the will for violence, and that much had not changed. Left alone to do as they pleased they would have had not only the will but also the way, just as they had before we first turned our focus on the Saddam Regime in 91'.

A couple paragraphs from the report linked above ...




So two years after Desert Storm he was already up to no good but there is more worth mentioning. Operation Desert Fox in 1998 was initiated largely because of Saddam's plan to fit a L-29 jet with storage tanks that would carry 300 liters of anthrax (a form of WMD). We uncovered evidence for this in the form of the jets themselves in 1998, so this was a real threat. This evidence is mentioned in the first link below, its a long PDF so just search for the word Drone to find the relevant part. The second and third link further back this.

(Text Link) http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/resea...99/rp99-013.pdf
(Text Link) http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/cfsp-01-t-07.htm
(Text Link) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

Below is a quote from the second link, obviously dated a bit because this is an old story but from what I've read at a handful of links to cross reference this, these stated reports did not change. If anyone has info that says otherwise I welcome you to post it..........





So there is compelling evidence he had been working on delivery systems for his WMD as late as 1998 before we struck some specific air bases in Operation Desert Fox, after that much like in Desert Storm, his strength was obviously reduced yet again, but the hilarious thing is the only reason his military abilities struggled to recover after Desert Storm is because we took an interest in him! Id say thats a bit of irony considering that some of the the anti war in this nation will continuously state that taking action in Iraq in 2003 was unnecessary because he was not a valid threat. I don't believe he was not a valid threat but just to entertain the idea, if that were true Ironically its only true because we took action against him and was taking him seriously over the years.

Its Ironic that taking Iraq seriously over the years is the only thing that has prevented Saddam Husein from repeating what he did in the late 80's and early 90's, where he killed so many innocent people, yet taking him out of power altogether by going to war was somehow a mistake? that doesn't make too much sense to me but perhaps I'm making a straw man argument, its obvious to me people who don't support this war have different reasons for their position so I wont put everyone in the same boat. Saddam not being a valid threat, as a reason not to have gone to war in 2003 is something I have heard before however, many times and that is one position I don't think I'll ever understand.




________________________________________________________________________________




1. How long after Desert Storm do you believe Saddam had WMD, and why?

2. Do you believe Saddam was a threat to the middle east?

3. If so, do you believe this means that he was a valid concern for the United States in regards to the War On Terror?

4. Do you believe Saddam's genocide alone was reason enough to remove him from power?

5. Do you trust the testimony of former Iraqi general Georges Sada in regards to Saddam having shipped his WMD to Syria in late 2002? Why or why not?

1. How long after Desert Storm do you believe Saddam had WMD, and why?

Not long, certainly not in 2003, though, to be fair, Saddam's goverment was very, very inept, and there was some aging stuff probably forgotten out in the desert - but in 2003, it was pretty clear he had no ongoing program.

I guess I will go with Colin Powell and David kay on this one:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...4/wwwh40129.htm

Business daily Handelsblatt of Duesseldorf stated (1/26): "David Kay, the weapons inspector in Iraq, resigned and told the world that he believes that Saddam did not possess WMD since the 90s. Kay is not a left wing Bush opponent but a thorough expert chosen by the President for searching the weapons.... Secretary Powell was the first one to realize the significance of the expert's verdict asking why Kay's knowledge was not taken into account earlier.... Saddam was a criminal tyrant and deserved to be toppled. It is a better world without him. But this cannot justify the Iraq war belatedly. It was argued differently and apparently waged on a pretext."





2. Do you believe Saddam was a threat to the middle east?

wierd question- the man was an evil dude- no doubt about it, but it was about right for leaders in that area- I mean, we supported him because of his antagonism towards IRAN, but the biggest threat to the stability in the middle east has been pretty much because of mistakes shortly after WW1, committed mostly by the British, and then compounded by the Americans after WW2. The collapse of the ottoman empire really set the stage for all of this, and the arbitrary ways the borders were drawn. Saddam was no more of a threat to the middle east than Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and so on. He was neccesary, obviously, or a man like him, to keep th country from killing each other.

3. If so, do you believe this means that he was a valid concern for the United States in regards to the War On Terror?

Nope- not even close to a valid reason or threat or front on the WOT- which, is, of course, another problem- the entire idea that we need to engage the world in some sort of WW3 war on terror. Osama Bin Laden hurt us- NOT Saddam Hussien.

Saddam Hussien was CLEARLY contained.

the bombing of the cole happened on Clinton's watch- but we didn't really know he did it with any reasonable conviction until GWs watch. That was the first clue really, of Al-Quaida being the mastermind, and that we had something "coming down the pike"- and it NEVER was Saddam that was the person behind all this.

The #1 financier for terror in the world CONTINUES to be Saudi Arabia. THAT should have ALWAYS been our focus, NOT Saddam. Afghanistan and Osama were clearly the fault of ronnie raygun and GH, as they funded a war against Russia there, and then forgot about them after the russians left, leaving the country in Chaos, and ripe for someone like the Taliban and OBL to do what they have done.

Saddam was just an ego trip and power trip by GW and his gang of chicken hawks, all the draft dodgers, and deferments silver-spoon types that had visions of "Pax Americana"- there was 0 logical reasons to go to war with Iraq, and lots of reasons NOT to go to war with Iraq- shall i quote Papa?

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."

4. Do you believe Saddam's genocide alone was reason enough to remove him from power?

No- in fact, we are in over 650k dead since we have got there- far worse than anything Saddam has done. One of the other right wing myths is that he "killed/gassed his own poeple"- he did not- he gassed the Kurds, even still, Turkey, our ally, is at LEAST equally horrific to the kurds, yet, we kiss thier butts regularly.

As far as using chemical weapons on Iran- well, of course, that is something the US wanted to happen- and we should be trying those Republicans in charge of all that with war crimes, they have equal culpability with Saddam for that as well.

I think the best quote is this "how can you be 100% sure there are WMDs but havd 0 idea of were they are"- Hans Blix

5. Do you trust the testimony of former Iraqi general Georges Sada in regards to Saddam having shipped his WMD to Syria in late 2002? Why or why not?

Uh, no. Why would I? Even Cheney admits that is a lie. - the link escapes me for the moment- but it has been posted here several times.

The facts as I see them?

1) GW used the dead from 9/11 to pimp his idea of an invasion of Iraq on the American public. This would be Rove's probable crowning achievement- to pimp the dead of 9/11 for GWs personal political ambitions and his need for revenge for his papa.

2) GW and co lied outright about the imminent danger of Saddam, that is obvious.

3) GW is more of a threat to world peace and stability in the middle east than Saddam could have hoped for in his wildest fantasies- and that part has been the straight up fact- GW has killed more Iraqis than Saddam had in nearly 20 years. That is GWs only accomplishment as president- the death of over 650k Iraqis.

The world would have been a much better place if we would have toppled GW before we even thought about Saddam. Saddam was an evil man that did bad things in his own country. GW is an evil man that has done bad things to the whole world. Saddam will never be as deadly or kill near as many poeple in his 30 odd years in power compared to GWs 8 years.

You know that I'm not a GW supporter, but let's not pin all these deaths on Americans, that would be disengenuous. Your total covers Iraqi's killed since 2003. I believe insurgents to have killed more than US forces have, but there has been no comprehensive breakdown conducted to support either position.

DTOM- just because we didn't "mean to do it" doesn't make them any less dead DTOM. It is our precense that led to the deaths of over 650k Iraqis. There wouldn't BE insurgents if the US wasn't there, now would there?

GWs policies directly led to the deaths of over 650k Iraqis, and, no matter who does the shooting- it is thier blood on his hands.

I know that you don't go looking for babies to shoot in the head DTOM, and I know that no average soldier over there wants to kill an innocent, but, they are still dead, and it is still GWs fault. He rushed us to war, every dead soul there, soldier or iraqi citizen- is 110% his fault, and he should be held as accountable as Saddam, at least.

Hey thats a take of yours I agree with DTOM, very much so. I don't have much time to post replies tonight guys but I'll debate some more tomorrow.

Charlie Manson left to his own devices without the proper monitoring is a threat to the wider society. Likewise Saddam Hussein. We had him boxed in and under inspection. There was no hard evidence that he had WMDs or a working relationship with Al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of Hussein. Invading and occupying a country like Iraq particularly with the spotty support we were getting from around the world and with the hostility being quite high in the ME, was a dubious proposition both in terms of the basis and in terms of likelihood of success. And it is clear in my mind, based on similar statements from insiders in the know, that for the BA the WMDs were not a priority, but more an excuse for an activist policy of changing the politics of the ME. Folks by now I assume know about the PNAC statement which seems to have served as a kind general guideline for our actions.

Let's say Saddam was a valid enough threat to inspect him but not to invade him to avoid the obvious strawman in your statement.

This quote from CR says it well(I corrected the misspellings). "how can you be 100% sure there are WMDs but have 0 idea of where they are"- Hans Blix

Just a little note. Your early (text links) numbered 2-7 didn't work.

Rock on CR, and everyone else who supports this absurd, and blatently incorrect rhetoric.

Didn't Congress approve us to go to war? How many days... how many... can the President wage war without congressional approval?

Is Congress trying to bring the troops home? How many Democrats are openly saying to bring them home? When did the sentiment change? Did Congress have access to information different than the President?

The answer to all of those is no. Blame the government, but being a "GW is a killer" parrot makes people sound kooky and "tin foil" headed. It's the Cindy Sheehan argument, and it's not only inaccurate but ignorant to boot.

And the argument about there being no WMD's, sure. Nothing appeared. Maybe nothing was there. How does it change where we are today? We all thought that the dude was hiding something. Had you polled American sentiment on 01/31/2003, people would've said "he's not letting scientists in... hmm...go for it".

I'll never understand why people act like Michael Moore sounding boards, never arguing the legality and responsibility of Congress in this matter. Furthermore, if it's really the case, the fact that nothing is changing even under a Democrat held congress says something even more.

I really would like a well argued post that has factual information that discusses something about what intelligence the President had and presented, and how he "lied" to Congress. How exactly, did Congressmen with top secret clearance, not have the same information?

He moved the “missing” stockpiles out 2 months or less before the invasion imo.


No doubt.



He was a valid concern for lots of reasons. Missing WMD, no compliance in 12 years with UN Resolutions etc.


No. Other countries have done the same. Imo he was just too dangerous in the vital ME – home of more than ½ the worlds oil.



It has credibility for me since I heard exactly that shortly after the war started from a frien who has family in Lebanon.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/da...etc/script.html

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but when I read that transcript, it's hard to leave any of it out. I highly recommend watching the episode online. But here are some excerpts:

















So there is the story, as told by PBS. The lie to Congress, and everybody else, came in the form of the colored intelligence. A creepy example of how a few men can manipulate things and steer this country in the wrong direction, for anyone who never thought it could happen here.

Mind if I butt in? You haven't seen the congress with its minority of democrats who went along with the war authorization beat up repeatedly for voting for war authorization? Hillary has been thoroughly criticized from both sides of the aisle(More from the antiwar folks it would appear) for her vote for different reasons obviously(She and others claim with some merit that they weren't given all the intelligence). However there is an old line from Truman, "The buck stops here." In the case of Bush it started there and it is a mark of the complete unwillingness of so many of his supporters like yourself that you continue to wish to respond to that responsibility by dishonorably shoveling manure on the other party. Sometime in their life Bush and co. have to accept primary responsibility even if they did, along the way, nefariously get 99% of your party and 48% of the other party to go along with their PNAC program by waving bogus mushroom clouds in folks faces.

And yes I would like to see funds for the war cut off, which is the only way congress has of ending the war. But that avenue isn't politically open. Cutting off funds while American troops are in the field is a political death sentence. For the most part it's pretty clear where the lines are drawn. Short of cutting off funds to the troops, blaming the party that wants out on a timetable but can't overcome a veto is a little disingenuous wouldn't you say?


All these matters have been presented repeatedly on this board, including by myself. Where have you been?

Absolute crap as I have posted. Tenants famous “slam dunk” statement is only one example and he had annalists with 125 years of experience that said Saddam had the WMD. So any speculation by this dope is totally bogus.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/11/cia112803.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
28 November 2003
________________________________________
Iraq's WMD Programs: Culling Hard Facts from Soft Myths
The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) has been dissected like no other product in the history of the US Intelligence Community. We have reexamined every phrase, line, sentence, judgment and alternative view in this 90-page document and have traced their genesis completely. I believed at the time the Estimate was approved for publication, and still believe now, that we were on solid ground in how we reached the judgments we made.


I remain convinced that no reasonable person could have viewed the totality of the information that the Intelligence Community had at its disposal—literally millions of pages—and reached any conclusions or alternative views that were profoundly different from those that we reached. The four National Intelligence Officers who oversaw the production of the NIE had over 100 years' collective work experience on weapons of mass destruction issues, and the hundreds of men and women from across the US Intelligence Community who supported this effort had thousands of man-years invested in studying these issues.

Let me be clear: The NIE judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 km limit imposed by the UN Security Council, and with moderate confidence that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. These judgments were essentially the same conclusions reached by the United Nations and by a wide array of intelligence services—friendly and unfriendly alike. The only government in the world that claimed that Iraq was not working on, and did not have, biological and chemical weapons or prohibited missile systems was in Baghdad.

There were no false pretenses Ive looked into this, all goals stated today were also stated before the wars start. As some of my links show, the bush administration expresed its disire to occupy Iraq until the country was stable enough for self gouvernment, every last person who voted to fund this war knew this war went far beyond WMD and this is proven in documentation.

Now as for them overstating the likelihood of Saddam having WMD I don't know how true this is or not. Do you have anything specific I can look at? Not the testimony of another anti-war enthusiast out to make an administration they don't like look bad, but do you have anything specific such as actual documentation that was false, that you can additionally prove they knew was false? I wouldn't doubt if they had conflicting reports at the time, but they simply weren't willing to take risk with Saddam anymore. Were they positive that Saddam had WMD? Id assume not, but I dont believe they knew for a fact that he didn't have these weapons unless you can show me otherwise.

CruisingRam





David Kay, yes I know about him. In fact this is from the original post.......

David Kay.......



Now notice his choice of words here CruisingRam. The first part in red. "it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed, militarized chemical weapons there." Deployed, militarized chemical weapons means just that, in other words Saddams ablility to launch an effective attack using WMD was far less than we had anticipated. Now this doesn't mean that he didn't have the ability to get back into business using what he did have if he were left alone to be able to do this. He likely had the raw materials he needed, he just needed time, and for us to get off his back long enough. So is that speculation?

Well lets look at what else David kay suggested in the above quote....


"Bush was right to go to war in Iraq and characterized Saddam Hussein's government as far more dangerous than even we anticipated� when it was thought he had WMDs ready to deploy."

Since David Kay and Charles Duelfer became the focusing points of those wanting to dismiss Saddam, I decided to focus on them myself, afteral two men who both headed the ISG certainly have some significants to this case, wouldn't you say? And Both these men took Saddam seriously, and knew he was more than dangerous.





I agree with that, apart from the last sentence.








650k Dead!!!!! That is highly exaggerated. Thats the highest guess Ive ever heard in fact. Lets break this down then.

According to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ the civilian death toll is 76 - 86 thousand people, most of whom were not killed by our troops by the way,
Lets assume its the high end estimate and call it 86,000

Now lets add 3,800 American soldiers to that because our soldiers are certainly important enough to be included. 89,800 is the number we are at, now what about the insurgents?

This link states that about 19,000 insurgents have been killed since 2003, personally I think the more the merrier. These scum bags can all keel over right now for all I care........ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...nsurgents_N.htm

Even with insurgents added you barely break 100k, let alone 650k. Now in my research I found that the numbers I have are likely underestimations and nobody really knows what the death toll is because they go on a tally thats reliant on the reported deaths only. Given they are not all reported the actual number is probably slightly higher if not double what the reported numbers are.

Since I wanted to find out how you came to that number, I searched it and found that this was an estimate made by Lancet/Johns Hopkins University. Most other tallies go on actual reported deaths. Apparently this university's numbers were met with sharp criticism because of their methods........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/...under_fire.html

Now I'll go on confirmed reports, but assume that the actual number is probably twice whats most commonly stated. For me 200,000 seems likely. Any private organization that comes to a number that leaves all other estimates by 500 k I naturally have to have my doubts. In any case we are not directly responsible for most of the civilian deaths in any of these estimates, and depending on what estimate you go by Saddam has caused just as much death in a matter of 2 years. How long would this have continued if we didn't set our sights on him in Desert Storm? Had we ignored him after 1991 would he have repeated his behavior? No doubt in my mind, like I said staying on his case ever since 1991 and removing his regime in 2003 is the only reason why he didn't continue on his rampage. Not because he grew a heart thats for sure. I talk a bit about what he was up to after Desert Storm in the original post.





I would like to see a link on that, I'm guessing it was somehow pulled out of context like half the things that the Bush administration says, but if you can find it in its original form that would be great.





Personaly I was never that concerned that Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda. As you said they were enemies, Bin Laden was nearly chosen do defend Kuwait in 1991 against Saddam instead of us. I also agree there was some miscomunication from this administration. I dont know if it was in this section or another section of my main post, but at one point I said that our goals had never changed during this war, Bush simply overemphezized the importance of WMD in comparison to taking out the Saddam regime when making public statements, and then I went on to say it was a costly mistake that perhaps leads to some of the confusion we see today. I think it was miscommunication, rather than a change in policy or a an alternate hidden policy he didnt want the world to know about, because I've been reading pre-2003 documentation that was available to the public stating that the main goal was to remove the Saddam regime and occupy the area until it became a self sustained democracy. He didn't try to hide that.

Here are those links from above, I didn't realize they had died until you and Ataal said so. Unfortunately I cant edit the original post, its too late but here are the quotes from above again that had dead links, but this time with new ones......

I just put up a too-long post that covered my position on this. The false pretenses were not the "goals," but the colored intelligence that leads right to Cheney. Also, the colored intelligence, in some part, explains the actions (inactions?) of Congress.

The "goals," or Bush's justifications for going to war, changed a few times. At first, it was the Al Qaida link, based almost completely on the Mohammed Atta meeting in Prague (later shown to be false, as he was in Florida at the time). Next came WMDs. When we never found any WMDs of any significance (now post-invasion), it became freeing the Iraqi people and bringing them democracy. And if you need sources on that, I give up. We lived it. You couldn't turn on the news without hearing Cheney beating one of those three drums.




Well, it's hard to argue with "absolute crap," but I will stack up the totality of the sources in my Frontline reference against the CIA guy and his "cover-my-fanny" memo. How often do you suppose they find it necessary to prepare a defense of their NIE and fire it off in a press release?

Well, it's hard to argue with "absolute crap," but I will stack up the totality of the sources in my Frontline reference against the CIA guy and his "cover-my-fanny" memo. How often do you suppose they find it necessary to prepare a defense of their NIE and fire it off in a press release?


Did you read what I posted. Which part did you miss?

Read again. It was in the NIH and it has been gone over line by line?

The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) has been dissected like no other product in the history of the US Intelligence Community. We have reexamined every phrase, line, sentence, judgment and alternative view in this 90-page document and have traced their genesis completely. I believed at the time the Estimate was approved for publication, and still believe now, that we were on solid ground in how we reached the judgments we made.


I remain convinced that no reasonable person could have viewed the totality of the information that the Intelligence Community had at its disposal—literally millions of pages—and reached any conclusions or alternative views that were profoundly different from those that we reached. The four National Intelligence Officers who oversaw the production of the NIE had over 100 years' collective work experience on weapons of mass destruction issues, and the hundreds of men and women from across the US Intelligence Community who supported this effort had thousands of man-years invested in studying these issues.

Let me be clear: The NIE judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 km limit imposed by the UN Security Council, and with moderate confidence that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons


Are you saying this is a lie????

AS usual,Ted comes through with the "they had WMDs" ( never found one active anything, every single report of stockpiles of WMDs false, unless they found some pre-1990 lost storehouse somewhere now and again)-

and of course "they moved them to syria"

Once again Ted- you say with 100% certainty that there were WMDs- yet, as usual- none were found, how can you say for 100% certainty something exists when you can not even locate where it is at?

Ted, you sure buy whatever this regime says, hook line and sinker- I bet you believed it when Rumsfeld said, May 30, 2003: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were di