Top 10 reasons why thinking people knew WMD claims were bogus

[Merlin]

Here's my list. Your comments, additions and corrections are welcome.

1. Weapons inspectors who spent months on end in Iraq with unimpeded, surprise access to any site any place in the country and concluded that it was probable there were no WMDs,
   
2. Solid, unambiguous, consistent reports from CIA professionals that their qualifiers (warnings that some intelligence reports were not reliable, not backed by hard evidence, and/or not validated by other credible sources) were being ignored and suppressed by Rumsfeldt, Cheyney, Bush, et al,
   
3. The knowledge that effective bio weapons have a very short shelf life and are exceedingly difficult to produce, and the absolute certainty throughout the intelligence community that there were no nukes,
   
4. Information then emerging that the entire basis for our conclusion they had chemical weapons was that they had them in the early 80s, prior to the Iran-Iraq war (during which an unknown number were actually used) and--though UNSCOM itself had destroyed remaining stockpiles in the early '90s--our count of what was destroyed simply did not match our old count of what they started with, so we concluded they still had them--a rather flimsy basis for war 20 years later (even Mom & Pop grocers don't rely on inventory counts for more than a year),
   
5. The testimony of Powell and others that Hussein was thoroughly militarily contained, along with the knowledge that his air force was destroyed, that his army remained decimated, and that he posed no threat to anybody anywhere except in his own country,
   
6. Clear signs that the admin was desperately groping for hard evidence of WMDs, as in, for example, the tragic-comic introduction of the obviously forged Niger documents--which Powell privately railed about and was too ashamed to use even in the hard sell UN speech that marked his sad conversion from pragmatist to ideological whore,
   
7. The equally tragic-comic weather balloon trailer reports--canvas-sided trailers actually sold by UK to the Iraqis in the '70s but reported by us and the Brits as mobile chemical weapons production facilities,
   
8. Rejection of US claims by intelligence sources throughout the the rest of the world--outside of Orwellian Britania.
   
9. Clear advance knowledge that the neocons had set up a little circular ruse: a stovepipe operation in the pentagon (OSP) where Chalabi's rubbish was being recycled, leaked to the NYT (which then "confirmed" it through the OSP), and mainlined to the WH and the public;
   
10. The experienced advice of honorable people throughout the military (Anthony Zinni, for example) who understand war, understand that lethal weaponry is so cheap today that unless you enjoy popular support, you cannot "win" a conventional war of occupation in any lasting sense, understand that it must therefore always be truly only a last resort, and know that it borders on the treasonous to override genuine, honest, objective intelligence so as to push for a war for empire, oil and glory.

30,000 of us here on DU were able to figure out that the admin's WMD claims were a lie. Millions of others knew it. The rest of the world knew it. Nearly all who objected to it are people who strongly support the war in Afghanistan. (Stupid white guys are saying: "What war in Afghanistan?! Where's Afghanistan? Don't they make dogs and sweaters?") We also strongly support efforts to get Osama/Qaida. Yet--in derogation of those worthy efforts--this Iraq odyssey got shoved down our throats by a deceitful bunch of ideologues.

[Martin Eden]

1. Excellent lists

Gives the lie to the statement "We were all wrong" about WMD.

[ewagner]

2. Most of us

smelled a large rat when Blix and his people were fed leads on chem/bio sites by the CIA which the UN investigated immediately and found absolutely nothing.

The info they were passing on to Blix and his UN inspectors was phoney "from the giddyup". The questions is did that phoney info come from the CIA or the OSP?

[Merlin]

11. Good point. And remember the outcry after Powell's sales job at the UN

I remember his photos of "weapon bulding camps" in the northern desert, and how he held up that vial--supposedly of toxins--and said we know exactly where these stockpiles are.

The Blix folks--and the rest of the world--said "Hey, if you guys have all this solid info, why haven't you done something about it, or at least given it to us to look at?

Thanks.

[wellst0nev0ter]

3. When Saddam Consented To That Anal Probe Of An Inspection Regime

I kinda figured out that he doesn't have much to hide.

[grannylib]

4. I think the intelligence we should be questioning is that of Bush, Cheney,

Powell, Rice, etc.; this was clearly a war fought under a pretext and the current misadministration should all be thrown out, if not impeached, if not drawn and quartered...

[macedc]

9. NO

I think the denfense hawks are wrong in their policy but all governments lie about many things

What is needed here is to force an open discussion about the real reasons that they went in and whether americans really wnat to go that way

Foe example, if american is not willing to persue greener energy and commit serious budget money thereto, if we want to continue down the oil consumption road we are all (most anyway) on, we will have little choice but to take over the arabs' and others' oil. World consumption (e.g., china) is rapidly growing and unless we change course our economy will be in serious difficulty without it

[Martin Eden]

13. The real reasons

To determine what the "real" reasons were for invading Iraq, you need to look at those who made the decision. GW Bush was more or less a blank slate when it came to foreign policy, and that slate was largely filled in by the neoconservatives who had been advocating the takeover of Iraq for nearly a decade by the time GW took office.

There was initially some disagreement in the administration on whether to press ahead with the war, but the neocons obviously won out over the moderates at the State Department.

The neoconservatives believe the U.S. should use its unprecedented military might to remake the Middle East, dominate the world, and convert it to our economic/political system. Many of the neocons holding positions of great influence in the administrations are members of the think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). http://www.makethemaccountable.com/floyd/030223_AmericanDominance.htm

Oil is undoubtedly part of the equation, but it may be secondary to their idealogical pursuit of what has been referred to as a "Pax Americana" (to some, just another term for empire). Of course a 21st century empire would need a reliable source of oil, but you don't necessarily have to conquer the oil-producing countries, because they are going to sell their oil under any circumstances.

Some say we invaded Iraq to prevent a switch from dollars to euros as the primary currency for oil transactions. The current dominance of the dollar as world currency is helping to prop up an economy that suffers from huge trade deficits. This significant issue gets very little attention; I don't know how much it has influenced the PNAC players in the Bush administration, but it's an issue worth checking out: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Another major neocon reason for invading Iraq was to destroy an enemy of Israel. With a huge U.S. military presence in Iraq, Israel's security would supposedly be enhanced, and we would be poised to invade Syria and possibly Iran as well. Many neocons have openly advocated these invasions, and they have clearly demonstrated their dual loyalties -- to the U.S. and to Isreal: http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html

The neocons wanted to invade Iraq for many reasons, but I wouldn't equate their rationales with the legitimate interests of the United States of America. We should be doing everything we can to decrease our demand for oil, but the neocons -- and the Bush administration in particular -- are oily to the core. And from the perspective of our national security, the invasion and occupation of Iraq may only exacerbate the scourge of terrorism; it has already turned much of the world against us.

Yes, we really needed to have a national discussion about whether invading Iraq was truly in our national interests, but we didn't have that discussion -- instead, we got hysterical warnings of "mushroom clouds" and criticism of anyone who didn't patriotically join the march to war.

We still need to have a national discussion about where we go from here. I don't know if clarity on these issues will be achieved during a Democratic presidency, but I can guarantee you it won't with another four years of Bush.

[Sterling]

21. And thus we had 9-11

Which eliminated the need for the open discussion you speak of. Funny how that worked out, timing and all, don't you think. The kind of discussion you endorse would have lead to huge laughter in the face of PNAC from most Americans pre 9-11. Thus 9-11 and the lies that followed leading up to Iraq.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi macedc!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[leftofthedial]

5. great list

one quibble.

It doesn't "border on the treasonous," it IS treasonous.

[Pillowbiter]

6. For me the without a doubt nail in the coffin was...

when I was watching BBC and they intervied Hans Blix and he said everything was going smoothly, Saddam was cooperating, and then I switch the channel to CNN and there is Bush saying Saddam is still foiling the efforts of the inspectors and has used up his last chance.

Somebody was lying, and it's not me.

PB

[macedc]

7. Everyone knew

I actually think that everyone really knew, its just that most did not care
just kick some towel-head butt

its only when bodies start to mount up and the real problems in america start to be more apparent (no jobs, more and more working people and retireees without health care, capital investment fleeing to asia, debt going through the roof which will bring serious inflation, etc), people come out of their fog

indeed, in Vietnam, the end only came when the middle class started to pay too high a price, all the demos', etc really had little effect of themselves


in the end "it's jobs 'stupid'" as the blow job maven used to say

[ComerPerro]

8. My biggest and most obvious reason:

Bush was either the biggest liar or biggest asshole on the planet (who knew he was both).

When I heard the case for war, my initial thought was:

Let me get this straight:
You are absoultely certain that Saddam has WMD, and you know that he is a horrible man, an evil jerk, and a despot.
So what is the plan? You are going to send thousands of US soldiers marching into Baghdad...
And you don't expect Saddam to unleash a total nightmare situation with his WMD????

If Saddam had WMD and we invaded Baghdad, why would they doubt that he would use the WMD, thus killing thousands of US troops?

[Gin]

10. "Theater" to the max...right down to the chemical suits....we have been

had.......those soldiers died and lost limbs for no good reason.

The white house cabal are professional stagers! Probably have union cards.

[Karenina]

16. pssst.... they knew.

Pass it on.

[Malva Zebrina]

12. good analysis Merlin

we are under the thumb of murderers who kill in our name to get what they want for their rich , entrenched buddies.

I think that is what it boils down to.

Thousands were murdered. This is a terrible legacy that Americans must leave to thier children. Innocent people and their children, bombed to bits, for the sake of the lies of a stupid man who assumed power, was not elected, actually would not have been elected, and who has taken a joy ride over us all. He now seeks a second term--actually a first terms and he thinks that his killing spree is a "good thing" because a god told him it was. So he says and so many who believe, follow and comply with the killing and the murder of innocent little children, happily playing one moment, and killed, limbs askew all over the place, the next.

This is the most outrageous attack on other human beings. They were as good as we as they went about their daily lives.

Bush is an evil, sick and insane man. These people, now dead, had nothing to do with anything and SAddam was NOT armed with WMD.

Bush is a criminal--a war criminal who needs to be hung up by his heels like a Mussolini ot at the least, put away for life in a prison.

Never will happen. The rich will always be allowed an out. This guy Bush deserves to be incarcerated--but he will get away with the murder of thousands of people, and what is worse, he continues to state that he did the right thing.

What a shameful predicament this man has foisted upon this nation.

[jokerman93]

14. Hypnotic repitition

All you have to do to plant a new belief in people is to repeat your target lie nine times.

If they hear it nine times or more, they are likely to believe it.

In other words, as Rummy once bragged to the cameras: "If you just say it enough, people will believe it."

We're all just a bunch of useful idiots to Bush and his gang.

[Old and In the Way]

15. 11. The invasion itself

No way does this chickenhawk invade if he's not sure that WMD are nuetralized or non-existant.

[Malva Zebrina]

19. right and he waited for the UN to inspect and affirm that

there were no weapons there. Then he invaded the country that was deemed to be without any weapons. Killed and murdered all of those people.

[peacetalksforall]

17. So why couldn't Clinton, Schumer, Kerry, Edwards and a room full of

other registered Senators and Congresspeople see it, know it, believe it, not challenge the lies?

Long live the voice and vote of Wellstone!!!!! A true hero supported by a true heroine, daughter, and believers.

[togiak]

18. Politics

I think that to an extend they did challenge his assertions (at some of them), they can make an argument that they were duped and fed bogus intel (maybe), but I think that they knew the case was weak and they wanted to give Bush enough rope to hang himself. If that is the case then they aren't much better than him.

[ComerPerro]

20. that is just bullshit

Lets see:

The IWR was forced to a vote just before the midterm elections. Bush lies his ass off about WMD and other "gathering threats" to congressmen. Anyone who speaks out is condemned for not trusting the president (who we now know should never be trusted again) and gets hammered in their election for being soft on security.

So don't give me this line of shit about them being worse than Bush because they let him follow through with a plan that was his in the first place.

[peacetalksforall]

22. They were not brave, they were not honorable

they being Daschle, Clinton, Schumer, Kerry, Edwards.....

and a bunch of Congresspeople.....


If they were scared of their patriotic voters - then they didn't have guts because there were plenty of the citizenry who saw through the invasion - for the sham purpose presented.

Do I condemn people without vision? I believe they knew and were afraid of the votes.

Long live our represenatatives with guts.

Long live the memories of the lives, limbs, and minds of our young soldiers.

Sham war. Sham. Shame.

[ComerPerro]

23. I am not saying they were brave or honorable

But I don't think they should have the same level of blame as the Bush administration.

Assigning equal blame to the Democrats who voted for it only really just detracts from the case against Bush.

He is the one reaping the benifits, he is the one who manipulated intel, and he is the one who started this fucking "war".

[peacetalksforall]

24. I'm glad you clarified that. I agree.

They were cornered. They are not equal in blame.

This was a PNAC killing event. As far as we know, the Dem reps who voted yes are not part of PNAC, but they enabled them, just the same.

The key issues were blind and unseeking patriotism and Israel which translates to votes in the East, Midwest, South, and West.

They could have been standing proud today - if only......

Well, they'll always have to live with it and in my personal opinion, Kerry and Edwards should not be rewarded or excused. They should both have the squeeze put on them. My question to myself - is whether they are strong and whether they can be trusted.

There should be no excuses for killing our youth.

[Old and In the Way]

26. If I am a sitting Democrat and I'm thinking MIHOP on 9/11 and I am

remembering the Anthrax attack on Daschele. I also am considering that the President has potential dictatorial powers with the HS/Patriot Acts.

I'm wondering what the trap is if we voted solidly antiwar on IWR? Did that many Democrats all really think Iraq was an imminent threat? Did they think Iraq was a threat at all? I suspect not. They certainly had the Democratic base behind them and under normal circumstances they might have held out and said prove it.

But they didn't....why?


They may not explain it to us, but I really think that it was a vote for democratic preservation. If they had voted their gut, the vote is solidly Partyline.

Then what if there's another terrorist event in the US? No time to react, martial law declared. Quite quickly:


(1) FBI/CIA Event investigation concludes (in 24 hours) that it was Saddam's fault with help from OBL.
(2) Republican Corporate Media Machine blames the "Party of Terrorist Appeasers".
(3) War is declared immediately on Iraq...no questions asked...Bush gets the 9/11 bounce.
(4) Democrats are pooched in the 2002 midterms, bigtime. And in 2004, we don't have Democrats screaming that Bush lied about WMD.

So the D's did the next best thing....they qualified the shit out of the resolution and handed George the rope in which to hang himself.

If you believe LIHOP/MIHOP, that means that you believe this administration to one degree or another has the blood of 3000 innocent Americans on their hands. If they were guilty, would they not construe a vote on IWR to produce the outcome I've underlined?

[newyawker99]

30. Hi togiak!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[durutti]

25. *Excellent* points, especially...

#7. That's when you knew they were getting desperate.

[MrPrax]

27. You Nailed It!!

"What war in Afghanistan?! Where's Afghanistan? Don't they make dogs and sweaters?"

sums it up...We were fooled ultimately and we have to double our efforts to Tell The People...If they are lying about this in such an transprant way, what else are they lying about?

We should see this as a watershed, inspite of the carnage, and raise the debate about 'partisanship' and ask future politicians these same questions on many many issues...

Thx for the enlightenment...

[bvar22]

28. Proof #11

Israel has an Intelligence Network unmatched in the WORLD. After being on the receiving end of Scud missiles during GW1, Israel would NEVER have allowed Iraq to even begin to develop anything that posed a threat.

If Israel wasn't worried, there was NOTHING to worry about!!!
Israel did have an agenda in supporting the bush* invasion, but it wasn't to remove a developing threat.