Be Honest! Did You Think Saddam Had ANY WMD Before The War?

[DistressedAmerican]

Poll question: Be Honest! Did You Think Saddam Had ANY WMD Before The War?

Clearly now Bush claim's of Saddam's stockpiles were little more than wishful think on the administration's part and paranioa on the part of much of the rest of the world. However, at the time many found the claims believable.

Personally, I was with France and Germany. I did not support any military action without concrete proof from the weapons inspectors. I figured he probably had SOME but, the quantity and quality was vastly overblown.

Colin's UN presentaion did not convince me of anything. "In this picture there is a truck parked outside the building. In the next picture it is gone. So, logically we know that there is anthrax stacked to the ceiling in there!" "Winnabegos Of Death, Booga Booooga!"

So, be honest. At the time, on the eve of the invasion, did you think that Saddam had ANY WMD?

[justiceischeap]

1. The only reason I believed they had them

Was because of what we had given them to fight Iran.

[DistressedAmerican]

3. You are right there! It was a major factor in my mind as well.

The whole time I just pictures Rummy showing up with well packed suitcases of goodies to kill those Iranians.

Once I had it, I'd either make a big show of giving it up or more likely I'd keep it.

[hector459]

23. Frankly, I didn't give a damn. He wasn't going to use them..except for

his own defense if it had been true. Besides we controlled 2/3 of Iraq's airspace. Saddam couldn't even fly around his own country.

[KarenS]

82. Yes, I believed, because we gave them to him,,,,,

1) I was surprised when they weren't used as we invaded Iraq, esp. Bagdad.

2) I NEVER, EVER believed that Iraq having those weapons justified this War.

[sakabatou]

115. Thought that as well.

The stuff Bush II was talking about was BS.

[dennis4868]

2. I believed what I was hearing.....

out of our intelligence agencies before the war, DOE, INR, Air Force Intelligence Branch, etc...all were saying the opposite of Bush and his thugs....it was quite obvious before the war Bush was lying his ass off to get his war and scare the shit out of the american people.

[BuyingThyme]

44. How many of you HAVE NOT forgotten about the pre-war polls...

ALL of which indicated that the American people trusted the UN over Bush on the question of war in Iraq? America said that it should be left to the UN>

This is one of the media's greatest re-writings of history.

Everybody forgets what really happened.

[jayfish]

53. Very True. Public Opinion...

didn't turn until Colon Powell's totally fabricated speech to the UN. The U.S.'s collective memory is so short, thanks to our pathetic media, that people just don't remember.

Jay

[DistressedAmerican]

75. Colin was such a freaking sellout! Way to get pimped by Bush!

I actually thought that them bringing in Colin meant that IF we were to go to war it would be done under the lauded "Powell Doctrine". They sure as hell blew that.

Screw you Rummy and screw your doctrine!

Colin, I hope it was worth your international reputation to tell the lie for the Chimp!

[jayfish]

139. They Got What They Wanted Form Him And...

cast the ashes of the "Powell Doctrine" to the wind. Makes you wonder if that's what they had in mind the whole time. I don't know what the hell he was thinking. The Conswerveatives have never liked him. Hell, they think so highly of him that they call Conda Lies-A'lies-A'lies-Alot the first black SOS.

Jay

[LynnTheDem]

114. USATODAY.com - Poll: Bush hasn't made case for Iraq war

More than two-thirds of Americans believe the Bush administration has failed to make its case that a war against Iraq is justified according to a poll by the Los Angeles Times published Tuesday.

72% of respondents, including 60% of Republicans, said the president has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-iraq-poll_x.htm


Poll: Support For a War With Iraq Weakens Among Americans (Jan 2003)

Seven in 10 Americans would give U.N. weapons inspectors months more to pursue their arms search in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that found growing doubts about an attack on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

http://middleeastinfo.org/article1795.html

[BuyingThyme]

128. And that was "with 59 percent of Americans approving of his work."

Even the insane were not supporting him.

[demnan]

4. No I didn't

but then I read Will Pitt's interview with Scott Ridder.

[Hissyspit]

13. Me, too. In October of 2002, I told my students...

on Fort Bragg (mostly soldiers) two days before the war started: "You know their not going to find any weapons of mass destruction, don't you?" I wonder how many of them remember me saying that? I walked into my ART 205 class (not soldiers) after one of Bush's SOTU speeches(JAN. 2002)and pretty much screamed "There is no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein! Learn to read between the lines." They just looked at me as if I was crazy.

Too bad most Americans didn't read Will Pitt's book. I didn't really buy it even before I bought the book. My reaction when the admin started mentioning Iraq was "Iraq? What the fuck?"

[serryjw]

100. LOL! Scott Ritter said they were all gone

and that we gotten 90% of them .I felt IF he had any left he would use them when we invaded and he didn't...because he had none. I knew the 'yellow cake uranium' from Niger was a lie, our DoD said the aluminum tubes where not compatible with a nuke program and we did have control over most of the air space. I consider Saddam a paper tiger WHOM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11!

BTW....

I sign my email as follows:

"If you are not paranoid, you are not paying attention"
America's challenge:LEARN TO READ BETWEEN THE ROTTEN LINES/LIES!
I Stand with Dennis Kucinich
I'm proud to be a Kucinich 2004 delegate
The ONLY TRUE Democrat!
www.kucinich.us

[DireStrike]

5. I bought it - I was young and trusted the government.

I won't make that mistake again.

[Undercover Owl]

121. important lesson learned! (nt)

[Stop_the_War]

6. There were NO WMDs at all.....

[SmokingJacket]

7. I thought there might be a little bit.

I knew there was nothing like they were claiming, but I thought probably they'd uncover a cave or two with something in it.

But I mean, NONE WHATSOEVER?

Hard to believe the war was THAT much of a farce!!!

[DistressedAmerican]

10. I really don't get why they didn't plant something just to save face!

I was thinking perhaps it is just too easy to track to a source? I can't believe that they were just suddenly overcome with the urge to tell the truth for a change!

[Sir Jeffrey]

37. I thought they would have planted something by now too n/t

[DistressedAmerican]

39. Maybe he is just not as ambitious as I thought!

[Sir Jeffrey]

43. Or maybe they didn't have to because Americans are lazy and forgetful...

Damn, sometimes I hate being an American.

[yodermon]

84. They tried. They failed (allegedly)

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/06/266752.shtml

CIA and DOD Attempted To Plant WMD In Iraq

A DOD whistleblower detail an attempt by a covert U.S. team to plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The team was later killed by friendly fire due to CIA incompetence.

Source is a whistleblower, "Nelda Rogers" who works(ed) for the DOD. Anyone who can vouch for her veracity?
googled her: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Nelda+Rogers&btnG=Search

an interesting one, search for her name:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Bank_Heist.html

[DistressedAmerican]

89. Well that's comforting! Fits better with my expectations.

Always hard to say with this crowd. Generally they are very predictable creatures. I knew we were going to Iraq he day the supremes gave him the job. I knew he would likely trump something up as an excuse. Fortunately, Osama provided a helping hand. He knew that an attack would be just the excuse Bush needed to put us right in the heart of the Mideast.

The lack of something showing up whether it was Saddam's or not really surprised me. If this story is to be believed (an I am reserving judgment on that for the time being), they were up to the predictable thing.

Frankly, I ALMOST wish they had. At least I'd look like less of a jackoff when I travel. He gives ALL a bad name. I work in Mexico quite a bit and have always been loved down there. UNTIL THIS!

Right after the war I actually had to flee an anti-war crowd. They were turning on me just for being an American in the area (despite my VERY vocal support of their stance in excellent Spanish). That really pisses me off.

Old but still true...

[EST]

147. There were so many of us, including me,

who were (and in many cases still are) so terribly involved in trying to balance family, keeping a small business afloat, seeing to it that my employees had what they needed, were not going hungry or abusing their families, on and on and nauseatingly on, that precious little time (or interest) was available to clean the unsophisticated barn effluvium off our social naivete and wise up to the real world. I wised up practically overnight but I can certainly understand why there are others who have not, yet. (And I can get so unfairly angry with them, too)

I actually felt a small sense of (now obviously) misplaced relief that the nervous relationship with Saddam Hussein would now, finally, be resolved, after a dozen years of escalating worry. I basically stayed up for days on end, watching the drama unfold and witnessing a slowly dawning horror and dread as it became more and more blatantly obvious that something stank to high heaven. As my beliefs and high regard turned to smoke and ashes, drifting slowly downward against the starry background and my feelings of slight resentment toward the war protesters turned to a "Oh, my God, what have we done" reality, the whole world changed and now it will never change back. (Sound of a distant, lonely sob of abandonment)

[Warren Stupidity]

8. question is a little ambiguous

Iraq certainly had prohibited weapons before the war, a long time before the war, so you need to qualify 'before'. I assume you meant the day before we invaded.

'WMD' itself has become a bogus term. I assumed that our invasion forces would find some prohibited weapons and that these would be used to justify the invasion. I was surprised that no prohibited weapons at all were found.

WMD has become stretched to include lots of weapons that are not capable of the level of 'mass destruction' associated with the icon of WMD, the nuke. For example chemical artillery shells were used in the Iran-Iraq war, are prohibited by international treaty since after WWI, but are not really weapons of mass destruction. We bought into their distortion of language and in doing so allowed them to lower the bar for the evidence that could have been used to justify the war.

At one point the rethuglican propaganda machine was claiming that Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction because of the number of people executed by his regime.

Their redefinition of words to exploit the perceptions and emotional content associated with these words in their original meaning is deliberate, and is one of their favorite tactics. Don't buy into it.

[DistressedAmerican]

12. Point is well taken However, for the purposes of this poll

lets say WMD = Chemical, Biological or Nuke-u-lur, since that was the thrust of what UN inspectors were looking for.

Yes, I did mean the day before we rolled in. However, feel free to extend the time frame back to Bush's big UN speech since it is clear that not much changed for Saddam between those two dates.

[Snotcicles]

9. No because I believed Bonior, McDermott, Ritter

All the people fox news called traitors for going over there before the war to check it out.

[Mojambo]

109. Same here

I listened to the experts.

There was never any doubt.

[WyLoochka]

11. I read the articles buried

in the back pages of WAPO, as well as other print sources, and pretty much ignored teevee and front page headlines, so I'm on record declaring to friends, family and work colleagues - before the invasion - that there were no WMDs.

I have witnesses! My New Republic subscribing/reading/suporting nephew, who had accused me of being a "conspiracy theorist," with all my rants about the direction BushCo was taking country, was stunned when he learned I was right all along about NO WMDs.

He says he's not going to renew his TNR subscription! Stuff a sock, Bienart.

[Hissyspit]

20. I have witnesses, too! See my Post #13.

They were a captive audience, ha. :9

[pss]

14. I assumed they had something...

Mainly because we had sold them so much in the 80's.
Besides, what country DOESN'T have at least SOME weapons to protect itself?
When it started to look like nothing would be found, I assumed a few things would be planted to at least make it LOOK like they had stuff.

I think this whole thing was done just to fuck with my head...

[IronLionZion]

15. There was so much bullshit flying around

that I didn't know what to believe. I was against the war because there wasn't enough reason for it. A lot of countries might have WMDS and oppress their people but we can't invade all of them. It's better to not be so hated in the world.

[Squeech]

16. Rumsfeld said

"We know where they are: in the region of Tikrit, and north, south, east and west of there."

And the inspectors (who were still there at the time) went there and looked. And found bupkis.

And Hans Blix told the media (such as would listen) that American intel was worthless.

And Scott Ritter wrote a book (with Will Pitt) saying the same thing.

Of course this all comes down to a he said/she said argument: none of us get to evaluate the raw data first hand, so we have to weigh the track records and motivations of the two sides. But it was known that the Bushies were unencumbered by such things as honesty or consistency ("Lucky me, I hit the trifecta!"), and it was also known that Emperor C-plus Augustus had a motive for war ("Saddam tried to kill my pappy!"), so I thought it was reasonable to assume that the Bushies were lying about this too.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. I answered No, Assumed, which is wrong. I knew they were making it up.

There was enough information out there if anyone wanted to read, that they didn't exist. During the Rice confirmation hearings, Boxer made the case for that, and that is why she didn't vote to give Bush authorization to use force.

[ICantBelieve]

18. I thought they "might"

I thought there was a chance Iraq had WMD. I didn't think Bush was lying. Boy, was I naive. However, I felt very strongly that there was not enough evidence to go to war. I thought we should have pushed really really hard for legitimate inspections.

It's my belief that you shouldn't go to war unless you know for sure. Clearly, we didn't know for sure or we would have found them.

Really, I can't decide which is worse: lying to get support for a war that you're going to for some other reason OR being stupid enough to go to war when there were better, less drastic alternatives. I guess I just don't know whether it's better to have a sleezeball President or an idiot President. I know, I know, odds are we've got an idiot sleezeball on our hands!

[IndianaGreen]

19. The WMDs claims were being debunked as fast as they were made

by the British press and other foreign publications. Powell's speech to the UN was debunked as he was making it.

The problem is that many Americans still want to believe that our country can do no evil, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary. Their entire moral universe will collapse if they were to allow the smallest doubt to seep into their minds.

[Hissyspit]

21. Somebody click 'Recommend'

I don't think it belongs on the front page, necessarily, but it does belong in greatest, I think.

[DistressedAmerican]

27. Thanks for the props.

I do think it is pretty interesting to look back on where we stood in advance of the same song and dance about Iran!

Maybe when they cry "Wolf" again we will cry "Bullshit"!

[karlrschneider]

22. I'm abstaining on this one, because none of the choices accurately

reflect the opinion I had in early 2003...first, nukes are actually the only kind of weapons of "mass destruction" regardless of the conflation implied (or outright claimed) by Bushco with chem and bio agents, which can certainly be deadly enough but they are difficult to use effectively against large numbers of people and/or large areas. I supposed Iraq probably had some CB left over because I knew that they had previously used them. I was 100% certain they had no nukes.

[LynnTheDem]

117. I thought they'd have leftover CB...but 10 years old??? SALAD DRESSING.

That and they never had the means to deliver any CB.

Anyone wwho paid attention KNEW Iraq didn't have real "WMD"; nukes.

[cags]

24. No, Now I get to say "I told you so" all the time though

[janx]

25. No. The UN presentation by Powell sealed it for me.

I knew there weren't any (of any real amount), and I knew that Chimpy would do whatever he could to go to war anyway. As a matter of fact, as soon as I heard the term "weapons of mass destruction"--one that was used over and over in his father's administration, I knew we were in for trouble.

[mopinko]

49. agree

colin powell, you are no adlai stevenson.
i knew if they had a single bit of proof, they would have blown it up into 18" x 24" glossies, and pasted it everywhere.

[Hissyspit]

73. I remember hearing Powell's evidence and thinking "That's it?!"

That's your hard evidence??" It's almost laughably circumstantial. It would get thrown out of any serious U.S. court. The laugh was on me, as, over the next few days, I found out most Americans seemed to be buying it.

[janx]

92. Yes. It was terrible, unbelievable.

The dramatic pseudo-sample of white powder in a vial, the almost cartoon aerial drawings of "weapons labs," the out-of-context taped phone conversation (translated, of course)--it was so embarrassing! And how on earth others could have believed it is still beyond my comprehension. :shrug:

[Hissyspit]

104. Confirmation bias...

the tendancy to seek out evidence that is consistent with an
hypothesis (sometimes one in which the seeker is emotionally invested), instead of seeking out evidence that could disprove it.

Americans wanted a 'bad guy.' Saddam had been thoroughly demonized (and he WAS a sociopathic or psychopathic dictator), so it was enough to confirm what many already believed.

And you're right, the taped conversations were INCREDIBLY taken out of context.

[amazona]

26. couldn't figure a way they could have had ANY

No I figured it had to be a lie because of the length of time the embargo had been going on.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[NewJeffCT]

28. I figured he still had a few somewhere

But, nothing significant like what Bushco had claimed - after all, in mid 2001 both Condi Rice and Colin Powell were on the record as saying that Saddam was so impotent that he was not even a threat to his neighbors.

I knew that Reagan & Company had given him WMD in the 80s, so I figured he had some stashed away, just in case.

[riverwalker]

29. No. I only believed Scott Ritter

I was a big fan of his long before 9/11, even before dumtwat's presidency. During the sanctions he was very informative about what was going on in Iraq, I read everything he wrote. The credibility was already there, for me. So after dumtwat stole the presidency, and drums were beating for Iraq, I knew I could trust Ritter. If he said there were no weapons, then there were no weapons.

[DistressedAmerican]

34. Ritter lives here in my town. I get quite a few chances to hear him.

That trumped up sex charge was some truly lowly Bush action. I was and am totally pissed over that one.

[Bemis]

110. History will show..

that he was a true hero in trying to state his case against
the WMD threat by Bush & Co.

He is an American hero.

[BuyingThyme]

30. Unfettered access, open palaces, multiple spy planes, accurate records...

No WMD anywhere.

Why believe otherwise?

[lapopessa]

31. Certainly thought he might

But have them or not, my main argument then was to let the UN inspectors do their job and work to back them and make them more effective.

[No Exit]

32. Hell no!! And so the f*** what if he HAD????????????

AS IF there weren't plenty of nations which did/do have "weapons of mass destruction" (gad, I'm so sick of that phrase, especially as it sounds when Junior garbles it out.)

So fucking WHAT if he HAD had weapons???? WE'VE GOT NUKES, FOR CHRISSAKE!!! Two-bit Saddam knew he would have to be STARK RAVING MAD to take us on! Russia's got stuff, and they are not always our friend, obviously!!! Israel's got nukes, and THEY are not always our friend, contrary to neocon propaganda!!!

The more important question is: was Saddam/Iraq a threat to us, such that would REQUIRE (REQUIRE, REQUIRE, REQUIRE) us going to war?

The answer to that question is/was, NO!!!

[DistressedAmerican]

35. No It Wasn't!

[No Exit]

52. I agree! But, I've gone further down this path, and I'm wondering:

First, okay, WE know that the invasion of Afghanistan was about the pipeline, and the Caspian Basin oil. And about Bridas, etc., etc.

WE also know that the invasion of Iraq is about oil. We want their oil! Also, the continual disruptions in the middle east drive the price of oil up, and of course the oilmen (such as the Bush crime family) profit from that.

The defense contractors are in on it, but their interests are just slightly different: they make money off military build-up. The Israeli government (notice I do NOT say "all Jews"!) is in on it, but their interests are also slightly different: they benefit b/c Saddam was clearly an enemy of their state. The Carlyle Group is in on it... see "defense contractors", above.

And I'm sure many others are also in lockstep with it. All of them after: FORTUNE.

And our current government wants these wars.

Then there's the concept of "peak oil". According to this idea, insofar as I understand it, we, the U.S., are going to run out of oil, and thereby have to abandon "our way of life", if something isn't done to assure us more oil.

That's as far as I've gone. My question is, if this filthy quest for oil is actually stopped, will "our way of life" really have to change dramatically? To answer this question, all I can think of to do is to ask, "what would it be like if we didn't have such ease of transportation?"

I have pretty much talked myself into believing that IF "our way of life" were transformed, it would be a belt-tightening, but it would still be BETTER.

PS Love your graphic!!

[DistressedAmerican]

64. If you like that, Check out the website.

There are close to 500 of my images there from the past year or so. Could that be right? Yes, I have been busy. It is theraputic.

[No Exit]

158. Will do! And thanks for getting the word out! n/t

[No Exit]

54. PSS: It's time for the "Age of Oil" to end.

I picture some history book of the future classifying the last century (and actually some of the 19th century) as "the age of oil". I picture the book saying that said age came to an end in the early 21st century.

I like this mental picture.

I mean, mankind survived for how many thousands of years without using oil??

(And for all those creationist nuts out there: God didn't put an oil well in the Garden of Eden!!!!! How's that for a bumper sticker?)

[DistressedAmerican]

63. I'm an archaeologist and I like it, Stone, Bronze, Iron, Industrial, Oil!

flows nicely!

Hopefully we will be following it up with the solar age!

Speaking of WMD, Here's MY operational definition outside of this thread:

[SophieZ]

94. Right. And furthermore...

The weapons inspectors said nope, no weapons, couldn't find any.

The inspectors said their work was going well, give them a few more months.

The UN said, "WE will enforce our rules about weapons. Butt out."

The US had no legal or ethical standing to invade Iraq, even if they DID have weapons. It was the UN's job. (And, as you point out, WE have the real cache of weapons. The US is the ONLY country to ever drop nukes on another country, and is the most heavily armed country in the history of the world.)

So, the real question, which the Bushies don't want us to ask is, "Did the US have any right to go into Iraq, whether they had weapons, or if anyone thought they had weapons?"

And -- how about OUR weapons and military?

... the unbelievably bloated military and our 725 bases in 132 countries. The US has a total of 1,389,000 men and women on active duty. {Roughly equivalent to everyone of any age living in Dallas or Philadelphia.} Payroll for these uniformed personnel is nearly $80 billion a year. The US spends 37% of all the money spent anywhere in the globe on military. The US is the world's largest arms seller, responsible for 47 percent of all munitions transfers between 1996 and 2000. The US has 8,820 nuclear bombs, plus 10,000 in storage, but the government has authorized expenditure of an additional $20 billion for nuclear weapons.
Source for statistics: The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson

[spanone]

33. The UN was in there and told us there were no fucking WMDs

IT WAS ALL A LIE AND THE LIES CONTINUE.

[Sir Jeffrey]

36. I remember telling a friend of mine that lying about WMD...

would be political suicide. Boy was I giving too much credit to the American people :(

[Stirk]

41. I know exactly what you mean- I did the same thing.

I've been amazed at the power of propaganda over these last few years. Alot of Bush's supporters think US forces did find WMD.

[DistressedAmerican]

42. I've seen those polls.

Bushies were something like 46% likly to believe that we had found WMD and roughly the same number believe that there WAS a Saddam-9/11 connection.

Sadly, something like 12% of dems polled said the same things!

[LynnTheDem]

120. Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program

72%of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%).

October 21, 2004

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

[DistressedAmerican]

122. The Ones I Talk To On The Issue Think It Was Taken To Syria.

I guess they ARE on the list.

[Sir Jeffrey]

47. My mother-in-law believes that Saddam Hussein was responsible...

for 9/11 too. WTF do these people think is really going on?

As for the power of propaganda, I have to say that I think we have been bred to be this way. We are, by and large, an uneducated mass of selfish warmongers with no knowledge of history and no desire to see the world as it really is.

We absorb whatever we see on TV or the mainstream press as the gospel and never question those in authority over us.

I think a big part of it too is the profit principle governing the news media. If you are trying to earn a profit, you give the people what they want. If you challenge their worldview or disgrace their heroes, you will lose audience. I saw a guy last night on CSpan say this with respect to Abu Ghraib. Do we really want to believe that our soldiers are the puppets of war criminals and religious nutjobs? No, it is much easier to turn on the game and pray that the Lord will lead "W. Christ" to victory.

Man am I depressed this morning :)

[LynnTheDem]

125. Is your mum-in-law calling bush & rice & rummy LIARS???

Coz they all have publicly said NO TIES to 911. How dare she call bush, rice & rummy etc LIARS! ;)

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
-Rumsfailed, Monday, October 4, 2004

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,10975887-1702,00.html

Sky News (London): "One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?"

Bush: "I can't make that claim.'

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

Sept 17, 2003- Bush: No evidence Saddam Hussein involved in Nine-Eleven attacks

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1447698

Sept 16, 2003- Rice: U.S. Never Said Saddam Was Behind 9/11

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/983821/posts

Sept 16, 2003- Rumsfeld sees no link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm

Aug 6, 2003- Wolfowitz: Iraq Was Not Involved In 9-11 Terrorist Attacks, No Ties To Al-Qaeda

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4372.htm

Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party’s most respected foreign policy advisors;

"Don't Attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts. There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

[DistressedAmerican]

126. Well Done! I'll Keep This In My Pocket For Future Discussions!

[LynnTheDem]

127. Oops I forgot Powell!

No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Powell says

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150

And YVW. :)

[Sir Jeffrey]

160. Oh, come now, she would actually have to READ that...

And I would hate to be the one who has to ruin her rosy perception of the world. You know that perception:

where soldiers only kill the bad guys
where ** is a tough talking Texan
where Jesus wants Muslim babies murdered, but doesn't want Christian fetuses aborted
where smart bombs land where they're supposed to
where Catholics can disregard the Pope's condemnation of the Iraq War (she's Catholic)
where Bin Laden is hiding in a cave, scared for his life, unable to keep in touch with his masters at the CIA
where the best way to liberate people is to kill them
where nobody claiming to be a Christian is ever wrong about anything or has ever lied (unless they're an evil Liberal Democrat)

Dammit, I'm still depressed. On Valentine's Day no less. But thank you for posting that. If I thought it might make a difference I'd send it to her.

[LynnTheDem]

170. Well but, YOU know. And God knows that YOU know, that YOU cared enough

about human lives to inform yourself of the facts.

You did what you could; you'll be rewarded for that some day. I don't think willful ignorance will be.

And keep in mind you are and always have been with the VAST MAJORITY on this planet opposed to bush's illegal immoral supreme crime war of aggression.

:hug:

[Stirk]

38. I expected they'd find something, yes.

I assumed the Bush Admin. wouldn't use the WMD excuse unless they knew Iraq had something there that they could use to justify their invasion after the fact. I overestimated their competence, not their honesty.

[hollowdweller]

40. I thought he did initially, but not after the UN inspectors didn't find

anything. I couldn't understand why there was no dissent about going in after they LET the inspectors in and they didn't find anything. I felt like if they were really an immanent danger the UN inspectors would have found some.

[norml]

45. I thought there were a few duds, and expired munitions left lying around.

That's about it.

[Strelnikov_]

46. Me Too. May Have Had A Few Shells To Lob, But No Threat

Chemical weapons like Iraq had in the 80's are not a WMD.

Only weapon today that classifies as a WMD is a thermonuclear bomb. Never believed at all they had any kind of a nuclear program.

[norml]

103. Didn't think they had any active chemical weapons, because of expiration.

Those things become inert after a few years.

[Jamastiene]

48. Yes, but only

because I know our government kept the receipts from selling him those very wmd to tinker with Iran years ago after our government intalled Sadaam Hussein for that purpose. It's the military industrial complex. People have short memories. Here's how it works: Make arms, sell arms, buy arms back at twice the cost in exchange for influence, tighten grip on dictator's balls, piss dictator off, dictator finally says no to demands, we get mad at the dictator we just installed, huff and puff and flap our peacock feathers, bomb the hell out of them, rebuild, gain control over any resources, keep control over resoources, install a new dictator, and repeat process until all resources are depleted, move to another area and begin cycle again.

[two gun sid]

50. Nope. Would the Israeli's have allowed him to have them?

If I would have heard Israel screaming about WMD I would be inclined to believe Saddam had them. It's their neighborhood and they would be in as much or greater danger than us. Remember that when chimp talks about Iran. If Iran has them, Israel would attack them.

[chefgirl]

51. Nope. Not for a minute

I remembered how impressed I was with the things Scott Ritter had to say when the inspectors were pulled out of Iraq in '96(?). They had the ring of truth to them, and he never seemed to be trying to cover his ass, just telling it like it was.

Then, when he started to speak out against the run up to this war, I listened VERY closely to what he was saying, and again, his words had the ring of truth to them. If there was ANYONE who would know, in a realistic sense, whether Iraq had WMD's or was a threat to us, it was Scott Ritter.

When he insisted over and over that there was no threat, that we destroyed any capability they had to recreate weapons without being noticed, that we had been doing fly over bombings ever since the first Gulf War, it would have been impossible to dismiss the knowlege of the situation that he brought to the table.

The clincher for me was when the RW started to try their tired old character assasination game on him. Even if the things they accused him of were true, it had NO bearing on the things he was saying about Iraq, and his position as chief weapons inspector.

I completely credit Scott Ritter every time someone asks me how I was so sure (usually in a sarcastic way) that Iraq posed no threat to us.

-chef-

[Hissyspit]

81. Re: Scott Ritter - argument ad hominem

Attack the person, not the argument. Fav right-wing gimmick.

[DistressedAmerican]

101. Good local NPR interview with Ritter here!

http://www.chartock.net/ritter.html

I have a collection of interviews the local NPR station, WAMC did in the run-up and since on CD that I got as a premium for contributing. I don't know if there is a way to get a copy but this is some of it!

[Hissyspit]

143. Thanks. Very cool of you. n/t

[giant_robot]

55. I thought he had WMD's, but still thought war was a stupid choice

and continued inspections were the way to go. I never believed that Saddam's weapons were ever a threat to us before the war. However, I was damn certain that he would use them on our troops after we invaded and he had nothing to lose. I realized he didn't have WMD after we took Baghdad without a chemical or biological attack.

[BanzaiBonnie]

56. Idefinitely KNEW we were being decieved

when I heard Rumsfeld say, "We know exactly where they are" and then he would not tell the inspectors.

I knew for certain at that moment that it was all bullshit.

[Renew Deal]

57. I thought they might have had something.

But it didn't worry me much. We had them too and Saddam didn't really scare me much. I knew that they were exagerating. Bush wanted the war no matter what. They created a crisis.

[tuvor]

58. Don't forget, bush and his posse ignored their own intelligence.

This is stuff the "liberal media" wasn't telling America in 2002:

Why the CIA thinks Bush is wrong
The president says the US has to act now against Iraq. The trouble is, his own security services don't agree.
13 October 2002
http://www.sundayherald.com/28384

CIA in blow to Bush attack plans
The letter also comes at a time when the CIA is competing with the more hawkish Pentagon, which is also supplying the White House with intelligence on the Iraqi threat.
October 10, 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808970,00.html

White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'
Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence
October 9, 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,807286,00.html

[Hissyspit]

70. Public forgets one year Bush saying CIA was right, next year was blaming

them for failure to find WMD. Talk about flip-flopping.

[leesa]

59. The CIA, UN Inspectors and everyone in the know was very clear that

it was unlikely anything was there. It was made VERY clear that it was unlikely.

[momknowsbest]

60. shocker!

wm-what?

[frictionlessO]

61. Nope!! Daddy boots LIHOP'ed GW1, and that was a farce that

forever changed me as I supported that wholeheartedly after buying into the Kool Aid they had for sale, after GW1 when all the lies slowly filtered out I was enraged.

When Lil boots got elected I told all my friends and family, "he'll take us to war with Iraq". I was right and I have never hated being right so much in my life.

[DistressedAmerican]

68. That you are definately right about! Hello April Glasby!

Just as a refresher I found this little link:
http://www.russfound.org/Enet/iraqcrisis.htm

We MUST NOT forget these examples when they try to ram Syria or Iraq down our throats!!!!

[fortyfeetunder]

62. If there were any WMDs

I bet if you turned over the contents you'd see a "Made in USA" label....

[mzmolly]

65. No, I believed the whistle blowers at the CIA, Scott Ritter, and Hanz Blix

all of whom came out against the weapons case.

[hyphenate]

66. I suspected it was fraud right from the very beginning

but I wasn't alone. I remember one source (can't remember now who it was) that said * was going to invade Iraq because Hussein was mean to Poppy. I suspect that statement had a ring of truth to it. I also remember that both Idiot Bushes 41 and 43 both had extensive ties to the Carlyle Group as well as Cheney's connections to Halliburton, and that the search for oil was a major factor as well. In addition, once the IDs of the neo-cons came out it turned even more into a vicious web of lies coming from the reich wing.

[WilliamPitt]

67. Nope

[DistressedAmerican]

72. Haven't read it yet. I'll get a copy and check it out ASAP!

[WilliamPitt]

74. I wrote it six months before the invasion

It was right then, it is right now.

[Hissyspit]

76. Check my post #13 above. It made its way into my classroom.

Read it right after it came out. I remember seeing them displayed along a newsstand in the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan that Fall. I thought everyone was reading it.

Wore one copy out and bought a second.

[DistressedAmerican]

78. I live near Ritter and am well aquainted with his views.

Can't wait to see the book. Must be nice to be on the record AND right. Great Work!

[Hissyspit]

80. Will wins Best Post

I read your book again the other day. Do you ever go to amazon.com to see the reviews of it posted there. Many fine reviews ("I read this before the war." "I WISH I had read this before the war."), but also reviews by rightwingnutjobs or the worst kind. Someone actually criticized it mildly for just being a group of interviews! Like, how besides the point is that?

[DistressedAmerican]

152. I'll Be getting my copy today.

Frankly, Don't know how I missed it before now. Amazon here I come!

[durutti]

135. But Will, how do you get around Ritter's credibility problems?

Before June 2000 (when "The Case for Iraq's Qualitative Disarmament" was published in Arms Control Daily), Ritter said that Iraq was "not nearly" disarmed. He resigned from UNSCOM over spying, but because, according to him, the insepctions regime wasn't being enforced militarily. And if I remember correctly, he argued for an invasion of Iraq in Endgame.

And I'm aware of only one other inspector -- maybe -- who was saying what Ritter was saying.

[Hissyspit]

140. I think I can address that some, if I remember correctly: Ritter himself

addressed some of those issues at the time and much of what he said jived with what Seymour Hersh had written and what was trickling out of the intelligence community. (Some of his comments did not turn out to be EXACTLY correct.) Also, he used logic that stood on its own, even as he was contradicting his earlier comments. People are allowed to profess the truth in contradiction what they earlier professed if they have facts and logic with which to do it. Will may not agree with all of this himself.

[durutti]

151. He addressed it, but I didn't find what he said very convincing.

He made a distinction between quantitative and qualitative disarmament. He said that Iraq was qualitatively disarmed, but that his job as an inspector was to see that Iraq was 100 percent disarmed.

But again, what he said in the late '90s was that Iraq was "not nearly" disarmed. To me -- and to most people, I think -- "nearly" usually means "mostly". So Iraq was at least 50 percent not disarmed just before inspectors were withdrawn.

Obviously, if Ritter was telling the truth and Iraq was really not nearly disarmed, then the 90-95 percent disarmament figure he gave was wrong, and Iraq had been disarmed neither qualitatively nor quantitatively.

On the other hand, developments since the outbreak of the war (some of which you mentioned) seem to have confirmed what Ritter said, and the intelligence community's official position is now identical to his.

Also, I can't conceive of what Ritter's incentive could possibly be for claiming Iraq's disarmament. He almost certainly lost money and publicity for taking such a stance.

Still, I suspect there are some things he's not told us. It would be interesting to see his FBI file.

[Old and In the Way]

69. Would the Chickenhawk-in-Chief have invaded if there were WMD?

That's the kicker. We had been there for years and they knew it was safe to invade. If there had been solid evidence that Saddam had WMD, would Bush have gambled on an invasion? Do you think Saddam would have used them if he had them? I have no doubts that he would have.

The fact that we invaded is proof positive that Bush knew there weren't any.

[Misunderestimator]

71. Honest answer: I knew during the SOTUS they were making it all up.

[ultraist]

77. No, I thought from the start it was another lie

And when they stopped the process so they could rush to war, it further reinforced my opinion on that.

I thought even going in to look was BS, it was just done to set the stage.

[johnaries]

79. No, I believed the UN Inspector's reports along with France and Germany

nt

[bush_is_wacko]

83. Several things had convinced me that Saddam had WMD's at some time in

the past. I actually still think he may have smuggled some to Pakistan, but NOT Iran!

The main thing that convinced me he had them was the fact that GHWB, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz gave them to him during the eighties!

But I'd also heard Clinton refer to the possibility and inspectors had previously said they were unable to perform adequate searches for them in the past.

I wasn't thinking Nuclear though. I was thinking biological. I knew his assertion that Saddam had a hidden nuclear program was BIZARRE!

I know several Iraqi Kurds that have been in and out of that country over the years to basically smuggle family members and friends into safer areas, Turkey, the UK, etc, etc. They were relaying fairly accurate information about the condition of the people of Iraq. They didn't really talk much about Saddam himself. I'm sure there are many reason's they chose not to do so. Right before the invasion they did start to talk about the atrocities committed by Saddam's son's, but again not Saddam himself. They were ready for this invasion and they actually did support it at first, but they NEVER really gave a yay or nay on the WMD question. I really don't think the Iraqi people KNEW any more than we did, they just hated the regime.

After 911 one of my Kurdish friends son's enlisted in the marines. this particular friend is now an American citizen. Actually, he has been for MANY years.

When the initial invasion went so well and I saw how happy the people were to be rid of Saddam I thought well maybe this won't be so bad. But I could tell my friends were worried. They had the benefit of knowing the true situation there. Al-Qaeida incidentally was pretty much debunked by them from the beginning. I'm not even sure they were aware of this particular group by that name before 911!

Ultimately, I think most of the Iraqi's I know are glad Saddam is gone, but they know this is not the end and they have no intention of going back, at least not anytime soon. They seem to be maybe a little afraid to express an opinion as to what our military should do now. I really can't get the gist of what they want and in some cases they seem to be confused as to what would be best.

Iraq as a "free" nation is something they have a difficult time imagining I think. After living in Iraq and America they understand Iraq has a long way to go before it even resembles anything close to this society.

[DistressedAmerican]

87. Very Interesting Post. Thanks.

I wish we were getting more reaction from folks that live there. It really is hard to tell what the truth is.

Some love us, some hate us, some really don't give a shit. The problem is that each side uses the quotes that back their version of reality. Frankly, I really do not care what Americans think that Iraqis think. I am sick of pundits opining on the "Iraqi People" and how they view the occupation.

More first hand accounts (from both sides) would be very helpful in understanding how things really are going over there.

[bush_is_wacko]

91. I agree and I am discouraged by the fact that American's aren't reaching

out to the MANY Iraqi-American communities around this nation to get a sense of what they really think and want to see for their country!

Rhetoric is being slung about in all directions and the reality is EVEN the Iraqi's don't have absolutes! They were EXTREMELY repressed in Saddam' regime and Iraq is not in a very good situation right now. The brain drain from that country has been incredible and unless there is some stability that Iraqi's can count on, I can't imagine they will ever go back to the country they left and leave the countries that HAVE provided them with some stability.

There are MANY very well educated Iraqi's, but not many of them stayed in that country in the last 10 years or so. Those that were left behind did not have the means to escape. I know it took incredible amounts of money and allot of bravery for those that escaped to do so. They ran serious risk of being shot on sight at any given moment!

[DistressedAmerican]

98. Did a little searching and found this interesting piece from NPR

on Iraqi-American opinions about the war:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1978221

It is a bit old (just pre "handover" of soverienty) but it is still a good listen.

I think the brain drain could be reversed if the situation over there wasn't such a disaster. Hopefully, it will somehow work out to the point that poeple that were forced to flee feel like returning.

Unfortunately with this administration "staying the course" like there was no tomorrow, that doesn't look like a near term possibility.

Hopefully, the Iraqis will be able to save themselves from Bush better than they were fairing with Saddam!

[bush_is_wacko]

102. Oh, I think the Iraqi's WILL save themselves! They are a very determined

people. Even those "brain drain" Iraqi's I refer to WANT a better Iraq. They are just, justifiably a little worried about supporting ANY leadership right now. These people were subject to a very ruthless tyrant for a VERY long time. I'm pretty sure they have reason to take a moment to digest the implications and a wait and see attitude. But again, eventually they will attempt to build Iraq into a nation they can be proud of. That is IF stability in the region can EVER be maintained for a substantial amount of time. bushCo will not produce stability by threatening every Arab/Muslim nation in the vicinity of Iraq. As I see it now that is effectively what bushitler is doing so Iraqi's are wise to take head!

[mark414]

85. technically, they really didn't make it up

they just selectively used old and outdated "evidence"

i never believed it for a second but the guy did at one point have some of the stuff...but the first gulf war and the sanctions and bombings took care of that...

[Zorro]

86. Yes I did

I could not conceive that the administration would not have strong evidence of WMDs before committing this country to something as profoundly serious as war.

I was deceived by liars and con men. Bush and company have damaged the credibility of the office of the Presidency, and their dishonesty and deceptiveness will continue to profoundly effect this nation's perception of the government for at least another generation.

[DistressedAmerican]

90. As well as our reputation overseas!

Thanks George for saving us from an unarmed man (you douchebag)!

[Trajan]

88. It is an absolute fact that they had WMD ....

Since Reagan and Bush I gladly fed Saddam a steady diet of alms and WMD's in the 80's ....

THAT being said: The question is WHEN did he have them ... not if ...

He of course had them: but there is no evidence that he had them when Bush took america to war in 2003 .... Iraq was no imminent threat to us ...

The UN sanctions worked ....

Imagine that ....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

105. They were certified by the UN inspectors to be WMD-free in 1995....

...and with the amount of satellite surveillance, overflight intelligence, as well as people on the ground, there was no way the Iraqis could have built another WMD program.

It was all smoke and mirrors from 1995 until the the day we officially admitted in 2005 that Iraq had no WMDs. But that's okay...the PNACers had another dozen or so reasons to attack Iraq, didn't they?

[wryter2000]

93. I thought he probably had some

We knew that he'd had chemical weapons in the past, and I wouldn't believe anything he said if he had his tongue notarized (to quote Leona Helmsley speaking about Donald Trump). So, I figured he probably hadn't disarmed.

However, I knew Boosh was lying about nukes, so I figured he was lying about the extent of SH's chemical and biological weapons. But if SH had had WMD's, the logical thing to do was support inspections.

[derby378]

95. The only time I worried about WMDs...

...was when US and British troops approached Baghdad city limits. I figured that's when Hussein would pull out all the stops and use whatever chem-bio agents he had left. He didn't. That convinced me once and for all he had nothing left.

[Placebo]

96. The main reason I was ANTI-WAR...

was because I feared Saddam had chemical weapons, and like a cornered frightened animal with nothing to lose, might strike out and unleash his entire arsenal on our troops resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and a most unpleasant scenario. I never believed that W was taking us there for the reasons he stated, though. I always assumed it was for economic reasons.

After it was widely reported that Iraq had no WMDs, it was just more reason not to go to war in the first place.

le sigh...

[DistressedAmerican]

99. As soon as we rolled and he didn't use them I KNEW there was nothing

At that point he would have had NOTHING but incentive to use them. No matter what their belief up until them, folks that held out hope that we would find them were completely deluding themselves from that point on.

[pa28]

97. I answered yes.

But opposed the war. I felt Saddam had been contained and I wanted our resources focused on Osama.

To those of you who said it was all B.S. congratulations. You were absolutely right.

[gordianot]

106. Yes

I also thought the Democrtats knew what they were talking about.

[barb162]

107. Improbable but still possible

[Bemis]

108. Never believed the WMD threat..

I remembered that Iraq had complained bitterly about Scott Ritter and his tactics. So when he came out early saying that the UN inspection team had gotten rid of about all of the WMD I knew he was telling the truth.

I would have believed the Bush and Company WMD claim if Rumsfeld had
publicly stated that the US had supplied the weapons to them during the Iraq/Iran war. But everyone knows that Rummy and friends have and will never take responsibility for their improper actions.

[onethatcares]

111. I figured if they could have sattelite pictures of cuba and colin powell

at the same time, pointing out the trucks and the sites, it was a lie, and a big one. But it's way too late now. we're all fukked.

[DistressedAmerican]

112. That Was My Favorite Bit Of "Evidence"

I was also quite partial to the artist's rendering of the "Mobile Biological Weapons Labs" i.e. The Winnebagos of Death.

I appropriated it for this graphic:

[GOPBasher]

113. I did believe he had them, actually.

I didn't think our leaders could get away with lying so badly. I was wrong, obviously.

[VOX]

116. Thought there might be some old stock, stamped "Made in U.S.A."...

Left over from the Iraq-Iran war, when the U.S. backed Iraq and supplied some "goodies" to use on the Iranians.

Guess those munitions were all depleted, or rendered so unstable or useless from age that they were destroyed a long time ago.


on edit: typos :grr:

[A Brand New World]

118. Nope - I honestly didn't believe they had anything. Especially after

listening to Scott Ritter and given the fact that nothing had been found for however many weeks/months that the inspectors had been there prior to the illegal invasion.

That was why Bush was so hot to trot. You know, all that crap about the invasion having to occur RIGHT NOW before the weather got too hot or something. He knew the longer the inspectors were there that his whole WMD reasoning would be shot to hell. And of course, the "free the Iraqis" reason would not have breezed through Congress as well as the WMD reason.

So here we are, 2 years later and I'm sure the weather has been real hot at times. 1500 Americans are dead, plus the 100,000 Iraqis.

[Bouncy Ball]

119. There wasn't an option for

"I doubted it and bushco was putting my bullshit radar on DEFCOM 10."

That's the answer for me. I seriously doubted he did, especially in the quantities they were saying he did.

ESPECIALLY after the presentation to the UN by Powell in which it was clear we had NO hard evidence that SH had WMDs. That nailed it for me.

[TankLV]

123. No, I KNEW they were all bullshit the moment the "proof" was revealed to

be "trust me, I can't tell you, but I know they do" and then they showed us cartoons, not like the photos we were led to believe they had like the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Anyone with half a brain could know. I'm amazed that ANYONE trusted those lying jerks on ANYTHING, ever!

[MichiganVote]

124. No, the US has never invaded a country w/WMD

Germany and Japan did have gas in WWII but Germany didn't use it and Japan didn't use theirs much either. Who the hell invades a country w/nukes?

[IndyPriest]

129. NO. It was clear to me as soon as * began linking SH to 9/11

I didn't know that planning to "do" Iraq was underway as soon as it was in *'s first administration. But as soon as he began linking Iraq and OBL, I knew we were in for nothing but bildge spewing from the WH. I think the reason so many Americans bought the bildge was/is that it's VERY hard for them to get their heads around the fact that someone as nuts as * is leading the country.

[DARE to HOPE]

132. Didn't believe a word Bush said...

...after they stole the 2000 election.

[laundry_queen]

164. Ditto.

I was pretty sure when they started linking SH and 9/11, but it was confirmed for me every time I heard Hans Blix or Scott Ritter speak. And I vividly remember watching all the 'proof' Colon Powell had and laughing at it and screaming at the tv at the same time. I knew it was all crap.

[Hissyspit]

130. kick

[in_cog_ni_to]

131. No. I knew they were lying.

I knew they needed Iraq as a staging area for attacking Iran and Syria. Notice, we have 14 military bases there now. They lied. They knew they were lying.

[durutti]

133. I doubted Scott Ritter's credibility.

What he said about Iraq in the 1990s seemed to contradict what he started saying more recently. He's never given an adequate explanation for this change.

That said, I was always quite certain that Bush and his cronies were at least greatly exaggerating Iraq's capabilities.

[sampsonblk]

134. No, KNEW they were lying to support their weak case

There was always a chance Saddam still had WMDs, until Bush began to explain how he knew they were still there. All lies. That's when I knew they weren't there anymore.

Made good money betting against Bush. Hope I get the chance to do it again - with less bloodshed at stake.

[jbnow]

136. I did not think they were a danger

I didn't knoow if some old weapons were still around...

But I was sure they would find some, whether they were there to begin with or not. I was sure they would find a way to plant some.

[sphincter]

137. Nope...

Reason? I trust Dr. Hans Blix.
His book "Disarming Iraq" is a pretty good book to read, even if he is not the best writer in the world.

[Geek_Girl]

138. I believed it

I believed Collin Powell because I did not think he would lie or exaggerate something so important. When he was making his case to the UN he was really making his case to Americans who trusted him.

[Hissyspit]

141. Powell sold out. Wonder what changed his mind...

He was fairly skeptical of the war up to the UN presentation, if I recall correctly.

[LittleClarkie]

142. I only sort of believed because of Colin

and because Saddam had that way of playing "musical inspectors."

I was guarded. I kept saying to myself, "Okay, but here better damn well be WMD's over there. You do NOT have a blank check dated 9/11!"

So I waited, and watched. And then we didn't find them. And then the spin on the war went from "WMD" to "we're here to liberate them" like we've ever been in the liberation business if there wasn't something in it for us. Then, a bit later, I heard Clark say the samn damn thing re: the blank check. That was why I was a Clarkie. He articulated what I was thinking. I knew near nothing else about the man. I was very uninformed.

A bit later, after the primaries, when I was faced with Mr. Styrofoam Personality (that good?) I found a story tucked away in a corner of the internet that said we had thousands of detainees in Guantanamo in limbo with no rights and really no way out, with the Army saying they all belonged there (sure, pal , that's why you're slowly letting them go). No due process, no nuthin'.

I was fully against the war at that point, and fully committed to supporting the Dem candidate who wasn't Clark. I didn't know much about him either at that point. I was just waking up. Got edumakated. Ended up here. Ta da.

So, I was guarded but suspicious.

[elshiva]

144. Dubya just wanted an excuse to invade Iraq.

Even before he was selected he wanted to invade.

[EST]

145. Ummm, let,s see here,

You felt compelled to caution us to be honest?

Actually, with that little judgmental dance, I managed to misread your question and answer, and voted hell no, when, in fact, in my little ivory colored pollyannaville, I was totally convinced that we were going to lose many thousands of soldiers to his wmds. After, no one would bother to practice deception on such a prodigious scale, would they? So, your numbers are now fatally skewed. Sorry.

[oasis]

146. It became obvious when they torpedoed Scott Ritter's truth telling tour.

The underhanded way in which they did it left no doubt.

[oblivious]

148. I was certain there were no WMDs. The inspections were clear.

I was always interviewed by the media at anti-war demonstrations so I made sure to read the complete IAEA and UN weapons inspectors reports, so that I would have some credibility. There was no doubt.

And even if you didn't trust Scott Ritter, other sources, including US Department of Defense documents had said basically the same thing as Scott about limited shelf life, making any chemical or bio stock they still might have had useless by 2002.

[magellan]

149. I didn't believe till they rolled out the 'mushroom cloud' threat

Then like a good baby boomer I ducked and covered.

The attitude I've taken since is if they could lie about such a hideous threat, there's nothing they won't lie about.

[ComerPerro]

150. Here's how you could tell it was BS

A guy apparently has tons of WMD, and he is so crazy and evil that he gasses his own people and slaughters thousands without a thought.

So, what would stop him from unleashing the WMD on US troops once they got to Baghdad? It's not as though he would show restraint, as to spare the lives of his people.

[fujiyama]

153. I thought

tha Saddam had a little left (maybe some chemicals and or bio materials)...I guessed it was mostly useless though (I figured that over time the stuff wasn't maintained).

I was conflicted earlier, believing to some extent that Saddam should be removed, but I never found it to be an immediate threat. He seemed contained and I was hoping that the weapons inspectors would be given a chance to actually do their job.

Either way, I found Powell's speech at the UN to be pretty ridiculous. I didn't trust him any more than any of the other liars in this administration.

[EFerrari]

154. Never. Blix and Ritter were more credible than the Cabal. n/t

[DistressedAmerican]

155. Poor Hans! He really took a beating.

Must have been terribly frustrating.

I love interviews with him now though. He has become (and justifiably so) Captian "I Told You SO"! Very satisfying.

[EFerrari]

161. I hope he says it right into the FBI bugs in his apartment ! lol

[devinsgram]

156. Knew positively, absolutely

he had none. A little common sense told you that. Scott Ritter and other inspectors said the same. Hussein was nothing but a tinhorn dictator that loved money more than anything. Besides that, how would he use them. His army was laugh, that's why they kept saying it would be a cakewalk to bring him down.

It still boggles my mind to think that people could have possibly believed the crap they were spewing. All it took was sitting down and doing some investigating of the facts and then looking at them logically.

What bothers me the most is that Kerry and Edwards fell for some of it.

[Padraig18]

157. I assumed that he *might* have some.

I assumed that Saddam might have some, but I was most willing to allow Dr. Blix and his team to continue their inspections; I saw zero immediate threat from Iraq and absolutely opposed Mr. Bush's illegal, foolish and dangerous pre-emptive invasion.

[ICantBelieve]

162. That's exactly how I felt.

[mattclearing]

159. Winnebegos of Death

Sounds like a fantastic name for an indie band.

That's probably asking for a lawsuit, though.

[EFerrari]

166. LOL! We called them "ice cream trucks of death" n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

163. No, he didn't have them....

I am proud to say that is what I believed in the lead-up to the invasion.

And that is thanks to the incredible researchers here at DU who dug up the articles, reports, and other information that proved to me that what Bush & Co. was presenting as "evidence" was nothin' but hyped up crap. Actually worse than crap.

And even if he did have them? What the heck was he going to do? Launch an attack on us or an ally knowing full well his country would be wiped off the map in under an hour??? Hussein was not stupid. You don't stay in power for 20+ years by being stupid.

[noonwitch]

165. Yes, but I think they were destroyed after Clinton bombed Iraq

Either by the bombing or by the Iraqis for fear of further bombing.

[GetTheRightVote]

167. NO, knew in my head./heart they were lying, words/actions not match

I told my repubs friends at the time (no longer friends) that * was lying is butt off and they got so piss at me, they told me to jump off. Now, I like to think they would hate to see me knowing what I stated at that time was correct and that they were sucker into believing it. I wish I could see their faces now.

:kick:

[deacon]

168. No, because of Chalabi being paid off, Kay saying the white house was

sending them on wild goose trips during the inspections, the rove CD dropped in the park that shows how they wanted to politicize a war, the PHD thesis they pulled off the web and Powell's UN performance.

[KnowerOfLogic]

169. I thought they might have a little, but I didn't care. nt