OMGddss, Cons still trying to spin Saddam's WMDs

[booley]

How deep can denial go?

"Facts about the Iraq War.

Did Iraq have Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Yes Iraq did have WMD this has been proven beyond doubt. Here we can see pictures of such weapons published by the BBC, and the United Nations. The question is, did they destroy them and supply proof

Did Resolution 1441 mean the coalition were supposed to find the WMD in Iraq?

No the coalition were not supposed to find the WMD, the media may try to portray it that way, but not what is required by resolution 1441. The inspectors were there to view the evidence of them having been destroyed not to find it.

What was required by resolution 1441?


Iraq was required by many resolutions including resolution 1441 to destroy their WMD and supply proof of doing so. Among other points

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its

obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular

through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA,

and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687

(1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this

resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under

relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced

inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the

disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent

resolutions of the Council;

Resolution 687

.................

Has Iraq complied with resolution 1441?


No, they have not complied with resolution 1441 or any other resolution over a period of over 12 years they did anything but; they went to great lengths to avoid complying with the resolution.

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its

obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular

through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA,

and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687

Did the coalition find WMD’s in Iraq?

Yes the coalition did. Many shells that Saddam said he had destroyed have been found. The images on the right are such finds that could still be used by terrorists and have been.

Have Terrorists used WMD's against the coalition?

Yes twice that we know about, WMD have been used against coalition forces.
..............
Were the UN weapons inspectors kicked out of Iraq?

Yes they were, many people try to say that they were not kicked out but left because the west were going to bomb Iraq. There were going to bomb Iraq because Saddam had stopped the inspections

“ 31 Oct 1998 Iraq announces that it will cease all forms of interaction
with UNSCOM and its Chairman and to halt all UNSCOM's activities inside
Iraq, including monitoring. The Security Council, in a statement to the
press, unanimously condemn Iraq's decision to cease all cooperation with
UNSCOM.”
United Nations Chronology

 Did the US have the right to take action against Iraq

Yes they did.

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all

necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August

1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore

international peace and security in the area,

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that

it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its

obligations;
"
http://groups.msn.com/eXtremelyPolitics/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=174508&LastModified=4675532030274252838&all_topics=0

Anybody care to pick apart this?

[jurassicpork]

1. Is it necessary?

I mean, Joe Wilson already proved the Niger document was a forgery and we all now know that Chalabi used the blood of our finest Americans to remove the only thing standing between him and the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world (Saddam Hussein) and that "Curveball" was a lying drunk.

This is worth a sad laugh and a shake of the head, nothing more.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

[The Straight Story]

2. I think the problem is a mess from many angles

As I have said before, Gore and Clinton thought saddam needed to go and they believed he had WMD. What we needed in the 90's was for the dems to put their foot down and debunk it all then, they did not.

So now we have the right using words from the left (and others) to bolster their lust for war. In their eyes the left, in the 90's, saw saddam as a threat and were too 'weak' to do anything about it.

Problem is, it was all based on poor information and facts. So now we have people dying daily for what?? The damn right is afraid to be wrong on the facts so they don't want to look at them and admit they were wrong (and so they use clinton/gore to bolster their argument thinking the left will believe something because a dem president felt the same way only acted differently).

There is not much one can do in such a case with the right. What I have done in such conversations is point out that both sides (D and R) were wrong but the (R) side went to extremes(and why I am not surprised??) and went to war. They need to admit they were wrong on the war and get things right. They won't of course. Pretty sad really....

[whistle]

3. Total horse shit!

[wtmusic]

4. Saddam was 100% compliant when we attacked on 3/19/2003

Undeniable.

The UNSCR 678 angle is an old and tired one, saying we were technically still at war with Iraq.

However, since this jerkoff wants to get anal over it, the UN had declared a ceasefire, which neither the US nor any member state had the jurisdiction to break independently.

None of the resolutions authorize any state to act independently. In fact, the Charter expressly forbids it.

[jsamuel]

5. DENIAL