Boy do I ever remember this differently...

[pepperbear]

The thread topic was: supposed WMDs had been found, and, that aside, everything else was the same in Iraq. Would we be treating this war differently?

http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=243317&page=11

One of the posts:

No, considering that the war wasn't predicated on their being WMD's but was in fact based upon Saddam's refusal to cooperate with inspectors. Whether he actually had them or not was irrelevent to begin with.

I remember the big push was about proving the existence of WMDs,and the presence of such weapons became the entire reason for the war. Am I missing something or is this "revisionist much"?

Now some may think "Feh! It's just some freeper. We don't take what they say seriously." I disagree: the above assesment is WRONG and when someone so blithely makes a statement like this as if it were fact, esecially when the events in question happened only 4 years ago, I think it's cause for alarm.

It makes me that much more hopeful that trustworthy people will write the history of this particular fiasco.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Guess the idiot who said that has never talked to nor heard Hans Blix speak.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. As I recall, the inspectors were forced to leave Iraq because of the

impending invasion. The fact is they didn't find anything, and were about to come to the conclusion that there was nothing to find. That conclusion would have been pretty inconvenient to bush, thus the big ass rush to invade.

[scarletwoman]

3. So WRONG! Saddam WAS "cooperating with the inspectors"!

Cripes, he even destroyed a bunch of Scud missiles that the inspectors determined had too far a range! Hans Blix and his crew had the run of the country, it was BUSH who told them to leave so he could start bombing!

The U.N. inspectors were begging to be given more time -- they felt they were making real progress -- but bush didn't dare let them stay any longer because they would have PROVEN that bushco's propaganda about WMDs was bullshit.

"Not predicated" on WMDs?!?! Did this idiot totally forget all the scaremongering about "mushroom clouds"?

GADS! :banghead:

sw

[louis-t]

12. Saddam didn't destroy them, the inspectors did.

But you're right. However begrudgingly, Saddam was cooperating. I remember rush going on a tirade: "Blix doesn't WANT to find the WMD. He's trying his best to NOT find them. Look at the silly cars they're driving. Hans Blix is gay."

[Canuckistanian]

14. Scott Ritter worked for YEARS with the inspectors in Iraq

And the al-Samoud missiles were destroyed. That was the closest Saddam had to WMDs.

[Hamlette]

4. just like when the south says the civil war was not about slavery, it was about states rights.

or when they say we could have won in Vietnam had it not been for the dems.


They are trying to rewrite history. Hope it doesn't work.

[Wapsie B]

5. It sounds like this guy works for one of the rwing think-tanks

and its propaganda machine.

[ThoughtCriminal]

6. A few links for you

Surprise Visitors; UN experts inspect palace; Iraq complies -
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021204-iraq01.htm

UN Inspectors searched Hussein's palace in December 2002 -
http://english.people.com.cn/200212/03/eng20021203_107881.shtml

IAEA, UN Inspections in Iraq Worked -
"We were all wrong," says weapons inspector David Kay. Actually, no. There was one group whose prewar estimates of Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities have turned out to be devastatingly close to reality - the U.N. inspectors. Consider what Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N. nuclear agency, told the Security Council on March 7, 2003, after his team had done 247 inspections at 147 sites: "no evidence of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any related sites." He went on to say that evidence suggested Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990 and no longer had a centrifuge program. He concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997 and its dual-use industrial plants had decayed. All these claims appear to be dead-on, based on Kay's findings... The real lesson is that international bodies like ElBaradei's can work.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull461/timeline_iraq_5.html

[pepperbear]

10. thanks for these! n/t

[scarletwoman]

7. Oh yeah -- the idiot can't spell or use correct grammar, either.

...the war wasn't predicated on their being WMD's

That would be THERE, and WMDs -- which is the correct plural. An apostrophe indicates a possessive, not a plural. Their is also a possessive, when the meaning clearly calls for there -- an indication of location.

sw

[JuniperLea]

8. Not even good at playing cowboys!

Bush to Saddam: Come out with your hands up or I'll shoot!

*Saddam comes out with hands held high*

Bush: KAAAAPOOOOOOWWWWWWW!

[endarkenment]

9. I actually expected that they would find 'something'.

As they had inflated the meaning of WMD to cover all sorts of weapons, including circa 1914 technology chemical shells, that had become WMD. I still opposed the war, even with that expectation.

Let me put this another way: I would have opposed the war even if Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, even as I oppose the coming war with Iran knowing that Iran most likely has such a program. I am opposed to pre-emptive war, where the justification for pre-emptive war has come to be 'has the capability to attack' rather than 'is in the process of preparing to attack'.

[DCKit]

11. History is written by the winners.

Or, you could always subscribe to the idea that "tell a lie long enough and often enough, and people begin to believe it." I believe this administration calls them "talking points."

[Rosemary2205]

13. Hannity.com?? I hope you had a hot shower after going there. :)

No telling what you might catch. :)

[pepperbear]

15. in all honesty, hannity has users of EVERY ideaology over there..sometimes...

...the debates are lively, other times, you get yahoos like this poster.

:hi: