Powell casts doubt on Iraq WMDs

Originally posted by Seekerof
Impeached? Based on what?
That "he", exclusively, George W. Bush, said that Iraq had WMD?
I find it interesting that many here keep yelling and proclaiming that Bush, exclusively, should be impeached.
With the myrids of intellignece papers within the US and the intelligince papers outside the US, you know...other foreign allied nations have their own sources stating that Saddam had WMD, how do you propose to legally affirm that Bush, exclusively, is to be impeached?

Here's a concrete FACT:
Saddam, inargueablely, had WMD, at one time. The 'time' is of issue, as Powell has mentioned, and as others in political circles have mentioned.
This inargueable evidence is concluded by UNSCOM, by Iraq's past record in regards to WMD, in Iraq having used them, in Iraq's own written and verbal submission to said fact.
Listing of those still "unaccounted for" WMD are found in many official forms from 1998 to before the second Iraq War. Did Saddam ever come clean and fully explain them and have them removed from the "unaccounted for" documents? No. The UN, with the instituting of Resolution 1441, gave Saddam one more chance to explain, in documented, proven form, those lists of "unaccounted for" WMD. Did he? No.
Please bear in serious mind, that it was Saddam's responsibility to clarify and provide the documentation on where and how those WMD were destroyed or where they were so that they could be destroyed. Again, did he? No.

Could the US have opted for further "containment" policies? Sure, but with the events of 9/11.....the rules changed. The significance of the tragic event opted for the fulfillment and requirements of Resolution 1441. None compliance resulted in "game over" for Mr. Saddam. Personally, it was inevitable that this was going to happen.

Again, prior existence of Iraq/Saddam having WMD was not in dispute.....the world's documented record(s) on this proves in accordance with what this implies.
All some to many who are against this are doing is a form of syllogism. To further this syllogism, the mode of thinking is:

Saddam/Iraq indeed had WMD.
No large quantities of WMD have been found, hence
Saddam/Iraq didn't have WMD, and
Because Saddam/Iraq doesn't have WMD, George Bush lied for saying that they did, and
Because he said this and lied, he should be impeached.

In light of this, in a syllogism, the conclusion can never make the premise invalid.
In such case....

Saddam/Iraq destroyed those "unaccounted for" WMD, or
Saddam/Iraq, within the 12+ years period, hid them so well, that they have yet to be uncovered or found, or
Saddam/Iraq, within the 12+ years period, had those WMD moved to another nation(s) or another entity(s).

Because WMD have not been found doesn't conclusively prove that anyone has lied. Nor does it imply and justify that Saddam/Iraq complied with the requirements of UN's Resolution 1441 (which passed unanimously and that included Germany and France).

If your going to continue to proclaim and ask 'why' Bush has not been impeached, might better do some more critical thinking on this, because "a lie(s)" has yet to be determined through legal means, definition, and evidences. Might want to read what he actually said and implied, along with those many other nations and what they had documented on Saddam/Iraq WMD issue(s).



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 24-1-2004 by Seekerof]

Stop being all technical Seekerof. Regardless of if he said it directly......WE INVADED IRAQ DUE TO THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Is that direct enough for you?

You think its reasonable to invade a country, then have your doubts after? War should always be a countries LAST RESORT. Bush didn't listen to the international community, who insisted on weapons inspections. Therefore in my book he should be impeeched

Killuminati......in such and besides "technicalities"
Your reasoning of, "WE INVADED IRAQ DUE TO THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" is not fully correct. You then back it with: "Is that direct enough for you?" Answer: NO.
Try this:
"Why We Went to War"
Link:
www.weeklystandard.com...

Excerpt:

""When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003"


You comment:
"You think its reasonable to invade a country, then have your doubts after?"

Vietnam ring a bell?


Mention:
"War should always be a countries LAST RESORT"

Really? History seems to contradict quite heavily what you are saying.


And further mention:

"Bush didn't listen to the international community, who insisted on weapons inspections."

Are you implying more inspections should have been done? Perhaps, but in light of events and Saddams/Iraqs past track record, there was no certainty that further inspections would have determined no more than it did. As I mentioned, the international community, the UN, unanimously passed Resolution 1441. Congress unanimously ratified and passed the Iraqi Liberation Act.



Accordingly, I see no cause for impeachment. A full investigation, involving all parties, past and present, sure.



regards
seekerof

Seekerof

Don't you think its crucial we enforce some penalties so we don't re-live another Vietnam......again

Its mind boggling that a president can chose to invade a country based on "threats". Then a year after invasion we realize those threats were false, or never even existed. AND can stay walk away with his job!

Why don't we legalize murder while were at it!


[Edited on 24-1-2004 by Killuminati]

Originally posted by Seekerof

Accordingly, I see no cause for impeachment. A full investigation, involving all parties, past and present, sure.

Yes, I would settle for an in-depth investigation by an independent party.

PS- I still think that there might be WMDs in Iraq. I, like most people actually believed that there would be use of chemical or biological weapons by Iraq during the war. It didn't happen, but who knows, those lakes of antrax Bush talked about in the State of the U. MIGHT still be hidden somewhere.

If this is the case...for political reasons, I hope they never find them. Or don't find them until after the next election...



[Edited on 1/24/2004 by Flinx]

Let's cut to the chase. Bush lied in his state of the union address. That's construed legally as lying under oath. Pure and simple. Bush is impeachable.

Then there's limpdick congress (dems and repubs alike) who abdicated their constitutional authority once again and giving Bush the ok to do whatever he wanted WITHOUT declaring war. That, friends, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and every one of them should be thrown out on their backsides, at the very least. Not one of them was "lied to." If you believe that, then you're pretty naive.

This just in:

"Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief"
Link:
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html

Excerpt:

"David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria."






regards
seekerof

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by Seekerof]

Don't buy into it.

Rummy's lickin his chops to get into Syria. He's been makin noise lately about hitting targets inside Syria and Lebanon to provoke them into conflict.

Come on now, how can a grown adult believe anything them BUsh boys are saying? They lied to you. And you want more of that?

Seekerof, I've been reading you for awhile now. You're a smart guy. Look beyond what you're supposed to accept. Dig deeper. Eventually, you'll see what you're not supposed 2.

Originally posted by Seekerof
"Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief"

What phrase am I reminded of when reading such a news story? Oh yes, now I remember.

Grasping at straws.

*shrugs shoulders*
Grabbing straws or strawman theory, makes no difference.
Its seemingly apparent that many will willingly grasp 'those straws' when it suites there beliefs (ie: What Powell has said.....what Kay said prior to this article I posted, etc.) and yet, when those who believe contrary grasp at 'those straws' it labeled "grasping straws"....how ironic isn't it?

Certainly, we don't need to rehash why the US went to war with Iraq do we? I mean, we will get everything from 'imminent' threat to oil, to oil pipe lines, to Iraq's Stargate, won't we?

Seems to me, that both sides of the argument(s) are "grasping straws" in one form or another.....



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by Seekerof]

Well, the side that said from the beginning that there were no WMD are looking very correct right now. I'd hardly call that being at the side grasping at straws. Perhaps early on you could have claimed that, but not now.

Please heelstone, please define what is meant by "no WMD".

Be as definitive as you like. Its apparent that many are thinking in absolutes. Quanitites have been found but not in the sense of definition of "large to medium stockpiles". CLarification of the meaning of "no WMD" would be perhaps prudent in this regard?



regards
seekerof

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
???????

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003


Bush lied, Cheney lied, Powel lied, Rice lied, Rumsfeld lied, Wolfowitz lied, Fleischer lied.....

The list goes on, and on, but with these people all lying how can anyone say it is not a conspiracy?

The UN destroyed all of Saddams WMD production long ago. We knew right where it was because We Built It!

Suggesting that Saddam may have had a Nuke is pure silliness. Unless he bought it which is pure speculation.

WMD have a Shelf Life. Any that Saddam may have had hiding would have decayed into useless waste years ago.

There was Zero evidence presented that Saddam could have produced any WMD since.

What nation was under closer watch that Iraq? Where else in the world did we overfly almost daily? Any major program would have been impossible to hide.

I think that the reason so many said nothing against the war is because they were sick-and-tired of hearing the words WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by ArchAngel]

Quanitites have been found but not in the sense of definition of "large to medium stockpiles". CLarification of the meaning of "no WMD" would be perhaps prudent in this regard?


I believe that exactly zero WMD have been found.

Originally posted by Seekerof
*shrugs shoulders*
Grabbing straws or strawman theory, makes no difference.
Its seemingly apparent that many will willingly grasp 'those straws' when it suites there beliefs (ie: What Powell has said.....what Kay said prior to this article I posted, etc.) and yet, when those who believe contrary grasp at 'those straws' it labeled "grasping straws"....how ironic isn't it?

Certainly, we don't need to rehash why the US went to war with Iraq do we? I mean, we will get everything from 'imminent' threat to oil, to oil pipe lines, to Iraq's Stargate, won't we?

Seems to me, that both sides of the argument(s) are "grasping straws" in one form or another.....



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by Seekerof]

Bush and all his yes men (and Condi Rice) have all lied. Looked ya straight in the baby blues and lied. I can't abide a liar, myself.

Keep on carryin' that banner. Keep on believin. But know this, they count on it and are havin alotta fun at your expense. Not to mention rollin in your money.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Please heelstone, please define what is meant by "no WMD".

Be as definitive as you like. Its apparent that many are thinking in absolutes. Quanitites have been found but not in the sense of definition of "large to medium stockpiles". CLarification of the meaning of "no WMD" would be perhaps prudent in this regard?

By "no WMD" I mean as in this definition as per the method in which it was used by our current presidential administration and others:

In arms control usage, weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Can be nuclear, chemical biological and radiological weapons, but excludes the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon.

There was absolutely none of the above. Do I need to be any clearer?

Oh, please don't be naive. The only WMDs here are Bush's Words of Ma$$ Deception.

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by Smith]

I don't mean to get all technical, but, technically, chem/bio weapons are not weapons of mass destruction.

They were thrown into that category for effect. To add something more to scare people with.

Now somethin like ICBM's aredefinitely WMD.

Really Arch, heelstone, Big Easy...so decisive these days, eh?
First, as to no, yet to be defined and clarified, WMD being found, many threads within ATS will show some amounts and quantites that have been found.
One prime example....US Marines entering Baghdad found this:
"Deadly chemicals are found dumped in river"
Link:
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Excerpt:

"Mustard gas and cyanide have been found in river water in the Iraqi city of Nasiriyah, coalition forces said yesterday.

The poisonous substances are believed to have been dumped in the Euphrates either by Iraqi soldiers fleeing from American troops or local factories that produced weapons of mass destruction."



And what about this:

"Chemical Warhead found in Kirkuk, Iraq Ignored by the American Media"
Chemical warhead found at an Iraqi air base, marked with a green band,
the symbol for chemical weaponry. Trace amounts of a nerve agent were found
at two spots along the ~meter-long warhead. These amounts are consistent with
leakage from the chemically armed weapon. A 13-foot missile was found next
to it." Courtesy of CNN.

Again, check past threads on this.


As to pointing out the current administrations comments, and being that this current administration used intellgience reports and documents from the prior administration....just exactly who LIED?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002"
Link:
"If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People"
Link:
www.rightwingnews.com...

Also:

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003"
Source:
"Why We Went to War"
Link:
www.weeklystandard.com...


So whose "lying"?



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by BigEasy
I don't mean to get all technical, but, technically, chem/bio weapons are not weapons of mass destruction.

They were thrown into that category for effect. To add something more to scare people with.

Now somethin like ICBM's aredefinitely WMD.

Or the Atomic Bomb which the US threw on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I am pretty sure they couldn't wait to test it out. But God bless America... not.

As I mentioned, the international community, the UN, unanimously passed Resolution 1441.


The resolution passed unanimously because it did not contain any authorization to use force. It was more hot air from the debate team. The oft quoted line "What does 'serious consequences' mean" is a lie by default. The implication is that force is authorized, which it is not.

1441 contained a Generalized affirmation.

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;