Hello. Great post!…

But that is far, far below the threat level Bush sold them as. And it doesn’t change my opinion that this was the wrong war at the wrong time. I beleive it has been conducted very poorly, has put us in a no-win postion, and has drawn our attention away from other threats that should have taken precedence. And I beleive it has drawn all sorts of threats to our troops and to Americans in general; it has stirred up all these threats and provided them a breeding ground instead of keeping them contained and minimized.

So, no, I guess we won’t convince each other, but I thank you for being civil about it and not saying that I support terrorism or hate America. Now back to the games…

Yeah, I know it’s after the fact. But I wanted to point out that we don’t see anything like this in Afghanistan. Why does it all center around Iraq? If Al-Qaeda was developing a WMD program as proven, why aren’t they doing the same thing there?
Can you accept as a possibility that the expertise came from Iraq?

Sometimes I’m afraid for myself, and my family that America will one day implode and we, by virtue of our proximity, will suffer the fallout as well.

I’m so sorry you chose the leader you did. And I’m sorrier still that the events of 9/11, while tragic, are made even more terrible in that your own government uses them as a weapon against you. Yes, they cite it as often as they can to cow you, to keep you afraid, and maintain the cloak of general fear they choose to govern with.

“Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123680,00.html

“\’e2\’80\’9cWhen we have investigated certain labs and contacted certain former experts in the WMD program, we have found that they are being recruited by anti-coalition groups,\’e2\’80\’9d Duelfer told FOX News. \’e2\’80\’9cThey are being paid by anti-coalition groups. We\’e2\’80\’99re seeing interest in developing chemical munitions.\’e2\’80\’9d”

Do you still think that the only thing we’re finding in Iraq are degraded old munitions that are pretty much useless?

The implications made were clear to the majority of Americans as shown in poll after poll: Iraq was a clear and present danger, Iraq worked with Al Quaeda, Iraq was responsible for 9/11. All of those mistaken beliefs have been proven to be wrong, yet they persist to this day thanks to the Administration staying “on message”. I call that “lying”. Where do you think 70% of Americans got the idea that “Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks”?

Apparently you think it was a-okay if Bush overstated and even lied in making the case to invade, because Saddam was “part of a growing threat”. Whereas I am saying that Saddam never was the threat Bush made him out to be, therefore the ends don’t justify the means.

Yes, Saddam subverted the UN and did not fully comply with UN directives. Why didn’t Bush make his case for war based on that, the truth? Because people would have said sanctions and inspectors were working (and they were). They would have said give them more time to work (he didn’t). They would have said that the time was NOT right, as you insist, that we should instead finish the job in Afghanistan, put the Taliban down once and for all, eradicate the opium, and capture bin Laden (none of those things happened). They would have said that maybe Bush should have understood the difference between a Shiite, a Sunni and a Kurd (he didn’t), and come up with a plan for getting them to live together peacefully instead of assuming they’d all join hands and sing “God Bless America” the minute Saddam was gone (they didn’t, and now Iraq is at the brink of civil war and nowhere close to a democracy). They would have said it’s not worth turning Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists (which it now is). They would have said it’s not worth throwing the U.S. into a record budget deficit and record national debt (though Bush’s many tax breaks for the wealthy must share the blame there). They would have said that it’s not worth 2,874 soldiers (U.S. & coalition) killed, 350 non-military contractors killed, 46,307 Iraq civillians killed (and many more dead as the result of sectarian violence), 19,323 U.S. soldiers wounded (some maimed for life, and many more with debilitating mental problems).

So what did Bush do? He lied. He lied so well people like you still beleive Saddam was a threat. You actually believe that the few pre-1991 Gulf War munitions we found over there constitute the same WMD that Bush & company were talking about pre-invasion, the “biological weapons”, the “mobile laboratories”, the “materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent”, the “significant quantities of uranium”, the “reconstituted nuclear weapons”, “some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” And if you reply, “well, he DID have that stuff but he destroyed it”, isn’t that exactly what we wanted him to do? Doesn’t that neutralize the threat and eliminate the need for immediate invasion at a time we could least afford to do so?

Maybe we should have waited, finished the job in Afghanistan, found bin Laden, dealt with North Korea, dealt with the Russian stockpiles of nuclear materials just lying around to be used by terrorists (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/a-ticking-nuclear-time-bomb.html), did something about the genocide in Darfur, or any one of the thousand other pressing problems that took a backseat to Iraq. Maybe that $312.6 billion and counting would have been better spent on other priorities, while Bush did a little more careful planning on how to tackle the Iraq issue (like listening to his generals about the number of troops needed, for starters, instead of running them out of town for daring to disagree).

P.S. – Why won’t I even call sarin and mustard gas “WMDs”? Because they’re not, not in the form they were found. No, I wouldn’t want to open those shells in my garage, but that doesn’t make them WMDs (sarin degrades quickly… 15 year old sarin would be useless; mustard gas might stick pack a punch, but it is a blistering agent and rarely causes death even at full strength). Again, this is clearly not the same order of magnitude as the weapons Bush was POSITIVE were there and Rummy knew right where they’d be found (and weren’t). We’re not talking nukes here. Why don’t I beleive nukes will be found in Iraq? The final report of the WMD Commission makes me think it is highly unlikely: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/wmdcomm.html.

I leave you with a quote:

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

- George W Bush, 5/24/05

No, that’s not right. They said he had capabilities in all these or working on capabilities, and was hidding it in the face of UN investigations.

“They repeatedly stated or implied that Saddam had conspired with Al Qaeda and was connected to 9/11.”

No they didn’t. They said Saddam was dealing with Al-Qaeda and building a foundation to wage terror on the world. They said from the beginning that he wasn’t involved in 9-11.

“They said Iraq was an imminent danger to America, and scared everyone by repeatedly saying the smoking gun would come in the form of a mushroom cloud. They called it \’e2\’80\’9ca slam-dunk\’e2\’80\’9d case, remember?”

Yes, here you are correct except for the “imminent” part.
Bush said “we won’t know untill it’s too late.” Remember?

What makes you think there were no nukes found in Iraq? Because the government said there weren’t, just like they said for a long time that there were no chemical or biological weapons found, untill this recent revelation? Do you see my point? Now, I don’t know any more than you, and maybe they did overstate and even lie in making the case to invade.

The point is that they did have to make a case to invade Iraq, both for world opinion and for US opinion. They had to have at least some backing.

Now, if Saddam was a part of a growing threat, worldwide, then we had two choices. Pacification and appeasement or to go on the offensive. The first never works, as proven by history. That was Rumsfeld’s point, which was twisted all around by Olbermann.

Saddam, at the very LEAST, was subverting the UN through corruption. The world needs the UN. This is an absolute. For all it’s failings, the UN does remarkable work in feeding and helping to build entire nations. The UN also is the only worldwide body to work through for a better world in general. And Saddam was corrupting it. This was a tremendous threat to the world, and to us in particular, because he was having success in alienating us from the rest of the world. But we, the USA, are not the bad guys. Saddam is, shown by his willingness to invade others, to use WMDs, and then to corrupt the biggest tool for world peace in the UN.

Maybe Bush had to lie. Maybe he didn’t lie at all. But are we children to worry about what the case may be in the face of the threat?

The time was right to take care of Saddma’s part of the threat. The opportunity was presented. It had to be done. Somehow.

“Everyone knew those shells were there long ago.”

Yes, but Saddma claimed they were destroyed. Hans Blix couldn’t find them because Saddam had them hidden away, and Blix stated that his investigation concluded that there were no more WMDs of any kind in Iraq. Again, Saddam, through dishonest efforts, was successful. But now we did find them after all.

“A CIA report from 2002 plainly stated that \’e2\’80\’9cIraq has not accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.\’e2\’80\’9d “

And so many people, like and including Olbermann, were ranting on about how the CIA is so bad, how Bush is lieing, and not having any faith in the US government at all.
They’d rather believe what Saddam had corrupted.

“They most clearly were NOT talking about 500 abandoned pre-1991 Gulf War artillery shells containing traces of degraded mustard gas or sarin nerve agent.”

Traces? Where did you get that? These appear to be filled. And degraded or not, these agents are still very dangerous. If removed and used by terrorists, the people of the nation it was used on would have a lack of faith in their government to protect them. It would undermine stability in governments that stand against the terrorists objectives. Not good.

“These shells are battlefield weapons and are not of any use to terrorists. A 155mm shell is huge, heavy, and requires a 55 ton, 12-foot long howitzer cannon to fire it.”

As I just said, what’s to stop someone from removing the deadly agents to use otherwise? G.W. Bush is, but so many don’t want to admit this.

“It is far more likely that terrorists will get their weapons of terror from other sources (including things from our own stockpile that have gone missing over the years, and things from the Russians that Bush made no effort to try to secure and demilitarize)”

Reagan tried, Bush senior tried, Clinton tried, but lets blame G.W. for this, right? He was in office for a little over 8 months before 9-11 started the war on terror, where the others had more than a decade to work on this. They could only succeed to some extent, but G.W Bush is blamed now for this?
I’ve heard this accusation somewhere else….lets see….where was that….oh yes, Olbermann. Among many others.

“rather than try to extract ancient chemicals that undoubtedly have lost much of their effectiveness from these antiques.”

Why are you assuming that? Do you want to work in a building while some people open them up in the garage?

\’e2\’80\’9cMen Will Marry Dogs\’e2\’80\’9d

And no, I don’t believe everything I read. I have no idea….
http://newsfromrussia.com/fun/2002/04/17/27738_.html

It was clear when Bush & Co, talked about WMD, they were talking about a growing threat, a vast new arsenal poised to strike Israel and the United States. They most clearly were NOT talking about 500 abandoned pre-1991 Gulf War artillery shells containing traces of degraded mustard gas or sarin nerve agent. Everyone knew those shells were there long ago. A CIA report from 2002 plainly stated that “Iraq has not accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.”

These shells are battlefield weapons and are not of any use to terrorists. A 155mm shell is huge, heavy, and requires a 55 ton, 12-foot long howitzer cannon to fire it. It is far more likely that terrorists will get their weapons of terror from other sources (including things from our own stockpile that have gone missing over the years, and things from the Russians that Bush made no effort to try to secure and demilitarize) rather than try to extract ancient chemicals that undoubtedly have lost much of their effectiveness from these antiques.

Of course, Pete \’e2\’80\’9cI Won\’e2\’80\’99t Serve More Than Six Terms\’e2\’80\’9d Hoekstra and Rick \’e2\’80\’9cMen Will Marry Dogs\’e2\’80\’9d Santorum will do or say anything to win against Kotos and Casey this fall, respectively. But it should be clear to you that if there was anything to this tortured interpretation of theirs, Bush would be trumpeting it from the rooftops. It is a nonstory to everyone except wingnuts like Little Green Footballs and FreeRepublic, and their mainstream counterparts, the WSJ Editorial Page and Fox News.