WMD's found in Iraq

[KRC]

Actually, WMD's and non-compliance with the UN were basically the same reason.

712496[/snapback]

 

Non-compliance with the UN is more general and includes topics outside of WMD (terrorism, human rights, diplomatic relations, etc).

[X. Benedict]

Actually, WMD's and non-compliance with the UN were basically the same reason.

712496[/snapback]

Yes, I agree to a point. But it was constantly presented as if it was an independent reason -the need to uphold UN resolutions. One could be agnostic about WMD in Iraq and still agree that they were in non-compliance with regard to inspections.

 

Of course this was one of the most self-serving arguments because GWB is probably the President most ambivilent about the UN in recent memory.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Non-compliance with the UN is more general and includes topics outside of WMD (terrorism, human rights, diplomatic relations, etc).

712508[/snapback]

 

Except the specific resolutions always mentioned related to Iraqi WMD programs and their openness or lack thereof. We didn't march to Baghdad in 2003 because of their violation of the UN resolution to leave Kuwait in 1990.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Yes, I agree to a point.  But it was constantly presented as if it was an independent reason -the need to uphold UN resolutions. One could be agnostic about WMD in Iraq and still agree that they were in non-compliance with regard to inspections.

 

Of course this was one of the most self-serving arguments because GWB is probably the President most ambivilent about the UN in recent memory.

712519[/snapback]

 

Actually, it was presented simultaneously as the need to uphold UN resolutions AND as the need to maintain national security regardless of UN resolutions. In other words, the administration's reasons were simultaneously out of concern and lack of concern for the UN.

 

And yes, that's LITERALLY simultaneously. Two administration officials (i.e. officially representing administration policy) in two different speeches in the same morning said "It's a UN issue, the US can't take unilateral action" and "It's a US national security issue, the UN is irrelevant." Again, those were official administration statements given within an hour of each other. So no, it was never "constantly" presented as that...in fact, there was nothing constant about the administration's presentation.

 

But the thing really missing from the discussion that makes my point is: there's an executive finding, written sometime around 2001-2002, that says "The greatest threat to national security is terrorists with WMDs." Every other justification the administration ever gave was bull sh--...the real reason was that, as a matter of policy, this administration tied terrorism to Iraq via the logic of the international issue of counter-proliferation...which very nearlty makes Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions an anti-terrorism issue and justifies the whole invasion...pretty much makes it a foregone conclusion, really.

 

And it does. It provides perfect justification. If you accept the a priori assumption that terrorist WMDs were a greater threat to national security than pissing off the entire world with the unprovoked unilateral invasion of a soverign nation...

[X. Benedict]

Actually, it was presented simultaneously as the need to uphold UN resolutions AND as the need to maintain national security regardless of UN resolutions.  In other words, the administration's reasons were simultaneously out of concern and lack of concern for the UN.

 

And yes, that's LITERALLY simultaneously.  Two administration officials (i.e. officially representing administration policy) in two different speeches in the same morning said "It's a UN issue, the US can't take unilateral action" and "It's a US national security issue, the UN is irrelevant."  Again, those were official administration statements given within an hour of each other.  So no, it was never "constantly" presented as that...in fact, there was nothing constant about the administration's presentation. 

 

But the thing really missing from the discussion that makes my point is: there's an executive finding, written sometime around 2001-2002, that says "The greatest threat to national security is terrorists with WMDs."  Every other justification the administration ever gave was bull sh--...the real reason was that, as a matter of policy, this administration tied terrorism to Iraq via the logic of the international issue of counter-proliferation...which very nearlty makes Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions an anti-terrorism issue and justifies the whole invasion...pretty much makes it a foregone conclusion, really.

 

And it does.  It provides perfect justification.  If you accept the a priori assumption that terrorist WMDs were a greater threat to national security than pissing off the entire world with the unprovoked unilateral invasion of a soverign nation... 

712539[/snapback]

 

Excellent post.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Excellent post.

712543[/snapback]

 

Except that I forgot to add that it justifies the invasion under the Bush Doctrine...so you have to accept the a priori assumption of preemptive action as well...

 

It also illustrates quite well the fundamental differences between Bush and Clinton foreign policies. With Bush, you can at least discuss it intelligently, agree or disagree. With Clinton, we're reduced to "Why the !@#$ are you letting Mavis Leno dictate your foreign policy?????"

[cromagnum]

I posted a link in another thread, where isg has released iraqi documents that have been translated.

 

http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/

[boomerjamhead]

Swing and a miss, Ed.

Santorum is like that weird guy on the beach, walking around with a metal detector that eventually goes off.  "I've found the treasure!  I've found the treasure!" he exclaims.  The skeptical beachgoers gather around the dancing fool, and watch as he frantically uncovers...an old piece of chewing gum foil.

An equally absurd tidbit from this Fox News bombshell is that Rep. Hoekstra, the other clown running around waving this "smoking gun", is actually the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

EDIT: In almost certainly related news, Santorum's poll numbers have hit a four year low (it's a FOX News link, for you Edward).

 

Rick is getting killed in the PA-Sen race that has him polling 34 to 52 to Casey.  38% approval is pretty bleak, but it's not nearly as bad as how Our Leader is doing in Penn.

Nice to see Fox pimping 34% approval as a "bounce."

712174[/snapback]

 

Breathe....

 

That's it.

 

Inhale. Exhale. Inhale. Exhale. Inhale. Exhale.

 

All better now?

[Chilly]

Breathe....

 

That's it.

 

Inhale.  Exhale.  Inhale.  Exhale.  Inhale.  Exhale.

 

All better now?

712948[/snapback]

 

wtf?

[cromagnum]

You ever watch the pbs show frontline.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view

[/dev/null]

Pre-1991 weapons would no longer be usable now, so all this means is that Iraq once had WMD's, which everybody already knew.

712232[/snapback]

 

How do you know they would not be usable now? Has anyone seen a "Best if used by 1991" label? I'd imagine they have a shelf life a little longer than a bottle of Tylenol®

 

The United States and Russia/USSR haven't produced chemical or biological weapons for some time either. Doesn't mean that they don't have them anymore

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'd imagine they have a shelf life a little longer than a bottle of Tylenol®

 

Not generally. If high-quality and stored properly, they can last a while. (Sarin, for example, can last as much as a year). If left out in the open with other munitions, the chemicals tend to break down and become unusable as weapons (i.e. still poisonous...but when you detonate the shell, it releases a toxic sludge, not a gas. Not an effective weapon.) Generally, after '91, Iraq couldn't store them properly - storage sites for chemical weapons tend to be big things that are easily noticed by inspectors.

 

The United States and Russia/USSR haven't produced chemical or biological weapons for some time either.  Doesn't mean that they don't have them anymore

713676[/snapback]

 

The US and Russia had long-term storage, too, and had better quality control and added additives to increase stability. Iraq's CW program developed along with the Iran-Iraq war...hence, stability was less an issue since weapons went from manufacture to use in a manner of weeks during the war. I'm willing to bet Iraq never truly stockpiled large quantities of chemical weapons.