The real problem with the false claims of WMD in Iraq

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

The real problem with the false claims of WMD in Iraq 01.26.04 (8:45 pm)   [edit] As more and more evidence pours in providing proof that Iraq likely did not have WMD, the reasons behind the US-led invasion become increasingly questionable. The urgency of the war was based on these claims that Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell said he knew exactly where these WMD were in Iraq. The president intimated that if we neglected Hussein, we would be attacked. According to the Administration, because of these WMD, Saddam posed an imminent threat to America. That is why it was deemed necessary to go to war. President Bush decided to forego acquiring support from our allies and the UN because he felt that the evidence he was presented showed that Saddam was capable of and likely to attack us at any time. David Kay, former head of weapons inspections, stated that the fact that Iraq likely has no WMD means that there are serious problems with the intelligence Bush received and when asked if Bush needs to provide the nation with an explanation, Kay responded: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president, rather than the president owing the American people." I think both the intelligence community and the president owe the nation explanations. If the intelligence was false, as it seems to have been, those giving this information need to clarify how it is that they were wrong and why they felt that the information they received was accurate and did not confirm it prior to selling it, so to speak, to the president. Similarly, the Administration should be competent enough to check the information they receive also to have it confirmed, especially when dealing with an issue as serious as war. To say that the Administration is not to blame for errors in intelligence means that we do not hold our nation's leaders accountable for acting illogically. The reason this is such a big deal, and why it is not simply something to be shrugged off as an error in intelligence that the Administration should not take responsibility for, is that this information is what lead us into a war. War is not something so casual as to be waged regardless of rational motives. Many Bush supporters are saying that it doesn't matter whether Saddam had WMD or not because the Iraqis have been freed from a brutal dictator. Leaving aside the fact that they now have a foreign dictator, the ends do not justify the means. If this war had been justified by the president as a humanitary mission, this would be different (the question of urgency would still remain, but justification for ousting Saddam would have been evident). If we allow our leaders to impetuously lead us into wars, we will face a grave danger. The dissention among those opposing the war is not unreasonable. We were not given reasons for this war that would give it merit. We still haven't had justifiable reasons presented to us. It amazes me how many Republicans blindly support Bush's actions in dealing with Iraq. Logic demonstrates why this war was not only unjust but irrational. To me, it wouldn't matter who was in charge; I would still be against it. Furthermore: Check out Bush's various statements regarding Iraq's WMD http://customwire.ap.org/dyna...   posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 01.26.04 (5:51 pm) Well said. posted by: jimmytherighteous (reply) post date: 01.26.04 (7:51 pm) It is said that the US intelligence community, in fact, did not have much on Hussein and reported as such to the administration. Rather than listen to career professionals who put their ass on the line every day, the administration chose to believe the story of a few Iraqi expatriates who had an alterior motive. According to some very interesting articles I've read, morale at the CIA is in the dumps because Bush favored the lies of a few over years of hard, dangerous work done by officers in the Agency. I think I would be pretty pissed off, as well. There definitely needs to be an explanation. Of course, CIA is apolitical so they won't ever say what they should: that Bush didn't believe them when they were right. Based on the examples we've seen thus far, the administration will create about 20 stories to release, confusing the issue so much it dies. posted by: JamesYerian (reply) post date: 01.26.04 (10:33 pm) Dragon, if Colin Powell said he knew exactly where the WMD were, why did we have to go to war? Secondly, we tried to go through the UN-- they didn't want to back up the force required to get Hussein to comply. You see, Hussein had to comply with something called a cease-fire. He didn't. Bush never made the case that the threat was imminent (see Bush's SOTU 2003). What he said was that the UN and its member states issued an ultimatum to Hussein to verify the disarmament of his WMD-- WMD the UN said existed. He didn't do that, therefore posing a threat to the US, especially after 9-11. The worry was not that Hussein would be stupid enough to use them, but that he'd give it to a terrorist. Be gainst the war all you want, but get the facts straight. posted by: jimmytherighteous (reply) post date: 01.26.04 (11:01 pm) Reply to: JamesYerian Well, one would think that if we knew exactly where the WMD were, we would also have some concrete information (which we've never been told about) to back up the claim. If we knew exactly where they were, why didn't we do a little snooping to check it out? If we knew exactly where they were, why haven't we found them? posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.27.04 (11:31 am) Reply to: JamesYerian None of that matters at all, whether it is factual or not. Bush used the claim that Saddam was a dangerous threat to Iraq's neighbors and the US based on his supposed stockpiles of WMD as the justification for this war. There is evidence that this information was false, making the reasoning for waging war false. This means that the war was unjustified. Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins