Posted by
timothy
on from the absence-of-evidence dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Severalnewsoutlets are reporting that the United States has officially ended the The Iraq Survey Group's search for WMDs. Prior to the war, WMDs were named as a justification for a 'preemptive' invasion."
The US Presidential election is over, now we see the following:
Employment again tanks
Trade deficit skyrocketing
Torture still going on in Iraqi prisons
The war is going worse than we thought (the prez actually admitted)
No WMD stockpiles found
Where is the outrage? There's no outrage because people have been so baffled with bullsh!t they don't know what to believe, a 50/50 election
result illustrated this clearly.
"The Iraq Survey Group, which was responsible for the search, goes on, but its focus now is trying to help counter the Iraqi insurgency."
Well, at leas they have full employement.
Don't spend all that political capital at the same gumball machine.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Not all Americans are like this. Just most of them.
I am embarrassed by my own country.
Re:Well DUH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Where is the outrage? There's no outrage because people have been so baffled with bullsh!t they don't know what to believe, a 50/50 election result illustrated this clearly.
I found the whole election to be ironic. This election was about "values," supposedly. Apparently it's morally right to support an administration with a culture of trampling on human rights, "disappearing" thousands of "enemy combatants," outright torture, lying to start a war, killing 100,000 innocent civilians, and destroying the lives of millions of others. But at least we don't have some pinko liberal gay loving, womens rights supporter. Hmm.
Hopefully Dubya will take his track record of success in Iraq and fix healthcare (stop those frivolous lawsuits by family of people who get killed by their doctors, or by unsafe medication approved by the FDA in bed with industry), the economy (put it on my credit card, the kids will pay later), and social security (destroy it now, while there's still time!)
Get on the No Accountability Train '04! Whoo whoo!
Re:Well DUH!
by
superpulpsicle
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
When Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather, two of the more well influential journalists quit in the middle of a war, that's no coincidence. We obviously have alot of things to hide.
Just count 20 years from now, and all of us Americans will be as shocked as the Germans citizens who discovered the prisoner camp mistreatments for the first time.
No, I'm the last person on Slashdot who would support W.
You are quite correct, that employment is actually increasing. The quality of those jobs relative to the jobs that were lost during the recession I do not know, though I've read that many people switching jobs have ended up taking significant cuts in pay and/or benefits. There are a lot of new jobs that have to be created to employ new people entering the workforce, something like 150k/month.
Also, to be fair, a President has less impact on the day-to-day economy than is typically thought. Longer term is a different story and I have grave reservations about the trends in the fiscal deficit and the tax policy and spending that includes US$4.5e9/month in Iraq.
Finally, it is true that employment figures during 2004 showed some growth due to government hiring, which is ironic considering the GOP stance against big government.
Many of my fellow Americans - bless them - they're really good people at heart - prefer to live in a myth and to listen to people that help maintain that mythology. They want to be part of a story where they play the good guys and they defeat the bad guys and it's easy to tell the two apart. The power of a delusion is strong and, unfortunately, conditions will have to get a lot worse before the cognitive dissonance creates a willingness to re-examine the facts. It's a shame, I'd rather people not have to learn such hard lessons from experience of hardship that I see coming like a train down the tracks.
-- "Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:Well DUH!
by
superpulpsicle
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Like I said, wait 20 years. The gassing and incinerating was not public knowledge until years after Allies troops invaded German territory. At the time of the war, nazi mistreatment was not on your daily newspaper covers.
Vice versa, cheerleader posing is about the only thing acceptable enough to broadcast. Since it won't hurt Bush's chance of getting back in the office.
Well put. There's an amusing little article on CNN that discussed the true complexity of anti-U.S. sentiment in Iraq vs. Bushco's promoted fantasy that it's all bin Laden's doing. And to any and all Bush voters: thanks a lot for flushing the country down the toilet, morons. Your children will enjoy paying off the $500 billion dollar bill for your stupidity while you die in the street after Social Security is bankrupted. Family values my ass.
Social Security is already going to be bankrupt in a few years
That is a deliberate LIE that is repeated over and over again by the Bush administration.
The TRUTH is that Social Security is fully funded until 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration. The Congressional Budget Office thinks it can go until 2052). At that point its trust fund runs out, and benefits will have to be reduced, taxes increased, or a combination of both. Without tax-increases, Social Security should still be able to pay out 73% of benefits in 2042, going to 68% in 2078.
That is a far cry from "bankrupt in a few years".
Re:Well DUH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I am embarrassed by my own country.
I'm the same way. I think of Ewan McGreggor in Trainspotting. "Alot of people hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. Do you know who I hate? I hate us. I hate the Scots." I'm starting to identify with that scene a little too much.:)
Re:Well DUH!
by
ichimunki
·
· Score: 2, Informative
United States GDP: $10,990,000,000,000.
7% of US GDP: $769,300,000,000.
Saudi Arabia GDP: $287,800,000,000.
Number of Saudi Arabias it would take to produce 7% of what the U.S. does: 2.67.
The odds that whatever you're saying about Saudi Arabia having a "7 percent share in [the U.S.] economy" is a load of [cow manure]: 100%.
I'm sure we'll get a lot of war/Bush supporters here that pop up with all sorts of justifications now, but look, the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else.
Not only are they apparently not there (notwithstanding the "Syrian conspiracy theory" and such), a conclusion backed by three reports (Kay, 9/11, Duelfer) and this, the justification cannot be changed now just because it was wrong in the first place (in other words, you can't come back and respond to this news story by saying "but we liberated the iraqis" - yes, we did, but that wasn't the justification given for war, so it's a topic for a different discussion). Bush and his pals didn't say "we're going in because Saddam is an evil wicked little man who mistreats his people" in anything more than the most superficial manner. He did it by evoking images (well, that was more Cheney's job, actually) of an Iraq-backed attack spready doom across the continental United States and saying he knew something we didn't about all this.
Well, he was wrong. You can either sit and make stupid excuses and try to say "well, it doesn't matter because of..", but the fact is, this administration was wrong.
Responsible people would now stand up and explain what happened and what they plan to do about the fallout caused by their error. Irresponsible people, or people who were lying in the first place, will come back and try to change the subject or sweep it under the rug.
I'd like to think that the United States is a responsible nation, but with the way this has been addressed by this administration - attempting to shake its head and say no, really, we were right even though almost nothing we said before the war was true - and the way it's unlikely about to be addressed here, I have serious doubts that this country is currently anything close to responsible.
That's fine though. Keep it up. We'll see how long the rest of the world puts up with us if our trustworthiness turns into a chronic, glaring problem. You can only stay a superpower for so long when you rely on the rest of the world for your way of life and you're not willing to change it when you can't rely on the world anymore. Bring out the "woo woo! america is teh r0xx0rz!" crap instead of admitting you're wrong. We'll see just how well that works in the long run.
(on an unrelated note, why did this disappear from the frontpage...?)
-- Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Remember when the administration said, RE WMD, it was a "slam dunk case", and that "we know where they are" ? Remember the satellite photos ?
It was all crap. Crapcrapcrap, and they knew it. Bush should be impeached, and the rest of his administration should be in jail.
And, yes, people from both major political parties believed Iraq had WMD. But it was the Republicans who decided to act on this "hunch", with no real evidence, and launch a war.
Re:Great...
by
EnderWiggnz
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
i've never been wrong about starting a war that so far has killed over 100,000 iraqis, 1300 US troops, unkown number of contractors has cost umpty-ump billion dollars, and has people comparing coverring iraqis in their own feces, and piling them in a pyramid to a cheerleading competition.
miscalculated? this isnt a fucking trig class where you go "oops, well, i guess i miscalculated that answer, i guess we should go kill another hundred thousand people"
Oh and destroying the entire bug planet was right?
Re:Great...
by
michaelggreer
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
However, the UN inspectors found (correctly) that there were no WMD prior to the war. The threat of war was essential in getting the inspectors back in, but the rush to war after they found no evidence of WMD was dishonest. The administration made fun of the inspectors, but the fact is they were right. If everyone believed Bush then, we know better now.
Re:Great...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, the media spin given over and over was that WMD was the reason America attacked Iraq.
Conjecture. Bush and his administration have gone on record numerous times, in some cases going so far as to claim they actually knew where the weapons were, to say that the justification for invasion was, in fact, WMDs.
The report stated that Saddam had a complete bioweapons infrastructure in place and ready to ramp up to full production within a 6 month period
WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons.
Pure conjecture. No basis in fact. In addition, you're suggesting that you are psychic by making a statement of fact about something which never happened when you come to the conclusion at the end.
Now, would you rather get the mad man out of there before he was making them or only after they were stockpiled?
The false dillema fallacy. Not only have you have not proven they would ever have been stockpiled, you fail to consider a large number of legitimate options such as the forceful reinstatement of weapons inspectors.
You also criticize Bush because he didn't do enough to prevent 9/11.
Straw man. I haven't said that. Even if I had said it, it would still be immaterial.
Probably in the same breath you attack him for pre-emptively preventing Saddam from hitting this country.
You have not proven this would happen.
I suggest a good duct tape around the temples to prevent your head exploding from the cognitive dissonance.
Concluded strong with a nice argumentum ad hominem.
Needless to say, you have not even begun to convince me, and you're argument needs some serious work.
To reiterate: yes, Bush was wrong. Yet his choices remain the least wrong of all the possible ones. America has only wrong moves ahead of it. We have been trying for years to make other countries fear us instead of love us, and if we abandon that policy, they will neither fear us nor like us. It's a wrong policy, but unfortunately, we have no other choice -- we have nobody brave enough to try to change it and risk not managing it.
Upon reading this, I instantly recalled that the same thinking led Germans to support the war effort in 1939-1945. Now, I'm the last person to compare Bush with You Know Who (a clever kludge to avoid the consequences of You Know What Law of Usenet) or today's USA with You Know Which Country, but the mindset is comparable. A country chooses a leader. A leader makes choices. A country starts to see the choices were WRONG. So what? Do they change their course of action? No, that would be too much shock to bear. They think up another justification for it: "we were wrong, but we have no other choice now". WRONG AGAIN. Look into history and see what comes out of it.
-- "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
We have been trying for years to make other countries fear us instead of love us, and if we abandon that policy, they will neither fear us nor like us.
You're wrong. At least in Europe, which has a rather strained relations with America, most people like America (and have many good reasons for it) and American people (altough this liking sometimes has a bit paternal aspect). What the world doesn't like is a couple of people around, and including, your current president.
-- "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Re:Great...
by
h4x0r-3l337
·
· Score: 4, Informative
the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else
bull-shit. The Bush administration flat out said that he had WMD. They claimed to have proof. At some point they even claimed they had found them. None of that turned out to be true.
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction - Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there. -
Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003
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
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. - Gen. Tommy Franks,
Press Conference, March 22, 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
We found the weapons of mass destruction - George W. Bush, Polish TV Interview, May 29, 2003
1. Stop WMDs.
2. Break another support structure for Al Qaeda
3. Liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal, evil monster.
As I said, Cite them. Show me where Bush publicly announced those as the reasons. Come on, the speech transcripts are everywhere. Show me one spot where these three are in the same Bush speech. Your 66% formulation doesn't work if Bush spent 80% of his time on #1. #1 we agree upon. #2 has yet to be proven. The 9/11 commission couldn't even find a direct Al Queda/Saddam link. #3 is almost never mentioned. I'm not trying to troll you as much as hope that you will cite real sources rather than the blanket "media wants you to believe" rhetoric being regurgitated. Thanks.
-- US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
There were (probably) two reasons Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMDs. Firstly, he had to look like a strongman at home and locally (Iran, Syria, etc) so he could retain power. Secondly, he was probably hoping he could bluff the US into not attacking. You may remember his frantic backpedal when it became obvious he couldn't.
I also doubt that Bush and his merry band of criminals actually ever believed in WMDs or the connections between al Qaeda and Iraq - people like Rove and Rumsfeld have been advocating invasion of Iraq for about 20 years now.
I agree, however, that post-invasion options are limited. There is a haunting air of familiarity (Vietnam) about it all. I hope all the Americans who voted for Bush enjoy the reintroduction of Selective Service...
Actually, there was never any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq until after the US pretaliatory invasion, so you're down to 33%.
Also, I seriously doubt that Iraq is going to be free of rule by brutal, evil monsters in the near future (whatever the outcome of the coming election and the ensuing civil war), so you're now down to about 0%.
I thought about writing a long list to document where Bush or a member his administration said that we had to go to war with Iraq because of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was about protecting America, right?
Iraq even allowed the weapons inspectors in to prove they didn't have anything. Remember how the Bush administration mocked the U.N. weapons inspectors whose search turned up nothing? Remember the ultimatum that Bush gave Iraq -- disarm within 72 hours or else? And Fox News gleefully put a countdown clock on the screen? Remember the forged documents--not the ones from CBS; the ones supposedly from Nigeria saying that Iraq tried to acquire fissionable material? Remember the aluminum tubes?
Remember how reasonable, rational people said there was no proof Iraq had WMDs? Remember how millions of people all over the world protested this war before it started? Remember when scores of diplomats resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service because of these false claims of WMDs? John Brady Kiesling wrote in his resignation letter, "We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam."
However, I think I speak for nearly 50% of the country when I say that my head exploded from the incredible sense of "I told you so." I'm not happy to be right -- I'm sad for our country and what it turned into.
And to all the Conservatives who say, "The weapons of mass destruction may not be found, but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy, so it was worth it," I respond with, "The ends do not justify the means."
-- Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Re:The ends
by
Paul+Jakma
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"... but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy,.. "
And even that has not been accomplished. Dozen or more Iraqis die each day at presently in bombings. The violence is worse than ever. The elections later this month might end up boycotted by most Sunnis, if they can even take place. There's a distinct chance of civil war if the USA were to withdraw it's troops , and hence even further violence. OTOH, as long as US troops are actively involved in Iraq's security, there will be violence (insurgents against US and Iraqi National Guard troops, and the resulting retaliatory measures).
Moral arguments aside, on a purely statistical basis, it seems a safe bet Iraqis are more at risk of violent death now than under Saddam. Which makes it very hard to justify this regime-change, especially with the bleak prospect for stability in near-term in Iraq.
WMD: Nope
Democracy in Iraq: Nope (maybe next month?)
Stability in Iraq: Worse than under Saddam
Sigh..
-- I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
> to declare how it had disarmed and allow complete, > unrestricted access to inspectors to verify that this had taken > place.
One problem is if you give an ultimatum to someone, they should have a reasonable belief that if they cooperate, you will live up to your end of the bargain.
One major problem I had was that Bush was asking Iraq to prove a negative-- prove they don't have WMDs any longer. Of course, even a school child knows that you can't prove you don't have something.
The problem is, Iraq let the weapons inspectors back in (remember, we pulled them out to begin with), and let them search. The weapons inspectors found nothing, but Bush kept taunting them. So Iraq lived up to their part of the bargain (they let the inspectors back in), but Bush went to war anyway.
One of Bush's biggest crimes is that his actions demeaned America so much that he actually made a murderous dictator the "good guy" in this situation!
Iraq's actions were worthy of continued sanctions and of the strategy of containment -- which we now know worked. Going to war against a third world, poverty stricken nation, and killing upwards of 150,000 Iraqi citizens plus more than 1000 U.S. soldiers was certainly not the only or best course of action.
-- Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
And to all the Conservatives who say, "The weapons of mass destruction may not be found, but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy, so it was worth it,"...
Now ? Peaceful ? democracy ? Do they really have the gall to say so ?
And the UN inspectors went back in during 2003 and couldn't find anything. Then America invaded, kicked UN inspectors out and rolled its own inspectors. They couldn't find anything as well. So, what was your point? The fact that wherever and how hard they looked and searched, since they didn't exist, they couldn't be found. The problem is, you can't prove a negative statement. Damn logics.
raq even allowed the weapons inspectors in to prove they didn't have anything. Remember how the Bush administration mocked the U.N. weapons inspectors whose search turned up nothing? Remember the ultimatum that Bush gave Iraq -- disarm within 72 hours or else? And Fox News gleefully put a countdown clock on the screen? Remember the forged documents--not the ones from CBS; the ones supposedly from Nigeria saying that Iraq tried to acquire fissionable material? Remember the aluminum tubes?
Remember how reasonable, rational people said there was no proof Iraq had WMDs? Remember how millions of people all over the world protested this war before it started? Remember when scores of diplomats resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service because of these false claims of WMDs?
I think to most Americans, these things have just become clichés. Each mini-scandal leaked out with so little fanfare that by the time each was proven true, they had lost their bite. Had each of these things been released to the press and proven in a single day, we might have impeached Bush. But instead, half the country is exhausted with hate and the other half is wondering what big deal is.
Really Bush is using the same tactic Clinton used during the Lewinski crap: Deny, deny, deny until it's common knowledge that your wrong, and then admit it. By then, no one cares.
Re:The ends
by
EnderWiggnz
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
i can see why you brought up clinton, a blowjob is comparable to starting an aggressive war, and killing hundreds of thousands, without cause.
yep... totally morally equivalent.
-- ... hi bingo...
Re:The ends
by
GOD_ALMIGHTY
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The justification for invading was that Iraq presented a threat. Not finding WMD or any programs proves that the invasion was unnecessary for dealing with the threat. The only reason people were still debating over whether or not he had WMD were Conservative pundits going on crap intelligence from "heroes in error" like Chalibi and the Iraqi National Congress.
No intelligence organization actually believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US or it's allies. They knew that his capabilities were so reduced and that the existing programs had managed to cripple his ability reinstate any WMD programs. Whether or not he intended to honor the cease-fire or any other treaty in the future was irrelevant. We don't invade countries based on such flimsy rationales. The question to invade was based on the nature and level of threat that Saddam in power posed. Rational and reasonable people argued that it was a dumb idea, that the nature and level of threat would not be improved by invasion, especially one as incompetent as the Bush Administration managed to provide.
Your attempt to equivocate Saddam's future intentions with the evidence is part of the intellectual dishonesty and weakness that got us into this mess. You are also attempting to equivocate the claim that Bush thought Iraq had WMD with the claim that Bush thought invading was going to help the situation. The first claim is simply an over-simplification of the second. The fact that you have chosen to attack the first, rather than the second, undermines the credibility of your reasoning.
Personally, I dislike George Bush, because I hate tyranny and totalitarianism. Bush is like Plato, he uses the language of the Open Society to promote the Closed one. His ends justify his means and his idea of Justice is a social ideal, not an individualists one. The pattern of rewarding loyalty to his own power and treating disloyalty as the ultimate crime is also one of Plato's ideals of Justice. I don't need any bogus reasons to dislike Bush, I've got plenty of rational ones based on the historical record.
BTW, perhaps all of your reading can actually provide a meaning to the phrase "WMD-related program activities". I want to make sure my next hobby isn't a cause for invasion -- so far I've been lucky with the fake oil well in the front yard.
-- Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Re:The ends
by
GOD_ALMIGHTY
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
None of the programs were active. The materials were all old, quite probably remnants of pre GWI programs. The inspections ' purpose was to disarm and keep Iraq from developing WMD. Today's announcement proves they were successful.
If you are going to take anything Putin says without checking the background or finding some non-Russian corroboration, I can't take your opinion seriously. Putin has even his most ardent Western supporters wondering about his intentions for the future of Russia, he may be Russia's next totalitarian dictator.
Again, your list is common knowledge, the fact that Saddam was a bad guy is common knowledge. Do you use an automatic rifle for killing gnats in your house? At the start of GWII Saddam had no capabilities of attacking his neighbors, was considered just as evil as America by Bin Laden and was impotent at best when it came to terrorism. He never actually paid any of the money he promised to Palestinian suicide bomber's families. Zaqarwi was part of group that wanted to overthrow him. Saddam had to spend so much energy just keeping himself in power, that he could have done little to damage the rest of the world.
Ignoring the possible freedom the Iraqi people might have, after this bloody mess is done with, how is America more secure now? Our forces are stretched thin, Bin Laden has endorsed Zaqarwi and our best hope are Shiites that have strong ties with the mullahs of Iran. That doesn't even begin to bring up the Kurdish issue. How has this war improved American domestic security? I really would like someone to answer that question. I have yet to see anything in Iraq that justifies the cost of 200 Billion dollars, 10,000 wounded and nearly 1500 dead Americans. Not to mention the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed or the destruction of Iraq's already crumbling infrastructure.
The insurgents are smart and effective, they regularly cause less civilian casualties in their assaults than the American forces, they kill workers on infrastructure projects, frustrating our efforts to win hearts and minds (30 workers from one sewage plant alone). For more facts.
George W Bush has more in common with tyrants and a love for totalitarianism. I really don't think he's thought his political ideology through enough to realize it, but it first showed in his Calvinist moral theology which is prevalent among Christians who call themselves Evangelicals. The Neo-Cons are tyrants all. If you knew anything about them, you'd realize this. They follow Strauss, who was a big believer in Plato, the mother of all tyrants and friend to totalitarians throughout history. As for the rank and file GOP, many have been deceived, but don't want to admit it, others are tyrants and totalitarians wholeheartedly, see the Religious Right for examples.
The Bush Administration treats all criticism as an enemy; which is the primary sign of a totalitarian. This behavior is the opposite of the Liberal and Democratic principles which gave this country it's greatness. You should read more Pericles, I recommend his Funeral Oration in Thucydides II.
Of course you could also read Popper who had the following to say about totalitarians who treat criticism as disloyalty:
Democrats who do not see a difference between a friendly and a hostile criticism of democracy are themselves imbued with the totalitarian spirit. Totalitarianism, of course, cannot consider any criticism as friendly, since every criticism of such an authority must challenge the principle of authority itself.
-- Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Re:The ends
by
NonSequor
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Hussein deserved to be taken out of power, there's no doubt about that, but I just don't think he was a pressing concern. I seriously doubt that Saddam would have attacked the US if he did have the weapons. Saddam was a secular leader and I don't think he was ever interested in a jihad against the US. I think the only scenario where Saddam might have attacked the US would be if he built his army back up and developed bioweapons then attacked his neighbors again and threatened the US with the bioweapons if we intervened.
I think that the real reason for the Iraq war was to test the domino theory that some conservative pundits were tossing around. They were hoping that a democracy in Iraq would lead to revolutions in neighboring states. If it worked, it would solve a lot of our problems. But it never had a chance of working in the first place.
-- My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
Hussein was in Iraq and was considered as much if not more of a threat than Osama before 9/11.
By who? Most of the military analysts I heard considered Iraq to be "contained". It had been nearly a decade since Hussien had attacked any of his neighbors (no-fly zone attacks, were arguably in Iraqi airspace). We had basically settled down into a routine where his scientists lied to him, every once in a while his boys would take a potshot at us, and we'd destroy an asprin factory in return. Quite peacefull for dealing with a culture that considers atomatic assault rifles to be a neccessary part of a wedding celebration.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
They've already found mountains of conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMDs...they're just buried somewhere in the desert...or hidden in Syria...or Russians Black Ops stole them right before the war...something...
Yeah, pretty much all I read besides/. is NewsMax and the Washington Times. Why do you ask?
"Oh, this is just the liberal bias media, being biased, really they found some stuff, but the bias you know, the bias, biases out the truth. Israel and a conservative American government actually has never done anything wrong ever, it's just the bias makes it like it is. There's a liberal bias, did you know that?"
"We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam."
George W. Bush avoided serving in the Vietnam war, now he has his own going. Some of us learned something from Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby while others read about Goats.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
So did they ever find any SIGNIFICANT WMDs?
by
Marxist+Hacker+42
·
· Score: 2
Here's the classes of WMDs that I find insignificant, first of all (all of which I could, with some research, point to stories about):
1. East German Sarin with an expiration date of 1989. 2. left over poison gas residue of various types on various pieces of scrap metal found in the desert. 3. Aluminum tubes with multiple possible uses. 4. Large ammounts of conventional weapons that the allied forces thought were so insignificant that they didn't even bother to secure them.
Did I miss anything? Was ANYTHING found outside of these categories at all? Note, NONE of these categories were outside of the UN resolutions, as expired gas could be considered to be destroyed, dead ammo could be considered to be destroyed, conventional weapons were allowed, and there WERE other uses for the aluminium tubes.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:So did they ever find any SIGNIFICANT WMDs?
by
srobert
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Several Cans of Raid were found under Saddam's bathroom sink. There may also have been a straight razor in his medicine cabinet. It is no longer there but we have before and after photos of Saddam's face indicating that he may have once had one in his possession.
Surprising some were not faked
by
justanyone
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It has surprised me that WMD were not faked by CIA / DIA / etc. (insert random agency name here). Getting a hold of some generic sarin, anthrax, botulinin, chlorine gas, etc. would be easy for any U.S. agency determined to do so. Placing it in a couple of buried shipping containers in the desert that we 'accidentally' discovered the location to would have been very easy.
The fact that this was not done says to me: * maybe some was found but they can't talk about it (doubtful); * most of the people in the U.S. armed forces are basically ethical (encouraging); * no one thought of faking it (highly doubtful); * there are too many checks and balances within the agency structures to allow a fake to succeed (highly likely).
The checks-balances scenario is this: CIA decides to fake it. 1. They create the agent/material, bury it, fake up docs, release info about it, "find" it, make news. 2. FBI decides, Hey, let's test it and figure out where it really came from and how it was made. 3. UN / Brits request samples to test, start interviewing all their people about the subject and get nothing or actual denials. 4. FBI figures out this isn't genuine and points fingers, or: 5. ATF decides to test it independently, or: 6. Secret service / Treasury tests it independently, or: 7. GAO / Congressional subcommittee asks lots of questions, or: 8. UN figures it out, points fingers, or: 9. Iraq former-regime muckety-mucks say, "hey, wait, we didn't do that... it's cool, but we didn't do it."
Just some thoughts. I like having multiple levels of power structures all competing for the truth. The whole CIA reorg bill concentrates power too much in my opinion. It'll allow for this kind of potential fakery to succeed.
The lesson here is clear: If you are a nation that the US may not like, and you don't have nuclear weapons, then you are vulnerable to attack and occupation by the US. They will, if they wish to, invent lies about you having said weapons, and attack you, with or without a general concensus from the rest of the civilized world.
So if you want to protect yourself, get WMDs, and get them fast.
This is an important and under-repeated point: Iraq was, in fact, our best friend in the region. There's fairly clear evidence that Iraq requested US permission to invade Kuwait in 1991, and believed (mistakenly) that they had gotten it; they were genuinely surprised when we took issue with it.
Iraq consistently exaggerated their weapons capabilities, and were reluctant to admit how completely powerless they were, because they wanted to deter Iran. Y'know, that other society with whom they've been at periodic war for thousands of years, and against whom we were their allies? Hussein has spent the last ten years trying to walk the line between not antagonizing Washington and not inviting invasion by Tehran.
Remember the Seinfeld where Babu opens a restaurant at Jerry's suggestion and later regrets it?
It seems oddly fitting here. Just replace the words
'people' with 'WMD' 'Babu' with 'Most of the World' and 'Jerry' with 'GWB'
Most of the World: Quiet!! You shut up!... But where are WMD? You see WMD? Show me WMD. There are no WMD! GWB: You know, I think I'll just take the check. Most of the World: You bad man! You very very bad man! [leaves] GWB thinking: Bad man? Could my mother have been wrong?
Actually, They Are...
by
ackthpt
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm not going to get into a debate on the veracity of your statements, but none of the claims you listed are post-election news. The economy and Iraq both received very extensive news coverage before the election so I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Prior to the election it was treated as speculation and downplayed by the Whitehouse (read: the president and his innercicle of advisors) Since the election they are now admitting failures, regarding how badly the war is going (before 'these were isolated incidents' etc.), the prisoner abuse being cleaned up (now acknowledged it's still happening, even after all the alleged changes to prevent such) and finally having to face the music that the primary and urgent reason for invasion was unfounded.
For what Clinton did he was nearly impeached. For what Bush has done there's little if any talk except among 'wacko liberals'. Why do so few heads (particularly Rumsfeld's) roll in such an administration? Wasn't this fellow supposed to be the president of accountability?
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Survey sez...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You're wrong.
The bulk of the people don't have good access to information. And they know it. Some of them have a good excuse, busting their ass 60 hours a week makes it difficult to be informed, especially if Rush is what's playing at work. They quite reasonably distrust a very lazy media that's all but completely abdicated it's responsability. So they fall back on what they know. When in doubt trust people who look and speak like you. It's not an accident that the Republicans put so much into their bullshit folksy image.
In God they trust. More than reason. Blame corporate media.
SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Your post says you are angry, but then you sigh and heave and -- inevitably -- you give up, shut up, and go on with your life. Your opposition to the war consists of posting on Slashdot about it, in a section that nobody reads.
LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! If you want people to be outraged, then BE OUTRAGED YOURSELF and DO SOMETHING WITH THAT ANGER. There are still anti-war speeches taking place -- go and listen to one. Go take part in a rally, hell, START a rally yourself. Get your friends and neighbors to go, and be an ACTIVE citizen, instead of someone who sits back, complains, and votes democrat. Write editorials, get in touch with the public, and get people to channel their own anger with yours.
You talk about the election being 50/50. Well guess what, buddy: BOTH MAJOR CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THE WAR. You think voting for them sent any kind of message? The democrats are the ones that gave Bush the power in the first place. The democrats are the ones that still won't take a stand against it. Why are YOU content to vote for a party that you don't agree with on this incredibly important issue??
Now is the time to start acting, not yet another four years from now when it's too late to change anything. Look up your local Green Party and become an active member of it.
It's worth several hours of my weekend to protest the war and go to political meetings. I don't understand when you say you're too busy watching sitcoms and playing World of Warcraft.
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
Mycroft_VIII
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You know, I may dissagree with some of the reasons the two of you are angry. I think Kerry would have been as bad or worse than Bush. I don't think Bush is a complete idiot, or deliberately lied about the wmd's. But I do think he's not interested in reduceing the governments burden on it's citizens and is way to happy to sign rights limiting legislation we niegther need nor want.
But a your post well deserves the insightfull mod. One should not just say "this is wrong" and go back to thier easy chair to watch more bread and circuses on tv, but be active if they trully feel something must be done rather than just complain and moan. Perhaps the person you responded is active, perhaps not, but I know where the odds are.
We (I most definately include myself here sadly enough) are way to complacent to only whine about things and someone else to fix it. Guesse who that someone else has to be (well you show you know, but how many others 'get' it?)?
I honestly think if people would stop being sheep and actually think and act for themselves, and take an active role in things, some improvement would be inevitable.
I would rather votes go to the libertarian party myself, but expecting eigther of the two major parties to fix what's broken in our country is kinda like asking a murderer to save you from a rapist.
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
hitchhacker
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
the Green Party?
So you are saying the government is screwing up, and I agree, and you want the government to have more power?
"the problem isn't the abuse of power, it's the power to abuse."
they can't screw up so royally if they don't have the power to do so.
I say vote for the constitution and a smaller federal government...
-metric
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
funk_doc
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You could also try the lagrest thrid party (larger than all others combined) Here
The Libs are strongly against war, and were not socialists like the greens.
Free yourself, vote Libertarian
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
hitchhacker
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> The government is not intrinsically evil.
> The perversion of the government by corporations is.
If the government didn't have the power that it does, then corporations wouldn't pervert it... there would be no reason to. exactly like the quote said:
"the problem isn't the abuse of power, it's the power to abuse"
The government will always be corrupt, because the corporations will always be more involved with it.
-metric
Fucking delusionary bozo.
by
jotaeleemeese
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is no connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein. None, Zero, Zilch.
Your own Congress has said that much, Rumsfeld had accepted it. So stop it please, don't insult our intelligence.
In the run to the war humanitarian causes were never mentioned. Never. Bush's "preocupation" (hypocrate) were uniquely and exclusively WMDs.
For goodness sake, find yourself the idiotic "axis of evil speech" and look how much Iraqi people featured there.
Stop the denial, it will only delay the finding of a slution to the problem.
-- IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Re: look people
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> Just a few years ago the people of Iraq were being starved and gassed to death by an evil dictator. Now in less than three weeks there will be free Iraqi elections for the first time in over 30 years.
And that's going to fix everything, just like we were supposed to believe the invasion would, the capture of Saddam would, the handover of power to the transitional government would, the flattening of Fallujah would,...
Inspectors were shown over a 9 year period to be ineffective. And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think
WASHINGTON -- The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons and the administration does not hold out hopes that any weapons will be found.
Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer is to deliver his final report on the search next month. "It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report," McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either.
--
You can't take the sky from me...
Hey don't look at me
by
Sir+Homer
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I voted for the other guy.
That's below even your low standards.
by
khasim
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Why not just read his State of the Union address where he outlines the case instead of cherry picking?
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Looks like you're wrong.
WMD Report
That took about 15 seconds in Google.
The ORIGINAL question was "WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
You failed to do so. You presented a link to a CNN story about the report, not to a specific quote in the report. You can't do that because the report does not say what you claim it says.
Inspectors were shown over a 9 year period to be ineffective. Define the level of force to be used in your forceful reinstatement.
"UN sanctions curbed Saddam's ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise into Iraq. Sanctions also limited his ability to finance his military, intelligence, and security forces to deal with his perceived and real external threats."
And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think he wasn't working to bring down the entire sanctions from within the U.N.
Again, the actual report contradicts your claims. "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."
So, in conclusion: #1. Saddam was not a nuclear threat to the US. #2. Saddam was not a chemical threat to the US. #3. Saddam was not a biological threat to the US. #4. Saddam was not a terrorist threat to the US.
Saddam was not a military threat to the US in any way, shape or form.
Re:look people
by
Dr+Kool,+PhD
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So if you're a dictator then you can't be a terrorist?? Saddam gassed CIVILIANS, that's terrorism PERIOD END OF STORY. If you deny that Saddam was a terrorist then you either need a dictionary or a brain.
How many MILLIONS of children were starved by Saddam while he piled up his fortune by cheating the oil-for-food program?? That's right I said MILLIONS of children over about 10 years. You do the math.
This is what I first expected to happen when we invaded. Scary-sounding weapons would be "found" right away, and the US public would be eager to accept this retroactive evidence of the morality of our war.
But after some thought, it's just not tenable. Pulling off such a scheme would require the involvement of at least hundreds of people, and more likely thousands. (Military and intelligence agencies are designed to work as large cooperative bureaucracies, with lots of internal checks and paperwork on transactions. A few rogue people concealing their actions from the rest of the organization is exactly what they're designed to prevent.)
There's no way for the Administration to confidently expect every one of them to choose to keep mum for years or decades. Even if a certain number of them were to be given, "Don't ask why you're burying this shipping container, soldier!" orders, they'd pick it up pretty quickly when suddenly Fox news started showing pictures of that container and that site a week later.
It would be slightly closer to feasible for the Administration to just declare that weapons had been found, referring to no real objects whatsoever. But even in that case, you'd have many military and intelligence personnel who would expect to have some involvement in the location, disposal, verification, or documentation of this, and they'd pretty quickly figure out that not only hadn't they, neither had anyone else.
Really, this is just part of the more general rule that anything grandiose enough to be called enough a "conspiracy" is just too unstable to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Employment again tanks
Trade deficit skyrocketing
Torture still going on in Iraqi prisons
The war is going worse than we thought (the prez actually admitted)
No WMD stockpiles found
Where is the outrage? There's no outrage because people have been so baffled with bullsh!t they don't know what to believe, a 50/50 election result illustrated this clearly.
"The Iraq Survey Group, which was responsible for the search, goes on, but its focus now is trying to help counter the Iraqi insurgency."
Well, at leas they have full employement.
Don't spend all that political capital at the same gumball machine.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm sure we'll get a lot of war/Bush supporters here that pop up with all sorts of justifications now, but look, the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else.
Not only are they apparently not there (notwithstanding the "Syrian conspiracy theory" and such), a conclusion backed by three reports (Kay, 9/11, Duelfer) and this, the justification cannot be changed now just because it was wrong in the first place (in other words, you can't come back and respond to this news story by saying "but we liberated the iraqis" - yes, we did, but that wasn't the justification given for war, so it's a topic for a different discussion). Bush and his pals didn't say "we're going in because Saddam is an evil wicked little man who mistreats his people" in anything more than the most superficial manner. He did it by evoking images (well, that was more Cheney's job, actually) of an Iraq-backed attack spready doom across the continental United States and saying he knew something we didn't about all this.
Well, he was wrong. You can either sit and make stupid excuses and try to say "well, it doesn't matter because of..", but the fact is, this administration was wrong.
Responsible people would now stand up and explain what happened and what they plan to do about the fallout caused by their error. Irresponsible people, or people who were lying in the first place, will come back and try to change the subject or sweep it under the rug.
I'd like to think that the United States is a responsible nation, but with the way this has been addressed by this administration - attempting to shake its head and say no, really, we were right even though almost nothing we said before the war was true - and the way it's unlikely about to be addressed here, I have serious doubts that this country is currently anything close to responsible.
That's fine though. Keep it up. We'll see how long the rest of the world puts up with us if our trustworthiness turns into a chronic, glaring problem. You can only stay a superpower for so long when you rely on the rest of the world for your way of life and you're not willing to change it when you can't rely on the world anymore. Bring out the "woo woo! america is teh r0xx0rz!" crap instead of admitting you're wrong. We'll see just how well that works in the long run.
(on an unrelated note, why did this disappear from the frontpage...?)
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Shouldn't that read "WMDs were named as THE justification for the 'preemptive' invasion."
I thought about writing a long list to document where Bush or a member his administration said that we had to go to war with Iraq because of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was about protecting America, right?
Iraq even allowed the weapons inspectors in to prove they didn't have anything. Remember how the Bush administration mocked the U.N. weapons inspectors whose search turned up nothing? Remember the ultimatum that Bush gave Iraq -- disarm within 72 hours or else? And Fox News gleefully put a countdown clock on the screen? Remember the forged documents--not the ones from CBS; the ones supposedly from Nigeria saying that Iraq tried to acquire fissionable material? Remember the aluminum tubes?
Remember how reasonable, rational people said there was no proof Iraq had WMDs? Remember how millions of people all over the world protested this war before it started? Remember when scores of diplomats resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service because of these false claims of WMDs? John Brady Kiesling wrote in his resignation letter, "We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam."
However, I think I speak for nearly 50% of the country when I say that my head exploded from the incredible sense of "I told you so." I'm not happy to be right -- I'm sad for our country and what it turned into.
And to all the Conservatives who say, "The weapons of mass destruction may not be found, but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy, so it was worth it," I respond with, "The ends do not justify the means."
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
They've already found mountains of conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMDs...they're just buried somewhere in the desert...or hidden in Syria...or Russians Black Ops stole them right before the war...something...
/. is NewsMax and the Washington Times. Why do you ask?
Yeah, pretty much all I read besides
Over to Little Green Footballs to watch them contort around this one!
"Oh, this is just the liberal bias media, being biased, really they found some stuff, but the bias you know, the bias, biases out the truth. Israel and a conservative American government actually has never done anything wrong ever, it's just the bias makes it like it is. There's a liberal bias, did you know that?"
George W. Bush avoided serving in the Vietnam war, now he has his own going. Some of us learned something from Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby while others read about Goats.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Here's the classes of WMDs that I find insignificant, first of all (all of which I could, with some research, point to stories about):
1. East German Sarin with an expiration date of 1989.
2. left over poison gas residue of various types on various pieces of scrap metal found in the desert.
3. Aluminum tubes with multiple possible uses.
4. Large ammounts of conventional weapons that the allied forces thought were so insignificant that they didn't even bother to secure them.
Did I miss anything? Was ANYTHING found outside of these categories at all? Note, NONE of these categories were outside of the UN resolutions, as expired gas could be considered to be destroyed, dead ammo could be considered to be destroyed, conventional weapons were allowed, and there WERE other uses for the aluminium tubes.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It has surprised me that WMD were not faked by CIA / DIA / etc. (insert random agency name here). Getting a hold of some generic sarin, anthrax, botulinin, chlorine gas, etc. would be easy for any U.S. agency determined to do so. Placing it in a couple of buried shipping containers in the desert that we 'accidentally' discovered the location to would have been very easy.
The fact that this was not done says to me:
* maybe some was found but they can't talk about it (doubtful);
* most of the people in the U.S. armed forces are basically ethical (encouraging);
* no one thought of faking it (highly doubtful);
* there are too many checks and balances within the agency structures to allow a fake to succeed (highly likely).
The checks-balances scenario is this: CIA decides to fake it.
1. They create the agent/material, bury it, fake up docs, release info about it, "find" it, make news.
2. FBI decides, Hey, let's test it and figure out where it really came from and how it was made.
3. UN / Brits request samples to test, start interviewing all their people about the subject and get nothing or actual denials.
4. FBI figures out this isn't genuine and points fingers, or:
5. ATF decides to test it independently, or:
6. Secret service / Treasury tests it independently, or:
7. GAO / Congressional subcommittee asks lots of questions, or:
8. UN figures it out, points fingers, or:
9. Iraq former-regime muckety-mucks say, "hey, wait, we didn't do that... it's cool, but we didn't do it."
Just some thoughts.
I like having multiple levels of power structures all competing for the truth. The whole CIA reorg bill concentrates power too much in my opinion. It'll allow for this kind of potential fakery to succeed.
-- Kevin
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
The lesson here is clear: If you are a nation that the US may not like, and you don't have nuclear weapons, then you are vulnerable to attack and occupation by the US. They will, if they wish to, invent lies about you having said weapons, and attack you, with or without a general concensus from the rest of the civilized world.
So if you want to protect yourself, get WMDs, and get them fast.
That, my friends, is the moral of this story.
-Laxitive
And just the month before, we gave up an additional $20 billion + to our trading partners in bad trade agreements.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"Iraq Survey Group's search for WMDs. Prior to the war, WMDs were named as a justification for a 'preemptive' invasion."
... not so much.
Prior to the war, WMDs were named as the justification for a 'preemptive' invasion.
After the war and during the war, when WMDs were not being found,
We invaded them and they didn't attack us with WMD. What more proof do you need!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Remember the Seinfeld where Babu opens a restaurant at Jerry's suggestion and later regrets it?
... But where are WMD? You see WMD? Show me WMD. There are no WMD!
It seems oddly fitting here. Just replace the words
'people' with 'WMD'
'Babu' with 'Most of the World'
and 'Jerry' with 'GWB'
Most of the World: Quiet!! You shut up!
GWB: You know, I think I'll just take the check.
Most of the World: You bad man! You very very bad man! [leaves]
GWB thinking: Bad man? Could my mother have been wrong?
Prior to the election it was treated as speculation and downplayed by the Whitehouse (read: the president and his innercicle of advisors) Since the election they are now admitting failures, regarding how badly the war is going (before 'these were isolated incidents' etc.), the prisoner abuse being cleaned up (now acknowledged it's still happening, even after all the alleged changes to prevent such) and finally having to face the music that the primary and urgent reason for invasion was unfounded.
For what Clinton did he was nearly impeached. For what Bush has done there's little if any talk except among 'wacko liberals'. Why do so few heads (particularly Rumsfeld's) roll in such an administration? Wasn't this fellow supposed to be the president of accountability?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You're wrong.
The bulk of the people don't have good access to information. And they know it. Some of them have a good excuse, busting their ass 60 hours a week makes it difficult to be informed, especially if Rush is what's playing at work. They quite reasonably distrust a very lazy media that's all but completely abdicated it's responsability. So they fall back on what they know. When in doubt trust people who look and speak like you. It's not an accident that the Republicans put so much into their bullshit folksy image.
In God they trust. More than reason. Blame corporate media.
Your post says you are angry, but then you sigh and heave and -- inevitably -- you give up, shut up, and go on with your life. Your opposition to the war consists of posting on Slashdot about it, in a section that nobody reads.
LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! If you want people to be outraged, then BE OUTRAGED YOURSELF and DO SOMETHING WITH THAT ANGER. There are still anti-war speeches taking place -- go and listen to one. Go take part in a rally, hell, START a rally yourself. Get your friends and neighbors to go, and be an ACTIVE citizen, instead of someone who sits back, complains, and votes democrat. Write editorials, get in touch with the public, and get people to channel their own anger with yours.
You talk about the election being 50/50. Well guess what, buddy: BOTH MAJOR CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THE WAR. You think voting for them sent any kind of message? The democrats are the ones that gave Bush the power in the first place. The democrats are the ones that still won't take a stand against it. Why are YOU content to vote for a party that you don't agree with on this incredibly important issue??
Now is the time to start acting, not yet another four years from now when it's too late to change anything. Look up your local Green Party and become an active member of it.
It's worth several hours of my weekend to protest the war and go to political meetings. I don't understand when you say you're too busy watching sitcoms and playing World of Warcraft.
There is no connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein.
None, Zero, Zilch.
Your own Congress has said that much, Rumsfeld had accepted it. So stop it please, don't insult our intelligence.
In the run to the war humanitarian causes were never mentioned. Never. Bush's "preocupation" (hypocrate) were uniquely and exclusively WMDs.
For goodness sake, find yourself the idiotic "axis of evil speech" and look how much Iraqi people featured there.
Stop the denial, it will only delay the finding of a slution to the problem.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
> Just a few years ago the people of Iraq were being starved and gassed to death by an evil dictator. Now in less than three weeks there will be free Iraqi elections for the first time in over 30 years.
And that's going to fix everything, just like we were supposed to believe the invasion would, the capture of Saddam would, the handover of power to the transitional government would, the flattening of Fallujah would,
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think
You can't take the sky from me...
I voted for the other guy.
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Looks like you're wrong.The ORIGINAL question was "WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
You failed to do so. You presented a link to a CNN story about the report, not to a specific quote in the report. You can't do that because the report does not say what you claim it says.Actually, if you read the final report, it says that they were effective. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp
"UN sanctions curbed Saddam's ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise into Iraq. Sanctions also limited his ability to finance his military, intelligence, and security forces to deal with his perceived and real external threats."Again, the actual report contradicts your claims. "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."
So, in conclusion:
#1. Saddam was not a nuclear threat to the US.
#2. Saddam was not a chemical threat to the US.
#3. Saddam was not a biological threat to the US.
#4. Saddam was not a terrorist threat to the US.
Saddam was not a military threat to the US in any way, shape or form.
So if you're a dictator then you can't be a terrorist?? Saddam gassed CIVILIANS, that's terrorism PERIOD END OF STORY. If you deny that Saddam was a terrorist then you either need a dictionary or a brain.
How many MILLIONS of children were starved by Saddam while he piled up his fortune by cheating the oil-for-food program?? That's right I said MILLIONS of children over about 10 years. You do the math.
This is what I first expected to happen when we invaded. Scary-sounding weapons would be "found" right away, and the US public would be eager to accept this retroactive evidence of the morality of our war.
But after some thought, it's just not tenable. Pulling off such a scheme would require the involvement of at least hundreds of people, and more likely thousands. (Military and intelligence agencies are designed to work as large cooperative bureaucracies, with lots of internal checks and paperwork on transactions. A few rogue people concealing their actions from the rest of the organization is exactly what they're designed to prevent.)
There's no way for the Administration to confidently expect every one of them to choose to keep mum for years or decades. Even if a certain number of them were to be given, "Don't ask why you're burying this shipping container, soldier!" orders, they'd pick it up pretty quickly when suddenly Fox news started showing pictures of that container and that site a week later.
It would be slightly closer to feasible for the Administration to just declare that weapons had been found, referring to no real objects whatsoever. But even in that case, you'd have many military and intelligence personnel who would expect to have some involvement in the location, disposal, verification, or documentation of this, and they'd pretty quickly figure out that not only hadn't they, neither had anyone else.
Really, this is just part of the more general rule that anything grandiose enough to be called enough a "conspiracy" is just too unstable to work.