OMG, Saddam was really a threat. What should we do? Oh, no. Oh, no. Come one folks, who r u tryin to kid here?
Posted by: 3moreyears at July 7, 2006 08:26 PM
"Come one folks, who r u tryin to kid here?"
What the hell's your point, 3moreyears? That Saddam was Santa Claus? Or that Saddam was Satan, but a Satan who was being "contained" by UN sanctions? Or that Saddam was a Satan, NOT contained by UN sanctions, but one who had nothing to do with al Qaeda? Or that Saddam was a Satan not contained by UN sanctions, and who was up to his elbows with al Qaeda, but who had no weapons of mass destruction and no intention of ever getting them? Exactly WHAT is your point tonight?
Posted by: JPL at July 7, 2006 08:55 PM
His point seems to be that he wants these documents to not mean anything. Instead they are just more proof that some form of chemical weapons program was ongoing. Sorry 3, but Saddam was trying to make WMD, after the 1st Gulf War, you lose.
Posted by: kjstrouble at July 7, 2006 09:59 PM
I think the point is Mark is insinuating something he has no proof of. Wouldn't that be something? Mark Noonan with the scoop of the century!
Nothing new here, move along...
Posted by:
winnowhead at July 7, 2006 10:16 PM
With all due respect this does not vindicate Bush on all levels. One of the key reasons given for Operation Iraqi Freedom was to eliminate Saddam's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and to eliminate the WMD programs. If these WMD were relocated or hiiden, this means the President failed to achieve one of the primary goals of the operation. As such, this is one of the best anti-Bush arguments that can be made.
Posted by: B.Poster at July 7, 2006 10:42 PM
What the hell planet YOU on, Winnowhead? Mark isn't "insinuating" anything without proof; his post IS the "proof" -- just look at the link. You got counter-proof?
Posted by: JPL at July 7, 2006 10:57 PM
3moreyears
You ask, what should we do? We should treat the terrorists and their state supporters as the major threat to Western civilization that they are. What I think we should have done, at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was to committ more troops and better equipment to the mission. I think there is still time to do this. Also, I think major powers such as Russia and China may be using the terrorists to distract Amercian military and intellegence resources while they make their own plans. Some type of pressure should be put on Russia and China to withdraw all assistance from the terrorists supporting states, such as Iran, Syria, and Iran's biggest weapons supplier of North Korea. God willing the pressure can be diplomatic. So, in a nut shell what we should do, is explain to the American people how serious the threat is and we should committ more resources to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other operations in the GWOT. This will probably require sacrifices to be made on the part of the American people and may mean certain social programs will need to be curtailed or eliminated entirely. If we are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to win, then we should remove all of our troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elswhere without delay. Those troops could then be used to secure the border. The border should have been secured long ago. In the event of premature withdrawl from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts in the GWOT, border security will become even more imperative, as the terrorists will likely push the war to America's shores. This is my suggestion of what we should do.
Posted by: B.Poster at July 7, 2006 11:00 PM
Winnowhead
Information on Saddam's WMD program is nothing new. There is still allot we don't know about Saddam's WMD. I hope Republicans and Democrats can complete these investigations in a non partisian manner.
Posted by: B.Poster at July 7, 2006 11:03 PM
My eyes continually are rolling at comments I read, things I hear.
There is absolutely NOTHING that will satisfy the left. A video could be found of Saddam saying "Bush was right. Here are directions to where I hid the WMDs when I found out the US was coming and here is my coorespondence with OBL. And here is this and that Etc"
And they still would say the same stuff over and over again. And denial would continue.
Posted by: AFWIFE at July 8, 2006 01:09 AM
I had no idea the Department of Defense was run by a bunch of lefties, since THEY disagree with everything Mark is posting here.
"I'm not a chemist" Mark should stick with the DoD analysis by actual chemists. Or perhaps the iraqi Survey Group whose final report concludes:
"Iraq Survey Group investigated pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom activities at Musayyib Ammunition Storage Depot—the storage site that was judged to have the strongest link to CW. An extensive investigation of the facility revealed that there was no CW activity, unlike previously assessed."
Must be a bunch of lefties. Anyone who disproves anything Bush says must be a moron, right? Even David Kay, Bush's appointed guy who said "My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons, I don't think they exist." must be a leftist, right?
That leftist Duelfer states:
# Residual Pre-1991 CBW Stocks in Iraq, concluding "any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat ... ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents".
# Residual Proliferation Risk: Equipment and Materials, concluding "Iraq’s remaining chemical and biological physical infrastructure does not pose a proliferation concern".
To sum it all up, in Republicanland, if you're not Right, you're wrong. Somehow, Mark has better intelligence than Bush. On second thought, that's not saying very much, is it?
Posted by: congressive at July 8, 2006 01:46 AM
Congressive,
Those reports both pre-date the discovery and translation of the document I linked to - and both of those reports also concluded that Saddam was still in the WMD business, just that some things we thought pre-liberation turned out to be incorrect.
Get a grip and start looking at facts, not DNC talking points.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at July 8, 2006 02:05 AM
Congressive
The ISG did conclude that in their best judgement that it was unlikely that Saddam had large stockpiles of WMD, however, by the ISG's own admission they were never able to complete their investigation due to the security situation. Specifically they were never able to definitively answer what was transferred to Syria in the truck convoys that went there prior to the war. The conventional wisdom is that Saddam did not have large stockpiles of WMD. the conventional wisdom could well turn out to be correct. I sincerely hope the conventional wisdom is correct. All I'm suggesting is the investigation needs to be completed. As Mark points out, these documents may shed additional insight into the situation. Also, as of sometime in 2004, both Charles Duelfer and David Kay both believed we were correct to have removed Saddam from power. I'm not saying they were right. At a minimum the investigations should be concluded before we can say definitively that the stockpiles did not exist. Again, I hope they did not.
Posted by: B.Poster at July 8, 2006 03:05 AM
Quite frankly, I don't know where to find these so called DNC talking points. My info comes from ACTUALLY reading the Iraq Survey Group's actual findings, the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings, David Kay's report, Charles Duelfer's actual findings, Joe Wilson's actual op-ed piece, and source material wherever possible, including as many of these newly released documents as are readable.
CIA.gov is a wealth of information, as is whitehouse.gov, for "who said exactly what and when," like THIS PAGE which is so full of spin it makes Dinsey's teacup ride seem as stationary as Stonhenge.
I do have a background in chemistry and know that you don't run a country of 30 million people without tons and tons of detergents and clorinators and plastics and solvents and fungicides and herbicides and fertilizers and lubricants and sealants and pesticides etc. etc.
You could easily say tons of ammonia and tons of chlorine were found, so they must have been actively making mustard gas (ammonium chloride). Unless the DoD says they were just cleaning their bathrooms and whitening their whites. This post is inflammatory nonsense corroborated by no actual intelligence very much akin to the gibberish that it doesn't feel warmer so there must not be global warming. If the DoD found actionable intelligence in these releases, first, they wouldn't be releasing them, and second, they'd be taking action as warranted. They've got nothing.
I am disappointed that they've got nothing. You won't understand this, but should everything Bush has been spouting miraculously prove true, there would be a great collective, bipartisan, heaving sigh of relief that the billions of dollars and thousands of lives were not wasted after all.
But so far...nothing.
Posted by: congressive at July 8, 2006 03:32 AM
"Joe Wilson's actual op-ed piece"
Well, that explains alot......
Posted by: NC Cop at July 8, 2006 09:48 AM
"One of the key reasons given for Operation Iraqi Freedom was to eliminate Saddam's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and to eliminate the WMD programs."
I said to many friends from the outset that there were many good reasons to do this and the WMD focus was a poor choice for the lynchpin reason. I understand the emotional appeal but I felt his continued violations of the cease fire agreement, firing on planes in the no-fire zone, non-cooperation with weapons inspectors and humanitarian reasons were just as important. In this (just guessing)50 year struggle I also felt that to have Iran surronded and a force next to SA, Syria...etc was also advantagous. The only hope for the middle east is some form of a reformation and a democratic(maybe not perfect but miles better than has existed)government in the middle of this might provide the catalyst. In a world paradigm that has changed radically(small world, big weapons in small packages) We dont have the luxury to wait 100 years for it to happen. We needed to force the issue as Islam isnt capable of the self introspection such a movement needs.
Our only other choices are to get used to living with radical islam or wipe it out. I find both of those choices poor ones. I dont feel that we can establish a live and let live relationship with isalm in its present form moderate or otherwise.
One other thing I have wondered. Perhaps the people Sadam had running his programs were, showing Sadam a few examples of WMD, generating the paperwork and the talk and taking the money for themselves. I believe one of the sons was running the programs and could easily believe he was scamming his dad and sending the money offshore. This would explain why we thought it was real but in reality only the appearence was not the actual and why Sadam thought he had them when he didnt...at least not in near the quantity he assumed. I also think that theres a good chance what was there was moved to the Bekah valley in Syria Just a thought.
Posted by: ZootAllure at July 8, 2006 11:08 AM
B.Poster
"One of the key reasons given for Operation Iraqi Freedom was to eliminate Saddam's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and to eliminate the WMD programs."
I said to many friends from the outset that there were many good reasons to do this and the WMD focus was a poor choice for the lynchpin reason. I understand the emotional appeal but I felt his continued violations of the cease fire agreement, firing on planes in the no-fire zone, non-cooperation with weapons inspectors and humanitarian reasons were just as important. In this (just guessing)50 year struggle I also felt that to have Iran surronded and a force next to SA, Syria...etc was also advantagous. The only hope for the middle east is some form of a reformation and a democratic(maybe not perfect but miles better than has existed)government in the middle of this might provide the catalyst. In a world paradigm that has changed radically(small world, big weapons in small packages) We dont have the luxury to wait 100 years for it to happen. We needed to force the issue as Islam isnt capable of the self introspection such a movement needs.
Our only other choices are to get used to living with radical islam or wipe it out. I find both of those choices poor ones. I dont feel that we can establish a live and let live relationship with isalm in its present form moderate or otherwise.
One other thing I have wondered. Perhaps the people Sadam had running his programs were, showing Sadam a few examples of WMD, generating the paperwork and the talk and taking the money for themselves. I believe one of the sons was running the programs and could easily believe he was scamming his dad and sending the money offshore. This would explain why we thought it was real but in reality only the appearence was not the actual and why Sadam thought he had them when he didnt...at least not in near the quantity he assumed. I also think that theres a good chance what was there was moved to the Bekah valley in Syria Just a thought.
Posted by: ZootAllure at July 8, 2006 11:15 AM
Congressive,
You did yourself in with Wilson's Op-Ed piece...the reports you claim to have read demonstrate that Wilson is a liar...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at July 8, 2006 05:39 PM
OMG, Saddam was really a threat. What should we do? Oh, no. Oh, no. Come one folks, who r u tryin to kid here?
"Come one folks, who r u tryin to kid here?"
What the hell's your point, 3moreyears? That Saddam was Santa Claus? Or that Saddam was Satan, but a Satan who was being "contained" by UN sanctions? Or that Saddam was a Satan, NOT contained by UN sanctions, but one who had nothing to do with al Qaeda? Or that Saddam was a Satan not contained by UN sanctions, and who was up to his elbows with al Qaeda, but who had no weapons of mass destruction and no intention of ever getting them? Exactly WHAT is your point tonight?
His point seems to be that he wants these documents to not mean anything. Instead they are just more proof that some form of chemical weapons program was ongoing. Sorry 3, but Saddam was trying to make WMD, after the 1st Gulf War, you lose.
I think the point is Mark is insinuating something he has no proof of. Wouldn't that be something? Mark Noonan with the scoop of the century!
Nothing new here, move along...
With all due respect this does not vindicate Bush on all levels. One of the key reasons given for Operation Iraqi Freedom was to eliminate Saddam's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and to eliminate the WMD programs. If these WMD were relocated or hiiden, this means the President failed to achieve one of the primary goals of the operation. As such, this is one of the best anti-Bush arguments that can be made.
What the hell planet YOU on, Winnowhead? Mark isn't "insinuating" anything without proof; his post IS the "proof" -- just look at the link. You got counter-proof?
3moreyears
You ask, what should we do? We should treat the terrorists and their state supporters as the major threat to Western civilization that they are. What I think we should have done, at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was to committ more troops and better equipment to the mission. I think there is still time to do this. Also, I think major powers such as Russia and China may be using the terrorists to distract Amercian military and intellegence resources while they make their own plans. Some type of pressure should be put on Russia and China to withdraw all assistance from the terrorists supporting states, such as Iran, Syria, and Iran's biggest weapons supplier of North Korea. God willing the pressure can be diplomatic. So, in a nut shell what we should do, is explain to the American people how serious the threat is and we should committ more resources to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other operations in the GWOT. This will probably require sacrifices to be made on the part of the American people and may mean certain social programs will need to be curtailed or eliminated entirely. If we are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to win, then we should remove all of our troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elswhere without delay. Those troops could then be used to secure the border. The border should have been secured long ago. In the event of premature withdrawl from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts in the GWOT, border security will become even more imperative, as the terrorists will likely push the war to America's shores. This is my suggestion of what we should do.
Winnowhead
Information on Saddam's WMD program is nothing new. There is still allot we don't know about Saddam's WMD. I hope Republicans and Democrats can complete these investigations in a non partisian manner.
My eyes continually are rolling at comments I read, things I hear.
There is absolutely NOTHING that will satisfy the left. A video could be found of Saddam saying "Bush was right. Here are directions to where I hid the WMDs when I found out the US was coming and here is my coorespondence with OBL. And here is this and that Etc"
And they still would say the same stuff over and over again. And denial would continue.
I had no idea the Department of Defense was run by a bunch of lefties, since THEY disagree with everything Mark is posting here.
"I'm not a chemist" Mark should stick with the DoD analysis by actual chemists. Or perhaps the iraqi Survey Group whose final report concludes:
"Iraq Survey Group investigated pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom activities at Musayyib Ammunition Storage Depot—the storage site that was judged to have the strongest link to CW. An extensive investigation of the facility revealed that there was no CW activity, unlike previously assessed."
Must be a bunch of lefties. Anyone who disproves anything Bush says must be a moron, right? Even David Kay, Bush's appointed guy who said "My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons, I don't think they exist." must be a leftist, right?
That leftist Duelfer states:
# Residual Pre-1991 CBW Stocks in Iraq, concluding "any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat ... ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents".
# Residual Proliferation Risk: Equipment and Materials, concluding "Iraq’s remaining chemical and biological physical infrastructure does not pose a proliferation concern".
To sum it all up, in Republicanland, if you're not Right, you're wrong. Somehow, Mark has better intelligence than Bush. On second thought, that's not saying very much, is it?
Congressive,
Those reports both pre-date the discovery and translation of the document I linked to - and both of those reports also concluded that Saddam was still in the WMD business, just that some things we thought pre-liberation turned out to be incorrect.
Get a grip and start looking at facts, not DNC talking points.
Congressive
The ISG did conclude that in their best judgement that it was unlikely that Saddam had large stockpiles of WMD, however, by the ISG's own admission they were never able to complete their investigation due to the security situation. Specifically they were never able to definitively answer what was transferred to Syria in the truck convoys that went there prior to the war. The conventional wisdom is that Saddam did not have large stockpiles of WMD. the conventional wisdom could well turn out to be correct. I sincerely hope the conventional wisdom is correct. All I'm suggesting is the investigation needs to be completed. As Mark points out, these documents may shed additional insight into the situation. Also, as of sometime in 2004, both Charles Duelfer and David Kay both believed we were correct to have removed Saddam from power. I'm not saying they were right. At a minimum the investigations should be concluded before we can say definitively that the stockpiles did not exist. Again, I hope they did not.
Quite frankly, I don't know where to find these so called DNC talking points. My info comes from ACTUALLY reading the Iraq Survey Group's actual findings, the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings, David Kay's report, Charles Duelfer's actual findings, Joe Wilson's actual op-ed piece, and source material wherever possible, including as many of these newly released documents as are readable.
CIA.gov is a wealth of information, as is whitehouse.gov, for "who said exactly what and when," like THIS PAGE which is so full of spin it makes Dinsey's teacup ride seem as stationary as Stonhenge.
I do have a background in chemistry and know that you don't run a country of 30 million people without tons and tons of detergents and clorinators and plastics and solvents and fungicides and herbicides and fertilizers and lubricants and sealants and pesticides etc. etc.
You could easily say tons of ammonia and tons of chlorine were found, so they must have been actively making mustard gas (ammonium chloride). Unless the DoD says they were just cleaning their bathrooms and whitening their whites. This post is inflammatory nonsense corroborated by no actual intelligence very much akin to the gibberish that it doesn't feel warmer so there must not be global warming. If the DoD found actionable intelligence in these releases, first, they wouldn't be releasing them, and second, they'd be taking action as warranted. They've got nothing.
I am disappointed that they've got nothing. You won't understand this, but should everything Bush has been spouting miraculously prove true, there would be a great collective, bipartisan, heaving sigh of relief that the billions of dollars and thousands of lives were not wasted after all.
But so far...nothing.
"Joe Wilson's actual op-ed piece"
Well, that explains alot......
"One of the key reasons given for Operation Iraqi Freedom was to eliminate Saddam's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and to eliminate the WMD programs."
I said to many friends from the outset that there were many good reasons to do this and the WMD focus was a poor choice for the lynchpin reason. I understand the emotional appeal but I felt his continued violations of the cease fire agreement, firing on planes in the no-fire zone, non-cooperation with weapons inspectors and humanitarian reasons were just as important. In this (just guessing)50 year struggle I also felt that to have Iran surronded and a force next to SA, Syria...etc was also advantagous. The only hope for the middle east is some form of a reformation and a democratic(maybe not perfect but miles better than has existed)government in the middle of this might provide the catalyst. In a world paradigm that has changed radically(small world, big weapons in small packages) We dont have the luxury to wait 100 years for it to happen. We needed to force the issue as Islam isnt capable of the self introspection such a movement needs.
Our only other choices are to get used to living with radical islam or wipe it out. I find both of those choices poor ones. I dont feel that we can establish a live and let live relationship with isalm in its present form moderate or otherwise.
One other thing I have wondered. Perhaps the people Sadam had running his programs were, showing Sadam a few examples of WMD, generating the paperwork and the talk and taking the money for themselves. I believe one of the sons was running the programs and could easily believe he was scamming his dad and sending the money offshore. This would explain why we thought it was real but in reality only the appearence was not the actual and why Sadam thought he had them when he didnt...at least not in near the quantity he assumed. I also think that theres a good chance what was there was moved to the Bekah valley in Syria Just a thought.
B.Poster
"One of the key reasons given for Operation Iraqi Freedom was to eliminate Saddam's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and to eliminate the WMD programs."
I said to many friends from the outset that there were many good reasons to do this and the WMD focus was a poor choice for the lynchpin reason. I understand the emotional appeal but I felt his continued violations of the cease fire agreement, firing on planes in the no-fire zone, non-cooperation with weapons inspectors and humanitarian reasons were just as important. In this (just guessing)50 year struggle I also felt that to have Iran surronded and a force next to SA, Syria...etc was also advantagous. The only hope for the middle east is some form of a reformation and a democratic(maybe not perfect but miles better than has existed)government in the middle of this might provide the catalyst. In a world paradigm that has changed radically(small world, big weapons in small packages) We dont have the luxury to wait 100 years for it to happen. We needed to force the issue as Islam isnt capable of the self introspection such a movement needs.
Our only other choices are to get used to living with radical islam or wipe it out. I find both of those choices poor ones. I dont feel that we can establish a live and let live relationship with isalm in its present form moderate or otherwise.
One other thing I have wondered. Perhaps the people Sadam had running his programs were, showing Sadam a few examples of WMD, generating the paperwork and the talk and taking the money for themselves. I believe one of the sons was running the programs and could easily believe he was scamming his dad and sending the money offshore. This would explain why we thought it was real but in reality only the appearence was not the actual and why Sadam thought he had them when he didnt...at least not in near the quantity he assumed. I also think that theres a good chance what was there was moved to the Bekah valley in Syria Just a thought.
Congressive,
You did yourself in with Wilson's Op-Ed piece...the reports you claim to have read demonstrate that Wilson is a liar...