Rumsfeld: Saddam may have destroyed WMDs

From Yahoo/Reuters

Looks like Saddam might have kept up his end of 1441.

Activate full on rhetoric mode ....

So what else is new? Hey, surprise, we can make up any reason we like to invade a country. I hear Iran has laser guided pirhannas. Syria is harboring radioactive goats. North Korea is rife with long range tactical monkeys!

I wonder how many conservatives will get worked up about the possibility that the president lied about having proof of WMDs? Oh, wait. This is different, right? This is the kind of lie that only gets people killed, not that insidious lie that gets people laid.


wonder how many conservatives will get worked up about the possibility that the president lied about having proof of WMDs? Oh, wait. This is different, right? This is the kind of lie that only gets people killed, not that insidious lie that gets people laid.

It really doesn''t matter. The President only knows what his advisors tell him. So if anything, they lied to him. I really never cared about WMD. It just hurts out Intel backing in the world. Every intel agency in the world (France, Germany, U.K, Russia, etc) all said Saddam had the weapons. If we find the paper trail that will be all that matters.

No Ulairi that is not all that matters. Not for me, nor I would assume many others. You see that''s the problem with your point of view. If it doesn''t work out you change it so that it fits with your beliefs.

This war was and always will be about money power and greed. America has it so they are going to use it. I just hope it ends before things become even worse then they already are.

Every intel agency in the world (France, Germany, U.K, Russia, etc) all said Saddam had the weapons.
Uh... nope.

actually they all said they have no proof of WMDs nor proof of a direct connection to Al Qaida.

And to make things worse the main reason your gov put forward is the possession of WMDs by Iraq. Now they are saying they may have been destroyed. So they didn''t know for sure they existed beforehand. Thanks for lying everybody in the face :(.

Well... I guess I''m not surprized if it''s true, but I can''t say I feel sorry for Saddam. I''m glad the bastard is gone but it''s a tragedy that it seems like we won''t be doing the same to other scum around the world.
Of course, we probably should have a had a realistic plan in mind for when we destabilized Iraq, so more needless suffering would be avoided.

"Ulairi" wrote:
It really doesn''t matter. The President only knows what his advisors tell him. So if anything, they lied to him. I really never cared about WMD. It just hurts out Intel backing in the world. Every intel agency in the world (France, Germany, U.K, Russia, etc) all said Saddam had the weapons. If we find the paper trail that will be all that matters.

And if it is proven the President himself knew beforehand they had no proof, what then?

Furthermore, and I don''t mean to be rude, but nobody cares whether or not you care about WMDs. The President stated he had proof of WMDs, and went to war, getting people killed, on that justification. If he had said he was going to war with Islamic Fascism, it''d be different, but he didn''t. If the President knew beforehand there was no such proof, he lied to the American people, and got several of it''s soldiers killed. I don''t care if he was going to Iraq to save Jesus Christ himself from Saddam, you don''t do that without consequences. I would call for impeachment, but I don''t guess that''s gonna happen. Clinton gets tried for lying about banging some slut, and Bush will get away with lying to get people killed, if it ever gets proven.

They still haven''t found a paper trail, either. How long until it''s too late?

I think, and please let me know if I''m oversimplifying here, that for some people including Ulairi the end justifies the means. That is to say that for him, and I think many, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was important enough that if a few people had to lie to get it done, then so be it. That, the threat posed by Saddam was greater than the necessity of following every beaurucratic nuance, and worth bending a few rules. If I''m off there, Ulair, feel free to refute.

For me, however, the weight of war and the impact of it is precisely the reason we have such bureaucracy surrounding it in the first place, and the danger of having the most powerful country in the world able to create legitimacy from fiction is perhaps the most destabilizing force in global politics I can imagine.

Saddam''s gone. One last asshole to worry about.

Cry all you want, its done. If the UN had some balls, we wouldn''t have had to try so hard to gain world support. We still didn''t get it, but did it anyway. F the United Nations and F anyone who thinks about harming our country.

Once again, we didn''t start this.

Sounds like you''re equating Saddam and 9/11 again. Slippery slope that one, but you seem a bit touchy today, so I''m just going to nod politely and step slowly toward the door.

Apparently Yomm isn''t alone in that opinion. Upwards of 80% of Americans think that Saddam was behind 9-11 according to the latest polls of the general public. I also hear Jay Leno has no problems finding people for his Jaywalking segments.

"Yomm" wrote:
Saddam''s gone. One last asshole to worry about.

Cry all you want, its done. If the UN had some balls, we wouldn''t have had to try so hard to gain world support. We still didn''t get it, but did it anyway. F the United Nations and F anyone who thinks about harming our country.

Once again, we didn''t start this.

Nobody says its a bad thing Saddam is gone. Were all glad to be rid of him. Bush and anyone in the Administration who knew about this still have to pay for lying to the American people and getting thier soldiers killed. If the ends justify the means, fine, but those means have consequences that they should be prepared to pay. Its the price for getting rid of Saddam. If theres a man raping someone and you kill him, you still have to go to court for killing him. You may be acquitted on self defense, but you still have to go to court. The same standard should apply here, if it is proven theyre lying, they must go to court and accept the sentence of the court, which I hope would be impeachment. Not because I don''t like the guy, but because I can''t condone a President lying to his own people to start a war. I don''t think they should get off with lying to us just because they did us a favor.

Regardless if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 (and I bet a few of his $''s were in there somewhere), he was still a prick and a threat.

Your argument (or suggestion) that the US randomly picked him and made up a story of WMD''s so we could go in and start a war, has got to be one of the most sickening suggestions I''ve seen from you in awhile.

If there''s a possible threat to US security, we should destroy it. Not ask the UN what they think, not try posturing to the rest of the world that we''re the good guys, but go in and deal with it.

For the umptenth F''n time, the US is not a warmonger. We''re not out to start war for the joy of death. We''re out to protect our citizens, our way of life, and try to offer the same opportunites to every civilization on the planet (in that order).


I think, and please let me know if I''m oversimplifying here, that for some people including Ulairi the end justifies the means. That is to say that for him, and I think many, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was important enough that if a few people had to lie to get it done, then so be it. That, the threat posed by Saddam was greater than the necessity of following every beaurucratic nuance, and worth bending a few rules. If I''m off there, Ulair, feel free to refute.

I think Bush should have used the humanitarian reasons to get rid of him. Just like we did in Serbia. I never cared about WMD, I cared about removing a dictator.

Good, then you don''t mind if the people rise up to kick out Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, do you?

"Yomm" wrote:
Regardless if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 (and I bet a few of his $''s were in there somewhere), he was still a prick and a threat.

Your argument (or suggestion) that the US randomly picked him and made up a story of WMD''s so we could go in and start a war, has got to be one of the most sickening suggestions I''ve seen from you in awhile.

If there''s a possible threat to US security, we should destroy it. Not ask the UN what they think, not try posturing to the rest of the world that we''re the good guys, but go in and deal with it.

For the umptenth F''n time, the US is not a warmonger. We''re not out to start war for the joy of death. We''re out to protect our citizens, our way of life, and try to offer the same opportunites to every civilization on the planet (in that order).

Im going to assume You is Me, so let me know if Im wrong.

I never said the US randomly picked him. The Administration had thier reasons for getting rid of him. The problem is that those are not the reasons they gave us. So far, it looks like the made up the WMD story. I may be proven wrong, but we haven''t found one thing proving that they were telling the truth.

Nobody said it had anything to do with the UN, that is a seperate topic, nobody said he is a warmonger, or that he enjoys war. Im saying if he lied, he should pay. Thats it. What part of that do you disagree with?

"Elysium" wrote:
Activate full on rhetoric mode ....

So what else is new? Hey, surprise, we can make up any reason we like to invade a country. I hear Iran has laser guided pirhannas. Syria is harboring radioactive goats. North Korea is rife with long range tactical monkeys!

Pyro,

That part. I know he was trying to be cute (though it would have been with a simple .roll.) but it still hit a nerve.

Wars have been fought for less then the threat of WMD. How many deaths can we count in the name of religion?

Again, I just think its better to strike out at percieved threats, then to wait for the threats to hit home. Did the US enter WWII b/c of Germany or Pearl Harbor? Had we entered the war earlier, would it have made a difference?

9/11 was just another wake up call. The US can not be isolated from the whackos of the world.

"Yomm" wrote:
9/11 was just another wake up call. The US can not be isolated from the whackos of the world.

As opposed to supplying them with money and giving them the means to keep their brutal regimes intact so long as they back us?

I didn''t suggest we randomly picked a target. I suggested that we randomly picked an excuse to kill that target. You''re happy with that. I get that, really I do. It''s a problem for me. Really there''s not much more to say than that.

If that''s sickening, then I''m sorry. Just for some clarification we disagree on fundamentals.

Wars have been fought for less then the threat of WMD. How many deaths can we count in the name of religion?

I agree. Dumb reasons for starting wars should be avoided. Sounds more like a point in my favor.

Again, I just think its better to strike out at percieved threats, then to wait for the threats to hit home.

I disagree. Credible threats, with proof (which is the issue missing here) then perhaps, but not perceived threats. That kind of preemption is anathema to me. You''re fine with it? Ok, difference of opinion. Be happy that your guy is in office.

9/11 was just another wake up call. The US can not be isolated from the whackos of the world.

And you wouldn''t have heard me whining when we went after Bin Laden. Get the guy who did it. Great! I haven''t seen a shread of evidence beside the typical ''he probably had something to do with it'' that links Saddam and 9/11. Did he like that 9/11 happened? Maybe, but that''s not a link. So, for me, on the topic of Iraq, 9/11 is not part of the discussion. Islamic Fundamanetalism? Sure, that has to do with 9/11. Bin Laden, you bet! In the case of Saddam Hussein it smacks of propaganda, at least until there''s a credible verifiable link of some kind.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
Good, then you don''t mind if the people rise up to kick out Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, do you?

Nope. The reason: Once in powe they''ll have to deal with us anyway. We supply a large sum of cash and food to keep people alive. We are also a large trading partner.

Musharaf is a military dictator who overthrough the legitimate Pakistani government, who was working with the Clinton Administration to train Pakistani commandoes to take out bin Ladin in Afghanistan. He has consistantly put off promised democratic reforms and elections to retain his grip on the country and to keep the Anti-American Muslim majority taking power. He is also involved with Pakistani militants in Kashmir.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
Musharaf is a military dictator who overthrough the legitimate Pakistani government, who was working with the Clinton Administration to train Pakistani commandoes to take out bin Ladin in Afghanistan. He has consistantly put off promised democratic reforms and elections to retain his grip on the country and to keep the Anti-American Muslim majority taking power. He is also involved with Pakistani militants in Kashmir.

Listen: I''m for democratic reforms. If the people do it, great. Once in power it is hard to be as hardline.


For the umptenth F''n time, the US is not a warmonger. We''re not out to start war for the joy of death. We''re out to protect our citizens, our way of life, and try to offer the same opportunites to every civilization on the planet (in that order).

Now I am about to say something here that may offend some of you but I think it makes a very good point.

In answer to the above qoute, so did Hitler and most of germany before the World War II really started.

I am in no way saying that this administration is like a bunch of Nazi''s and that George Bush is Hitler. However a lot of what this admininstration has done has scared me.

Scared me because of the amount of suspicion around their election, the amount of freedoms it is willing to step on, the amount of propaganda they are promoting against countries who do not share thier views, and how willing they are to go to war using half truths and lies as justification!

What is it going to take for most of you Americans to realize that the US is treading a very fine line. I would not doubt that over the next couple of years we will see much more attacks on American soil, and don''t think for a moment that it wasn''t provoked in some way by the actions the US government has taken on the world stage now or in the past. Will these attacks be justifiable? In my opinion no because any lose of human life is not justifiable for any reason other than natural.

This is just my opinion, a very strong one.

Wars have been fought for less then the threat of WMD. How many deaths can we count in the name of religion?

You don''t even want to get me started on wars in the name of religion. I would absolutely lose it!


What is it going to take for most of you Americans to realize that the US is treading a very fine line. I would not doubt that over the next couple of years we will see much more attacks on American soil, and don''t think for a moment that it wasn''t provoked in some way by the actions the US government has taken on the world stage now or in the past. Will these attacks be justifiable? In my opinion no because any lose of human life is not justifiable for any reason other than natural.

You're arguing a fallacy. What you're saying is that we provoked the attacks because we decided to fight back that we provoked attacks. The reason they are attacking us is because they are whacked out. Liberal democracies do not go to war with each other. I put the blame firmly on them. I don't think we help matters when we support non-democratic repressive regimes. However, that doesn't mean we deserve or provoked anything. We have done more for Muslims than any Muslim government.

"Ulairi" wrote:
The reason they are attacking us is because they are whacked out.

I think this is the more youthful way of saying ""They hate us because they hate our freedom."" Yes, I''m sure the suicide bomber in Israel or the truck bomber in Saudi Arabia just loves getting oppressed and hates having liberty so that''s why they blow themselves up. The answer is more complex than the ""good vs. evil"" garbage that the Administration has been spewing for the last year and a half which some in this country have swallowed wholeheartedly without giving it a second thought.

I don''t think Gaald was that far off in the Hitler analogy. Hitler used the pretext of the burning of the Reichstag to become fuhrer and vowed to eliminate threats to Germany no matter what the cost. And the people bought into it for the most part. Hell, even Karl Rove thought that the reaction to Bush''s appearance at Game 3 of the 2001 World Series was ""like being at a Nazi rally.""

""The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn''t exist.""

Ugh, Rat Boy please change your sig. I cant stand that over used saying. You know how many movies have quoted that? Ian Holm in 5th Element, Anthony Hopkins in another movie to name a few. Like its such a clever saying. Oooh! The devil is so crafty!

Its almost as bad as psalm 23 or whatever. ""As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for He is with me."" Another saying thats supposed be so moving and to me just falls flat.

I need to dig up an old poli sci paper I wrote, but ultimately any democratic government will lead to a fascist regime.


I don't think we help matters when we support non-democratic repressive regimes.

In a way, you''re right but in another way... you''re wrong. Ulairi, we ARE the world police. It''s a sad fact of the day when vehicle searching and personnel searching (hallmarks of peacekeeping, traditionally reserved for MP''s) have been added to the Army''s common tasks. I view these petty regimes as the local snitches and dealers; they''re total scum but a necessary scum. They have information which can be exploited and their loyalty can be bought quite cheaply. There''s no point in taking them out of the game because another dealer will just show up in a few days.

What is it going to take for most of you Americans to realize that the US is treading a very fine line.

I wish I had an answer for you, Gaald. We can''t solve the world''s ills but America will always try and that will be our downfall. We''re becoming like Anakin Skywalker. We only want to help because we can, we may not know the best way to help but we''ll be in there mucking about. And the more we fail the closer we come to the Dark Side.

"Ulairi" wrote:

What is it going to take for most of you Americans to realize that the US is treading a very fine line. I would not doubt that over the next couple of years we will see much more attacks on American soil, and don''t think for a moment that it wasn''t provoked in some way by the actions the US government has taken on the world stage now or in the past. Will these attacks be justifiable? In my opinion no because any lose of human life is not justifiable for any reason other than natural.

You're arguing a fallacy. What you're saying is that we provoked the attacks because we decided to fight back that we provoked attacks. The reason they are attacking us is because they are whacked out. Liberal democracies do not go to war with each other. I put the blame firmly on them. I don't think we help matters when we support non-democratic repressive regimes. However, that doesn't mean we deserve or provoked anything. We have done more for Muslims than any Muslim government.

He says over the next few years. Hes not even talking about the previous attacks, but further attacks that may be in retaliation. So it''s not a fallacy, but a prediction. He''s saying our current behavior will only encourage more of the same.

We''re becoming like Anakin Skywalker.

While I may agree with your point, please please please don''t use Star Wars analogies.

What you''re saying is that though we have good intentions, we have no idea what were doing and only make matters worse. Right?

I unintentionally forgot my in there. But essentially, yes. That is what I''m saying.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

I don''t think Gaald was that far off in the Hitler analogy. Hitler used the pretext of the burning of the Reichstag to become fuhrer and vowed to eliminate threats to Germany no matter what the cost. And the people bought into it for the most part. Hell, even Karl Rove thought that the reaction to Bush''s appearance at Game 3 of the 2001 World Series was ""like being at a Nazi rally.""

I think Gaald and Rat couldn''t be further from the truth with using Hitler as an analogy.

Germany at the time was in a massive depression (not even close to our current bear market) and they were still smarting from identity with their spanking of WWI. Hitler, offered them a better way of life through moral supremecy over others only for THEIR OWN SAKE. We haven''t done anysuch thing. The US''s point (whether you agree or not) is one of maintaining peace, not only for US (though of course, we would be foolish not to make that a priority) but for the world at large.

Hitler''s solution was the murder of millions b/c they lacked the german sense of humanity. The US''s solution is to overthrow an evil dictator in hopes to promote a better life for those people. Hitler intended to shape the world in his vision. The US wants others to shape their own vision so long as it includes peace and prosperity for themselves! Not for the US, but themselves.

Hitler''s foreign aid came in the form of death camps. The US spends billions each year to feed, clothe, and heal others. In return, sure, the US asks not to bite the hand that feeds, thats just common sense. No other country in the world is as supportive of foreign soil as we are.

To even try to make a comparison between an evil dictator and an elected offical of a political free society (or policy) is ignorant and insulting.

Germany began one of the cruelest moments in history to better themselves only. The US is trying to make the world as a whole, a better place to live. Thank God someone is making a stand against this sort of evil, seems if ya''ll had your way, you''d just wait for the next few million murders before deciding to take action. Hitler deserves to rot in hell for what he did, I don''t think anyone in their right mind would say Saddam doesn''t deserve the same, and I''m proud as hell to be able to say my own blood (family), and blood of my countrymen were there to do it.

I''m f*cking tired of being a day late, and dollar short as this sort of evil runs rampant over our world. Yeah, let''s also work on changing the culture of hate, but lets not forget those that are beyond changing, and get rid of them before they take out multitudes of innocents.
[/i]