Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment So now what do we do?

Those of you that think GW was not lying will not be convinced otherwise. Admittedly, I will not be convinced that acted completely honestly in this whole mess. Just a few points to consider:

1. It isn't that we believed or that the whole world believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, it was that we "knew" he had those weapons. In the days leading up to the invasion, the president and more importantly, members of his administration, stated that we had concrete evidence, that we "knew" the locations of some of these weapons or weapons facilities.

2. As it has become apparent, either we lied about knowing where some of these facilities were, or we were wrong. Two choices: Either we lied, or we were incompetent.

3. It is possible that while we did not know exact locations or types, we were so certain that the WMDs were there and that they would be found, that we invaded with the sure and certain belief that the would soon be found. So it is possible that we engaged in the worst kind of irresponsibility by going to war to eliminate WMDs (so dangerous to mankind) but had no real idea where they were, exactly what they were, or if they would be used. Knowing, however, that an invasion would be sure to either see them used or dispersed to more unreachable areas of the globe into even more unfriendly hands. This course of action would be criminaly stupid and dangerous. Therefore, it doesn't take too much thought to realize that somebody wasn't too worried about WMDs from the start.

I knew from about day 3 or 4 in the invasion when it was announced that the troops were coming down to MOPP Level 1 in many cases that there was little threat of any WMDs. You don't do that unless you're pretty certain.

I am convinced that the case for WMDs was purposly overstated. Was it the only reason for going to war? No. But it was the reason used to sell the American public on the urgency of the war.

As to the Saddams failure to cooperate. Everytime he said he didn't have weapons, we said you're a liar. Everytime, inspectors went to a plant and found nothing, we said "see how well they hid things". Everytime he offered to have someone else come and look, we said, "Saddam is just trying to delay the inevitable". Not to mention the incongruity of going to war to protect the integrity of the U.N. but not being supported by the U.N. in our war efforts. It is analogous to your neighbor shooting a trespasser on your land with you standing there yelling at him not to shoot the guy.

Say what you will about whether we needed to go to war. I find it distasteful and contrary to a free republic that a calm, reasoned, and persuasive argument could not be made without resorting to the sham of WMDs. Lies should never be condoned, even if they help accomplish a "good" goal.

Before, some of you question my manhood or say that I am downing the military, let it be known that I served my time in the Army as an artillery officer, and know a thing or two about military affairs. I support our troops, (I have many friends over there) but I don't think we honestly got into this war.

Joe...I am still on the fence when it comes to GW lying. If it can be proven that this administration purposely, knowingly, and willfully lied, I will be the first to call for impeachment and criminal trials.
I think things aren't looking that good for GW, and his credibility is on a steep downhill slope. I am still giving him the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, I think Saddam never proved what happened to the missing items of his UN report. There was widespread evidence of non-cooperation with UN inspectors, i.e. tipping the Iraqis off, them holding inspectors off for hours, not letting the Inspectors into certain facilities (Palaces) etc.
We will see.

I cannot stand the thought of a Democrat (Kerry would be the worst) in office.
But even more than that, I cannot stand the thought of a murdering liar in office.
We will see.

A man doesn't call another man a liar without proof . I haven't seen any proof.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040203.shtml

I relish the thought of a debate between John Kerry and President Bush. We will see who lies.

Don't relish it too much. Don't kid yourself: Kerry would fare far better in a debate than GW would. Public debating that requires charisma is not one of his strengths, as much as I like the man.

Are you saying that you think John Kerry has charisma?
Do you mean like Jane Fonda's charisma?

I still like the match-up.

I am simply saying that more than likely, Kerry come off better in a debate than GW would. It's not about what he says....it's about how he says it and how he presents it to the watchful public eye.
Look, I don't like Kerry. But he ain't no dummy.

Geeze, whatever happened to that little sign that sat on Pres. Truman's desk?

Bob

Matthias;

I share your opinion. That, combined with virtually limitless cash, media spin for him, and media spin against "W" will quite possibly send "W" back to Texas.

What amazes me is the "hands off" policy everyone, even the other democrats are having tword him. The only commercials Kerry ran up here was one with him toting and M16 in Nam, and one telling how he was CURED of colon cancer in 3 months "...because as a U.S. Senator I can get the best medical treatment available...." "....and if President I will see that every American can access this care...."

The cancer commercial ran only in the beginning weeks, I think his camp came to the realization that it was sending the wrong message to the pleabs <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Boy those senators must get some goooooood doctors. I have a friend who survived Hodgkins, and I have two family members fighting colon cancer. All three were told by their doctors that to not consider themselves "cured" till they get 5 YEARS of negative tests.

And Kerry was "cured" in 3 months?????? Amazing!!!

Why hasn't ANYONE brought up that in 20 years in the Senate he has not accomplished passing ANY of his initatives??? He's ridden coat tails his entire career.

Do you think the RNC will go there when Kerry is the democrat nominee???

His voting record is frightful. And yes, he is a real danger to GW.

I didn't call anyone a liar explicitly, I merely stated several reasons why I suspect someone lied or stretched the truth.

Fact: There have been no WMDs found and it now appears as though they never were there. Therefore, there can only be two conclusions: 1. Someone lied about their existence; or 2. We were wrong about their existence. Therefore, either someone is a liar or incompetent.

Among the reasons I gave for suspecting that we knew there were no WMDs and that we were not merely incompetent, two especially strike a chord with me.

1. We appeared to take no special precautions about finding, isolating, or destroying Saddam's WMDs before the war. If we truly believed they were there, then this would be criminally irresponsible because a war with the U.S. would insure that they would be used or dispersed to other nations and factions unfriendly to us. If we truly knew they were there or where they were, a responsible leader would have made sure they went nowhere by securing them with special ops or taking them out before hostilities began or shortly thereafter. I do not believe they were there and moved anywhere. A single JStar aircraft (modified KC-135) can spot literally every single car, and very nearly persons, moving on the ground for an area roughly half the size of Iraq. If those weapons were there and were moved, we would have seen it and we would have sent a Block 2 ATACMS or aircraft or something to take them out. The simplelest conclusion is that they were never there.

2. Within a day or two of U.S. forces crossing over into Iraq the imbedded reporters were reporting that many of the units were coming out of MOPP gear and going to MOPP Level 1. Therefore, they had pretty good intelligence that there were to be no NBC attacks, since at a minimum it takes three or four minutes for well trained soldiers to suit completely up, (as opposed to 9 seconds for mask, and 30 or so for gloves when already at MOPP 2). Long enough for everyone to be dead if there was an attack with a nerve agent. Therefore, the only conclusion is that these commanders had it on pretty good authority that there was a very low likelihood of chemical attacks since no commander would willingly risk his troops that much.

These two factors say to me that we knew there were no WMDs at least very shortly after we invaded Iraq. Too shortly to know, unless we had already had a strong suspicion that they weren't there.

He listen, I'm not calling anyone a liar. However, I see things and I make decisions on my own without relying on what anyone else says or does. If he did lie, I am dissappointed. I voted for him and I don't want to see a liberal Democrat in office. However, there are certain things that are unforgivable in a so-called free society. Highest among those is a public official lying or even stretching the truth in order to manipulate the American people into a course of action. If he did this, then a liberal Democrat in office may be the price to pay for lying (not that the liberal will be any better).

That wasn't a very convincing argument, joe. You're not a public defender, are you? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />
You seem to have some unrealistic expectations of our aerial surveilance systems, impressive as they may be. No such surveilance is all-encompassing, 24/7, good weather and bad, for even weeks at a stretch, let alone months or years. Even if it were continuously operative for all that time, it could not replace trained ears and eyes on the ground, which we lack.

It appears as though they never were there????
How do you come to such a ridiculous conclusion? If you were to find an empty beer can in the back of my truck, would you deduce that, since it is empty, it must have come that way from the brewery, and that I am, therefore, still thirsty? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> ........ Not likely. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You go on to say that since no WMD's have been found:
Those are the only conclusions that can be drawn???
joe, you just aren't trying!! One would tend to suspect that you are trying to promote an agenda of some sort! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

First off, the fact that we haven't found any WMD's, doesn't mean that they don't/didn't exist. Maybe we haven't looked everywhere yet. Or, they may have been moved out of the country to WhoKnowsWhere. Or, they may simply have been poured into the sand. Maybe Bagdad Bob made off with them. It is interesting that your very first deduction is that maybe "Someone lied about their existence." <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

And, you say, if they didn't lie, then they must be incompetent! (??) Seems a little harsh, joe.

Would it be unreasonable to suggest that perhaps they did the very best they could with sorely limited available resources (thanks to years of post-cold war neglect of "intelligence gathering" infrastructure and manpower) within the constraints of a time frame shortened by seasonal/tactical/situational necessity? I don't think so. And I don't think its unreasonable to suggest that they just may have done EXACTLY the right thing, whether we ever find a single WMD or not! The world is safer. My kids are safer. Osama has cave ass. I think I'll have a beer now, and contemplate his capture. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

There's several valid interpretations of the current situation.

1. WMDs are there, have been very well hidden or destroyed after the war began

2. WMDs are there, have been moved out of the country

3. WMDs are not there, we had faulty intelligence and Saddam wasn't able to prove us wrong

4. WMDs are not there, intelligence was manipulated and cherry-picked to justify the war for whatever reasons. Saddam couldn't have proven us wrong if he'd tried.

There ya go.

Matthias

Your wrong about what a JStar can do, I've seen it. I know about a little convoy taken out during the first Gulf War with a protype weapon. The JStar can see almost everything on a battlefield. It is the ground equivilant, only more advanced, of the AWAC. It is all part of the Force 21 concept of the totally integrated battlefield and is a major component of it.

In any case, even if you are correct and our techonology is not so advanced, (you're not, but admittedly there are variables) do you honestly believe that we would not have concentrated our resources on likely areas of escape before the war? Remember, before the war the Bush administration claimed that Saddam possessed tons of WMDs. In order to move tons of any substance, it takes trucks and trailers, etc. Do you not think that we would have seen that activity in the weeks leading up to the war?

Look at it this way. You claim that we had good enough intelligence to insist that Saddam had these weapons, to know where they were, and to know what they were. Yet, you claim they may have been moved or destroyed without our knowledge. If we knew where and what they were, then how did we not know when they were moved?

The only concrete evidence we've ever had about WMDs in Iraq was when Saddam used them on the Kurds in the 1980s. I don't seem to remember it being such a big deal back then. Was that because at the time Saddam was a U.S. client in the fight against radical Islam?

I remember such a big fuss being made that Saddam had WMDs such as weaponized smallpox which could decimate the world. It always struck me as odd that we were willing to invade a and conquer someone who had such a terrifying weapon. Afterall, if you invade him and make it known that his ultimate fate is death, what does he have to lose? Surely, he will use it. Yet we invaded. If he had had it, you and I might not be here today. We knew he didn't have it and much else.

If he had really had the weapons we said he did, then it would have been pure madness to invade him. Afterall, we didn't attack the Soviets for 50 years and they didn't attack us because each of us knew it would be the end of civilization. We don't attack the North Koreans because we know they have nukes and other WMDs and a large army. They would kick our ass in the short term and a war would be horribly costly in the long term.

We knew Saddam didn't offer much of a threat and we could defeat him easily. Doesn't sound like someone who supposedly possessed massive amounts of WMDs.

And, Matthias, you never addressed my concern about how our soldiers knew it was okay to come completely out of their MOPP gear so soon.

Joe...I don't see how what you posted jingles with what I posted.
I never said anything about J-Star.

I listed four possible scenarios.

Sorry Matthias,

My post was actually mostly in response to the Walker post above yours.

He is the one who said our air surveilance wasn't that good.

No sweat.

"""" Do you not think that we would have seen that activity in the weeks leading up to the war?""""""

Doubtful, not without hard intelligance regarding exact locations, times, movment. You know how big Iraq is? How many trucks are on the roads at any one time? I have a friend, typically from a 3rd world country, that has convinced himself that Americas space assets can see everything on the ground, everywhere, at every time. That nothing is hid from Americas intelligance assets.

This is a common delusion in the 3rd world, especially in the MidEast where America is to blame, and controls, everything. I think that predator attack in Yemen added to this. The bottom line is that attack was sucesssful due to Human Intel on the ground. Sats, spyplanes, AWACs, J-Stars...ect give us only limited information and without human intel they really arent much good, outside of a conventional war envirement..........10

Joe ... If you keep beating that J-Star drum, I'm sure the hip-hop crowd will dance to it. This seems to be going nowhere, so I'll just move on. Later, boys.

Listen, space assets are overrated. However, in the weeks leading up to the war, it is unreasonable to believe that we didn't have J-Star and AWACs patrolling the perimeters of Iraq and noting movements of vehicles in and out of Iraq. Needless to say, a J-Star can't tell you what is inside a truck, that is where human intelligence comes in, but it can spot the truck. Seems to me that we would have noticed any unusual movements of trucks and other things before the war.



In any case, you still don't really see the point. You're saying our intelligence wasn't that good and they likely got the WMDs out of the country. Well, that is not how it was represented. Just this morning I saw Collin Powell's speech to the U.N.. He said quote, "Saddam Hussein has biological weapons...", "Iraq has two thirds of the capabilities in place to begin manufacture of nuclear weapons...", "...all of the assertions are backed up by ROCK SOLID sources". I remember at the time that there were anonymous leaks from the CIA and State Department who said that there was no real evidence of WMDs in Iraq. These sources were ridiculed and drowned out by hawks in the administration who repeatedly stressed the reliability of our sources and claimed that we had satellite intel, etc.



My point in all of this is that if the administration had really believed that its intel was so rock solid and that the WMDs really existed, they would have had every asset available looking for those WMDs and making sure they didn't get out of the country. I remember how we found out after the first Gulf War that Seal teams and SAS teams had been inside of Iraq for weeks before the beginning of the war looking for Scuds. It seems to me that such teams, operating with the assistance of J-Stars and other intelligence assets, could have been directed to check out suspicious convoys and vehicles. It seems that special ops and air assets could have been detailed to make sure that the WMD sites "known" to the administration were secured in the first hours of the operation. Anything less would have been horribly irresponsible.



Since we have not heard of anything like these operations having taken place then only a few options exist. 1. We did those sorts of things and found nothing. Huge intelligence gaff. I would call it incompetence. I would call it worse, since before the war there were insistant sources and voices that were saying the intelligence on hand did not warrant the administrations conclusions about WMDs in Iraq. 2. We did not do that sort of thing or even attempt to do so. If we didn't do it, then why? Maybe we really knew there were no WMDs. Maybe we didn't know where they were or what they were. Well, if those are true, then the Adminstration lied because in the days and months leading to the war, it was said repeatedly that we knew he had WMDs and that we knew where they were and what they were. If we didn't have the capability of securing WMDs, then it was terribly irresponsible to go into that country and possibly trigger an NBC attack.



Look, it is obvious that this administration was hell bent on war and that they were going to interpret any intelligence in the most favorable light possible. There were many reasons to sell a war to the U.S. public. The one they chose was WMDs and Saddams imminent threat to the U.S. with those WMDs. There are no WMDs and it appears that any programs they had were tiny to the point of extreme insignifigance.



The administration overplayed its cards. It chose to ignore signs pointing to no WMDs. It either lied or was so sure that Saddam was lying that they felt they would be found anyway.



Does it not bother any of you that a war was started on what have turned out to be false pretenses? Does it not bother you that this administration may have known from the start that the WMDs were not there?



Over 500 American boys and girls are dead today who would have been alive had this war not happened. We are losing about 40 people a month with no sign of let up. Countless innocent Iraquis were killed (yes we can lob a bomb through an open window, but when the bomb is a 2000lb bomb, it is still going to take out the neighborhood). The war is costing untold billions of dollars. No matter what we do, when we leave there will still be a 70 percent Shiite majority in that country. If democracy takes hold, those Shiites will likely win control and want to institute an Islamic country something like Iran. Is that why we went to war, to topple Saddam and set up another Iran? Will we be safer? After all, Iraq will still be oil rich and any government there will be able to fund any kind of weapons program it wants to. Do we we want an Iraq and Iran alliance against U.S. interests in the Middle East.



Bottomline is that war is a serious deal with serious consequences. In this case they don't appear to have been all that well thought out. And remember, a government that will overplay some bit of information to invade a foreign country, will also overplay information to do something here at home. It is about trust. What has any government in our country, Republican or Democrat controlled, ever done to warrant the kind of trust we seem to be giving the Bush administration when it comes to Iraq? It is unpatriotic to blindly trust the government. If our forefathers had done it, we would be one of the dominions of the Queen of England today. Constant vigilence is the price of freedom.



By the way, not one of you has addressed how it was that our troops knew it was okay to come out of their MOPP gear so quickly if we really thought Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMDs.

Joe, I find a number of facts very disturbing. I sincerely hope they will be cleared up. I surely will not vote for Kerry.
But if Bush doesn't come clear, I might just choose 3rd Party.
Gosh, I hate that! No real choice.