NO! Chemical weapons in Iraq???

[Alex]

Quite simply these weapons in this condition do not support Bush's case for going to war. The case he made was based on Iraq actually being an imminent threat for being in possession of usable WMDs and in active development of more effective WMDs.

My case for the war didn't really care whether he had them or was persuing them but rathre that we simply couldn't take the chance that he had them or was persuing them. Turns out he didn't (though he may have believed he did) really have either. So long as Iraq was stonewalling efforts to definitively establish their capacity, they posed an unacceptable threat. Even though the threat, in hindsight, was pretty close to nil, I still think the war was justified on my grounds but unjustified on Bush's grounds.

As I said above, if these finds strongly supported Bush's case for the war do you really think it would have taken this long for word to get out and
that Rick Santorum would have been the mouthpiece of choice?

I'd still like to hear more about the insurgents apparently using mustard and sarin gas as that would be a major story.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

My case for the war didn't really care whether he had them or was persuing them but rathre that we simply couldn't take the chance that he had them or was persuing them. Turns out he didn't (though he may have believed he did) really have either. So long as Iraq was stonewalling efforts to definitively establish their capacity, they posed an unacceptable threat. Even though the threat, in hindsight, was pretty close to nil, I still think the war was justified on my grounds but unjustified on Bush's grounds.

This was the final straw in Bush's arguments. What were the 17 UN resolutions about, including the final one immediately prior to the invasion? It was ALL about the fact that Saddam would not allow verification.

Yes, Bush (and many other intelligence services throughout the world) thought he had a much larger capacity. But the fact is that the invasion happened because Saddam would not comply with inspection requirements from the first cease fire, supported by numerous UN resolutions.

To say war was unjusitifed on Bush's grounds and then to recite the very reason the invasion happened seems strange.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

This was the final straw in Bush's arguments.

If you need more than one straw to justify going to war, you shouldn't be going to war.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

To say war was unjusitifed on Bush's grounds and then to recite the very reason the invasion happened seems strange.

That's not true. All of those other reasons that could have been used to justify restarting the war existed for 13 years. The reason given for why it had to be done now was that he possessed the weapons and was actively developing new weapons that we could not allow to get into the hands of terrorist organizations that wouldn't hesitate to use them.

The reasons from which Bush hung his assertion that war in 2003 was necessary were unfounded. Now, I believe that the case they'd have liked to make is very similar to the reasons I believe the war needed to be prosecuted (and would have been legally justifiable prior to 9/11 and became more imperative after) but that they chose not to present that justification because they didn't think it would sell enough of the population. So, they chose instead to present an imminent threat that turned out not to exist rather than the unacceptable risk that did. I have no doubt that they believed their case to be strong and valid but they were still wrong.

It is only after they failed to find the massive WMD caches they expected that the administration began to present alternate justifications and that was rightly perceived as desparation on their part, even if some of the altnerate justifications are actually pretty valid reasons.

[BarTopDancer]

Those photos that uber posted kinda look like a relative of this

[Gemini Cricket]

Optimus Prime could be a weapon of mass destruction. He was a bad a$s.

[scaeagles]

Be that as it may....I am just pointing out that I agree with Alex regarding Saddam not allowing verification was enough reason all by itself, and wondering why he does not take into account the final UN resolutions that would have prevented war if Saddam had capitulated to what he had already agreed to. War did not happen until that final rejection of his commitment.

And I disagree with you, Sac. The first Gulf War never ended. There was no peace accord signed, only a cease fire agreement. So one straw was all that was required. And Saddam had more than enough chances.

[Gemini Cricket]

Bush wanted to invade Iraq since the day he got into office. He was just scrambling for a reason to. He scared the whole nation into agreeing with him using 9/11 as leverage. There are no WMDs in Iraq. He knew that and changed his strategy to 'liberating the Iraqi people'. Now there are a lot of dead soliders who are gone because of Powell waving around vials. Even he said he was hesitant.
There's no justifying what is going on. People are catching on, that's why his numbers are still low even after killing Zarqawi.

[scaeagles]

Well, if you want to talk about beating a dead horse, that would be it, GC. 500 (approx) chemical weapons (granted old and degraded, but certainly not destroyed and spread out in a way to allow for usage rather than for surrender) is new news. The Bush as war monger who wanted to do it no matter what argument is just.....old. For someone who wanted it no matter what he sure did give Saddam a whole lot of chances to avoid it.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Well, if you want to talk about beating a dead horse, that would be it, GC.

This whole subject is a dead horse. Bush knew it, that's why he switched his logic to 'liberation'. It's all bunk.
If this story was so new and informative and groundbreaking, they would have given it to Frist or McCain to reveal. It's garbage so they gave it to Santorum so he can use it to possibly get reelected. The media's not picking up on this story. You know why? And don't say because the media is liberal, it's not. The press is in Bush's pocket. They're not picking it up because it's a nothing story. Nothing to report. Nada. Straws...grasp, grasp.