[extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? Onwhatbasis?

[Robert Lindauer]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Also, the 'small' qualifier modifying 'arsenal' is a bit personal -
>>>what constitutes small? He factually killed over 8,000 people
>>>      
>>>
>>(names  
>>    
>>
>>>were recorded, remains identified, etc.) in one attack alone. Is
>>>      
>>>
>>that  
>>    
>>
>>>amount of chemical weapons a small amount, or is 10x that a small  
>>>amount? or 10%? See what I mean?
>>>      
>>>
>>Of course, but this is all OLD NEWS - our (cia) operatives were
>>helping 
>>them gas the kurds so they could concentrate on killing Iranians for 
>>us.  We can't blame Saddam for doing things that we paid him to do.
>>    
>>
>
>Robbie, it is interesting how you start at fact A and hyperspace jump
>to outrageous claim Z without a bit of supporting evidence.
>Specifically
>
>a) our operatives were assisting in gassing the Kurds, and
>b) we paid Saddam to do it and to let us help.
>
>The sort of reality one lives in to believe these sorts of things is
>pretty far out there.
>  
>

I invite you to investigate the matter fully for yourself.  Nothing I 
would say would convince you one way or another.

>  
>  
>
>>Let's not play games.  My point is that we could grant that he
>>CONTINUED 
>>after the 10-year inspection regime to have a small (apparently 
>>invisible*) arsenal of hidden weapons that the weapons inspectors of
>>the UN were unable to detect either before or after they were ejected
>>(and returned) 
>>    
>>
>
>Actually the UN inspectors during the last return inspections found
>over a dozen chemical warheads hidden in a concrete foundation slab,
>and at least 20 of a whole new model of ballistic missile that nobody
>even knew he had, which exceeded UN range limitations by significantly
>more than a few miles, even with a full payload. After the invasion,
>coalition forces found several trucks which were clearly set up to
>process chemical and biological weaponry on the road, and had recently
>been scrubbed clean.
>  
>
You seem to be claiming that Iraq did have the wmd's and we found them.  
Wow, this is a major news story, perhaps you should call the AP immediately!

 As a matter of fact each of your "cited" incidents of detection were 
debunked later by further investigation.    I invite you to investigate 
the matter fully for yourself, nothing I say would be likely to change 
your mind about it.

>  
>
>>AND still be pissed at Bush for lying to us since he obviously 
>>didn't KNOW that Saddam did despite what they (Bush and Powell and 
>>Cheney and Rumsfeld) said. 
>>    
>>
>
>Look, claiming Bush lied is clearly BS. Everyone was convinced Saddam
>had WMD,
>

Not the director of the CIA, not Colin Powell, not me and a coupla 
thousand of my compatriots, not Hans Blix, not the UN inspectors on the 
ground.  In fact, anyone who actually had first-hand experience there 
about it didn't think it was an issue.

> and not just based on CIA intel that was faulty.
>
The faulty intelligence was from the British and both the British and 
the CIA knew it was faulty long before it reached the president's hands, 
google "hadley".


> The UN,
>Britain, France, Russia, etc. they all knew he had them.
>

Uh, no.  Google "Hans Blix" and see 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/iraq-040209-pla-daily01.htm

So you're saying that France decided not to support our war effort 
BECAUSE THEY KNEW SADDAM HAD WMD's?

Is someone paying to provide propaganda for the Republicans or something?

> Moreover,
>there were clearly radio transmissions from the Bagdad area prior to
>the invasion that detailed some sort of loading or unloading of
>chemical or biological weaponry.
>
I invite you to investigate this matter more thoroughly for yourself.  
Nothing I say will convince you.

> Given the sat photos of convoys
>heading to Syria prior to the invasion, and Saddam's history of hiding
>his weapons in neighboring countries (he sent his Migs in the first
>gulf war to hide in Iran), we won't know for sure that Saddam didn't
>have them unless we invade Syria as well.
>  
>

So the bottom line, according to you, is that we just don't know.  We 
didn't know then, we don't know now.  So what we know is that he MIGHT 
have had some WMD's somewhere.  Might is not DOES and there is a WORLD 
of difference.

>The rest of the world "knew" Saddam had WMD just as Bush did, they just
>didn't care, Saddam's money was worth more to them.
>  
>

Hilarious.


>I wouldn't be surprised if France talked Saddam into hiding his WMD in
>Syria in order to embarrass Bush, figuring he was dumb enough to pull
>such a trick on. The fact that France signed a treaty with Syria
>several months ago giving Syria the right to keep all WMD it currently
>posesses is pretty revealing.
>
>  
>

I wouldn't be suprised if your weekly psychiatry bills exceeded $200.

>>We can also fault them/him for making a 
>>very, very bad decision in starting a war with someone who had such
>>an 
>>arsenal and was capable of disseminating to other even less stable 
>>elements (as is the current top republican theory) and with not
>>apparent exit plan other than that the Iraqi's will welcome us.
>>    
>>
>
>This is ludicrous. You can't have your cake and eat it too. MAD still
>applies. Saddam knew using them against our troops would essentially
>give the US carte blanche to use its own WMD. Our troops are there to
>take such risks, and are equipped with NBC suits and other equipment to
>deal with WMD attacks.
>  
>
How does this respond to what I wrote?  I said that IF you believe the 
story about him disseminating these weapons to other less stable 
elements (for instance your fantasy about them being trucked to syria 
above) then you've got to lay the blame for that kind of thing soundly 
where it belongs, with the US administration for pulling war-time theatrics.

Plus, this would be a relevant thing to say if Saddam hadn't already 
used such things against the US in the first gulf war.  Remember, we're 
dealing with a desperate man with some big weapons looking forward to 
some inhumane torture and eventual execution if he gets 
caught/convicted.  You really think that after flaunting the UN 
resolutions he was concerned about MAD?  Puhleeze.  After the way his 
"army" folded in a few days it seems pretty clear that they didn't have 
enough oomph to put up any kind of reasonable main-force defense and 
that their plan was, likely, to just drag this out until we leave.  
Remember that that part of the world is older in its world view than 
that of the average american.  A couple of generations of occupation and 
war aren't something -new- over there and eventually they know that the 
white invaders will leave after we get sick of children walking into 
libraries with bombs attached to their chests.

Robbie Lindauer