"That we have not yet located huge deposits of weapons of mass destruction does not mean they do not or did not exist. After all, we have not yet found Saddam Hussein or his remains--but not even Democratic presidential candidates or the New York Times contend that he did not exist. " July 18 Casper Weinberger "It's true that weapons of mass destruction have not yet been found. Nor have we found Saddam. Or Osama bin Laden. But Saddam and Osama exist." July 20 Clifford D. May "Drop the premature conclusion that if we can't yet find proof of the destructive weapons, they never existed. That's like saying because we haven't found Osama or Saddam, those killers never existed. " July 21 William Safire
I continue to be baffled by the endless stupidity that spews from the liberal left regarding the issue of "finding" weapons of mass destruction. This is a simple case of failure to understand the dynamics of the conflict. Here is a synopsis for those who *still* are incapable of understanding why we went to war: Iraq was not in compliance with the UN resolution because they were unable to account for previously accounted-for weapons of mass destruction. The UN took out the old list and presented it to Saddam. Saddam couldn't tell us, and the weapons inspectors couldn't verify, where the weapons on that list were. Bipartisan support existed in Congress on the issue of whether Iraq was not in compliance with the UN resolution. Everyone agreed that it was unacceptable to take Saddam's "I don't know" answer to the questions of "where is your sarin gas?" and "where is your VX gas?" The weapons inspectors were not trying to find weapons of mass destruction, they were attempting to reconcile the previous list which all parties agreed to. To sum this all up, WHO CARES WHETHER OR NOT THEY FIND A SINGLE THING? In fact, NOT finding WMD scares me more than finding them. At least if we find what was on that list, we know where it is. Instead, we don't know where many of the dangerous WMD that were on that list now are located. This continues to be a threat to national security. There is no question that WMD existed in Iraq. The UN agrees on that. Our job isn't to find them. Saddam's job was to account for them. He didn't do that, and through our actions, he no longer terrorizes the region. Simple as that. CASE CLOSED
Trader, are you using "liberal left" as a double negative? Or are you implying that there is a "conservative left" or a "liberal right". You really love to throw this crap around, don't you. Can't you get more creative? What you posted had nothing to do with the entire point of rimrocker's post. His point was that the Administration had come up with a "new" spin on the whole WMD controversy and that the usual actors were putting it out for public consumption... one right after another. If I am wrong, I'm sure rimrocker will straighten me out. There is nothing simple about any of this. But you know that, don't you.
The reason you continue to be baffled is because you rarely have any intention of looking at a topic objectively. Including this post filled with mischaracterizations, errors, and flat out falsehoods. Very nice work once again.
Timing, You are correct. I thought it was a bit funny, especially given that the NYTimes pays Safire for his original commentary. I guess the first three respondents are feeling a bit jumpy these days, as they certainly pulled the trigger quickly.
Sorry Deckard, that last post should have been addressed to you, though I liked Timing's point as well.
Ah, yes but isn't the reason that this has legs because the Dems have succeeded in making it a Political issue? What in T_J's post is factually incorrect?
What in T_J's post is factually incorrect? It's not the factual correctness that's laughable, it's the non-sequitor. It's like me asking you "How are you", and you saying "This apple is green." This post was about how Republicans are now arguing about not finding WMD by saying "We haven't found Osama, but we know he exists" - that logic could be used to justify anything and is the most ridiculous thing yet in this whole spin strategy! This thread is about Republican spin, and then T_J goes into an irrelevent rant about the liberal left and whether we need to find WMD or not. It has nothing to do with anything. Besides which, on that argument, top officials in the Bush admin have even said they need to find the WMD soon.
I don't see "the spin." Just because you haven't found something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's plainly true. The Dems have succeeded in making this a political issue. Some Republicans are in retreat apologizing all the way. Some are not. I see more spin when you refuse to try and refute T-J's facts.
I noticed that the "let the inspectors do their jobs" talking point kinda went away once the 'inspectors' became the US.
Contention: That there is a huge continent in the middle of the Atlantic, called Atlantis, and that this was the home to an incredibly advanced civilization. This continent was, according to treports of the time, larger than Africa, Europe and Asia combined. Refutation: All searches for such a continent have proven, at least based on the premise as a whole, fruitless, including satelite analysis. Response: I lost my lucky nickle, and have yet to find it to, despite the fact that I've been looking for months. I suppose that my nickle doesn't exist either, just because I haven't found it!?!? Conclusion: Nickle exists...therefore Atlantis exists.
Sort of went away before the war, as I recall...in that when we said it we were told we hated America.
Problem is here, MacB, that Saddam and most of the western world have admitted that Iraq has or has had some WsMD. What do you say about that?
I truly silenced this thread by explaining why the liberal left is wrong with my post above. Yes, as expected, a smattering of personal attacks ensued, none of which were either persuasive or relevant. This typically happens when you attempt to debate someone who you don't hold a candle to. You have no ammunition other than personal attacks. I'm sorry I frustrate you that badly. The intention of rimrocker starting this thread was to point out his disagreement with the latest 'GOP talking points'. Given rimrocker's history of blindly following of the extremist left's position, it takes no dramatic leap in logic to assume that he disagrees with these quotes from prominent GOP figures. That by implication means that he does feel it is important to find WMD in Iraq. This is why my original post is relevant. No one has refuted my post or even come close. Until that changes, this thread is over and rimrocker has been exposed once again.
When did he admit this? 5 years ago? 5 years spent, according to him, destroying them. Even our primary source on the Iraqi WMD, who had come over to our side, note...stated that they had largely been destroyed when he left, and were still being so. We concluded he had them...therefore, whenever he said he had destroyed them, we disbelieved him. The fact that we disbelieved him didn't make him facually incorrect...nor, it would now seem, was he really speaking all that disingenously. We'll see... But, getting back to your point...how is any of this a problem with the faulty reasoning being used to defend the no WMD finds?
So your ideal foreign policy doctrine is to just simply trust what every tyrannical dictator puts forth as fact. Simply ludicrous. This is a man who has paid Palestinians to bomb Israel. A man who has gassed thousands of Iraqis and tortured thousands more. He is a man with a history of starting wars against his neighbors. With knowledge of all of this, you naturally want to trust Saddam Hussein? There is no other word to describe this other than STUPID. It amazes me the depths to which you will stoop in order to slander the Republican leadership. Blindly trusting the words of Saddam Hussein is not sound judgment. So why couldn't Iraq prove this when we asked them to? Oops, nice try. You *still* are incapable of grasping why we went to war. Unbelievable. We disbelieved him because he couldn't prove it. This is how most judicial systems work, you know, on the basis of *proof*. Not conjecture, not speculation, not taking one person at his word, but *proof*. Again, the burden is not on the coalition to find WMD, it was on Saddam's regime in the moments before the war. Saddam failed to do his job. Re-read my first post in this thread, I frankly don't have the time or energy to re-educate you.
"Iraq was not in compliance with the UN resolution because they were unable to account for previously accounted-for weapons of mass destruction. The UN took out the old list and presented it to Saddam. Saddam couldn't tell us, and the weapons inspectors couldn't verify, where the weapons on that list were. " Incorrect. Saddam couldn't satisfy queries according to our standards at the time. Our standards included automatic disbelief of whatever he said without verification. I supported that stance as a premise. However he did claim that much had been lost to degredation, to unrecorded destruction, or merely lost over time. We scoffed. We also overlooked the numbers in our own military, where we lose, degrade, or destroy with faulty paper record an incredible number of tons of weapons every year. We dismissed his accounts...even as we cited the defector who raised our fears about the extent of Iraq's WMD program, we dismissed his report that the bulk of that program had been destroyed years ago, and destruction of the remaining was ongoing. "Bipartisan support existed in Congress on the issue of whether Iraq was not in compliance with the UN resolution. Everyone agreed that it was unacceptable to take Saddam's "I don't know" answer to the questions of "where is your sarin gas?" and "where is your VX gas?" The weapons inspectors were not trying to find weapons of mass destruction, they were attempting to reconcile the previous list which all parties agreed to." Bipartisan and everyone don't mean the same thing. Most of the world disagreed with the step from supposition to conclusion. And those who did support it, as you say in a bi-partisan manner, were doing so based on the intel provided by the White House. Do I really need to say much more about this? We know how objective that intel was...based on what the White House was claiming, everyone should have supported the war. The fact that what they were saying was, at best, slanted to get that support sort of undermines the " We all agreed, so how can we complain?" argument, T_J, no? "To sum this all up, WHO CARES WHETHER OR NOT THEY FIND A SINGLE THING? In fact, NOT finding WMD scares me more than finding them. At least if we find what was on that list, we know where it is. Instead, we don't know where many of the dangerous WMD that were on that list now are located. This continues to be a threat to national security. There is no question that WMD existed in Iraq. The UN agrees on that. Our job isn't to find them. Saddam's job was to account for them. He didn't do that, and through our actions, he no longer terrorizes the region. Simple as that." Again, wrong. That's akin to invading Germany now claiming that " We know for a fact that concentration camps existed!" We know they existed at tone point...the bulk of which was prior to Gulf War 1. That justifies this war not a bit. I already explained the distinction between not accounting for every single speck of WMD and stockpiling them. And, no, sorry, when you are the nation to invade another nation...when you are the country to go against the UN in support of the UN resolutions AS YOU SEE THEM...when you do all this on a claim of WMD, you sure as hell better have more to back it up than a clerical discrepency from 5 years agao.
Amazing MacBeth, all you proved with that rant was 1) You trust Saddam Hussein at his word 2) You still don't understand the basis for the war Sorry, I guess it just takes some people longer than others to finally 'get it'.
