[Talkhard]

A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. . . . "Before we can say there is no WMD in Iraq, we must first look. I have no doubts WMD was and is still in Iraq."

http://www.nysun.com/article/27183

[RedHot&Rolling]

Sounds potentially like a vast, left-wing, conspiracy to me!!

[SodaPopinski]

Keep looking for those WMD's, Talkhard. You'll find them one of these days.

-Pop

[Talkhard]

Keep looking for those WMD's, Talkhard. You'll find them one of these days.

-Pop

They've already been found, apparently.

I can appreciate your nervousness on this topic, however. All liberals live in constant fear that WMD will be discovered and the war will be justified after all. It shakes them to their core that they might actually have to admit that Bush was right and America did a good thing.

[ProudBFan]

I find it really hard to believe that this guy was "rebuffed" by American weapons inspectors when he told them he had found four sealed underground bunkers full of chemical / biological weapons. At that point in time, Bush was desperate for any and every shred of evidence he could find to justify the assault/invasion.

PBF

[Scout226]

Damn.. Who needs evidence? Let's bomb them again and again..

[SodaPopinski]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

They've already been found, apparently.

I wouldn't say "they've already been found." The more accurate description would be "a guy who is no longer employed by the Pentagon and took a job as the Dallas County Medical Examiner is now claiming 'I'm sure they're in there - just look!' "

Originally Posted by Talkhard

I can appreciate your nervousness on this topic, however. All liberals live in constant fear that WMD will be discovered and the war will be justified after all. It shakes them to their core that they might actually have to admit that Bush was right and America did a good thing.

I hope they do find weapons of mass destruction so it will be one less opportunity for them to fall into the wrong hands. So no, I'm not nervous. NOR do I think finding them will vindicate the Bush Administration for going to war. Bush and his top ranking officials have even admitted that the intelligence they received was inaccurate. So, even if they do find WMDs, it will be by accident and not because we had "can't miss" intelligence.

Listen - Bush thought this was his chance to carve out a legacy for himself. He thought he'd go in and oust one of the worst dictators of the 20th century, find weapons of mass destruction, and the Iraqi people would erect statues of him and dance in the streets and we could waltz out of Baghdad to a ticker-tape parade. What he failed to do is to establish a real plan to win the peace and turn the country back over to the Iraqi people. There has been corruption and lawlessness in the efforts to establish a democracy over there. And every day that goes by brings a new list of dead American soldiers. And for what? Do you honestly feel more protected from the terrorists now? I know I don't. A lawless Iraq and numerous American targets make that place a breeding ground for terrorists. Not to mention every day our troops are on what many Muslims refer to as "holy land" is another tool in the recruiting belt of Al Qaeda. There are probably more terrorist cells now than at any time in our history, all because Bush had decided to piss in the face of every nation with this "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" cowboy John Wayne bull****. He's only strengthening the opposition. After 9/11 we had the good will of the world on our side, and Bush managed to piss that away within months. It was a real opportunity to build allegiances with international intelligence that could have made finding and capturing terrorists a much easier task than it is today.

So yes I'm pissed. And no I don't think Bush is going about it the right way. And if we find WMDs in Iraq I don't think it justifies this administration's bulldozer mentality of putting the cart before the horse and killing thousands of innocent Americans in the name of this wild goose chase.

-Pop

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

http://www.nysun.com/article/27183

Talkhard's always up on his news!

[Ed O]

The whole WMD thing is a big red herring. Not just in the sense that people feel like Bush misled them over it, but in the sense that even if there WERE WMDs, people who don't like Bush or American projection of military power would still complain.

They'd complain about the cost, and about the deaths on both sides, and about the (relatively) uniliateral action that the US took.

All of those concerns have legitimacy, but I would be surprised that many people who are now against the war would change their minds if WMDs were found tomorrow... or if they would be pro-Iraq invasion if the WMDs had been discovered hours after the shock and awe campaign was started.

The US was far from alone in believing that Iraq possessed WMDs. Hussein had plenty of chances to allow inspectors to do the job that they were supposed to do to prove otherwise. Iraq had plenty of opportunities to abide by the agreements they made following their forcible removal from Kuwait.

They chose not to do so, and I think it's more likely that, next time, a country will take agreements with the US a bit more seriously.

The US has spent a ton of money, and had too many Iraqis and Americans die for me to be pleased with the situation. But we have performed two critical things that aren't going to be on Bush's team's talking points but that have terrific value:

1. We destabilized the country. Whether there's a new government that's pro-US or not, it will take years--perhaps decades--for a new regime to emerge in Iraq capable of producing WMDs. There's still a chance that a "kinder, gentler" Iraq will emerge, but as a fallback destabilization isn't bad, either.

2. We have another prime spot to strike at Iran. We now have significant presence on two Iranian fronts. Rather than having to rely on sea-based launches and/or beg for airspace permissions coming from Israel, the US will be able to have bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps even Pakistan.



Even if it never comes to attacking Iran, the US and its allies are in a much better position to exert pressure and make quick strikes as needed if Iran fails to comply.

Ed O.

[Talkhard]

Bush and his top ranking officials have even admitted that the intelligence they received was inaccurate. So, even if they do find WMDs, it will be by accident and not because we had "can't miss" intelligence.

What kind of an oaf are you? The only reason he said the intelligence was innacurate was because they didn't find the weapons. If the weapons turn up after all, then the intelligence was obviously correct.

[Scipio]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

What kind of an oaf are you? The only reason he said the intelligence was innacurate was because they didn't find the weapons. If the weapons turn up after all, then the intelligence was obviously correct.

No. If the weapons are not found from those bunkers etc. that were shown prior the war, intelligence was inaccurate. If they're intelligence report would've been "There are WMD in Iraq" and nothing else then it's accurate. Now if they find something, which I doubt, it's luck or the intelligent personnel have finally managed to torture the information out of somebody.

But evidence shown prior the war was a big load of bull**** handed to the world and in no way was it accurate.

[Talkhard]

If the weapons are not found from those bunkers etc. that were shown prior the war, intelligence was inaccurate.

Oh give me a break! If they had intelligence that said there was WMD in Iraq, who gives a flip if they were in one bunker or another? The point is Saddam had the weapons and he was a threat.

Talk about splitting hairs.

[Talkhard]

The US was far from alone in believing that Iraq possessed WMDs. Hussein had plenty of chances to allow inspectors to do the job that they were supposed to do to prove otherwise. Iraq had plenty of opportunities to abide by the agreements they made following their forcible removal from Kuwait.

They chose not to do so, and I think it's more likely that, next time, a country will take agreements with the US a bit more seriously.

Well, Ed, we don't agree on much when it comes to the Blazers, but I think we're on the same page regarding Iraq. I would even take your argument a step further and say that one of the aims (unstated) of the Iraq war was to get a foothold next door to Iran for the reasons you point out. Our government has known that Iran is a growing threat for a long time now, and we saw the value of having a military presence (or at least an ally) right next door to them.