• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

No, we were told there were STOCKPILES of WMDs, none of those STOCKPILES were found.

I don't think Bush lied to get us into Iraq, but I do think he made his decisions based on weak analysis and information.

You know, I think thats probably fairly accurate. I think it's the first time i've ever heard a liberal of any type come close to acknowledging that.
 
We went to war in Iraq mostly because we believed there were stockpiles, warehouses full of WMDs including Chemical and Biological weapons which Saddam was going to use in new wars as well as sell off to terrorist groups, along with a brand new nuclear program which was extremely close to making a bomb.

Psst! The Iraq war resolution (the reason we mostly went to war) listed much more then just Iraq having stockpiles of WMD. That was but one reason.

In fact, I would argue that the reason we went to war with Iraq was "mostly" due to:
"Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors".

If he had followed through with his commitments under the cease fire agreement and no weapons were found, we would not have been able to go forward with the war. However, Saddam acted as if he had WMD and stalled the weapons inspectors in the hope that we would lose interest as the previous administration did.
 
Last edited:
This is 100% true. But not only a crippled state, also one that we had held contained since 1991.

There are still people who believe invading Iraq again was worth it. You can show them in print that we were wrong, even show video of President Bush saying we were wrong, but the diehards just have the need to believe it was the only way to go, I guess.

Do you mean John Kerry, and former President and Mrs Clinton as well, since they also pushed the rhetoric that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? You have to remember that it took awhile for the US to mobilize its forces to attack Iraq. What were all those trucks carrying that were seen traveling from Iraq to Syria?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Bush himself says there's no WMDs.

Bush Derangement syndrome obviously.
This is a liberal who just hates Bush so vehemently that he can't think straight anymore.
There's absolutely no other reason why he would say that we found no WMD in Iraq. Only a deranged person would overlook decades old, broken-down shells from before Gulf War I.


But this guy makes a good point--"...the best way to do hope is through a form of government." Government is the best way to give someone hope. There's a conservative principle for ya. Can't get mush more conservative than that.


Seriously, we're still having this debate years later?
 
Hmmm from the article:

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

Read More WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

It doesn't seem to support Bush's reasons for invading.



Stockpiles.


Oct. 5, 2002
George W. Bush, Radio Address

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.
 
furthermore, WMD were only one portion of a three-legged argument for invasion.
 
furthermore, WMD were only one portion of a three-legged argument for invasion.

What were those other two reasons? Saddam's conventional army which threatened the region? The one we overran in only a few weeks? Or the the way he treated his people? A situation that exists throughout the world. Its impossible to say that if we were correct on the WMD situation, meaning we correctly knew there were no WMDs, there still would have been cause for war.
 
Psst! The Iraq war resolution (the reason we mostly went to war) listed much more then just Iraq having stockpiles of WMD. That was but one reason.

In fact, I would argue that the reason we went to war with Iraq was "mostly" due to:
"Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors".

If he had followed through with his commitments under the cease fire agreement and no weapons were found, we would not have been able to go forward with the war. However, Saddam acted as if he had WMD and stalled the weapons inspectors in the hope that we would lose interest as the previous administration did.

Saddam acted...

You got it. A known blowhard, a blustering liar was acting like he had wmds.

We knew he was lying. It was part of his makeup. He stroked his own ego. It was bull crap, and we knew it, knew him like a book.
 
Do you mean John Kerry, and former President and Mrs Clinton as well, since they also pushed the rhetoric that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

I mean the White House, and everyone in Congress who voted for war, were fools.

You have to remember that it took awhile for the US to mobilize its forces to attack Iraq. What were all those trucks carrying that were seen traveling from Iraq to Syria?

Okay, all those trucks? You mean trucks that were exposed by our intelligence?

You tell me about the trucks. And tell me why, in 7 years, we still don't know if weapons were moved in them.
 
Saddam acted...

You got it. A known blowhard, a blustering liar was acting like he had wmds.

We knew he was lying. It was part of his makeup. He stroked his own ego. It was bull crap, and we knew it, knew him like a book.

Please, provide the evidence that the Bush admin as a whole and a consensus of analysts knew that Saddam was not cooperating with the inspectors and convinced a majority of his own generals that he had WMD just as a way to bluff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Please, provide the evidence that the Bush admin as a whole and a consensus of analysts knew that Saddam was not cooperating with the inspectors and convinced a majority of his own generals that he had WMD just as a way to bluff.

It was a bluff. You are using the right word.

This subject has been done on this site ad nauseum. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel for you. It should be enough that the White House invented (among other things) something called Alternative Intelligence to create false information to help enable a war.
 
Not asking you to reinvent any wheels. Simply asking for the evidence that a majority of analysts reached a consensus that Saddam was bluffing.
 
Not asking you to reinvent any wheels. Simply asking for the evidence that a majority of analysts reached a consensus that Saddam was bluffing.

We knew. I and millions of other people knew before we went in that the whole thing had been pre-decided by the White House. Remember the history of the Gulf of Tonkin? And that's just one other example of the White House wanting to go to war and to hell with any argument, and we go to war with no way out because it was the desire of a particular President.

It seems to me that you should think twice about making the choice of 'YES' when considering an optional war. That way you don't have to worry about people pointing when the intelligence turns out to be wrong again.
 
We knew. I and millions of other people knew before we went in that the whole thing had been pre-decided by the White House.

So, your whole argument is that the intelligence community (including those from many countries that were against the war and did not join us) didn't know as much as you, who had never seen any of the actual data used to make the decision.

Have you ever considred that maybe you just made a guess based on your general dislike for the president and just happened to get lucky? You use the term "knew" as if you truly knew anything. Were you in the CIA at the time reviewing the information? If not, you pretty much knew nothing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
I mean the White House, and everyone in Congress who voted for war, were fools.



Okay, all those trucks? You mean trucks that were exposed by our intelligence?

You tell me about the trucks. And tell me why, in 7 years, we still don't know if weapons were moved in them.


Can't say, but plans were on the table at one time to invade Syria, but it never happened. Was it too risky to invade Syria? Let's just wait. The jerk from Wikileaks will soon release it all, and then we'll both know.
 
The claim by anti-war nuts is that there are no WMDs in Iraq, not there are no stockpiles of WMDs.

No, that too would be inaccurate. when they say that thye mean in context of the claim made. When people say the world agreed with Bush, that too was an inaccurate statement by your side. Most believed there were some left over wmds, small in number and not equal to the trheat Bush tried to paint. Few to none believed Bush's claim of stockpiles and a growing program.
 
No, that too would be inaccurate. when they say that thye mean in context of the claim made. When people say the world agreed with Bush, that too was an inaccurate statement by your side. Most believed there were some left over wmds, small in number and not equal to the trheat Bush tried to paint. Few to none believed Bush's claim of stockpiles and a growing program.

Lie.



Pre-War Quotes from Democrats

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.




Would you like me to add the international community>?
 
Lie.



Pre-War Quotes from Democrats

Been thought this before, most of those are out of context and arguing against invading because he doesn't meet the level of threat claimed. While I know this is popular on your side to use, but it doesn't change a thing. Or remotely address what i said.
 
Been thought this before, most of those are out of context and arguing against invading because he doesn't meet the level of threat claimed. While I know this is popular on your side to use, but it doesn't change a thing. Or remotely address what i said.



I know its the "because boo says so clause".... :roll:
 
Been thought this before, most of those are out of context and arguing against invading because he doesn't meet the level of threat claimed. While I know this is popular on your side to use, but it doesn't change a thing. Or remotely address what i said.

They weren't arguing that Saddam didn't have WMD or even a quantity sufficient to satisfy you, they were simply diagreeing on what to do about it. In other words, Snopes doesn't contradict Rev at all. It was a nice attempt at introducing a red herring though. I'l lhave to give you that.
 
Last edited:
They weren't arguing that Saddam didn't have WMD or even a quantity sufficient to satisfy you, they were simply diagreeing on what to do about it. In other words, Snopes doesn't contradict Rev at all. It was a nice attempt at introducing a red herring though. I'l lhave to give you that.

Again, no one arged he didn't have any. The lie was not that might be some left over wmds. The lie was that there were stockpiles and that he had a growing program.

And yes, snoopes does contradict him. His quotes are from different time periods, some being before Clinton's people declared the threat over. So, they meant nothing to the 2003 and debate. And some, yes, were about what to do about it. but also stated that Saddam did not meet the level of threat, not having active programs and stockpiles.
 
Back
Top Bottom