Printable View
Just post a single post where you posted that WMD were not there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
I looked through a few of your links which were not helpful.
The "facts" were that he had WMD, as best the world knew
Just one explicit post is all I asked for.
I think you all have covered the WMD issue quite rigorously in my absense, so I will dispense with the obvious to say merely that, having nothing with which to back a claim of "no WMD", no-way, no-how,not ever, ever, ever, I will claim, at minimum, a moral "draw" on that particular point.
Can we move on? :dry:
There were plenty of comments here, when it was inevitable that the invasion was on, along the lines of waiting for the inspectors report before going in, so to say no-one said there were none there is misleading. Even the inspectors asked them to hold off until they were finished their work, Bush refused because he knew what the inspectors were going to say.
Well, I'm sorry I found RF's post abrasive and deceptive.
RF himself was unsure of whether there were WMD or not. (I say this from memory and it is made in good faith)
Now suddenly everyone knew, everyone except those stupid(implied by tone and context)Americans. Even though there were war protests in America.
I looked at those pre-war protest signs, not a single one said that WMD was a lie. Not a single person in this biased forum started a thread stating that there was no WMD. Some mumbled about having doubts, but no one was willing to stand up and aver that they were definitely not there.
Saddam had us all bluffed.
Now Bush went a screwed the pooch to be sure, but I guess I am reacting to how Rat constructed his post. It's abrasiveness and distortion was a disappointment coming from him. He must have had some bad cheese or something.
I have a dim memory of Billy Dean nixing the idea of WMD, but he was the only one, I'm sure of it.
I'm also sure this is precisely how everyone else on the entire board remembers it, too, without exception.
You asked for posts by members, so i gave a few threads...Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
For me? I said i could not recall.. however this was in one of those threads.. posted 15th Feb, 2003..
That good enough for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Appendum:
I also recall a thread stating that any "weapon" can be described as WMD, and thats why they were using that phrase... a rifle can be a "WMD" if you kill enough people with it.
Cant find that thread either though, and i like that one.. :(
The correct term is NBC.
Point of order here.
NOBODY with the exception of Saddam himself and some of his government knew one way or the other about saddams WMD's before the war. There was purely speculation.
Everyone else either believed the information they were given or dis-believed it, either way it could not be stated as fact and backed up at that time.
There are some who now wish to change the fact that Bush said saddam "did have them" to he "wanted them"
I do think Bush believed he had them, i don't think he lied, however he should do the honourable thing and at the very least appologise for the mistake and accept responsibility instead of making excuses. This is why i don't see honor in Bush.
Much as i would like to see him step down i don't see that as being the right thing to do in this case.
Robin Cook did stand up and was counted as one who did not agree that Iraq was a current danger or was currently engaged in such activites. His resignation speech was a good example of how to use honourable dignity to deliver a kick in the crotch.
The question then was "what, if any, remained of the 1980s stockpile and why was it suddenly an issue"?
This was, not surprisingly, debated at length on my work intranet with a fair number coming down on Cook's side as he had been Foreign Secretary and had seen the relevant papers.
I must confess I said on that board that Saddam probably had residual capability and at least a small cache somewhere. Who knows? Perhaps there still is.
My main claim to fame was that I predicted that the war would be over in two weeks (my argument being that Saddam was not a realistic military threat to a single NATO country) and we would inherit the biggest Northern Ireland (and invoice to cover costs) imaginable. If only I had filled out my lottery card at the same time. :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Hmmmm.
I can live with that, apart from the necessity of an apology; if he didn't lie, he has done nothing warranting an apology.
If he were to say, "I feel bad for leading America into a war with multiple objectives, only to find out that concern over the chief objective was subsequently mitigated or ameliorated by circumstances that cannot be discerned with a degree of specificity satisfactory to my political enemies", I should think that would suffice, absent any liberal requirements regarding tone, or "sounding like he means it" or what-not.
Abject sobbing should not be necessary. ;)