A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found.

Where is your source for this?

The "many" was a misstatement. Two WMD artillery shells were found, one
with
Sarin, the other with mustard gas. Both were probably parts of stockpiles
used during the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds which Hussein said had been
destroyed. Where there's one, there's most likely more.

It was barely reported by the major news media during the invasion, then
it
disappeared from the radar.

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery
round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark
Kimmitt
(search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad.
"The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which
was
discovered by a U.S. force convoy."

Fox News, Monday, May 17, 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Well, that's Fox news, who I think we can agree have traded off their
credibility for sensationalism and an openly confessed pro-Bush bias quite a
while ago.

No, we most certainly cannot agree. At worst, Fox News presents a reasonably
balanced view of the news that struggles to overcome the pervasive
ultra-liberal left-wing bias of virtually all other major media sources.

Nontheless, Fox and all the other news agencies reported that the
conclusion was that this bomb was an artifact left over from the Pre-1991
era,

Which was supposed to have been destroyed long ago. Where there's one,
there's very likely others, probably buried in the desert in massive
stockpiles that we have not yet discovered. You are aware that there are
miles and miles of deeply-buried underground bunkers and tunnels under
Baghdad alone that Saddam built in the 12 years after the original invasion.

There is no reason to believe that he did not construct similar bunkers in
remote regions to store his WMD's, along with other munitions. The
insurgents in Iraq are getting their munitions from somewhere.


that the people who rigged it probably had no idea that it contained
binary Sarin,

Which is utterly irrelevant to the issue, which is that it constitutes more
proof positive that Hussein had, and used WMD's.

and in his later report, Duelfer concluded that the existance
of this bomb did not constitute evidence that there was any ongoing WMD
program.

Who said anything about "ongoing?" He had WMD's, he used them on the
Iranians and the Kurds, he stockpiled such munitions in large quantities,
and he refused to permit UN inspections intended to ensure that ALL those
stockpiles had been destroyed.

That's entirely sufficient.


If you are merely stating that some left over munitions exist, I don't think
anyone who ever shopped at an ArmyNavy store would disagree. If your
statement is that Saddam intentionally hid weapons from the pre-1991 era
from the inspectors with the intent to use them later, and the discovery of
these bombs are proof, then I refer you to Fox news again, and an excerpt
from Charles Duelfer's report:

"Duelfer, a special consultant to the director of Central Intelligence on
Iraqi WMD affairs, found Saddam wasn't squirreling away equipment and
weapons and hiding them in various parts of the country, as some originally
thought when the U.S.-led war in Iraq began, officials said. Instead, the
report finds that Saddam was trying to achieve his goal by retaining
"intellectual capital" - in other words, keeping weapons inspectors employed
and happy and preserving some documentation, according to U.S. officials."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html

What makes you think that Dueifer is infallible?

Besides, the quote itself proves my point. At the time, the best
intelligence we had indicated that Saddam DID have WMD's, that he HAD
deployed them and killed thousands of his own citizens with them, that he
WAS very likely squirreling them away in the desert during the 12 years he
defied the UN sanctions, and that he WAS playing a shell-game with UN
inspectors to prevent them from finding the evidence.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but the fact remains that at the time the
decision to go to war was made, the available evidence supported the
president's decision.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:


Hindsight is always 20/20, but the fact remains that at the time the
decision to go to war was made, the available evidence supported the
president's decision.



Foresight not being 20-20 does not forgive errors discovered in hindsight.
If our intelligence was wrong, it was our intelligence's fault. And you
might be the only voice crying out that you still think our intelligence was
right.

Do you still believe that we invaded Iraq because we believed that he had
WMDs?? Even Bush has stopped singing that song, you might as well also. The
new reason is because he was a despot and impediment to Freedom and had to
go for the benefit of his people. If we claim we invaded because we thought
he had WMDs, and discovered that he did not, then it makes it our error,
not his crime. If we invaded because he was a despot and had to go, then
we were justified.

So Bush is being very careful to NO LONGER say that he invaded because he
thought SH had WMDs, but that SDs refusal to demonstrate that he had
destroyed his WMDs was in violation of the UN resolutions, and that left him
exposed to severe consequences. Those are not the same statements, as one
points to SHs culpability, the other to our fallability. The problem is that
nowhere does it say 'having your country invaded, your government overthrown
and your cities hammered is the punishment for violating a UN resolution'.
Especially as, while it was happening, we were acting IN LIEU of the UN,
without its support or its blessing.

--riverman

This whole debate sounds like Spinal Tap to me. "It goes to eleven! Its one
louder, innit?"

A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:


Hindsight is always 20/20, but the fact remains that at the time the
decision to go to war was made, the available evidence supported the
president's decision.



Foresight not being 20-20 does not forgive errors discovered in hindsight.

Of course it does. If we were required to have 100% accurate information
before acting, nothing would ever get done.

If our intelligence was wrong, it was our intelligence's fault.

Or, it was just a matter of not being able to get more conclusive evidence
and having to operate on what we knew at the time.

And you
might be the only voice crying out that you still think our intelligence was
right.

I didn't say it was right, I said the president made a decision based on the
best available intelligence. It's his authority to make such decisions.


Do you still believe that we invaded Iraq because we believed that he had
WMDs??

No, we KNEW he had used them in the past, and therefore he necessarily HAD
them, and we KNEW that he was refusing UN inspections to confirm that he had
properly disposed of them, and we had EVIDENCE that he still had both WMD's
and production facilities. We invaded for those and numerous other reasons.

Even Bush has stopped singing that song, you might as well also. The
new reason is because he was a despot and impediment to Freedom and had to
go for the benefit of his people.

It's not a "new" reason, it was one of the reasons all along.

If we claim we invaded because we thought
he had WMDs, and discovered that he did not, then it makes it our error,

Not necessarily.

not his crime.

One of his crimes was developing, stockpiling and deploying WMD's. The other
crime was failing to cooperate fully with the UN in proving to our
satisfaction that he had disposed of those stockpiles.

Absent his full and unfettered cooperation, and in the face of massive
evidence of cover-ups and shell-game movements of suspected WMD's during the
12 years he was supposed to be cooperating, the president concluded that he
was concealing WMD's and that the circumstances constituted violation of the
terms of the cease fire and were one more brick on the load justifying our
invasion.

If we invaded because he was a despot and had to go, then
we were justified.

We did.


So Bush is being very careful to NO LONGER say that he invaded because he
thought SH had WMDs, but that SDs refusal to demonstrate that he had
destroyed his WMDs was in violation of the UN resolutions, and that left him
exposed to severe consequences.

Indeed.

Those are not the same statements, as one
points to SHs culpability, the other to our fallability.

No, in both cases it points to his culpability. What Bush says now is
consistent with what he said before the war. He said that our best
intelligence estimates indicated that Saddam had, and was concealing WMD's.
The fact that he failed to comply with UN inspections was part of the
evidence upon which Bush reached this conclusion. An innocent national
leader would not deliberately obstruct UN inspections that would prove his
innocence. "Guilty knowledge" and acts that conceal the truth are compelling
evidence of harmful intent.

The problem is that
nowhere does it say 'having your country invaded, your government overthrown
and your cities hammered is the punishment for violating a UN resolution'.

Excuse me? Saddam was warned many, many times that EXACTLY that would happen
if he failed to comply with the UN mandates. He was warned too many times,
in fact. He should have gotten one warning: "Comply with the UN inspections
or face destruction." Ten minutes after he obstructed any UN inspector, the
cruise missiles should have been launched.

Especially as, while it was happening, we were acting IN LIEU of the UN,
without its support or its blessing.

Screw the UN. We don't need its support or its blessing, much less its
permission. The incompetence of the UN in enforcing the cease fire agreement
is what caused the necessity for the US to act unilaterally. We waited
twelve years for the UN to do its job, and it refused. So we did it.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
Screw the UN. We don't need its support or its blessing, much less its
permission.

Hmmm, you sound like Saddam Hussein. Funny, that.

--riverman