Thread: When will conservatives accept the fact that Iraq had no WMD or ties to al Qaeda?

There are still some people (conservatives) who think WMD have been found in Iraq and that there's evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. They're dead wrong. Their claims aren't based on facts. Here's an example:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Iraq did have WMDs, and in fact we found some of them in Iraq.

Here are some facts:

"UNMOVIC did not find undeclared weapons of mass destruction, relevant production facilities, or significant amounts of materials and equipment intended for such weapons. On the contrary, it confirmed that Iraq had destroyed the bulk of its capabilities, either unilaterally before UNSCOM inspections commenced in 1991 or under UNSCOM’s supervision. UNMOVIC determined that Iraq’s chemical weapons program had ended, and its previous arsenal, with the exception of a few chemical shells, had been destroyed. In the biological weapons area, although some substantive questions persisted, no weapons or facilities were found."

http://www.armscontrol.org/ACT/2005_...ck-UNMOVIC.asp

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."

--Iraq Survey Group

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq...ap5.html#sect0

David Kay: "I was convinced and still am convinced that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction at the time of the war."

Kay: "I don't think they existed. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...160609,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3426703.stm

Charles Duelfer: "The ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq War. They are all almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5504298

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...lfer_4-27.html

Originally Posted by jviehe

there are indications of Iraqs direct ties to AQ

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

Thursday, June 17, 2004

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War

September 9, 2006

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090800777.html

CIA Learned in '02 That Bin Laden Had No Iraq Ties, Report Says

Friday 15 September 2006

The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...401545_pf.html

PS.

A study conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Network showed that people who voted for Bush (aka conservatives) are...well, more ignorant than people who voted for Kerry (aka liberals). Here's what the study concluded:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

http://www.pipa.org/

Does any of it matter? Kerry, along with other key Democrats, supported the war in Iraq when given the same intelligence Bush was given. All of sudden, it's Bush's fault that we went into Iraq because there weren't any WMDs upon arrival. Are you actually proposing that we vote for these kind of people?

There were terrorist training facilities in northern Iraq(Kurdistan). People may be automatically connecting terrorist to Al-Queda. Polls don't always tell absolute truth.

There were many other reasons for going into Iraq(besides the claim that Saddam possessed WMDs) that were simply not announced by the administration.

The Dems voted to send us into Iraq, and had the same Intel as the rest of the world.

Cound not have done it without them!

Originally Posted by Lou's Views

There are still some people (conservatives) who think WMD have been found in Iraq and that there's evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. They're dead wrong. Their claims aren't based on facts. Here's an example:

Why is this considered relevant to anything?

Does this analysis contribute to any kind of resolution of the Iraqi problem?

Or is just partisan masturbation? Bush and the Republicans may be down, but pissing on them ain't going to solve the Iraqi problem they caused.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Bush and the Republicans may be down, but pissing on them ain't going to solve the Iraqi problem they caused.

The Problem was caused by Saddam Hussein, his support for Terrorism, non-compliance with UN Resolutions, firing on UN aircraft, lying to the UN, hiding weapons, and much more.

Saddam did have WMD and some were found. He moved and entire facility out of Iraq prior to the invasion to Syria or wherever that had nuclear bomb making material and equipment.

How could they be missing if he never had them? Huh?

Missing Iraqi nuke equipment worries IAEA
October 12, 2004


Outside the grounds of the Tawaitha nuclear facility, south of Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The senior adviser to Iraq's Interior Ministry blamed U.S. forces Tuesday for not securing facilities where the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency says equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons has vanished.

You believe what you want and Ill beleieve what I want, I simply want a thourough investigation into the matter and Im happy that anyone is even willing to discuss it. There are simply too many coincidences and witness testimonies and documentation to simply write off a connection between AQ and Iraq.

Furthermore, we captured over 2 million exploitable items in Iraq, of which less than 1% has been translated. The ones that have have already generated intelligence that indicates connections with Iraq. You can see the originals here - http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialR...20041004a.html

I totally understand if you want to discount this as a conspiracy theory. But it is a fact that Saddam was a supporter of terrorism. He went on TV and said so when he offered to pay the families of suicide bombers.

But really, terrorism isnt even the whole point. It is simply one of the reasons Sadaam had to be removed. I dont think anyone can deny that Sadaam was a bad guy, killings hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, invading his neighbors without any reasonable cause, firing on UN forces, dodging weapons inspectors, corrupting the UN with bribes, and its goes on and on.

I highly recommend reading anything written by Stephen Hayes on this subject as he is the sole expert on such matters. Dont forget the 40 point memo sent to the Senate on the intelligence the CIA had on AQ-Iraq connections.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/378fmxyz.asp

Originally Posted by jviehe

I totally understand if you want to discount this as a conspiracy theory. But it is a fact that Saddam was a supporter of terrorism. He went on TV and said so when he offered to pay the families of suicide bombers.

Not to mention that Saddam offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

Originally Posted by jviehe

You believe what you want and Ill beleieve what I want,

I don't believe what I want to believe, I believe what the data compells me to believe.
There were no WMDs, no WMD production capability in Iraq before the invasion.
There was no threat posed to the US by Iraq before the invasion.
The invasion of Iraq was motivated by domestic US political considerations.
At least that is what the data says to me.

I don't want to believe that the president of the US has killed over a half million people just to win an election, but that is what the data is saying to me.

I know that you will believe what you want to believe, you'll believe it as a matter of faith, faith is simply belief unsupported by reason.

The data tells me what to believe, your beliefs tell you to ignore the data, and that is the difference.

So you can believe in the tooth fairy if you want.
Iraq is still a disaster, and those coffins they don't show you are filled with real bodies.

Originally Posted by AndyM

Does any of it matter? Kerry, along with other key Democrats, supported the war in Iraq when given the same intelligence Bush was given.

False. Congress was not given what Bush was given. What was given to Congress was a 'package' from Bush.

Therefore...

All of sudden, it's Bush's fault

yup.

Some people will always believe these things because they have tied some part of their own self worth to the idea that this admin or the neo cons or the republican party is somehow better than the opposition.
Some people will attempt to lay the blame on the opposition for the same reason.

But self deception is not the sole province of conservatives or republicans. After all, even though congressional dems obviously do not bear the same burden of blame for this abomination that w does, the fact remains that most of them chose to vote for this war rather than stand up and do what they knew was right. They did so for the same reason w instigated the war. Personal domestic political advantage. And yet many liberals and democrats claim to believe these congresspeople didn't know any better. While it's true w lied to them it's also true that anyone who was paying attention - even common citizens with no special access - could tell he was probably lying.

People from both sides are capable of self delusion.