Proof of WMDs?

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2003
Proof of WMDs?
157
Mon, 05-17-2004 - 2:43pm
>>Sarin Nerve Agent Bomb Explodes in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A roadside bomb containing deadly sarin nerve agent exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday. It was believed to be the first confirmed discovery of any of the banned weapons that the United States cited in making its case for the Iraq war.

Two members of a military bomb squad were treated for "minor exposure," but no serious injuries were reported.

...

<<

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040517/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sarin

thoughts?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
In reply to: jadethief
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 10:44am
Thank you Wrhen. I have learned something today.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
In reply to: jadethief
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 11:47am
<>

Aren't the various intelligence agencies a part of the executive branch, under the direction of the WH?


Edited 5/18/2004 11:50 am ET ET by hayashig

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: jadethief
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 11:49am
Interestingly enough, there was a member of Bush's own party who went on record opposing Congress's behavior in ceding power to declare war to Bush; and the idea of preemptive war itself. He also had an analysis of intelligence based on the information available in October 2002.

A quotation in part:

<


But I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner.

It does something else, though. One-half of the resolution delivers this power to the President, but it also instructs him to enforce U.N. resolutions. I happen to think I would rather listen to the President when he talks about unilateralism and national security interests, than accept this responsibility to follow all of the rules and the dictates of the United Nations. That is what this resolution does. It instructs him to follow all of the resolutions.

But an important aspect of the philosophy and the policy we are endorsing here is the preemption doctrine. This should not be passed off lightly. It has been done to some degree in the past, but never been put into law that we will preemptively strike another nation that has not attacked us. No matter what the arguments may be, this policy is new; and it will have ramifications for our future, and it will have ramifications for the future of the world because other countries will adopt this same philosophy.



I also want to mention very briefly something that has essentially never been brought up. For more than a thousand years there has been a doctrine and Christian definition of what a just war is all about. I think this effort and this plan to go to war comes up short of that doctrine. First, it says that there has to be an act of aggression; and there has not been an act of aggression against the United States. We are 6,000 miles from their shores.



Also, it says that all efforts at negotiations must be exhausted. I do not believe that is the case. It seems to me like the opposition, the enemy, right now is begging for more negotiations.



Also, the Christian doctrine says that the proper authority must be responsible for initiating the war. I do not believe that proper authority can be transferred to the President nor to the United Nations.

But a very practical reason why I have a great deal of reservations has to do with the issue of no-win wars that we have been involved in for so long. Once we give up our responsibilities from here in the House and the Senate to make these decisions, it seems that we depend on the United Nations for our instructions; and that is why, as a Member earlier indicated, essentially we are already at war. That is correct. We are still in the Persian Gulf War. We have been bombing for 12 years, and the reason President Bush, Sr., did not go all the way? He said the U.N. did not give him permission to.

My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously.>>

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr100802.htm

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-10-2004
In reply to: jadethief
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 11:53am
Let me ask you soemthing. If this war had been "just" in your opinion and WMD were found left and right, would you still have said 1 is 1 too many?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: jadethief
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 12:11pm

<<>>


Especially when the people who used it, didn't even know HOW to use it.

________________________________________________

"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: jadethief
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 12:15pm
<<<President Bush received overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle when he said we must act *before* the threat becomes imminent.

The left side of the aisle abandoned him and our military once Howard Dean started getting votes by speaking out against our efforts in Iraq. I can't count how many times I've heard repeated over and over "There were *no* weapons of mass destruction... >>>


Not exactly.

________________________________________________

"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
In reply to: jadethief
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 12:16pm
I didn't say that he had unanamous support, I said overwhelming suppoort. This is a true statement.

It is well known that Republicans are free to depart from party lines if they feel it is right. Democrats don't seem to enjoy the same freedoms from their party.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
In reply to: jadethief
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 12:18pm
He would be in jail today if he had produced false documents to go to war! LOL! Please come up with something that is more believable.
Avatar for baileyhouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: jadethief
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 12:25pm
I would still want proof that these hypothetical weapons could actually reach us...and the ability of Sadam to actually do that has NEVER been proven. Can't answer your question because the facts are what they are.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
In reply to: jadethief
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 12:25pm
Saddam claimed to have destroyed ALL Sarin gas. Obviously, to the shock of left leaning Americans he lied about that.

Now the story changes from "there were *no* weapons of mass destruction" to "there were no stockpiles of WMD". All we really know is that there were stockpiles of them and suddenly there weren't anymore. Saddam says he destroyed them all, but offered no proof that he destroyed them. Now he is proven to be a liar. This must crush those who had put so much faith in his word...


Edited 5/18/2004 12:28 pm ET ET by iminnie833

Pages