DaveC said:
This is the CIA talking...not some "liberal" organization. The CIA.
You go on about Verifiable Disarmament.
Let's have a little hypothetical, shall we?
Saddam destroys every one of those weapons. Every single ounce of nerve agent. Gets rid of it all, including all traces and remnants to make sure that he's complied. How in the bluest of all blue fucking hells (to borrow a phrase from Headache) is he supposed to keep stocks of that around to prove he's disarmed? If he keeps the stocks, he's got the stuff to make WMD. If he gets rid of it all, he can't prove without a doubt that he's disarmed, because they will always be able to say "well it's hidden in the desert" and invade anyways.
I'm not condoning Saddam Hussein or saying he should still be in power (the man's not fit to run a treadmill).
What I am saying is that the Bush administration lied flat out to the American people (although they may have believed it somewhat, or had circumstantial evidence of the POSSIBILITY that Saddam had WMD) in order to garner support for an illegal, immoral, and injust war.
I read the report and know its the CIA. I also know the grand conclusions made in the report are based on not finding evidence which is nothing new. It does not change the fact that SADDAM failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD under which case multiple UN resolutions authorized the use of military force to insure that his regime was disarmed.
#1 It is against the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire to engage in any act of disarmament that cannot be VERIFIED! The weapons were supposed to be either handed to the inspectors, or destroyed in the presence of inspectors!
#2 If Saddam destroyed stocks of WMD without inspectors around, the remains of the dismantled WMD could be used to verify what was destroyed and in what quantities. This is not some fantasy movie where things vanish in to thin air. 20,000 Bio/Chem shells is a lot of metal!
#3 The process of VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT is a well planned one that has been successful in Kazakstan, Ukraine, Belarus, South Africa and some other countries when the country going through disarmament has cooperated with the process.
#4 Hiding ones weapons, destroying some here or there in the absence of inspectors for what ever the reason, are all violations of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire.
#5 As said before, the process of VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT is not a difficult one as several countries have already cooperated and disarmed of their stockpiles in under a year. 12 years after Saddam was required to engage in such a process, he had failed to complete it!
Saddam had all the means to peacefully, verifiably disarm of all WMD but he chose not to!
The Bush administrations case for war was that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD per the UN resolutions and the Gulf War Ceacefire. The FACT that Saddam had failed to meet all of his obligations per the Ceacefire and UN resolutions is a fact that not even France would dispute!
If you think otherwise, please tell me where the United Nations certified that Iraq had successfully met its obligations under all 17 UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement?
Saddam failed to Verifiably Disarm of all WMD despite having the opportunity to do so. That is why the use of military force became a necessity.
No one lied! A process that was started in March of 1991 finally came to an end, as member states of the United Nations finally enforced the long standing UN resolutions against Saddam because Saddam had failed to peacefully comply with them.