Why did you orginally think there were no WMDs in Iraq?

[NYC Liberal]

Poll question: Why did you orginally think there were no WMDs in Iraq?

It was a combination of the two for myself; I didn't trust anything anybody in this maladministration said to begin with, and also from everything I read there was simply NO evidence.

[ET Awful]

1. It was mostly because of folks that had actually been there like

Scott Ritter saying "there aren't any weapons of mass destruction."

I figured people that had actually been there and inspected the place had a bit better concept of what was there than an out of control neocon christofascist blow monkey.

[karlrschneider]

11. Yep! There was enough info from the UNSCOM people leaking out

that intelligent people were able to get the message. But even absent that, I'd never have believed the Bushco bastards anyway...

[neuvocat]

2. Because the UN didn't find anything.

[w13rd0]

3. Because if Saddam was as insane...

...as they say, he would have already used them. Like in GWI. Of course, US media spun it as him being cowed by our threats of nuclear retaliation, but come the f'on. No, sanctions wrecked Iraqs economy and was slowly turning it third world. Inspectors were there for several years destroying precursor programs, and the latest round (pre-war) of inspections turned up nothing.

99% of the prohibited material had been accounted for. And if we went in over that supposed 1%, which was likely not accounted for due to clerical error, we should start bombing business offices and corporate headquarters, and the Pentagon, because they lose track of more than that in a quarter let alone 10 years.

[Poppyseedman]

9. Saddam is insane and had already used WMD in the past

so I assummed he would again if provoked. We all know what happens when we assume

[K-W]

13. No, Saddam isnt insane.

Saddam is a cold calculating brutal man who does not share our views on morality.

Saddam made decisions based on his perceived self interest, developing WMD's while under an inspection regime and with the US still occupying your airspace and constantly talking about removing you was simply not in his self interest.

Being brutal and immoral is not the same as insane.

[Poppyseedman]

20. So when you and Saddam sit down and do your therapy together

does he come across as just a brutal and immoral man or is he also paranoid and delusional. He did think he was still president of Iraq in his first court appearance.

I assume from your last sentence in your repy, you are a psychologist and have done a profile on him.

[K-W]

25. You were the one who diagnosed him insane lol.

You are the one making wild psychological speculations. You should have just replied to yourself.

[w13rd0]

67. It's all the rage...

...to make clinical diagnosis via a 45 minute videotaped appearance, heavily edited, dontcha know...

[LynnTheDem]

46. The UK used "WMD" in the past and in fact gassed the Kurds. The USA

is the ONLY nation in the entire world that has ever actually used "WMD"...and the USA dropped the real "WMD" onto CIVILIANS.

So by your "reasoning", we better invade & occupy the UK and the USA, too. ;)

[Poppyseedman]

50. The UK were the ones that gassed the Kurds???

Do you have proof of that accusation?

[LynnTheDem]

52. Of course I have proof, and it isn't an "accusation", it's a statement of

FACT. During Britain's first occupation of Iraq;

"I do not understand squeamishness about the use of gas," Churchill wrote. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

Gas, chemicals, bombs: Britain has used them all before in Iraq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html

British Use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq
http://www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm

Edit; some more UK gassed the Kurds articles;

"Britain Reserves The Right To Bomb N*gg*rs

Winston Churchill was also fully aware of the need for Britain to control the "uncivilised tribes" that threatened British control over major economic sources, shipping, minerals and so on. "Recalcitrant Arabs" he called them. Churchill who had become Colonial Secretary after the First World War decided that an impoverished Britain could fight by different, cheaper means. So he gassed the Kurds. He despised the "squeamishness" of those who "objected to poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes."
http://lemming.mahost.org/library/bomb.htm

"There are also people living in Iraq who are still old enough to remember how Britain gassed hundreds of Kurds in Iraq in the 1920s"
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:tsJBVLjhtlgJ:www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp%3Fkey%3D1861%26mid%3D%26grp%3D27%26cat%3D324+Britain+gassed+the+Kurds+Iraq&hl=en

And I bet you're also unaware of these reports:

Both Iraq AND Iran were using chemical weapons, and it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, according to several US government and US Military reports, all of which are still on US gov websites. Some people believe these reports were just lies used by the US government to blame Iran and cover up for Iraq. However, it's hypocritical at the very least to use the "he gassed his own people" rhetoric as an excuse 20 years later to invade & occupy a nation, when all these reports are still currently available and no government reports exist contradicting them.

The US State Department found both sides were using chemical weapons.

"There are indications that Iran may also have used chemical artillery shells in this fighting," spokesman Charles Redman told the press a week after the attack. "We call on Iran and Iraq to desist immediately from the use of any chemical weapons."

On May 3, 1990, referring to yet another study, "A Defense Department reconstruction of the final stages of the Iran-Iraq war has assembled what analysts say is conclusive intelligence that one of the worst civilian massacres of the war, in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Halabja, was caused by "repeated chemical bombardments from both belligerent armies." "
Washington Post (May 3, 1990)
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0218,trilling,34389,1.html

The US government itself later confirmed the fact that both sides had used gas and that, in all likelihood, Iranian gas killed the Kurds.

A Pentagon report, ‘Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East’ published in 1990 states (Chapter 5): “In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.”
-United Nations: No Proof Saddam Gassed the Kurds
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html

The Pentagon's USAWC and US Marine Corps report concluded Iran gassed the Kurds at Halbjah, not Iraq.

Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War
by Dr. Stephen Pelletiere and Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Johnson
U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute

"The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other
observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."

US Marine Corps document FMFRP 3

"Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war—the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents—and the Iranians do—we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack."
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/

The DIA's report concluded Iran had gassed the Kurds & Iranians of Halabjah;

Immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas -which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

http://truthout.org/docs_02/020303C.htm

The CIA's report mentions "hundreds" killed, not "5000" and against the Iranians primarily w Kurds caught in the cross-fire. This report is still on the US government CIA website.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

Some people claim all the above US government reports blaming Iran for gassing the Kurds are all just cover-ups by the republicans to protect Iraq from blame. Yet bush & his Gang used "gassing the Kurds" from 20+ years ago as their excuse to invade and occupy Iraq, killing 100,000+ Iraqis.

Just a wee bit frigging hypocritical either way, wouldn't you say?

[Poppyseedman]

56. Not "Just a wee bit frigging hypocritical "

The context the thread was about the current situation in Iraq.

Though I was unaware that the British had used gas this way in the earlier wars. Thanks for the informative links

Without an historical reference point in your post, using the same logic, I could claim the Italians (Romans) slaughtered the Germans without reason for "Pax Romana"

[LynnTheDem]

58. More like "biggest frigging hypocrites on the planet"?

What's the diff timewise? 25 years ago? 50 years ago? 500 years ago? Next bush will want to invade & occupy Canada for burning down the Capitol House. :eyes:

[MissWaverly]

4. I thought we should wait for the UN

I didn't understand why things were being rushed so, and I remember the presentations that were made at the UN reminded me of my high
school teacher that used the dumb row technique. They were just too harsh, here we where rushing into war and instead of trying to forge alliances, we were daring people to try and disagree with us, like the only opinion they should have was to nod their head and anything else was unacceptable, I thought at the time that it was a very odd way to go to war.

[benddem]

5. If Saddam had WMD

as they stated we would have needed a massive backup of troops. We didn't. If a unit had been wiped out by some "mushroom cloud" or horrible disease...who had their back? Rumsfeld did this on the cheap cause he knew nothing would happen. Unfortunately the "catastrophic success" and the failure of the Iraqis to throw flowers and candy really screwed the whole thing.

[tridim]

6. I thought we would find a few well hidden banned weapons

That America sold them in the 80's, and the inspectors overlooked. Of course nothing worth ending hundreds of thousands of American and Iraqi lives over. I NEVER thought there would be absolutely nothing. Shame on me.

[ktowntennesseedem]

7. I said I thought their might be; that's why we had inspectors.

The longer they went without finding anything, the more doubtful I became, but at least we should have let them do their job. Sending in the troops with guns blazing never had a chance to find anything the inspectors couldn't find, but then of course those of us with an ounce of intellegence know that WMD's weren't the reason we charged in.

[K-W]

8. From Saddam's standpoint, it wouldnt have made sense.

I think anyone who put themselves in his shoes immediately saw what was going on, probably why he was villianized so much, hard to put yourselves in the shoes of the next Hitler!

Saddam knew full well the US had it in for him, starting a WMD program would almost assuradly give the US reason to come and get him. This isnt Iran, Iraq was in a sense, on probation.

Saddam had every reason to give the impression he might have them but no real motivation to actually get them. That is why the republicans had to fabricate a motive, that of giving wmd's to terrorists.

[A Brand New World]

10. I didn't, and still don't, believe anything from Bush and his

cronies. But the main reason I didn't think there were WMD's was because of listening to Scott Ritter. I had never heard of him before but he certainly seemed to know what he was talking about. And low & behold, he was 100% accurate. And then once the war started and no WMD's were used on the way into Baghdad, I knew the sham was complete.

[Robbien]

12. Because the media was forcing the idea down our throats

I always figure a games a'foot when the media plays that tune.

[Eloriel]

14. A combination but MOSTLY -- 95+% -- the evidence

it was all over DU. I can only remember 2 or 3 DUers who thought there might be WMDs.

[xray s]

15. because I read "War On Iraq"

spot on

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893956385/102-2970442-1449744?v=glance

[proud patriot]

19. I second that, I read "war on Iraq" and believed Scott Ritter

:hi:

[Fire Walk With Me]

16. Nearly "none of the above"

His hard-on to get back in and the endless blather accompanying it, the drum-beating, the focus... That and articles regarding a general who would "oversee" Iraq's plentiful oil reserves did it for me. That and Bush War 1, and the inability of the world's intelligence agencies/technology to find any WMD. And Daddy Bush's CIA ties, and their long-term weapons sales to both Iran and Iraq so they'd trash each other, softening up the region for takeover.

But mostly number 1 :-)

[Straight Shooter]

17. Because bush's lips were moving.

Also, the overwhelming forces of PNAC desiring the invasion.

It was as if, once bush hollered "WMD!", the mountain of lies began to tremble and began an avalanche, which suffocated and pushed everything else aside as it grew in power and size until nothing could stop it.

[demgurl]

18. For me it was the reaction of the world.

All the major countries have intelligence agencies and I could not fathom them having intel that we were at risk and they would not back us up. When the rest of the world retreated it was a great tell tale sign for me.

It is like I tell my husband almost every night, it is a shame that common sense is just not common any more. I felt that it was common sense just by studying the reactions of the rest of the world.

[DanCa]

21. what clinched it for me

Was that we were mopping the floor with these guys and there was no organized army. What were they waitting for? And than when we nabbed saddam I thought that would be the time, if any they would be used. Guess what nadda zip nothing. My country the land I loved declared war on a unarmed nation. What ever happened to the motto first in peace last in war?

[nonconformist]

22. Combination, but mostly the evidence

I believed Scott Ritter and others that were there and knew what the hell they were talking about. I also knew it was all part of a larger PNAC plan.

Plus, I knew that Bush WANTED the intelligence agencies to make a Saddam-9/11 link immediately after the attacks. When that basically failed and they started fudging it and going on a WMD goose chase, it was clear as day what they were doing.

Well, to me anyway.

[mandyky]

23. I voted the combo

But I half expected Bush and crew to plant WMDs. I thought they might find some chemical or bio stuff, but no nukes. But once I heard Scott Ritter talk, I pretty well figured he oughta know.

[riverwalker]

24. one reason

Scott Ritter. I trusted him implicitly, having followed his work for a long time before the war, on the effect of sanctions. If he said no weapons, then there were no weapons.
Guess what? No weapons.

[B Calm]

26. We wouldn't have invaded them... also after the first few days

of the war it was perfectly clear that they didn't have any. What's the purpose of having WMD's if you are not going to use them against an invading army.

What really cracked me up was the wilfully ignorant fools who believed the filthy Bush administration lies that Saddam moved them. Why in hell would he had moved them? Was he going to save them for a rainy day? Republicans proved to me that they use no common sense, that they are born followers and will believe anything from a politican as long as they're republicans.

[Wizard777]

40. They weren't monitoring the boarders for transfers to allow that Theory

to survive. It wouldn't seem out of place considering that we won't monitor our own boarders. But Saddam tricked them. He used the one option that Bush would not allow for. He didn't have any.

[B Calm]

55. But, why would Saddam moved them. An invading army was

threatening to invade!

[yella_dawg]

27. Other

I was lead software engineer on a major upgrade of the U2 electronics suite during the mid nineties. I am fully aware of the capabilities of the U2 and with the deployment of the U2 over Iraq during the nineties.

Believe me. We knew where all the lost hubcaps in Iraq were. It would have been amazingly simple to catalog the WMD in Iraq right down to the serial numbers on chemical canisters. That the BFEE had pull a fast shuffle to justify their policies shouted out that they knew there were NO WMD in Iraq.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

30. For me it was when Chimpy started saber rattling in the SOTU in 2002.

My common sense told me that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with the events of September 11th. I don't pretend to be an expert on the state of the Middle East, but to equate Saddam with Osama made absolutely no sense to me.

I knew Chimpy was lying to Congress, the American people and the rest of the world in January 2002 about Saddam & Osama. It was no stretch for me to figure out they were lying about WMD's.

Now Kim Il Jung, that's another story. I am convinced that man is a certifiable loon and wouldn't hesitate to use a biological and/or a nuclear weapon

[hollowdweller]

28. Because the inspectors hadn't found anything.

I figued if there was something there, they'd eventually find it. After they were there a while and the Iraqis seemed to be pretty much cooperating that Busy was lying.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

29. Old Irish saying...No, Nay, Never...

Don't know for sure if it was just because I knew he was a liar from the word go, or if it was the IN YOUR FACE EVIDENCE that convinced me. Either way...liar, liar, pants on fire, and we all really knew it was a lie right from the beginning.

[solinvictus]

31. I thought they may have been conceled in the desert..

like the fighters were, stashed under sand.

[Disturbed]

32. A video of WMD lies

by the Bush and the Junta would be good for Dems to place on the Net.

[solinvictus]

37. I agree..

just a running tally of their own quotes vs. the actual results of the search.

[LynnTheDem]

47. Just FYI; those old fighter planes weren't "stashed" under sand.

They were abandoned years ago and buried by various sandstorms. Ever been to Iraq? The sand's a total bitch.

Guardian UK and the UK Telegraph both had excellent articles and photos re the above; only the US State Media claimed Iraq had "buried" those broken-down hunks of metal.

[Historic NY]

33. I felt they were long gone after Gulf I and * & company were spending

way too much time trying to convince everyone that Saddam still had them.

[RobinA]

34. Everything I Read

coming from people who had actually been there seemed to indicate that there wasn't much there and that chemical and biological agents he DID have that we didn't dump in the desert in '91 would have expired by now.

Plus, no one can seem to tell me what one of these mythical "weapons of mass destruction" even are that he was supposed to have, and I find this highly suspicous. No one ever said he had a big old pile of nukes, so what was it he was supposed to have? Smallpox in a test tube? Anthrax in an envelope addressed to the White House? Somebody already tried that, and with all due respect to the unfortunate few who died, I was pretty unimpressed with the efficacy of the much warned about anthrax as a bioweapon. Hell, the Unibomber managed to kill off more people, and he was a lone nut.

So add it all up and I never did understand what the heck he was supposed to have and I didn't think he had it anyway.

[Liberal_Dog]

35. Maybe Some Scraps

I thought they would find remnants of WMDs, but not really anything that would be a real threat to anyone.

[bpilgrim]

36. after almost a decade of inspections and dismantling +

Saddam's recent cooperation and U.N. inspections, right up to the moment we INVADED, and through testimony from numerous experts, including the head of the former inspection team in Iraq, our own Intel - CIA, STATE, etc - and thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNETs, DU (numerous, prolific & intelligent, caring people)!

it's like we had him up against the wall, frisked, found clean, then the order was givin to open fire.

FALLUJAH = our NANKING :cry:

peace

[Wizard777]

38. KBR was in financial trouble and Bush went psychotic

Nothing he was saying about Iraq's WMD's was being confirmed as real. At one point Bush was saying that Saddam was not allowing UN weapons inspectors to enter Iraq. Then I turn on CNN and there is good Ole Hans Blixx in Iraq with saddam saying his cooperation was unprecedented. They had access to sites and personel they didn't before. But Bush had to rely on information from a Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell crippled CIA and Rumsfeld's own intelligence agency creation. They rest of America had CNN. If the Republicans really wanted accurate up to the minute information. They would have nominated CNN's News Director to head the CIA. They were my intelligence source and because of them I was right. Iraq had No WMD's.
This is what many people don't realize about cheney going to CIA Headquarter to conduct Halliburtons business and Bush's total detachment from the facts. Right before Bush went rabbid. A pensylvania court handed down a multibillion dollar asbestos judgement against KBR. KBR was filing for bankruptcy. But the war has been a great way for KBR to earn enough to pay that judgement. No War = no more KBR. That is an ethics violation so huge that Tom Delays worst isn't even a blip on the radar screen. It's more like Tom Distraction. Delay the inevitable seems to be the plan.

[BanzaiBonnie]

39. When Rumsfeld said

We know exactly where they are. I knew then, without a doubt that there were no WMDs. IF they really knew they would have told the inspectors so they could check it out.

[Rex]

41. Because Bush stopped the U.N. from looking for WMDs by bombing Iraq.

Pretty FUCKING obvious.

[Stinky The Clown]

42. Three men: Blix, El Baradei, and Ritter were six times more

believable than one semi literate monkey

[spooked911]

43. I wasn't surprised we didn't find any (for your same reasons)

but I did expect we'd find SOME-- even if they were planted!

[Quixote1818]

44. Wes Clark said we had hit most of the major targets

and he didn't really see Iraq as an eminent threat. I trusted Clark's judgment though I thought their might be some WMD's because the Administration sold it like a champ.

[Lexingtonian]

45. I'd be with "combo"

because the evidence was such a joke- the Niger letter was known to be a fake in January 2003, unambiguous evidence of biological weaponry is easy to get, and those aluminum tubes and "gas trucks" were ridiculous within five minutes of people pretending they had some kind of military function. As for there being nuclear weapons development, some secret service surely would have been able to buy some minimal verification of that from the people employed. Culturally, this is obviously a Middle Eastern country, and people talk and rumormonger pretty persistently in the region on the basis of halfdecent evidence, so the lack of persistent rumors pretty much told me that very few or no Iraqi commoners were convinced of there being such weaponry.

But I sincerely figured the Iraqis, succumbing to normal levels of incompetence, would have a couple of nonfunctional nerve gas shells or bombs rotting in a back room in a depot somewhere that someone was actually in charge of, or had forgotten about and lost off the accounting paperwork during the Iran-Iraq war. And there might be a couple of extra Tupperware things in some hospital refrigerator with a nasty (but probably not weapon-izeable) bacterium or two- cholera and tuberculosis still being illnesses common in the region. I suspect the Bush people figured about the same as I did- that there would be enough messy leftovers from the two former wars to concoct a pretense of WMD discovery.

[ComerPerro]

48. A lot of reasons

Bush's track record of lying his ass off, his previously stated intentions of going to war with Iraq (everyone knew he would), the attempts to link Iraq to 9/11, the fact that I knew Bush needed a war to reign in the population and scare them into submission.

And, one more: Let's say Saddam had these WMD, even half of what Bush was saying he had. What in the world would stop him from using them on our troops once they got into Baghdad, killing thousands of them at once? Not a damned thing would stop him. After all, he is a ruthless killer who gasses his own people, right? So why would he think twice about killing thousands of American soldiers with his WMD?

Granted, its not that I didn't think Bush would be perfectly willing to send thousands of US Soldiers to their deaths in a horrible WMD attack just to prove a point. I know he wouldn't give a shit.

But I didn't think that even Rove and the media whores could help Bush recover from such a genocide.

[LynnTheDem]

49. Every single "WMD" lie spewed by bush & Gang was proved false BEFORE

bush invaded Iraq.

USATODAY.com - Poll: Bush hasn't made case for Iraq war

More than two-thirds of Americans believe the Bush administration has failed to make its case that a war against Iraq is justified
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-iraq-poll_x.htm

Poll: Support For a War With Iraq Weakens Among Americans

Seven in 10 Americans would give U.N. weapons inspectors months more to pursue their arms search in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that found growing doubts about an attack on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
http://middleeastinfo.org/article1795.html

And then there were all those REPUBLICANS who OPPOSED bush's invasion;

Republican rep Ron Paul, October 2002:

Questions that Won't Be Asked About Iraq

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate – which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party’s most respected foreign policy advisors, and national security adviser under President Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush:

Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts. "Our pre-eminent security priority--underscored repeatedly by the president--is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

Norman Schwarzkopf - Four Star General:

"The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq….(And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld)"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52450-2003Jan27?language=printer

Col. David Hackworth (ret), America's most highly decorated soldier:

"Should the president decide to stay the war course, hopefully at least a few of our serving top-uniformed leaders - those who are now covertly leaking that war with Iraq will be an unparalleled disaster - will do what many Vietnam-era generals wish they would have done: stand tall and publicly tell the America people the truth about another bad war that could well lead to another died-in-vain black wall. Or even worse."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29786

James Webb, former Sec. of Navy under Ronald Reagan, Decorated Marine Veteran:

"Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years? …In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets…. Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall."
http://www.sftt.org/article09302002a.html

Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Head of Central Command for U.S.:

"It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot, and are hot to go to war, see it another…We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started."

Hawks in the Bush administration may be making deadly miscalculations on Iraq, says Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's Middle East envoy.

"I'm not sure which planet they live on"
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni

Republican Dissent on Iraq
Full page ad in Wall Street Journal by major GOP contributors:

"Mr. President, …The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our dealings with the world. We gave him our votes and our campaign contributions. That candidate was you. We feel betrayed. We want our money back. We want our country back…. A Billion Bitter enemies will rise out of this war."
- Wall Street Journal, January 13, 2003
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001444.html

Republicans Who Voted Against Iraq Resolution Tell Why
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/11/194543.shtml

TOP REPUBLICANS BREAK WITH BUSH ON IRAQ STRATEGY

Leading Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past administrations have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq, saying the administration has neither adequately prepared for military action nor made the case that it is needed.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/11/194543.shtml

Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency:

"Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends…. I've never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defense and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaeda. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704Y.shtml

Retired General Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command:

"The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704Y.shtml

Col. Mike Turner (ret), Schwarzkopf's personal briefing officer during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm:

“The uniformed Joint Staff in the Pentagon strongly opposed this plan early on...The uniformed Joint Staff was overridden, yet in so many horrifying ways this operation resembles Somalia, not Desert Storm...Perhaps we can pull this off, but here's a far worse scenario that's at least as likely...Photos of American soldiers amid landscapes of Iraqi civilian bodies blanket the world press which aligns unanimously against the US. The US is condemned by NATO and the UN...The war ends within a few weeks, but the crisis deepens...”
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030311.turner.html

US Air Force General, Tony McPeak, a four-star general who headed the U.S. Air Force during Operation Desert Storm:

McPeak served four years on the Joint Chiefs of Staff advising Bush’s father and then President Clinton after flying 269 Vietnam combat missions and participating in the Thunderbirds, the elite aerobatic team.

McPeak believes that President Bush should publicly admit personal failure. He claims Bush has botched the crucial process of coalition-building, has not enlisted the United Nations, and has failed to rebuild Afghanistan as a model of reconstruction.
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=57303%3Ehttp://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=57303%20

Retired Envoys, Commanders Assail Bush Team
Administration Unable to Handle 'Global Leadership,' 27-Member Group Asserts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46538-2004Jun16.html

Growing GOP Dissent On Iraq
Republican Party ranks are beginning to break and the White House is worried. Longtime GOP critics on Iraq are growing progressively more vocal in their condemnation.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/07/politics/main610787.shtml

Republican Rep. Bereuter: War in Iraq not justified

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action. That's especially true in view of the fact that the attack was initiated "without a broad and engaged international coalition," the 1st District congressman said.

"Knowing now what I know about the reliance on the tenuous or insufficiently corroborated intelligence used to conclude that Saddam maintained a substantial WMD (weapons of mass destruction) arsenal, I believe that launching the pre-emptive military action was not justified."

As a result of the war, he said, "our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened."

"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action," he said.

Republican Rep. Doug Bereuter is a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2004/08/18/top_story/10053833.txt

And things still aren't going very well;

Republican senator Chuck Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee;

"No, I don't think we're winning," Hagel told a CBS interviewer. "We're in trouble, we're in deep trouble in Iraq."
http://www.iht.com/articles/539563.htm

Republican senator Richard Lugar, Foreign Relations Committee chairman, was asked on ABC why only $1 billion of the $18 billion appropriated last year for Iraqi reconstruction had been spent.

"Well, this is the incompetence in the administration," he replied.
http://www.iht.com/articles/539563.htm

[bklyncowgirl]

51. I thought there'd be some old weapons lying around..

But noting close to what the administration had been claiming--and certainly nothing that was going to be a threat to anyone except some dissident Iraqis.

The administration claims struck me as totally phony. UN inspectors had been all over the country and hadn't found a thing. Now we know that they were right but at the time I really did believe that Saddam had sometthing but that what he might possibly have did not justify the war.

[two gun sid]

53. I felt the Israelis would have acted against Iraq....

if there had been any possibility of Saddam having WMD. You know, like they did in 1984 when they bombed Iraq's reactor that was to have been the first step toward a nuclear bomb.

[moondust]

54. If there had been real evidence

corp-o-media would have broadcast it 24/7 right from the beginning so as to preempt endless discussion and division. Didn't happen.

[matcom]

57. because I READ

and have a brain. and do NOT believe this government OR its media

[spanone]

59. The UN inspectors looked and DIDN'T FIND THEM

FUCKING DAMMIT.

[NicRic]

60. Big Corps making $ !!!!!

From the very beginning,I felt this war was planned for along time and that 9/11 gave them a blank check to attack Iraq because the American people wanted someone to pay for the attack against our country. Why they would be happy that we are taking our anger out on the wrong country still baffles me. Bush and his gang of thieves ,make lots of $ off of thse wars ,milatary contracts worth billions of $,contracts for rebuilding what we have just blown up etc.etc. I guess no one ever promised us life would be fare ,people like bush get to make millions of a un nessasary war ,while others get to die because of it. There better be an after life ,where these SOB's get what they deserve and the poor inocent civilians caught up in this rich mans war for profit, get to live out eternity in complete happiness. I have not forgotten out young men and women also who are no longer with us because they joined up for service to our country believing that the milatary option ,would always be a last resort, not the first !

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

61. I was about 80 percent sure there were WMDs in Iraq.

I was shocked (and apalled) after finding out they weren't there.

[bpilgrim]

65. because the M$MW also LIED to you

Thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNETs :bounce:

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Shell Beau]

62. Call me naive, but I thought

there was a big possibility that they had the WMD's. Just knowing power hungry Saddam wanted them and had them at one time. Looking back, I feel stupid of course.

[Jackpine Radical]

63. I thought there probly were some WMDs, but figured

they weren't much of a threat to us. The only logical reason Saddam might have for owning them would be to make a hornet's nest out of his country, make it too dangerous to attack him. Therefore it didn't seem especially urgent that we do anything about said WMD. Just leave him alone, like we have many other dictators and all-around bad eggs over the years. The fact that we DID attack suggests to me that we knew there were no WMD there. Otherwise we wouldn't have risked our forces in that way. Also, if Saddam did have WMD, it would have made no sense to hide them out in the desert or smuggle them to Syria or whatever. Instead, he would have tried to use them on us, especially as a last gasp effort.

[jmm]

64. I had no doubt that if there was proof

Bush's supporters would've compromised national (and international) security if necessary to get that proof out to the public so people would support their agenda.

[understandinglife]

66. I knew the folk with fristian values were liars. And, I happen to read...

.....instead of watching Faux, NothingButCrap, CentralizedBullShit, CrapNowNow, AlwaysBestCrap............

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us (The.Day.WE.THE.PEOPLE.BEGIN............)