Help needed....who said, before the Iraq war, there were no WMD?

[Hamlette]

I was so certain there were no WMD and it seems to me there were others besides Ritter. Seems I even had a DVD, although I've apparently loaned it out.

Were there others?

(Prompted by the current round in the fight between Krugman and Sullivan. If you don't remember, Sullivan has lambasted Krugman mercilessly over the years, Krugman said in his column today that he's glad Sullivan and Bartlett have come around but it would be nice if they would recognize that when he, Krugman, was saying these things about Bush YEARS ago, they called him unpatriotic etc. I appreciate that Sully has come over to our side of late, I wish he could be more gracious about it. Krugman is right. Here's Sully's challenge:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish /

Thanks for all your emails. I'm aware of one person who clearly stated before the war that he believed that Saddam had no WMDs. That was Scott Ritter. This is not the same as saying that we didn't know for sure, or should have waited some more; or that containment could have worked for a few months or years longer. I mean: an anti-war commentator, writer or speaker who clearly said that Saddam had no WMDs before we invaded and that therefore the war was illegitimate. I remember being told by many who were against getting rid of Saddam that we shouldn't invade precisely because he had WMDs and our invasion would be the only occasion in which he'd use them. But I don't recall anyone saying flat out that there were no WMDs in Iraq. But I may have missed someone. I'll happily post such pre-war statements if you send them to me.)

[WestHoustonDem]

1. Joe Wilson n/t

[Hissyspit]

2. Do an advanced search for LynnTheDem's threads.

over the last year or two. There will be many and she has lots of links (of course!).

[Hamlette]

17. wow! Thanks to you and thanks to LynntheDem

I sent them to sully. Now, I wonder if he'll have the nerve to post them.

And yes, others are right. We all "knew" there were no WMD. But we had no bullhorn.

[bananas]

20. Could you list them here?

[Hamlette]

21. I think most of them are here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Hissyspit]

3. There were MANY who said there were no WMD. Sullivan didn't hear their

voices because he didn't WANT to hear their voices (and because they were being suppressed.)

[BlooInBloo]

16. Can you name 8 pros?

I think that's more along the lines of what the OP was after....

EDIT: I'd like to know too...

[sandnsea]

4. BEFORE the war?

With 100% certainty? Absolutely nobody.

[cantstandbush]

5. Saddam said there were WMDs. n/t

[left is right]

6. Me

I said it to anyone who would listen. But I am guessing that you want to cite someone who is quotable

[Poiuyt]

7. UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said that there was no evidence

[wtmusic]

8. No one knew

How could anyone except Ritter and Saddam know? Absurd Challenge of the Day.

[jane_pippin]

9. I think Michael Moore did, but

I don't know with absolute certainty that it was before the war. If it wasn't before it was very close to the beginning of it.

Edit: I don't know if that's the kind of example you were looking for or if you were thinking of more "wonky" sources, but there it is anyway.

[Jim Lane]

10. Dennis Kucinich said so

From his statement explaining his vote against the Iraq War Resolution, October 3, 2002:

"U.N. inspection teams identified and destroyed nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were destroyed in the Gulf War.

. . . .

"The key issue here is that there is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq had successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 1998, and let us assume that somebody has information they have never told Congress, they have never been able to back up, but they have this information and it is secret, and they secretly know Iraq has such weapons, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the capability to reach the United States with such weapons, if they have them, and many of us believe no evidence has been presented that they do."

(emphasis added)

Link: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/10/03_kucinich...

[dweller]

12. oh yeah.....

dp

[sandnsea]

23. He also said

"U.N. inspection teams identified and destroyed nearly all such weapons" nearly all, not all, nearly all. He then references Scott Ritter, but Scott Ritter never said with 100% assurance that there were no WMD in Iraq either.

Kucinich goes on to say, "Congress supported democratic means of removing Saddam Hussein, and I voted for that.." Why would he vote for this if he didn't believe Saddam was dangerous? And why would he vigorously support weapons inspections if he didn't think there was a possibility that Saddam was continuing with his WMD program.

He may not have thought he had seen sufficient evidence, but that does not mean he thought, with 100% assurance, that there were no WMD in Iraq.

[BillZBubb]

11. Typical rightard idiot putting logic on its head.

The onus wasn't on those claiming Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons before an invasion. The onus of proof was on those who said he did have them.

Almost every intelligent person, and that leaves out all the right wingers, knew Saddam didn't have any nuclear weapons and that he wasn't even close to having them. The UN said so, as did many others.

Most anti-war people said that whatever meager WMDs Saddam MIGHT HAVE posed no threat to the US in the immediate or even longer term. Of course people knew he might still have some small stockpile hidden away.

So, this pathetic rightard is trying to twist the situation. You shouldn't invade a country without PROOF of your claims. Rightards like him didn't need any proof and anyone who asked for it was a "traitor".

[Nitrogenica]

13. I believe Condaleeza said Saddam was "contained"

The summer of 2001....It may have been on meet the press.

[Nitrogenica]

14. LINK

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

[zalinda]

15. Didn't Colin Powell say that before the UN council

or some place like that. I seem to remember seeing him at a desk testifying before a group of people. If may have been before 9/11, and I saw it on the 9/11 timeline site.

zalinda

[sampsonblk]

18. Good Dm Luck!

I won a few bucks betting that Saddam had nothing. And I am sure there were a LOT of real pros and politicians who were just as sure as I was. But very few, if any, of them were willing to say it out loud. Looking back, I don't think I would have taken the risk if I were an office-holder either. That urge to remain employed was and is very strong.

Even so, in my view there was a mountain of evidence that Saddam did NOT have WMDs and precious little outside the Bush admin and history to suggest that he did still have them. IMO, of course.

[bananas]

19. Sullivan is playing a rhetorical game - look at how he dismisses Ritter

First, Sullivan is playing a game which conservatives do - he dismisses Ritter because Ritter "believed" there were no WMD, but "didn't know for sure" (exact Sullivan quote below). Well he can say nobody "knew for sure", so his whole argument is a rhetorical game.

But look back at what people did say:

Colin Powell said Iraq had no WMD a couple of years earlier, before the intelligence was "fixed".

The Pope said it was illegal and immoral whether or not there were WMD, because preventive wars were both immoral and violated international law. The war was illegitimate whether or not there WMD, Sullivan's entire justification for the war is invalid.

Bush Sr. said in his autobiography that invading would result in the chaos we see today - he was talking about Gulf War I, but it still applied in 2003. Again, Sullivan's entire reasoning process is invalid.

Here's Sullivan's challenge, and how he dismisses Ritter:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/03/wmds_and_the_p...

Friday, March 10, 2006
WMDs and the Pre-War

10 Mar 2006 08:59 pm

Thanks for all your emails. I'm aware of one person who clearly stated before the war that he believed that Saddam had no WMDs. That was Scott Ritter. This is not the same as saying that we didn't know for sure, or should have waited some more; or that containment could have worked for a few months or years longer. I mean: an anti-war commentator, writer or speaker who clearly said that Saddam had no WMDs before we invaded and that therefore the war was illegitimate. I remember being told by many who were against getting rid of Saddam that we shouldn't invade precisely because he had WMDs and our invasion would be the only occasion in which he'd use them. But I don't recall anyone saying flat out that there were no WMDs in Iraq. But I may have missed someone. I'll happily post such pre-war statements if you send them to me.

[Hissyspit]

22. He also dismisses the fact that intelligent people had PLENTY of

information to FIGURE OUT that there were probably not WMD. That is part of his game, as well.

Anyway, I said there were no WMD before the war and so did my brother. I said it publically, but not on the record (to my college classes). The truth was there for those who wanted to find it.

[Yollam]

24. Ritter, The CIA, Hans Blix...

They all said that that there was little or no compelling evidence that there would be any significant stockpiles of WMD's. But the media decided to mostly ignore all that, and simply repeated Bushco's wild speculations and the DIA's cherry-picked, outdated, exaggerated and falsified intel instead.

Bush was to have his war, and the corporate media did everything in its power to facilitate that.