Iraq Diplomat told US there was no WMD BEFORE War

[mikey]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/

Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details
Saddam's foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn't agency listen?


.

[mgcolby]

Originally Posted by mikey

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/

Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details
Saddam's foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn't agency listen?


.

Hmm.. I'll take a stab at this one. It couldn't be the fact that the Saddam regime had lied to the world for over a decade and did everything he could do to hide his WMD's from the weapons inspectors in the 90's! Just a shot in the dark on that one.

[DarrylS]

Originally Posted by mgcolby

Hmm.. I'll take a stab at this one. It couldn't be the fact that the Saddam regime had lied to the world for over a decade and did everything he could do to hide his WMD's from the weapons inspectors in the 90's! Just a shot in the dark on that one.

I do not know what the GEORGE BUSH apologists need before they realize that this whole thing is a sham and based on false information. Do not come back with the whole thing about how this country is better off and how bad Hussein was. We continue in Iraq and essentially have blinders on while there are worse regimes in the world. Maybe if Darfur had oil we would be involved there also.

[mgcolby]

Originally Posted by GJAJ15

I do not know what the GEORGE BUSH apologists need before they realize that this whole thing is a sham and based on false information. Do not come back with the whole thing about how this country is better off and how bad Hussein was. We continue in Iraq and essentially have blinders on while there are worse regimes in the world. Maybe if Darfur had oil we would be involved there also.

WTF are you talking about? Not one nation on the security council, let me repeat that not one nation on the security council believed he destroyed all of his WMD's. His regime lied for over a decade and all of a sudden people are supposed to take a report that he destroyed them all serious? What I said had nothing to do with Bush or his percieved vendetta, it was based on those facts alone!

[Patters]

Originally Posted by mgcolby

WTF are you talking about? Not one nation on the security council, let me repeat that not one nation on the security council believed he destroyed all of his WMD's. His regime lied for over a decade and all of a sudden people are supposed to take a report that he destroyed them all serious? What I said had nothing to do with Bush or his percieved vendetta, it was based on those facts alone!

mgcolby, America still had credibility back then (thanks to Clinton) and the world assumed that if America said there were WMDs, then there were WMDs. No one knew then that Bush had change our highly competent government into one that used lies and misinformation to further its goals.

[mgcolby]

Originally Posted by Patters

mgcolby, America still had credibility back then (thanks to Clinton) and the world assumed that if America said there were WMDs, then there were WMDs. No one knew then that Bush had change our highly competent government into one that used lies and misinformation to further its goals.

France, Germany, Russia, China, Canada and a host of others all believed the same thing. It had nothing to do with our credibility, it had everything to do with the intelligence gathered by all of those nations in most cases independent of each other. Kerry and Gore wouldn't have believed that report or Lieberman! Clinton wouldn't have believed it, as he is on record saying he is positive that Iraq had WMD's. But for some reason the libs choose to ignore such things.
The left likes to bring up N. Korea a lot as well and their nuke capabilities, but they never talk about how they were able to develop such capabilities. Could it be because Clinton handed it to them? Our country gave nuclear fuel rods to N. Korea trusting that they would only use them for Nuclear power plants, but a little over 10 years later they still have massive blackouts, a good percentage of the country doesn't have power at all and miraculously they claim to have Nuclear missile capabilities, but we won't talk about that!

[Harry Boy]

Hate, Get Bush--Hate, Get Bush--Hate, Get Bush--Get Bush--Get Bush

[Pujo]

It's not so much that I disagree with there being no WMD's in Iraq (I don't think there were any), but I have to take you up on your leap of logic. Wouldn't an Iraqi diplomat, working for Saddam, possibly lie if they DID have WMD's? I don't know that an Iraqi official is a credible source.

[ELOrocks17]

Originally Posted by mikey

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/

Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details
Saddam's foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn't agency listen?


.

AS I recall, Japanese diplomats told us the Japan would not attack us during WWII...WHY DID WE LISTEN TO THEM??

[Patters]

Originally Posted by mgcolby

France, Germany, Russia, China, Canada and a host of others all believed the same thing. It had nothing to do with our credibility, it had everything to do with the intelligence gathered by all of those nations in most cases independent of each other. Kerry and Gore wouldn't have believed that report or Lieberman! Clinton wouldn't have believed it, as he is on record saying he is positive that Iraq had WMD's. But for some reason the libs choose to ignore such things.

Well, Clinton obviously felt containment was good enough, so to the extent he believed that Iraq had WMDs, he did not believe they posed an immediate threat. Bush was very aggressive (good for him) with weapons inspections and those led more and more people to suspect there were no WMDs. The politicians as usual cow-towed to the office of the president and didn't raise much of a fuss even as Bush's hand-picked weapons inspector announced there was no evidence of WMDs.

Originally Posted by mgcolby

The left likes to bring up N. Korea a lot as well and their nuke capabilities, but they never talk about how they were able to develop such capabilities. Could it be because Clinton handed it to them? Our country gave nuclear fuel rods to N. Korea trusting that they would only use them for Nuclear power plants, but a little over 10 years later they still have massive blackouts, a good percentage of the country doesn't have power at all and miraculously they claim to have Nuclear missile capabilities, but we won't talk about that!

I'll talk about North Korea. Clinton had a strategy that pressed for dialog. Bush has a strategy that relies mostly on intimidation. Bush's biggest failure around the world is in deviating from proven strategies. Let's remember that even that conservative icon Ronald Reagan held fast to Carter doctrine when it came to Middle East politics. Had Bush continued Clinton's strategy with North Korea, we might be in a little better shape. As is, I don't think Bush has any strategy with that dangerous regime. Sometimes he threatens, sometimes he talks, sometimes he works with other countries -- but by and large his approach is about as incoherent as his command of English.