WMDs and lies

[avatar4321]

If Bush and Cheney lied about WMDs in Iraq, why didn't the plant some in Iraq in all the chaos and have them discovered? They would have had to known that once the war was one their "lies" would be discovered without evidence if they were lying. So why was there no attempt to plant evidence?

Could it possibly be that the administration actually believed Saddam had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass destruction and concluded that it was better to do something to eliminate a potential threat then wait around for them to attack?

[Gaffer]

Yeah but why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

[Hobbit]

It's what I don't get about the conspiracy theorists.

First, let's bypass the fact that every one of these theorists thinks Bush is an idiot, and assume Cheney pulls all the strings. So, they were not only willing to kill thousands of people, wreck the economy, and even attack a government building, but they were able to silence the thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of people who were involved in this conspiracy. After that, they managed to trick every intelligence agency in the world into thinking that Saddam had WMDs, involving not only thousands more people, but somehow providing incentives to get those people to lie to their own government in order to favor another country's government. However, this beautifully executed, brilliantly planned, and nearly flawless conspiracy failed, somehow, to bump off the guys who made "Loose Change" and somehow couldn't sneak a few of our many WMDs into Iraq and hide them somewhere to make themselves more believable?

It's like those people who say Jesus was a good person, but he wasn't the Messiah. He said he was the Son of God, so he was either lieing, crazy, or he really was the Son of God.

[diuretic]

If Bush and Cheney lied about WMDs in Iraq, why didn't the plant some in Iraq in all the chaos and have them discovered?

Because a simple forensic examination of the area would have revealed the planting of them.

They would have had to known that once the war was one their "lies" would be discovered without evidence if they were lying. So why was there no attempt to plant evidence?

They thought they didn't need to plant evidence. They thought they would get away with it. Let me give you an analogy. A criminal doesn't put a great deal of effort into hiding his tracks if he thinks he won't be held accountable for his crime.

Could it possibly be that the administration actually believed Saddam had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass destruction and concluded that it was better to do something to eliminate a potential threat then wait around for them to attack?

It could be, except that it's now been proven that - regardless of the source of the mis-information - they didn't want to look a gift horse in the mouth even if they knew they were buying from a horse thief.

[avatar4321]

Because a simple forensic examination of the area would have revealed the planting of them.



They thought they didn't need to plant evidence. They thought they would get away with it. Let me give you an analogy. A criminal doesn't put a great deal of effort into hiding his tracks if he thinks he won't be held accountable for his crime.



It could be, except that it's now been proven that - regardless of the source of the mis-information - they didn't want to look a gift horse in the mouth even if they knew they were buying from a horse thief.

how difficult would it be to manipulate forensic results?

you are right about one thing, they didnt think they needed to plant evidence. But only because they actually believed Saddam had them... Heck Saddam believed it as well.

[diuretic]

how difficult would it be to manipulate forensic results?

Depends on what you're trying to do.

you are right about one thing, they didnt think they needed to plant evidence. But only because they actually believed Saddam had them... Heck Saddam believed it as well.

If I could find a "shrug" smilie I'd us it. For now let me say it's a moot point. The fact is that WMD were not there.

It’s doubtful if they believed Saddam had WMD. If they did then why didn’t they allow the UN programme to deal with it? I need an answer to that to pursue that line of thought.

In the meantime, here’s my hypothesis:

Bush and Cheney had made their collective mind up to invade Iraq. They knew that Iraq had the second largest oil reserves in the world (now we think they have the largest, new discoveries have been made ). Perhaps Saddam was going to cut off trading in oil with the west and focus on Russia, China and India. Perhaps – and I’m certainly no expert in this – he had decided to trade in a currency other than greenbacks in his dealings with Russia, China and India. Perhaps Bush and Cheney knew this and could see the immense economic damage such a move would do to the US and western interests. Perhaps that was sufficient motivation to decide the invasion had to take place.

Now, having made the decision it had to be sold. The message that the military had to go into Iraq to get the oil would not be popular. Even though the military is used for economic reasons all the time it’s never actually publicly acknowledged. No country – unless it’s composed totally of wingnuts, wants to send its military to war without just cause. In a country like America which is probably the most religious in the western world and Christian, the words of St. Augustine on a just war are almost part of the culture. St Augustine wouldn’t have approved. But telling prospective allies and the populus that the invasion was necessary to find WMD which were a threat to what passes for peace in that part of the world met St Augustine’s requirements and would have pacified the American people’s concerns. No country should make war lightly. Telling everyone that WMD existed was a winner.

There was now a need for someone to come along to point the finger at Saddam and allege he had WMD. Fortunately for the Bush Administration there was someone in the wings. Chalabi. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5040846/site/newsweek/

Now when the police deal with an informant they need to do several things but the most important is to test what he is telling them. The recent shooting to death of that grandmother in Atlanta by Atlanta PD narcotics officers shows you what happens when an informant is not properly grilled. You have to take an extremely sceptical approach to what you’re being told, test and test until you’re absolutely sure that you are convinced you are not being sold a pup. With Chalabi I suggest, there was no such test. This wily man had worked out how to ingratiate himself with the Bush Administration. He told them exactly what they wanted to hear and they grabbed at it. They didn’t test the informant.

So, now we know – thanks to people like Colin Powell – that the whole WMD story was a fabrication. From that I can only conclude this:

1. The Bush Administration wanted to believe Chalabi so badly, they saw their invasion justification right there, that they failed in their duty of due diligence.

or

2. They knew Chalabi was lying but they were confident that that would never be discovered because, well, who would ask? They had a compliant Congress and cowardly and complicit mainstream media. What were the risks? None apparently.

So, no need to plant evidence. When they realised that there was indeed a need to plant evidence, to provide false evidence to cover their arses, it was, alas for them, too late.

The criminal can’t revisit the crime scene when the cops are all over it.

[Gaffer]

Depends on what you're trying to do.





If I could find a "shrug" smilie I'd us it. For now let me say it's a moot point. The fact is that WMD were not there.

It’s doubtful if they believed Saddam had WMD. If they did then why didn’t they allow the UN programme to deal with it? I need an answer to that to pursue that line of thought.

In the meantime, here’s my hypothesis:

Bush and Cheney had made their collective mind up to invade Iraq. They knew that Iraq had the second largest oil reserves in the world (now we think they have the largest, new discoveries have been made ). Perhaps Saddam was going to cut off trading in oil with the west and focus on Russia, China and India. Perhaps – and I’m certainly no expert in this – he had decided to trade in a currency other than greenbacks in his dealings with Russia, China and India. Perhaps Bush and Cheney knew this and could see the immense economic damage such a move would do to the US and western interests. Perhaps that was sufficient motivation to decide the invasion had to take place.

Now, having made the decision it had to be sold. The message that the military had to go into Iraq to get the oil would not be popular. Even though the military is used for economic reasons all the time it’s never actually publicly acknowledged. No country – unless it’s composed totally of wingnuts, wants to send its military to war without just cause. In a country like America which is probably the most religious in the western world and Christian, the words of St. Augustine on a just war are almost part of the culture. St Augustine wouldn’t have approved. But telling prospective allies and the populus that the invasion was necessary to find WMD which were a threat to what passes for peace in that part of the world met St Augustine’s requirements and would have pacified the American people’s concerns. No country should make war lightly. Telling everyone that WMD existed was a winner.

There was now a need for someone to come along to point the finger at Saddam and allege he had WMD. Fortunately for the Bush Administration there was someone in the wings. Chalabi. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5040846/site/newsweek/

Now when the police deal with an informant they need to do several things but the most important is to test what he is telling them. The recent shooting to death of that grandmother in Atlanta by Atlanta PD narcotics officers shows you what happens when an informant is not properly grilled. You have to take an extremely sceptical approach to what you’re being told, test and test until you’re absolutely sure that you are convinced you are not being sold a pup. With Chalabi I suggest, there was no such test. This wily man had worked out how to ingratiate himself with the Bush Administration. He told them exactly what they wanted to hear and they grabbed at it. They didn’t test the informant.

So, now we know – thanks to people like Colin Powell – that the whole WMD story was a fabrication. From that I can only conclude this:

1. The Bush Administration wanted to believe Chalabi so badly, they saw their invasion justification right there, that they failed in their duty of due diligence.

or

2. They knew Chalabi was lying but they were confident that that would never be discovered because, well, who would ask? They had a compliant Congress and cowardly and complicit mainstream media. What were the risks? None apparently.

So, no need to plant evidence. When they realised that there was indeed a need to plant evidence, to provide false evidence to cover their arses, it was, alas for them, too late.

The criminal can’t revisit the crime scene when the cops are all over it.

Your definately out there. I thought you had more on the ball than that.

Iraq is selling its oil through contracts. The chinese and Japan and some european countries are getting the contracts. The US isn't getting any of the oil or the money. So how was the war for oil?

we were barely in iraq a month when the dems began their screeching that there were no WMD's. Bush could have had them placed there at any time, just to cover his ass. But to do that would be a lie. He may be wrong at times but he's not a liar.

[diuretic]

Your definately out there. I thought you had more on the ball than that.

Gratutious insult observed. Gratuitious insult passes. Effect. Nil.

Iraq is selling its oil through contracts. The chinese and Japan and some european countries are getting the contracts. The US isn't getting any of the oil or the money. So how was the war for oil?

The US, the Chinese, Japan, Europeans countries aren't getting the oil. Companies are negotiating oil contracts but of course with the help of their government representatives. Our government in Australia is particularly keen to see one of our companies get its chop - http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...nfidential.pdf - since we lost our wheat contract in Iraq, US farmers have benefited from the invasion and occupation, our government is in there trying to get BHP-Billiton a foothold in the frantic carpetbagging that's going on.

But no matter. Back to my hypothesis. The fact that the Iraqis are now trading with international oil companies, including those apparently in China and India simply isn't relevant to my hypothesis. It doesn't disprove it. It simply illustrates that the Iraqi government is negotiating contracts for the sale of its oil.

we were barely in iraq a month when the dems began their screeching that there were no WMD's. Bush could have had them placed there at any time, just to cover his ass. But to do that would be a lie. He may be wrong at times but he's not a liar.

I'm careful about who I call a liar, I like to make sure I have the evidence before I lean over the table, look them in the eye and say, "you're lying", because I then follow it up with how I know they're lying, just to watch their faces. I won't call Bush or Cheney a liar here. I don't have the evidence.

I remember though, the first moves of US forces in Iraq involved securing the Oil Ministry. If Bush and Cheney knew that WMD were in Iraq then why didn't they assign - through orders to the military - troops to immediately locate and secure the WMD? The briefings Powell gave were highly detailed. WMD were here, here, here, here and there and so on. But were troops assigned to locate and deal with them? Perhaps, but the Oil Ministry was numero uno on the mission objectives list.

Now, given the detailed presentation of the locations of WMD in Iraq, it shouldn't have take a month to find them anyway. Conclusion - they weren't there. They didn't exist.

[gabosaurus]

WMDs were never found. Because they were never there. It was one of many lies Bush used to sway popular and political opinion toward an invasion of Iraq.

WMD arguments are like those of the 2000 Presidential Election -- over and done.

[avatar4321]

WMDs were never found. Because they were never there. It was one of many lies Bush used to sway popular and political opinion toward an invasion of Iraq.

WMD arguments are like those of the 2000 Presidential Election -- over and done.

You seem to be missing the point of the thread.

If Bush was lying about WMDs, he would have known there were none there. If he wanted to he simply could have had them planted. It wouldn't have been that difficult. Heck its alot easier than this 9/11 conspiracy you on the left are claiming he did.

But he didnt plant WMDs. So why?

[diuretic]

You seem to be missing the point of the thread.

If Bush was lying about WMDs, he would have known there were none there. If he wanted to he simply could have had them planted. It wouldn't have been that difficult. Heck its alot easier than this 9/11 conspiracy you on the left are claiming he did.

But he didnt plant WMDs. So why?

There are a couple of possibilities. Complacency is one. But there's a more important one.

If he did then word would have leaked out about it and he would have been impeached. That would have been far too risky. Think of it, think of the massive and widespread effort it would have taken to plant WMD. It's easy for a cop to plant a bag of cocaine on someone, much, much more difficult to organise a plant of WMD.

That's the reason.

[avatar4321]

There are a couple of possibilities. Complacency is one. But there's a more important one.

If he did then word would have leaked out about it and he would have been impeached. That would have been far too risky. Think of it, think of the massive and widespread effort it would have taken to plant WMD. It's easy for a cop to plant a bag of cocaine on someone, much, much more difficult to organise a plant of WMD.

That's the reason.

Please, Democrats were going to claim he planted them regardless of whether he did or not. It would be hard to make them look like lunatics. especially since these are the same people claiming that 911 was a government conspiracy. And that would have been far more complex than this one.

[diuretic]

Please, Democrats were going to claim he planted them regardless of whether he did or not.

And you know that how? Or is that just a hyperbolic claim made for effect but not meant to be taken seriously?

It would be hard to make them look like lunatics. especially since these are the same people claiming that 911 was a government conspiracy. And that would have been far more complex than this one.

Who are the people claiming 9/11 was a government conspiracy?

[Sitarro]

There are a couple of possibilities. Complacency is one. But there's a more important one.

If he did then word would have leaked out about it and he would have been impeached. That would have been far too risky. Think of it, think of the massive and widespread effort it would have taken to plant WMD. It's easy for a cop to plant a bag of cocaine on someone, much, much more difficult to organise a plant of WMD.

That's the reason.

You're somewhat of a simpleton aren't you?

[diuretic]

You're somewhat of a simpleton aren't you?

If you're unable to work out my post just ask for an explanation. Insulting me with childish taunts just makes you look foolish.