Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: New WMD evidence may be surfacing...  (Read 2867 times)

MaroonOut2005

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1666
  • Attending: Notre Dame
    • View Profile
    • Email
New WMD evidence may be surfacing...
« on: July 21, 2004, 11:46:44 AM »
I have found a couple of interesting reports related to the issue of WMD in Iraq.

A story on Drudgereport.com indicated that WMD may have been found in Iraq. 

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040721-081009-2541r.htm

To be fair, the Iraq Interior Ministry is downplaying the story.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5731553

In addition, here is another interesting story on Foxnews.com which states that a report containing new details about WMD operations in Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126404,00.html

I'm not arguing for the validity of these reports.  There is a chance none of them are true.  I'm asking if these reports and similar ones are verified, and if new evidence emerges that there was WMD operations in Iraq, do you think this fact would change voters sentiments at all?

Thanks and Gig 'Em,
Jason

buster

  • Guest
Re: New WMD evidence may be surfacing...
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2004, 01:34:55 PM »
I have found a couple of interesting reports related to the issue of WMD in Iraq.

A story on Drudgereport.com indicated that WMD may have been found in Iraq. 

To be fair, the Iraq Interior Ministry is downplaying the story.

In the first story a US military spokesman flat-out denied it.

I'm not arguing for the validity of these reports.  There is a chance none of them are true.  I'm asking if these reports and similar ones are verified, and if new evidence emerges that there was WMD operations in Iraq, do you think this fact would change voters sentiments at all?

I think the potential electoral impact depends greatly on the content of the potential news itself. I don't think the public is interested in any more theories that don't go anywhere or initial findings that turn out to be nothing, and I don't think the public particularly cares (at this point, and yes, I know I'm generalizing) about any intention Saddam Hussein may have had to one day resume production of WMDs. Now if actual stockpiles of WMDs are found, on the other hand...

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: New WMD evidence may be surfacing...
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2004, 01:46:02 PM »
I keep Google news up.  They do a pretty good job of surveying the news sites on the web.  Nothing there yet.

One of the guys in the office say they may have found three nuke-tipped rockets.  If this is true, how would it change your opinion on Bush War II?

buster

  • Guest
Re: New WMD evidence may be surfacing...
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2004, 01:49:26 PM »
That's the report the US military denies. In response to your question, it wouldn't change my personal opinion on the war at all (opposed before the invasion, opposed now).

I keep Google news up.  They do a pretty good job of surveying the news sites on the web.  Nothing there yet.

One of the guys in the office say they may have found three nuke-tipped rockets.  If this is true, how would it change your opinion on Bush War II?

L1

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1130
    • View Profile
Re: New WMD evidence may be surfacing...
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2004, 04:03:36 PM »
That's the report the US military denies. In response to your question, it wouldn't change my personal opinion on the war at all (opposed before the invasion, opposed now).

I keep Google news up.  They do a pretty good job of surveying the news sites on the web.  Nothing there yet.

One of the guys in the office say they may have found three nuke-tipped rockets.  If this is true, how would it change your opinion on Bush War II?

I agree. Even if Saddam did have warheads, the fact still remains that he was not an imminent threat to the US. Also, I see little reason for the US military to deny it, since it would save them a lot of face.

The ZAPINATOR

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6380
    • MSN Messenger - N/A
    • AOL Instant Messenger - N/A
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - N/A
    • View Profile
    • N/A
edit
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2004, 04:19:36 PM »
edit

L1

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1130
    • View Profile
Re: New WMD evidence may be surfacing...
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2004, 04:28:43 PM »
"The fear was always that those weapons would fall into the hands of Al Qaeda."

Sure there's always that fear that one's enemies might collaborate together. I doubt Saddam and Bin Laden would've worked together.

Anyway, terrorists often receive their weapons from their enemies. Case in point, look at Israel. They pay their soldiers so little in these isolated border posts that many of the Israeli soldiers will sell weapons to terrorists. Many terrorists can probably just get weapons from Russians. Once Hezbollah has them, they can sell them to other terrorist networks. 

Anyways, the terrorists can probably just acquire materials to build the weapons themselves. And none of this foolishness about chemical and biological weapons from Iraq. That's not Al Qaeda's m.o. They go for explosives and the gov't knew that.

buster

  • Guest
Re: New WMD evidence may be surfacing...
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2004, 04:45:49 PM »
For the following reasons, I think you can blame him.

1. He bears ultimate responsibility. That's just how it is. There were plenty of people "in the know" saying that the evidence just wasn't reliable at the time. At the very least, one would expect the president to exercise the utmost caution and restraint in developing the decision to go to war.
2. There were many reports during the lead-up to the war suggesting that the CIA was under pressure to come up with exactly the faulty intelligence that they came up with. Note that the topic of the use of intelligence by the administration was deliberately left for another report not to be released until after the election.
3. There were many reports during the lead-up to the war suggesting that the Pentagon Office of Special Plans was pushing shaky intelligence because the neo-cons in the administration were not satisfied with that provided by other agencies. Note that the Senate report did not mention the OSP.
4. The administration started flogging the WMD horse before much of the faulty intelligence discussed in the Senate report was produced by the CIA.
5. You mentioned 9/11; I understand your point, but even if the intelligence wasn't faulty, Al Qaeda and Afghanistan should still have been the priority.

I'm not saying that I think the CIA is blameless, and I'm not saying that I think everything is specifically Bush's fault. But it is his responsibility, and I don't think the Senate report told the whole story.


So I'd have to say it will change my opinion about the war if they're actually found... or at least, change my opinion about the CIA leading up to the war, I don't think you can blame Bush for acting on faulty intelligence in the wake of the huge wake-up-call we collectively got on 9/11.

jas9999

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Actual Law Student
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New WMD evidence may be surfacing...
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2004, 04:52:57 PM »
while I check Drudge daily, he sometimes posts unconfirmed reports that end up being incorrect.

sometimes? sometimes? he's almost never right on his 'scoops' because he has no qualms about printing unsourced, unconfirmed rumors.

or at least, change my opinion about the CIA leading up to the war, I don't think you can blame Bush for acting on faulty intelligence in the wake of the huge wake-up-call we collectively got on 9/11.

but that ignores the way the administration pressured the cia to give them the evidence they wanted. it's widely reported that cheney, the sitting veep, used to go to cia headquarters to talk to analysts about iraq. according to intelligence sources i know and have read, that's completely unprecedented in american history. the executive branch shouldn't be anywhere near the cia analysts, because it taints the objectivity of the intelligence branches. maybe that wasn't a hot-button issue in the public before, but we can all see the problem with it now...

frankly, i think the cia gets a bum rap for a lot of things. the president tells the operations branch (which is separate from the analysts) to go do some foreign mission that's next to impossible, and when they inevitably fail, the president covers his political hide by hanging the cia out to dry. this is a big reason why our intelligence agencies suck today. and this, to be fair, is not gwb's fault. it went on long before he took office. i think it was richard clarke's book that went into detail about this, as well as robert baer's 'see no evil' about his 20+ years on the ground in the middle east for the cia.

The ZAPINATOR

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6380
    • MSN Messenger - N/A
    • AOL Instant Messenger - N/A
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - N/A
    • View Profile
    • N/A
edit
« Reply #9 on: July 22, 2004, 05:10:42 PM »
edit