???? Inhofe: WMD's in Iraq was "never the issue"

[Chicken Little]

I realize Inhofe has a "gift" when it comes to ignoring facts.  But, this is way too convenient.

quote:Inhofe, speaking to the press before Cheney's arrival, lambasted Democrats for Thursday's Senate vote to begin withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1 and the press for "mischaracterizing" the reasons for U.S. involvement.

"The whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was never the issue, yet they keep trying to bring this up," Inhofe said.

When asked why Gen. Colin Powell, then U.S. secretary of state, told the United Nations in 2003 that such weapons posed an imminent danger, Inhofe replied: "I can't answer that. In fact, I've never been one of the real strong fans of General Powell."

Pressed for an explanation, Inhofe said weapons of mass destruction were "incidental" to the decision to invade Iraq.

"The media made that the issue because they knew Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction. So we knew that they were there. But that was incidental to the fact we were going after terrorist camps."

So, Inhofe believes that WMD's were NOT the reason we went to war in Iraq, that it was "incidental".

Hey, now...wait a minute.  On Meet the Press in 2002 he said this:

quote:"Our intelligence system has said that we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction -- I believe including nuclear. There's not one person on this panel who would tell you unequivocally that he doesn't have the missile means now, or is nearly getting the missile means to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. And I for one am not willing to wait for that to happen."

Yeah, Jim.  That's right.  What a freakin' liar.

[iplaw]

Saying now that WMDs was not a major reason for going into Iraq is just stupid and revisionist.  

But to be fair the 2002 quote you gave us doesn't speak to what weight he was giving the WMD issue in relation to the other reasons we went in.  Do you see what I'm saying?

I agree that it was stupid, but it may not be untrue.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

I realize Inhofe has a "gift" when it comes to ignoring facts.  But, this is way too convenient.

quote:Inhofe, speaking to the press before Cheney's arrival, lambasted Democrats for Thursday's Senate vote to begin withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1 and the press for "mischaracterizing" the reasons for U.S. involvement.

"The whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was never the issue, yet they keep trying to bring this up," Inhofe said.

When asked why Gen. Colin Powell, then U.S. secretary of state, told the United Nations in 2003 that such weapons posed an imminent danger, Inhofe replied: "I can't answer that. In fact, I've never been one of the real strong fans of General Powell."

Pressed for an explanation, Inhofe said weapons of mass destruction were "incidental" to the decision to invade Iraq.

"The media made that the issue because they knew Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction. So we knew that they were there. But that was incidental to the fact we were going after terrorist camps."

So, Inhofe believes that WMD's were NOT the reason we went to war in Iraq, that it was "incidental".

Hey, now...wait a minute.  On Meet the Press in 2002 he said this:

quote:"Our intelligence system has said that we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction -- I believe including nuclear. There's not one person on this panel who would tell you unequivocally that he doesn't have the missile means now, or is nearly getting the missile means to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. And I for one am not willing to wait for that to happen."

Yeah, Jim.  That's right.  What a freakin' liar.

What's your point?  He acknowledged WMD in '02, acknowledged in '07 that that was part of equation, not the sole reason.  Do you remember the original goals of WOT?  To go after people who would use WMD's.

I'm not an Inhofe apologist, I really don't see where the lie is in this.  It's sloppy connecting of the dots that gets so much mis-information spread on this war.

[Chicken Little]

The context is plain, here.  In the buildup to the Iraq Invasion, Inhofe goes on national tv and tells America that he thinks that Saddam has nukes, missles, and wmd's.  Does that sound "incidental" to you?  

It's abundantly clear from this statement alone that he thought that WMD's in Iraq were important.  Not only that, he went a lot further than most with the pants-cr*pping, scare tactics.  Would you agree?

BTW, in 2007, trying to link the WOT to the invasion of Iraq is just plain sad.  That "bait and switch" was worn out a very long time ago.  We didn't invade Iraq because we thought there were terror camps there.  

When Inhofe made his alarmist remarks, we had already booted the Taliban from Afghanistan.  As far as we knew, we were already kicking "terrorist camp" *ss.  We went into Iraq because guys like Inhofe were shreaking about mushroom clouds, aluminum tubes, and yellow cake uranium.  

Rather than face up to the fact that he was wrong (others have, Powell for one), he's now lying and saying it was "never the issue".  It was.  It was with the President, and it most certainly was with Inhofe.

Being wrong about the facts doesn't make you a liar.  Making up your own "facts" does.

[iplaw]

quote:

The context is plain, here.  In the buildup to the Iraq Invasion, Inhofe goes on national tv and tells America that he thinks that Saddam has nukes, missles, and wmd's.  Does that sound "incidental" to you?

No, but again, the quote you gave doesn't prove your point.

quote:
BTW, in 2007, trying to link the WOT to the invasion of Iraq is just plain sad.  That "bait and switch" was worn out a very long time ago.  We didn't invade Iraq because we thought there were terror camps there.  

Did anyone say there were terrorist camps in Iraq?  Unless you don't count Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas.  

What is the WOT to you?  Is the WOT only on Al-Qaeda?  Even if it were, are you blind to the fact that Saddam was providing safe haven to Taliban fighters after the war in Afghanistan?

quote:
When Inhofe made his alarmist remarks, we had already booted the Taliban from Afghanistan.  As far as we knew, we were already kicking "terrorist camp" *ss.  

Is anyone disputing this?

quote:
We went into Iraq because guys like Inhofe were shreaking about mushroom clouds, aluminum tubes, and yellow cake uranium.  

That and his flouting of 1441 and the GW ceasefire.  That coupled with his possession of a nuclear centrifuge and his attempted purchase of Nodong missiles from NK.

quote:
Rather than face up to the fact that he was wrong (others have, Powell for one), he's now lying and saying it was "never the issue".  It was.  It was with the President, and it most certainly was with Inhofe.

Being wrong about the facts doesn't make you a liar.  Making up your own "facts" does.

Still, it's semantics and gerrymandering with quotes to make an obscure point about him "lying."  Better points could be made.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:

The context is plain, here.  In the buildup to the Iraq Invasion, Inhofe goes on national tv and tells America that he thinks that Saddam has nukes, missles, and wmd's.  Does that sound "incidental" to you?

No, but again, the quote you gave doesn't prove your point.

quote:
BTW, in 2007, trying to link the WOT to the invasion of Iraq is just plain sad.  That "bait and switch" was worn out a very long time ago.  We didn't invade Iraq because we thought there were terror camps there.  

Did anyone say there were terrorist camps in Iraq?  Unless you don't count Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas.  

What is the WOT to you?  Is the WOT only on Al-Qaeda?  Even if it were, are you blind to the fact that Saddam was providing safe haven to Taliban fighters after the war in Afghanistan?

quote:
When Inhofe made his alarmist remarks, we had already booted the Taliban from Afghanistan.  As far as we knew, we were already kicking "terrorist camp" *ss.  

Is anyone disputing this?

quote:
We went into Iraq because guys like Inhofe were shreaking about mushroom clouds, aluminum tubes, and yellow cake uranium.  

That and his flouting of 1441 and the GW ceasefire.  That coupled with his possession of a nuclear centrifuge and his attempted purchase of Nodong missiles from NK.

quote:
Rather than face up to the fact that he was wrong (others have, Powell for one), he's now lying and saying it was "never the issue".  It was.  It was with the President, and it most certainly was with Inhofe.

Being wrong about the facts doesn't make you a liar.  Making up your own "facts" does.

Still, it's semantics and gerrymandering with quotes to make an obscure point about him "lying."  Better points could be made.

I think the only reasonable explanation at this point is the IPLaw is the secret love child of Senator Inhoff and President Bush.

[iplaw]

Yeah.  Spot on. [xx(]  I suppose that makes you the love child of Helen Thomas and Noam Chomsky?

[MichaelC]

From Whitehouse.gov

quote: Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

The problem with putting out multiple explanations about why you're going to war, is that it's begging the question.  If there is no clear answer, either you're hiding something or you have no idea why you're going to war.  To say that the War was not about WMD, is to call Bush a liar.

[rwarn17588]

That's why I had serious misgivings about the Iraq war in the first place. The reasons kept shifting like the wind. That told me that the justification was weak and on quicksand.

Common sense Rule 1: Keep an eye on a politician when he keeps changing the reasons for something.

[iplaw]

Again.  Were the reasons that hard to decipher?

1.  WMDs and latent/blatent infractions of 1441 and other UN mandates.  We still don't know what happened to his WMD.

2.  Dovetailing with #1.  The potential for him to hand off WMD to terrorist organizations.  WMD that are still unaccounted for.

3.  Violations of GW I ceasefire.  This one was pretty easy.

4.  His continual procurement/attempts to procure banned weapons.

I don't recall any other justifications brought before the security counsel other than these.

1441 was justification enough, not to mention him buying banned weapons and harboring Taliban fugitives (though we didn't know until we went in that they were there).

[rwarn17588]

Iplaw wrote:

We still don't know what happened to his WMD.

<end clip>

I'll make it easy. They didn't exist.

[iplaw]

[}:)][}:)][}:)]

Let's see.  

He DECLARED them to the UN.  

Every major intelligence agency in the world verified their existence.  

The UN inspectors KNEW he had them, and they were trying to verify that he destroyed what he DECLARED.  If they didn't exist what the hell were the UN inspectors doing there?  

Some of these weapons WE GAVE HIM.





You've lost your damn mind.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

In other words:  He disarms, or we invade.  Damn straight it was WMD.  All other items are propaganda meant to drum up public support for invasion.

[rwarn17588]

<iplaw wrote:

The UN inspectors KNEW he had them, and they were trying to verify that he destroyed what he DECLARED. If they didn't exist what the hell were the UN inspectors doing there?

<end clip>

Note the use of the word of "had." UN inspectors looked high and low before the invasion and found nothing.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<iplaw wrote:

The UN inspectors KNEW he had them, and they were trying to verify that he destroyed what he DECLARED. If they didn't exist what the hell were the UN inspectors doing there?

<end clip>

Note the use of the word of "had." UN inspectors looked high and low before the invasion and found nothing.

Do you even know what the job of the UN inspectors was?  

They didn't roam the country looking for WMD.  The job of the UN inspectors was to verify the destruction of declared weapons, period.  Even when they tried to inspect for weapons, Saddam stonewalled them at every turn.  Did you magically forget the 12 years before we went in and the resistance of Saddam to UN inspections?  Sounds like a strange thing to do for someone who had nothing to hide.

Hans Blix was not the WMD detective possy, roaming a country the size of Texas and looking under rugs and behind hedges for WMD.  To think so is just ignorant of the facts.