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

[MichaelC]

Scott Ritter from "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know"  

Wikipedia

quote:    There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)

   We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)

   If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we'd have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)

   [A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)

90 to 95% verifiably eliminated.  Biological unlikely.  Chemical and Nuclear reconstitution impossible without detection.  Another UN Inspector, smashed by the Administration and their cohorts.

[iplaw]

Someone should have told Hans Blix he was wasting his time then...

Do you really want to go down the Scott Ritter road?  You do remember that he resigned from UNSCOM in 1998 because he was pissed off that the Clinton administration wouldn't use force against Saddam?

[MichaelC]

The airstrikes 3 months later must have really satisfied him.

Operation Desert Fox

[iplaw]

I don't know whether it did or not, but the fact that Ritter is a liar is undisputable.

[Conan71]

Which side of Ritter's mouth did you quote from?  Here's the quote from the other side, same article you cited:

"In January of 1998, his inspection team into Iraq was blocked from some weapons sites by Iraqi officials, who believed that information obtained from these sites would be used for future planning of attacks. UN Inspectors were then ordered out of Iraq by the United States Government, shortly before Operation Desert Fox attacks began in December 1998, using information which had been gathered for the purpose of disarmament to identify targets which would reduce Iraq's ability to wage both conventional and possibly unconventional warfare. This action undermined the position of the UN Weapons Inspectors, who were thereafter denied access to Iraq. Shortly thereafter, he spoke on the Public Broadcasting Service show, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.[1]"

[Conan71]

Before we stray too far O/T, CL is trying to create a mountain out of a molehill by quoting two disperate interviews, and mangling the contexts to come up with "Inhofe told a lie".

It creates the mis-information that gets spread around from one person to another and has become commonplace in our culture today.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Before we stray too far O/T, CL is trying to create a mountain out of a molehill by quoting two disperate interviews, and mangling the contexts to come up with "Inhofe told a lie".

It creates the mis-information that gets spread around from one person to another and has become commonplace in our culture today.

This is Revisionist History.  Either Inhofe is lying to the public to save face on an unjustifiable war, or Bush was lying about the war being about WMDs.

[iplaw]

Those are not the only two options.  The more likely scenario is that he's trying to make himself look as good as possible in front of doners.  He's a pandering politician, but that's a bit redundant isn't it.

Only a moron could say the war was "unjustified", as if there were no reasons for deposing Saddam.  You can argue about how the war has been waged, but the inital overwhelming justification on at least 4 different levels can't be disputed, at least with a straight face.  I also think it's a bit of a stretch to say he's "lying."  He's a politican, go figure.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Only a moron could say the war was "unjustified", as if there were no reasons for deposing Saddam.  You can argue about how the war has been waged, but the inital overwhelming justification on at least 4 different levels can't be disputed, at least with a straight face.  I also think it's a bit of a stretch to say he's "lying."

Bush had one justification.  The presence of WMD.  Period.

Bush:

quote:
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.

Inhofe:

quote:"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."

If Inhofe is telling the truth, the invasion of Iraq was unjustified.  It would be a war under false pretenses, a pre-emptive invasion and occupation of an independent country to stop a presumed threat.  The invasion would itself be a War Crime.

[Conan71]

Or he might be getting addled in his old age.  []

I'll go with MC's assertion of revisionist history, but CL stretching this into "Inhofe's a liar" is going too far with it.  

Hey RWarn, here's a politician from up in your old neck of the woods, who had a lot of credibility, who managed to connect the dots on WMD and WOT:

"Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking US cities:  

BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent:  

And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?  

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate:  

I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.  

SCHIEFFER:  

Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?  

GEPHARDT:  

I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.  

  Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)
  Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
  November 2, 2003
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml "

[iplaw]

quote:If Inhofe is telling the truth, the invasion of Iraq was unjustified.  It would be a war under false pretenses, a pre-emptive invasion and occupation of an independent country to stop a presumed threat.  The invasion would itself be a War Crime.

Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.  I clearly stated above that I agree that WMDs were the major reason stated for going into Iraq and most certainly the one that Bush hung his hat on so to speak.

I personally think that WMDs were only one of a few reasons for going into Iraq, and that is probably the case for Inhofe as well, but for him to say that it was for terrorist camps doesn't make any sense to me.  Though he could have been speaking of Taliban refugees who were being sheltered in Iraq, but who knows.

But it doesn't matter what he thinks because he is neither a spokesman for the president on the war, nor does he have any more influence than the average congressman.

He can make whatever claims he wants and it won't change the fact that the reasons for going into Iraq were justified.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Did anyone say there were terrorist camps in Iraq?

Yes.  Inhofe did.  He said that's why we went to war in Iraq.  He said it yesterday.

quote: "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."  

Four years ago it was Inhofe trying to scare the crap out of America on Sunday morning TV with Saddam's WMDs.  But now he says that he was actually after terror camps and it was the media who talked up WMDs.  That is a flat lie.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Did anyone say there were terrorist camps in Iraq?

Yes.  Inhofe did.  He said that's why we went to war in Iraq.  He said it yesterday.

quote: "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."  

Four years ago it was Inhofe trying to scare the crap out of America on Sunday morning TV with Saddam's WMDs.  But now he says that he was actually after terror camps and it was the media who talked up WMDs.  That is a flat lie.

Already addressed.  See previous post.

[MichaelC]

The talk about training camps, specific personalities, past infractions...none of those at all justified War.  They are only an attempt to save face over the lack of WMD.

This Administration could have come out and said "we messed up", "we'll fix the problem", "we have to go on from here".  It wouldn't even be much of an issue now.  They kind of hinted at it a little bit, blaming the intel.  But then they spun off into tons of their other "justifications" trying to explain why we went.  Pumping the same garbage they were pumping before the war.  The case for invasion is still being sold.  I wish Inhoff were the only salesman, he's always been a kook anyway IMO.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Already addressed.  See previous post.

Great.  So when Inhofe says, "The whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was never the issue", when in fact it was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq, that's revisionism.  

But when he himself spews scary, peepants rhetoric on national TV, then says it was "never the issue", that's a lie.