Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

OreoCookie · May 30, 2003, 09:45 AM

I have just seen on numerous web sites (spiegel.de, tagesschau.de) that Wolfowitz has admitted, the claim that Iraq has WMD was just a false pretense.

Discuss.

MacGorilla · May 30, 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I have just seen on numerous web sites (spiegel.de, tagesschau.de) that Wolfowitz has admitted, the claim that Iraq has WMD was just a false pretense.

Discuss.

A link...in English?

Lerkfish · 10:37 AM

-

Timo · May 30, 2003, 10:56 AM

Here's a topical BBC report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945750.stm

MacGorilla · May 30, 2003, 11:00 AM

So let me see if I understand this. Correct me if I'm wrong:

"We needed an excuse to invade Iraq and WMD was the only reason everyone could agree on."

boots · May 30, 2003, 11:03 AM

from the above link:
Picking weapons of mass destruction was "the one reason everyone could agree on", he says in the interview.

The other factor he describes as "huge" was that an attack would allow the US to pull its troops from Saudi Arabia, thereby resolving a major grievance held by al-Qaeda.

"Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to a more peaceful Middle East," Mr Wolfowitz is quoted as saying.

Last month, the US announced it was pulling most of its troops out of the country.

Somehow I feel vindicated...in a very sad way. I know I wasn't the only one who said that WMD was just a throw-away argument to get the American Public on board. The real reason was to change the political dynamics in the entire region. This seems to support that view.

Zimpy, care to respond? You were the most vocal "WMD" proponent.....

Logic · May 30, 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
So let me see if I understand this. Correct me if I'm wrong:

"We needed an excuse to invade Iraq and WMD was the only reason everyone could agree on."

True, but also:

" We need to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia but where.....? Hmmmm......"

And the scary thing is that very few will care in the US.

OreoCookie · May 30, 2003, 11:09 AM

Sorry, I couldn't find anything on American sites yet as they are probably still sleeping. AFAIK he said it in an interview. Rumsfeld said (as a correction) that he still believes WMD will be found in Iraq.

The only reason I am surprised is that a member of the Administration admits it.

I just hope that this has some kind of impact on the American public to think about things a bit more before believing every word that is said. I doubt it though. It will soon be forgotten.

Timo · May 30, 2003, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Sorry, I couldn't find anything on American sites yet as they are probably still sleeping. AFAIK he said it in an interview. Rumsfeld said (as a correction) that he still believes WMD will be found in Iraq.

The interview is in Vanity Fair, and from what I can tell, not on line (*shocking*).

Spliffdaddy · May 30, 2003, 11:17 AM

The general feeling I get living in the US is that nobody cares. The war is over. What's done is done. The same folks that didn't support the war - still don't.

Seriously, it's a dead issue here.

MacGorilla · May 30, 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The general feeling I get living in the US is that nobody cares. The war is over. What's done is done. The same folks that didn't support the war - still don't.

Seriously, it's a dead issue here.

Yes, just about. I do find the the lack of WMD finds increasing amusing, but I'm twisted that way.

Fatsaaa · May 30, 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The general feeling I get living in the US is that nobody cares. The war is over. What's done is done. The same folks that didn't support the war - still don't.

Seriously, it's a dead issue here.

Are you seriously trying to say that if the President and senior members of the administration used false information to persuade the general public to go to war, that is a 'dead issue'?

(It may become a moot point if serious volumes of WMD are found in Iraq, but judging by the low priority the allies have for the weapons search, I don't really think that they think the weapons are there.)

spacefreak · May 30, 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Yes, just about. I do find the the lack of WMD finds increasing amusing, but I'm twisted that way.

If the UN couldn't find the weapons in 6 months + 10 years, why do so many people expect the US to find them within 6 weeks?

Spliffdaddy · May 30, 2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Fatsaaa:
Are you seriously trying to say that if the President and senior members of the administration used false information to persuade the general public to go to war, that is a 'dead issue'?.....

yup. That's what I'm saying.

You hafta understand that most folks here in the US believe that there were many many small reasons to go to war with Iraq - not one big reason.

So far, only one of the half-dozen 'small reasons' has come into question.

Americans have never had a favorable opinion of Iraq. Nothing has changed.

boots · May 30, 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
yup. That's what I'm saying.

You hafta understand that most folks here in the US believe that there were many many small reasons to go to war with Iraq - not one big reason.

So far, only one of the half-dozen 'small reasons' has come into question.

Americans have never had a favorable opinion of Iraq. Nothing has changed.

Yep. I agree with that.

I still don't think it was right to pin it all on the "immediacy" of the threat from WMD. I would have been much less critical had everything been on the table from the beginning. Oh, well. That's history for ya. As I've said before, the victors get to write the history, so this will probably go down as a smashing success, not as war launched by a lie.

Spliffdaddy · May 30, 2003, 01:15 PM

WMD was the excuse that was used in an attempt to get UN approval - something that would have been nice, but certainly not necessary.

It wasn't the sole reason the US wanted to 'liberate' Iraq.

Lerkfish · 10:37 AM

-

Spliffdaddy · May 30, 2003, 01:42 PM

Sorry, Lerk.

I wish I could hug you and tell you everything is OK and I was wrong and I'm sorry - but, then, I would be lying to you.

In reality, there were (and are) plenty of excellent reasons to liberate Iraq (and several other countries).

Your disdain for Dubya gets in the way of rational thought.

But it'll be better in, um, a bit over 5 years.

Nicko · May 30, 2003, 01:43 PM

What I want to know is, was Powell in on the scam too? I always had respect for that guy.

Spliffdaddy · May 30, 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Nicko:
What I want to know is, was Powell in on the scam too? I always had respect for that guy.

You respect a man that has never never stated his feelings about abortion, capital punishment, or any other divisive issues.

When that happens you might change your opinion.

edited to add:

I understand that Powell is the far-right's secret weapon.

Lerkfish · 10:38 AM

-

Lerkfish · 10:39 AM

-

OreoCookie · May 30, 2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Yes, just about. I do find the the lack of WMD finds increasing amusing, but I'm twisted that way.

I know, I feel the same way. I am a very cynical person.

Nicko · May 30, 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think he was forced into it, frankly. But regardless, even if so, he had the responsibility to be truthful.

Probably. The real truth will probably have to wait when he writes a memoir in 20 years or something like that. :/

Lerkfish · 10:39 AM

-

GiacomoSeingalt · May 30, 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The general feeling I get living in the US is that nobody cares. The war is over. What's done is done. The same folks that didn't support the war - still don't.

Seriously, it's a dead issue here.

WMDs ? Still no evidence, Wolfowitz says it was for "bureaucratic reasons".
Relationsships between Al Quaida and Iraq ? A fake.
CIA says, that France has helped Sadam's partners to escape from Iraq ? A lie, only launched to damage the honour of the French government to the world.

It's always the same: The lies are launched on the headlines of the newspapers in big letters. The 'correction' is a small 3-lines article on page 23. The American people seem to believe what they want to believe. Their patrotism destroys the common sense.

A government which launches reports to the public that are bad investigated, falsificated or simply lies doesn't publish news.
I call this propaganda. Where's the difference to the rhetoric of a Goebbels then ?

So why do you still trust your government then ?

Nicko · May 30, 2003, 01:55 PM

Ummm Powell is the Secretary of State is he not? What does his views of abortion or captital punishment have to do with performing his job?

Incidentely I'm pretty sure he is pro-choice, heard him comment about that on some show, some where.

OreoCookie · May 30, 2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you're pretty smug considering you've been played for a fool.

You've been lied to, and you act as if that's ok. Good for you. You're just the sort of mindless dittohead that these guys want.

At least I accurately called it a lie and was not fooled. Of course, that meant people like you called me anti-american and communist for being absolutely correct.

I'll take that apology now.

Of course, I know I won't get it, but at least I can sleep at night knowing I was not foolish enough to be taken in by such an obvious lie.

meanwhile, I presume since we were leaving Saudi Arabia, that we'll be setting up bases in Iraq....HA! but its a LIBERATION, not an occupation.
yeah....right. How many more lies will they tell and gullible rightwingers swallow?

Well put.

boots · May 30, 2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
oh...I dunno...maybe because Powell testified to the UN that they had incontrovertible proof of same, and knew where they were, but wouldn't tell us because it would endanger intelligence operatives?

If what Powell stated was true, then it should not take 6 weeks, it shouldn't even take 6 days.

Of course, they were mobile, and we showed our hand in public well before we went in....so 6 days might be optimistic.

Not that I think they will find anything. If they do, it will just be icing on the cake. As it is, another step toward the real goal has been achieved.

I really have to wonder about the Powell situation though. He had to know that this wasn't the only or even best intel they were working with.

OreoCookie · May 30, 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
WMD was the excuse that was used in an attempt to get UN approval - something that would have been nice, but certainly not necessary.

It wasn't the sole reason the US wanted to 'liberate' Iraq.

So the US has used WMD to deceive other nations (most notable those on the Security Council) into approving this war? I don't know about you, but (apart from the fact that most other nations didn't buy it) I'd be pretty pIssed about that.

WMD was (read: past tense) their excuse for urging to go to war back then.

Spheric Harlot · May 30, 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
WMD was the excuse that was used in an attempt to get UN approval - something that would have been nice, but certainly not necessary.

It wasn't the sole reason the US wanted to 'liberate' Iraq.

It certainly wasn't the only reason they *wanted* the invasion.

It most certainly *was* the only justification they might have had for the war.

-s*

Spliffdaddy · May 30, 2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
It certainly wasn't the only reason they *wanted* the invasion.

It most certainly *was* the only justification they might have had for the war.

-s*

No it wasn't. It was SIMPLY the ONLY REASON the US pursued in an attempt to obtain approval from the UN - something THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Many reasons were offered by the US outside of the UN. You already are aware of these.

Almost NO wars have been fought with "UN approval", and I scarcely doubt many will ever be. This doesn't mean, in any way, that there was no justification for the wars that have been fought without UN approval. Besides, "justification" is really just an opinion shared by a majority of people...and over 70% of the folks that led the war APPROVE of it.

Nicko · May 30, 2003, 02:21 PM

So you are making up your own statistics now eh?

Spliffdaddy · May 30, 2003, 02:24 PM

arg

Heck, I was being conservative...

73% of Americans had a favorable opinion of the 'liberation' on a recent CNN poll.

Other polls show similar results. Look them up. Or just look at Dubya's "job approval" rating, and save a bit of research time.

boots · May 30, 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
No it wasn't. It was SIMPLY the ONLY REASON the US pursued in an attempt to obtain approval from the UN - something THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Many reasons were offered by the US outside of the UN. You already are aware of these.

Almost NO wars have been fought with "UN approval", and I scarcely doubt many will ever be. This doesn't mean, in any way, that there was no justification for the wars that have been fought without UN approval. Besides, "justification" is really just an opinion shared by a majority of people...and over 70% of the folks that led the war APPROVE of it.

Yep. That's how world wars start. One country acts against another --- without clear international mandate --- and a bunch of protection treaties get invoked. Good thing we picked on a country that didn't have much in the way of reciprocal defense treaties.

Nicko · May 30, 2003, 02:28 PM

Ohhhhhhhhh you were refering to the US acting unilaterally. I thought you were talking about the approval of the so called cooalition. Silly me

Nicko · May 30, 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by boots:
Yep. That's how world wars start. One country acts against another --- without clear international mandate --- and a bunch of protection treaties get invoked. Good thing we picked on a country that didn't have much in the way of reciprocal defense treaties.

No doubt! And not the mention that the US picked on the only country which had 0 allies who would come to their aid. Now I'm not saying Saddam's regime needed to be overthrown. But to just replace it with a new regime isn't helping the situation.

Spheric Harlot · May 30, 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
No it wasn't. It was SIMPLY the ONLY REASON the US pursued in an attempt to obtain approval from the UN - something THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Yes, yes, we've been over that.

And those who claim the war was legitimate, and that no further approval was required, argue that this is so because, well - correct me if I'm wrong - the UNSC authorized serious consequences in the search for WMD. Right? At least, that is the only sensible argument in support that I've ever read on these boards.

So, um...if WMD were used to attempt to justify something that didn't need justifying, but the only reason it didn't need justifying (or authorizing) was because WMD had previously been used to get what was retrospectively interpreted as authorization for war...well...

Bugger all - it's still a ****ing lie, and not supporting the International Court is probably the smartest thing the current US administration has done to cover its ass.

-s*

Lerkfish · 10:40 AM

-

maxelson · May 30, 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The general feeling I get living in the US is that nobody cares. The war is over. What's done is done. The same folks that didn't support the war - still don't.

Seriously, it's a dead issue here.

Ah. I see. NOW it is a dead issue. Hm. VERY interesting, but hardly surprising.

War over? 9 soldiers dead in a short bunch of days and... war over?
Said it before, say it again: this war has not even left the ground.

maxelson · May 30, 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If the UN couldn't find the weapons in 6 months + 10 years, why do so many people expect the US to find them within 6 weeks?

Are you paying attention to what is being discussed here?

Allow me: The American public and the world will not accept so nebulous a path to reason as "reshape the middle east", so let's give them the sure fire WMD argumet.

Look man. It is perfectly OK to question. The Coserv-o-cops won't dope slap you and take your Party Card... yet.

tie · May 30, 2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
So the US has used WMD to deceive other nations (most notable those on the Security Council) into approving this war? I don't know about you, but (apart from the fact that most other nations didn't buy it) I'd be pretty pIssed about that.

How else can you interpret it? The US deliberately deceived the world as to its intentions in Iraq.

If Americans had known that the real reason for the war was so that we could close military bases in Saudi Arabia (!?), nobody would have supported it.

I think Wolfowitz is still lying.

Lerkfish · 10:40 AM

-

Timo · May 30, 2003, 03:21 PM

I think Wolfowitz approaches the whole world with a "need to know" basis. The smug arrogance of it really gets to me.

boots · May 30, 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by tie:
How else can you interpret it? The US deliberately deceived the world as to its intentions in Iraq.

If Americans had known that the real reason for the war was so that we could close military bases in Saudi Arabia (!?), nobody would have supported it.

I think Wolfowitz is still lying.

Do you think he's lying about WMD or that moving the bases from Saudi soil was one of the reasons?

thunderous_funker · May 30, 2003, 03:31 PM

Some of us were trying to expose the lie leading up the war, but few believed us.

Now it's a matter of record, and people don't care.

The only defense for this is Plato's Noble Lie. Of course, even that questionable rationalization would still require an under-girding principle that makes the lie "noble".

Optional blankets to cover your ass:

1) those poor Iraqi people (that we undermined, ignored, bombed and starved for 30 years)

2) reshape he middle east (only the arab leaders are quaking in their boots, the rabble hate us more than ever and might just overwhelm the pliant leadership)

3) we're gonna make a fortune and only a few American/British kids died. (hm, looks like this might be the most honest one...)

Lerkfish · 10:41 AM

-

Lerkfish · 10:41 AM

-

thunderous_funker · May 30, 2003, 03:37 PM

Because blonde, blue-eyed God is Right-Handed, of course. Why else?

Lerkfish · 10:41 AM

-