Its an old story.

They have been finding small traces of old-chemicals in shells for a while.

That =/= imminent threatening stockpiles.

DeTrevni wrote: i give this 1 hour before it hits 4 pages.

il take that bet

Linus wrote: BUT it throws out all of the anit-war peoples defense of "No WMD's found hence no WMD's exist".

Right. 

Once again, depleted gasses. The ones we knew he had already. There was no doubt. They are not new. He has gotten them since the first Gulf War.

It was not a stockpile. It was not a threat. We went to war on the basis of STOCKPILES of DANGEROUS AQUIRED WMD's.

Linus wrote: NotDaveEllis wrote:    Denote how the only two people coming out are two republicans. Note how 2 democratic news services have said nothing about it (CNN / MSNBC). Goes both ways buddy.

Becuase it is not a news-worthy story.

They have had stories of finding munitions shells with old-gas in it. It is simply not a big deal.

It seems it is only the people grasping for the straws of support for the war that feel the need to flip out and point to a depleted mustard gas shell dated 1985 and screaming "HA PROOF!"

You think our nation went to war for the sole reason Iraq was a threat to our freedom and safety, or to actually get something out of it?

For the love of God, Linus.

Think outside of the dictionary.

The way we were presented W.M.D's was that they were Biological, Nuclear, and Chemical weapons that he had READY TO USE AGAINST US.

We were told about STOCKPILES, ala A whole freakin bunch, of WMDs, ala weapons ready to go at any moment to wipe out people.

Old cannisters with PRE-1991 gas does not equal that.

It still doesnt matter.

Would I put them in my yard? Stupid question, but sure, I would.

Would you tell the familys their kid got shipped back in a box to save the world from old and depleted mustard gas?

Also, We did not give the UN a chance to find them.

Answer the question. If we had let Hans Blix continue looking, and he would have found them, then what?

DeTrevni wrote: i give this 1 hour before it hits 4 pages.

surprisingly no, i think it made 2 pages in an hour

but prolly will reach 4 pages very very soon

Travis75 wrote: Anyway, time for an analogy... Bush is to Hitler as Linus is to Nazi.

actually it would be Bush is to Linus as Hitler is to Nazi, i believe.

I don't think the discovery means anything-we've been at war for years now, it's a little late for arguing justifications...

BUT-for those of you out there who say this is an insignificant story-that's bull. An American soldier can't spit or take a crap without CNN reporting it, so I think this qualifies as news. It's the news' job to report the news-and this is just as much news as Brad Pitt's babies...

Whether it helps Bush or not, the news dropped the ball here. So  for Fox News on this one.

Gatyr wrote: Simma Down!! wrote: I love how everyone states we went to war for oil.....yet when I look at oil prices the only thing I notice is how much higher they have gotten. Because it couldnt possibly have been about getting an aly in the middle east to try and get the area to like us more and lower the prices for us.

It wasn't about either...but the discussion is pointless because no single person on this forum knows why we went to war with Iraq. These arguments amaze me...I don't know anyone who can offer concrete proof to back up any theory as to why we're at war. The WMD's, the oil, international conquest, and my personal favorite, the continuation of "the Bush legacy"...none of these completely hold water.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3664 - Everyone here should read this

That debate was from the very start of the war, and poses all sorts of intelligent arguments for and against the war. I think all sides are represented intelligently and accurately, from hardcore liberals and right-wings to conservatives and democrats.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20030319.html - An explanation of the Iraq war and international law

An interesting column from that page-

Micheal Dorf wrote: Was War Constitutionally Authorized by Congress? The international law arguments in favor of the war's legality, then, are weak at best. What about the war's legality as a matter of U.S. law? There, the question is closer. The U.S. Constitution sets no limits on the reasons for which the United States may go to war. Its primary limit is procedural. While the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, Congress alone has the power to declare war. Congress has not formally declared war since World War II. As I explained in an earlier column, the failure to issue formal declarations of war partly reflects the fact that such declarations are antiquated. But Congressional equivocation also reflects Congressional ambivalence. Members of Congress do not want to have to take the heat for a war that goes badly, but they also want to appear supportive of our troops. Thus, they have a built-in incentive to sit on the fence. Judged by the standards of recent American military actions, Congress provided President Bush with crystal clear authority to make war on Iraq. In October 2002, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The constitutional problem with the Congressional authorization, if there is one, is not lack of clarity; it's that Congress passed the buck. A number of commentators and even some individual members of Congress have argued that Congress may not delegate to the President the power to declare war. The Constitution, on this view, puts the power to declare war in the hands of Congress so that members of Congress--who must stand for frequent re-election--will make the hard decisions themselves. This objection would be a good one if Congress had delegated something approximating its entire warmaking power to the President. But under the circumstances, the delegation appears reasonable. If one believed that Saddam would only disarm under military pressure, then to make the threat of war credible, Congress had to delegate power to the President. It would have been premature for Congress actually to declare war back in October, before further planned diplomatic efforts were undertaken. The Constitution is best interpreted to permit Congress to use this type of carrot-and-stick tactic. There is one further wrinkle under U.S. law. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered "the supreme Law of the Land." The United States is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, and as discussed above, under the Charter, there is no clear legal authority for war on Iraq. Accordingly, if the war violates international law - as I have suggested it does - then it also thereby violates U.S. law. That is not to say that any court will entertain a challenge to military action. U.S. courts have long treated such questions as committed to the political branches. And it is clear that Congress and the President have made their decision.

I have to disagree witht the last part of that paragraph, however.
Though the United States binds itself to international treatise, it still retains the right to act on its own. But it may help many of you understand the legality of the war itself, and if you'll read those pages you'll gain a greater understanding of the reasoning presented for going to war in the first place.

Linus - here's the thing.  The CIA itself has formally declared that the pre-war intelligence was INCORRECT and that Saddam did NOT have the WMD's that we thought he did.  I am quite confident that the CIA knew about these old leftover weapons when they made that report.

Next, look to who is making a big deal of this:  Rick Santorum.  A man whose nose is so far up his own butt he can probably taste the santorum.  Santorum is a complete extremist.  NONE of the rational members of Bush's own party have made a big deal of this.  The White House has not made a big deal of this.  And the reason for that is they all know that this just isn't a big deal.  The ONLY people who think this is a big deal are extremists and looneybins.

It just isn't a big deal. 

Your hair-splitting semantic defense makes Clinton's "is" argument seem downright quaint in comparison.

Linus wrote: Clark... Say this with me. "WMD's were found in Iraq"

As is so often the case, Linus, your statements are technically and literally correct, but completely irrelevant in context.

Official CIA Report wrote: While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter

Clearly the CIA knew about your little "WMD"s, and was not impressed.

So yes - by a dictionary definition of "WMD", these old munitions MIGHT qualify.

This, however, is completely irrelevant.

Linus wrote: Clark "WMD's were found in Iraq even after Saddam said there were none" You're good at the big words, now try simple ones. Please, for me? EDIT--- The ISG was after the invasion, NOT before it. You took a report from after the invasion and made a speculation for before it.

"WMD's were found in Iraq even after Saddam said there were none"

Fine - if it makes you happy.  Any other irrelevant statements you would like me to make?  Because what was NOT found in Iraq were the WMD's we were looking for.  It has been determined, again and again, by various parties including the CIA, that our pre-war intelligence was WRONG.  Just because we found some other random old leftover WMD's doesn't change the FACT that the pre-war intelligence was WRONG.

And I know that the ISG was after the war - that's the whole point.  That report examines the pre-war intelligence.  And it concludes that we were WRONG.  It casually dismisses the WMD's that you are so hung up on, just like everybody else on the planet, except you and Rick Santorum, dismisses it casually.

Because it is irrelevant.

If it weren't irrelevant, don't you think SOMEBODY, like, oh say, the PRESIDENT, would have made a big deal out of this if it were not irrelevant?

It is old news.  And it is irrelevant.

Linus wrote: Clark, when we went in, we weren't looking for a specific WMD. We were looking for any and EVERY WMD that he was not supposed to have... which is every WMD in existance...

Conveniently revisionist history there.

We had alledgely specific intelligence about specific programs, specifically about POST-GULF WAR programs.  We did not invade Iraq to stop Saddam from throwing a couple of rusty old Sarin containers from 15 years ago at us - we invaded Iraq (at least officially) to stop Saddam's supposedly ongoing WMD program, which supposedly posed an "imminent threat" (remember those words?) to the free world.  The Bush was selling it, Saddam could nuke and Sarin the West into oblivion any day.

And that is obviously false.

I'll expand on that.  Here is my analogy:

Imagine the police with a search warrant.  They obtained the warrant on the basis of information that the subject had a stash of AK-47s in his house.  Being good cops, they get a search warrant that lets them search for "all weapons".

The cops go in, and do not find any AKs at all.  They do, however, find a .32 snubnose in the bottom of an old box in the attic, covered in a layer of dust.

Did they find "weapons"?  Yes.  Did the snubnose fit within the stated purpose of the warrant?  Yes.  And was their pre-search information completely false?  Absolutely.

Sure - but that is a different discussion.

What YOU have been saying in THIS thread is "hey, look, we were right - he DID have WMDs!!"

Check the title of your own thread.

Whether the pre-war intelligence was credible at the time or not is an interesting question, but a different question entirely.

The question in THIS thread is whether that intelligence was right or wrong.   And it was clearly wrong. 

It's the cop analogy.  We told the world that Saddam had a major program, with tons of weapons, and that he constituted an "imminent threat" to the world.

We found some ancient remnants, mostly non-functional.

We may have found something that is technically a "WMD" in a very literal sense of the word, but we absolutely came nowhere near finding what we claimed was there.

Just like the CIA report stated.

Linus wrote: True, but who committed the greater wrong?

Interesting philosophical question, and completely irrelevant to this thread.  Read your title.  Your schtick in this thread has been that these old canisters prove that the pre-war intelligence was right, when in fact it was demonstrably wrong.

Whether or not the intelligence was credible at the time, whether or not Saddam deserved what happened - interesting and irrelevant.

Your central point in this whole thread, Linus, is WRONG.  Time for you to admit to that, and retract the claims you have been making for the last 5 pages.