Interesting story about Polish troops finding more Sarin gas in Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html

I actually agree with those who say that this does not exonerate the administration. Nor do I felt the administration lied (there were other reasons to go). The truth, as always, is not that simple. (I actually think the war was a mistake, but for political reasons, not ethical/moral ones.)

Anyway, clearly there were WMDs, but whether they existed in quantity at the time of the invasion has yet to be determined. This is, however, another important piece of the puzzle.

I believe you have posted contradictory claims here :D That first sentence after the URL does not seem supported at all by the rest of your post and perhaps, only placed there for "political" reasons, which to you I see apparently contains no ethical or moral ground. I might agree with you on that which is why I cater to the apolitical.

The second sentence after the URL appears pretty illogical to me but then, if we are being political might as well throw out logic with the morals and ethics. "Other reasons to go" is no proof that lies were not made.

I don't think it is clear now that he had WMDs. My understanding that the first traces of sarin were just that. The data of this new report is just too convenient now. There are big forces that want it bad, proof of WMDs, enough now to put every claim in a light of deep skepticism. That is too bad, complicates things. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first and continually, we practice to deceive.

That is what politics is to me, the art of deception, the art of misleading. Those who are most adept at lying gravitate into the highest positions of authority. Many are unconsciously aware of the ethical and moral depravity of politics so when they attempt to practice it, they fail miserably out of an inner guilt that does not allow them to stay logical or effective. They are the better sort, being quite transparent as opposed to being quite crafty and effective at deception. You seem pretty harmless to me but then, there are those who cater to the same level of ineptness and then some. They can take your gaffes and consider it valid. Go figure.

Trying to spin my post as an ideological political statement will result in nothing but a very short discussion between us.

You're referring to the fact that the weapons were manufactured in the early 1990s, right?

This is not relevent. Iraq was ordered to destroy all of their WMDs, regardless of the manufactured date. They clearly failed to do so.

Just as a side note, I don't have a problem with speculation that they might have "just missed a few", or that the more serious issue here is the sale of these specific weapons to terrorists. That obviously has to be our top concern now.

Our top concern should be to remove the conditions that create terrorists. We should stop funding them and training them and supplying them with weapons when convenient to our blind interests to find that they come back to target us later. We should stop trying to bomb people into peace and democracy or whatever thin veil of an excuse for subjecting people to ever greater degrees of terror. You don't end terrorism by being the most powerful terrorist on the planet. One leads by example, not force.

1. Seal up the leaks in the dam then clean up the mess down stream or you're liable to find yourself in a rushing flood.

Unless you just want to be afraid and panic. Me thinks some hegemonic powers feed off people being in such a gullible state of mind and their propaganda is rife with the message to "be afraid, trust us to provide your security" when in fact, it would be better to see if you can find a way to channel the fear into something other than the fight or flight syndrome.

I don't know if you can do it, but see if you can try something, think for a bit without using any proper nouns or figurative labels, maybe without words at all. Consider the possiblity there are no Americans, no Iraqians, no French, English, Christian, Islamic, Left, Right all of those labels and all others, try considering them as false. See if you can think for a moment or two that we are all in this togethor, that the cultural, linguistic and geophysical biases we have earned have no validity. Thinking life on a planet, all of us on the same side in a struggle against death, against losing our options and freedoms. I think it's actually a pretty neat feelin', bro.

I doubt that Saddam even knew he had those odd Sarin shells anymore. In 1996 the regime began to destroy its stockpiles of WMD, it wasn’t worth the costs. So really this administration still lied, sexed up, and engaged in fear mongering to get where she is now. So really this is just another point less find.

I agree with everything in the above two posts except for the word "lied" in the second-to-last sentence of Undecided's post. But I don't mean to split hairs, I agree with the substance of the point.

Absolutely we need to remove the conditions that create terrorists. That doesn't mean we are solely and singularly responsible for creating terrorists.

Absolutely we should be careful not to fund them, train them, or supply them. That doesn't mean we have done so. Sometimes we will do what we think is right, and it will turn out to be wrong.

Absolutely we should not turn a blind eye, as we have, to illicit actions. No question we continued to support Saddam even after there were indications that he used WMDs. That was wrong.

No Bush has lied, the 16 word Niger-Uranium account was a lie because the CIA told him not to say it because there was no real evidence but he went ahead in full knowledge that the connection was not substantiated. Today Cheney lied about a connection btwn Iraq and Al Q, he said there was a specific connection, but senior intelligence officials never heard of this “connection”, I’ll get a link if I can.

But Cheney on Thursday repeated his assertions of high-level ties between Iraq and terrorists, including members of al-Qaida.
-----------------------------
"These ties included senior-level contacts going back a decade," he said.
Cheney said Saddam had sent a brigadier general from the Iraqi intelligence service to Sudan in the early 1990s to train al-Qaida in bomb-making and document forgery.
------------------------------
But he said the staff has not reviewed any new material that has led it to revise its findings.
------------------------------
"We believe we have seen all the information the vice president has seen, and stand by the staff statement released at the last hearing," Felzenberg said.
-----------------------------
It was unclear if that letter was the source of Cheney's information about the Iraqi brigadier general.

Source L.A. Times

Hmmm…interesting supposedly he either withheld evidence from the 9/11 commission, or is just lying…again.

Absolutely we should be careful not to fund them, train them, or supply them. That doesn't mean we have done so.

But we have, our own CIA trained and armed Alqueda

Absolutely we should not turn a blind eye, as we have, to illicit actions. No question we continued to support Saddam even after there were indications that he used WMDs. That was wrong.

Should we be surprised that he used his chemical weapons? We're the ones that sold them to him, what did we think he was going to do with them?

More valid concerns.

The problem I have is not with specific claims, or even evidence, but rather with crass characterizations and vast pendulum-swings in the other direction.

Is it a bad idea to arm terrorists? Sure. Is it a bad idea to arm the enemy of our enemy? Surely not. Is it a bad idea to arm the enemy of our enemy without thought to what danger they might present to us in the future? Surely.

It's easy to be an ideologue. It's easy to be a "liberal attack dog" (or a conservative one). What's harder is forging a better course of action. Much harder.

One of my shameless self-promo's:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=38140

That Pangloss is what you are facing; there is very little room to move. When your allies like Saudi Arabia are encouraging "terrorists" what credibility does the US have?

Is it a bad idea to arm the enemy of our enemy? Surely not.

Tell that to 3000 dead Americans on 9/11, you armed UBL, and funded him and the “Muj” to the tune of about $1 billion in the 80’s. Weren’t they the new “founding fathers” according to Reagan? Don’t play with fire America, you’ve done it too many time already.