Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bush and the WMD claim

  1. Jun 9, 2003 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 9, 2003 #2
    Good article. You don't get the benefit of the doubt when you are talking about national security.
     
  4. Jun 9, 2003 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It is important to note that the Constitution leaves it up to the House to decide what an impeachable offense is - so ANYTHING can be an impeachable offense, including "this". Hell, they could impeach him for having big ears and a funny looking face if they wanted to.

    This is also why Hillary Clinton is wrong about the "right wing conspiracy." Maybe he did get impeached just because the republicans didn't like him. But thats allowed by the Constitution.
     
  5. Jun 10, 2003 #4
    LOL, again with the rationalizations, the justifications for destroying a president based on lies and innuendo and petty issues.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2003
  6. Jun 10, 2003 #5
    Let's look at the WMD this way for a second.

    Let's say a child of 17 had these in his bookbag at school:

    receiver, magazine, magazine extension, swivel, swivel retaining ring, receiver shock absorber, carrier latch button, carrier auxiliary latch, carrier latch, carrier latch spring, latch pin, latch pin retaining spring, magazine shell latch, magazine shell, latch spring, cut-off button, cut-off button spring, cut-off button pin, locking block guide, magazine follower, magazine spring, trigger plate assembly, trigger plate pin, cocking slide, breech block slide, gas piston, operating handle, operating handle retaining spring, breech block, locking block, firing pin, firing pin spring, firing pin stop, extractor, extractor plunger, extractor spring, extractor pin, action spring, handguard, handguard front screw, handguard rear screw, handguard screw elastic washer, slide action sleeve, cam , auto/manual fire selector, fire selector frame, fire selector frame pin, fire selector pin, fire selector spring, run piston, barrel assembly, barrel extension, ejector, thread protection bush, protection bush washer, magazine extension retaining spring, selection sleeve valve, sleeve valve friction spring, sleeve valve acting ring, right grip, left grip, grip assembling screw, grip counter screw, pistol grip retaining screw, retaining screw washer, stock fastening drum, stock fastening drum pin, stock fastening drum follower, stock fastening drum follower spring, stock stop pin, stock stop pin spring, stock frame, butt plate, butt plate pivoting pin, butt plate pivoting pin and stock hook circlip, butt plate stop pin, butt plate stop pin spring, butt plate stop pin bush, butt plate stop pin retainer, butt plate shock absorber, stock hook (folding stock version only), stock hook spring, sling, trigger plate, carrier, breech bolt latch, breech bolt latch main pin, breech bolt latch internal pin, breech bolt latch main spring, breech bolt latch auxiliary spring, breech bolt latch spring follower, hand safety, hand safety spring retaining pin, trigger, trigger pin, spacer, trigger lever, trigger lever pin, hammer, hammer pin, hammer spring, hammer spring follower, sear, sear pin, sear spring, auto safety lever, rear trunnion, front trunnion, auto safety spring, auto safety spring guide, trigger guard pin bushing, trigger guard pin detent spring, grip plug, stock fastener, stock fastener washer, and a rear sight.

    Now this child also has a guide to assemble a SPAS12. Let's also say a teacher finds this bookbag laying by his desk open, with all the parts just laying in there.

    Would you not hope [and expect] the teacher would confiscate this bookbag and turn it in to the police? Of course you would, everybody knows these parts make up a SPAS12 shotgun! These are all harmless disassembled, but given enough time the kid will get it all put together. If you were making a case against the child would you not refer to these parts as a SPAS12?

    Iraq has the chemicals we gave them, and they aren't cooperating with weapon inspectors, if they had no intentions of using these weapons, and we gave the chemicals to them, why not just say "Hey, the US gave us these to fight Iran, you can have them back now." and show the inspectors where they are? This is enough reason to justify the use of the words WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and justify force in getting these chemicals taken back and/or destroyed.
     
  7. Jun 11, 2003 #6
    That's an excellent article, but I don't think that the president is impeachable, simply because the House has too many Republicans. One thing is for sure, if he were a democrat, he'd have been impeached long ago.
     
  8. Jun 11, 2003 #7
    Kyle, let's be realistic...Iraq's 'backpack' is almost completely empty.
     
  9. Jun 11, 2003 #8
    Yea, you are probably right, cut that list of parts in a third, I would still hope they would take his backpack away though.
     
  10. Jun 12, 2003 #9
    By a THIRD?!?! Try finding three random springs and an unrifled tube. There has been no solid evidence of a WMD program, and certainly not one which justifies a war. Don't worry though...Bush will lie again, and say that he is credible(ha) because the world is safer(HA!)...instead of gaining credibility by the simpler traditional method of TELLING THE TRUTH!!!
     
  11. Jun 12, 2003 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    By Dana Priest and Karen DeYoung
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Saturday, March 22, 2003; Page A30


    CIA officials now say they communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence backing up charges that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons, charges that found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address, a State Department "fact sheet" and public remarks by numerous senior officials.

    That evidence was dismissed as a forgery early this month by United Nations officials investigating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The Bush administration does not dispute this conclusion.

    Asked how the administration came to back up one of its principal allegations against Iraq with information its own intelligence service considered faulty, officials said all such assertions were carefully tailored to stay within the bounds of certainty. As for the State of the Union address, a White House spokesman said, "all presidential speeches are fully vetted by the White House staff and relevant U.S. government agencies for factual correctness."....

    See the story: CIA Questioned Documents Linking Iraq, Uranium Ore.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/archives/front.htm
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2003
  12. Jun 12, 2003 #11
    Iraq probably does have WMDs somewhere. Even the French know this (and when the French know something....). The administration claimed much more than Iraw merely having WMDs, they claimed Iraq active programs developing and producing WMDs and the ability to deploy those weapons. The discovery of WDMs would do nothing (logically, reality is a different subject) for the Bush administration. Hell, even finding solid evidence of weapon programs would do nothing. This issue is whether the Bush administration mislead the American and world communities on what evidence they did have, on what justification they had in making their claims. And when the CIA, the Bush administrations core resource for intelligence information, expressed doubts both in meetings and in official reports about the administrations claims, clearly there is a big problem here.
     
  13. Jun 12, 2003 #12
    What I have seen, and I doubt I have been terribly mislead, is that the majority of Iraqi people wanted Saddam removed. If a country's people asked another country to remove their leader because they were being oppressed, tortured and killed for no reason, etc you should hope that the country being called on would help them out. You would never expect such a call because, of course, the person or persons doing the calling would be killed.

    Through what I have seen from videos, and such, I have seen the people wanted to be 'liberated', there reactions after 'liberation' are the only way we could tell they were/would have been calling out for some country to help them.

    Whether their are WMD or not, the people wanted to be free of Saddam, and Bush did the right thing, and if it took lies to do it, so be it, we all lie, it was for the best. And I am not saying he lied, I don't believe he did.

    From below:

    That's what I said.

    If a cop had a hunch that a house was being used to make child porn and went out and broke into the house himself and his hunch was correct, wouldn't you agree the end justify's the means there?
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2003
  14. Jun 12, 2003 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The ends justify the means?
     
  15. Jun 12, 2003 #14
    Either way, if no WMD's are found, someone is going to look bad. The Bush administration could blame the intelligence for giving false information and the intelligence could blame the Bush administration for misinterpreting data.
     
  16. Jun 12, 2003 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In this case, unequivocably yes.
     
  17. Jun 12, 2003 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No. This leads to an even worse kind of lawlessness - oppression by the elite and powerful. This is why we have laws and choose not to live as the wild west. This is why we have a constitution.


     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2003
  18. Jun 12, 2003 #17
    So we ignore what we find because....why? because it was not our original intent?? So if somebody is walking down to the grocery store and finds a dead body, they should ignore it, because they did not intend to find it?
     
  19. Jun 13, 2003 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No. This has nothing to do with what you said. You made the assertion that we should do away with search warrants. Also, this is hardly a comparison to Iraq. If we were tripping over the WMD this thread would not exist.

    By your reasoning, we may as well throw away the constitution and the courts.
     
  20. Jun 13, 2003 #19
    And this is the attitude that will ruin this country.
     
  21. Jun 13, 2003 #20
    That's all very rosy but guess what the war's not over. Hey, that's why there's no democracy - because the war never really ended. Whooda thunkit.
     
  22. Jun 13, 2003 #21

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I am showing my age a bit when I point out that some of the attitudes expressed here by Kyle and Russ, and that I hear from many people these days, [I don't mean to pick Kyle and Russ in particular :smile:] are very familiar: These ideas are what I was taught were typical examples of "Evil Empire", always trust a commie to be a commie, making me see Red, now defunct, Pinko-Soviet values.

    Just to be clear, the ideas expressed here and by many people these days are the very kinds of things that we used to claim as the enemies values; the very kinds of things that made the enemy the enemy. The thing that defines the US is the constitution. By definition, our soldiers fight to protect the constitution. By definition, anyone who seeks to undermine the constitution is an enemy of the state.

    Edit: There is a good reason that "High Crimes" was cited in the original article.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2003
  23. Jun 13, 2003 #22
    Good post...America loses something when we start thinking that if a cause is good, we can do whatever we want. Who gets to decide what is right, and when it is ok to use illegal or immoral means? And, once that door is open, how do we prevent America from becoming a dictatorship?
     
  24. Jun 13, 2003 #23
    Ahh. You touch it, but cannot grasp it.

    What is right? What is immoral? Who is to judge?

    America, my friend, loses everything when we start thinking that what we are doing is bad. All nations use immoral means. They always have. Morality means nothing in the world stage. Publicity is all.

    If you believe what you are doing is right, then it is. Period. It is up to you to look around you. Do you want your friends and family to prosper or decline?

    Can you kill a ten year old who threatens your family with a bomb? Can you subjugate a population who is bent on your destruction? If you are a relative of the 9/11 bombing I bet you can.

    Truth is subjective. The stench of dead loved ones is objective.

    I hate to sound patronizing, but read a WORLD history book. Check out how long these fundamentalist muslim F**ks have been mucking up the line betweeen good and evil. Read the basic tenets of thier existance. No amount of spin can circumvent the single fact that these bastards want to wipe us ALL out. Every since ~600 A.D. these guys have been positioned to destroy the world.

    America, like Europe, is soft - like a marshmallow. We let this crap go on. They get stronger - we get softer. All in the name of PC.

    With the (even remote) possibility of world destruction, I will never coutenance such a "death-culture" until my vast progeny have been scattered beyond the furthest reach of both ICBM and engineered microbe.
     
  25. Jun 13, 2003 #24
    That's some impressive war-mongering, G. I particularly like the part about
    Sounds pretty cool to me, after all, anarchy results in lots of fun.
    The five tenets? Let's see, what are they...
    Where does it say "fly planes into buildings" ?! Mainstream Islam has been around a long time. Believe it or not, it encourages justice, making it a natural enemy of corruption. It opposes the Law of the Jungle that G so eloquently mouthed.
     
  26. Jun 13, 2003 #25

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, your point is well taken. There are even times when a true patriot must make a personal sacrifice, like political suicide, in order to do the right thing. However, you assume that you have been told the truth. Well, if you remember your history, you will remember that we were told by the senior Bush administration that Iraqi soldiers took babies out of there incubators, threw the babies on the floor, and took the incubators back to Iraq. We were even told that a specific Iraqi convoy fleeing Kuwait was slaughtered and they were the ones who killed all of the babies. Later we found that the critical testimony to this effect came from a nurse who was not really a nurse, but a member of the Kuwaiti Royal family. What's more, the incident never even took place.

    Now it appears that we may have been lied to again...this time as the justification for the entire war. The question is not whether or not Saddam is/was a bad guy, the question is, does this country operate according to a constitution or not? By your reasoning, we may as well make Bush King. Have you considered the implications if this war was not justified? The reason so many people objected to this war, including me, was that a distinct lack of evidence was found to support the Bush administration’s claims. Now we can’t find the “tons” of stuff Saddam had stockpiled. I assumed that we likely knew exactly where the weapons were, but for reasons of national security we could not be told. This is the only reason that I wasn't writing letter of protest and such. The fact is, the evidence did not exist, and now it seems that neither did the weapons. If Bush lied, in my mind this could him a war criminal - an unprovoked and unjustified attack on another country? I am still reserving final judgment, but I’m starting to look for a hangin judge.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2003
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook