# US Weapons Inspectors: "No WMD in Iraq"



## PeachMonkey (Oct 6, 2004)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

Despite the fact that the war on Iraq was sold to the American people (and the world) as necessary to deal with an immediate, urgent threat, it is now clear that Iraq had *no* stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

The spin from the Bush Administration and the unelected Iraqi puppet administration, continues, however.

"We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons," [Bush] said.  "One regime stood out. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein."   _(One might ask how terrorists would get those weapons from a dictatorship that had none -- PM)_

"We know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He used them," [Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister] Dr Saleh said, adding that in his view Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction.  _(Of course, the weapons were used when the US was still exporting components to manufacture them to Iraq.  And the comment about Saddam himself being a weapon of mass destruction is beneath contempt -- PM)_


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 6, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm
> 
> 
> "We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons," [Bush] said. "One regime stood out. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein." _(One might ask how terrorists would get those weapons from a dictatorship that had none -- PM)_


Well... at least we know for sure now



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> "We know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He used them," [Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister] Dr Saleh said, adding that in his view Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction. _(Of course, the weapons were used when the US was still exporting components to manufacture them to Iraq. _


Just so I am clear tho, that was occuring prior to the current Bush administration... such as Under Bush Sr and Clinton am I correct?



			
				PeachMonkey
[i said:
			
		

> And the comment about Saddam himself being a weapon of mass destruction is beneath contempt -- PM)[/i]


Yeah... Takes a moron to think that up, and a bigger one to believe it.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 6, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Just so I am clear tho, that was occuring prior to the current Bush administration... such as Under Bush Sr and Clinton am I correct?



Actually, the gassing of Kurdish villages took place in 1987 and 1988 under the Reagan administration.  

Both before and after this use of chemical weapons, the United States continued to sell Iraq the components needed to produce them.


----------



## Xequat (Oct 6, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Well... at least we know for sure now.


Exactly. Plus the ties to Al-Qaeda AFTER 9/11 gave us plenty of reason to worry and investigate, any way (unless you're France, who hates us anyway). Yes, I know there were no ties between 9/11 and Iraq, even though the liberals would have you believe that that was an argument for going in. It wasn't, but there were ties after 9/11. Another distortion.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 6, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Yes, I know there were no ties between 9/11 and Iraq, even though the liberals would have you believe that that was an argument for going in. It wasn't, but there were ties after 9/11. Another distortion.



Wow... this spin is amazing.

*Conservatives* have posited connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda as a reason to invade after the fact, since the WMDs are nowhere to be found, in a desperate attempt to shore up the justification for the war. 

Liberals have pointed out how not only were there no ties between Iraq and 9/11, but that the Al Qaeda links were not the given reason for the invasion.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 6, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Exactly. Plus the ties to Al-Qaeda AFTER 9/11 gave us plenty of reason to worry and investigate, ..... but there were ties after 9/11. Another distortion.


Please elaborate. Take a deep breath and please, slowly and clearly explain to *me*, what those ties between al Qaeda and Iraq consisted of. The simpler you can spell it out for me the better; maybe use bullet points. And, if you have references, can you cite them. 

I realize that Michelle Malken is an expert on this stuff, but I am hoping for references that can match the weight and confidence of a group like, oh, say, the International Atomic Energy Adminstration, or the National Commission on the Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, you know ... someone big, like that as a source would be good.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Oct 7, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Please elaborate. Take a deep breath and please, slowly and clearly explain to *me*, what those ties between al Qaeda and Iraq consisted of. The simpler you can spell it out for me the better; maybe use bullet points. And, if you have references, can you cite them.



From the Butler Report:

p119  Explains that there was evidence of an association between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaida since 1998.  "Those reports described Al Qaida seeking toxic chemicals as well as other conventional terrorist equipment."  It also states, "there is no evidence that these contacts led to practical co-operation."

p120  "Although Saddam's attitude to Al Qaida has not always been consistent, he has generally rejected suggestions of cooperation.  Intelligence nonetheless indicates that ... meetings have taken place between senior Iraqi representatives and senior Al Qaida operatives... Al Qaida has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological (CB) expertise from Iraq, but we do not know whether any such training was provided."

"We conclude that the JIC made clear that, although there were contacts between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaida, there was no evidence of cooperation.  It did warn of the possibility of terrorist attacks on coalition forces in Baghdad."

So we had good intelligence that meetings between Al Qaida and Iraq were taking place and what Al Qaida was asking for, but we don't know whether anything was provided or if there was cooperation in any form.

WhiteBirch


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 7, 2004)

> So we had good intelligence that meetings between Al Qaida and Iraq were taking place and what Al Qaida was asking for, but we don't know whether anything was provided or if there was cooperation in any form.



Oy. Just think of how many "terrorist ties" that the United States would be guilty of if that was one's sole basis of "evidence"....


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 7, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> From the Butler Report:
> 
> p119 Explains that there was evidence of an association between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaida since 1998. "Those reports described Al Qaida seeking toxic chemicals as well as other conventional terrorist equipment." It also states, "there is no evidence that these contacts led to practical co-operation."
> 
> ...


Let's go one step further, if you will indulge me.

Please define ... '*ties*' ... as in the sentence 'the ties to Al-Qaeda AFTER 9/11'
Also, please define ... '*practical co-operation*' .... as in the sentence 'there is no evidence that these contacts led to ...'

And, let me ask you if you will agree that we now know that Iraq had no Chemical Weapons, no Biological Weapons, and no Nuclear Weapons at the time these meetings were to said to have taken place?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 7, 2004)

> And, let me ask you if you will agree that we now know that Iraq had no Chemical Weapons, no Biological Weapons, and no Nuclear Weapons at the time these meetings were to said to have taken place?



Sure, but you only if _you_ agree that Iraq was pursuing several "Weapons of Mass Destruction related programs". Heh.

*chuckle*


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 7, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Exactly. Plus the ties to Al-Qaeda AFTER 9/11 gave us plenty of reason to worry and investigate, any way (unless you're France, who hates us anyway). Yes, I know there were no ties between 9/11 and Iraq, even though the liberals would have you believe that that was an argument for going in. It wasn't, but there were ties after 9/11. Another distortion.


*sigh* I am so tired of the France-bashing.  Do I think they are biased?  Sure.  They also, directly after the September 11 attacks, grieved with our country, pledging support against terrorism (although, yes, not Iraq) and said "We are all Americans".   When have we done something like that for another country? 

I clearly remember how 9/11 was repeatedly tied to Iraq in speeches before we invaded - for example, from our own President.  That was the *main* argument - that Iraq was behind/supported the attacks, and Osama bin Laden.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 7, 2004)

Stupid question, but this just occured to me...

If, as everyone seems to be saying we have been supplying saddam with the materials to make WMD, isnt that in and of itself enough reason to believe he had them?

I mean... If I gave my neighbor a shotgun, I would assume he had a shotgun hidden away somewhere, even if the guy across the street from us said he looked around my neighbors house and didnt find a shotgun...

Hmmm.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 7, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I mean... If I gave my neighbor a shotgun, I would assume he had a shotgun hidden away somewhere, even if the guy across the street from us said he looked around my neighbors house and didnt find a shotgun...


Not if the police told you that they took away the shotgun in 1994, AND that they checked the house today, and didn't find any shotgun.

So, under the circumstances, do you firebomb your neighbors house?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 7, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> So, under the circumstances, do you firebomb your neighbors house?


Now that is a beautiful extension of the analogy.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 7, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> So, under the circumstances, do you firebomb your neighbors house?


If I dont like him, and I know FOR A FACT he has no shotgun to shoot me with, I probably would, actually.

But, that's why I am for allowing an armed populace... a topic for a different thread.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 7, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Stupid question, but this just occured to me...
> 
> If, as everyone seems to be saying we have been supplying saddam with the materials to make WMD, isnt that in and of itself enough reason to believe he had them?
> 
> ...


Truthfully, I think that not everyone was saying that we had been supplying Saddam with the materials to make the Weapons of Mass Destruction. I know I have seen that claim thrown about, but in my research, I haven't been able to find any definite links.

I do know that we provided Iraq with intelligence about the Iranian formations so that when they used the Weapons of Mass Destruction on the battlefield, they were more effective. I also am pretty sure that we knew that France (oh, geez, there it is) was invovled in providing Iraq with materials and know how. I will gladly allow myself to be corrected if someone can show some definitive, credible links.

Of course, that was all going on back in the 80's, when we were allies with Hussein (or at least quiet supporters against them nasty Iranians, who, after all held a couple of hundred hostages in 79 & 80).

In the time between when Hussein had and used the weapons, and March 19, 2003 ... there was a full scale 100 hour war, and 12 years of low level, constant hostility, and a dis-armement contingent looking through everything closet they could find for the weapons.

The truth is, they weren't there. Listening to Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham today, I just have to laugh. How many people have to say there weren't any weapons and Hussein wasn't a threat before these people will just shut up. Scott Ritter, David Kay, Muhammed El Baradia, Charles Duelfur, Colin Powell. Oh, well.


----------



## Kane (Oct 7, 2004)

The final report of the US Weapons Inspectors did state that Saddam did have the raw materials to make WMD. The chief inspector said that Saddam was going to resume making WMD in the very near future. Though that wasn't my main reason for the Iraq war, it is one thing to consider. In any case even the weapons inspector said, "THE WORLD IS A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT SADDAM."


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 8, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The truth is, they weren't there. Listening to Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham today, I just have to laugh. How many people have to say there weren't any weapons and Hussein wasn't a threat before these people will just shut up. Scott Ritter, David Kay, Muhammed El Baradia, Charles Duelfur, Colin Powell. Oh, well.





			
				Kane said:
			
		

> The final report of the US Weapons Inspectors did state that Saddam did have the raw materials to make WMD. The chief inspector said that Saddam was going to resume making WMD in the very near future. Though that wasn't my main reason for the Iraq war, it is one thing to consider. In any case even the weapons inspector said, "THE WORLD IS A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT SADDAM."


Look at Kane, see him contort himself to try and keep from going insane in the face of new facts. Watch his unwillingness to acknowledge and process new information.

Kane, please go and explain to the family of Staff Sgt. Richard L. Morgan Jr. of St. Clairsville, Ohio that the world is better a better place with Saddam Hussein. Staff Sgt. Morgan was killed in Iraq on October 5, 2004; approximately 10 months after Hussein was captured.

Or Christopher S. Potts - Killed 10/3
Or Russell L. Collier - Killed 10/3
Or James L. Pettaway Jr. - Killed 10/3
Or Jack Taft Hennessy - Killed 10/1
Of Michael A. Uvanni - Killed 10/1

I am going to make a wild guess here, and suggest to you that the mothers and fathers of these people, their sons and daughters, there wives, brothers and sisters really don't give a damn about the World being a better place without Saddam.

Just a guess there - Mike


----------



## Tkang_TKD (Oct 8, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Truthfully, I think that not everyone was saying that we had been supplying Saddam with the materials to make the Weapons of Mass Destruction. I know I have seen that claim thrown about, but in my research, I haven't been able to find any definite links.


I found a few that might be worth looking at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 8, 2004)

Thank you. Most enlightening.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Oct 8, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> please go and explain to the family of Staff Sgt. Richard L. Morgan Jr. of St. Clairsville, Ohio that the world is better a better place with (sic.) Saddam Hussein. Staff Sgt. Morgan was killed in Iraq on October 5, 2004; approximately 10 months after Hussein was captured.



Please... no one likes it when people get killed.  But they joined the military willingly;  they weren't drafted, they knew what was at stake.  So, are we supposed to only let the troops that want to fight over go?  It's sad that they were killed, but they were killed doing EXACTLY what they signed up for, going into a battle when told to.  They don't get a say in what conflict they go into.

To me, this kind of post says that you don't support the war (which is your right) AND that you don't support the troops.  All you care is that when there's a conflict and someone dies that we shouldn't be there.

WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Oct 8, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Let's go one step further, if you will indulge me.
> 
> Please define ... '*ties*' ... as in the sentence 'the ties to Al-Qaeda AFTER 9/11'
> Also, please define ... '*practical co-operation*' .... as in the sentence 'there is no evidence that these contacts led to ...'



Since I didn't write the document, I can't define any of that.  I also don't wish to try.  Most of the sentences I quoted came directly for the intelligence provided to the British government.  I would guess that the same type of intelligence came to the American government.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> And, let me ask you if you will agree that we now know that Iraq had no Chemical Weapons, no Biological Weapons, and no Nuclear Weapons at the time these meetings were to said to have taken place?



I would not agree with that statement.  We knew he had weapons going into the first Gulf war.  We don't know what happened to a lot of it after that.  All we know is that we don't believe the weapons are there now.  They may have been destroyed or they may have been taken out of the country at any time after 1991.

WhiteBirch


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 8, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Since I didn't write the document, I can't define any of that. I also don't wish to try. Most of the sentences I quoted came directly for the intelligence provided to the British government. I would guess that the same type of intelligence came to the American government.
> 
> I would not agree with that statement. We knew he had weapons going into the first Gulf war. *We don't know what happened to a lot of it after that.* All we know is that we don't believe the weapons are there now. They may have been destroyed or they may have been taken out of the country at any time after 1991.


Please review the activites of UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission. You will find that we do know quite a bit about what happened to any Chemical & Biological weapons after the cessation of the 1991 hostilities.

Seems to me that you must join Kane over there in the Contortionist booth.

Thanks for playing. 

Thanks also for pointing out how badly I typed that response up there ... wow, I was way off .... but you knew what I meant, didn't you.

Mike


----------



## lvwhitebir (Oct 8, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Not if the police told you that they took away the shotgun in 1994, AND that they checked the house today, and didn't find any shotgun.
> 
> So, under the circumstances, do you firebomb your neighbors house?



I think your logic is off.  There aren't any police to say they took away the shotgun.  All there is are police sitting outside the house saying they searched and found nothing until they got kicked out.  Every time they tried to search, though, the neighbor denied them entry into several rooms.

They have found no evidence of the gun, but can't say for sure that it isn't there.

So, knowing you have a court order for the owner to hand over the gun or evidence that he got rid of it, and he's stalled for 12 years, do you just say 'well, we'll keep trying' or do you go in and put him in jail?  Especially knowing what he would like to do with the gun if given the chance.

Finally, it wasn't a firebomb.  The house is still there.  We're trying to help them rebuild.  Unfortunately there's still a terrific power struggle for who wants to be in charge and we're caught in the middle.  We can't leave and let them duke it out.  All we can do is try to get a hold of the situation and get them to make a more rational decision.

WhiteBirch


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 8, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> To me, this kind of post says that you don't support the war (which is your right) AND _that you don't support the troops_.


Oh, I don't know about that.  If that's the way Mike's post reads to you, well, I think you are taking it both a little extremely, and out of the context of Mike's other work here.  I'm pretty sure that michaeledward supports the US forces, and is grateful that they will do the job they are called to do.  Further, his concern over their deaths does in fact speak to me that he regards their sacrifices very seriously.  It is possible to be unsupportive of this invasion, yet respect the men and women who do the job. :asian:

I can say this because I feel the same way.  As I am most certain you know, it is a dirty, rotten job.  I work with just one other person, a young man whom I hired just over a year ago.  He became injured in Iraq, and was honorably discharged as a result of those injuries.  I have heard some of the stories that he is comfortable enough to discuss with me - we are close friends.  I hold these soldiers in the highest regard, and cannot begrudge them the work they must do.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Oct 8, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Please review the activites of UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission. You will find that we do know quite a bit about what happened to any Chemical & Biological weapons after the cessation of the 1991 hostilities.



If they knew what happened to it, resolution 1441 would have been met AND closed AND there would have been no need for the inspectors to go in any more.  So it seems to me that they didn't know where it all was...



> CNN    4/24/1998
> As described in the latest report, the criteria is threefold: "full declaration by Iraq, verification by the Commission, and destruction, removal or rendering harmless under international supervision."
> 
> Butler argued that while Iraq may claim to have fully declared all of its weapons, its "consistent refusal" to provide UNSCOM with needed information and materials to back up the claims fails to satisfy the second step -- verification. That makes the destruction of all of Iraq's prohibited weapons programs impossible, the report said.
> ...





> CNN     9/9/2002
> Even so, in those seven years, the inspection teams were never sure of their accounting. While they were in Iraq, Saddam admitted to just a fraction of his missile and chemical stores and falsely denied the existence of a biological program. After Saddam finally quit cooperating in 1998 and the U.S. and Britain bombarded Iraq for four days, the inspectors were gone for good, immensely disturbed by what they had not found. Yet they knew, based on discrepancies in Iraqi documents they had seized, that Iraq still hid 6,000 chemical bombs. They discounted Iraq's contention that it had destroyed all of the 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve poison that it admitted to having produced or the 500 tons of precursor chemicals to make more. They suspected Iraq retained 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
> ...
> Saddam's biological-weapons program was the deepest black hole. Despite more than 30 searches for various unconventional arms, inspectors did not even know of its existence until mid-1995, when Saddam's defecting son-in-law Hussein Kamal revealed that secret labs buried in Iraq's security, not military, apparatus were cooking up deadly germs. Iraq subsequently admitted it made batches of anthrax bacteria, carcinogenic aflatoxin, agricultural toxins and the paralyzing poison botulinum. Iraqi officials reported they had loaded 191 bombs, including 25 missile warheads, with the poisons for use in the Gulf War. They said they destroyed them after the conflict, but they presented no proof, and Western officials don't believe them.






> CNN    1/31/2003
> Blix told the council Monday that Iraq has not fully accounted for its stocks of chemical and biological weapons and has not fully accepted its obligation to disarm under U.N. Resolution 1441.





> CNN    3/14/2003
> The United Nations has been waiting for months for Iraq to provide information that could prove what happened to chemical and biological weapons it possessed in the 1990s.
> 
> As much as 1,000 tons of VX are unaccounted for. Iraq also cannot account for as much as 2,245 gallons [8,500 liters] of anthrax.
> ...



Hmmm... there's a lot the UN felt was still missing, even in 2003!



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Seems to me that you must join Kane over there in the Contortionist booth.



Wow.  You're resorting to name calling which is the sign of a weak position.  I guess you're not so sure of yourself.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Thanks also for pointing out how badly I typed that response up there ... wow, I was way off .... but you knew what I meant, didn't you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## lvwhitebir (Oct 8, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> It is possible to be unsupportive of this invasion, yet respect the men and women who do the job.



I agree.  But to pull out the argument to say that just because people were killed it wasn't worth it is a lousy argument.  It's like saying aborting is wrong and parading a dead fetus around a kindergarten class to prove your point.  I'm sure everyone wanted to make this completely bloodless.  But conflicts like this rarely are.

WhiteBirch


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 8, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> If they knew what happened to it, resolution 1441 would have been met AND closed AND there would have been no need for the inspectors to go in any more. So it seems to me that they didn't know where it all was... Hmmm... there's a lot the UN felt was still missing, even in 2003!
> 
> Wow. You're resorting to name calling which is the sign of a weak position. I guess you're not so sure of yourself.


So, the inspectors say, they can't say for sure what happened to *all* of the ChemBio stocks. My argument was that the inspectors knew what happened to an awful lot of the ChemBio stocks. There is, of course, a difference between saying "we can't find any" and "they don't have any".

The name calling is not happening out a position of weakness, at all. More, it comes about from fatigue. Any reading of the news over the past month shows that *all* of the reasons given by the Bush administration to justify the invasion are being disproven, over and over and over again. Many people think that 'Bush is a Strong Leader', and therefore continue to ignore the reports that say he was wrong.

When you are lost, how much further down the road will you drive, *before* you finally stop and ask directions?

Kane said, "the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein" and used it as the justification for the invasion, and loss of blood and treasure. I guess I would have to ask, how do we know that statement to be true? With each innocent death in Iraq, like when US Airstrikes kill 20 in Fallujah on September 16 & 17, those inclined to join a jihad organization increase. It may very well be that 20 years from now, we will know for certain that the world is *not* a better place with out Saddam. But, we certainly can't know now.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 8, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I agree. But to pull out the argument to say that just because people were killed it wasn't worth it is a lousy argument. It's like saying aborting is wrong and parading a dead fetus around a kindergarten class to prove your point. I'm sure everyone wanted to make this completely bloodless. But conflicts like this rarely are.
> 
> WhiteBirch


I don't think it's quite like parading a dead fetus around a kid's classroom.  I think part of the anger that so many Americans are feeling are from people who support our troops - and want them not to be deployed for unnecessary missions.  michaeledward was listing the names of people who were killed in Iraq *after* Saddam was captured.  If we went in for WMD - not there.  If we went in just to get Saddam - he's been outsed and captured.  What are we doing there now?  We're doing a pretty lousy job of nation-building (as we've done so throughout our recent history).  The only thing we seem to be doing successfully is getting Halliburton to some oil fields. 

I understand that stabilizing Iraq will be very difficult.  Then why did we go in there in the first place?  Not for stablity, but ostensibly because of WMD.  (Which, again, brings up North Korea, Iran, etc. - why aren't we invading *everyone* with WMD?)


----------



## Tkang_TKD (Oct 8, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Please... no one likes it when people get killed. But they joined the military willingly; they weren't drafted, they knew what was at stake. So, are we supposed to only let the troops that want to fight over go? It's sad that they were killed, but they were killed doing EXACTLY what they signed up for, going into a battle when told to. They don't get a say in what conflict they go into.


You are exactly right here. That is why those of us that don't agree with the war still go fight it. It's not our choice, and we absolutely will not refuse an order of the CinC, irregardless of whether we agree with it or not.




> To me, this kind of post says that you don't support the war (which is your right) AND that you don't support the troops. All you care is that when there's a conflict and someone dies that we shouldn't be there.
> 
> WhiteBirch


I would say that's a little bit extreme.  I do not support the invasion of Iraq in any way, shape or form. I do however support my fellow troops in the extreme, and find their deaths to be cheapened by having to have died for a cause that was faulty at best.  Believe it or not, you can support the troops without supporting the war.  Many of us on active duty do just that every day.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 8, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Truthfully, I think that not everyone was saying that we had been supplying Saddam with the materials to make the Weapons of Mass Destruction. I know I have seen that claim thrown about, but in my research, I haven't been able to find any definite links.



Take a look at the book House of Bush House of Saud by Craig Unger.  The WMD thread can be traced through Don Rumsfeld of all people.  

Here are a couple of other interesting sources by the way...

Saddams origins, the Iran/Iraq war, origin of Saddams weapons, and gas attacks.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/02-18-98.html 

The First Gulf War

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/02-19-98.html 

Did Saddam Gas his own people?

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html 

Enjoy...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 8, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Take a look at the book House of Bush House of Saud by Craig Unger.


Ya know, I've read every book on current events I could get my hands on.  I subscribe to every indie newspaper and website I can.  I've seen every documentary I had time for, and then some.

But the only book I could not finish was House of Bush/House of Saud.  The revelations about the relationship between the two dynasties, and the political implications, were so nauseating that I became physically ill, and put the book away after the first 75 pages.

upnorthkyosa, you're a better man than I am.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 10, 2004)

http://www.mwarrior.com/TerrorWar.htm

The Real Story about the WMD?

By Larry Elder

© 2004 Laurence A. Elder

"Week after week after week after week," said Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., about President Bush's rationale for going to war with Iraq, "we were told lie after lie after lie after lie." Were we?

Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al-Qaida members who brought the stuff in from Syria. The chemicals included VX, Sarin and 70 others. But the media seems curiously incurious about whether one could reasonably trace this stuff back to Iraq. Had the terrorists released a "toxic cloud," Jordanian officials say 80,000 would have died!

So, I interviewed terrorism expert John Loftus, who once held some of the highest security clearances in the world. Loftus, a former Army officer, served as a Justice Department prosecutor. He investigated CIA cases of Nazi war criminals for the U.S. attorney general. Author of several books, Loftus once received a Pulitzer Prize nomination.

John Loftus: There's a lot of reason to think (the source of the chemicals) might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al-Qaida, who've been trained in Iraq, planned for the mission in Iraq, and now they're in Jordan with nerve gas. That's not the kind of thing you buy in a grocery store. You have to have obtained it from someplace.

Larry Elder: They couldn't have obtained it from Syria?

Loftus: Syria does have the ability to produce certain kinds of nerve gasses, but in small quantities. The large stockpiles were known to be in Iraq. The best U.S. and allied intelligence say that in the 10 weeks before the Iraq war, Saddam's Russian adviser told him to get rid of all the nerve gas. It would be useless against U.S. troops; the rubber suits were immune to it. So they shipped it across the border to Syria and Lebanon and buried it.

Now, in the last few weeks, there's a controversy that Syria has been trying to get rid of this stuff. They're selling it to al-Qaida is one supposition. We know the Sudanese government demanded that the Syrian government empty its warehouse in Khartoum where they've been hiding illegal missiles along with components of weapons of mass destruction.

But there's no doubt these guys confessed on Jordanian television that they received the training for this mission in Iraq ... And from the description it appears this is the form of nerve gas known as VX. It's very rare, and very tough to manufacture ... one of the most destructive chemical mass-production weapons that you can use ... They wanted to build three clouds, a mile across, of toxic gas. A whole witch's brew of nasty chemicals that were going to go into this poison cloud, and this would have gone over shopping malls, hospitals ...

Elder: You said that the Russians told Saddam, "There is going to be an invasion. Get rid of your chemical and biological weapons."

Loftus: Sure. It would only bring the United Nations down on their heads if they were shown to really have weapons of mass destruction. It's not generally known, but the CIA has found 41 different material breaches where Saddam did have a weapons of mass destruction program of various types. It was completely illegal. But no one could find the stockpiles. And the liberal press seems to be focusing on that.

Elder: It seems to me that this is a huge, huge story.

Loftus: It's embarrassing to the (press). They've staked their reputations that this stuff wasn't there. And now all of a sudden we have al-Qaida agents from Iraq showing up with weapons of mass destruction.

Elder: David Kay said, in an interim report, that there was a possibility that WMD components were shipped to Syria.

Loftus: A possibility? We had a Syrian journalist who defected to Paris in January. The guy is dying of cancer, and he said, "Look, my friends in Syrian intelligence told me exactly where the stuff is buried." He named three sites in Syria, and the Israelis have confirmed the three sites. They know where the stuff is, but the problem is that the United States can't just go around invading Arab countries ... We know from Israeli and defectors' intelligence that the son of the Syrian defense minister was paid 50 million bucks to bring the stuff across the border and bury it.

Elder: Why would al-Qaida attack Jordan?

Loftus: Jordan is an ally of the United States. It's at peace with Israel. And Jordan has a long history of trying to prosecute terrorists ... There are a lot of reasons ... They want to make an example of them. They want to terrorize as many of the Arab states as possible. This is sort of a political dream for the president. The worst nightmare is al-Qaida gets weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. And it looks like it's coming true.

A Syria /Iraq /al-Qaida /WMD connection? Why, this calls for a congressional investigation.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 10, 2004)

And another story to spin the facts. Duelfer's report says Iraq has not tried to make any Weapons of Mass Destruction since the 1991 war. All stocks they had were destroyed.

We know this because we have interrogated all of those Iraqi scientists that were invovled in the programs.

Tgace ... you are beginning to sound like Sean Hannity, a shill for Bush. 

Are there Weapons of Mass Destruction in the world. You bet. But they were not in Iraq according to the definative sources.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 10, 2004)

The statement above saying that Syria can only produce nerve gas in small amounts doesn't wash with this article from the somewhat conservative Washington Times:  

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030916-113346-3232r.htm

"Syria has one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Arab world that includes the nerve agent sarin and the more deadly nerve gas known as VX, Mr. Bolton said."

So Syria could have indeed produced the VX in question.  None of the articles mention how much VX was seized, whether it was tons or quarts.  

TGace's rather speculative article by Elder seems to be another example of the Right scrambling to find justification for the war.  Perhaps the article is an attempt to justify an upcoming invasion of Syria.

A Janes Defense article on the seizure of WMD's...

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr040728_1_n.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 10, 2004)

Question guys...

 Why are news reports, articles, fact-finding reports etc... presented by "The Right" all Flase, biased, spun, made-up, wrong, etc...

 while all of them from the left are 100% accurate and fact carved into stone and unquestionable?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 10, 2004)

Gee, tgrace, would this be THE Larry Elder, the Clarence Thomas of conservative talk radio? And would this be the same John Loftus who wrote:

What Congress Does Not Know about Enron and 9/11
May 31, 2002 For Immediate Release 
By Atty. John J. Loftus* 
http://www.john-loftus.com/ 

A captured Al Qaida document reveals that US energy companies were secretly negotiating with the Taliban to build a pipeline. The document was obtained by the FBI but was not allowed to be shared with other agencies in order to protect Enron. Multiple sources confirm that American law enforcement agencies were deliberately kept in the dark and systematically prevented from connecting the dots before 9/11 in order to aid Enrons secret and immoral Taliban negotiations. 

The suppressed Al Qaida document tends to support recent claims of a cover-up made by several mid-level intelligence and law enforcement figures. Their ongoing terrorist investigations appear to have been hindered during the same sensitive time period while the Enron Corporation was still negotiating with the Taliban. An inadvertent result of the Taliban pipeline cover-up was that the Talibans friends in Al Qaida were able to complete their last eight months of preparations for 9/11 while the Enron secrecy block was still in force. 

Although the latest order to block investigations allegedly resulted from Enrons January 2002 appeal to Vice President Dick Cheney, it appears that there were at least three previous block orders, each building upon the other, stretching back for decades and involving both Republican and Democratic administrations. 


Gosh, I wouldn't think that there would be much there to really militate for supporting a Bush/Cheney ticket, what with the Enron stuff and all.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 11, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Question guys...
> 
> Why are news reports, articles, fact-finding reports etc... presented by "The Right" all Flase, biased, spun, made-up, wrong, etc...
> 
> while all of them from the left are 100% accurate and fact carved into stone and unquestionable?


Technopunk. They are not *all* false, biased, spun, made-up, wrong, etc.

However, The United States Government has just spent 20 months, 200 Billion Dollars, and more than 1000 American Soldiers lives to 'Dis-arm' Iraq of their Weapons of Mass Destruction. The official report from the Iraqi Survey Group, *the organization to determine the status of Iraq's Weapons and Weapons programs*, has just handed in their final report. That report says, *there weren't any Weapons*. Sorry.

Now, when David Kay, the original leader of the Iraqi Survey Group quit the job in January because *there weren't any weapons*, one might argue that the job has not yet been completed. So, just because David Kay *hasn't found any weapons*, doesn't mean there aren't any weapons; we need to finish the job. 

Well, now we have finished the job. We are told that the lost blood and money is Ok, because Saddam Hussein had the 'intent to rebuild his weapons programs' and he was 'gaming the inspectors'. Well, I have the intent to win the lottery. Having the intent does not make something so. 


Technopunk, I want to further state that I am not too concerned about what Tgace thinks or posts on this board. The way I read it, Tgace is firmly set in his convictions, just as I am in mine. I don't expect logic and facts to change his mind. He is as anti-democrat as I am anti-republican. That's OK. 

I am concerned about the lurkers on this board. There are people who read these threads without ever posting. Every post in the Study is viewed between 9 and 10 times. I don't want some silent, undecided, to read Tgace's post and accept it as truthful.

Sometimes, Tgace just likes to kick up the dust, to piss off rmcroberson and me. That's fine too ... but so far, 1073 American soldiers have died over the weapons of mass destruction that don't exist, and didn't exist.  And I think anyone who is eligable to vote on November 2, 2004 should clearly have that in mind at polling time.

That's Why!  Thanks for letting me rant. Mike


----------



## Tgace (Oct 11, 2004)

More for those of you who make your political decisions based on what some guy you never met posts on the internet.... 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
Report: Syria hiding Iraqi WMD
Sources say relative of President Assad smuggled arms to 3 places

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 6, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com 

A relative of Syrian President Bashar Assad is hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in three locations in Syria, according to intelligence sources cited by an exiled opposition party. 

The weapons were smuggled in large wooden crates and barrels by Zu Alhema al-Shaleesh, known for moving arms into Iraq in violation of U.N. resolutions and for sending recruits to fight coalition forces, said the U.S.-based Reform Party of Syria. 

The party, based in Potomac, Md., regards itself as a secular body comprised of Syrians who want to see the country embrace "real democratic and economic reforms." 

One weapons-cache location identified by the sources is a mountain tunnel near the village of al-Baidah in northwest Syria, the report said. The tunnel is known to house a branch of the Assad regime's national security apparatus. 

Two other arms supplies are reported to be in west-central Syria. One is hidden at a factory operated by the Syrian Air Force, near the village of Tal Snan, between the cities of Hama and Salmiyeh. The third location is tunnels beneath the small town of Shinshar, which belongs to the 661 battalion of the Syrian Air Force. 

The nephew of Zu Alhema al-Shaleesh, Assef al-Shaleesh, runs Al Bashair Trading Co., a front for the Assad family involved prior to the war in oil smuggling from Iraq and arms smuggling into the country. Al-Bashair has offices in Damascus, Beirut and Baghdad. 

In an exclusive interview yesterday with the London Telegraph, Assad came close to admitting his country possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. 

Assad told the London paper Syria rejects American and British demands for concessions on weapons of mass destruction, insisting Damascus is entitled to defend itself by acquiring its own chemical and biological deterrent. 

He said Israel must agree to abandon its undeclared nuclear arsenal in order for Syria to consider any deal with the U.S. 

Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported Al Bashair Trading Co. participated in the smuggling of millions of dollars worth of sophisticated arms and equipment to Saddam Hussein for three years prior to the Iraqi leader's overthrow. 

Al Bashair executives met with North Korean firms before the war began, according to the Los Angeles daily. The paper's three-month investigation included the translation of 800 signed contracts found in the Al Bashair Trading Co. office shortly before U.S. troops entered Baghdad. 

Just prior to the U.S.-led effort to oust Hussein, SES International Corp. signed at least 50 contracts to supply weapons and gear to Iraq, the Times said, including 1,000 heavy machine guns and up to 20 million rounds for assault rifles. 

Not all the weapons were delivered, but some may still be in use by terrorists battling the U.S. occupation forces, the newspaper said. 

At least one shipment of arms was completed with the help of the Syrian government in violation of a U.N. arms embargo. 

SES International Corp. denied any wrongdoing, while Syria's foreign ministry refused to comment to the Times.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 11, 2004)

Well, you're right...an extremeply reliable source, what with Sean Hannity's clenched-jaw stalwart Defender of America photo on one side, and this article by somebody named, "Vox Day," who claims to be a member of the SFWA and a, "Christian conservative," on the other:


------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporations are not capitalism
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 11, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

©*2004*WorldNetDaily.com 


One of the most widely believed myths in America today is the belief that corporations are an inherent part of capitalism. Concomitant with this is the idea that big corporations and big government have an intrinsically hostile relationship and that the stock market is a free market. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Capitalism was already well entrenched and the Industrial Revolution was complete when the U.S. Supreme Court radically altered the concept of the corporate charter in 1886 by ruling that the Southern Pacific Railroad was a "natural person" under the U.S. Constitution. Prior to this time, corporations were strictly controlled by state law, which is why the word "limited" still occurs in corporate language. 


The Supreme Court had tried once before to expand corporate power by stripping sovereignty from the state of New Hampshire in 1819. In response, many states wrote laws to ensure that they would retain their sovereignty  19 "even amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures". 

The 1886 ruling trumped these efforts, fulfilling Thomas Jefferson's prescient fears. In a letter to George Logan written on Nov. 12, 1816, he wrote: 


"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country." 


But these monied corporations did more than challenge our government, they corrupted it entirely and established a symbiotic relationship with it. This symbiotic relationship is openly anti-capitalistic, as undying corporations take advantage of laws originally written to protect the entrepeneurs who are the genuine engine of technological progress and economic growth, and use them to sustain their unnatural, parasitic life. 

For example, Disney successfully lobbied Congress in 1998 to extend the period of copyright law for 20 years, increasing it to the life of the author plus 70 years. This is obviously of no benefit to a deceased author or his children, but it does prevent Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain while remaining technically within the constitutional dictates that copyrights be granted for a "limited time." 

Corporations also use the government to protect their pool of investment money in the stock market. Due to the massive regulation of this anti-capitalist and unfree market, entrepreneurs needing to raise large sums of capital to challenge established corporate competitors are forced to submit to the predatory regime of the investment banks. In a genuinely free market, the owners of small, but growing businesses could simply sell their public shares over the Internet to anyone who wished to invest. 

Indeed, with today's high-speed communications technology and digital money, there is no more need for Wall Street than there is for Congress. Eliminating both and replacing them with electronic systems  Free and Open Source, of course  would result in the realization of significantly more pure and efficient strains of capitalism and democracy alike. 

One need only look at the various socialist and communist states around the world and the friendly relations that giant Western multinationals have with them to realize there is no fundamental link between capitalism and corporations. Gozprom, LUKoil and 400 other Soviet corporations were operating inside and outside the USSR prior to 1989, while Communist China not only permits corporations, but owns several that are listed on the Global Fortune 500. Some of them, such as PetroChina and Sinopec, are even traded on the Hong Kong and New York stock markets. 

In fact, it is not the Chinese government, but the People's Liberation Army that owns the International Trust and Investment Corporation, which among other things has more than 200 Canadian corporations and is the largest "private" operator of shipping container terminals. 

Not everything to which the idiot Left is hostile is necessarily good. It is impossible to assert that the age of untrammeled corporatism has been friendly to individual liberty or prosperity, especially when real wages have been falling for three decades  they are 14 percent lower than they were in 1972. 

The genius of human invention and the undeniable blessings of capitalism do not stem from artificial structures at law, they come only from the mind of the individual. Conservatives would do well to remember that the next time that the corporations go to their comrades in Congress, demanding more violations of human freedom and more restrictions on individual liberty in order to sustain their vampirish unlives.


OOOOH, sounds like Marx to me. Incidentally, the suggestion that corporations only appeared in the 19th century is of counse utterly wrong; they were concomittant with the rise of capitalism, dating back at least as far as entities like the East India Trading Company and the various trading corporations of the 17th century and before.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> More for those of you who make your political decisions based on what some guy you never met posts on the internet....


Tgace, does this mean that you know you are spreading falsehoods, but don't really give a damn because you are never going to meet any of the people who read this refuse anyhow?


----------



## Tgace (Oct 11, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Tgace, does this mean that you know you are spreading falsehoods, but don't really give a damn because you are never going to meet any of the people who read this refuse anyhow?


No, it means anybody who gets all torqued up about what somebody posts regarding politics on a martial arts board, or is "swingable" based on some unknown persons posts....ahhh forget about it, youll have to figure ME out for yourself.

It appears you think you already have.





-"Tgace. Over 1-Billion "falsehoods" served."


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 11, 2004)

I don't know, even though I haven't met the vast majority of people here, I'm interested in what people have to say (and rant about) in the study.  I don't assume off the bat that people are here just to make things up or whatever.


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 11, 2004)

Ok, guys...

do I need to get out the topic bat again?

-Nightingale-
MT MOD


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 11, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> Ok, guys...
> 
> do I need to get out the topic bat again?
> 
> ...


Sorry, my bad, I accept responsibility for taking the thread off topic.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 11, 2004)

Apologies...

:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Oct 11, 2004)

Back on topic....WMD's

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts


> *Feb. 25, 1998, Bob KERREY:*
> *Force, either our own or that of dissident Iraqis, will be required to remove this regime.*


 


http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-13-04-2.html


> Focusing on the existence of WMD and the CIA's inability to get it right about Iraq misses the point. It's too easy to lay the blame on the doorstep of the intelligence community. Perhaps the reason the Senate Intelligence Committee and Sen. Rockefeller are reluctant to take aim at the White House is because they know that they too must share the blame for bad decision-making.
> It's not because of bad information that Congress voted to support the Iraq war. It's because Congress was unwilling to ask the right questions about how Iraq -- even with WMD -- was an undeterrable threat to the United States. If you don't ask the right questions, you never get the right answers, regardless of the quality of the information.


 [font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]
[font=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36844
[size=-1]





> © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com [/size][/font]
> 
> The U.S. intelligence community has found evidence Syria received Iraqi missiles and WMD in late 2002 and early 2003, U.S. officials said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.
> 
> ...


[/font]


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2004)

Weapons of Mass Mustard .... 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6095119/



> FALLUJAH, Iraq - A U.S. warplane early Tuesday destroyed a popular restaurant in Fallujah that U.S. officials said was a meeting place for the Tawhid and Jihad terror network, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
> 
> Two security guards were reportedly killed in the attack, which flattened the kabab shop, leaving only a smoking pile of crushed concrete slabs and twisted metal after the raid, according to witnesses.
> 
> The U.S. military said the "precision attack" targeted militants loyal to al-Zarqawi, who has a $25 million bounty on his head.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 12, 2004)

Just incidentally, only slightly buried in much of the testimony about the Bush admin's major screwup here has been a reiterated point that the President and his cronies actively pressured the CIA and others to suppress reports, change reports, and more or less fansify reports to support their already decided-upon position.

But then, I feel sure that the son of an ex-CIA Director would never know nothin' bout the way intelligence works in our government. So I feel sure that the alibi Bish is pushing makes perfect sense.


----------



## kelly keltner (Oct 12, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Exactly. Plus the ties to Al-Qaeda AFTER 9/11 gave us plenty of reason to worry and investigate, any way (unless you're France, who hates us anyway). Yes, I know there were no ties between 9/11 and Iraq, even though the liberals would have you believe that that was an argument for going in. It wasn't, but there were ties after 9/11. Another distortion.


 France don't even get me started about those frenchies. How many times....................................

kelly


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 12, 2004)

kelly keltner said:
			
		

> France don't even get me started about those frenchies. How many times....................................
> 
> kelly


I don't believe that denigratory monikers such as "frenchies" are particularly necessary or appropriate to the discussion.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 12, 2004)

kelly keltner said:
			
		

> France don't even get me started about those frenchies. How many times...................................



I would be genuinely curious what you mean by "how many times", and just how many times those incidents occurred.

Most of the people who attack the French for their stance on Iraq have little, or no, knowledge of French politics, history, or military history.  

Sorry for the thread gank.


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 14, 2004)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/ap/20041014/ap_on_re_as/nuclear_agency_iraq



> *Diplomats: Iraq Nuclear Removal Extensive*
> 
> 
> By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
> ...



Scary stuff since we don't know where it all went. Of course, why would they move any of it if Iraq wasn't close to making WMD's or the machinery was useless?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 14, 2004)

> Scary stuff since we don't know where it all went. Of course, why would they move any of it if Iraq wasn't close to making WMD's or the machinery was useless?



Money, most likely.

Of course, it really doesn't help a retroactive justification for the war in any event, considering the "removal" took place after the American invasion.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 14, 2004)

Those sites were NOT quickly secured following the invasion.  We secured the oil, but not the nuke material.  We knew about this site...it had been monitored by the IAEA for 12 years.  The last inspection they did was in 2002, just prior to the invasion, and all was in order.  The seals placed on the site were intact.

We invaded...the looters looted to get the milling machines and other stuff, and some of the stuff disappeared.  Pity we didn't think to send a company of troops over to watch the stuff.

This was NOT stuff GW listed as among WMD materials.  Saddam didn't have control over it.  We did...up until we invaded.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 12, 2005)

Finally at an End.

The Iraq Survey Group, which published a report in September stating there are no 'Stockpiles' of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, has closed up shop and come home (or some are now working counter-insurgency).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814588/

By Dafna Linzer








> The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.
> 
> In interviews, officials who served with the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort shortly before Christmas.
> 
> Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that *contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials*, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 12, 2005)

This subject is as exhausted as the weapons inspectors must have gotten. 

Yes, we thought there were WMD. 
No, they weren't found. 
Yes, it was time to quit looking.​No, it's not a good thing when your intelligence proves to be wrong.​Yes, the American people know all about it. 
No, it didn't stop them from re- electing President Bush.


Enough said?​


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 12, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> This subject is as exhausted as the weapons inspectors must have gotten.
> 
> Yes, we thought there were WMD.
> No, they weren't found.
> ...


All true. But, I think there are just a few more things to say.

As of January 12, 2005 - 
1,357 United States service members have died in Iraq.
76 United Kingdom service members have died in Iraq.
84 service members from other coalition countries have died in Iraq.

And, it does not look that the deaths will stop anytime soon.

As long as Service members keep dying. We should all keep talking about all of those items listed above.

Michael


----------



## Ray (Jan 13, 2005)

One popular misconception is that the US gov't believed Iraq to be an "imminent" threat.  My memory may be faulty, but I am sure that GWB said in the televised speech before the attack that America was not going to wait for Iraq to become an imminent threat.  It's not a direct quote, but a paraphrase.

I believe that removing Saddam and Sons from power was a correct tactic.

I don't think I can completely believe what either side is saying.  But I do believe that there is more to the story than we are told.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 13, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> One popular misconception is that the US gov't believed Iraq to be an "imminent" threat. My memory may be faulty, but I am sure that GWB said in the televised speech before the attack that America was not going to wait for Iraq to become an imminent threat. It's not a direct quote, but a paraphrase.
> 
> I believe that removing Saddam and Sons from power was a correct tactic.
> 
> I don't think I can completely believe what either side is saying. But I do believe that there is more to the story than we are told.


Let's see why some might believe the threat was 'imminent'.... 

Do you suppose this language below is designed to convey security and safety?



> Statement by President George W. Bush"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of *unique urgency*. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Source:*_President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution_, White House (10/2/2002).[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Explanation: *This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."


[/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]


> Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld"[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more *immediate threat* to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Source:*_Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld_, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Explanation: *This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."


[/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]


> Statement by President George W. Bush"The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a *grave and gathering danger*. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take."[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Source:*_Address to the United Nations General Assembly_, White House (9/12/2002).[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Explanation: *This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."


[/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]


> Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney"Simply stated, there is *no doubt* that Saddam Hussein *now has weapons of mass destruction.* There is no doubt he is *amassing them to use against* our friends, against our allies, and against *us.*"[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Source:*_Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention_, White House (8/26/2002).[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Explanation: *This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."


[/font][/font][/font][/font]

http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp?start=10&Subject=Urgent+Threat&submit=Search+Database
[/font][/font]
[/font][/font]


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Let's see why some might believe the threat was 'imminent'....
> 
> Do you suppose this language below is designed to convey security and safety?
> 
> ...


The interesting thing to me is how people criticise the POTUS for taking proactive measures in Iraq as "wrong" but also say that the POTUS was "wrong" in the case of 9/11 because no proactive actions were taken.....

The only way to know if unseating SHussein and Sons was a good choice is if they stayed in power and payed into, contributed, sheltered or planned a 9/11 type attack or worse....what kind of judgements on the POTUS would be formed in that case?


----------



## Ray (Jan 13, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The interesting thing to me is how people criticise the POTUS for taking proactive measures in Iraq as "wrong" but also say that the POTUS was "wrong" in the case of 9/11 because no proactive actions were taken.....
> 
> The only way to know if unseating SHussein and Sons was a good choice is if they stayed in power and payed into, contributed, sheltered or planned a 9/11 type attack or worse....what kind of judgements on the POTUS would be formed in that case?


 
On March 8, the pres said the following in a radio address:
The attacks of September the 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force. 

Note the line: We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction.
and:  But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force. 

I am sure I recall, in a televised speech, that GWB said he would not wait until Iraq became an imminent threat.

Saddam was given adequate time to stop screwing around and he failed to do so.

The link you included points to a web site that clearly shows a bias.  People who feel differently than you can point to material that shows a bias the other way.  In any case, you are welcome to your opinion.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 13, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The only way to know if unseating SHussein and Sons was a good choice is if they stayed in power and payed into, contributed, sheltered or planned a 9/11 type attack or worse....what kind of judgements on the POTUS would be formed in that case?



By that argument, then, should we unseat every regime that is less than friendly to the United States or other western powers, in case they might concievably someday take part in such an attack?

The two criticims you list differ in that 1) with 9/11, the Bush administration was presented with intelligence about a series of airliner-based attacks by al-Qaeda, and did nothing (though his critics normally fail to describe what he or any other president should have done); 2) with Iraq, the Bush administration wrongly blamed Iraq for having WMD, including pressuring intelligence agencies to highlight evidence they didn't agree with.

Two completely different levels of threat and motive.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 13, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.



Of course, as has been pointed out here numerous times, the United Nations had already disarmed his regime, was in the process of determining once again that his regime was disarmed, and he had no WMD to be disarmed from.  



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> The link you included points to a web site that clearly shows a bias.  People who feel differently than you can point to material that shows a bias the other way.  In any case, you are welcome to your opinion.



The quotes posted were quotes by the administration officials themselves!  How can they be biased any less?


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 13, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> By that argument, then, should we unseat every regime that is less than friendly to the United States or other western powers, in case they might concievably someday take part in such an attack?
> 
> The two criticims you list differ in that 1) with 9/11, the Bush administration was presented with intelligence about a series of airliner-based attacks by al-Qaeda, and did nothing (though his critics normally fail to describe what he or any other president should have done); 2) with Iraq, the Bush administration wrongly blamed Iraq for having WMD, including pressuring intelligence agencies to highlight evidence they didn't agree with.
> 
> Two completely different levels of threat and motive.


 
Exaggeration.  Of course not.  And "you should have seen it coming" is so easy to say when hindsight is in effect, as we all know from personal experience.  IT wasn't just the Bush Administration - it was the US/NATO and others that were all working from false intelligence about WMD in Iraq - SHussein was doing a good mindscrew on folks, isolating "Bush" as the only dupe is taking it out of context.

Two different levels of threat and motive true, but the fact that, as a leader, your damned if you do and damned if you don't is true.  It is always easier to criticize than it is to do it.  Anyone who is/has been in a leadership position knows exactly what this experience is like.

While we were in Bos, I was percieved as either "Sgt Hitler" to "Tough" to "Lazy" to "Unfair" to "Professional"....I know I was doing the same thing to other leaders, fairly or unfairly.  Funny thing was that when it came time to band together and get the job done none of that mattered and we worked together....something that I don't see happening all that well in the civilian community during this time of war.


----------



## Ray (Jan 13, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Of course, as has been pointed out here numerous times, the United Nations had already disarmed his regime, was in the process of determining once again that his regime was disarmed, and he had no WMD to be disarmed from.


 
Yes, of course Iraq had been disarmed and Saddam let the inspectors in to verify it; and there was not evidence to the contary.

And of course, the UN has shown itself and its associations to be true blue, without any attempt or reason to deceive.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The quotes posted were quotes by the administration officials themselves! How can they be biased any less?


Indeed, how can they be?  Review the website, analyze it and the "explanations" given of the quotes; check the original material, read the whole source of the quote and critically think about it.  Do the same for opposing views.  Also, investigate the intention and bias of the person (or web site) putting forth the material...does it exclude information from the same sources that are different with what he/she believes.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 13, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> By that argument, then, should we unseat every regime that is less than friendly to the United States or other western powers, in case they might concievably someday take part in such an attack?



We had the right with Iraq because of the first Gulf War and the UN resolution to tell them to disarm.  We can't invade just any other country without more reason.

If the UN told Iraq to disarm in 1992 and it's taken until 2005 to show that it had been done then something is wrong.  What we did is try to wrap up a potentially dangerous situation, where the '90s were all about appeasing Saddam (who incidentally barred the inspectors from doing their job as much as he could) and using a sit-and-wait policy.

WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 13, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The quotes posted were quotes by the administration officials themselves!  How can they be biased any less?



Taking quotes out of context and putting your own meaning behind it can't be biased?

WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 13, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The interesting thing to me is how people criticise the POTUS for taking proactive measures in Iraq as "wrong" but also say that the POTUS was "wrong" in the case of 9/11 because no proactive actions were taken.....



It kills me that we invade Afganistan and overthrow their government and people think it's ok, but we can't do the same to Iraq.  What's the reasoning behind invading Afganistan? They were supposedly harboring 1 person, Bin Laden.  What's the reasoning behind invading Iraq?  They subverted attempts to disarm them (under UN resolution) for the past 12 years (including keeping the inspectors out for the prevous 4 years) and we had evidence they were hiding/developing WMDs which could end up in the hands of terrorists like Bin Laden.

I applaud that Bush said at the outset it was going to be a long battle and that the public support would probably wane, but that he would stick to his guns regardless.  Even under great political pressure he has.

WhiteBirch


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 13, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> It kills me that we invade Afganistan and overthrow their government and people think it's ok, but we can't do the same to Iraq. What's the reasoning behind invading Afganistan? They were supposedly harboring 1 person, Bin Laden. What's the reasoning behind invading Iraq? They subverted attempts to disarm them (under UN resolution) for the past 12 years (including keeping the inspectors out for the prevous 4 years) and we had evidence they were hiding/developing WMDs which could end up in the hands of terrorists like Bin Laden.
> 
> I applaud that Bush said at the outset it was going to be a long battle and that the public support would probably wane, but that he would stick to his guns regardless. Even under great political pressure he has.
> 
> WhiteBirch


That "one person", Bin Laden, was connected with the 9/11 attacks - the entire supposed impetus for the USA doing something militarily.

If the above that you mention is out reason for invading Iraq, then why haven't we invaded other countries as well, that we know have "WMD", and that may use them?

The reasoning is either illogical, or there is some *other* reason we invaded.  

Of course the public support is waning.  Bush declared a victory a while ago, and the body count of US military personnel is rising.  And people are questioning the reasons why we (the American people and our armed services, including the National Guard, which is suppossed to be here at home) were led into this quagmire in the first place.

Predicting people won't like his decision doesn't make it a right one.  It just means that Bush is determined - which can be for good for for ill.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 13, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> That "one person", Bin Laden, was connected with the 9/11 attacks - the entire supposed impetus for the USA doing something militarily.
> 
> If the above that you mention is out reason for invading Iraq, then why haven't we invaded other countries as well, that we know have "WMD", and that may use them?
> 
> ...


The spin doctor/PR experts screwed up on that one because it was never just Bin Laden that we were targeting but the entire AlQ network that was running the show in Afg.  THey started out calling it the 'hunt for Bin Laden' because it is simpler for the general public to have a single image of the BAD GUY than a network as the common enemy.  Later it was better articulated (some say 'changed') as the dismantling of the AlQ network.

The victory that was declared was about the occupation and unseating of the SHussein government.  Mission accomplished/success.  The post operational activities:  Stabilization/Reconstruction missions and such are making it clear that the borders were/are open as a can be and that controlling the key population/industrial centers is only the beginning of actual territorial control.

We live in an instant gratification world and the waning support is nothing new or unexpected - especially when people get depressed as a nation over loss of American lives - they just want it to stop.

But just wanting it to stop is not a good enough motive/reason to pull out - we are there, committed.  If we send the message that we quite because it gets tough or that we only do half jobs we look like wimps in the international community, domestic population and we build dissatisfaction in general.

Like I said, Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 13, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The interesting thing to me is how people criticise the POTUS for taking proactive measures in Iraq as "wrong" but also say that the POTUS was "wrong" in the case of 9/11 because no proactive actions were taken.....
> 
> The only way to know if unseating SHussein and Sons was a good choice is if they stayed in power and payed into, contributed, sheltered or planned a 9/11 type attack or worse....what kind of judgements on the POTUS would be formed in that case?


It has been shown that there was ample evidence of warning concerning Al Qaeda leading up to September 11, 2001.

It has also been shown that there was absence of evidence of a Weapons of Mass Destruction programs (and related activities) in Iraq prior to the Invasion.

There were 'proactive' activities taking place in Iraq prior to the invasion. Inspectors were in the country. 

As to unseating Hussein, and whether it was a good choice or not, this remains to be seen. However, the United States has spent more than 200 Billion dollars in that 'unseating', and without knowing the outcome, I think that is a bad investment.

Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 13, 2005)

After having not commented on this topic for awhile, I have come to a new position.  Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was appropriate or not is totally irrelevant.  It is done.  There is no chance in hell that GWB is going to be tried at the Hague; as difficult as that is to accept, it just won't happen.

The truth is, the global population will begin to look very differently at this once things have calmed down and the United States of Mesopotamia have had a few democratic looking elections to alleviate our collective fears of the Husseinian phoenix rising from the ashes of mythical imminent threats.

50 years down the road, GWB will be a hero, and our great-grandchildren will need new history textbooks.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 13, 2005)

Do you think that 50 years ago, they were saying the same thing about Israel and the Palestinians?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 13, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> If the UN told Iraq to disarm in 1992 and it's taken until 2005 to show that it had been done then something is wrong.  What we did is try to wrap up a potentially dangerous situation, where the '90s were all about appeasing Saddam (who incidentally barred the inspectors from doing their job as much as he could) and using a sit-and-wait policy.



The fact that something was wrong with weapons inspections was not the issue; the issue was whether Saddam Hussein's regime has WMD.  The previous UN inspectors believed they had destroyed Hussein's WMD program.  

Before our recent invasion and occuation, the United Nations was inspecting his program, had not found evidence of a WMD program, and requested more time to complete their investigation.  This time was denied them, and the invasion was launched.  If Hussein had then proceeded to throw out the inspectors, or continued to prevaricate, then the UN could have acted; if the UN had continued to fail to act, then the US would been justified to act unilaterally.  None of these actions were allowed to take place.

As has been demonstrated previously, neoconservatives (many of whom, such as Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld) have been calling for an invasion of Iraq during Bush 1, Clinton, and GW's administrations.  The WMD "threat" was merely the pretext for this.  Even American intelligence agencies could not agree on the nature of Iraq's intelligence threat; evidence has shown that the Administration's own intelligence agencies did not believe that a threat clearly existed, but that pieces of evidence were "cherry-picked" only to support the case for war.

To answer the questions about website bias earlier, I would have hoped that our discussion opponents would have studied logic and debate, and realized the problems with the ad hominem fallacy.  *Every* source of information is biased.  We, as intelligent people, can look through that bias and use the facts within to support or refute arguments; if, however, we simply refuse to debate issues because a source is biased, then we are committing the worst kind of intellectual cop-out.

Flatlander's point about the Iraq invasion being a _fait accompli_ is also a cop-out; we have a duty to continue to point out where the Bush Administration lied and distorted the truth (in the worst case) or failed (in the best case) if we as a people are to learn and improve.  If we had not gone back to study the mistakes and lies of the Johnson and Nixon administrations, we would never have learned of the lies, manipulations, and horrors of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Watergate.

Why was it "okay" to invade Afghanistan and not Iraq?  First, many believe that it *wasn't* okay, for a number of reasons... including that we never declared war on Afghanistan.  Those arguments aside, the reasons should be obvious... the Taleban were harboring a group of terrorists that had committed acts of murder and war on American soil, had been given an opportunity to turn them over to justice, and had refused to do so.  The United States and its NATO allies felt they had a justification to act.

Iraq had not attacked the United States; had not been proven to have WMDs; inspections were underway again; the sanctions regime punishing Iraq for its previous failure to comply with inspections was, all of its brutal human rights violations aside, depriving Iraq of its ability to develop WMD; the United States did not declare war on Iraq; there was no clear causus belli.

Loki, your point about "tough leadership" is interesting and well-taken, but when tough leaders make catastrophic mistakes, they need to be held accountable for them.  Clearly enough Americans disagreed with me to re-elect the guy, but Bush's decisions about Iraq killed over a thousand Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis, cost us billions and billions of dollars we can't afford, and led to political and military instability that we'll pay for for generations.  

What's worse, I think there's plenty of evidence that Bush's "tough leadership" didn't lead to just a bad mistake, but was actually part of a deliberate, misleading campaign that led to a massive, horrendous mistake.  That's not just "tough leadership", in my estimation.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 13, 2005)

"There is no chance in hell that GWB is going to be tried at the Hague; as difficult as that is to accept, it just won't happen." Flatlander

You've lost it.


"The truth is, the global population will begin to look very differently at this once things have calmed down and .......50 years down the road, GWB will be a hero.." Flatlander

You got that right. To many, he's already there.


""..there was no clear causus belli..." Peachmonkey

From reading your posts, I get the feeling that there could never be sufficient cause for war. Ann Coulter, bless her heart, says liberals (pardon the label ) are always in favor of the war we are not fighting. Wishing to appear to accept the validity of a "just war" they equivocate until we realize that, to them, there is no such thing. Hmmmmm.

"...if we had not gone back to study the mistakes and lies of the Johnson and Nixon administrations, we would never have learned of the lies, manipulations, and horrors of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Watergate." Peachmonkey again

And bye the bye, what were the "horrors" of Watergate and how can you possibly lump it in with the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam adventure? I mean, Nixon's name and Watergate are just thrown in there as if everyone knows that an office burglary in Washington and a war in Asia are the same thing... If a Republican burgles a shrink's office, a Democrat's war pales by comparison. Sure. 
As to Laos and Cambodia, I'm lost.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 13, 2005)

...but apparently, compared to the odd blowjob in the copying room, launching an unjustified war based on lies and part-truths about a dictator that we helped put into power pales into insignificance.

It may be worth mentioning actual history here. Among the issues at the Watergate hearing that were brought up centrally by the House Judiciary Committee, Senator Sam Ervin presiding, were the illegal invasion of Cambodia and the abuse of Presidential power. So even if we treat the President of the United States ordering a burglary as part of an unethical and in some aspects illegal political campaign as just a tra-la-la of a thing....well, dunno, but some of us take little things like covert bombings and invasions of neutral countries with a degree of seriousness. 

It seems essential to the right-wing/conservative responses on these threads to translate the political and intellectual complexity of these discussions into simple squabbles between Democrats and Republicans, libs and conservs. Sorry, no: the anti-War folks started out protesting Democrats over Vietnam; some of us despise the likes of Walter Mondale for selling out the Mississippi Freedom delegation in 1964; some of us remember what Mayor Daley the First was. 

By the way, how'd that whole America meddling in Southeast Asia thing turn out? Oh yes, one recalls, after our victory in Vietnam, the whole region settled down...oh wait, that was Alan Moore's, "The Watchmen," not reality...after we bugged out and left many of our allies behind, we'd actually succeeded in destabilizing the region so completely that groups like the left-wing Khmer Rouge went wild, killing millions..and oh yeah, we left behind (along with other lunatic countries from around the world), so many mines, arms, and trained maniacs that criminals, drug traffickers and genocidal children across the region continue to get worse.

Whew. Thank ahura-mazda that nothing like this could possibly happen in, say, Iraq. That's because we were careful to prove our case and get international support before we went in there, to work out exactly the military needs and logistics that would guarantee not only victory but strong support for our troops, to figure out good strong ways to get a good strong interim government headed by patriots like Mohammed Chalabi in there fast, and to paln a clear, feasible exit strategy before....oops, wait, my liberal baddiness.

That's, like, the TOTAL opposite of what actually happened. Oh, like dude...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 13, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> You've lost it.



Flatlander hasn't "lost it".  The United States invaded Iraq without the support of the UN, without a declaration of war, and without a clear causus belli; this is a violation of international law, for which many have advocated GW Bush and his administration be brought up on charges in the Hague.  Several Canadian editorials were even written (tongue-in-cheek, perhaps) about arresting Bush for war crimes during his recent visit.  Maybe this isn't realistic, or even the right thing to do, but it's not insane either.



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> From reading your posts, I get the feeling that there could never be sufficient cause for war. Ann Coulter, bless her heart, says liberals (pardon the label ) are always in favor of the war we are not fighting. Wishing to appear to accept the validity of a "just war" they equivocate until we realize that, to them, there is no such thing. Hmmmmm.



Given that I'm actually a military historian, I feel that there are often causes for war.  You might refer to my past discussions about, for instance, the Second World War and the Arab/Israeli conflicts, as well as our invasion of Afghanistan for specific evidence.

If you're basing the thought that there could "never be sufficient cause for war" on my posts about how the Bush Administration never had enough evidence about Iraq's WMD to convince the UN, or declare war, or convince the majority of the planet, then you're simply wrong; I'm outlining a specific case for how one war was sold to the public.

But, much like Ann Coulter, "bless her heart", don't let the facts stop you.

I lumped in Watergate with Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia because Kennedy, and Johnson, and Nixon were all involved in a time period of lies and deceit and manipulation that helped to teach entire generations that the US government -- *any* elected government -- cannot and should not be trusted.  

Watergate wasn't just about burglary... it was part of a continued campaign to manipulate political campaigns, control the press, and keep the American people in the dark.

Laos and Cambodia were further horrors of the Nixon presidency, where the United States ordered illegal invasions of sovereign countries, destablized governments, and in the process led to mass murder and genocide.  Ever heard of the Khmer Rouge?  That was *our fault*.  *Nixon's* fault.  

Robert's already pointed out more Democratic horrors.  Shall I point out more?  Afghanistan was deliberately destabilized during the Carter administration to help lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam-style conflict, with the hopes that it would lead to their downfall.  This policy was aggressively pursued by the Reagan Administration as well.  Look how well that worked out -- for Afghanistan, for the Soviets, for Islamic fundamentalism, and for the people in the Twin Towers.

How about the Shah of Iran?  Any takers?

I lumped all of these things together to point out that Democrats and Republicans both are politicans seeking their own ends, and that governments must not be trusted.  We elect them into office, and then we *must* be vigilant; we can't be nave; we must take what they do and say with a grain of salt; and we must hold them accountable for their actions.  When we don't, we are tacit participants in any evils that take place in our name.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 13, 2005)

Oh, come on, Robert.  Stop insisting people actually study history, and learn from it.  I mean, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity say that studying history is for traitors and people who believe that we should *never* defend ourselves.

Just listen to the Supreme Leader.  All Hail the Supreme Leader.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 13, 2005)

"Just listen to the Supreme Leader. All Hail the Supreme Leader." Peachmonkey

"She's got it. By Jove, I think she's got it." With apologies to Prof. H. Higgins


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 13, 2005)

"but apparently, compared to the odd blowjob in the copying room, launching an unjustified war based on lies and part-truths about a dictator that we helped put into power pales into insignificance."

Dude, did I mention Billy C.?
And you're right: GB2 can't hang with the hipster when it comes to lies and half truths.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 13, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> "but apparently, compared to the odd blowjob in the copying room, launching an unjustified war based on lies and part-truths about a dictator that we helped put into power pales into insignificance."
> 
> Dude, did I mention Billy C.?
> And you're right: GB2 can't hang with the hipster when it comes to lies and half truths.


Dude, was he mentioning President Clinton?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 13, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> "Just listen to the Supreme Leader. All Hail the Supreme Leader." Peachmonkey
> 
> "She's got it. By Jove, I think she's got it." With apologies to Prof. H. Higgins


Wow, talk about the death of a democracy.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 13, 2005)

Apparently it's come time (pun intended) to repeat the obvious AGAIN...

See, dudes, even if you lie about sex and minor real estate deals that is somewhat lover on the Big Scale of Evil than lying about taxes and finances for a whole country, lying about cutting retirees' benefits (the latest: BUSH GOV'T TO HELP BY CUTTING SSI CHECKS), and lying about, like dude, a whole war thing with another country.

It's a family tradition. here's a bumper sticker seen yesterday: READ MY LIPS. NO NEW TEXANS.

Boy, did we screw that up.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 13, 2005)

History? I'll give you history. Say hello to my pretties......(apologies to Al Pacino)

Historical Candidate 1 (hereafter HC1)
Through the freak accident of a 3rd party candidacy, a lying, horndog Jimmy Swaggart type Southern pol winds up in the White House where he continues serial philandering and all comers groping while his shrewish wife fails to socialize medicine thus failing the Administration's Great Initiative.
Back at the WH, Da Prez has repeated affairs, accepts illegal campaign cotributions from foreign enemies and uses his office to frighten and intimidate anyone in his way. Some end up dead or in jail, some have their secret FBI files scrutinized, the IRS audits others. While ignoring or mis-handling attacks against our country here and abroad, he uses his remaining energy to fight impeachment in hopes of getting out of office with his skin. " He is finally brought down when he ejaculates on an intern's dress and lies about it under oath-and it turns out the intern has kept the dress!" (Thanks AC))
Leaving office as gracefully as they entered, HC1's staff do $15,000.00+ worth of damage to the White House and EOB through vandalism and graffitti.
Way to go, dude.
Historical Candidate 2 (HC2)
This reformed alcoholic turned born again Christian squeaks into office after losing the popular vote. Shortly thereafter, 19 Islamic extremists fly multiple planes into mutiple targets and bring jihad home to the U.S.
He rallies the country, steadies an economy shaken by HC1 excess and terrorist concerns, takes the battle to Al Quaida, wins the war in Afghanistan, defeating the Taliban and installing a democratic gov't. All the while not screwing a single government employee nor weeping publicly in the company of a minority minister to show his sincere repentance.
After the most rancorous campaign in recent memory, HC2 is re-elected with a majority of the popular vote and a clear win in the Electoral College. The economy has turned around, the market is back, Americans are traveling again and no more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. All done while propping up Israel, speaking for a Palestinian State, winning the war in Iraq and capturing Saddam Hussein.. More minorities and women are appointed to more important positions than in any prior admin. Tax reform, education and soc. sec. reform should all get done before long and then HC2 can turn things over to the liberals who said none of this could happen. 
And I bet he leaves all the silver when he goes

You're right, History will judge them.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 14, 2005)

Please offer substantiation for the claims about Clinton.

it may also be useful to fit in a few more bits of reality of candidate #2:

Born into an extraordinarily wealthy and well-connected family of texas oilmen, politicians, and businessmen, George Bush spends his early years lollygagging about. Fortunately, his father's connections are used to secure him affirmative action admission to yale University, where he does reasonably well--taking classes from, among others, his future opponent's same debate teacher. 

Subsequently, the young Bush manages to avoid being drafted through his family's connections, which are used to secure a spot in the Texas ANG over more than a hundred others on the wait list. He flies F-104s, and is transferred out-of-State, again apparently through his family's connections, and leaves the Guard early under irregular circumstances, to attend Harvard Business School--experience he will use, subsequently, to decry his opponents' Ivy league connections as elitist and snobby.

Out of college, he fails in starting three separate businesses. It is at this time that he becomes well-known as a partier, and may have become heavily involved with alcohol and cocaine. His family secures for him a loan to buy into the buyout of the Texas Rangers, and he makes around 11 million on a 600.000 investment, using taxpayer money to build a new stadium.

Discovers God in 1987 after a Billy Graham show...

Runs for Texas governor, elected through a combination of liberal-baiting and what turns out to be gross exaggerations of his plans for State education and other programs...

Runs for President against a war hero, State prosecutor, Lieutenant Governor and long-time Senator. Given his lack of war record, administrative experience, and public service, devotes campaign to attacking opponent's patriotism and moral values. 

Incidentally, while Bush was swanning about, Clinton was busting his *** as a poor country boy with an abusive father, working his way through the University of Arkansas into Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. His wife was working her way through law school. But DO hang on to that fantasy of Bush as the man of the People, and Clinton as the liberal elite, and do remember to retreat into petty and childish attacks on people you've never met ("his shrewish wife," was charming;  Ann Coulter and Nancy Reagan much?) whenever the facts aren't supportive enough...


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 14, 2005)

"Please offer substantiation for the claims about Clinton."

Okay. I'll try to borrow the dress, but blue's not my color.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Please offer substantiation for the claims about Clinton.
> 
> it may also be useful to fit in a few more bits of reality of candidate #2:
> Not really...
> ...



I dunno, but if all those colors represent bullet holes, your arguement would've bled to death.

 :sadsong:


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 14, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> History? I'll give you history. Say hello to my pretties......(apologies to Al Pacino)



It's interesting how the only "history" you know revolves around the Clinton Administration, which has *nothing* to do with the topic of the thread, whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  You don't even have the Al Pacino quote from "Scarface" right.

Moreover, of the accusations you level, the only one that has been substantiated is his philandering with Monica Lewinsky.  Most of the others, including the ridiculous vandalism claim, have been specifically repudiated.  And it didn't "bring down" Clinton; you may recall that he remained in office, and actually left office with higher approval levels than GW Bush has.

None of this is relevant to the topic at hand; it's the typical crap you see from dittoheads, who when faced with the ugly facts, simply perform a bit of misdirection and scream "But Clinton was a scumbag!"  Guess what: they're *all* scumbags; you're naive if you don't watch each one like hawks.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 14, 2005)

Peachmonkey:

Feel better now? Good. The adults will continue this conversation in a lower tone.
Thanks for the input @ Scarface. It's important.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 14, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Feel better now? Good. The adults will continue this conversation in a lower tone.
> Thanks for the input @ Scarface. It's important.



I'm not sure why you read an elevated tone into my last post, but c'est la vie.

So far, you've responded to discussion point after point by changing the topic or with this sort of juvenile response.  Thanks for making it clear that you're on "The Study" just to troll.  I'll treat your future off-topic diatribes accordingly.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 14, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> It's interesting how the only "history" you know revolves around the Clinton Administration, which has *nothing* to do with the topic of the thread, whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You don't even have the Al Pacino quote from "Scarface" right.
> 
> .


This isn't accurate at all.  WMD's were a concern/topic for any administration post Desert Storm.  Colin Powell/Schwarzkoff (sp?) both were clear (when Bush Sr. would not sign off on invading Iraq during Desert Storm) that one of the campaign objectives was to disable the Iraqi war machine so much that it would take approx 10 years to rebuild.  If SHussein was side stepping UN inspectors and feeding false information to the international community (not just GW BUSH) during that time, it would mean that Clinton Admin decisions/action do have something to do with the WMD discussion.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 14, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> We had the right with Iraq because of the first Gulf War and the UN resolution to tell them to disarm.  We can't invade just any other country without more reason.
> 
> If the UN told Iraq to disarm in 1992 and it's taken until 2005 to show that it had been done then something is wrong.  What we did is try to wrap up a potentially dangerous situation, where the '90s were all about appeasing Saddam (who incidentally barred the inspectors from doing their job as much as he could) and using a sit-and-wait policy.
> 
> WhiteBirch





How does one prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist?  Please show me how it is possible to prove a negative.  

You're claiming that Saddam should have proven the weapons didn't exist.  We now know, post-invasion, that they don't exist and never did.  How is he supposed to have proven this?

I spent a great deal of time debating you in another thread wherein I documented the administration's efforts to engineer a perception of threat regarding nuclear weapons.  We didn't even touch on the chemical weapons issue.  It was a civil, but intense discussion.  You concluded it with this final refutation:  "I promised myself several months ago that I wouldn't get into this argument because I don't believe it can be proven either way."

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16529&page=4&pp=15&highlight=Justification


I honestly have to question if any amount of evidence would satisfy any of the apologists for the administration, or whether anybody would concede points on this issue. 

WMD was the administration's casus belli.  Inspectors prior to the war, such as Scott Ritter, said they didn't exist.  As I indicated in the thread (above), the administration prior to 9-11 was on record stating that Saddam wasn't a threat--you can hear it in Powell and Rice's own words--and the National Intelligence Estimate of 2000 gave little indication that Iraq loomed as a dangerous entity.  The International Atomic Energy Agency's pre-war reports clearly stated that Saddam lacked the ability to produce a nuclear weapon, and these were misreperesented by the administration.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 14, 2005)

Peachmonkey:

Thanks for your understanding. You may, in the future, consider getting a life.
These posts, on my part, are intended to be good natured and fun. Or at least a harmless diversion from REAL LIFE.
As for me, since you ask, I have a wife, 2 kids(at home), a dog, a cat and sometimes a gerbil. A job(a profession, actually), golf, MA training, hunting and fishing take up most of my time and damn near all my energy.
As a result, I don't research this nonsense, I don't "give support" for my position and I DON"T GET MY FEELINGS HURT. 
In case you haven't noticed, there's no one here. Look around. This forum has, what, 300 or so members? How many (few, really) get to The Study and how many/ few of them to any one thread? 20? 10? 50? Who knows?
Sooner than later, most threads devolve into 1 or 2 or 3 people shouting thru their computers. Enjoy it, for God's sake. No one's going to be converted, and if they were, it would all end.
Now, take a deep breath.....

p.s. i do my best work after @ two drinks and when the kids are in bed. I shoo the dog off the sofa and fire off brillant stuff like " Get a life".
Come on, smile now. Lighten up, there.
p.p.s. I almost committed the unpardonable sin of trying to be pun-ny and calling it "the blew dress." But I resisted. Now, am I forgiven?


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 14, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Moreover, of the accusations you level, the only one that has been substantiated is his philandering with Monica Lewinsky. Most of the others, including the ridiculous vandalism claim, have been specifically repudiated. And it didn't "bring down" Clinton; you may recall that he remained in office, and actually left office with higher approval levels than GW Bush has.
> 
> .


So...does that mean that the topic of "Bush is bad" that creeps into just about every current events discussion now isn't really the central lesson to take from this?

Does this observation mean that if Clinton was re-elected post-quitous )) AND Bush was re-elected post-oopsus, that all this pulpit pounding about 'character, honesty and the American way...' really means little to the mob?  Does it mean that the PR axium of any press is good press is true?  Could this be grounds for a discussion/justification for a return to a ruling class if the voted officials are corruptable/corrupted regardless of party?

And, yes I know this is a far reaching extension, exaggeration, off topic and irrelevent to the discussion so just ignore it or comment as you will but I would say that it does shed some perspective on how out of proportion some of the "Bush is the Anti-Christ (politically speaking)" comments that are being made can be when taken out of historical context as well.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 14, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The previous UN inspectors believed they had destroyed Hussein's WMD program.



I don't know how you determined that...

UNSCR 1441 determined:
1) that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) constitutes a threat to international peace and security;
2) that Iraq has failed - in clear violation of its legal obligations - to disarm; and
3) that, in consequence, Iraq is in material breach of the conditions for the ceasefire laid down by the Council in SCR 687 at the end of the hostilities in 1991, thus reviving the authorisation in SCR 678.

1441 said that they hadn't completed the disarmament.

Paragraph 2 of SCR 678 authorised "Member States cooperating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions to restore international peace and security in the area."  The phrase "all necessary means" was understood then (as it is now) as including the use of force.

The authorization [to use force under SCR 678] was suspended for so long as Iraq complied with the conditions of the ceasefire.  But the authorisation could be revived if the Council determined that Iraq was acting in material breach of the requirements of SCR 687.


CNN    1/23/1998
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq has no intention of giving U.N. arms inspectors full access to potential weapons sites, chief weapons inspector Richard Butler told the 15-member Security Council on Friday. 

The revelation, drawn from Butler's talks in Baghdad earlier this week, means the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) teams have little chance of fulfilling their duty to certify that Iraq has no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. 

CNN    4/24/1998
As described in the latest report, the criteria is threefold: "full declaration by Iraq, verification by the Commission, and destruction, removal or rendering harmless under international supervision." 

Butler argued that while Iraq may claim to have fully declared all of its weapons, its "consistent refusal" to provide UNSCOM with needed information and materials to back up the claims fails to satisfy the second step -- verification. That makes the destruction of all of Iraq's prohibited weapons programs impossible, the report said. 
...
In contrast, Butler's UNSCOM report said the group had made "virtually no progress" over the last six months in determining whether Iraq is holding long-range missiles and chemical and biological weapons. 


CNN   12/16/1998
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler claims in a report to the U.N. Security Council that Iraq has failed to cooperate fully with his team of arms experts. 

In the report, delivered to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan late Tuesday, Butler said Baghdad has not lived up to its promise to give unconditional access to U.N. inspectors trying to determine if Iraq has abandoned its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. 

"Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in either the fields of disarmament or accounting for Iraq's prohibited weapons program," Butler wrote. 


CNN    3/14/2003
The United Nations has been waiting for months for Iraq to provide information that could prove what happened to chemical and biological weapons it possessed in the 1990s. 

As much as 1,000 tons of VX are unaccounted for. Iraq also cannot account for as much as 2,245 gallons [8,500 liters] of anthrax. 
...
Iraqi Air Force documents found by inspectors in 1998 show that Iraq dropped more than 13,000 chemical bombs during the Iraq-Iran War that lasted from 1983-1988. Iraq previously claimed that 19,500 bombs were used, which could mean that 3,500 bombs -- with more than 1,000 tons of VX -- are unaccounted for. 


*So in 1998, after 7 years we still didn't know what they had and what they didn't have.  At that point, the inspectors left the country because of unbelievable Iraqi demands to them.*




			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Before our recent invasion and occuation, the United Nations was inspecting his program, had not found evidence of a WMD program, and requested more time to complete their investigation.  This time was denied them, and the invasion was launched.  If Hussein had then proceeded to throw out the inspectors, or continued to prevaricate, then the UN could have acted; if the UN had continued to fail to act, then the US would been justified to act unilaterally.  None of these actions were allowed to take place.



Let's see, after 12 years we put forth UNSCR 1441 to give Iraq a final attempt to comply with it's responsibilities required by the UN.  1441 was approved by the UN.  It spelled out in detail what Iraq must do to be considered compliant and that serious consequences would be delivered if they didn't.  They had several months to comply and didn't.  We invaded.


In 2003, we gave them another chance to come clean.  We still didn't know what they had and what they didn't.  As they had done over the passed 10 years, they balked at their responsibilities.  They were again asked to provide a weapons declaration because the previous one was found lacking.

Butler Report, 
Dr Blix, 27 January "Regrettable, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number".

IAEA written report, 27 January  "The Declaration contains numerous clarifications.  It does not include, however, additional information related to the questions and concerns" outstanding since 1998.

Some questions outstanding were:
- Amount of mustard gas unaccounted for is at least 80 tonnes.
- it cannot be excluded that [Iraq] has retained some capability with regard to VX that could still be viable today.  There are significant discrepancies in accounting for all key VX precursors.
- It seems highly probable that destruction of bulk agent, including anthrax, stated by Iraq to be at Al Hakam in July/August 1991, did not occur.  Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist". (Unresolved Disarmament Issues, 6 March)

The Declaration also contained significant falsehoods, many listed in the Butler Report.


CNN    1/31/2003
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Thursday he has so far seen no evidence of a promised increase in Iraqi cooperation and that he is still considering Baghdad's offer to return for further discussions on disarmament. 
...
Blix told the council Monday that Iraq has not fully accounted for its stocks of chemical and biological weapons and has not fully accepted its obligation to disarm under U.N. Resolution 1441. 



*According to the Chief Weapons Inspector himself, Iraq wasn't forthcoming.  The inspectors were trying to do their jobs, but there was no Iraqi cooperation that was required to keep an invasion at bay.*




			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Iraq had not attacked the United States; had not been proven to have WMDs; inspections were underway again; the sanctions regime punishing Iraq for its previous failure to comply with inspections was, all of its brutal human rights violations aside, depriving Iraq of its ability to develop WMD; the United States did not declare war on Iraq;



They did not attack the US, true.  But they had attacked Kuwait and we were part of the UN force that repelled them and have been there since 1991 trying to make them comply with the UN resolutions.

We had proof that they had the weapons prior to 1991.  They had not fully declared what was destroyed, so we (the UN and arms inspectors) had to assume the stuff was still there.  In some instances the inspectors found weapon capabilities we didn't even know they had (biological).  In others, we had proof that they had more than they were declaring (VX gas).

I don't know what you want to say we declared war on them, but both the House and the Senate voted for military action.

CNN  10/10/2002
The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction. 

CNN  10/11/2002
In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. 
...
"The president is authorized 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 relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."



So let me see.  A country attacks another and is repelled.  They're told to give up all of their weapons, and prove they have done so, and they refuse.  Over a period of 12 years, we hem and haw trying to get them to comply.  For 4 years they even refuse inspectors to enter their country.  We finally threaten to invade and they give in (as had been done several times in the '90s).  The UN gives another resolution that says comply or else, and they choose else.  Now we're the bad guys.  Gosh, sorry but I don't understand your viewpoint.

WhiteBirch


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 14, 2005)

"Gosh, sorry but I don't understand your viewpoint."WhiteBirch

No wonder. Liberals don't have a viewpoint. They have a philosophy. A viewpoint requires reason and logic. A philosophy requires adherence, not thought.

In an effort to appear manly, as I've posted earlier, liberals pretend to support war as a concept. In reality, they quibble, rationalize and distinguish this war (or any war) as not worth fighting. Unconditional surrender is the Battle Cry of the New Left. Usually in French.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 14, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> This isn't accurate at all.  WMD's were a concern/topic for any administration post Desert Storm.



Ghostdog's discussion of the Clinton Administration was not relevant to Clinton's handling of Hussein or Hussein's WMD, but rather attacks on Clinton's character and administration, and was therefore completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I know most of the attacks on Bush must be unpleasant for his supporters, but given that they most often come up when discussing issues that are are related to decisions made by his administration, I don't feel too terrible about them


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 14, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I don't know how you determined that...



I determined that by the statements of Scott Ritter, retired from the US Marine Corps, former leader of UN's weapons inspection teams, a man more qualified than any of us to comment (as he was actually on the groun)  I've referenced them in previous threads.  Here's some more:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2002/03/19/ritter/index.html

Ritter actually inspected the sites.  He dealt with Iraq's recalcitrance.  He was pulled out in 1998, not by Iraq, but by the United States.  He knew that Iraq did not present a WMD threat to its neighbors or the United States.

Despite UNSCOM's success in dealing with these obstacles, Iraq had not met its obligations under UN sanctions to fully comply with the original UNSCOM inspections, and as a result, was punished by UN sanctions.

The 2003 inspections were underway and Iraq continued to defy the full compliance requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions.  However, the UN inspectors and the IAEA requested more time to continue their inspectors, and the United Nations Security Council did not believe further action was necessary until their research was complete.  The investigations completed after the war have justified all of this research, as well as the positions of Ritter.

The Waxman report has found detailed evidence that the Bush Administration specifically ignored evidence contradicting the belief that Hussein had an active WMD program in order to support their desire to go to war.  Moreover, the WMD programs Hussein had before the original UNSCOM inspections were largely developed with the assistance of United States companies when Iraq was a US client state, and his "evil use" of WMD touted during the run up to the war occurred while Iraq was a US client state, and yet at no time did the US take action against Iraq or stop exporting WMD materials to it.

These are the kinds of things that lead one to be suspicious, and to think we might have been the "bad guys", or at least seriously incompetent, when it comes to Iraq.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 14, 2005)

Under the twinned topics of, "Darn that pesky reality!" and "Darn that 'liberal' habit of preferring reason and evidence to personal attacks and self-contradiction!" a couple or three notes:

1. Going back to the actual topic, we've found no WMDs in Iraq. Nor have we found the capacity to make them. Nor had the UN inspectors; nor had our own inspector of the 1990s.

2. Whatever technology Hussein had pre-1991, I checked. This is 2005; we invaded in 2003.

3. So the "conservative," position now is: previously, we claimed that the UN had its head in the sand, and/or was incompetent, and/or was corrupt. We also claim that we have the right to say, "Screw the UN, we're going in!" Now, we're claiming that the UN did its job properly, knew what it was talking about, and authorized us to go in. Huh.

4. Liberals just have a biased "philosophy," about all this, not a viewpoint, because a viewpoint requires logic and reason. At the same time, we truth-seekers don't have to, "research...and give support for my position," and we are perfectly entitled to simply launch belittling insults about other people's, "effort to appear manly," and need, "to get a life." That is to say, because we are politically correct, we don't have to actually know anything or discuss reality or explain our ideas.

5. An excellent illustration is provided in the response to actually discussing the careers of Bush and Kerry, in the section that asserts that Bush must have been experienced because he was a governor. First, indeed Bush did have more of such experience: he was an administrator for the Texas Rangers. Second, Bush was a one-term Texas governor: a) in their system, the Governor in fact has very little power, and b) Bush ran for Prez starting in his first term in office, if memory serves. In this plane of existence, then, Bush's experience was vastly inferior to that of an officer who commanded a small unit in combat, who served as a state prosecutor for years, who served as lieutenant governor for years, who served as a US Senator for 12 years before running for President. The experience does not mean he was necessarily better for the job; however, it--unlike the response--actually pertained to reality.

6. For the 4, 657th time: this fantasy that everybody who disagrees with the lunatic Republican party line is perforce a, "liberal," is simple nonsense. Moreover, it is profoundly ignorant nonsense, grounded solely in the sort of loopy (but very profitable!) ignorant nonsense pumped out by Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, et al. Fer cryin' out loud, will you at least go read some Buckley, Himmelfarb, Goldwater, C.S. Lewis, Simon Schama, Geo. F. Will, etc.? At least flip through "National Review," and, "The American Spectator," and "The Wall Street Journal," once in a while, willya? Conservatism used to have a strong, proud intellectual tradition--it's depressing to see it sink to this level of sheer ignorant crapola.

7. However, one expects at least a small torrent of personal abuse, accompanied by more-or-less open attacks on one's patriotism, masculinity, neuroses, etc. It remains fascinating, fortunately, to see how far individuals will go to protect dearly-held fantasies about the world--and revealing, not incidentally, to see how well-learned have been the lessons taught by rightist ideologues over the past two decades. One can only hope that, at some time, it will become easier to see real enemies--ignorance, a lack of good education (personally, one believes that lazy and liberal and chickenshit teachers are indeed responsible for a big chunk of this1), a capitalism advanced to the point that everybody seems to think that they only matter as consumers and workers, a current wave of imperialism, and a bizarre deployment of religious and moral dogmas that help paint over the whole thing.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 14, 2005)

huh?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 14, 2005)

Simply look up the claims of the Bush Administration on "yellowcake," in Africa, and you'll see what we mean.

One of the great things about this country, whatever anybody thinks or says, is that education and research are available to everbody who can get past the lies of the rich and powerful--most important among which is the lie that the rest of us are too dumb, too foolish, too greedy, too lazy, too uneducated, to understand.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 15, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> most important among which is the lie that the rest of us are too dumb, too foolish, too greedy, too lazy, too uneducated, to understand.


Unfortuneately, this 'lie' is too often true, isn't it?

michaeledward


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 17, 2005)

Why does the Associated Press hate America?



> The Associated Press
> Updated: 2:24 a.m. ET Jan. 17, 2005
> 
> *U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq*
> ...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/

So, I must wait to see what further excuses the right will bring forth for the invasion of a sovereign nation, at a cost of several billion dollars a week for the US citizen and his posterity, only to have them proved false. And to then have that falsehood ignored, despite evidence.


And, if you would, mark these quotes, so that when they are refuted a month from now as being 'out of context', we can all agree who spoke them. 



> . . . throughout much of last year the White House continued to raise the possibility the weapons were transferred to another country.
> 
> Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in early October he believed Saddam had WMD before the war. _He has either hidden them so well or moved them somewhere else, or decided to destroy them ... in event of a conflict but kept the capability of developing them rapidly_, . . .
> 
> ...


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 17, 2005)

Okay. You guys win. We're bad and they're good. The solution? Let's give the country back to Saddam Hussein. After all, he's the Benevolent Leader, right?
Let's spruce up the Palaces, re-fit the rape rooms, clean the torture chambers and landscape the mass grave sites.
Stop all this foolish talk about democracy. Stop it right now. Those people don't deserve any better than what they had. Women's rights issues will be referred to clerics, and family counseling will be done with a birch rod. Kurds better stay where they are, Sunni's rejoice and Shiite's beware (or is it the other way around? No matter; they all look alike and they're all in trouble)  and Iran, Kuwait and Israel can hold onto their hats, He's back......
Really now, is the value of all we've done lost on so many of us? Talk about making a difference in the world. We have. Be just a little proud that America has done something to make the lives of Iraqi's better and continues to try to better their conditions, their gov't and their lives. 
p.s. calling Saddam's Iraq a "sovereign nation" doesn't go far enough. What about "Fourth Reich"?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 17, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> p.s. calling Saddam's Iraq a "sovereign nation" doesn't go far enough. What about "Fourth Reich"?



It's funny you mention the term "Reich", given that your method of discourse comes right out of the bully-boy techniques near and dear to fascist hearts everywhere.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 17, 2005)

"It's funny you mention the term "Reich", given that your method of discourse comes right out of the bully-boy techniques near and dear to fascist hearts everywhere" Posted by Peachmonkey

Gosh, another intelligent, well-reasoned response from the simian world.
No personal attacks for her, she goes right to the heart of the matter: Fascism.
I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to have to read something nice about your country. I mean, it's clear, only a fascist could love America.
Be careful. You're about to make all those cliches about narrow minded liberals come to life.
Back to the childrens' table.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 17, 2005)

...uh, what happened to the WMDs? The Bush government's argument specifically was that we went in Iraq because of a, "clear and present danger," to the United States that was posed by Hussein's possession of WMDs and his participation in 9/11. Their argument was that we would specifically NOT be  running around doing nation-building, because that was what Clinton had done in Bosnia and tried to do in Somalia and we shouldn't be doing that because it didn't work. 

So now, no WMDs, no connection to 9/11, no easy way out of those crowds of cheering Iraquis that were were assured (despited all them pooh-poohing liberals) would be lining every road into Baghdad, and now, all of a sudden, we're really there to free the oppressed, free women, and build a democractic
State?

Not since the good old days of, "Pravda," and "Izvestia," has a government and its ideological apparatuses worked so hard to rewrite history again and again. They must really be getting tired over at MiniTrue.

Funny, too, that we haven't tangled with North Korea...you know, what with our humanitarian interest and our clear and present dangerness. Huh. Wonder why that is?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 17, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Okay. You guys win. We're bad and they're good.


I refuse to enter a debate that is structured:

IF NOT 'A', THEN 'B'.



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Really now, is the value of all we've done lost on so many of us? Talk about making a difference in the world. We have. Be just a little proud that America has done something to make the lives of Iraqi's better and continues to try to better their conditions, their gov't and their lives.


Surveys of Iraqi's show that many prefer the order that existed under the Hussein Government. At present, Americans (and Coalition Forces) have attempted to make the conditions in Iraq better, however, the verdict is still out. Only time will tell. Good intentions are not all that matter. Results matter too.




			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> p.s. calling Saddam's Iraq a "sovereign nation" doesn't go far enough. What about "Fourth Reich"?


Please define 'sovereignty'. 
Perhaps you can do a better job than the President did. Do a Google on President Bush, Sovereignty, Video for a chuckle.


----------



## raedyn (Jan 17, 2005)

A slightly related webpage you might find interesting.
http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/003654.html

It compares, point by point, the outcomes of the the investigations into
1) the 60 Minutes story on Duh-ya's military service (that was eventually discredited)
2) the WMD claims the Bush administration based their justification for attacking Iraq on (also discredited)

Something to think about, anyways. or not. whatever. I'm not especially attached to this one, I just thought some of you might find it an interesting link. To each his own.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 17, 2005)

"Funny, too, that we haven't tangled with North Korea...you know, what with our humanitarian interest and our clear and present dangerness. Huh. Wonder why that is?" rmcrobertson

I could be flip and say we're waiting on the French, but that's too predictable.
Sadly, I think you may have me here. But only for the moment.
No. Korea is quite a bit more formidable than Iraq. Harder to be the Bully on the Block when the block includes China.
May have to resort to diplomacy here. We'll see.
Remember always: Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
( Don't go and talk @ GB2's little mind, now. Again, too easy. )


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 17, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to have to read something nice about your country. I mean, it's clear, only a fascist could love America.



I guess I'd be more moved by the arguments about freeing Iraq if we hadn't been supporting Hussein when he was murdering his own people with weapons of mass destruction, if the Iraqi people actually wanted us there, and if that had been our actual justification for invading in the first place.

Given that we've done more harm than good, lied about our reason for invasion, supported the evil murderer before we decided to vilify him, and have become vicious torturers ourselves, it's difficult for me to see much to be proud of in this particular act.

But don't address the facts or the history; instead, hurl insults at "weak minded, America-hating" liberals; it's cute to see such dramatic illustration of modern-day conservative fascism at work.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 17, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I guess I'd be more moved by the arguments about freeing Iraq if we hadn't been supporting Hussein when he was murdering his own people with weapons of mass destruction...



Hmm, did it really bother anyone? I don't recall a whole lot of whoopla back then.


----------



## raedyn (Jan 18, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Hmm, did it really bother anyone? I don't recall a whole lot of whoopla back then.


 Just because you don't remember hearing a whole lot of hoopla doesn't mean nobody cared! The mainstream media doesn't report everything, ya know. And there is no one person who hears and remembers everything that IS reported. Try watching websites like Amnesty International and Greenpeace that constantly are reporting on human rights and environmental atrocities across the planet. Lots of time no one is listening. That doesn't mean no one cares. The stuff these organizations report on now will be the stuff many people will say "nobody told me" years from now.


----------



## The Prof (Jan 18, 2005)

Okay folks, get ready to kick my butt, but here it is.

I agreed that Saddam had to go and was glad when we invaded Iraq. I honestly believed and fully supported Bush and company when they sold us the lie about the WMD. Even when the inspectors said they found none I continued to believe and support our president.

Clinton was a liar and Bush is a bigger liar. I am a registered republican but I take Clinton over Bush. My hunch about him was right, thats why I did not vote for him in either election. 

Me and my family will be registering as Democrats for the next election. *"VOTE FOR HILLARY in 2008."* She will undo the mess created by the current and previous administrations.


Okay everyone, this is my opinion. Sock it to me if you must! 


Regards,

The Prof


----------



## Kreth (Jan 18, 2005)

The Prof said:
			
		

> "VOTE FOR HILLARY in 2008."


It's bad enough she was able to become a NY Senator after being in this state 5 minutes, due to a loophole in our election laws. If she's elected President, I'll be moving to Canada... 

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 18, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> If she's elected President, I'll be moving to Canada...
> 
> Jeff


Somehow, I doubt it. 

Statements like this, however, will have an impact on how others read all of your other posts; even if you were just kidding.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 18, 2005)

Prof: Vote for who you like but it's a little hard to accept your claim to have supported GB if your first fallback position is Hillary and you're proud of the fact that you didn't vote for him in either election.
I don't think HC is the answer. If she doesn't know where Bill is how will she ever find those pesky WMD?
p.s. last remark designed to keep post on topic. This ain't about Hillary. Is it?


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 18, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I determined that by the statements of Scott Ritter, retired from the US Marine Corps, former leader of UN's weapons inspection teams, a man more qualified than any of us to comment (as he was actually on the groun)  I've referenced them in previous threads.



He may have an opinion, and it might be a highly educated one, but he didn't speak for the entire group of inspectors.  The inspection reports and briefings to the UN did NOT indicate that they knew the weapons did not exist and that they were done.  They indicated serious discrepancies that required more information and Iraqi documentation.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Despite UNSCOM's success in dealing with these obstacles, Iraq had not met its obligations under UN sanctions to fully comply with the original UNSCOM inspections, and as a result, was punished by UN sanctions.



As well as multiple bombings of their facilities and in at least one instance a massing of troops on their border to force compliance.  The sanctions weren't working, and many reports lately have indicated that Saddam was simply waiting for the sanctions to be lifted so that he could restart his weapons programs.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The 2003 inspections were underway and Iraq continued to defy the full compliance requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions.  However, the UN inspectors and the IAEA requested more time to continue their inspectors, and the United Nations Security Council did not believe further action was necessary until their research was complete.



According to the legal argument put forth in the Butler Report,
1) non-compliance with 1441 put 678 back in force which allowed military action
2) the language of 1441 indicated that no additional UN vote was needed to approve military action.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The Waxman report has found detailed evidence that the Bush Administration specifically ignored evidence contradicting the belief that Hussein had an active WMD program in order to support their desire to go to war.



I'll have to read that report.  Do you know where I can get a copy?



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Moreover, the WMD programs Hussein had before the original UNSCOM inspections were largely developed with the assistance of United States companies when Iraq was a US client state, and his "evil use" of WMD touted during the run up to the war occurred while Iraq was a US client state, and yet at no time did the US take action against Iraq or stop exporting WMD materials to it.



Off-topic.  We give weapons to lots of countries and have multiple times had to reign in the government that didn't use them correctly.  Besides, this was pre-1991; we can't blame Bush for that.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> These are the kinds of things that lead one to be suspicious, and to think we might have been the "bad guys", or at least seriously incompetent, when it comes to Iraq.



WhiteBirch


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 18, 2005)

So can we blame Bush I and Ronald Reagan, especially given little things like Iran-Contra? They ran the country between 1980 and 1992--hey what was going on then in the Mid-East...why, be darned...


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 18, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> How does one prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist?  Please show me how it is possible to prove a negative. You're claiming that Saddam should have proven the weapons didn't exist.  We now know, post-invasion, that they don't exist and never did.  How is he supposed to have proven this?



1) I don't know about the "never did."  I believe ample evidence showed that it existed.  They just now believe that Saddam did indeed destroy it.

2) I didn't make the rules to the game, the UN did.  It said that Iraq was to disclose what they had and to show evidence of destruction.  In many cases, those conditions weren't met.  In the inspector's own words, the disclosure was wrought with problems and they had documents of materials that was on hand and required destruction, but Iraq didn't provide evidence to the destruction.  There was also evidence of weapons found that weren't declared at all, weapons that they were hiding.

3) The inspectors had evidence of weapon materials purchased and delivered, but no documentation on their destruction.  No negative to prove, if it was there it had to go somewhere, and it was the responsibility of Iraq to show the documentation, not the inspector's.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I spent a great deal of time debating you in another thread wherein I documented the administration's efforts to engineer a perception of threat regarding nuclear weapons.



My original intention of my involvement in this thread was not to argue whether the war was justified.  The claim was made that the UN believed they had destroyed all of Iraq's weapons and I disputed that claim.  Nothing about engineering data, these were the quotes from the inspectors themselves.  Are you arguing those claims?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I honestly have to question if any amount of evidence would satisfy any of the apologists for the administration, or whether anybody would concede points on this issue.



Which was my point about not being able to PROVE either way whether the war was justified.  There is contention on the evidence and contention on the legality.  Until the "real" facts and intentions of those in power are known and not just guessed, we'll never know.  And the argument of legality hasn't been heard in any court of law.

You can say things were engineered and people lied, but without a forum where all the evidence is presented and disputed by both sides, people will believe what they believe.  I'm not one to rush that someone is guilty without adequate representation of the facts.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> WMD was the administration's casus belli.  Inspectors prior to the war, such as Scott Ritter, said they didn't exist.



That's what I dispute.  The briefings to the security council by the Inspectors didn't say that, and in fact believed there was big chance they did.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> As I indicated in the thread (above), the administration prior to 9-11 was on record stating that Saddam wasn't a threat--you can hear it in Powell and Rice's own words--and the National Intelligence Estimate of 2000 gave little indication that Iraq loomed as a dangerous entity.



All pre-9/11.  That devastating strike made the government believe that its current policy of containment simply wasn't going to do the job.  They believed that the only way to solve the problem was to resolve it quickly.  Are you saying that they can't change their minds as conditions change or new information comes to light?

WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jan 18, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Funny, too, that we haven't tangled with North Korea...you know, what with our humanitarian interest and our clear and present dangerness. Huh. Wonder why that is?



What do you mean by "tangled."  There are sanctions imposed against them and we're looking at doing more sanctions from what I understand.  We're also trying to be involved in talks to resolve the situation.  It's the same thing we did in Iraq after they were knocked back from Kuwait in '91.

WhiteBirch


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 18, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I'll have to read that report.  Do you know where I can get a copy?


 http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

 Highly recommended reading, with detailed references. The accompanying database includes 237 specifically misleading statements.



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Off-topic. We give weapons to lots of countries and have multiple times had to reign in the government that didn't use them correctly.


 Of course, when Hussein was using the weapons incorrectly, we only didn't reign the government in, we renewed their licenses to import WMD.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 18, 2005)

So, now we're all for UN sanctions--and this from the same folks who were arguing that UN sanctions failed miserably with Iran.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 18, 2005)

Ritter Right About Iraq  
by Randy Scholfield 

President Bush has been handing out Presidential Medals of Freedom lately like they were Little League good sportsmanship ribbons.

The medal apparently is an award for good effort, even if the results aren't so winning.

He awarded one to former Iraq viceroy Paul Bremer, who most notably disbanded the Iraqi army, leading to our present security implosion.

And he gave one to George Tenet, the former CIA chief, who most notably presided over two of the most devastating intelligence failures in the nation's history: first Sept. 11, then Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

It was Tenet who told the president that finding weapons stockpiles in Iraq was a "slam dunk."

Right. Give that man a medal.

I'd like to nominate someone who really deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom: Scott Ritter.

Remember Ritter? In a column in 2002, I wrote about the square-jawed former U.S. Marine and United Nations weapons inspector, who was in Wichita several months before the invasion of Iraq, giving a talk -- no, a plea -- about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

He was adamant: Saddam Hussein had no WMDs -- at least none of any consequence or that posed an imminent danger to the United States. Certainly nothing that would warrant a rushed invasion. "We can't go to war based on rhetoric and speculation," he told the crowd. "We'd better make sure there is a threat out there worth fighting."

He argued that 90 percent to 95 percent of Saddam's WMDs had been dismantled by the U.N. inspection team in which he served from 1991 to 1998. And that Saddam was otherwise well-contained by U.S. forces.

Now we know: He was right.

You've probably heard that the Bush administration this week quietly called off the weapons search.

There aren't any WMD stockpiles. As in none. Zip. And, no, they weren't moved to Syria.

The weapons didn't exist.

True to form, Bush insisted this week that it didn't matter -- that's right, his main justification for taking this country into a bloody, costly war didn't matter. He would still have invaded Iraq!

Huh? That makes sense only if he had planned to invade Iraq all along, as critics charged.

I remember Ritter telling the largely anti-war audience at the Wichita church that he wasn't a pacifist. A proud U.S. Marine, he believed that it was sometimes necessary to go to war and fight. But he also believed that it was wrong to put American fighting men and women in harm's way without very good reason.

Ritter saw that his country was headed down a disastrous path and had the guts to speak out.

At the time, he took a lot of abuse from Bush loyalists. They questioned his motives, and his integrity. They compared him to Jane Fonda. They asked in mocking tones what exercise video he was making next.

He could be saying, "I told you so." Instead, he's speaking out on another security boondoggle -- the anti-missile defense shield program, which is costing U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars without the Pentagon even being able to prove that it works.

We're spending the national treasure on it, with nothing in the way of enhanced security to show for it. On the contrary, argues Ritter, it's unleashing a dangerous and pointless new arms race.

Will we listen to him now? Probably not.

But make no mistake: Scott Ritter is an American patriot who cares enough about his country to tell it the unvarnished truth.

Give that man a medal. He actually deserves it.

Randy Scholfield is an editorial writer for The Eagle.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 18, 2005)

Pres. Bush may not have done so very well with his nominees, but anyone can be fooled. Let's take Scott Ritter for example. Briefly the poster boy for "Bush is Wrong on WMD" he lost his appeal when it was learned that he was:

1. Arrested for soliciting sex from an underage minor on the internet

2. Investigated by the F.B.I. for unauthorized contact with foreign intelligence agencies while with UNSCOM and

3. Testified to Senate and House of Representatives on Sept. 3rd and 16th, 1998, respectively that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program and presented a real threat:
A CNN report on Sept. 30th,1998 cited a Washington Post story...."which says....from Scott Ritter...that Iraq had key devices which could be used to make nuclear bombs, provided Baghdad got the enriched uranium first.
****
In his opinion, in Ritter's opinion, Iraq had a much more developed nuclear program than the International Atomic Agency is reporting to the U.N."
Video clip followed

The CNN report goes on to quote Ritter as saying "..it would be just a matter of days, in his opinion" for Iraq to assemble nuclear weapons.

In his Senate testimony, Ritter was asked about "the gravity of the situation and whether Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons (3) assembled, lacking only the fissile material:He answered "Yes, sir" after repeating back to the Senator the question he had been asked.

In an article in the New Republic,Ritter wrote:
"Meanwhile, Iraq has kept its entire nuclear weapons infrastructure intact through dual-use companies....Iraq still has components {lists components} for up to four nuclear devices minus the fissile core...as well as the means to produce these." Dec. 21, 1998

A year or two later, Ritter went Dovish in the war effort and claimed Iraq had no nukes or components, etc. The only problem with his new position is that he had been out of the Intelligence loop since 1998 and couldn't possibly have new info to contradict his old statements.

Showing his ability to guage relative strengths, Ritter also said that the US lacked the military capability to defeat the Iraqi army and that our troops would "never" reach Baghdad.

Please, hold off on the Medal.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 18, 2005)

Mr. Ritter is also a retired Marine Corps officer. Here is how he speaks:

http://www.informedpublic.com/2004/10/exclusive-scott-ritter-speaks-should.html


Here is a "Slate," article relevant to the attacks upon his credibility:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2105434/

Here is a CNN article--good to see that we're trusting those liberals for something! since they constantly lie and slant to protect the extreme leftist viewpoint:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/22/ritter.arrest/


By the way, will we also be discounting anything that J. Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohn, and the rest of the right-wing types caught with their, "hand," in the, "cookie jar?"


----------



## The Prof (Jan 18, 2005)

Nah, it's not about HC at all.  To be very truthful, I was just blowing smoke.  This last election really bummed me out.  I was not thrilled with either candidate to be quite honest.  But after forty-five years of being a Republican, I'm ready to switch.

Hey, I like that thing about not finding Bill, how can she find WMD.

Have a great day.

The Prof



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Prof: Vote for who you like but it's a little hard to accept your claim to have supported GB if your first fallback position is Hillary and you're proud of the fact that you didn't vote for him in either election.
> I don't think HC is the answer. If she doesn't know where Bill is how will she ever find those pesky WMD?
> p.s. last remark designed to keep post on topic. This ain't about Hillary. Is it?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 20, 2005)

*Let's take Scott Ritter for example. Briefly the poster boy for "Bush is Wrong on WMD" he lost his appeal when it was learned that he was:

1. Arrested for soliciting sex from an underage minor on the internet*

So we can say, as the Slate article put it, "Scott Ritter: Right on Iraq, wrong on age of consent?"  Surely you know an ad hominem when you see one, Ghostdog.  Don't you?

*2. Investigated by the F.B.I. for unauthorized contact with foreign intelligence agencies while with UNSCOM and*

From an article on the Accuracy In Media website:

_"Scott Ritter, during his recent visit to Baghdad, called on Iraq to allow them back. The problem is that the U.N. has no intelligence capability of its own and must rely on other nations and their intelligence services. Ritter did that, admitting that he relied heavily on the Israelis for intelligence information about Iraq. He also asked Israel for help in reviewing U.S. intelligence material about Iraq. For that, Ritter came under investigation by the FBI for espionage." _ 

Sounds like he was trying to do his job.  Perhaps they wanted to burn a government gadfly who was loudly and vociferously questioning the administration?  Or are such politics beneath a President who would ruthlessly--and dishonestly--handicap the political careers of Max Cleland and John McCain?


*In his opinion, in Ritter's opinion, Iraq had a much more developed nuclear program than the International Atomic Agency is reporting to the U.N."*

Did he flip his stance?  Certainly.  In many (not all) conservative circles this is a big no-no.  The assumption is that you have to be right the first time, and never correct yourself if it turns out you're wrong.  

Others have no problem with the concept.  It's called changing one's mind.

Now as far as changing one's mind...has anybody here addressed the video footage of Rice and Powell claiming that Iraq wasn't a threat?  They changed their respective tunes following 9-11 and suddenly Iraq was a threat again.  Both were tasked with spinning the situation into one favorable for the administration.

Once again, I provide an article outlining this spin...I provided it before.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/899/

Reluctance to accept the justifications for this war crossed party lines.  Long before the invasion people had debunked the notion of Iraq's ability to produce WMD's.  Two years into the war and countless man-hours of inspection before and after the invasion--no weapons.

Where are they?

Some speculate Syria, based on the hearsay evidence provided by a journalist who has grievances with the Syrian government.  They propose that Saddam moved thousands of tons of chemicals and production equipment hundred of miles by truck, without U.S. intelligence picking up on it in spite of their heightened pre-war alert status.  No U.S. or Brit flyover caught them in the act, and spy satellites somehow missed this.

It isn't a plausible hypothesis, however, and the government isn't touching it.

People here speculate Saddam destroyed the weapons before we invaded.  The assumption, apparently, is that Saddam wanted to convince Iran he had them so that he could maintain parity.  When war loomed with the U.S., he then destroyed his stockpile (and kept this action totally secret somehow from both the Iranians, the U.S., Great Britiain, and his fellow Iraqi's) in order to make the U.S. look bad and to make himself look better.

Others suggest that they're hidden still in Iraq.  Once again, the combined intelligence forces of the "Coalition of the Willing" are unable to find these tons of supplies.  I confess I've lost faith in the U.S. and Great Britain's intelligence arms, but I never thought Poland's SIS would drop the ball so badly.  <sigh>

Regards,


Steve


----------

