Did we have justification?

[Phoenix44]

I am not going to vote

Then quit complaining. Your voice means nothing.

 

[lvwhitebir]

This just triggered with me as to what you're thinking...

Basically all the articles talk about the opinons of the inspectors and anylists. None of that matters if there are no WMDs. That is what it comes down to, if they broke the rules and had them, then where are they?

Essentially there was no rule that said we'll invade you if you have WMDs. We, the UN, believed they had WMDs and according to UN Resolution 1441 they were to dismantle them and provide proof they were gone.

There was no proof that it was dismantled which is one of the biggest contentions of their non-compliance. The weapons inspectors were unable to make this determination in the amount of time they were allowed to be there.

So, people ask why don't we invade N. Korea because it has WMDs. The reason is they're allowed to *have* them. They did break a treaty, but the treaty didn't say there'd be "serious consequences" if they developed them. There probably are economic sanctions tied to it, but nothing that says we can invade them. AFAIK there are no resolutions against N. Korea for their nuclear development. Iraq had UN sanctions against them, preventing them from having WMDs, because they attacked another country and the world sanctions said they had to disarm and start playing nice.

WhiteBirch

 

[lvwhitebir]

Yes, everyone agrees that Saddam was a non-compliant, generally evil and bad man, certainly unfit to play nice with others,

I don't get the impression that everyone agrees with this. OULobo for one seems to believe they *were* compliant and were merely tired of having to prove it. I apologize if I misunderstand your position OULobo.

Non-compliance is the basic crux of the US argument. If we believe they have the weapons and can't prove otherwise because of their non-compliance, then we feel in iminent danger.

Whether we were allowed to act on that danger is a question of international law and the rule of the UN.

WhiteBirch

 

[Flatlander]

Well, yes. But the main problem of operating outside of the UN is that the same "justification" could be used for a host of other countries, and that could turn into a real foreign relations mess for the US. Yes, it can get worse than it is now....

 

[hardheadjarhead]

That to me is really the issue. It has nothing to do with what we have or haven't found to date. The decision was based on intelligence at the time, which is really an educated guess. I don't know anything about international law nor about how the UN charter works. All I know is that before the war there was discussion saying we weren't violating international law and that since the war I know of no resolution in the UN denouncing our effort nor some international court going against the US for violating Iraq's sovereignty. If anyone has a deeper understanding of the legal justification, please respond. We can jump up and down all we want, but I don't believe the US did anything "illegal."


To use enforcement of UN sanctions as a rationale for invasion when it goes against the wishes of the UN Security Council is ridiculous. Bush invaded knowing he would not attain a majority in the Security Council had an "eighteenth resolution" been passed giving Iraq a deadline. The majority of the members of the Security Council were against military action in spite of strong pressure from the US to back an attack. He circumvented this by taking things into his own hands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war

In invading without UN support the US undermined the legitmacy of the Security Council, while at the same time saying that UN resistance to invasion was in itself calling into question their credibility. Given that popular opinion outside the US was against the war, the UN's credibility wasn't an issue.


Historically, yes. We pick the fights that have the most "value" to the country. We the people are paying for it, so I for one don't care about small African nations duking it out. There are other ways we can help that cause that are more cost effective. I care about more influential countries that can cause more global distress. We ignore resolutions against Israel because that would be a political hotbed that would cause more problems than solve. You may not like it, but it's my version of the truth.

We've also ignored resolutions made against us, which again undermines the legitmacy of the UN. Some call this hubris.

Insofar as "global distress", Iran and North Korea are far more capable and far more inclined to cause unrest, hate, and discontent. We picked a fight with the smallest bully on the block.

There are threads on here all the time about martial artists attacking first when they believe there is an imminent threat. Many people believe it's morally justified even if the law says you shouldn't. What's so different in this case? Boil this down to three people, Iraq who is the ex-con possibly armed and coming at you, the US the possible victim, and the world stage who represent the law. As far as you know, he has the ability, the intent, and the opportunity to attack you. Do you strike first believing that to do so would represent less harm to you and your family or wait and see what he does possibly losing a family member in the process?

Iraq was fully contained. Prior to 9-11 both Powell and Rice are on record stating there was no threat from Saddam. Their military was degraded, they had no means of conventional delivery of WMD's, their supposed connections with Al Qaeda were didn't exist (and we had no intelligence of any merit indicating otherwise). This "ex-con", as I've indicated, was the least threatening of Bush's "Axis of Evil."

Further, there is evidence that this invasion was an administration priority before 9-11--in spite of the previously mentioned containment-- and that there was pressure to force a link with Al Qaida following the attack.

The day after the 9-11 Commission's report indicating that the Al Qaeda/Iraq connection was flimsy, Dick Cheney again maintained this "connection" as if he had not seen the news or was privy to the contents of the report. Following the report's release and Tony Blair's apology to the people of Great Britain, the President said the intelligence was "good intelligence". Both the President and Vice President seemed unable to come to grips with reality.

In the face of such overwhelming evidence against their appeals, their efforts go beyond denial into the realm of simply silly dishonestness directed at defusing the doubts of the less educated among the electorate.

It further indicates a refusal to accept responsibility for a debacle that will, I predict, bring an end to George Bush's political career. He will not aknowledge the error, nor will his die-hard supporters.

But then, Jingoism doesn't move beyond the black and white of dualism, nor does it recognize the mistakes of the True Believer.

Regards,


Steve

 

[lvwhitebir]

To use enforcement of UN sanctions as a rationale for invasion when it goes against the wishes of the UN Security Council is ridiculous. Bush invaded knowing he would not attain a majority in the Security Council had an "eighteenth resolution" been passed giving Iraq a deadline. The majority of the members of the Security Council were against military action in spite of strong pressure from the US to back an attack. He circumvented this by taking things into his own hands.

That's why he dropped that as his specified reason for the invasion. He did go to the Security Council and did get multiple vetos to the proposed resolution which would give stronger language for reprisal if Iraq didn't comply. He then came up with the clear-and-present-danger argument. I don't like how things went down, but I support it and can't at all see how it can be considered "unjustified." I don't see how he circumvented anything either. The US merely selected another path that at least so far was legally our right.

We've also ignored resolutions made against us, which again undermines the legitmacy of the UN.

I've heard this before. What UN resolutions have been put against the US that we didn't fulfill? Is there a link where I can look them up?

Insofar as "global distress", Iran and North Korea are far more capable and far more inclined to cause unrest, hate, and discontent. We picked a fight with the smallest bully on the block.

IMO, that isn't true. Iraq actually invaded another country. N. Korea is simply shouting in the wind at this point, although it can develop into something quickly. Iran may be harboring terrorist but nationally isn't doing anything itself either. Iraq has shown a willingness to take whatever it wants and isn't ashamed about gassing its citizens in the process.

Iraq was fully contained. Prior to 9-11 both Powell and Rice are on record stating there was no threat from Saddam.

Maybe evidence surfaced post 9/11 that changed that opinion. I'd be interested in seeing the date and the comments from Powell and Rice.

Further, there is evidence that this invasion was an administration priority before 9-11--in spite of the previously mentioned containment

I'm not surprised. As I said, I'm surprised the US waited so long to really do something about it. We danced around it for 12 years. I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton had made plans for it himself.

In the face of such overwhelming evidence against their appeals, their efforts go beyond denial into the realm of simply silly dishonestness directed at defusing the doubts of the less educated among the electorate.

It further indicates a refusal to accept responsibility for a debacle that will, I predict, bring an end to George Bush's political career. He will not aknowledge the error, nor will his die-hard supporters.

They seem to fully believe that what they did was the correct course of action. It would most certainly be political suicide to say that they were indeed outright wrong. I don't think I've ever heard a person in charge of something big ever admit they did something wrong. Even their supporters would flee. If they believed they made the right decision based on the evidence at hand, it's better to work on what might have gone wrong and correct it so it never happens again.

I'm neither a Republican nor a Bush-supporter. There are many issues I disagree with him about. But I feel that he is my President, whether I voted for him or not, he made a very tough decision based on the evidence at hand (a decision that I feel is neither immoral nor illegal and which I support) and believes he did the right thing. People can call him all sorts of names and say he was wrong, but I believe most would have done the same thing given the same circumstances and evidence.

Think about what might have happened had our fears of that evidence become reality. What would people have thought, said, and done if we had evidence that the weapons existed, that they were sold to terrorist organizations, used against US targets, and we did nothing to stop it?

WhiteBirch

 

[OULobo]

That's why he dropped that as his specified reason for the invasion. He did go to the Security Council and did get multiple vetos to the proposed resolution which would give stronger language for reprisal if Iraq didn't comply. He then came up with the clear-and-present-danger argument. I don't like how things went down, but I support it and can't at all see how it can be considered "unjustified." I don't see how he circumvented anything either. The US merely selected another path that at least so far was legally our right.

I still don't see anything clear or verifyably present in Iraq that posed a significant threat to the US.

I'm neither a Republican nor a Bush-supporter. There are many issues I disagree with him about. But I feel that he is my President, whether I voted for him or not, he made a very tough decision based on the evidence at hand (a decision that I feel is neither immoral nor illegal and which I support) and believes he did the right thing. People can call him all sorts of names and say he was wrong, but I believe most would have done the same thing given the same circumstances and evidence.

I disagree, he's not my President, he's the President. If I voted for him, he would be my president. Belief in the right thing is not what he was elected for or is paid to do. He was elected and is paid to do the will of the people, not the will of the Bush clan. He spent so much time justifying the stance of the paper tiger we call the UN, but then pats them on the head for their efforts like a lap dog and does what he wants anyway, and they are so desperate for a little muscle that they are too scared to nip that hand with international charges. We let him do this, because the sheeple of the US were wrapped up in the same post 9/11 ferver that allowed, that toilet paper, the patriot act to be passed.

Think about what might have happened had our fears of that evidence become reality. What would people have thought, said, and done if we had evidence that the weapons existed, that they were sold to terrorist organizations, used against US targets, and we did nothing to stop it?

I don't need to play the "what if" game with you do I, because there is very little in this world you should take action on, with just a "what if". What if he touched off a war that destroyed the global opinion of the US and formed the middle east into a unified US hating goliath, oh, wait, he practically did. He gambled and lost, now he needs to pay the price. The fact that he is the US president and thought he was justified, doesn't give him a pass, he doesn't get to make that decision. If I shoot someone on the street and think I'm justified, doesn't mean I get off. I have to face a jury that makes that decision. Why would he get the privilage of being his own jury? Hey, what if the president was using his power to push his own personal vendetta and financial gain, that would be just as viable as Iraq having WMD, but wait we actually have proof that they didn't. I guess that's not much of a what if anymore is it.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I've heard this before. What UN resolutions have been put against the US that we didn't fulfill? Is there a link where I can look them up?

No resolutions were passed authorizing invasion. 1441 threatened "serious consequences", but didn't authorize use of force. Serious consequences could result in further sanctions or a limited bombing campaign.

US Congressional authorization for the President to use force specifically stated that he would have to be in compliance with UN resolutions in order to take military action. Those resolutions weren't passed by the Security Council, and in invading he defied Congressional directives that game him a specific length of "leash". See below:

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

IMO, that isn't true. Iraq actually invaded another country. N. Korea is simply shouting in the wind at this point, although it can develop into something quickly. Iran may be harboring terrorist but nationally isn't doing anything itself either. Iraq has shown a willingness to take whatever it wants and isn't ashamed about gassing its citizens in the process.

Do we have a statute of limitations on evil acts? When do we decide to decry these acts and move against the perpetrators? Ten years after? Twenty? Fifty?

Iraq invaded another country in August of 1990 and was ousted. End of story. It gassed its civilians in the 80's and nothing was done by Reagan at the time. Had we issues with the gassing George HW Bush (Bush the elder) had ample opportunity to take care of it then in 1991, as did his predecessor, Ronald Reagan when the actual gassing occured.

We could easily list a litany of abuses over the years by the other members of the "Axis of Evil".

Korea has murdered and starved its own civilian in the millions in the past decade. Korea has in the past murdered a U.S. infantry captain (mid seventies) who was in neutral territory on the DMZ. They seized a US intelligence gathering ship following a lethal attack upon it (late sixties), killing two crewmen and imprisoning the others. They have metaphorically threatened the use of nuclear weapons on the US should we attack. They have biological weapons and nerve gas.

Iran seized our embassy and kept our people hostage for 444 days. They sponsored terrorism throughout the world during the Reagan administration and were responsible for the murder of 241 Marines in 1981. Iran is still one of the leading state sponsors of terror. They also have biological weapons and nerve gas.

Both countries, again, are developing nukes and the means of delivering them to the US.

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/st_terror/iran.htm

http://www.terrorismfiles.org/countries/iran.html

Note here that I'm not calling for war with these nations. I AM saying that Bush knew well in advance who was the greatest threat. It wasn't Iraq.


Maybe evidence surfaced post 9/11 that changed that opinion. I'd be interested in seeing the date and the comments from Powell and Rice.

If you want to see the actual clips, rent Fahrenheit 9-11.

Given this administration's touting of threats that they knew were false, many Americans suspect their motives. George Tenet told the White House six months in advance that the story concerning yellow cake uranium was bogus, and advised Bush not to use it in his State of the Union address. Bush did anyway. There was foreknowledge that the Al Qaeda connections were shakey. They stuck with connections, even though they knew better.

They seem to fully believe that what they did was the correct course of action.

They clearly want the public to believe that this is so.

It would most certainly be political suicide to say that they were indeed outright wrong. I don't think I've ever heard a person in charge of something big ever admit they did something wrong.

Tony Blair did just that, as I've indicated. Donald Rumsfeld did it with the Abu Ghraib scandal. The President apologized for that, as well. It is not unheard of.

If they believed they made the right decision based on the evidence at hand, it's better to work on what might have gone wrong and correct it so it never happens again.

Following the WTC/Pentagon attacks George Bush told terrorism expert Richard Clarke to attempt to actively link 9-11 to Saddam, Clarke told him there was no link. Bush directed him to find one, regardless. Bush was trying to create a case when he was told there wasn't a case.

The administration was creating evidence or bolstering shakey evidence. The refutations of this "evidence" were leveled before, during and after the invasion. The 9-11 commission's findings were, if anything, a denoument to the drama of the mythical WMD's.

I'm neither a Republican nor a Bush-supporter. There are many issues I disagree with him about. But I feel that he is my President, whether I voted for him or not, he made a very tough decision based on the evidence at hand (a decision that I feel is neither immoral nor illegal and which I support) and believes he did the right thing. People can call him all sorts of names and say he was wrong, but I believe most would have done the same thing given the same circumstances and evidence.

Many would not have, given what we now know he knew prior to invading. Note what I wrote. He knew better. He knew the Al Qaeda connection was virtually non-existant, yet he pressed it (and Cheney still presses it). He knew the yellow cake uranium was false. Powell spent days at the CIA trying to find stuff he could make a case to the UN with. They were scrabbling to try and justify an invasion they had allready decided to make. The "imminent threat" was a creation of the administration.


Think about what might have happened had our fears of that evidence become reality. What would people have thought, said, and done if we had evidence that the weapons existed, that they were sold to terrorist organizations, used against US targets, and we did nothing to stop it?

Think of that. And think of how a month before 9-11, on August 4, George Bush had briefing notes that stated terrorists were planning to use airliners as missiles.

And he did nothing to stop it.



http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0332/mondo4.php

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/pdb-a12.shtml

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911timeline2pg

Recommended readings:

James Carville, Had Enough?
Al Franken, Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them.
Bill Press, Bush Must Go.



Regards,


Steve

 

[lvwhitebir]

No resolutions were passed authorizing invasion.

I understand this. You misunderstood me. You had said: "We've also ignored resolutions made against us, which again undermines the legitmacy of the UN." I had heard this before, someone said that we had flagrantly disregarded a UN resolution against us. I was wondering where your information came from because I'd like to look more into it.

Do we have a statute of limitations on evil acts? When do we decide to decry these acts and move against the perpetrators? Ten years after? Twenty? Fifty?

My point was that there were still UN resolutions outstanding against Iraq because it had invaded another country and that we were still attempting to resolve that resolution. No matter if it takes 5 or 10 years to resolve the resolution, until it is, the punishment dictated by the resolution is still in force. Once the UN resolution was resolved then we definitely couldn't use that "evil act" as a justification.

Iraq invaded another country in August of 1990 and was ousted. End of story.

Not end of story. That's what brought about this whole thing. This is what UN resolution 1441 was all for. It was to force their disarmament because they attacked another country.

We could easily list a litany of abuses over the years by the other members of the "Axis of Evil". ... I AM saying that Bush knew well in advance who was the greatest threat. It wasn't Iraq.

Sure, a lot of countries had done serious attrocities both interally and against other countries. Some have been dealt with by UN actions, some not. But we were actively working to resolve UN resolution 1441 that was being "fought" by Iraq (not only through their inaction, but blocking the actions of the inspectors and attacking our planes legally protecting the no-fly zones) *and* we had intelligence that they had WMDs *and* we had recent historical evidence that they used the illegal weapons against another country and internally (which not only says they have them, but that they're willing to use them).

Tony Blair did just that, as I've indicated. Donald Rumsfeld did it with the Abu Ghraib scandal. The President apologized for that, as well. It is not unheard of.

It's more of the *type* of appology that you won't see. For example, they may appologize for something that happened under their watch (Abu Ghraib), but they won't appologize for a direct decision they made that they knew was wrong.

Here's the last info I could get on what Blair has said about it...

CNN 7/20/04
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has defended his decision to go to war against Iraq, insisting intelligence at the time left "little doubt" about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
...
Challenged by former Cabinet minister Clare Short, who quit her post over the conflict, Blair said confronted with the choice of backing away or making sure he was incapable of developing WMD: "I still think we made the right decision."
...
The PM said the intelligence made it "absolutely clear" Britain was entitled to go back to the United Nations and insist Saddam posed a continuing threat.
...
The PM had said he was taking responsibility for mistakes made. But he refused to say what these mistakes were, Howard said.

The administration was creating evidence or bolstering shakey evidence.

It's funny that on one hand the British inquiry into the invasion said

the intelligence was "insufficiently robust" to justify claims that Iraq was in breach of U.N. resolutions requiring it to disarm

on one hand and then

At the time, Britain was not alone in believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence services of Russia, China, France, Germany and America believed it too

on the other.

The "imminent threat" was a creation of the administration.

Sorry, but from what I've seen, the evidence was there. We may look back now and say that the evidence was wrong, but they based their decision on the evidence they had. I haven't seen any inquiry that said Bush nor Blair did anything intentionally wrong, only conjecture and Monday-morning quarterbacking.

And he did nothing to stop it.

OT. That's covered in the 9/11 Commission Report. I haven't seen anything that says Bush could have or should have done something. They've said that this administration and the ones previous to it had a lack of "imagination" concerning foreign attacks on our soil, but no one has said that Bush knew enough that he could had prevented the attack. There were intelligence lapses and lots of intelligence that something was going to happen, but just knowing it was going to be a plane wouldn't have done much. There are thousands of planes in the air at any one time. They had no idea how it would happen nor where. What could they have done? They're trying to figure out how to keep it from happening again and are having difficulty.

WhiteBirch

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I appreciate your great patience in reading this.

Your comments in bold.

I had heard this before, someone said that we had flagrantly disregarded a UN resolution against us. I was wondering where your information came from because I'd like to look more into it.

I erred here. In reading my post I said we violated UN resolutions against us. I have no evidence that we've violated any sanctions or resolutions made against us, but we have violated United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2131(XX).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

http://www.lossless-audio.com/usa/index16.php


Not end of story. That's what brought about this whole thing. This is what UN resolution 1441 was all for. It was to force their disarmament because they attacked another country.

Name the subsequent UN Security Council resolution calling for invasion, please. If you refer to the links I provided you'll find that a majority of the members of the Security Council did not favor an invasion. I referenced that. Again, how do we "enforce" UN resolutions without UN consent of that enforcement? Since when do we disregard democratic procedure?

*and* we had intelligence that they had WMDs *and* we had recent historical evidence that they used the illegal weapons against another country and internally (which not only says they have them, but that they're willing to use them).

Their use of these WMD's predate the '91 war. Their sale by the US to Iraq apparently continued after the war. Given the following article, and the inertia on the part of the Reagan/Bush (senior) administrations, one might get the idea that we were intentionally looking the other way.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

Another article along the same lines indicating that sale of WMD materials continued up to March of '92, which is after the Gulf War:

http://www.cursor.org/stories/burying_news_on_iraq.htm

Yet another article on the same issue, indicating that after it was discovered Iraq was using gas on a daily basis in its war with Iran, U.S. support stopped and then picked up again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

Another story indicating the US was responsible for the buildup of their WMD's:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

And here is perhaps the most damning outline of our support for their WMD program, a well done timeline:

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

So...we gave them the WMD's. We supported the development of WMD's. I cite this to point out that this was never a concern of previous administrations, and was brought out as an issue of morality only to further Bush (the younger) plan to justify the invasion. Had this been an issue, one would think that Bush the elder would have simply rolled on into Baghdad when he had the opportunity and backing of the UN.

In response to my line "The "imminent threat" was a creation of the administration." You wrote:

Sorry, but from what I've seen, the evidence was there. We may look back now and say that the evidence was wrong, but they based their decision on the evidence they had. I haven't seen any inquiry that said Bush nor Blair did anything intentionally wrong, only conjecture and Monday-morning quarterbacking.

Let's take a look at some of our starting line-up.

George Tenet defended his agents from being accused of botching the intel when he said "They never said there was an imminent threat." This was February 5, 2004 at a speech at Georgetown University. A Monday morning quarterback?

In the summer of 1995, Hussein Kamel--a Hussein son-in-law and the highest Iraqi official ever to defect--told the CIA that after Desert Storm Iraq had destroyed all of its chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. He was telling the truth, and he was ignored. A Monday morning quarterback?

On September of 2002 a Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical weapons program stated that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons." The President had access to this report. Was it made by Monday morning quarterbacks?

You have yet to address the issue of the false report of Iraq's attempt to purchase "yellow cake" uranium from Nigeria, which the Bush administration knew to be a false allegation. Former ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent by the CIA to confirm the report, and he returned saying it was hooey. Bush was warned by Tenet not to use this "fact". Ignoring Tenet, on Jan. 28, 2003 during his State of the Union address Bush said, and I quote:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Bush knew in advance.

Bush claimed in a news conference in Sept. 2002 that Iraq was within six months of developing a nuke. There was no evidence to support that in spite of Bush's claims to the contrary. The National Intelligence Estimate of Ocober 2002 estimated that had Iraq gotten their hands on fissile material it would take five to seven years to produce their first nuke.

In that same news conference he attributed the source of this information as being the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency):

"I would remind you that when the inspectors went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic--the IAEA, that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

The IAEA issued a report on Jan. 27, 2002 that stated there was no evidence of Iraqi nuclear weapons development.

http://www.mideastweb.org/inspectionreports.htm

An earlier IAEA report in October of 1997 that said of on site inspections, "These verification activities have revealed no indictions that Iraq had achieved its program objective of producing nuclear weapons...Furthermore, there are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance."

That same month the State Department's Intelligence and Research Department reported "The activities we have detected do not add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive apporach to accquiring nuclear weapons."

OT. That's covered in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Certainly OT, and designed to point out the irony of your statement, which I hope people will go back and read over.

There are thousands of planes in the air at any one time. They had no idea how it would happen nor where. What could they have done?

Bush says he would have, and I quote "moved heavan and earth" to prevent that attack if he'd known it was in the offing. The August 6 report game him plenty of warning, and no action was taken. But as you point out, that's a topic for another thread.


Regards,


Steve

 

[lvwhitebir]

Name the subsequent UN Security Council resolution calling for invasion, please.

There wasn't one which specifically authorized us the invade. But 1441 pointed out unspecified consequences if Iraq didn't comply. We thought it was too broad and tried to get another resolution through, which was vetoed by the Security Council.

I did not say that the UN ever authorized the attack, but they haven't condemed it either. I merely pointed out that our first attempt to convince them was the non-compliance argument. Personally, I find it to be the best argument. I was very disappointed that the UN didn't back it.

Again, how do we "enforce" UN resolutions without UN consent of that enforcement? Since when do we disregard democratic procedure?

I agree that the government can't cite that as its reason for the invasion. And they don't. They always go back to the "imminent threat" argument.

Their use of these WMD's predate the '91 war. Their sale by the US to Iraq apparently continued after the war. Given the following article, and the inertia on the part of the Reagan/Bush (senior) administrations, one might get the idea that we were intentionally looking the other way.
...
So...we gave them the WMD's. We supported the development of WMD's. I cite this to point out that this was never a concern of previous administrations, and was brought out as an issue of morality only to further Bush (the younger) plan to justify the invasion. Had this been an issue, one would think that Bush the elder would have simply rolled on into Baghdad when he had the opportunity and backing of the UN.

That to me points out that they had the weapons at one time. Whether we supplied them or not, we *know* that they at least had them. We cannot now argue that they didn't. My point is that it was Iraq's responsibility under 1441 to declare them or point to documentation of their destruction. They didn't. It wasn't an issue of morality (except them using them on their own people) but an issue of non-compliance. We complained because they were supposed to destroy them.

Let's take a look at some of our starting line-up.

I can't comment on most of these because I don't have any reference for my own research. I'd be interested in reading where you got your information.

In the summer of 1995, Hussein Kamel--a Hussein son-in-law and the highest Iraqi official ever to defect--told the CIA that after Desert Storm Iraq had destroyed all of its chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. He was telling the truth, and he was ignored. A Monday morning quarterback?

The weapons inspectors were not convinced that either their chemical or biological stores were destroyed as he claimed. How can we trust his statement? The Monday-morning quarterback would say that he was telling the truth just because we haven't found any. All that's important was he said it was destroyed and we didn't believe him. This isn't evidence of lies or government conspiracy.

You have yet to address the issue of the false report of Iraq's attempt to purchase "yellow cake" uranium from Nigeria, which the Bush administration knew to be a false allegation

The only evidence I have is that CNN said (the emphasis is mine):

CNN 6/2003
Critics point to Bush's State of the Union address in January in which he cited intelligence from one of the country's closest allies that he said indicated Iraq was seeking nuclear material.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," he said in the January 28 speech.

The allegation was wrong. It was based on documents later exposed by U.N. weapons inspectors as sloppy forgeries -- with the wrong letterhead and wrong names -- designed to falsely implicate Niger in selling raw uranium, known as yellow cake, to Iraq.

I haven't seen anything which said Bush knew anything before the speech. Where is the evidence that says he did that I can also look into? Was he wrong to no have it verified before he pushed it as evidence? Yes. Did he necessarily lie because it was later found to be forged? No.

The IAEA issued a report on Jan. 27, 2002 that stated there was no evidence of Iraqi nuclear weapons development.

http://www.mideastweb.org/inspectionreports.htm

Yep, that's what the report says. However, it also says they want more time to verify it, so the report isn't conclusive.

In my research, however, I did find the following alarming recent report...

CNN 7/2004
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/index.html
The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said.

The material could have potentially been used to make a "radiological dispersal device" -- a so-called dirty bomb -- "or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program," the department said Tuesday.

If they didn't have a program, they certainly had a lot of material.

WhiteBirch

 

[hardheadjarhead]

There wasn't one which specifically authorized us the invade. But 1441 pointed out unspecified consequences if Iraq didn't comply. We thought it was too broad and tried to get another resolution through, which was vetoed by the Security Council.
<snip>
I was very disappointed that the UN didn't back it.

So too the Administration.

I agree that the government can't cite that as its reason for the invasion. And they don't. They always go back to the "imminent threat" argument.

Indeed they did, and ignored the second clause of the Congressional Resolution requiring UN consent. 1441 did not provide this. This brings us to the arguments for WMD's, which I suggest we focus on.


That to me points out that they had the weapons at one time. Whether we supplied them or not, we *know* that they at least had them. We cannot now argue that they didn't. My point is that it was Iraq's responsibility under 1441 to declare them or point to documentation of their destruction. They didn't. It wasn't an issue of morality (except them using them on their own people) but an issue of non-compliance. We complained because they were supposed to destroy them.

The issue of morality was brought up as a justification for the war, which I've indicated is disingenuous. Paul Wolfowitz is on record saying that wasn't a good reason for invasion. Reference Press' book, which I've provided as a source.

Of course we know they had them at one time. The question is whether they had them any time following the Administration's post 9-11 allegations.

I can't comment on most of these because I don't have any reference for my own research. I'd be interested in reading where you got your information.

I'll confess I appreciate your efforts to research.

Bill Press' "Bush Must Go." Is a primary source. I cross-checked some of Press's allegations on line. I recently cross referenced many of this with an article that appeared in August 30, 2004 issue of "In These Times", which I purchased off the shelf. The report is by David Sirota and Christy Harvey. I have a link to the article:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/

The article has hyperlinks to sources used.

I also cross referenced some of this with "The Book on Bush" by Eric Alterman, Mark Green and Mark J. Green. I sat down with this book just this morning over coffee. It is well written and well researched. Hopefully this link to the book on Amazon will work:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670032735/102-6123543-8314545?v=glance

The weapons inspectors were not convinced that either their chemical or biological stores were destroyed as he claimed. How can we trust his statement? The Monday-morning quarterback would say that he was telling the truth just because we haven't found any. All that's important was he said it was destroyed and we didn't believe him. This isn't evidence of lies or government conspiracy.

Taken in context with the other arguments I've presented, it does indicate dishonesty on the part of the White House. The October 2002 CIA report directly contradicts one from the previous February. Both Powell and Rice are on record prior to 9-11 stating that Hussein didn't have the capacity to be dangerous. Rather than beat this point to death, I'd ask you to first read the article by Sirota and Harvey.

The only evidence I have is that CNN said (the emphasis is mine):

The UN did repoted those as forgeries later, as you emphasized. As I've indicated, the CIA was aware well before the UN released this report, as was the White House, who removed the "yellow cake" reference from an October speech only to reinsert it later. Again, the CIA sent Joe Wilson to confirm the report. Wilson found the report to be bogus. Reference my sources.

I haven't seen anything which said Bush knew anything before the speech. Where is the evidence that says he did that I can also look into? Was he wrong to no have it verified before he pushed it as evidence? Yes. Did he necessarily lie because it was later found to be forged? No.

Sorry, yes. Reference sources provided.

In my research, however, I did find the following alarming recent report...

You'll note in the second article that all of this uranium had been kept under seal and control by the IAEA. It isn't fissile material and can not be used for a nuclear weapon, though it can be used for a "dirty bomb". All of this material was known to the US and UN and was accounted for prior to the war and was not part of our casus belli:

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/iraq/article.jsp?id=99993860&sub=News update

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32195-2004Jul6?language=printer

A report from earlier this month:

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/iraq/article.jsp?id=99994549&sub=News update

If they didn't have a program, they certainly had a lot of material.

As I've indicated, they didn't really have either.

Again, I appreciate your work here.


Regards,


Steve

 

[lvwhitebir]

Indeed they did, and ignored the second clause of the Congressional Resolution requiring UN consent.

According to the CNN report I have, the authorization did not require UN consent.

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."
...
The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution.

The issue of morality was brought up as a justification for the war, which I've indicated is disingenuous. Paul Wolfowitz is on record saying that wasn't a good reason for invasion. Reference Press' book, which I've provided as a source.

I don't believe it was cited as a reason for the invasion, but it was additional support material. *IF* he had the weapons, his proven immoral prior use of weapons shows that he wouldn't hesitate to use them against us; Ability, Opportunity, and Intent.

The report is by David Sirota and Christy Harvey. I have a link to the article:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/

The article has hyperlinks to sources used.

Unfortunatly I found the article jumped to some conclusions. As an example the article states:

"But such an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country required a public rationale. And so the Bush administration struck fear into the hearts of Americans about Saddam Hussein’s supposed WMD, starting with nuclear arms. In his first major address on the “Iraqi threat” in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem, saying, “Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”

Yet, before that speech, the White House had intelligence calling this assertion into question. A 1997 report by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the agency whose purpose is to prevent nuclear proliferation—stated there was no indication Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future."

1) The IAEA was kicked out of the country in 1998 and the speech was 4 years later.
2) The report didn't say they were weapons free. They said they had no indication, which isn't the same thing.
3) The IAEA shipped weapons grade nuclear material out of Iraq and locked up the non-weapons-grade material within Iraq, according to the source you cited.
4) Your source also indicated that the non-weapons-grade material would be ideal for terrorists.

*IF* we had some intelligence saying that post 1998 they were still attempting to beg, borrow, or steal materials, then they could still have produced a bomb. *AND* with the IAEA out of the way, how was the nuclear material under UN seal and control when it resided in Iraq?

Taken in context with the other arguments I've presented, it does indicate dishonesty on the part of the White House. The October 2002 CIA report directly contradicts one from the previous February. Both Powell and Rice are on record prior to 9-11 stating that Hussein didn't have the capacity to be dangerous.

I don't see how this indicates dishonesty. Prior to 9-11 we never thought we had to worry about a foreign terrorist attack on US soil either. I think 9-11 made them change a lot of views that they previously had.

I'd ask you to first read the article by Sirota and Harvey.

I'm reading it now, but I don't care for this form of editorial-journalism. It makes bold statements with a flurry of adjectives that are a viewpoint rather than fact. But it has shown additional information for which I thank you.

The UN did repoted those as forgeries later, as you emphasized. As I've indicated, the CIA was aware well before the UN released this report, as was the White House, who removed the "yellow cake" reference from an October speech only to reinsert it later.

The source indicates that an aid screwed up big time. I don't see this necessarily as a lie.

You'll note in the second article that all of this uranium had been kept under seal and control by the IAEA. It isn't fissile material and can not be used for a nuclear weapon, though it can be used for a "dirty bomb". All of this material was known to the US and UN and was accounted for prior to the war and was not part of our casus belli:

I disagree, with passages pulled from the sources you quoted (emphasis is mine).
1) It was known to be there in 1998,
2) It was controlled in Iraq by the IAEA *until* 1998,
3) It is material that is attractive to terrorists,
4) While not weapons-grade, it can be used to create a "dirty" bomb,

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/iraq/article.jsp?id=99993860&sub=News update
According to the IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, "most" of the uranium is accounted for, though he is still waiting for the final report from his inspectors. The material has been kept under IAEA seal since 1991 to prevent it from being manufactured into high-enriched uranium for atomic bombs.

The uranium, however, poses less of an immediate health risk than the radiation sources. Medical and industrial sources are more radioactive, more widespread and more attractive to terrorists.

"These sources should be kept under lock and key because they are extremely hazardous. Any of them could be used as a dirty bomb," said Keith Baverstock, a former WHO radiation scientist, now at the University of Kuopio in Finland. "It is in everyone's interest we know whether any of this material is missing. It could turn up anywhere."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32195-2004Jul6?language=printer
The International Atomic Energy Agency, which in the prewar period had kept the Tuwaitha uranium under seal, was told in advance of the U.S. removal, as were Iraqi officials.
...
Tuwaitha was once the center of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons effort, but its equipment was dismantled at the direction of U.N. inspectors in the early 1990s as part of the agreement following Iraq's surrender in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The U.N. inspectors removed highly enriched uranium that could be used for weapons and shipped it for storage in Russia. The low-enriched uranium was placed under seal in storage at Tuwaitha but under the control of the IAEA.
...
In April 2003, just days after the statue of Hussein in Baghdad was pulled down, a U.S. Marine engineering company took a close look at Tuwaitha, which is 30 miles south of Baghdad. There they found guards had abandoned their posts and looters were roaming the giant facility. At one storage building, which later was found to hold radioactive samples used in research, the radiation levels were too high to enter safely, although the entrance door stood wide open.

A report from earlier this month: .../iraq/article.jsp?id=99994549&sub=News update

This didn't tell me much; we haven't found anything. I did make me think of one thing, though. They were able to design and build a prohibited weapon under our noses (the missile). Why do we think they couldn't do the same thing with their chemical, biological, or nuclear programs? The report says they had the desire to do so.


Bottom line to me: If the argument is so convincing that Bush *lied* why did the British government conclude Blair didn't lie; he presented the same evidence to his country? Why don't the Democrats press this to the limit, it's an election year, yet hasn't been brought up as an issue? Proving Bush lied to the American public would make Kerry a shoo-in. Why doesn't someone, anyone, in Congress push for Bush's impeachment? If true, this is definitely far worse than sleeping with an intern. Why doesn't someone in the UN bring forth a resolution condeming our action against Iraq?

It's kind of like UFOs to me. Lot's of people say they're there, but no one can seem to prove it.

My thoughts, nothing there is "provable." People in power don't believe it. It's all somebody's belief. He's innocent until proven guilty.

Bush may have made a bad decision; I don't think so, but some do, and that's their choice. Only Iraq could have a "democracy" with 100% voting for him and agreeing with everything he ever said and did.

I still don't see how the US attack was unjustified or unlawful.

WhiteBirch

 

[hardheadjarhead]

According to the CNN report I have, the authorization did not require UN consent.

It took me awhile to look that report up, but you're correct. The article does state that.

"The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html


I don't believe it was cited as a reason for the invasion, but it was additional support material. *IF* he had the weapons, his proven immoral prior use of weapons shows that he wouldn't hesitate to use them against us; Ability, Opportunity, and Intent.

The issue of Saddam's evil was brought up continually throughout the buildup to this war and was indeed used as justification to the American people. Now that there appear to be no WMD's, it has become an increasingly shrill defense for the attack...particularly among the less informed who aren't very clear on the concept of WMD's and their role in the unfolding of this tragedy.

Ability: Elsewhere I've demonstrated Saddam didn't have the ability...in fact I've given ample evidence he had none, and the administration knew this.

Opportunity: Without the ability, the opportunity doesn't exist. Aside from that, he had no delivery vehicles or demonstrable alliances with terrorist organizations that would have delivered them to US shores.

Intent: Other than the 1993 attempt on George HW Bush's life and the shooting at Brit and American flyovers, there was no aggression on Saddam's part leading up to this war.


1) The IAEA was kicked out of the country in 1998 and the speech was 4 years later.

Inspections in Iraq pursuant to resolution 1441 (2002) were resumed by the IAEA and UNMOVIC on 27 November 2002.

Summary: "In general, the IAEA has observed that, while a few sites have improved their facilities and taken on new personnel over the past four years, at the majority of these sites (which had been involved in research, development and manufacturing) the equipment and laboratories have deteriorated to such a degree that the resumption of nuclear activities would require substantial renovation. The IAEA has found no signs of nuclear activity at any of these sites."


2) The report didn't say they were weapons free. They said they had no indication, which isn't the same thing.

This implies a logical fallacy. One can't prove a negative. If one makes an allegation, then the burden of proof is on the person making the allegation. The onus of responsibility was upon us to prove that Iraq had WMD's. We failed to prove that. We then assumed that because we couldn't verify their non-existance, they must therefore exist. We then invaded.

Note that we didn't say they MIGHT have these. We claimed we had strong reason to believe so, even though we had no evidence and subsequent investigations have shown our intel was faulty.


3) The IAEA shipped weapons grade nuclear material out of Iraq and locked up the non-weapons-grade material within Iraq, according to the source you cited.

This is true, and is listed in IAEA documents. This was well known to the US. Mention of terrorist "dirty bombs" using this material was made following the toppling of the regime.

4) Your source also indicated that the non-weapons-grade material would be ideal for terrorists.

The 2002 inspections verified that the material was still under seal, and the seals had not been violated.

*IF* we had some intelligence saying that post 1998 they were still attempting to beg, borrow, or steal materials, then they could still have produced a bomb. *AND* with the IAEA out of the way, how was the nuclear material under UN seal and control when it resided in Iraq?

"If" isn't an issue. They did not attempt to beg, borrow, or steal materials that could have produced a bomb. Had they these materials, they would not have been able to produce a bomb given the status of their facilities. I have presented evidence of this in citing a summary of the IAEA report from November of 2002.

I also mentioned a National Intelligence Estimate of Ocober 2002 stating that had Iraq gotten their hands on fissile material it would take five to seven years to produce their first nuke.

AND I have addressed the material that was under seal. This is also listed in the IAEA summary. It was not compromised as of November 2002.



I don't see how this indicates dishonesty. Prior to 9-11 we never thought we had to worry about a foreign terrorist attack on US soil either. I think 9-11 made them change a lot of views that they previously had.

I'd construct a timeline of events for you that would perhaps make the dishonesty clear, but its quite late. I have to sleep sometime.


I'm reading it now, but I don't care for this form of editorial-journalism. It makes bold statements with a flurry of adjectives that are a viewpoint rather than fact. But it has shown additional information for which I thank you.

Thank you. It does have an agenda, but the facts seem to bear out.



The source indicates that an aid screwed up big time. I don't see this necessarily as a lie.

The President was informed in advance by George Tenet of the yellow cake reports spurious nature. The President is responsible for what he says during his State of the Union address. One can't fingerpoint to an aide when one has such weight of responsibility.


I disagree, with passages pulled from the sources you quoted (emphasis is mine).
1) It was known to be there in 1998,
2) It was controlled in Iraq by the IAEA *until* 1998,
3) It is material that is attractive to terrorists,
4) While not weapons-grade, it can be used to create a "dirty" bomb,

I've addressed this above. Insofar as it being used as a "dirty bomb", the material not accounted for went missing following the invasion, not prior to it. Again, we are discussing justification for invasion. Prior to invasion the material was under seal and accounted for as listed in the November 2002 IAEA report. The chaos of the regime's fall led to the loss of the material.

I have no idea why the U.S. or Brits didn't step in to secure this stuff after the invasion when we knew where it was and what it was. It would have taken perhaps a platoon of Marines...or lacking that, a battalion of the 3rd Infantry Division.


They were able to design and build a prohibited weapon under our noses (the missile). Why do we think they couldn't do the same thing with their chemical, biological, or nuclear programs? The report says they had the desire to do so.

They didn't build a missile. The article indicates they had flawed designs for a missile that likely wouldn't have worked. The report does not indicate that such innovation was standard with SCUDS, and they did this with them in '91, which is why those missiles fired at Coalition forces and Israel often broke up in flight.


Bottom line to me: If the argument is so convincing that Bush *lied* why did the British government conclude Blair didn't lie; he presented the same evidence to his country?

Our government isn't claiming Bush lied, either...though some in power claim he is.

Many Brits believe Blair is lying.

Britain: Former minister Robin Cook says Blair lied over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/cook-o08.shtml

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0306/S00076.htm

(read those just for the headlines if you like...they don't bear heavily on the debate)

And I needn't tell you that a significant number of Americans feel Bush lied. I am not a lone voice crying out in the wilderness.

Why don't the Democrats press this to the limit, it's an election year, yet hasn't been brought up as an issue?

They've been pressing it very, very hard. Press' book, which I listed, is only one of dozens on the shelves right now that lambast the President for this. I can recommend several other than Press' book if you'd like to read them. See the DNC link below.

Proving Bush lied to the American public would make Kerry a shoo-in.

To my satisfaction, it has been proven. Writing this up for you has clarified it for me and given me a better grasp of it.

Kerry is a shoo-in, Whitebirch...unless something unforseen happens. The numbers are killing Bush right now, and his affluent Republican supporters are bailing on him. Some have stopped sending checks, according to Newsmax

Why doesn't someone, anyone, in Congress push for Bush's impeachment?

Because Congress bought this B.S. hook line and sinker and gave the President Congressional authority to go to town and party. And he did.

And you know what, Whitebirch? I BOUGHT IT TOO. I supported the war initially. I didn't want to accept any of this for the longest time...and then I started getting the facts.

If true, this is definitely far worse than sleeping with an intern.

The line among Dems is "When Clinton lied, nobody died."

Why doesn't someone in the UN bring forth a resolution condeming our action against Iraq?

The might yet get around to it. I don't know why they don't want to condemn a military hyper-power with the greatest economic clout the world has ever seen. Its beyond me.

It's kind of like UFOs to me. Lot's of people say they're there, but no one can seem to prove it.

You're talking about WMD's, right?

My thoughts, nothing there is "provable."

You're talking about WMD's, right?

People in power don't believe it. It's all somebody's belief.

Some people in power do. Max Cleland, a now ousted Senator, though Bush lied. The DNC is claiming he did so.

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/top10_lies/


He's innocent until proven guilty.

One must cry "J'accuse!" to even get a man a day in court. Bush's day in court will come in November.

Bush may have made a bad decision; I don't think so, but some do, and that's their choice.

A slight majority think it was a mistake, according to Gallup.

Only Iraq could have a "democracy" with 100% voting for him and agreeing with everything he ever said and did.

No. Not now. Iraq has nothing but chaos and 70% unemployment. North Korea would probably fit that "totalitarian regime" bill just fine. And they have REAL nukes. The kind that really go boom...and the missiles to reach California.

I still don't see how the US attack was unjustified or unlawful.

Richard Perle thought it unlawful...see the preceding link. I won't argue any more that it is.

But its past midnight. I've nothing more to give. If after all I've given doesn't convince you, you're likely not to be convinced. I confess disappointment, but I had fun trying. And I appreciate you listening and giving play to my comments.


Regards,


Steve

 

[lvwhitebir]

If after all I've given doesn't convince you, you're likely not to be convinced. I confess disappointment, but I had fun trying. And I appreciate you listening and giving play to my comments.

Unfortunately it doesn't convince me. There are simply too many agenda's and until congress puts out a commission similar to 9/11 to study it we're not going to learn the "truth." I read most of the 9/11 commission report and I thought it provided a good, in-depth look at what went wrong. I would like to read the British report on the war in Iraq if it's even publicly available.

That's probably it for both of us. Unfortunately nothing in politics is a cut-and-dried issue. 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. If it could, we wouldn't be here right now. But, low and behold, I got suckered in.

Good luck in your training,

WhiteBirch

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Well, it was good practice for me. Thanks.

I'll probably go on with a timeline sometime in the near future and post it if anybody else wants to take that on.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Flatlander]

Well done. :asian:

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Sigh. Once more into the breech...and THEN maybe I'll leave it alone.

I worked up a timeline for the Nukes argument to sort out all the dates of claims and reports and put them into a proper chronology. I could do one for the Al Qaeda allegations and the biological/chemical weapons that is similar in pointing out inconsistencies with the administration's allegations and what intelligence agencies were actually reporting.

Rather than do that I would suggest those interested read the "In These Times" article (posted earlier) and cross reference the articles allegations using "Google." The weight of the arguments I've been able to find go against the Bush administration.

I found this interesting article that quotes Paul Wolfowitz stating that there was no Al Qaeda/Iraq connection:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/080703Leopold/080703leopold.html

It seems that Wolfowitz has a hard time keeping his remarks on line with the statements of the administration. Cheney and Bush were still making claims of the connection earlier this year...even after the 9/11 Commission's refutation of the link.


Regards,


Steve

I

 

[lvwhitebir]

I found the Butler Report on-line and have read through most of it. I suggest people read it since it provides a prospective on what the British intelligence services knew, what they perceived, and how it was presented to the government (e.g., nuclear, biological, and chemical threats, al qaida link, etc). It also has the British argument on why they believed the attack was legal (i.e., they violated resolution 687 which authorized the 1991 attack and which was still in force).

If nothing else, it provides additional, "non-biased" (if it can ever be) information for you to chew on and base your opinion.

WhiteBirch

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I found the Butler Report on-line and have read through most of it. I suggest people read it since it provides a prospective on what the British intelligence services knew, what they perceived, and how it was presented to the government (e.g., nuclear, biological, and chemical threats, al qaida link, etc). It also has the British argument on why they believed the attack was legal (i.e., they violated resolution 687 which authorized the 1991 attack and which was still in force).

If nothing else, it provides additional, "non-biased" (if it can ever be) information for you to chew on and base your opinion.

WhiteBirch

Link please?


Regards,


Steve