Interesting Iraq war politics

[KriegHund]

Okay. I have no firearms, ammunition, or components thereof in my house.

Just to prove it, you can come look in a month.

It helps if you have personal soildiers "Guide" the inspectors, too.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Okay. I have no firearms, ammunition, or components thereof in my house.

Just to prove it, you can come look in a month.

Bogie: do you REALLY want to go down this road....AGAIN?????

Yeah? Ok...here goes:

If he gots em, show em.

No showie??????? Ok, then: No believie.

Call me simpleminded. Call me a leftie (you'd be wrong, but you can do anything you want). Call me a partisan. I kinda just like to be called "honest".

Now, if you *want* to be lied to...I have a Senator from Cali that would welcome your support as well. Oh, wait! Its not OK for her to lie? Oh, Wait...didn't we IMPEACH someone for lying?

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Okay. I have no firearms, ammunition, or components thereof in my house.

Just to prove it, you can come look in a month.

If I CLAIM that you have firearms, ammunition, or components in your house (and you shouldn't) isn't it my RESPONSIBILITY to prove that you did?

If I am unable to prove that you did, am i then WRONG?

In a court of law, that means my case, as the accuser (prosecutor) gets tossed out on its ear.

But in this case, we no only continued to prosecute, we have given up pretending to seek evidence.

You are a very smart person, Bogie, so I am assuming that you are having an off day. That example doesn't hold up to your usually thorough standards.

:banghead:

 

[middy]

JJpdxpinkpistols,

Congress voted for the action, and the committees had access to the same intel as the president had. So I guess they all "lied" (or were wrong, which apparently are the same thing to you).

Here are some more "liars":

Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President

to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:

Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:

Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.2

Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that

without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.

The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was

hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country’s salvation.

So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that

[o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.3

All this should surely suffice to prove far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that Bush was telling what he believed to be the truth about Saddam’s stockpile of WMD. It also disposes of the fallback charge that Bush lied by exaggerating or hyping the intelligence presented to him. Why on earth would he have done so when the intelligence itself was so compelling that it convinced everyone who had direct access to it, and when hardly anyone in the world believed that Saddam had, as he claimed, complied with the sixteen resolutions of the Security Council demanding that he get rid of his weapons of mass destruction?

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20148

Of course, all of this will continue to be ignored by the oh-so-objective Bush-bashers so they can continue their joyful slandering of their favorite whipping-boy.

Again, I am no Bush apologist, I don't like a lot of his policies, but to blame the current situation in Iraq on him you'd have to be either shamefully ignorant or shamelessly partisan.

 

[Malice]

Hmm this is interesting.

I posted this because I had never heard anyone who was directly involved with the preperations to go to war with Iraq tell their side of the story.

I have never really been for the Iraq war. I turned 18 before the 2004 election and it was my first chance to vote. They had early voting at my high school but I abstained because I am Republican be I refused to vote for Bush after his first term.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I just figured some of you would like to know the opinion of someone who was actualy there during the decision making process.

I still do not buy into the WMD story but hearing it from someone who I think is more inpartial than Bush or the white house media spokeseperson made me take it more seriously.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Here's yet another story about Saddam moving his WMD to Syria in the months before his invasion.

I have no idea whether or not the story is true. But I do know that this story keeps cropping up. It's about the only plausible theory that explains the contradictory facts: every possibile indicator pointed to the existence of WMD in Iraq, yet after the invasion none were found.

What I want to know is this: Why isn't this possibility investigated?

The mainstream meadia is doing it's level best to ignore what could be the single biggest news scoop of the decade. It would make for great political ammunition if the Bush Admin could prove they were right about Saddam having WMD. It would make great political ammunition for the Libs trying to make the case that Bush is incompetant. You can bet your life that the Israelis would want to know if this was true. So would the CIA and the UN, each for their own reasons.

The way I see it, all sorts of people should be clamoring to verify or refute the possibility that Saddam's WMD were moved to Syria. Yet absolutely nobody is. Hows come?

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Of course, all of this will continue to be ignored by the oh-so-objective Bush-bashers so they can continue their joyful slandering of their favorite whipping-boy.

Again, I am no Bush apologist, I don't like a lot of his policies, but to blame the current situation in Iraq on him you'd have to be either shamefully ignorant or shamelessly partisan.

1. The buck stops here…and I say the egg came first. Bush presented the intelligence for going into Iraq. He asked permission to go. Furthermore, he is the HEAD OF OUR GOVERNMENT. He is the head of the CIA, he is the Commander in Chief. It is, ultimately, his responsibility. Are you suggesting that Bush is not responsible for his actions?

2. You somehow assume that I am NOT holding my legislators unaccountable for their support of this folly, and their complicit nature in those lies. That is an incorrect statement. I have and will continue to hold my elected reps feet to flame until they decide to either retire or they get dumped. A lie is a lie, is a lie. If you supported the impeachment of a president for lying, you should support the impeachment for lying, right? Or is it OK cuz he “has a good heart”??? Pfft. Poppycock.

3. your defense of bush is just plain silly: THEY said it too, so its ok!!!!! Uh…no. Again, you assume that I am just another Bush-hater (I am not—and I actually SUPPORTED going to war in Iraq). I now view him as an incompetent imbecile who is trashing the office of the President, but hey…you can support the liar all you want. Free country, blah, blah, blah.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

The way I see it, all sorts of people should be clamoring to verify or refute the possibility that Saddam's WMD were moved to Syria. Yet absolutely nobody is. Hows come?

No bloody clue. They won't even LIE about it.

It would be rediculously easy to parade a flatbed truck with some barrels on it and call them "WMD's"...but no, we don't even get *that*.

Its as tho they are showing us a shiny object in the distance, expecting us to ignore the obvious in front of our faces. Whats really scary is that it seems to be working!

baffling!

 

[middy]

Vehemence is no substitute for coherence.

 

[scout26]

We are supposed to believe that Saddam, a certifiable evil madman(TM), who had spent years of his reign amassing WMD in a bid to rule the ME (not to mention for his own protection from all of the forces that would have loved to overthrow him), made a deal with the neighboring madmen (who we know he must have held in deep respect and trust), to undertake an enormous logistical operation to move many tons of materials and equipment, and somehow they managed to pull this off immediately prior to our invasion. We must also believe he was able to order the complete dismantling of research, development, storage and deployment facilities over an area the size of California, coordinated the movement of all of that tonage across the border in a timely manner and didn't leave as much as a trace of the material or any evidence of the physical infastructure (oh, yeah, there were those 10-year-old plans buried in someone's rose garden). That his trusted evil twins in Syria haven't given a hint of their existance.

I just feel the need to point out that in GW1, the vast majority of the Iraqi Air Force flew to Iran (AKA the "Flee or Die" program), a neighboring country that Iraq had spent 8 of the previous 10 years locked in mortal combat. So packing up a bunch of stuff and shipping it in the other direction and over the Syrian border is not that big of stretch of the imagination, IMHO.

So by your logic, because we only found two airplanes buried under a big pile of sand in Iraq, means that Saddam never had an Air Force ???

 

[GoRon]

If I CLAIM that you have firearms, ammunition, or components in your house (and you shouldn't) isn't it my RESPONSIBILITY to prove that you did?

Saddam was conquered in Gulf War 1. Part of the cease fire agreement was he would prove he no longer possesed or was trying to acquire WMD.

He refused to abide by the agreement and we held him accountable.

If you have a problem with that you and your fellow travellers can get together with a better plan, candidates and get elected to office.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

I just feel the need to point out that in GW1, the vast majority of the Iraqi Air Force flew to Iran (AKA the "Flee or Die" program), a neighboring country that Iraq had spent 8 of the previous 10 years locked in mortal combat. So packing up a bunch of stuff and shipping it in the other direction and over the Syrian border is not that big of stretch of the imagination, IMHO.

So by your logic, because we only found two airplanes buried under a big pile of sand in Iraq, means that Saddam never had an Air Force ???

GREAT website with pics of the exhumation of the Iraqi AF:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml

and according to one website, even tho over 120 planes left, they still had over 200 on the ground IN IRAQ. So it was blatantly evident that they had an air force. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment-intro.htm

No one claimed that Saddam never had an Air Force, but perhaps more importantly: Saddam never tried to give his Air Force to AQ (or at least no one has ever reported it...)

No one in their right mind suggests that Saddam had zero history of WMDs. We all knew he *had* WMDs-- we gave them TO him to use against IRAN (as well as an air force, btw), and in fact, most of us BELIEVED the President when he told us that Saddam had 'em, and was wanting to give 'em to AQ.

The American citizens gave the President the benefit of the doubt, gave our sons and daughters to the war effort, all we got was this IED and an "oops, bad intel"????

Simply put: All we want is to SEE them.

Once they produce the WMDs *or* apologize for the lies/bad intel/whatever, I will again believe this fool we allowed to run the country. Until then...He lost my vote and my respect. He has also earned my contempt for the dimishing of the office he holds.

As a sidenote: I got in battle after battle with my wife over this. I supported the war going in, and she did not. I never thought that a sitting President would LIE after all that Clinton went through. I never thought another President would do that after seeing the effects on the nation. Whew...was I wrong on that one????

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Saddam was conquered in Gulf War 1. Part of the cease fire agreement was he would prove he no longer possesed or was trying to acquire WMD.

He refused to abide by the agreement and we held him accountable.

I suppose one could look at it that way...If one was actually *looking for accountability*. Isn't it ironic that we "held [saddam] accountable" for his dishonesty, but we give our President a pass on his?

Don't get me wrong. I hated Uday. I was a VERY happy man when he was "removed". But like a feller that got rich after his daddy died, I can be be happy with the end result, but unhappy with the road we took to get there.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

No bloody clue. They won't even LIE about it.

It would be rediculously easy to parade a flatbed truck with some barrels on it and call them "WMD's"...but no, we don't even get *that*.
...

I suppose one could look at it that way...If one was actually *looking for accountability*. Isn't it ironic that we "held [saddam] accountable" for his dishonesty, but we give our President a pass on his?
...

I don't get it. In one post you complain about Bush's honesty. Then in another post you complain about Bush's dishonesty. Hmm...

If Bush is as dishonest as the libs say he is, why isn't he willing to fake the existence of some WMD in Iraq? It certainly wouldn't be hard to do. The benifits to him personally would be extraordinary. He could go down in history as the man who saved us from the post 9/11 terrorist WMD threat. He'd have carte blanche to invade another country or three for the sake of Haliburton or Big Oil or his Daddy or whatever reason de jour the libs make up.

The only thing holding him back is his conscience. Ya see, he's a fundamentally honest man.

Of course, once you accept the premise that Bush is a moral and honest man, then you have to also accept that he was probably telling the truth about expecting to find WMD in Iraq. And with that realization, all those BushHaliburtonRoveOil conspiracy theories come crashing down. The war in Iraq may really, actually, honestly be about protecting our country. Gasp!

That seems to be a bit too much for some folks to handle. Far easier to hold the contradictory view that Bush is simultaneously honest and dishonest.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

If Bush is as dishonest as the libs say he is, why isn't he willing to fake the existence of some WMD in Iraq?

Because he is also really, really dumb.

 

[GoRon]

Because he is also really, really dumb

And presiding over the most diabolical administration ever. Foiling the righteous attempts to expose their conspiracies at every turn.

 

[KriegHund]

If Bush is as dishonest as the libs say he is, why isn't he willing to fake the existence of some WMD in Iraq?

I've often wondered that myself.

 

[Bottom Gun]

The WMD and liberating oppressed people from a tyrant BS is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The real reason isn’t nearly so honorable.

We are in Iraq and are presently threatening Iran under the guise of nuclear weapons to save our fiat currency from destruction.

Our money has been circling the drain ever since our corrupt politicians took us off the gold standard so they could print money unencumbered by restrictive backing.
The only thing keeping our dollar afloat these days is the deal we have with the oil cartel to accept payment in petro dollars.

Iraq started selling oil for Euros. Iran plans to begin selling oil for Euros in March.
What a coincidence. That’s the same time Jorge Bush has threatened to invade that country to save the world from nuclear weapons.

We have been bullying the world into accepting our currency and thus paying for our policy of inflation for a long time now and other countries are searching for ways to back away from our money.

Gold is selling for over $570 per ounce now. Do you think that is because gold has suddenly become more valuable? NO, it is because it takes more of our failing dollars to buy an ounce of it now. Same reason prices at the gas pumps and grocery stores are higher each time you go shopping.

If Iran can show the rest of the world it can deal in currency other than the mighty US dollar without being intimidated by us, that may very well spell the beginning of the end for our money.

March will be a very interesting month.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

...why isn't he willing to fake the existence of some WMD in Iraq? It certainly wouldn't be hard to do. ...

The only thing holding him back is his conscience. Ya see, he's a fundamentally honest man.

Oh, puh-leez. Think for a second how hard it would be to fake something like that in the middle of a war zone. Who exactly would do it? The super-secret CIA/Republican/ninja/plumbers? How many people would have to be in the loop? Probably on the order of 100. It's not like Dick Cheney could sneak over there and hide a few drums of certifiable chem/nuke/bio agents somewhere and then go to a pay phone and call the inspectors.

Of course, once you accept the premise that Bush is a moral and honest man, then you have to also accept that he was probably telling the truth about expecting to find WMD in Iraq.

It also makes it a bit difficult to accept that he might have been a little less than a model of honesty. I guess it's part of that whole "faith-based" psychology.

Finally, there is another real good reason that Bush might not be trying to hard to convince us that the WMD were there. He doesn't care what we think. He got his war, which we know he wanted from the day he took office. Being caught (which he would be) trying something like faking the WMD is the only scenario that could really have consequences that he would give a rat's keester about.

 

[Solo]

Okay... Let's assume that all those Kurds, etc., just died sorta all at once, by natural causes.

Convince me.

Its natural to die if you are hit with mustard gas.

The only thing holding him back is his conscience. Ya see, he's a fundamentally honest man.

I doubt that there has ever been an honest politician.

 

[cbsbyte]

Lets put it simple for the Bush supporters... "Bush lied people died". Enough said.
It all about oil and ego folks...so move along.

 

[KriegHund]

Why do we even talk about it?

Not like it'll solve anything...

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Oh, puh-leez. Think for a second how hard it would be to fake something like that in the middle of a war zone. Who exactly would do it? The super-secret CIA/Republican/ninja/plumbers? How many people would have to be in the loop? Probably on the order of 100. It's not like Dick Cheney could sneak over there and hide a few drums of certifiable chem/nuke/bio agents somewhere and then go to a pay phone and call the inspectors.

You're operating from the same sort of logical disconnect.

In the liberal paradigm, before the invasion the whole world knew that Saddam couldn't possibly have any WMD. Then Bush came along and orchestrated a masterful conspiracy. He did the impossible: he pulled the wool over our collective eyes and convinced us all that Saddam had WMD that never existed.

Yet now you say that Bush is mysteriously unable to repeat this feat. He can't possibly orchestrate any sort of effective conspiracy. There's no way on earth he could pull the wool over our collective eyes and convince us all that Saddam had WMD that never existed.

So which is it: Does Bush have the ability to convince the world that Saddam had WMD that never existed? Or does Bush not have the ability to convince the world Saddam possessed WMD that never existed? You can't have it both ways.

It also makes it a bit difficult to accept that he might have been a little less than a model of honesty. I guess it's part of that whole "faith-based" psychology.

Finally, there is another real good reason that Bush might not be trying to hard to convince us that the WMD were there. He doesn't care what we think. He got his war, which we know he wanted from the day he took office. Being caught (which he would be) trying something like faking the WMD is the only scenario that could really have consequences that he would give a rat's keester about.

I agree with this, to a point. First, I do operate under the premise that Bush is an honest man. This isn't an article of faith, however. I take very little on faith.

Unlike certain previous Presidents, my opinion is that Bush does NOT base his actions upon what would be best for himself personally. By all appearances, Bush acts according to what he honestly believes is best for the country, despite the whatever personal consequences that may entail. I base this opinion of Bush on what I've seen Bush say and do over the past 6 or 8 years. Ain't no "faith" involved (except perhaps that I have faith in my own observations and conclusions).

If it was all an act, then I've been snookered. So be it. That's where I'm coming from. That's what I think of Bush.

I agree that Bush isn't very preoccupied with the current distaste for the war in Iraq. Bush thinks the war was the right thing to do, so he went ahead with it. He made his decision, and now he's standing by it.

This is how our system is supposed to operate. We don't live in a Democracy where the people collectively make each decision. We live in a Republic, where the people choose representatives to make decisions on our behalf.

We chose Bush to make these decisions for us. He made them. History will judge whether or not they were good decisions.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

You're operating from the same sort of logical disconnect.

In the liberal paradigm, before the invasion the whole world knew that Saddam couldn't possibly have any WMD. Then Bush came along and orchestrated a masterful conspiracy. He did the impossible: he pulled the wool over our collective eyes and convinced us all that Saddam had WMD that never existed.

Yet now you say that Bush is mysteriously unable to repeat this feat. He can't possibly orchestrate any sort of effective conspiracy. There's no way on earth he could pull the wool over our collective eyes and convince us all that Saddam had WMD that never existed.

So which is it: Does Bush have the ability to convince the world that Saddam had WMD that never existed? Or does Bush not have the ability to convince the world Saddam possessed WMD that never existed? You can't have it both ways.

OK, now you're just being silly. There's a world of difference between the two supposed deceptions, and you either know it and are just building a ridiculous rhetorical case or... you're not applying very good reasoning.

The entire world knows how the case for war was made. It involved a lot of unsubstantiated claims about WMD, Colin Powell going to the UN and claiming our intelligence knew exactly where the WMD were, vague references to "uranium from Africa" in SOTN, and unwillingness to let the UN inspectors do their jobs. You're now claiming some moral trophy for Bush because he hasn't launched an impossible clandestine mission to plant a credible quantity of materials to justify the war. We can't have a discussion if you refuse to make sense.

 

[telomerase]

Let's not forget where the original Iraqi nerve gas came from.

We can't even stop the US government from aiding the dictators and oligarchs of the world, let alone get it to oppose them.