Kay eats crow. The war was a lie. Kay to quit with no report made.

[Ivan Seeking]

In the news tonight.
Oh yes, no link between Iraq and terrorism.

Whom shall we hold accountable for these lies?

Hmmmmm.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
In the news tonight.
Oh yes, no link between Iraq and terrorism.

Whom shall we hold accountable for these lies?

Hmmmmm. Hillary Clinton? Atheists? The French?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
Hillary Clinton? Atheists? The French?

I think the Republicans should ask Bush to step down in 2004. If he doesn't, he could still lose. I can only pray.

Watch this build and build until it peaks in late October.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I think the Republicans should ask Bush to step down in 2004. If he doesn't, he could still lose. I can only pray.

Watch this build and build until it peaks in late October. The Republicans are too power-hungry to ask him to step down, even though he goes against the traditional conservative behavior. This newest case is just one of a few dozen lies and misrepresentations that Bush is responsible for.

[kat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
In the news tonight.
mmm, which news? link? please :)

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kat
mmm, which news? link? please :)

NBC evening news. This should be available on the net shortly.

The source: Powell.

[Zero]

Don't worry...the administration will keep 'looking'. LOL, you know what they remind me of? Those crackpot holistic 'medicine' people who claim that the negative results of science are 'inconclusive'.

[kat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
NBC evening news. This should be available on the net shortly.

The source: Powell.

I'm sorry, here's the actual text of Powell's briefing that I'm sure NBC was quoting....can you point out what exactly in the actual text you're referring to?

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/28008.htm

[Zero]

Wow, Powell has memorized all the stupid bull**** Republican spin and lies, hasn't he? He works as many into his answers as possible...he might as well have not even been there and had Bill O'Reilly answering questions...


F-ing retards.

[phatmonky]

I don't care if Iraq was sponsoring terrorism or not :)

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
I don't care if Iraq was sponsoring terrorism or not :) Dubya, is that you? Admit is, you just wanted Iraq so you could actually strike oil for one of teh few times in your oilman life. Couldn't find any in Texas, so you had to attack the Middle East, I see you for what you are, buddy![g)]

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is the NBC report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The source: Powell.
Colin?

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Here is the NBC report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/
Ah. Thanks.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The source: Powell. The source of what exactly?

Awful, awful article. First paragraph: Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. What policy and how did he reverse it? The actual Powell quote with context (much later in the report): “I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed,” he said. and: Powell, speaking at a news conference at the State Department, stressed that he was still certain that Iraq had dangerous weapons and needed to be disarmed by force, and he sharply disagreed with a private think tank report that maintained that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. Doesn't seem to me to be much different from what the administration has said all along.

The point of the story is to highlight this report and distort Powell's reaction to it:
Powell came under intense questioning at his news conference Thursday about a new report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which accused the administration of systematically misrepresenting the weapons threat from Iraq. Endowment for International Peace? Anyone think such a "think tank" would ever support any war? Didn't think so. They'd be arm and arm with Neville Chaimberlain. Oops.

Seems the Liberal media disinformation service pulled a fast one on you. They are hoping (probably correctly) that most people won't read past the subtitle or form their own conclusions from the quotes. Heck, even Zero has pointed out that media tactic before.

[Zero]

Russ, I have told you again and again to stop repeating the 'liberal media bias' lie...it just makes you look silly![;)]

[Adam]

On Colin Powell's speech to the UN:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=138664&sid=6583a1ebfef1b6eca4e8d7aae50a1e0a

[Ivan Seeking]

Let me see, we had certainty enough to start a war, but almost a year later we still can't prove it. Gee, maybe if we wait another ten or twenty years they'll find something.

Edit: I should add that I did misunderstand the intial news report. Powell admits that we cannot show any link between Iraq and terrorism. The comments about Kay were obviously from other sources. I posted the text as soon as I found it.

[kat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Let me see, we had certainty enough to start a war, but almost a year later we still can't prove it. Gee, maybe if we wait another ten or twenty years they'll find something. Geee, I've got major DAAAAAY JAAA VOooooOO..this sounds hauntingly familiar to what people were saying about the Balkans prior to uncovering mass graves.


Edit: I should add that I did misunderstand the intial news report. Powell admits that we cannot show any link between Iraq and terrorism. that is definately not what Powell states. Go back and read the link I gave..his words, verbatim...not someone elses interpretation.

The comments about Kay were obviously from other sources. I posted the text as soon as I found it. I think you should read Kay's interim report before you start making claims of crow eating and the lack of reports.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kat
Geee, I've got major DAAAAAY JAAA VOooooOO..this sounds hauntingly familiar to what people were saying about the Balkans prior to uncovering mass graves.

Not even near the scale required for a weapons facility. It ain't there. They had their chance and they us into war based on a lie.

that is definately not what Powell states. Go back and read the link I gave..his words, verbatim...not someone elses interpretation.

You should listen as well as read. Comments made in interviews count just as well; even better sometimes.

“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed,” he said.

Well, he will probably die believing it as well. We don't start wars based on personal beliefs. They have produced no evidence.

I think you should read Kay's interim report before you start making claims of crow eating and the lack of reports. [/B]

Uh huh.

[kat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Kay to quit with no report made.


Originally posted by kat
I think you should read Kay's interim report before you start making claims of crow eating and the lack of reports.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Uh huh.

MmmHmm

[Nereid]

Even Tony (remember, Dubya's lapdog?) was honest enough to re-state things in terms of WMD program(s) [8)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Russ, I have told you again and again to stop repeating the 'liberal media bias' lie...it just makes you look silly![;)] Actually, Zero, I was going to put an asteresk in there next to "Liberal media disinformation service" because I put that in to mirror your language usage style. I don't believe there is a coherent propaganda machine of course, but the media IS liberal. But this isn't the thread for that discussion.

In any case, Zero, feel free to rebut my analysis if you have a case to make. I consider OT comments an intentional distraction.

[Ivan Seeking]

Going in I was against this war for lack of evidence. For crying out loud, some of the so called evidence could have been high school kids on CB radios messing with the CIA. I remember being appalled that this kind of garbage was being used to justify a war. Then, when it was clear that we were going in, I hoped and prayed that the Bush administration had good classified information that we simply couldn't be told. Now it is clear that they didn't.

This war was illegal and Bush must be held accountable. If they had found an “immanent threat" as was promised as the key justification for the war, then I would sadly acknowledge that this war was unavoidable.

Nereid, I think WMDs now refers to Weapons of Moderate Destruction.
[;)]

[kat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking


This war was illegal and Bush must be held accountable. This war has yet to be proven illegal, but you're welcome to your opinion.

If they had found an “immanent threat" as was promised as the key justification for the war, then I would sadly acknowledge that this war was unavoidable.

Only one problem, Bush never said there was an imminent threat. However, Not waiting until there was an imminent threat WAS given as one reason.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
This war has yet to be proven illegal, but you're welcome to your opinion.


Only one problem, Bush never said there was an imminent threat. However, Not waiting until there was an imminent threat WAS given as one reason. [/B] And you don't have a problem with that. Generally, there should be an imminent threat(I believe that is the wording that Bush's 'pre-emptive strike' policy uses) before attacking a country. Do you get the impression that Bush was saying 'let's attack Iraq because maybe in 15 years they could attack us'? And, do you think that is a good policy?

[phatmonky]

Originally posted by Zero
And you don't have a problem with that. Generally, there should be an imminent threat(I believe that is the wording that Bush's 'pre-emptive strike' policy uses) before attacking a country. Do you get the impression that Bush was saying 'let's attack Iraq because maybe in 15 years they could attack us'? And, do you think that is a good policy?
A few questions if you don't mind.....


Stopping the proliferation of WMD of any kind is a goal that is needed.

How long do you sit with a thorn in your side, that is clearly NOT going to budge?

All Saddam had to do was hand over evidence of the weapons destruction, and war would have be averted. What I'd like to know, is why do YOU think he didn't do so?
This totalitarian regime, like most others, has some serious record keeping on just about everything else. Why would he not cooperate after all these years?

Would keeping sanctions on Iraq stop clandestine operations, and if you think so, are said sanctions the best route for the people in Iraq?
Are the sanctions the best route for the rest of the world, possibly as a detterant?

Let me remind you, according to the cease fire Saddam signed, it was HE who held the burden of proof that the weapons were destroyed. It's not up to the inspectors to run around like Sherlock Holmes sniffing them out. Based on this, why SHOULD the inspectors continue doing just that, when Saddam could easily produce records of the destructed weapons, had that been done?

[selfAdjoint]

I'd like to point out that nearly everybody thought that Saddam had at least some WMD, based on his actions (and not just based on what Bush and Blair said). He certainly acted like somebody with something to hide, and he was! He was hiding his total helplessness.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
And you don't have a problem with that. Actually I DO have a few problems with it. BUT, what I also have a problem with is the rampant lying from the anti-war side. Maybe you should note that it ruins any credibility you may have with those "on the fence" (so to speak).
Generally, there should be an imminent threat(I believe that is the wording that Bush's 'pre-emptive strike' policy uses) before attacking a country. Gee, what country in the last 20 years that we've attacked were imminent threats? Rwanda?? Or maybe there was there an imminent threat to us from the Balkans??
Do you get the impression that Bush was saying 'let's attack Iraq because maybe in 15 years they could attack us'? And, do you think that is a good policy? No, I get the feeling that Bush was saying that Iraq failed to live up to the ceasefire, that they have not met their obligations, Obligations that Saddam specificly agreed to and did not ever follow through on. I get the feeling that the cost of continued containment was to high in various ways including human life and finally that the policy of containment could not just be dropped because Saddam would and could quickly re-arm himself and had every intention to do so. That because of the history of Saddam this was not something he was willing to risk.
And personally, I get the feeling genocidal maniacs as a rule should never be allowed to remain in place, and personally I get the feeling that people who ignore that are not only immoral but the real barbarians in this chapter of history.

[Zero]

Day I concede that the fighting in Rwanda and the Balkans was worse than Iraq, can you concede that the war in Iraq was orchestrated in a less-than-perfect way?

Also, can you accept that it is possible for someone to believe that the Iraq war needed to happen, but not in the manner it was conducted? What bothers me about Bush is the specifics of his administration's behavior in this conflict. Iraq was not a threat to teh U.S or Israel in the short term, so there was certainly plenty of time to hash out a better plan, involving true international support, a more realistic exit strategy, etc. Your personal knowledge of teh region should lead you to knowing, for instance, that the current Iraq unrest was easily predictable, and that no one should have expected that the fall or capture of Saddam would have made Iraq suddenly peaceful.

The biggest reasoning that most people seemed to follow in the Iraq war was that Iraq could attack another country with WMD, or give them to terrorists. That is why we couldn't wait for inspections to conclude, or to bother to convince the rest of the world that there was a real strategy in Iraq. The fact that there are no WMD(statistically speaking) should mean something, don't you think?

[Zero]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I'd like to point out that nearly everybody thought that Saddam had at least some WMD, based on his actions (and not just based on what Bush and Blair said). He certainly acted like somebody with something to hide, and he was! He was hiding his total helplessness. That, and there is the paperwork problem, which plagues every military. Ask the U.S. military specifically how much stuff they have, and the numbers will be off. Apply that knowledge to a Third World nation after a decade of being bombed on and off, sanctions, etc.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
And you don't have a problem with that. Generally, there should be an imminent threat(I believe that is the wording that Bush's 'pre-emptive strike' policy uses) before attacking a country. Yugoslavia was no threat to us when Clinton attacked them. Whether they could be a threat to us wasn't even part of the equation. I supported that action as well.Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I'd like to point out that nearly everybody thought that Saddam had at least some WMD, based on his actions (and not just based on what Bush and Blair said). He certainly acted like somebody with something to hide, and he was! He was hiding his total helplessness. I've heard some speculation (unsubstantiated I must concede) that even SADDAM thought he had WMD. In a dictatorship where failure isn't met with understanding and compassion, its not unreasonable to believe that his military advisors lied to him about the status of their weapons programs.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Day I concede that the fighting in Rwanda and the Balkans was worse than Iraq, can you concede that the war in Iraq was orchestrated in a less-than-perfect way? My comment was in response to yours regarding "there should be an imminent threat........ before attacking a country." I'm going to assume that your response, ignoring that it has been our countries policy to attack countries for other reasons then an imminent threat to ourselves, is an acceptance of this truth. I don't need you to concede that the fighting in rwanda or balkans was better or worse. Humans are not perfect, and hind sight is always 20-20. None of these were orchestrated in a perfect manner. In fact it's hauntingly eerie how similar some of the news reports in regards to Iraq were and sitll are similar to those following the war in the Balkins.

Also, can you accept that it is possible for someone to believe that the Iraq war needed to happen, but not in the manner it was conducted? Of course I can. It seems however that you and others speak in a language of absolutes, and those comments always seem to be wait wait talk talk...and never do something now! Those are the exact reasons for the horrible mega crime genocides that have happened in Rwanda, the Balkans and also, yes very much it was hesitating and twiddling of thumbs that allowed the 100's of thousands dead in Iraq.
What bothers me about Bush is the specifics of his administration's behavior in this conflict. Iraq was not a threat to teh U.S or Israel in the short term, so there was certainly plenty of time to hash out a better plan, involving true international support, a more realistic exit strategy, etc. First, I don't believe that there would ever be international support that you're looking for (Arab countries, France, Germany etc.) It was not to their advantage to remove Saddam. We've seen time and time again that the DEATHS OF ANY BUT "1st WORLD do not matter! That is the story of mega crimes against humanity in so many countries that is IGNORED! I don't know why you don't get this! "there was certainly time to hash out" Time for who?? I cannot get...really I can.....not get..to the point of wanting to beat my head against the wall..how seemingly compassionate people who go on about the poor and oppressed ..can ignore what has been happening to the people of that country through the hand of Saddam! Every one of you should have been SCREAMING for his removal! That is the compassionate left! Where were you?!
Your personal knowledge of teh region should lead you to knowing, for instance, that the current Iraq unrest was easily predictable, and that no one should have expected that the fall or capture of Saddam would have made Iraq suddenly peaceful. Yes it is easily predictable, you only have to read the news reports in regards to post Balkans to see the potential for unrest in countries that have gone through upheaval BUT it is exactly my knowledge of the area that has HIGH hopes for Iraqi's. 6 months, 9 months...a year or two is not a loooong time to give change a chance and even in the WORST OF it today...less are dieing...less are suffering...less are being tortured....then during the reign of Saddam the mega murder criminal (really I would swear when I say his name but it'd only be **** out)

The biggest reasoning that most people seemed to follow in the Iraq war was that Iraq could attack another country with WMD, or give them to terrorists. That is why we couldn't wait for inspections to conclude, or to bother to convince the rest of the world that there was a real strategy in Iraq. You know this whole line of thinking is crazy, really it is...10 years for inspections? who is such a peanut as to buy into that?! and in the meantime 100 of thousands dead?! Where is the compassionate left?!! Christ! Do you understand the insanity of that?!

The fact that there are no WMD(statistically speaking) should mean something, don't you think? They never meant anything to me. SO really no, personally I don't think so...I do think so many dead under the rule of such a tyrant should mean something...it should mean something so horrid and so huge that never in a million years should a world stand by and let such a thing happen. It's a crime of huge proportions..it's our crime..yours, mine and the worlds...to wait and watch and discuss while people are murdered and tortured. Really, it makes me cry to think of it.

[Ivan Seeking]

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio



8:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it...

...Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year....[continued]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Since he had no WMDs, compliance was impossible.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio



8:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it...

...Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year....[continued]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Since he had no WMDs, compliance was impossible.

Isn't it funny how many of those claims have been debunked, and no one cares?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
Isn't it funny how many of those claims have been debunked, and no one cares?

Well, he didn't point his finger. That's the key: don't point! [:D]

When I think of all the outrage at Clinton for doinking Monica and lying about it, as opposed to starting a war based on all of these lies, I really have to wonder...

How many unwilling or otherwise victimized Iraqi conscripts went up in a cloud with each bunker buster? How many innocent or victimized people were killed?

Have you noticed any estimates of the number Iraqi's killed?

Based on the daily White House briefings during the war, some statements led me to consider a number like 500,000 Iraqi soldiers killed. I know that at least 6 to 8 divisions of 60,000 to 80,000 men were never yet accounted for at the wars end.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Well, he didn't point his finger. That's the key: don't point! [:D]

When I think of all the outrage at Clinton for doinking Monica and lying about it, as opposed to starting a war based on all of these lies, I really have to wonder...

How many unwilling or otherwise victimized Iraqi conscripts went up in a cloud with each bunker buster? How many innocent or victimized people were killed?

Have you noticed any estimates of the number Iraqi's killed?

Based on the daily White House briefings during the war, some statements led me to consider a number like 500,000 Iraqi soldiers killed. I know that at least 6 to 8 divisions of 60,000 to 80,000 men were never yet accounted for at the wars end. Doesn't matter...9-11 9-11 9-11.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by kat
My comment was in response to yours regarding "there should be an imminent threat........ before attacking a country." I'm going to assume that your response, ignoring that it has been our countries policy to attack countries for other reasons then an imminent threat to ourselves, is an acceptance of this truth. I don't need you to concede that the fighting in rwanda or balkans was better or worse. Humans are not perfect, and hind sight is always 20-20. None of these were orchestrated in a perfect manner. In fact it's hauntingly eerie how similar some of the news reports in regards to Iraq were and sitll are similar to those following the war in the Balkins.

[/B] Of course I can. It seems however that you and others speak in a language of absolutes, and those comments always seem to be wait wait talk talk...and never do something now! Those are the exact reasons for the horrible mega crime genocides that have happened in Rwanda, the Balkans and also, yes very much it was hesitating and twiddling of thumbs that allowed the 100's of thousands dead in Iraq.
[/B] First, I don't believe that there would ever be international support that you're looking for (Arab countries, France, Germany etc.) It was not to their advantage to remove Saddam. We've seen time and time again that the DEATHS OF ANY BUT "1st WORLD do not matter! That is the story of mega crimes against humanity in so many countries that is IGNORED! I don't know why you don't get this! "there was certainly time to hash out" Time for who?? I cannot get...really I can.....not get..to the point of wanting to beat my head against the wall..how seemingly compassionate people who go on about the poor and oppressed ..can ignore what has been happening to the people of that country through the hand of Saddam! Every one of you should have been SCREAMING for his removal! That is the compassionate left! Where were you?!
[/B] Yes it is easily predictable, you only have to read the news reports in regards to post Balkans to see the potential for unrest in countries that have gone through upheaval BUT it is exactly my knowledge of the area that has HIGH hopes for Iraqi's. 6 months, 9 months...a year or two is not a loooong time to give change a chance and even in the WORST OF it today...less are dieing...less are suffering...less are being tortured....then during the reign of Saddam the mega murder criminal (really I would swear when I say his name but it'd only be **** out)

[/B] You know this whole line of thinking is crazy, really it is...10 years for inspections? who is such a peanut as to buy into that?! and in the meantime 100 of thousands dead?! Where is the compassionate left?!! Christ! Do you understand the insanity of that?!

They never meant anything to me. SO really no, personally I don't think so...I do think so many dead under the rule of such a tyrant should mean something...it should mean something so horrid and so huge that never in a million years should a world stand by and let such a thing happen. It's a crime of huge proportions..it's our crime..yours, mine and the worlds...to wait and watch and discuss while people are murdered and tortured. Really, it makes me cry to think of it. [/B] It would seem that much of the criticism against Blair, Howard (and Bush; I don't know about Aznar) is for lying and hypocrisy: 'yes Saddam has done bad things to the Iraqi people, but that's not why we're going to send in the troops; it's 'cause he's got WMD and supports UBL'. If these leaders' intentions had been to address 'horrible mega crime genocides', why didn't they say so?

OTOH, if the 'real' reason for the invasion was to rid the world of a tyrant and mass-murderer, prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, ... then why Saddam? Why would the innocent Iraqis yet-to-be-slaughtered be more worthy of being saved by the pure-hearted lads and lasses from Des Moines, Manchester, Dubbo, and Tenerife than a million or so Congolese?

How would you prioritise the list of countries that need regime change kat? Are the 100 of thousands dead in the DPRK of man-made famine 'something so horrid and so huge that never in a million years should a world stand by and let such a thing happen'? Is it sheer numbers? or proportion of population dead? Maybe it's 'innocent children', so we must topple Pervez Musharraf for the widespread female infanticide in Pakistan?

I read that some in the US regard abortion as a far worse crime than murder; perhaps the action should be 'invade Europe, 'cause abortion is widespread there'?

[Edit: this para, which I'm leaving as I originally wrote it, is misleading and poorly worded; please ignore it:
And this is only sins of commission; why not include sins of omission? For its wilful and deliberate international trade policies which have lead directly to the blighting of the lives of countless millions in the developing world (Benin cotton farmers, Brazilian orange growers, Indian steel workers, ...), let's invade the US??[*(]]

[Nereid]

Russ wrote: Huh? We're evil 'cause we're prosperous and buy things? You need to substantiate that. Tell me how sending money to an impoverished country is "blighting" the lives of those who live there. Also, "trade" isn't even an appropriate word anymore. Our trade deficit is so big, those countries we are "blighting" are bleeding us dry. Russ, the last para of my post is poorly worded and misleading; I'd like to retract it.

[amp]

Consider the blatant lies, one of which was "Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent", quoth Bush in his State of the Union address.

Then when caught in the lie So, when faced with the uncomfortable facts that there were no nuclear programs ; that there were no chemical or biological agents (never mind Bush's 500 tons) ; that there was no "growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft for spraying them (a particularly stupid allegation); and that Al Qaeda was never in Iraq (although it now operates there, according to Washington, thanks to the chaos created by Bush's crusade), the excuse for war has been altered, and not even subtly

source article for the above- http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley01032004.html

This article - http://www.counterpunch.org/cook01032004.html -
raises the point What resolution can be offered in light of this review of our administration's failures to address the primary issues that caused 9/11? Only one: remove it from power, by impeachment preferably, by ballot if required. One can only hope that a year from now, when reflecting on what our government has done in our name, the review will be of a different administration, one concerned with America's role within the community of nations, not concerned, as this administration is, with ruling the world community

[phatmonky]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html

David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.




Eating crow huh?

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html




Eating crow huh? Ummm...and how would he know that? Is this the beginning of the lies needed to invade Syria?

I still think the whole Mars idea is part of the search for Iraq's (nonexistant) WMD stockpile.

[Ivan Seeking]

Mr Powell is the first senior Bush administration figure to break ranks. It follows the departure from his post last week of David Kay, the head of Iraq Survey Group, the body tasked with locating Saddam's alleged WMD, who has said that he now believes that the weapons did not exist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1131108,00.html

[amp]

I would not have thought that such bright inquisitive individuals could be lead about like a bull with a nose ring.
The Essay-link(I read Ivan Seeking) posted in the first page of this thread spoke volumes, the link at Truthout.org went further. Clinton was put to task for less, Bush has put Americans in danger for a personal vendetta.
Also, he said the US would not be an occupying force... it is. That we're not there for the oil, its obvious we are. Bye

[phatmonky]

Originally posted by amp

Also, he said the US would not be an occupying force... it is. That we're not there for the oil, its obvious we are. Bye

expand on this.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by amp
Bush has put Americans in danger for a personal vendetta.

Originally spoken by G.W. Bush [approximately]
...after all, he [Saddam]did try to kill my dad

Could this have contributed to a rush to war?

Now we see an investigation into the "intelligence failures" that cannot be completed until after the election in November. How convenient!

Does anyone remember that the forged documents used to make the nuclear weapons [aluminum tubes] claim was “signed” by someone who had not even held that position for something like five years? Yes, I would call that an intelligence failure! Obviously these reports were investigated to the highest degree possible.

Oh, and Kay, that cheese ball! I listened to him rant and rave in several interviews about how he knew that Saddam had WMDs. He had a fit at any suggestion otherwise. Now he also feels that these intelligence failures need to be examined. He led the charge!!!

What a little weasel!

[Zero]

I wonder if the rush was because Bush knew that there were no huge stockpiles of WMDs, and if he allowed UN inspectors to finish, he knew he would have no justification for a war?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
I wonder if the rush was because Bush knew that there were no huge stockpiles of WMDs, and if he allowed UN inspectors to finish, he knew he would have no justification for a war? Finish what? The inspections went on (and off, and on) for 12 years. It never seemed to me like there was ever any plan to "finish" them.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Finish what? The inspections went on (and off, and on) for 12 years. It never seemed to me like there was ever any plan to "finish" them.

This is the only reason I wasn't out protesting the war myself. The UN is not to be trusted. On the other hand, if nothing was to be found then the inspections could have gone on forever. This now seems to explain the lack of success of the inspectors.

Also, the idea that Saddam was being fooled by his own people is a very interesting notion. This might explain a lot.

btw, I heard the other night that based on the intelligence available, Clinton was defending the invasion. I would think that this would warm the heart of any Bush fan. [:D]

[phatmonky]

Originally posted by Zero
I wonder if the rush was because Bush knew that there were no huge stockpiles of WMDs, and if he allowed UN inspectors to finish, he knew he would have no justification for a war?



The inspections won't ever finish if they find nothing.
By the inspections process, it is the burden of proof of the inspected to deliver evidence of destruction of banned weapons. Due to this, until Saddam(in this case) offered up the evidence, the inspectors could theoretically be poking around in the sand for generations to come.

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
The inspections won't ever finish if they find nothing.
By the inspections process, it is the burden of proof of the inspected to deliver evidence of destruction of banned weapons. Due to this, until Saddam(in this case) offered up the evidence, the inspectors could theoretically be poking around in the sand for generations to come. How do you produce evidence of nothing, when someone insists that you have something?

[phatmonky]

Originally posted by Zero
How do you produce evidence of nothing, when someone insists that you have something?

It was known that the WMD DID exist! All Saddam was required to show was that they were destroyed. He showed the inspectors where he said they got rid of the anthrax, but the soil content showed no such thing.
Pictures, video, records, witnesses, soil samples, etc. Any of the two would have probably been sufficient for the UN's mandate. S Africa had no problem doing this, but Saddam couldn't.

The argument isn't whether Saddam ever had the WMD - we all know he did - The argument is, where did they go?

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
It was known that the WMD DID exist! All Saddam was required to show was that they were destroyed. He showed the inspectors where he said they got rid of the anthrax, but the soil content showed no such thing.
Pictures, video, records, witnesses, soil samples, etc. Any of the two would have probably been sufficient for the UN's mandate. S Africa had no problem doing this, but Saddam couldn't.

The argument isn't whether Saddam ever had the WMD - we all know he did - The argument is, where did they go? Hmmm...have you ever pulled inventory in a large warehouse or factory? The paperwork never matches the actual inventory; this is a simple fact of life. Add that little fact to the fact that Scott Ritter, who was in charge of the inspectors up until 1998, said that they had found at least 95% of Iraq's weapons, and you have a situation where part of that 5% could easily have been paperwork error, and maybe 1-3% of the weapons were unaccounted for. Add to THAT, the fact that Iraq has been under periodic bombing for a decade, and you can see where both missing WMD and missing paperwork may have disappaered to. Plus, of couse, chemical and biological weapons have a fairly short shelf life, and they are useless after a few years.

Will continued inspections turn up some illegal weapons? Possibly, maybe even probably. What is unlikely is that the stockpiles that the Bush administration claimed ever actually existed.

[schwarzchildradius]

The classic strategy for politicizing intelligence is to pick out the things that support your intention. By their own admission, the white house used the exact same intelligence the Clintons used, intelligence that is obviously 4+ years old.
Yet, simultaneously, real-time human intelligence was gathered on the ground by UN weapons inspectors.

Fear of a "mushroom cloud" easily manipulated the public into supporting a pre-emptive strike on a secular sovereign nation that had never attacked America.

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
The classic strategy for politicizing intelligence is to pick out the things that support your intention. By their own admission, the white house used the exact same intelligence the Clintons used, intelligence that is obviously 4+ years old.
Yet, simultaneously, real-time human intelligence was gathered on the ground by UN weapons inspectors.

Fear of a "mushroom cloud" easily manipulated the public into supporting a pre-emptive strike on a secular sovereign nation that had never attacked America. Yeah!! Plus, of course, the possibility that Clinton was slightly full of hot air himself. I wonder what the real time reaction the Republicans had to Clinton's claims about Iraq and WMD?

We know that Clinton(and most politicians since) lied about the reason inspectors left in 1998: (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9711/13/iraq.expel3/) The Iraqi diplomat said Baghdad will accept non-American inspectors and continue cooperating with the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM), which performs weapons inspections and surveillance of Iraq's disarmament efforts. Baghdad has charged the inspectors are spies sent by the United States, which Iraq accuses of being opposed to lifting sanctions.

The issue was CIA operatives who had infiltrated the inspection teams. This charge was later "confirmed"(according to some sources), but the facts of the matter certainly point to dishonesty on the part of the Clinton administration, and on the part of everyone thereafter who repeated the lie that Iraq "kicked out the UN inspectors."

[schwarzchildradius]

By that article, Iraq in 1997 and 2002 was deeply corrupt and needed to be checked by a military power, because Saddam was defiant of the UN. I think that Bush did the right thing in 2002 when he sent troops to Kuwait, which pressured Iraq to allow new weapons inspections. But he definitely did the wrong thing by starting the air war and ground invasion, which wasted thousands of civilians and thousands more regular army.
Bush's dad made a strategic withdrawal from Iraq, the most honorable thing Bush has ever done.

[phatmonky]

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah!! Plus, of course, the possibility that Clinton was slightly full of hot air himself. I wonder what the real time reaction the Republicans had to Clinton's claims about Iraq and WMD?

We know that Clinton(and most politicians since) lied about the reason inspectors left in 1998: (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9711/13/iraq.expel3/)

The issue was CIA operatives who had infiltrated the inspection teams. This charge was later "confirmed"(according to some sources), but the facts of the matter certainly point to dishonesty on the part of the Clinton administration, and on the part of everyone thereafter who repeated the lie that Iraq "kicked out the UN inspectors."

Zero Zero Zero, what am I going to do with you??? ;)

Iraq had said it would expel the Americans inspectors if the Security Council condemned it for blocking the inspections.

Iraq was blaming us as spies the whole time.
Ritter and Butler (the leading inspectors at their times) BOTH denied there were any spies on the UNSCOM team and still do! The team WAS provided with monitoring devices, yes,but that is 100% legal under the UN guidlines that all countries in the UN are to give the inspectors any help they can. Being given monitoring equipment is not the same as spying. The closest you'll ever get to proving that there were CIA spies in the team is the new york times infamous article that relies fully on anonymous sources, no follow up corraboration, and if I remember correctly, falls back in the day (that is now shown to be) when they were making up stories to give more sensational news [8)]

The facts are:
-UN inspectors WERE being blocked from sites totally, or for hours while iraqi agents went their first.
-The UN supported us
-UN inspector Ritter was singled out as the spy, yet to this day he denies ever being a spy (although he is now one of the outmost critics of the war, but that's another debate)
-UN inspector Butler, who ran the program in the later years, says the same.
-Iraqi statements made it apparent and direct that the inspectors should leave
-We pulled out because staying in was unsafe at the time and we were being blocked

The order, announced by the Iraqi News Agency (INA), said: "All American inspectors should leave Iraq immediately until the American administration and the Security Council decide to review their irresponsible policy and their dealing with Iraq
That isn't OUR doing.

Thousands of Iraqis marched in the streets of the capital on Thursday, shouting slogans in support of the Iraqi leader. Hundreds more gathered around his main palace.
Should we have left inspectors in with that atmosphere?

The expulsion order came a day after the 15-member U.N. Security Council, by a unanimous vote, condemned Iraq, imposed a travel ban on Iraqi officials and warned of "further measures" if it did not reverse its decision to kick out the Americans.
Expulsion order referring to iraq's decision to remove all American inspectors.The UN supported us fully.




Before you respond, keep in mind I never said attacking was the right thing to do or not. I simply and pointing out the situation that led to the inspectors leaving.

[Zero]

What I'm getting at, phatmonkey, is that the statement "Iraq kicked out the UN inspectors" isn't true. Iraq refused to cooperate with American inspectors, but claimed that they would continue to allow inspectors from other countries to continue their work.

[phatmonky]

Originally posted by Zero
What I'm getting at, phatmonkey, is that the statement "Iraq kicked out the UN inspectors" isn't true. Iraq refused to cooperate with American inspectors, but claimed that they would continue to allow inspectors from other countries to continue their work.

That is true, and while I hate to turn this into a semantics game, it is important.
Country of origin doesn't change the fact that Iraq was kicking out UN inspectors! Not all of them, but these weren't inspectors directly from the US. They were from the US by proxy of the UN. I know it seems a small difference, but I feel it's important to note.

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
That is true, and while I hate to turn this into a semantics game, it is important.
Country of origin doesn't change the fact that Iraq was kicking out UN inspectors! Not all of them, but these weren't inspectors directly from the US. They were from the US by proxy of the UN. I know it seems a small difference, but I feel it's important to note. I understand your point, but it isn't that hard to add a couple of words to a statement to make it a little less misleading, is it? "Kicking out UN inspectoion teams" and "kicking out the American members of the UN inspection teams" are both true statements. However, there is a difference in the way each statement presents the truth.

Reminds me of the Mark Twain quote I keep running across, about how the difference between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.