Bush and the WMD claim

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Good article. You don't get the benefit of the doubt when you are talking about national security.
 
  • #3
russ_watters
Mentor
21,947
8,983
It is important to note that the Constitution leaves it up to the House to decide what an impeachable offense is - so ANYTHING can be an impeachable offense, including "this". Hell, they could impeach him for having big ears and a funny looking face if they wanted to.

This is also why Hillary Clinton is wrong about the "right wing conspiracy." Maybe he did get impeached just because the republicans didn't like him. But that's allowed by the Constitution.
 
  • #4
Originally posted by russ_watters
It is important to note that the Constitution leaves it up to the House to decide what an impeachable offense is - so ANYTHING can be an impeachable offense, including "this". Hell, they could impeach him for having big ears and a funny looking face if they wanted to.

This is also why Hillary Clinton is wrong about the "right wing conspiracy." Maybe he did get impeached just because the republicans didn't like him. But that's allowed by the Constitution.

LOL, again with the rationalizations, the justifications for destroying a president based on lies and innuendo and petty issues.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
kyle_soule
240
1
Let's look at the WMD this way for a second.

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

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

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

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

Iraq has the chemicals we gave them, and they aren't cooperating with weapon inspectors, if they had no intentions of using these weapons, and we gave the chemicals to them, why not just say "Hey, the US gave us these to fight Iran, you can have them back now." and show the inspectors where they are? This is enough reason to justify the use of the words WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and justify force in getting these chemicals taken back and/or destroyed.
 
  • #6
That's an excellent article, but I don't think that the president is impeachable, simply because the House has too many Republicans. One thing is for sure, if he were a democrat, he'd have been impeached long ago.
 
  • #7
Kyle, let's be realistic...Iraq's 'backpack' is almost completely empty.
 
  • #8
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by Zero
Kyle, let's be realistic...Iraq's 'backpack' is almost completely empty.

Yea, you are probably right, cut that list of parts in a third, I would still hope they would take his backpack away though.
 
  • #9
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Yea, you are probably right, cut that list of parts in a third, I would still hope they would take his backpack away though.
By a THIRD?? Try finding three random springs and an unrifled tube. There has been no solid evidence of a WMD program, and certainly not one which justifies a war. Don't worry though...Bush will lie again, and say that he is credible(ha) because the world is safer(HA!)...instead of gaining credibility by the simpler traditional method of TELLING THE TRUTH!
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
By Dana Priest and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 22, 2003; Page A30


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

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

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

See the story: CIA Questioned Documents Linking Iraq, Uranium Ore.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/archives/front.htm
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Iraq probably does have WMDs somewhere. Even the French know this (and when the French know something...). The administration claimed much more than Iraw merely having WMDs, they claimed Iraq active programs developing and producing WMDs and the ability to deploy those weapons. The discovery of WDMs would do nothing (logically, reality is a different subject) for the Bush administration. Hell, even finding solid evidence of weapon programs would do nothing. This issue is whether the Bush administration mislead the American and world communities on what evidence they did have, on what justification they had in making their claims. And when the CIA, the Bush administrations core resource for intelligence information, expressed doubts both in meetings and in official reports about the administrations claims, clearly there is a big problem here.
 
  • #12
kyle_soule
240
1
What I have seen, and I doubt I have been terribly mislead, is that the majority of Iraqi people wanted Saddam removed. If a country's people asked another country to remove their leader because they were being oppressed, tortured and killed for no reason, etc you should hope that the country being called on would help them out. You would never expect such a call because, of course, the person or persons doing the calling would be killed.

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

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

The ends justify the means?
From below:

That's what I said.

If a cop had a hunch that a house was being used to make child porn and went out and broke into the house himself and his hunch was correct, wouldn't you agree the end justify's the means there?
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Whether their are WMD or not, the people wanted to be free of Saddam, and Bush did the right thing, and if it took lies to do it, so be it, we all lie, it was for the best. And I am not saying he lied, I don't believe he did.

The ends justify the means?
 
  • #14
Sting
157
2
Either way, if no WMD's are found, someone is going to look bad. The Bush administration could blame the intelligence for giving false information and the intelligence could blame the Bush administration for misinterpreting data.
 
  • #15
russ_watters
Mentor
21,947
8,983
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The ends justify the means?
In this case, unequivocably yes.
 
  • #16
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Originally posted by kyle_soule
That's what I said.

If a cop had a hunch that a house was being used to make child porn and went out and broke into the house himself and his hunch was correct, wouldn't you agree the end justify's the means there?

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


"In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
---- President Eisenhower - January 1961
 
Last edited:
  • #17
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No. This leads to an even worse kind of lawlessness - oppression by the elite and powerful. This is why we have laws and choose not to live as the wild west. This is why we have a constitution.

So we ignore what we find because...why? because it was not our original intent?? So if somebody is walking down to the grocery store and finds a dead body, they should ignore it, because they did not intend to find it?
 
  • #18
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Originally posted by kyle_soule
So we ignore what we find because...why? because it was not our original intent?? So if somebody is walking down to the grocery store and finds a dead body, they should ignore it, because they did not intend to find it?

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

By your reasoning, we may as well throw away the constitution and the courts.
 
  • #19
Originally posted by russ_watters
In this case, unequivocably yes.

And this is the attitude that will ruin this country.
 
  • #20
That's all very rosy but guess what the war's not over. Hey, that's why there's no democracy - because the war never really ended. Whooda thunkit.
 
  • #21
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Originally posted by Zero
And this is the attitude that will ruin this country.

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

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

Edit: There is a good reason that "High Crimes" was cited in the original article.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I am showing my age a bit when I point out that some of the attitudes expressed here by Kyle and Russ, and that I hear from many people these days, [I don't mean to pick Kyle and Russ in particular :smile:] are very familiar: These ideas are what I was taught were typical examples of "Evil Empire", always trust a commie to be a commie, making me see Red, now defunct, Pinko-Soviet values.

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

Good post...America loses something when we start thinking that if a cause is good, we can do whatever we want. Who gets to decide what is right, and when it is ok to use illegal or immoral means? And, once that door is open, how do we prevent America from becoming a dictatorship?
 
  • #23
Originally posted by Zero
Good post...America loses something when we start thinking that if a cause is good, we can do whatever we want. Who gets to decide what is right, and when it is ok to use illegal or immoral means? And, once that door is open, how do we prevent America from becoming a dictatorship?

Ahh. You touch it, but cannot grasp it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the (even remote) possibility of world destruction, I will never coutenance such a "death-culture" until my vast progeny have been scattered beyond the furthest reach of both ICBM and engineered microbe.
 
  • #24
That's some impressive war-mongering, G. I particularly like the part about
If you believe what you are doing is right, then it is. Period.
Sounds pretty cool to me, after all, anarchy results in lots of fun.
I hate to sound patronizing, but read a WORLD history book. Check out how long these fundamentalist muslim F**ks have been mucking up the line betweeen good and evil. Read the basic tenets of their existence
The five tenets? Let's see, what are they...
The major duties, nevertheless, in the life of a Moslem are to fulfill these Five Pillars. They are: 1. The Statement of Faith (Shahadah) 2. The Establishment of Prayers (Salah) 3. The Giving of Alms (Zakah) 4. Fasting (Sawm), and 5. Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj).
Where does it say "fly planes into buildings" ?! Mainstream Islam has been around a long time. Believe it or not, it encourages justice, making it a natural enemy of corruption. It opposes the Law of the Jungle that G so eloquently mouthed.
 
  • #25
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Originally posted by Ganshauk
Ahh. You touch it, but cannot grasp it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the (even remote) possibility of world destruction, I will never coutenance such a "death-culture" until my vast progeny have been scattered beyond the furthest reach of both ICBM and engineered microbe.

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

Now it appears that we may have been lied to again...this time as the justification for the entire war. The question is not whether or not Saddam is/was a bad guy, the question is, does this country operate according to a constitution or not? By your reasoning, we may as well make Bush King. Have you considered the implications if this war was not justified? The reason so many people objected to this war, including me, was that a distinct lack of evidence was found to support the Bush administration’s claims. Now we can’t find the “tons” of stuff Saddam had stockpiled. I assumed that we likely knew exactly where the weapons were, but for reasons of national security we could not be told. This is the only reason that I wasn't writing letter of protest and such. The fact is, the evidence did not exist, and now it seems that neither did the weapons. If Bush lied, in my mind this could him a war criminal - an unprovoked and unjustified attack on another country? I am still reserving final judgment, but I’m starting to look for a hangin judge.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No. This has nothing to do with what you said. You made the assertion that we should do away with search warrants. Also, this is hardly a comparison to Iraq. If we were tripping over the WMD this thread would not exist.

By your reasoning, we may as well throw away the constitution and the courts.

No, no, no, I'm not saying do away with search warrants, that was only an example. I'm just saying if someone believes something so much that they are willing to stick their own neck out, then let them. If they are wrong and find nothing, punish them, but if they are wrong about their original intentions, but find something equally (or more so in Iraq's case) as bad going on, then the end justifies the means.

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

Enemies change though:smile: Democracy also changes. So then can values, if what we believed to be values of our enemies x year ago, that doesn't necessarily mean we believe them to be enemies values anymore, and it is also possible that we think these values are for the best. Basically, America has changed (if these are indeed values of old enemies) and if you don't agree with the changing of America then wouldn't it also be true that you don't agree with the democracy and the Constitution? Which you accuse me of wanting to throw out?

Good post...America loses something when we start thinking that if a cause is good, we can do whatever we want. Who gets to decide what is right, and when it is ok to use illegal or immoral means? And, once that door is open, how do we prevent America from becoming a dictatorship?

Is it not illegal and immoral to treat the citizens of your country the way Iraq did? Illegal in the sense that murder without cause is wrong no matter what your laws of the country are.

The majority supported the war...doesn't sound like a dictatorship to me. Bad America, doing the right thing...
 
  • #27
russ_watters
Mentor
21,947
8,983
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Just to be clear, the ideas expressed here and by many people these days are the very kinds of things that we used to claim as the enemies values; the very kinds of things that made the enemy the enemy.
Are you saying that there is *NOT* ever a time when it is unequivocably clear that action is justified? It sounds to me like you are old enough to remember a pretty big one.

As I stated in another thread (and multiple times during and before the war), there were FOUR reasons for this war, all of which individually made the war justified.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
When the right thing is done for the wrong reasons, and by the wrong methods, it is wrong. There are times when action is justified. On the other hand, sacrificing your ethics to eliminate a wrong, is to become a wrongness on your own.
 
  • #29
russ_watters
Mentor
21,947
8,983
Originally posted by Zero
When the right thing is done for the wrong reasons, and by the wrong methods, it is wrong.
In this case, the right thing was done for the right reasons and with the right methods. Now I understand you dispute the reasons, though as I have pointed out countless times, there were FOUR right reasons and you seem to only have a beef with one of them.

I don't see how you can fault the methods here - we fought a war in the middle of all the major cities in Iraq and by the WORST estimates killed only 3300 civilians and 150 of our troops. Thats as close to flawless as war gets.
There are times when action is justified.
WHEN?? When is action justified? How bad exactly does someone or some situation have to be before we say enough is enough?

And forget for now the "clear and present danger" bit. Thats not always required: Clinton went into Kosovo. Clearly he thought (and I agree) that that situation was bad enough to warrant action. Bush I went into Somalia and I agreed (Clinton disagreed and removed the troops). France is currently fighting a war on the Ivory Coast and I agree there as well.
 
  • #30
I don't for a minute dispute the bad news involved in Saddam Hussein. I do think that if WMD were areason, then some effort should have been made to protect sites that contained nuclear materials. In fact, if you look at the sites protected by teh military, you will mostly see oil fields. Nothing was done ahead of time to pursue anything besides oil.
 
  • #31
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Originally posted by russ_watters
And forget for now the "clear and present danger" bit. Thats not always required: Clinton went into Kosovo. Clearly he thought (and I agree) that that situation was bad enough to warrant action. Bush I went into Somalia and I agreed (Clinton disagreed and removed the troops). France is currently fighting a war on the Ivory Coast and I agree there as well.

The "clear and present danger" was the constitutional justification used by Bush and his cronies. Other situations don't apply. What matters here is whether or not Bush violated the constitution and committed a high crime in the process. I find it interesting that you wish to dismiss the key legal issue.
 
  • #32
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The "clear and present danger" was the constitutional justification used by Bush and his cronies. Other situations don't apply. What matters here is whether or not Bush violated the constitution and committed a high crime in the process. I find it interesting that you wish to dismiss the key legal issue.

One out of four isn't bad, he was wrong on one, he didn't throw in another reason to trick the American people. Three reasons would have been sufficient.

Isn't it reason enough to not allow weapons inspectors in for years and years to take "real" action? If he didn't have anything to hide he would have no reason to deny access.
 
  • #33
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Originally posted by kyle_soule
One out of four isn't bad, he was wrong on one, he didn't throw in another reason to trick the American people. Three reasons would have been sufficient.

Isn't it reason enough to not allow weapons inspectors in for years and years to take "real" action? If he didn't have anything to hide he would have no reason to deny access.

You keep missing the point. The "clear and present danger" is the only reason he could legally do what he did. If no danger was clear and present, then the war was illegal. If Bush committed a high crime under constitutional law, then he should go to jail.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Originally posted by kyle_soule


Isn't it reason enough to not allow weapons inspectors in for years and years to take "real" action? If he didn't have anything to hide he would have no reason to deny access.

You may want to recheck your facts on that...Iraq protested the U.S. inspection teams for suspected spying(later confirmed). They asked for UN intervention, and the US responded by pulling out the inspectors.
 
  • #35
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
"To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."
John Dean: a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of the United States.

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

Suggested for: Bush and the WMD claim

Replies
7
Views
773
Replies
3
Views
297
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
800
Replies
19
Views
542
Replies
9
Views
455
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
912
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
385
Top