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

[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!

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!

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]

Lies and priorities (the calculus of horror?)

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]

Why? because of the office holder.

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

 

[member 5645]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...25.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/mai...25.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]

Wow again!

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

 

[member 5645]

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.

 

[member 5645]

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?

 

[member 5645]

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:

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.

 

[member 5645]

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:

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

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.

 

[member 5645]

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.