Quote:

---

...and sacrifice the lives of servicemen at Pearl Harbor just to play politics is certainly henious.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
it was a history of 10 yrs or more in which Saddam was playing this shell game, and I think the Bush administration wanted to send a message, " No more yankee our wankee "

---

Quote:

---

Also, I did answer your question. This President was no longer willing to play the shell game. It had become tiresome.

---

Quote:

---

It wasn't the responsibility of UNSCOM to go on a wild goose chase and play 'gotchya!' w/ Iraqi inspection sites, the burden of responsibility was upon IRAQ to show us what they had. And they had admitted that they had some items. Hell, we KNEW they did because we SOLD them the stuff! Along w/ France and Germany. But then the list of what Iraq claimed it had came back, and it simply didn't match up w/ what we KNEW they had.

---

Quote:

---

Remember, we'd had a decade of terrorist attacks, around the world... USS Cole,2 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, just for starters. So, there's that to ponder a bit, and recall as to what the hell we were thinking in going into Iraq. Folks tend to forget that sort of stuff.

---

Quote:

---

DOES THE PRESIDENT deserve the benefit of the reserve of fortitude that I just mentioned? Only just, if at all. We need not argue about the failures and the mistakes and even the crimes, because these in some ways argue themselves. But a positive accounting could be offered without braggartry, and would include:

(1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of many highly suggestive links between the two elements of this Hitler-Stalin pact. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before the coalition intervention, has even gone to the trouble of naming his organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

(2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.

(3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

(4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite.

(5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment, respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism. (One had already suspected as much in the Iraqi case.)

(6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat.

(7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.

(8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy.

(9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of greatly enlarging this number.

(10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.

It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a presentation. It would also be welcome if he and his deputies adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other words, stated plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.

The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the obvious. Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that such coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word or deed that contributed to a defeat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Saddam wasn't going to give up what he had, and he most certainly did NOT. We KNEW he hadn't, so there's no point in arguing it any further.

It all comes down to this - are you willing to bet the security of the U.S. and countless others when it comes to conflicting intel and a tyrant who has shown he'll use WMD on civilians ?

---

Quote:

---

Attacking Iraq does makes absolute sense if you see it as a threat, or likely to facilitate potential threats.

---

Quote:

---

It's what Bush and the administration had in the way of intel, and that's what they had to go on.

---

Quote:

---

This attitude toward Iraq pre-dates Bush from even BEING in the White House

---

Quote:

---

so don't try to lay it completely on him alone. Sure, he chose to use force, but not until after the U.N. sanctions, the 15-0 Security Council vote

---

Quote:

---

and Congress approved.

---

Quote:

---

This was far from Bush waking up in a bad mood one day and deciding -" I hate Saddam.... we should just go and kick his ass! "

---

Quote:

---

Saddam wasn't going to give up what he had, and he most certainly did NOT. We KNEW he hadn't, so there's no point in arguing it any further.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RIPWash:
I always saw the Iraq situation as a belligerant man-child wanting too much power (Saddam) and a supposed governing authority (the *cough* UN) that was WAY too lenient on him. For years Saddam was pushing the limits of what he was being allowed to do. Each resolution against him was nothing more than a hand slap and a stern look. He was given multiple chances to let weapons inspectors in. Which he did, but if they started looking a little too hard, he'd kick them out. Then the UN would sanction another hand slapping. Before the US went in, as Rap said, he was given even more chances to prove he didn't have them anymore. He was supposed to document how each and every potential WMD was dismanted. He submitted a HUGE report. A report that was missing the documentation of several thousand missiles. When asked about that he said he didn't know ("I don't recall" more or less) what happened to them. For YEARS, the UN basically let him get away with horrible acts. The WMDs against his own people being one of them. Saddam liked the position he was in because he was being allowed to do despicable things and he kept pushing the limits of what he could do because he knew he would only get another hand slapping if he got caught.

I'm a big "What if" kinda guy. What if we didn't go in? What if he DID actually have WMD's that he was skillfully hiding or that he spirited away? What if he decided to push his imposed limits again? What if he DID have a relation ship with certain terrorist groups and was more than willing to help them (like the ABC report from 1999 said, yet contrary to the House committee's report on the subject - which should be enough to raise even more eyebrows)? We will never know. All we have to go by is a hindsight is 20/20 kind of thing.

My main question, however, is if supposedly so many people knew that what Bush was doing was wrong and that the information he was presenting the American people was erroneous . . . why didn't they stand up and scream? Where were they at the time? I don't recall hearing from any of them. And I'll admit fully to being partially ignorant if that's the case, but you would think these people would have been interviewed on the news if they made a big enough stink about it.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

---

Quote:

---

Saddam was given chance after chance after chance for a decade to come clean, he never did. Spare me this ' urgent' nonsense. It simply isn't the case. Not by a long shot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:


If the Bush administration did NOT see Iraq as a particularly urgent threat- as you say they didn't- Why did they claim that it was?

---

Quote:

---

If the Bush administration did NOT see Iraq as a particularly urgent threat- as you say they didn't- Why did they claim that it was?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


Salesmanship? 'Cause you'll never buy the undercoating from the dealer if they tell you the car was rustproofed at the factory?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Saddam was given chance after chance after chance for a decade to come clean, he never did. Spare me this ' urgent' nonsense. It simply isn't the case. Not by a long shot.

---

Are you saying is WASN'T urgent? Because BUSH said it was! And so did the rest of his administration! They said:

"imminent threat"
"mortal threat"
"urgent threat"
"immediate threat"
"serious and mounting threat"
"unique threat"
Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction"

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." (Bush)

"This is about imminent threat. (9McClellan)

Iraq "threatens the United States of America." (cheney)

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (Rumsfeld)

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction." (RUmsfeld)

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." (Bush)

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." (Bush)

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." Bush

-----------------
Clearly, this was not a precautionary invasion. Nor was it an invasion over bookkeeping.

Iraq was portrayed as an "imminent" threat.

So - Ive asked you this question three or four times by now: How do you account for the above statements?

If the Bush administration did NOT see Iraq as a particularly urgent threat- as you say they didn't- Why did they claim that it was?



---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

---

Quote:

---

why didn't they stand up and scream? Where were they at the time? I don't recall hearing from any of them.

---

Quote:

---

I always saw the Iraq situation as a belligerant man-child wanting too much power (Saddam) and a supposed governing authority (the *cough* UN) that was WAY too lenient on him.

---

Quote:

---

My main question, however, is if supposedly so many people knew that what Bush was doing was wrong and that the information he was presenting the American people was erroneous . . . why didn't they stand up and scream? Where were they at the time? I don't recall hearing from any of them. And I'll admit fully to being partially ignorant if that's the case, but you would think these people would have been interviewed on the news if they made a big enough stink about it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Funny,
I always saw the Iraq situation as a belligerant man-child wanting too much power (Dubya) and a supposed governing authority (the *cough* Congress) that was WAY too lenient on him.

---

Quote:

---

My main question, however, is if supposedly so many people knew that what Bush was doing was wrong and that the information he was presenting the American people was erroneous . . . why didn't they stand up and scream? Where were they at the time? I don't recall hearing from any of them.

---

Quote:

---

Not to downplay what has happened since we went in to Iraq, but what could have happened if we did nothing, as was done for years before that?

---

Quote:

---

And I truly doubt that any "rape rooms" you speak of were sanctioned by our government. If so, then I would be appalled. But Iraq's rape rooms WERE.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Delusional idiots droning on about inferences made from incomplete intel. And your point is...?


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Time had run out per Iraq. Resolution after resolution had yielded no results. 'Urgent' is to be understood to mean in the sense that we no longer were in a position by which we could allow them to skate by w/ out dire consequences.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Well, we agree that the Democratic party IS full of delusional idiots.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You will not see that due to your authoritarian nature.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

What the hell is that suppose to even mean? Do you even KNOW ? It's my OPINION, and has not one damn thing to do w/ anything remotely "authoritarian" . That's just a clever way you attempt to dismiss my views. Be better than that, if you can.

Quote:

---

Sig, please, either this is a bad day or what ever, but you really testing my last nerve here.

---

Quote:

---

Time had run out per Iraq. Resolution after resolution had yielded no results. 'Urgent' is to be understood to mean in the sense that we no longer were in a position by which we could allow them to skate by w/ out dire consequences.

---

Quote:

---

The rules had changed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And you need to look long and hard at THESE quotes.

( please take note of dates as well )

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
KPO, also, please look at the DATES on the quotes. Although UNMOVIC was formed in 1999 it did not begin inspections until Nov 2002. http://www.vertic.org/assets/YB03/VY03_Mines.pdf

Most of the quotes PREDATE the inspections. I consider those quotes irrelvant to the situation immediately before invasion, since the situation was changing for the better (even according to Hans Blix).

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

---