REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

AURaptor I have a question...

POSTED BY: RIVER6213
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 02:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 12287
PAGE 4 of 7

Monday, April 6, 2009 4:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Rapo, you seem to give a great deal of credibility to rumor (Ships reported to be circling the Indian Ocean) and none at all to known facts!


Why is that???? (Yes, that's a real question).

ALSO.... you didn't answer my previous questions: WHile Saddam was in the middle of the equivalent of a digital rectal exam, what made the the invasion so suddenly urgent?

The UNMOVIC team included BOTH Scott Ritter and David Kay (Bush's choice for post-war inspection) as well as CIA plants. It performed intrusive searches of Saddam's palaces, industrial sites, military sites, universities and hospitals, storage and transportation facilities, previous WMD manufacturing sites etc. The search was directed by CIA intel, satellite detection (For example, if they saw three large trucks at a "chicken processing factory" which has never had three large trucks there before, they'd check it out.) previous inspection, and inventory data.

The teams wouldn't talk about their inspection targets, assuming their hotel rooms were bugged, but pass the target location to each of their four separate teams on a piece of paper literally while standing by their vehicles that morning. Then each team would drive in a random fashion and arrive at the target only at the last minute.

They went on the assumption that they'd have only FIVE MINUTES to inspect before the facility was "sanitized", so they'd kick in the door and their (roughly) 30 people- missile experts, computer experts, bioweapons experts, chemical weapons experts, nuclear experts and security forces would fan out all at once through the entire facility, sampling for isotopes, special alloys (nuclear materials handling), chemical weapons and their precursors (using hand-held detectors) and grabbing computers, drawings, and samples as they went.

All in all, the UNMOVIC teams conducted roughly 1000 inspections (ten per day, every day) in the four months they were allowed to operate. Click on the "opportunity lost" link of this article for an in-depth description of what UNMOVIC did in Iraq.
www.vertic.org/onlinedatabase/unmovic/dsp_unmovicBackground.cfm


Again, so the questions don't get lost in the shuffle:

What made the invasion so suddenly urgent? Iraq as being intrusively probed at the time. So- what made the invasion such a top priority?

How do you explain the Administration's somewhat wilder claims about WMD being deployed?

Why did you give greater credibility to certain types of rumors (not even in the Bush administration's list of allegations) while ignoring countervailing technical information (inspection results, DOE/ NRC technical evaluation of aluminum tubes etc.)?

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 4:49 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

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


Have you picked up an outlandish partisan view on history here? I've heard historians dismiss this idea.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 5:24 AM

CHRISISALL


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 "






The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 6:00 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


First of all, I only briefly 'bought into ' the missing cargo ships story. After a while, I found it peculiar that we never saw these ships, they weren't boarded, and NOTHING was revealed about the validity of the story. It just simply went away.

How does a reporter go to his editor and say " Chief, I got this great story!" , and then there was zero follow up - that I ever saw or heard about - by the national or even international media. That particular event still annoys the hell out of me.

Also, I did answer your question. This President was no longer willing to play the shell game. It had become tiresome. And yes, while the WTC attacks altered our consciousness on the state of the world, going to Iraq wasn't a response BECAUSE of al Qaeda and Saddam were working hand in hand. They weren't. It was valid to raise that question, but it's more important to understand that the previous issues w/ Iraq were the primary reason for military force, not for any retribution directly connected to 9/11/01. We waited a full year after Afghanistan to rev up action in Iraq.

You're missing the point w/ the U.N. inspections. And this is VITAL.

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.

And when an item came up missing, we asked them to verify what they did with it, if it was destroyed,or what, and in many instances, they simply had nothing to show. They said 'trust us', and nothing more. Sorry, that wasn't gonna cut it. Not after 9/11, not with crazy, blood thirsty groups, like al Qaeda, out there who were well financed, dedicated and committed to causing all manner of chaos and destruction.

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.





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 6:08 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Chris,

thank you, robot.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 12:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Also, I did answer your question. This President was no longer willing to play the shell game. It had become tiresome.
So... the President gets "tired" of Saddam's attitude, even though it appeared more and more likely than Saddam DID destroy his WMD and DIDN'T have ongoing production programs? He commits troops and money and kills thousands of civilians, in the face of WMD NOT being in Iraq, just because the process was "tiresome"?????

Don't you find that reasoning just a bit... peculiar????


When balancing risks and benefits. SURELY "tiresome" wasn't on the list???
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.
Yes, I agree. It was up to Saddam to prove that he was clean, not the UN.

But the question that should have concerned Bush was not whether Saddam was a tyrant or a bad man (he was) but whether or not he posed a threat to US security. And the answer to THAT question was looking more and more like: NO. So WHY NOT let UNMOVIC (It was UNMOVIC, not UNSCOM, in 2002) finish its inspections?

Aside from GWB being tired" of the process, that is.

And, how do YOU account for the Administrations increasingly wild claims about WMD being deployed and so forth? The answer is: You haven't and you prolly can't.
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.
I haven't forgotten. But invading Iraq because somebody else attacked makes no sense. It's akin to a 2-year old's temper tantrum, or a bunch of six-year olds telling scare stories.

If those are the bases in which GWB decided to go to war (because Saddam was "tiresome" even tho he was in compliance, and because of general unfocused paranoia) then... my god, GWB was a disaster just waiting to happen. I really expect better judgment from my Presidents. And since I don't think Cheney was THAT stupid, there prolly were other reasons to invade, besides Saddam being a toothless dick.


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 12:38 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Sig

You have to realize, when I say Bush was 'tired' of Saddam's game, I'm not LITERALLY saying it was only Bush, and that he was some how personally annoyed, and THAT's why went to war. Those are MY words for describing the overall attitude of the Administration and those in the U.S. Gov't saw Iraq, and how our patience had come to an end.

Attacking Iraq does makes absolute sense if you see it as a threat, or likely to facilitate potential threats. It's what Bush and the administration had in the way of intel, and that's what they had to go on. This attitude toward Iraq pre-dates Bush from even BEING in the White House, 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, and Congress approved. 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! "

I'm getting the feeling that we're simply going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. I don't know what else needs to be said, informative as it was to exchange views.



Still not satisfied ? Then might I direct you to an article by Christopher Hithchens, no right wing zealot , to be sure.

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.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995p
hqjw.asp?pg=1






NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 12:47 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


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

Then surely the best and most recent intel - the lack of WMDs as noted by UNMOVIC - should have factored most heavily. One would think it would have given the administration - pause - at least - enough to let UNMOVIC finish the job.

Can you speculate a bit ? What IF UNMOVIC had been allowed to finish to job ? And then had found no WMDs ?

Would you have supported the decision to attack Iraq at that point ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 1:00 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Rue

What part of " It's a slam dunk " do you NOT get ? Seriously, and remember that Tenet wasn't Bush's man. He was a Clinton hold over.

Iraq wasn't cooperating. The UN, clearly shown to be corrupt to its very core , could have played "where are the WMD ?" for a thousand yrs, and still not found anything, not because they weren't there, but because Saddam WAS NOT BEING HONEST !! He hadn't been honest for 10+ yrs, and it had paid off for him, personally. That's what so many here are overlooking ( intentionally or not ) is that Saddam simply wasn't going to give up what he was obligated to give up. Either the WMD we KNEW he had, or some means of verifying that they really were destroyed, and weren't buried in the sand, or shipped over the border into Syria.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 1:14 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"slam dunk" ...

And yet, I have to get back to UNMOVIC. They weren't finding any WMD production sites or WMDs that could possibly have threatened the US. Why go with an opinion based on 10-year old information when you have fresh real data coming in ?



"The UN, clearly shown to be corrupt to its very core , could have played "where are the WMD ?" for a thousand yrs, and still not found anything ..."

But what UNMOVIC could have determined definitively was if there were any production plants. If there was no production, there could have been no WMDs - anywhere. Not in Iraq, in Syria, not buried in the sand.



"Saddam simply wasn't going to give up what he was obligated to give up."

But, then, he most definitively had. So how do you explain that ?


So, to get back to my question - if UNMOVIC had been allowed to finish and NOT found any production sites or WMDs, would you still have supported an attack on Iraq ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 1:43 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


rue, you're simply going to play contrarian to everything I say. 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 ? Bush weighed the options, as did the U.S. Congress, & made their choice. I happen to agree w/ him, and even those who aren't Bush supporters do the same.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 1:53 PM

CHRISISALL


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 ?






The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 2:00 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Not being contrarian - but every claim made by Bush or those in his administration: aluminum tubes, yellowcake, WMDs buried in the sand, deployed around Baghdad, the Colin Powell presentation, etc - was known at the time to not be true by a substantial number of people.

Further, the UNMOVIC inspections were showing that there was no WMDs threatening the US.

So this: "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" is a badly flawed opinion. Many people actually knew otherwise - and knew correctly, as it turns out.


So, to get back to the question - if UNMOVIC had been allowed to finish the job and had showed no production facilities and no WMDs - would you have supported the attack ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 2:09 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


every claim by Bush was NOT known at the time to not be true. The yellowcake absolutely was accurate, for starters. We don't know what's buried in the sand, so claiming that there is none there is a presumptive act to the hilt.

Yes, I'd have supported the attack anyways, because the UN was rotten to the core, and Saddam was a , as Christopher Hitchens aptly describes as a " psychopathic autocrat."




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 6, 2009 7:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Attacking Iraq does makes absolute sense if you see it as a threat, or likely to facilitate potential threats.
Somewhere between "seeing" Iraq as a threat and it actually being a threat is a chasm of missing and contradictory data.
Quote:

It's what Bush and the administration had in the way of intel, and that's what they had to go on.
Hell, rapo, even I knew there was different data! Bush's problem was that he ignored the data.
Quote:

This attitude toward Iraq pre-dates Bush from even BEING in the White House
But UNMOVIC was a new factor, one that Clinton would have taken seriously. And don't forget- Clinton DIDN'T invade Iraq, and prolly wouldn't have given that the situation was de-escalating, not the other way around.
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
Which chose to give Iraq one final chance.
Quote:

and Congress approved.
I read the resolution. It's nto as clear-cut as you think
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! "
I never said he did. In fact, I said that it doesn't seem right that would be the only reason, or even A reason to invade so I expect there were OTHER, weightier reasons behind "Saddam's been dragging his feet, but about to be cleared."

BTW- Did you explain the administration's more hysterical claims about WMD?

How did you rationalize away the UNMOVIC findings.

And why was invasion so URGENT? WHY couldn't Bush have waited another month or two???
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 12:05 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Time for a quickie, will add more later on -

Bush weighed the options of what he had before him, and sided w/ the intel which ( yes, here we go again ) EVERYONE knew even before he was in office. You don't know what was known by our intel, so you can't say " even you " knew the weight and amount of such data. Hell, there's almost ALWAYS 'different data'. There was different data on what Hitler was doing to the Jews, but most of it pointed to it being not good. Same here.

Hell, the invasion wasn't " urgent " . It was 10 yrs in the making, and a full year after we went into Afghanistan. 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.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 1:41 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


So it wasn't urgent because he wasn't an "imminent threat"? And if he wasn't and imminent threat, why invade?

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure"
, by Lightning Seeds


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 1:46 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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.


If you're speaking of Saddam's alleged WMD, that's a faulty argument from the start. You claim that Saddam wasn't going to give up what he had, but it would be more accurate to say that he COULDN'T give up what he DIDN'T HAVE, because he'd already given it up.

And once again, what "We [your word, not mine] KNEW" was dead wrong. So when everything you "KNOW" has been demonstrably wrong so many times, you really need to reexamine your "knowledge" and your learning processes.

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure"
, by Lightning Seeds


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 2:32 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Saddam and his sons were actually thoughtful fellows. After they would kidnap and rape their young schoolgirl of the day, they would always place a thank-you card to the parents inside the box they'd leave on the front doorstep, containing the young lady's severed head. Only tender and caring men would leave a note. Who would want to kill such teddy-bears as these? Another example of their generous kindness were the mutiple mass graves we uncovered. Row after row, pit after pit, thousands upon thousands of dead civilians, women & children, all buried in perfect geometric balance to the surrounding environment. The Heusseins were quite Green, to the surprise of many. Again, why kill people who were just trying to heal the Earth. And of course, every town had their own police station, where their local pride shown brightly in the form of torture rooms and rape rooms. Nothing wrong here folks. Certainly nothing that anyone who values human life would even care a scintilla about, for sure. Saddam's payments for decades to Palestinian suicide bombers...just a myth dontcha know. Sum it all up, big mistake to take out Saddam. All the goodness he created, and the wonderful society of millions of people he molded, will now forever be a vanished mystery for the ages. Maybe PBS can do another Nova episode where they go back and revisit the ancient land of the fertile crescent, trying to recapture the joy and fun times of the lost Huessein era.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 2:32 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 3:04 AM

JONGSSTRAW


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


2 explanations to your last question.

1. George Bush, cheerleader from Yale, was just too darn smart and clever in his multiple deceptions of the situation, and all the Dems were just bedazzled and overwhelmed by his powerful brilliance and determination.

2. The Dems, once again, looked at poll numbers, ignoring their own beliefs, and voted to give Bush the power he wanted, for political expediency.

So who's actions were worse? Looking back, my memory tells me that Susan Sarandon was the first person in America to stand up and say no to invading Iraq. She did that nice Ben & Jerry paid-for commercial criticizing Bush and the pending invasion back in 2003. I've learned to take my political lead from people who rub lemons on their bare breasts. Hope you've learned something over the years too.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 3:43 AM

CHRISISALL


Saddam needed a spanking, it's just my opinion that Special Ops could have done it quicker & cheaper than how we did it.
Stability shamility, no such thing in that region unless we make it the 52nd state.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 3:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 4:05 AM

CHRISISALL


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?









The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 4:14 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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?




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


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 4:24 AM

CHRISISALL


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?







The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 5:16 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


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.



This is a very important reality that Bush apologists need to stare long and hard at.

Undoubtedly there was a feverish rush to war on what had been a stable, contained ten year situation (albeit a nuisance one).

And so what it boils down to in my mind; was Bush and his administration lying to whip up hysteria for a war that there were other motives for? Or did the hysteria just grow and grow on its own within the administration, after some kind of intelligence trigger, and the president just couldn't get a grip?

Because it seems they couldn't stress enough how urgent the situation was. Either Bush was hysterical, or he wanted us to be. Either way doesn't reflect well on him.

Rap?


Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 5:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

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

Did you hear of these antiwar demonstations?

More Than 100,000 March in Washington, DC
Antiwar Protest Largest Since '60s OCT 26
www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1027-06.htm

Anti-War Demonstration - Washington, DC - 10 Dec 2002

Longshore Union Official, Antiwar Protesters
Face Jail After Oakland Cops Fire on Port Protest
www.internationalist.org/defendoakland251003.html

50,000 people took part in a demonstration in San Francisco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

On January 16, 2003... Americans attended a{n antiwar} rally in Washington, D.C. The U.S. Park Police... stopped providing estimates of crowd size after being threatened with lawsuits by the organizers of the Million Man March, but said that protest organizers only had a permit for 30,000 demonstrators. According to rally organizers, more than 200,000 Americans were in attendance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

On January 18.... NION and ANSWER jointly organized protests in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco. Other protests took place all over the United States, including various smaller places such as Lincoln, Nebraska.

In San Francisco, between 150,000 and 200,000 people attended the demonstration. The San Francisco police had originally estimated the crowd size at 55,000, but admitted later that they had badly underestimated the number and changed their estimate to 150,000. In Washington, "at least tens of thousands"[27], or "several hundred thousand"[28] people demonstrated through the city, ending with a rally at The Mall.
ibid




But you can blame the so-called liberal MSM for a blackout on anti-war news and views.


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 7:10 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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.



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.

So we're not all that far apart on how we see things! :)

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.


Pardon my bluntness, but where were YOU during that time period? I mean, were MILLIONS of protesters in the U.S. and the rest of the world not quite enough to make an impact on your consciousness? Don't know about you, but I hadn't seen those kinds of protests since the Viet Nam War era. If they weren't being covered, you might've been watching the wrong news outlets...

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure"
, by Lightning Seeds


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 7:41 AM

RIPWASH


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.



LOL Well, that's just because you're weird.(joke!)

The Dems were whooping and hollering against him since he took office . . . after they initially agreed about the need to take Saddam out of power that is.

There's a funny song by the Groucho Marx that many attributed to the Democratic Party when it came to Bush.

http://www.earthstation1.com/pgs/movies/des-HF_I'm_Against_It.wav.html

Because whatever he seemed to say, they'd disagree. Even when he changed his stance and went along with them . . . they'd be against it.

I don't mind you being blunt. No problem with that at all. I see protestors in a different light than I do people in power. Sigy seemed to imply that there were plenty of people in power (leaders of nations, advisors, etc) who knew that what was being done by the US was wrong, but I just don't recall them screaming that it was wrong when it all went down. Again, I could be wrong. I just don't remember it. I DO remember hearing Democrats AND Republicans alike saying what a threat Saddam Hussein was and the need for action, but once it was politically expedient for them to be ANTI-war, then they changed their position and anyone who disagreed with THEM in their own party were pretty much ostrasized (Zell Miller and Joe Leiberman).

I remember being discouraged because there were no WMD's found, but at the same time I was disgusted with what WAS found (the mass graves, the rape rooms, etc.). And I'm sorry but those things made it right in my own mind for us to be there regardless of the original intentions.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 8:10 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


OTOH, I feel our invasion created so many more problems than they solved: sectarian warfare, the rape of Iraq's infrastructure and Paul Bremmer's economic "shock therapy", tens of thousands of direct and indirect civilian casualties, our VERY OWN rape rooms (!), Iranian dominance of Shiite militias....

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 8:13 AM

RIPWASH


Action or in-action . . . both have their own unforseen circumstances.

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?

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.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 8:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Rapo, I hate to keep buggin' ya, but you haven't answered one of my questions.... one which I've asked several times over by now, in various forms:

How do you account for the spectacular claims by the Bush administration which presented Iraq as such an imminent and growing threat that no delay was possible?

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 9:13 AM

FREMDFIRMA


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.

I do, hell, I recall being one of em, from almost the moment they started spinning fables back in 2001 - AND I remember such folks being treated like PirateNews about it by all the mainstream media outlets too, which isn't too surprising given that (and this is fact, you can check yourself) they'd been "on the payroll" and recieving money from that administration to write favorable reviews for a while at that point.

No way were they bitin the hand that fed em, and right now I am laughing at the same sources sucking up to THIS administration in hopes of not being called to account for that.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 9:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing 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?
A LOT was being done in the years before: the no-fly zones and embargo were ultimately successful in that Saddam DID get rid of his WMD. He just didn't want to say so, since he was facing a threat from Iran.

It's hard to say what "might have" happened, but I can take a couple of guesses. Iraq qould have inked its contracts with Russia and France just as soon as they had been declared in compliance with UN R1441. The payments would have been made in Euros, not dollars, weakening the dollar relative to the Euro.

Oil prices would have remained stable. The US trade deficit would not have zoomed up, oil-producing countries (like Iran and Venezuela) would not have been enriched, and the US budget deficit would not have included a 3 trillion-dollar hole.

Bush may have placed more focus on Afghanistan (and possibly Pakistan and Iran). Money would have flowed into Iraq, making it possible for Iraq to re-arm itself, but also opening up the nation to more foreigners and possibly better intel. It's hard to say. Most Favored Nation status could have been used as a carrot to move Iraq in the direction we wanted.

IF the no-fly zones had been continued, the Kurds in the north would have made more progress towards independence, and the Shiites to the south might have stabilized into a functional group, which they were not at the time of invasion.
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.
Ours were too. Abu Ghraib, Bahgram AFB in Afghanistan and Gitmo all used the same techniques and materials. That's NOT a coincidence!

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 9:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So anyway Rapo, I still have that outstanding question for you.

ETA: Can I give you a suggestion?

After saying unequivocally that the invasion was NOT urgent, that it was the culmination of years of frustration with Saddam's lack of transparency and accountability, it's gonna be very hard to try to explain why the Bush administration said exactly the opposite. So either there was more going on the the background that simple "accounting" issues and the Bush administration was expressing a sincere sense of urgency, or they were attempting to stampede people into an invasion not based on security issues. Or maybe both.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 10:58 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Sig, after 10 yrs of no progress,we didn't RUSH into this war. That's all I'm saying. Clinton era officials said EXACTLY the same thing as Bush's, but the 9/11 attacks hadn't taken place yet. The 9/11 attacks made the '98 Fatwa by OBL 'solid'. As in, he MEANT what he said, and we had ignored him. No longer could we ignore the threat. And no longer could we ignore the threat by Saddam, who had, I remind everyone, attempted to assassinate our former President.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:02 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:10 AM

CHRISISALL


Delusional idiots droning on about inferences made from incomplete intel. And your point is...?


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:12 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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

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.

The rules had changed. Don't you see ? I'm thinking you do, but simply because you hate Bush, and your ill conceived notions of what Republicans are all about, you vilify the move, completely out of hand, and want to bash this dead horse into dust.

No personal offense meant, but I'm getting g-damn annoyed here. It's been civil up to a point, but there comes a time when I've said every thing I can, 3 or 4 times now, and still no answer will suffice. At some point, we simply must move on and try another hill to dance on.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:13 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

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


The laughing Chrisisall



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








NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:17 AM

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.


Nonsense. It was time to install a speed-trap, that's all. We USED the moment. It was a DECISION, not an inevitability. You will not see that due to your authoritarian nature.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:18 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

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


Yes, just like the Republicans.
See? We can agree on stuff.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:20 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 1:44 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Sig, please, either this is a bad day or what ever, but you really testing my last nerve here.
Good! But you still haven't answered my question.
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.
Why not? What would the consequences have been if Bush had waited another month or three, or even six? Would the USA face a dire security threat? Would Iraq attack us with WMD? You keep using global phrases like "We were no longer in a position..." but very short on specifics. Stop the handwaving. Give me ONE GOOD REASON why we couldn't wait three months. Just ONE.


And in addition, that's not what the Bush administration said. They didn't say- We have to invade because Saddam ran out the clock. We have to invade because Iraq's WMD bookkeeping is crappy. We have to invade because we want to save UNMOVIC the trouble of inspecting. We have to invade because- gosh darn it! - we're just sick and tired of Iraq dragging their feet in providing us a list of what happened to the final 5% of their WMD, even though we know its degraded by now!

They said "imminent threat", not "imminent buzzer"

"Growing threat" not "status quo".
Quote:

The rules had changed.
NO, THEY HADN'T. UN Resolution 1441 was still in force. UNMOVIC was winding up its inspection. Nothing of substance was found. IF UNMOVIC had uncovered evidence of WMD production, storage or deployment I would have said: Hell YEAH! Go in with guns blazing! FRY THE GUY!

But if all you're telling me is that the people were still crapping their pants over 9-11 and that "somehow" justified invading an entirely uninvolved nation over specious data at best... while ground truth was in the process of being gathered and most of the remainder of the world was content to let the process play out... all because a timer went off in Bush's head...

C'mon man. Give it some juice. Explain to me WHY we had to invade Iraq at that very moment, and not three months later. And if we really didn't, then explain to me why the Bush administration said we did. And make it specific. No more catch-phrases.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 2:39 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


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







Hmm, is your answer then that Bush was hysterical - but that he wasn't the only one, that fear and suspicion of Saddam ruled the day right across political thought?

I think that's true to some extent- although all your quotes really prove is that a position of hawkish suspicion about Saddam and his intentions was the safe political ground to take in the years between the invasions.

But are you suggesting that democrats with their hawkish posturing are as guilty of hysteria as the man actually in office, with his much higher level security briefings, deciding to lead the country hastily into war before a UN weapons inspection team could return a verdict?


Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 2:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 3:21 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Okay rapo, one LAST chance! (Saddam had several; you can too!)

"The reason why the United States had to invade Iraq before the UNMOVIC inspections were complete was because ____________ would ____________"

Saddam would invade?
Shit would happen?
Pigs would fly?

I dunno... You tell me!


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 3:24 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


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.



Good point. Interesting link as well.


Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 4:55 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Sig, I answered your question,fully, completely and several times. I'm done. Thank you for the earlier civil discussion.


We waited 10+ yrs. That was enough time.






NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL