NYT: Bush Dead-Set on War With Iraq

D

dennis_t

CAGiversary!
Sooo.....Bush just lied to the American public again, apparently, when he told Helen Thomas in the press conference that he never wanted war:

---------------------------------

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Q Everything --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.

Q -- everything I've heard --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. [...]

-----------------------------

Not only did he want war, he knew there were no WMDs found in Iraq before we invaded and was trying to come up with ways to provoke Iraq into a war.

I'm wondering what it will take for you die-hards to finally swear off the kool-aid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/i...0fd45b2aca0&hp&ex=1143522000&partner=homepage

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.
 
Tell John Kerry, this should help him in the 2004 Iowa primaries.

IT'S GOLD I TELL YOU! GOLD!

Kerry can wrap the whole thing up and win! Grab your time machine dennis!

You can change the past so this time you don't have to run away for 9 months licking your wounds and looking like a complete jackass! OH GLORIOUS DAY!

:rofl:
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Tell John Kerry, this should help him in the 2004 Iowa primaries.

IT'S GOLD I TELL YOU! GOLD!

Kerry can wrap the whole thing up and win! Grab your time machine dennis!

You can change the past so this time you don't have to run away for 9 months licking your wounds and looking like a complete jackass! OH GLORIOUS DAY!

:rofl:[/QUOTE]

So, you don't really care that Americans are dying because of a war that your chosen President couldn't factually support but desired nonetheless?

And you don't care that your President continues to treat you like a chump by lying to your face over matters of life and death?

Not everything is politics, PAD. As a lot of Republicans who supported Bush now are learning.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Bullshit dennis.

Your whole existence here is politics.

Now who's the lying motherfucker.[/QUOTE]

This is bigger than politics, PAD. This is your country stuck in a war of choice, and your fellow countrymen dying for no good reason. That's not politics. That's tragedy.

And I think a part of you senses this, or you'd be discussing the news item I posted rather than launching these personal attacks on me. Why are you indulging in the politics of personal destruction with a matter as important as this?
 
Ah yes, bring up the Hitleryesque "politics of personal destruction".

How many times do we really need to debate the Iraq war? Seriousy.

I can list 12 reasons why we should have invaded without WMD's.

It's old, it's tired, it's done with.

Why don't we debate something fresh. Like how LBJ made up the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? How the entire Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was based on an abject lie that killed 52,000+ Americans?

Why don't we debate the theory that Roosevelt and Secretary Hull knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and did nothing thinking the damage wouldn't be that bad and would give us an excuse to break our neutrality?

Why don't we debate how Harry S Truman sent Americans to die in a police action and when confronted head on by the PRC with millions of Chinese engaging in rolling human wave attacks killing thousands of GI's told the army and air force not to cross into mainland China? Then when the second greatest General in American histroy questions Truman's idiotic policies, he's fired. Why don't we debate that?

Why don't we talk about all the wars Democratic Presidents have started under an abject lie (Vietnam), conducted like a fruit cake (Korea) and may or may not have been privvy to a Day of Infamy.

I mean, these were wars of choice. These Presidents killed tens of thousands of Americans, emboldened enemies for generations and allowed one of the 3 remaining Communist countries in the world to rise up and challenge us.

You want to talk scandal skippy, fine.

Let's bookmark the bull shit wars the Democrats got us into, sent thousands into a meat grinder combat situation to die in, wouldn't allow the generals to prosecute to victory and drafted the overwhelming majority of those GI's to go and die for their bullshit.

You want to debate important issues.

Fine.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
How many times do we really need to debate the Iraq war? Seriousy.[/quote]
It's not going to stop, people don't give up as easily as you had hoped...

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] I can list 12 reasons why we should have invaded without WMD's.

It's old, it's tired, it's done with.[/quote]
List all 12 of them, none of them will be worth a grain of salt compared to how many american lives have been lost, injured, permanently, from this war that has no basis. These are troops that are dying out in the desert, many of them losing all hope for whatever they are fighting for,fighting for what? Liberation of Iraq? I don't buy that at all, most cities still don't even have food or water, the reason changes with every press conference and PR attempt Bush makes, how can any troop feel a sense of nationalistic pride after seeing that man on stage fumbling his words, spouting obvious nonsensical rethoric that you would expect from the opposing forces leaders! how can we spend "YEARS" in Iraq when the president has to up the national deficit every few months?

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] Why don't we debate something fresh. Like how LBJ made up the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? How the entire Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was based on an abject lie that killed 52,000+ Americans?.[/quote]
So the war in Iraq is old news now? People are still dying, pad...

Why don't we debate the theory that Roosevelt and Secretary Hull knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and did nothing thinking the damage wouldn't be that bad and would give us an excuse to break our neutrality?.
Click to expand...
We knew who the enemy was in pearl harbor, the war in Iraq was either a miscalculation or a blatant lie, I believe the latter...

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] Democrats did this, democrats did that, I hate democrats and I wish they would stop ruining my life!![/quote]
Sums up your arguments again, let me take a guess that all your 12 reasons for going into iraq were because clinton got head from someone other than his wife...
 
I don't think you quite understood what dennis_t was saying, PAD, he was saying it was just politics and you respond to him with a bunch of complaints that are nothing but politics. I must have missed the footage of all the conservative hippies protesting vietnam, but what the hell, I guess it was just democrat vs republican right and every liberal supported the war in vietnam 100%? But when they protested the war they were just America haters anyway right?

Sadly, living in the past isn't going to solve anything and since there's not a damn thing anybody can do about wars that were over before about 90% of the people on this board were even born I think talking about iraq is a bit more relevant, don't you?
 
Why don't we debate how Harry S Truman sent Americans to die in a police action and when confronted head on by the PRC with millions of Chinese engaging in rolling human wave attacks killing thousands of GI's told the army and air force not to cross into mainland China? Then when the second greatest General in American histroy questions Truman's idiotic policies, he's fired. Why don't we debate that?
Click to expand...

The chinese attacked because they thought they were in danger of attack. They had issued warning to that effect before. Truman had warned mccarthur to be cautious but maccarthur disregarded such warnings. He even believed that crossing into china may be necessary. Maccarthur not only crossed the 38th parallel, but he approached the chinese border.

Maccarthur repeatedly engaged in actions to enlarge the conflict, some intentionally and some due to lack of understanding the situation. He even insisted on a nuclear attack on China. Truman kept trying to limit the conflict.

He played with fire and he lost.

Though I don't think discussing past democrat presidents serves your point, clinton possibly being an exception. Liberals tend not to look towards past democrats as examples of how to behave.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't think you quite understood PAD, he was saying it was just politics and you respond to him with a bunch of complaints that are nothing but politics.[/quote]

I'd say its a bit more than just politics, whether or not I played by what he was saying.


[quote name='SpazX']Sadly, living in the past isn't going to solve anything and since there's not a damn thing anybody can do about wars that were over before about 90% of the people on this board were even born I think talking about iraq is a bit more relevant, don't you?[/quote]

Of course living in the past won't solve anything, we are supposed to learn from the past though, are we not? We've just fumble-footed into another war we can't get out of, and what were the benefits of it all? It's intolerable to see all these 18 - 20 year old kids out there dying, with no clear plan of action, no reason for being there that is worth their lives in the first place.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']How many times do we really need to debate the Iraq war? Seriousy.[/QUOTE]

We need to debate it as long as:

-- Americans are dying over there.

-- The incompetent and lying leadership that put us there continues to make bad decision after bad decision.

-- Their blundering continues to destabilize the Middle East and ties our hands in dealing with other threats, like Iran.

-- The Iraq war continues to drain the nation's coffers, running up our debt and deficit and threatening the stability of our economy.

I remember many people saying prior to the war that it would be a tar pit, a quagmire. That it would harm America. That it was the worst thing we could do in our fight against terrorism. That if we wanted to attack terrorism, this was attacking in precisely the wrong direction. We should use our troops to stabilize Afghanistan, keep the Taliban from re-establishing any foothold there, and use our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to track down these murdering terrorist bastards one by one.

I was one of those folks. And you know what? We were right.

When will we stop debating the war in Iraq, PAD? When new leadership -- and I don't care which party it's a part of, so long as they are competent -- steps in and figures a way out of this mess.

I don't see that happening under Bush because he refuses, like you, to acknowledge that America is in a mess and that he is sending young soldiers into the meat grinder you mentioned. You can't solve a problem you refuse to acknowledge.

Could it happen under the Democrats? I'd like to think so, although they've been so ham-handed of late that I have my doubts. If nothing else, they would at least come onto the scene as a fresh breath of air, and might be able to revive the international ties that Bush has done his best to sever. Then maybe some other countries could at least share the burden his incompetence has saddled us with in Iraq.

But at this point, it is beyond politics. It is our nation's future at stake. And to play politics with the lives of Americans is a fucking disgrace, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
 
One other thought, upon reflecting on your laundry list of past sins:

Whatever happened to the party of personal responsibility?
 
I'd like to know the real reason our president led us to invade and occupy Iraq. If he knew there were no WMDs prior to the invasion, what was the true motivation? Why did Congress approve the war? What reasons were they given?
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Of course living in the past won't solve anything, we are supposed to learn from the past though, are we not? We've just fumble-footed into another war we can't get out of, and what were the benefits of it all? It's intolerable to see all these 18 - 20 year old kids out there dying, with no clear plan of action, no reason for being there that is worth their lives in the first place.[/quote]
Haha, I'm so sorry, I botched the grammar or wording in that first post, I was actually agreeing with dennis and you and saying PAD was the one that wasn't understanding, not that you didn't understand PAD :p. I edited it to make more sense. What you're saying is exactly my point, PAD is just bringing up things Democrats did wrong as if that somehow negates what's going on now.
 
Just to point out, I don't see where bush said that he didn't believe there were wmd's in Iraq, just that they hadn't been found (duh), and what to do if it turns out they're not found. I see nothing in that respect, it's just the same ol playing up of what little they had.

It's still relatively easy to argue about the date too. People often set a date for events to begin, assuming nothing else comes up.

This is simply supporting evidence, evidence we essentially already knew. It's not damning, and it's not going to change anyones mind.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Whatever happened to the party of personal responsibility?[/QUOTE]

We liberalized, we learned to act bi-partisan like Democrats who blame everybody.

You do realize that the former head of the Iraqi Air Force is on a book tour claiming he supervised and has first hand knowledge that Iraq's WMD's did and do exist and prior to the war 57 sorties of 747 cargo planes whisked them off to Syria.

However since they're not in Iraq, it's all a big, big lie.

Right?

Saddam's WMDs: The Russian-Syrian Connection
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 20, 2006
When a military man – especially a patriot like Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney – states Saddam Hussein shipped his WMD stockpiles to Syria before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the media castigate him for overweening fealty to his commander-in-chief. One wonders how they will react when the man making that statement is a former high-ranking official in the Iraqi military, personally called out of retirement by Saddam Hussein.
That man is Gen. Georges Sada, and his reception has consisted of silence.

Sada, the author of Saddam’s Secrets, was the number two man in Saddam Hussein’s air force. Sada’s story confirms the testimony of Lt. Gen. McInerney – from the inside.

Sada recently spoke at the Wednesday Morning Club. This author was privileged to get to interview Sada on the national radio program “Hey, Wake Up America” on February 15 – at the invitation of regular co-hosts Dave Marshall and Scott Crofut.

Sada confounded the conventional wisdom in its every detail: he said Saddam did possess stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, which were transported across the Syrian border by truck and plane in late 2002.

Before the war, Sada says Saddam invested great planning in hiding his weapons stash. “He had a committee specifically to hide [WMDs],” Sada told me. The committee met “until a natural disaster happened in Syria in 2002,” when Saddam saw his chance.

Sada says Saddam used the dam collapse in northwestern Syria as cover, sending out jets filled with WMDs – which the world would believe was humanitarian aid to Iraq’s fellow Ba’athist neighbor and longtime ally. He tells of WMDs being smuggled out of Iraq in “two ways – over the ground and air,” in “747s and 18-wheelers.” Although he was uncertain where in Syria the truck convoy was headed, he said he knew two 747s full of WMDs – “chemical and biological” – were taken to “Damascus directly by air.”

He believes the Iraqis made the transfer between September and November 2002. Though he discounts speculation about the exact date, he stated, “It [was] for sure, after the natural disaster happened in Syria.”

He told this author the foiled al-Qaeda plot to strike Amman Jordan in April 2004 shocked him out of silence. Not only did it prove the weapons still existed, but that they had the potential to kill tens of thousands of people. “These weapons have already fallen into the hands of the terrorists,” Sada said. “20,000 people were supposed to be killed in this attack. But thank the Jordanians that their intelligence managed to stop this.” When he heard of this, “I said, ‘Oh my God, these weapons have fallen into the hands of the terrorists...and then they can use them anywhere in the West, in America, so I decided to make this known, that this is the story: that the weapons have gone to Syria by air and by ground, and something must be done to stop [the rest of] these weapons [from falling] into the hands of the terrorists.”

When Scott Crofut asked, Sada said he doubted Basher Assad’s Ba’athist government would use these weapons in a future Middle Eastern conflict. “To use these weapons would be a disaster,” he said, noting the strong deterrent effect of Israel’s nuclear program. “I don’t think the Syrians are thinking of using it, but God knows how they think.” Syria remains one of a handful of nations never to have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention.

If Sada’s story is true, it would lend credence to the testimony of others in the intelligence community that Saddam’s WMDs were shipped to Syria, dating essentially from the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As far back as 2003, Lt. Gen. James Clapper stated WMDs have been trucked to Syria.
In April 2004, Jordan’s King Abdallah claimed the 20 tons of chemical weapons seized in Amman and belonging to al-Qaeda agents were manufactured in Iraq.
WMD inspector David Kay and others said Syria acted as a depository for Saddam’s WMDs.
Former Justice Department official John Loftus made a strong argument that significant deposits of WMDs are buried in Syria.
Israeli Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon made similar statements in April 2004 and December 2005.
Last month, FrontPageMag.com columnist Ken Timmerman detailed a briefing given by former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw confirming Russian involvement. Russian General Yevgeni Primakov oversaw an operation known as “Sarandar” (“Emergency Exit”), in which Spetsnaz and other Russian assets convoyed Saddam’s weapons across the Syrian border.
Sada also testified to a Russian role in the WMD evacuation. “There is no doubt to me that the Russians were helpful,” he told me. And the aid went beyond menial labor; Sada quoted recently released transcripts of conversations in which Saddam and Tariq Aziz discussed tying up United Nations efforts through the diplomatic pressure of their business partners. “There was a lot of interference by the Russians and French” in the UN, General Sada said.

In addition being an internal Iraqi eyewitness, Gen. Sada adds his personal integrity to the charges made by distinguished intelligence authorities.

How much integrity? Ask Col. David Eberly (USAF, Ret.), the highest-ranking POW of the first Gulf War. Brought out of retirement, Sada – who is an Assyrian Christian and member of the Presbyterian Church – was charged by Saddam Hussein with overseeing captured U.S. servicemen. Saddam Hussein’s son, Qusai, ordered Sada to declare all American POWs war criminals and have them executed; he refused but says he changed Iraqi policy when he convinced Qusai his own family would be targeted in retaliation for violating the Geneva Convention.

According to Saddam’s Secrets, it was not the first time Sada had prevailed upon the Hussein family. In November 1990, he had a “one-hour, 41-minute discussion” with Saddam Hussein, in which the dictator plotted to unleash a chemical and biological attack on Israel at the outset of the Gulf War. Sada says Hussein planned to send his Migs and Mirage aircraft through Syrian and Jordanian airspace “without telling Jordan and the Syrians.” Sada said he convinced the despot against the move by telling him Iraq’s jets would be caught on radar and shot down, inflicting damage on his ally nations. Further, “Israel will have now to retaliate and use their nuclear weapons against Iraq.” This, he said, convinced Saddam to reconsider.

Saddam, he said, was a master at hiding his intentions and his weapons. When asked whether U.S. air strikes had decimated Saddam’s weapons program – as President Clinton suggested several months ago – he replied, “A lot of this was also destroyed by American air attacks.” However, he added, “many [WMDs] were hid.”

“To the best of my knowledge, there are still two big bunkers of concrete” in Iraq containing WMDs, although “Saddam flooded them.” Although he says he has revealed the location to American military officials, he fears they may yet fall into the hands of Saddam loyalists or foreign jihadists if the United States withdraws prematurely.

Now, he says he is again trying to prevent another unannounced WMD attack – fighting, not Saddam or Qusai Hussein, but the media blackout, the partisan stonewall, and politically motivated members of the American intelligence community. He acknowledges it is a David and Goliath fight, but he has faith – like our president – that right will ultimately prevail. “I am very weak, but I am strong in Jesus.”
Link

Oh and since he's such a kook, being head of one of the branches of Saddam's military and all, he was on the Daily Show about a week ago. He shot down John Stewart's accusations and idiotic statements.

However, he can't believed, he doesn't support your world and political view.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']We liberalized, we learned to act bi-partisan like Democrats who blame everybody.

You do realize that the former head of the Iraqi Air Force is on a book tour claiming he supervised and has first hand knowledge that Iraq's WMD's did and do exist and prior to the war 57 sorties of 747 cargo planes whisked them off to Syria.

However since they're not in Iraq, it's all a big, big lie.

Right?[/QUOTE]

So....your idea of personal responsibility is to blame others?

And I repeat -- if the Bush Administration had ANY solid evidence that the WMDs existed, they would be trumpeting that information to save their credibility. They haven't. So spare us the conspiracy theories from right-wing rag publications.
 
Ah yes, the conspiracy theory response.

When it comes from the NYT which has had over 500 retractions in the last year alone including bogus Abu Ghraib and Katrina stories which were front page news, it's the God's Honest Truth.

Anywhere else... conspiracy theory.

You would have made a wonderful, er, um, you're a wonderful party member comrade. You believe anything the party paper puts forth.

EDIT: Why not come back with a rebuttal from dailykos.com, that seems to be one of your new favorite linking sites. Sorry, until someone proves otherwise I put a lot of faith in someone that would have been a 4 star general equivilent in the United States Air Force.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Ah yes, the conspiracy theory response.

When it comes from the NYT which has had over 500 retractions in the last year alone including bogus Abu Ghraib and Katrina stories which were front page news, it's the God's Honest Truth.

Anywhere else... conspiracy theory.

You would have made a wonderful, er, um, you're a wonderful party member comrade. You believe anything the party paper puts forth.[/quote]

Why don't we debate the theory that Roosevelt and Secretary Hull knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and did nothing thinking the damage wouldn't be that bad and would give us an excuse to break our neutrality?
Click to expand...

Hypocrite?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Ah yes, the conspiracy theory response.

When it comes from the NYT which has had over 500 retractions in the last year alone including bogus Abu Ghraib and Katrina stories which were front page news, it's the God's Honest Truth.

Anywhere else... conspiracy theory.

You would have made a wonderful, er, um, you're a wonderful party member comrade. You believe anything the party paper puts forth.

EDIT: Why not come back with a rebuttal from dailykos.com, that seems to be one of your new favorite linking sites. Sorry, until someone proves otherwise I put a lot of faith in someone that would have been a 4 star general equivilent in the United States Air Force.[/QUOTE]

If there were WMDs in Iraq, why hasn't the Bush Administration put forth evidence of them when it is clearly in their best interest to do so?
 
[quote name='dennis_t']If there were WMDs in Iraq, why hasn't the Bush Administration put forth evidence of them when it is clearly in their best interest to do so?[/quote]

Actually it wouldn't be. They have been heavily damaged by incorrect assumptions, particularly in regards to WMD, that the worst thing to do would be to throw out evidence that isn't proven in that regard. Alluding to things and bluntly stating "we have iraqi officials who conclusively state that Iraq had WMD's and moved them before the war" are very different.

Though, just out of curiosity, why do all my posts get ignored by both liberals and conservatives (even when they directly ask for my view) whenever I voice a view counter to the stereotypical liberal view?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Actually it wouldn't be. They have been heavily damaged by incorrect assumptions, particularly in regards to WMD, that the worst thing to do would be to throw out evidence that isn't proven in that regard. Alluding to things and bluntly stating "we have iraqi officials who conclusively state that Iraq had WMD's and moved them before the war" are very different.

Though, just out of curiosity, why do all my posts get ignored by both liberals and conservatives (even when they directly ask for my view) whenever I voice a view counter to the stereotypical liberal view?[/QUOTE]

Sorry if you feel ignored, alonzo.... :)

Regarding your comment, of course I am referring to proven evidence or sworn testimony. I understand that the administration's modus operandi has been to throw out whatever half-assed info they might have to support their position, but I am referring to specific and certain information.

If they had any such information -- which, let's face it, they should have by now given that they've been in control of the country for three years now -- then they most certainly would have broadcast it to help support their crumbling credibility.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Sorry if you feel ignored, alonzo.... :)[/quote]

Eh, my main point was that for all the accusations that I just say whatever is liberal dogma, the times when I voice counter opinions are conveniently ignored. Just an observation more than anything else

Regarding your comment, of course I am referring to proven evidence or sworn testimony. I understand that the administration's modus operandi has been to throw out whatever half-assed info they might have to support their position, but I am referring to specific and certain information.

If they had any such information -- which, let's face it, they should have by now given that they've been in control of the country for three years now -- then they most certainly would have broadcast it to help support their crumbling credibility.
Click to expand...

See, that's where I disagree. Anyone with credibility issues such as this administration is going to think twice about doing the very thing that got them into this problem. In this case that's throwing out weak evidence. You don't try to halt the decline of your credibility by throwing out info you can't back up, info that runs a reasonable risk of being incorrect.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Let's bookmark the bull shit wars the Democrats got us into, sent thousands into a meat grinder combat situation to die in, wouldn't allow the generals to prosecute to victory and drafted the overwhelming majority of those GI's to go and die for their bullshit.[/quote]

I want slaves again, cause people 200 years ago had them. I'm lazy.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']If there were WMDs in Iraq, why hasn't the Bush Administration put forth evidence of them when it is clearly in their best interest to do so?[/QUOTE]

dennis, honestly here's what I've always thought all along with the WMD's.

1. I thought they'd find them roughly 2-6 months after the invasion.

2. When they weren't I strongly suspected one of two things happened.

a. They were trucked off to a neighboring country, likely Syria.

b. Saddam was played for a fool by his military and scientists knowing that he might actually use them and have a nuclear holocaust visited on Iraq by the U.S. Remember, our only response to any attack in the NBC trioka is a nuclear response. We do not retaliate in kind according to military doctrine.

I think b was highly unlikely. Conspiracies do not work of that magnitude. Especially in a police state where favors are lavish, punishments severe and paranoia reigns supreme.

You will never convince me that the UN inspectors did the job and there was nothing there after Bush took office. It just doesn't make sense for a man like Saddam Hussein to bluster his way through challenging inspections and trying to cover up nothing giving the impression he actually has something. I mean, that's the equivilent of someone wanting the cops to think they may actually be a shoplifter.
 
I think the bush administration would have agreed with #1.

Personally I agree with 2b, except switched. Saddam is the one who spread that belief. He figured he didn't have the weapons, but just making others think he did would ensure that people wouldn't risk invading. Remember, the threat of him using them helped stop his overthrow in the gulf war.

But then that brings me to the Bush administration. Most nations wouldn't voluntarily attack a country with WMD's. If he honestly believed that saddam had them, then why initiate a war?

I have no answer for that though. If an answer ever arises that I find acceptable then I'll accept it, but searching for an answer when none exists usually results in the wrong one.

edit: I just found out that saudi arabia provided the second most troops in the gulf war. Didn't expect that.
 
We never initiated war with Iraq.

Iraqi Freedom was a resumption of Desert Storm from a legal perspective. We didn't end DS with a peace treaty or surrender. It was a negotiated cease fire, the state of war never ended.
 
PAD, that's like someone accusing me of punching them in the stomach and me saying "no I didn't do that, I punched you in the intestines". It makes no difference and is completely irrelevent as we did initiate the resumption of conflict.

Also, with similar logic, we weren't required to throw Iraq out of kuwait.

Though was the u.s. even technically at war with Iraq? I know there was no formal declaration for the second war, was there one the first time?
 
No, we haven't had a declared war since WW II.

I sincerely doubt you'll see one ever again. Such a declaration means the gloves come all the way off and that means missiles flying from their silos in the Dakota's, Ohio class subs and ALCM's flying from B-1's, B-2's and B-52's.

Congress would be fried before the vote met cloture.

Won't happen again.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You will never convince me that the UN inspectors did the job and there was nothing there after Bush took office[/QUOTE]

Well that is what happened, if you would rather have
cognitive dissonance...
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']dennis, honestly here's what I've always thought all along with the WMD's.

1. I thought they'd find them roughly 2-6 months after the invasion.

2. When they weren't I strongly suspected one of two things happened.

a. They were trucked off to a neighboring country, likely Syria.

b. Saddam was played for a fool by his military and scientists knowing that he might actually use them and have a nuclear holocaust visited on Iraq by the U.S. Remember, our only response to any attack in the NBC trioka is a nuclear response. We do not retaliate in kind according to military doctrine.

I think b was highly unlikely. Conspiracies do not work of that magnitude. Especially in a police state where favors are lavish, punishments severe and paranoia reigns supreme.

You will never convince me that the UN inspectors did the job and there was nothing there after Bush took office. It just doesn't make sense for a man like Saddam Hussein to bluster his way through challenging inspections and trying to cover up nothing giving the impression he actually has something. I mean, that's the equivilent of someone wanting the cops to think they may actually be a shoplifter.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the thoughtful response, PAD. I understand where you are coming from with the points listed here, and I think many folks in the country, from the highest to the lowest, echoed your sentiment in the days leading up to war.

I would disagree with your last paragraph, obviously. In my mind, Saddam was putting up a front precisely because he hadn't been able to re-arm following the sanctions. Think of it this way -- his was a nation surrounded by blood enemies, particularly Iran. Would you, as a dictator, want to let either your enemies or the countrymen who might overthrow you know that you are essentially toothless?

The reason why I am skeptical of the theory that the arms were trucked off to Syria or some other country is that in three years of owning Iraq we've found no evidence that those arms existed or that they were transported out of the country. A massive shipment like that takes time and leaves a trail that even the dullest investigator could find after three years.

So what are we left with? No WMDs, a bluffing Saddam, and a foolish Bush who jumped into war when the inspectors on the ground, given time, could have determined what we now know about Iraq.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Saddam was putting up a front precisely because he hadn't been able to re-arm following the sanctions. Think of it this way -- his was a nation surrounded by blood enemies, particularly Iran. Would you, as a dictator, want to let either your enemies or the countrymen who might overthrow you know that you are essentially toothless?[/quote]

Yet he still had the means to operate a 12 year long, worldwide bribery system that has only been uncovered within the last year. He was able to build 48 more presidential 'palaces' while neglecting the food and medicine he was supposed to have been buying with oil money. He bought gold plated faucets and catered to his ruling elite and his hometown of tikrit with amusement parks and resorts while rationing and water and electricity to his own citizens to maintain popular fear (aside from the abductions, incarcerations, beatings, rapes, and executions done by his orders - mostly to members of the Shea population)

The reason why I am skeptical of the theory that the arms were trucked off to Syria or some other country is that in three years of owning Iraq we've found no evidence that those arms existed or that they were transported out of the country. A massive shipment like that takes time and leaves a trail that even the dullest investigator could find after three years.
Click to expand...

But there was an accounting of weapons and chemical agents after the gulf war in 1991, so we know they did exist at one time. Materials which could not be accounted for in 2002. It is logical to assume that if you cannot produce evidence that 2000 barrels of anthrax have been destroyed, some or all of it still exists - somewhere. Becuase we have not found the body does not mean a murder did not take place. And in this case, preventing the potential mass murder of millions of earthly citizens weighs heavily on demanding that proof of non-existence.

Saddam's answer was not to give evidence of compliance, it was to throw out the inspectors in 1998 and promise non-fettered access in 2002 which was never granted. Saddam was given ample opportunity to avert an american invasion. He was given from november 2002 to march 2003 to comply with inspections but did not. How long should we have let the cat and mouse game of diplomacy last ?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yet he still had the means to operate a 12 year long, worldwide bribery system that has only been uncovered within the last year. He was able to build 48 more presidential 'palaces' while neglecting the food and medicine he was supposed to have been buying with oil money. He bought gold plated faucets and catered to his ruling elite and his hometown of tikrit with amusement parks and resorts while rationing and water and electricity to his own citizens to maintain popular fear (aside from the abductions, incarcerations, beatings, rapes, and executions done by his orders - mostly to members of the Shea population)

But there was an accounting of weapons and chemical agents after the gulf war in 1991, so we know they did exist at one time. Materials which could not be accounted for in 2002. It is logical to assume that if you cannot produce evidence that 2000 barrels of anthrax have been destroyed, some or all of it still exists - somewhere. Becuase we have not found the body does not mean a murder did not take place. And in this case, preventing the potential mass murder of millions of earthly citizens weighs heavily on demanding that proof of non-existence.

Saddam's answer was not to give evidence of compliance, it was to throw out the inspectors in 1998 and promise non-fettered access in 2002 which was never granted. Saddam was given ample opportunity to avert an american invasion. He was given from november 2002 to march 2003 to comply with inspections but did not. How long should we have let the cat and mouse game of diplomacy last ?[/QUOTE]

To your first point: there's a big difference between having money and being able to buy anything with it. If the sanctions were working, as they apparently were, he could have bought as many gold toilets as he wanted and still not be able to re-arm his country.

To your second point: Please link to this accounting of weapons and chemical agents. I don't recall this happening, and would like to review it before responding, although I would repeat that it's impossible to move that a massive amount of material without leaving some evidence.

To your third point: Saddam had allowed the inspectors in and the inspectors were doing their job. The inspectors were working right up to the invasion.

How long should we have let the cat-and-mouse game last? Indefinitely, I would say. Saddam was in no position to attack us, we had his back against the wall and inspectors swarming his country, and both he and we knew we could march into his country at a moment's notice. So what's the rush? If a guy's pinned down, how much of a threat is he? Inspect, then inspect again, then inspect again. Patience is a virtue, remember. Better that than invading a country that every thoughtful person in America could see would become the quagmire it now is, with sectarian violence threatening to blow it apart.

EDIT: I had one final thought regarding your insistance that we needed to demand proof of non-existence. You cannot prove a negative, bmulligan. That's like me demanding proof that you don't have germ warfare agents hidden in a Swiss safe deposit vault. You can show me all the proof you want, and you'll still not have proven that you don't have those bugs.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'] He was able to build 48 more presidential 'palaces' while neglecting the food and medicine he was supposed to have been buying with oil money.[/QUOTE]

So are you saying the rich should be forced to share money with the poor?
 
[quote name='dennis_t']To your first point: there's a big difference between having money and being able to buy anything with it. If the sanctions were working, as they apparently were, he could have bought as many gold toilets as he wanted and still not be able to re-arm his country.
[/quote]
He was stilll able to buy ak-47's and french made missles. And, since the oil for food program was the main sanction on his finances, why wasn't he held to the responsibility of buying medicine instead of gold toilets?

To your second point: Please link to this accounting of weapons and chemical agents. I don't recall this happening, and would like to review it before responding, although I would repeat that it's impossible to move that a massive amount of material without leaving some evidence.
Click to expand...
No, no, no. You obviously have never read any weapons inspections reports, the peace accords, or the laundry list of UN resolutions regarding Iraq for the last 15 years. You have your own homework to do, I won't help you here.

To your third point: Saddam had allowed the inspectors in and the inspectors were doing their job. The inspectors were working right up to the invasion.
Click to expand...

Having inspectors in the country is a long way from allowing them to do their job and was a far cry from unfettered access. You need to read the reports and accountings of his chemical stockpiles after the end of the 1991 conflict.

How long should we have let the cat-and-mouse game last? Indefinitely, I would say. Saddam was in no position to attack us, we had his back against the wall and inspectors swarming his country, and both he and we knew we could march into his country at a moment's notice.
Click to expand...
Since Saddam could not account for the destruction of his chemical weapons materials, how were we to know that he was not a threat? Inspectors were not "swarming", quitre the opposite. His back was obviously not against a wall since he'd had much success thwarting access and even kicking out inspectors from 1998 to 2002. And he had a constant flow of cash despite the "sanctions" which were laughable, at best. He knew all threats against him were idle ones based on the lack of resolve in enforcing any of them for 12 years.

Indefinitely means until world attention is misdirected or becomes bored and Saddam realizes again there are no consequences for his actions. By thte timew the UN realizes Iraw needs scrutiny again, years could have passed and those elusive non-existant threats could have been made and carried out. Look at how long the world has ignored Iran and North Korea. Now it's pretty much too late.

had one final thought regarding your insistance that we needed to demand proof of non-existence. You cannot prove a negative, bmulligan. That's like me demanding proof that you don't have germ warfare agents hidden in a Swiss safe deposit vault. You can show me all the proof you want, and you'll still not have proven that you don't have those bugs.
Click to expand...

When you have been defeated in war and your chemical stockpiles have been inventoried and you have been ordered to document their destruction, it stands to reason that you would document the process to avoid future conflict. Saddam did not do this. Actually, he went further than that and REFUSED to provide any proof and eventually kick out the entire inspection team in 1998 with no consequences.
 
Notice how Bmullet brings up what happened in 98 and at the end of the first Iraq Conflict?

At the beggining of this conflict Saddam was apparently clean the UN inspectors wanted to make sure, but no these guys wanted this war to bad.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']No, no, no. You obviously have never read any weapons inspections reports, the peace accords, or the laundry list of UN resolutions regarding Iraq for the last 15 years. You have your own homework to do, I won't help you here.[/QUOTE]

And I would argue that flipping out an opinion that you can't support through links is....well....pretty worthless. Put up or shut up, bmulligan.

[quote name='bmulligan']Having inspectors in the country is a long way from allowing them to do their job and was a far cry from unfettered access. You need to read the reports and accountings of his chemical stockpiles after the end of the 1991 conflict.

Since Saddam could not account for the destruction of his chemical weapons materials, how were we to know that he was not a threat? Inspectors were not "swarming", quitre the opposite. His back was obviously not against a wall since he'd had much success thwarting access and even kicking out inspectors from 1998 to 2002. And he had a constant flow of cash despite the "sanctions" which were laughable, at best. He knew all threats against him were idle ones based on the lack of resolve in enforcing any of them for 12 years.

Indefinitely means until world attention is misdirected or becomes bored and Saddam realizes again there are no consequences for his actions. By thte timew the UN realizes Iraw needs scrutiny again, years could have passed and those elusive non-existant threats could have been made and carried out. Look at how long the world has ignored Iran and North Korea. Now it's pretty much too late.

When you have been defeated in war and your chemical stockpiles have been inventoried and you have been ordered to document their destruction, it stands to reason that you would document the process to avoid future conflict. Saddam did not do this. Actually, he went further than that and REFUSED to provide any proof and eventually kick out the entire inspection team in 1998 with no consequences.[/QUOTE]

bmulligan, no matter how hard you spin, you can't change the facts:

(1) There were weapons inspectors in Iraq doing their job that had to flee the country so Bush could get his war on.

(2) No actualy WMDs or credible evidence of either WMDs or their removal from the country has surfaced.

(3) We defeated Iraq in three weeks, showing that indeed we did have Saddam's back to the wall.

And your Iran and Korea analogy is simply laughable, because we'd neither defeated either country in war or imposed sanctions against them of the sort we'd imposed in Iraq.

The sanctions were working. We now know they were working. And we would've known they were working pre-war had Bush not been desperate to plunge us into a quagmire.

Deal with the facts, bmulligan. Please.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']you can't change the facts:

(1) There were weapons inspectors in Iraq doing their job that had to flee the country so Bush could get his war on.

(2) No actualy WMDs or credible evidence of either WMDs or their removal from the country has surfaced.

(3) We defeated Iraq in three weeks, showing that indeed we did have Saddam's back to the wall.

And your Iran and Korea analogy is simply laughable, because we'd neither defeated either country in war or imposed sanctions against them of the sort we'd imposed in Iraq.

The sanctions were working. We now know they were working. And we would've known they were working pre-war had Bush not been desperate to plunge us into a quagmire.
[/QUOTE]

You live in an alternate universe from the real world. You need to start reading the UN resolutions dealing with Iraq, the weapons inspectors' reports, and the peace accords signed in 1991. Then add the Clinton NSA reports on actions by Saddam in Iraq during the 1990's, and intelligence reports of terrorism and terrorist activities throughout the Clinton and Bush presidencies. Then top it off with a full helping of the 9/11 report. here are apparently concepts of logic you cannot comprehend, so you may have to actually crack a book or two.

1. the UN inspectors were not being allowed to do their jobs by Saddam, even after repeated promises of unfettered access. They were notified by the US that the invasion was going to begin. They were not "fleeing".

2. The WMD's were not properly accounted for, nor was there a correct documentation of their destruction. Even Iraq admitted that the quantities of nerve and chemical agents existed and promised to dipose of them at the close of the 1991 Gulf War. This is a concept that you and your hate filled lefties cannot admit to or cannot understand for lack of mature brains capable of abstract thought and deductive reasoning.

3. We defeated Saddam proving we had the military force to invade and occupy. It proves nothing about his back already being agaisnt a wall, as if that makes any sense anyway. The sanctions were only allowing Saddam to continue to starve and torture his own people. He built 48 more palaces and bought soviet made machine guns and tanks since 1991.

Obviously you are too lazy to read for yourself and prefer to believe reporters' presentations of the truth. Whatever keeps you in denial and in check is probably better for the rest of us in the real world anyway.
 
Bmullet, I read all the happy horseshit put out by your side.

Nothing anyone with a brain would call evidence, lots of falsehoods.

You and your ilk lied and mislead and now want a do over on what the cause of the war was.

Personal responsibility is more than a catchphrase.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']2. The WMD's were not properly accounted for, nor was there a correct documentation of their destruction. Even Iraq admitted that the quantities of nerve and chemical agents existed and promised to dipose of them at the close of the 1991 Gulf War. This is a concept that you and your hate filled lefties cannot admit to or cannot understand for lack of mature brains capable of abstract thought and deductive reasoning. [/QUOTE]

So the Iraq war could have been stopped if Iraq provided the proper documentation? So this might've been a clerical error? So we invaded a country, killed or caused the deaths of tens of thousands, are stuck in the middle of a growing civil conflict, all because Corporal Umar lost the pink copy of the "burn the chemical weapons" form 14-66/AA? That sounds reasonable.
 
It was not a "clerical error". It was a purposeful and willfull non-compliance, not a paperwork mistake.

When you consider the number of people that one gallon of anthrax can kill, consider the seriousness of 5000 gallons that may still exist somewhere. Consider the 3.9 tons of VX nerve agent, 19,000 liters of botulinum, 340 liters of clostridium perfringens, and 2,200 liters of aflatoxin that are still unaccounted for.

It is not something to be taken lightly and as flippantly as you seem to be doing.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It was not a "clerical error". It was a purposeful and willfull non-compliance, not a paperwork mistake.

When you consider the number of people that one gallon of anthrax can kill, consider the seriousness of 5000 gallons that may still exist somewhere. Consider the 3.9 tons of VX nerve agent, 19,000 liters of botulinum, 340 liters of clostridium perfringens, and 2,200 liters of aflatoxin that are still unaccounted for.[/QUOTE]


There was no credible or solid evidence that Saddam had WMD.

Im not defending him but he did get rid of what he was supposed to.

But anyhoo, what is your angle?

They in Syria now?

Invade them?

Then what, invade Guam?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
It is not something to be taken lightly and as flippantly as you seem to be doing.[/quote]


No it's not, but neither is the war we got ourselves into, that hasn't turned that anthrax up now has it? If anything, that makes it worse, billions of dollars and countless resources, and lets not forget the highest body count in an overseas conflict since vietnam, they're all squandered in any case! Are you suggesting a systematic list of places to pick a war with now, since it was such an immediate danger in the first place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top