 |
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/8/2003 3:34 PM (GMT -6) |   | Bush Claim on Iraq Had Flawed Origin, White House Says
By DAVID E. SANGER
ASHINGTON, July 7 — The White House acknowledged for the first time today that President Bush was relying on incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies when he declared, in his State of the Union speech, that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Africa.
The White House statement appeared to undercut one of the key pieces of evidence that President Bush and his aides had cited to back their claims made prior to launching an attack against Iraq in March that Mr. Hussein was "reconstituting" his nuclear weapons program. Those claims added urgency to the White House case that military action to depose Mr. Hussein needed to be taken quickly, and could not await further inspections of the country or additional resolutions at the United Nations.
The acknowledgment came after a day of questions — and sometimes contradictory answers from White House officials — about an article published on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times on Sunday by Joseph C. Wilson 4th, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger, in West Africa, last year to investigate reports of the attempted purchase. He reported back that the intelligence was likely fraudulent, a warning that White House officials say never reached them.
"There is other reporting to suggest that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Africa," the statement said. "However, the information is not detailed or specific enough for us to be certain that attempts were in fact made."
In other words, said one senior official, "we couldn't prove it, and it might in fact be wrong."
Separately tonight, The Washington Post quoted an unidentifed senior administration official as declaring that "knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." Some administration officials have expressed similar sentiments in interviews in the past two weeks.
Asked about the statement early today, before President Bush departed for a six-day tour of Africa, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said, "There is zero, nada, nothing new here." He said that "we've long acknowledged" that information on the attempted purchases from Niger "did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect."
But in public, administration officials have defended the president's statement in the State of Union address that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
While Mr. Bush cited the British report, seemingly giving the account the credibility of coming from a non-American intelligence service, Britain itself relied in part on information provided by the C.I.A., American and British officials have said.
But today a report from a parliamentary committee that conducted an investigation into the British assertions also questioned the credibility of what the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair had published.
The committee went on to say that Mr. Blair's government had asserted it had other evidence of Iraqi attempts to procure uranium. But eight months later the government still had not told Parliament what that other information was.
While Mr. Bush quoted the British report, his statement was apparently primarily based on American intelligence — a classified "National Intelligence Estimate" published in October of last year that also identified two other countries, Congo and Somalia, where Iraq had sought the material, in addition to Niger.
But many analysts did not believe those reports at the time, and were shocked to hear the president make such a flat, declarative statement.
Asked about the accuracy of the president's statement this morning, Mr. Fleischer said, "We see nothing that would dissuade us from the president's broader statement." But when pressed, he said he would clarify the issue later today.
Tonight, after Air Force One had departed, White House officials issued a statement in Mr. Fleischer's name that made clear that they no longer stood behind Mr. Bush's statement.
How Mr. Bush's statement made it into last January's State of the Union address is still unclear. No one involved in drafting the speech will say who put the phrase in, or whether it was drawn from the classified intelligence estimate.
That document contained a footnote — in a separate section of the report, on another subject — noting that State Department experts were doubtful of the claims that Mr. Hussein had sought uranium.
If the intelligence was true, it would have buttressed statements by Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that Saddam Hussein was actively seeking a nuclear weapon, and could build one in a year or less if he obtained enough nuclear material.
In early March, before the invasion of Iraq began, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismissed the uranium reports about Niger, noting that they were based on forged documents.
In an interview late last month, a senior administration official said that the news of the fraud was not brought to the attention of the White House until after Mr. Bush had spoken.
But even then, White House officials made no effort to correct the president's remarks. Indeed, as recently as a few weeks ago they were arguing that Mr. Bush had quite deliberately avoided mentioning Niger, and noted that he had spoken more generally about efforts to obtain "yellowcake," the substance from which uranium is extracted, from African nations.
Tonight's statement, though, calls even those reports into question. In interviews in recent days, a number of administration officials have conceded that Mr. Bush never should have made the claims, given the weakness of the case. One senior official said that the uranium purchases were "only one small part" of a broader effort to reconstitute the nuclear program, and that Mr. Bush probably should have dwelled on others.
White House officials would not say, however, how the statement was approved. They have suggested that the Central Intelligence Agency approved the wording, though the C.I.A. has said none of its senior leaders had reviewed it. Other key members of the administration said the information was discounted early on, and that by the time the president delivered the State of the Union address, there were widespread questions about the quality of the intelligence.
"We only found that out later," said one official involved in the speech.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/international/worldspecial/08PREX.html
yes, they did manipulate us, it seems, or else they very incompetently included some very faulty intelligence in the state of the union address...
I still think that the regime change can be for the best, depending on what we do for the Iraqis. But, yes apparently the Bush Administration did not trust the US people enough to come out with its real reasons for wanting a regime-change.
Should they be penalized? Would something like this be potentially impeachable? I mean if lying about having sexual favors in the White House is impeachable then misportraying bad intelligence to get US support for a war would also seem an offense that could lead to impeachment.
But of course, they would likely cover their tracks and make sure that someone else takes the bullet besides Bush.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/8/2003 3:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Is it playing God to suggest the possibilities that there be consequences for deceiving the US in order to rally support for a war?
We are regularly manipulated by politicians. Unless we try to reflect and understand issues, it will be hard to know what to believe or to meaningfully participate in the political process.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/9/2003 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | I think that WMD is plain and clear: It wasn't about WMD ... directly! Maybe Iraq had some WMD, maybe they didn't (guarenteed, they'd get them sooner or later!), but I don't see that as the issue; unfortunately, the American puplic wouldn't go for war if this wasn't the issue).
Really, I think, it was the simple fact that we just can't sit and wait for the first strike like we used to be able to do in the Cold War: you nuke, we nuke: no one wins. That was the ace in the whole: no one would win. But today's world is different. Heavens, do you wait for another 911 (but this time with small, but much more effective weapons) before you say it's time to go to war? Had not WMD been made to be the issue, that's what would happen. And it's too darned late by then.
I think Bush knows that time's running out on the world when it comes to terroism. We have no choice these days but to pursue those who are a clear threat. I mean, how many times do we have to listen to the threats of people like Saddam and others before we realize, "Gee, if these guys ever DO get their hands on WMD, it's all over."? And the facts of this day and age are that it doesn't take much for any country anymore to get enough WMD to do some serious poo-poo on others.
India and Pakistan were going at it with each other, threatening to nuke each other. Do you know why we didn't invade their countries? Do you know why it wasn't even much of an issue for the US (Oh, we were concerned that they not kill themselves, of course)? Because they're not threatening others with their weapons in a terrorism context. We can't do much about Russia or China, but, again, they're not threatening (in a terrorist context) anyone with their WMD. Oh, they may be selling the tech to those countries that are, and THAT is the issue: stop those countries that haven't gotten them, at least theo ones that are threats by way of terrorism.
I don't think our country is ready (yet) for a political ideology that says we'll get them before they get us, even after the first strike of 911. But the problem with this is clear: if we don't go after these rogues, there WILL be another 911 (and maybe even if we do go after them first), but perhaps much deadlier than 911. If we wait, it will hit us, and that's just too costly of a price.
Oh yes, I forgot the main question of the inital post. Um, what to do about Bush? Well, I think he handled this in a manner that gets him off the hook as far as having believe that there were WMD; I think there are, but perhaps not located in Iraq. Iraq could get them but keep them elsewhere. And, we've known about their biological weapons. Eitherw way, Bush didn't lie because the story was two-sided: there was thought to be WMD AND we had to stop them before they got (more of) them.
Drop the issue of WMD against Bush and let him continue doing what he's doing. That's my opinion.
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 07/09/2003 09:31:55 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/9/2003 7:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I think that WMD is plain and clear: It wasn't about WMD ... directly! Maybe Iraq had some WMD, maybe they didn't (guarenteed, they'd get them sooner or later!), but I don't see that as the issue; unfortunately, the American puplic wouldn't go for war if this wasn't the issue).
We are in agreement that whether or not GWII was justified is independent of the fact GW manipulated the US to get its support. But they should have been using T.Friedmanesque reasoning to build support for the war from the beginning, instead of inventing a new rational every week according to what would sound good.
quote:
Really, I think, it was the simple fact that we just can't sit and wait for the first strike like we used to be able to do in the Cold War: you nuke, we nuke: no one wins. That was the ace in the whole: no one would win. But today's world is different. Heavens, do you wait for another 911 (but this time with small, but much more effective weapons) before you say it's time to go to war? Had not WMD been made to be the issue, that's what would happen. And it's too darned late by then.
Iraq was not a direct threat to the US and they certainly were not cosy with Al Quaeda, so your reasoning is wearing thin here old-timer
quote:
I think Bush knows that time's running out on the world when it comes to terroism. We have no choice these days but to pursue those who are a clear threat. I mean, how many times do we have to listen to the threats of people like Saddam and others before we realize, "Gee, if these guys ever DO get their hands on WMD, it's all over."? And the facts of this day and age are that it doesn't take much for any country anymore to get enough WMD to do some serious poo-poo on others.
If the goal is to ward off future 9-11s then our response to Afghanistan already set a good precedent. Pre-emptive attacks, such as with Iraq, would be unnecessary for US homeland security. Its justification is on humanitarian aims for the Iraqi people, changing the balance of power in the middle east, ensuring a peaceful transition in Saudi Arabia when King Fahd eventually passes on, reducing the monetary support for the violent Hamas, setting out a model for democracy and separation of mosque and state for the rest of the Arab/Muslim world. US security may be improved in the long run if the above is successful, but that isn't clear as of yet.
quote:
India and Pakistan were going at it with each other, threatening to nuke each other. Do you know why we didn't invade their countries? Do you know why it wasn't even much of an issue for the US (Oh, we were concerned that they not kill themselves, of course)? Because they're not threatening others with their weapons in a terrorism context. We can't do much about Russia or China, but, again, they're not threatening (in a terrorist context) anyone with their WMD. Oh, they may be selling the tech to those countries that are, and THAT is the issue: stop those countries that haven't gotten them, at least theo ones that are threats by way of terrorism.
Once more if anyway is doing this, we probably should be able to secure UN support for economic sanctions and maybe the threat of military action. But, the issue I brought up at the beginning is about what the consequences should be for the Bush Administration for misleading the US people.
The rightness/wrongness of the actions is separate, we shouldn't just give the "experts" the right to decide what we should or should not do in the sphere of int'l manipulations.
quote:
Oh yes, I forgot the main question of the inital post. Um, what to do about Bush?
You know, the memory is the first thing to go, not to say you were completely ranting  .
quote:
Well, I think he handled this in a manner that gets him off the hook as far as having believe that there were WMD; I think there are, but perhaps not located in Iraq. Iraq could get them but keep them elsewhere. And, we've known about their biological weapons. Eitherw way, Bush didn't lie because the story was two-sided: there was thought to be WMD AND we had to stop them before they got (more of) them.
If you read the article in the first post, he referred to a report that was widely acknowledged to be bad intelligence in his address to the nation. I.e., manipulation. It is established that Cheney et al had decided long before, let's go after Iraq. Consider how F. Rooselvelt tried to guide the US into joining WWII when it was unwilling? He didn't manipulate it with bad intelligence.
The other WMDs he may have had were not the sorts that could be readily used on the US. They would be more for his own people or neighboring nations.
So I reiterate, if Clinton can get impeached over lying about receiving sexual favors in the White House, what sort of consequence should there be for misleading a nation into war?
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 07/09/2003 12:09:30 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/9/2003 9:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey there, D ... (had to look at your initials again, darn it!) DLW!
quote:
Iraq was not a direct threat to the US and they certainly were not cosy with Al Quaeda, so your reasoning is wearing thin here old-timer
I never said they were a DIRECT threat as in country-to-country, but they sure as hek were a direct threat in regard to supporting terrorism and to an eventual country-to-country threat if they were to gain serious WMD. Oh, and it certainly can't be just the US that is threatened in order to justify stopping these rogues, even if the US isn't a direct or an indirect threat. I can tell you this much, that I'd sure appreciate someone coming to my rescue if I thought my country was going to be hit hard with WMD. We were simply bringing that threat (to be) to a halt in Iraq. There may be more to come, too, but I only hope it won't take a real nasty disaster before we can get in and stop yet another rogue.
quote:
If the goal is to ward off future 9-11s then our response to Afghanistan already set a good precedent. Pre-emptive attacks, such as with Iraq, would be unnecessary for US homeland security.
First, there is NO other reasonable alternative for a US-based homeland security right now. None. Some of the most vital US areas of oil, water and food supply, not to mention electrical and transportational vulnerables, simply can't be protected right now, much less in a near future. The only way to defend at this point is to take the offense; get (stop) them before they get (stop) you. We have got to understand that this world has changed. It simply can't be a wait for the first punch and then hit back. That's suicide ... for someone.
We have never had the need to go to war (directly) with Afganistan in order to reorganize or restructure their country's government because of dictatorship making constant threats about what they'd do, if they had the technology, to us or neighboring states; they might be next, however, if a dictator like Saddam comes into power. Now, they have harbored terrorists, and we've been at it with them in regard to this issue, but there's no way the same tactic could be used in Iraq.
Right after the above quote (my having quoted you), you said this: quote:
Its justification is on humanitarian aims for the Iraqi people, changing the balance of power in the middle east, ensuring a peaceful transition in Saudi Arabia when King Fahd eventually passes on, reducing the monetary support for the violent Hamas, setting out a model for democracy and separation of mosque and state for the rest of the Arab/Muslim world. US security may be improved in the long run if the above is successful, but that isn't clear as of yet.
I'm slightly confused here. If I'm reading this correctly, it sounds like you're saying this was a good thing (to restructure) Iraq, but I'm not sure if that's what you're saying in view of the first part of the paragraph I quoted above it. Do splain!
quote:
The rightness/wrongness of the actions is separate, we shouldn't just give the "experts" the right to decide what we should or should not do in the sphere of int'l manipulations.
Oh, I agree.
And finally ...quote:
If you read the article in the first post, he referred to a report that was widely acknowledged to be bad intelligence in his address to the nation. I.e., manipulation.
Yeah,I heard it on the radio yesterday. The question is, however, did BUSH know it was incorrect and simply lied to the public, or was he just reporting what was given to him? If, as the radio news release stated, he wasn't up on the veracity of the information he received, well, he's off the hook. If we was aware of it, the game's rules have been broken, and yeah, something (though I feel for Bush) needs to be done. But ...
quote:
So I reiterate, if Clinton can get impeached over lying about receiving sexual favors in the White House, what sort of consequence should there be for misleading a nation into war?
Clinton ... didn't get impeached! And he did a hek of a lot worse than commit sexual sins! I'm on Bush's side. It took the bombing of islands to close to Main Land US in 1941 before we finally woke up. Spank Bush (no, I wouldn't impeach him) if he's guilty of deception (and, for pete's sake, he probably is!)
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/9/2003 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I never said they were a DIRECT threat as in country-to-country, but they sure as hek were a direct threat in regard to supporting terrorism and to an eventual country-to-country threat if they were to gain serious WMD.
Yes, but the nuke-seeking quote was meant to emphasize that the Iraqis were potentially a more immediate direct threat to the US. And an "eventual" threat can be contained through import restrictions and regular weapon-inspections, which could have been allowed a lot more time to take place.
quote:
Oh, and it certainly can't be just the US that is threatened in order to justify stopping these rogues, even if the US isn't a direct or an indirect threat. I can tell you this much, that I'd sure appreciate someone coming to my rescue if I thought my country was going to be hit hard with WMD. We were simply bringing that threat (to be) to a halt in Iraq. There may be more to come, too, but I only hope it won't take a real nasty disaster before we can get in and stop yet another rogue.
Over there, Over there, sound the news, sound the news, over there. That the yanks are coming, the yanks are coming, over there.
Please understand that it isn't self-evident what is and isn't a rogue country and, even then, there are ways to contain their threat without a pre-emptive regime-change. Moreover, there still is this thing about us playing well with the rest of the world, since such actions are expensive and we would like to have them chip in. Moreover, we can't presume that we are the ones in the white-hats. We have supported changes in gov'ts and supported corrupt gov'ts mostly to line the bottom line of our corporations. As such, we need to have our power checked by the rest of the world. This is why reforming the UN to make it a more viable body for int'l governance is so important, so as to make it so the US will go through its channels.
quote:
First, there is NO other reasonable alternative for a US-based homeland security right now. None. Some of the most vital US areas of oil, water and food supply, not to mention electrical and transportational vulnerables, simply can't be protected right now, much less in a near future. The only way to defend at this point is to take the offense; get (stop) them before they get (stop) you. We have got to understand that this world has changed. It simply can't be a wait for the first punch and then hit back. That's suicide ... for someone.
I think I posted an article by T. Friedman a while back where he describes how he has accepted the risk, since to not do so would lead to ever-increasing security-measures that would deprive us of too many freedoms. Similar reasoning holds for fighting terrorism. It is too unstructured, flexible to be stopped by us making ever-continuing regime-changes. Ultimately, reducing poverty, reducing our cultural intrusion, reducing our dependence on foreign oil which generally leads to corruption abroad, and improving how the perceive us by not effecting too many regime changes of "rogue" nations will help to reduce terrorism. The rest can be dealt with through much of our existing security measures, espionage, and the precedent we set with how dealt with the Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan.
quote:
We have never had the need to go to war (directly) with Afganistan in order to reorganize or restructure their country's government because of dictatorship making constant threats about what they'd do, if they had the technology, to us or neighboring states; they might be next, however, if a dictator like Saddam comes into power. Now, they have harbored terrorists, and we've been at it with them in regard to this issue, but there's no way the same tactic could be used in Iraq.
I'm sorry no compreno.
quote:
I'm slightly confused here. If I'm reading this correctly, it sounds like you're saying this was a good thing (to restructure) Iraq, but I'm not sure if that's what you're saying in view of the first part of the paragraph I quoted above it. Do splain!
sorry but I'm confused too. No time to tease it out. Sorry.
quote:
Yeah,I heard it on the radio yesterday. The question is, however, did BUSH know it was incorrect and simply lied to the public, or was he just reporting what was given to him? If, as the radio news release stated, he wasn't up on the veracity of the information he received, well, he's off the hook. If we was aware of it, the game's rules have been broken, and yeah, something (though I feel for Bush) needs to be done. But ...
Bush is an able administrator with, what I used to suppose was a very competent staff. I don't think they would have mixed that up. They knew it was faulty and unless dubya is floating around clueless above his staff then he knew it was faulty. If he is clueless then he shouldn't be president. If he isn't then he perjured himself.
quote:
Clinton ... didn't get impeached! And he did a hek of a lot worse than commit sexual sins! I'm on Bush's side. It took the bombing of islands to close to Main Land US in 1941 before we finally woke up. Spank Bush (no, I wouldn't impeach him) if he's guilty of deception (and, for pete's sake, he probably is!)
Yes Clinton did get impeached, you can get impeached and still stay in office. The terrorist threat is radically different from the Nazi/Japanese threat. Different measures are called for.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/9/2003 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | I just wanted to add that I do in fact think the US should be doing more militarily in Afghanistan. That country was driven to war with the USSR by us and has been in an upheaval ever since and we are not doing enough to rebuild it and ensure it has one state with a monopoly on violence. As a result there are too many warlords who could care less about their people and all of the aid is going to Kandahar.
So yes more should be done there, since by doing such an act for the Afghanistan people, we would be also buying positive publicity for the US among muslims in general.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/9/2003 11:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
And an "eventual" threat can be contained through import restrictions and regular weapon-inspections, which could have been allowed a lot more time to take place.
Not anymore, DLW. Not anymore. Inspections have proven ... well, not fruitless, but far more frustrating than we have time for these days. We disagree on this one.
quote:
Over there, Over there, sound the news, sound the news, over there. That the yanks are coming, the yanks are coming, over there.
HERE HERE! We agree! We agree!
quote:
Moreover, we can't presume that we are the ones in the white-hats. We have supported changes in gov'ts and supported corrupt gov'ts mostly to line the bottom line of our corporations. As such, we need to have our power checked by the rest of the world. This is why reforming the UN to make it a more viable body for int'l governance is so important, so as to make it so the US will go through its channels.
Frankly, we have been and are the ones in the white hats, and I happen to think that's a good thing ... as long as our country's religious perspective is that of the Christian/Judeo stance. It's not, however, anymore, so perhaps I will start to concede my stance sooner than later! I DO NOT want the early-on communist-charted UN in charge, though. That's out. Period! We disagree here!
Another round of "The Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming" cheer? We agree on that one! 
quote:
I think I posted an article by T. Friedman a while back where he describes how he has accepted the risk, since to not do so would lead to ever-increasing security-measures that would deprive us of too many freedoms.
Hek, we've lost more freedom without the context of war than with it. Maybe we won't WIN the war on terrorism with an offensive position, but we sure as hek won't be sitting around watching buildings crumble. We're fighting back.
quote:
Similar reasoning holds for fighting terrorism. It is too unstructured, flexible to be stopped by us making ever-continuing regime-changes. Ultimately, reducing poverty, reducing our cultural intrusion, reducing our dependence on foreign oil which generally leads to corruption abroad, and improving how the perceive us by not effecting too many regime changes of "rogue" nations will help to reduce terrorism.
Oh, I agree. It is, perhaps, a no-win situation, or rather, NOT a zero-sum game. Perhaps. But I think it's too late in the game of technology to not be on the offensive. And that doesn't mean we're going to go in to regime after regime doing what we did with Iraq. It does mean, however, that there very well could be hell to pay for if what we did with Iraq ISN'T taken to heart by these rogue--yes, rogue, rogue, rogue, I tell you--nations (dictators, at least). ROGUE! (Almost wrote ROUGH!)
quote:
The rest can be dealt with through much of our existing security measures, espionage, and the precedent we set with how dealt with the Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan.
That didn't do the trick for stopping 9-11, and I don't know that it will do the trick anymore.
quote:
Bush is an able administrator with, what I used to suppose was a very competent staff. I don't think they would have mixed that up. They knew it was faulty and unless dubya is floating around clueless above his staff then he knew it was faulty. If he is clueless then he shouldn't be president. If he isn't then he perjured himself.
Sheesh! Mistakes can be made, even in the most able administrations. No one, not the President or his staff, is perfect. However, it is a different story if he perjured himself.
quote:
Yes Clinton did get impeached, you can get impeached and still stay in office. The terrorist threat is radically different from the Nazi/Japanese threat. Different measures are called for.
HE DID NOT, HE DID NOT, DID NOT, NOT, NOT (Herman Munster style)!!! Well, I stuck my foot in my mouth on that one, didn't I. I forgot that there were those precedings, but nothing of any significance became of them. That's why I supposed I forgot about the formalities. My boo-boo! (You win that one!) 
For being disgruntled,
Starkman!!!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/9/2003 12:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
And an "eventual" threat can be contained through import restrictions and regular weapon-inspections, which could have been allowed a lot more time to take place.
Not anymore, DLW. Not anymore. Inspections have proven ... well, not fruitless, but far more frustrating than we have time for these days. We disagree on this one.
Wait, so to ensure we are safe we need to attack and take out as many rogue states as we can? Even, or especially, the ones we used to support, which probably is likely a good deal of them. Think through what you are saying...
quote:
quote:
Over there, Over there, sound the news, sound the news, over there. That the yanks are coming, the yanks are coming, over there.
HERE HERE! We agree! We agree!
Oh, you remember that one, ay?
quote:
quote:
Moreover, we can't presume that we are the ones in the white-hats. We have supported changes in gov'ts and supported corrupt gov'ts mostly to line the bottom line of our corporations. As such, we need to have our power checked by the rest of the world. This is why reforming the UN to make it a more viable body for int'l governance is so important, so as to make it so the US will go through its channels.
Frankly, we have been and are the ones in the white hats, and I happen to think that's a good thing ... as long as our country's religious perspective is that of the Christian/Judeo stance. It's not, however, anymore, so perhaps I will start to concede my stance sooner than later! I DO NOT want the early-on communist-charted UN in charge, though. That's out. Period! We disagree here!
Have you ever taken a course in international manipulations? You are aware we are responsible for Saddam having WMD in the first place, since he used to be one of our "moderate" arab nations and we supported them against Iran? You also are aware of how we helped the Al Quaeda rise to power in instigating the Russian-Afghanistan war. We wanted to give them their own Vietnam. You are aware of the Monroe Doctrine? Having a s'posed Judeo-Christian stance has not kept our hands clean of blood in the past. Wake up and smell the imperialism.
quote:
Another round of "The Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming" cheer? We agree on that one!
How about imaging Adagio for Strings from the movie Platoon?
quote:
quote:
I think I posted an article by T. Friedman a while back where he describes how he has accepted the risk, since to not do so would lead to ever-increasing security-measures that would deprive us of too many freedoms.
Hek, we've lost more freedom without the context of war than with it. Maybe we won't WIN the war on terrorism with an offensive position, but we sure as hek won't be sitting around watching buildings crumble. We're fighting back.
We already are doing much counter-intelligence against the Al Quaeda. They do not have a fixed location and so removing a rogue state won't be necessary.
quote:
quote:
Similar reasoning holds for fighting terrorism. It is too unstructured, flexible to be stopped by us making ever-continuing regime-changes. Ultimately, reducing poverty, reducing our cultural intrusion, reducing our dependence on foreign oil which generally leads to corruption abroad, and improving how the perceive us by not effecting too many regime changes of "rogue" nations will help to reduce terrorism.
Oh, I agree. It is, perhaps, a no-win situation, or rather, NOT a zero-sum game. Perhaps. But I think it's too late in the game of technology to not be on the offensive. And that doesn't mean we're going to go in to regime after regime doing what we did with Iraq. It does mean, however, that there very well could be hell to pay for if what we did with Iraq ISN'T taken to heart by these rogue--yes, rogue, rogue, rogue, I tell you--nations (dictators, at least). ROGUE! (Almost wrote ROUGH!)
So what do you do in real life? Just curious?
quote:
quote:
The rest can be dealt with through much of our existing security measures, espionage, and the precedent we set with how dealt with the Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan.
That didn't do the trick for stopping 9-11, and I don't know that it will do the trick anymore.
We did restructure and do have a higher level of awareness. Ultimately, we do have to live with the possibility of further terrorist attacks.
later,
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/9/2003 12:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Fine. My gut impression: Yep, something should be done about this. What? I truly don't know. I'd need a lot more info to ascertain something like that.
"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/10/2003 5:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Wait, so to ensure we are safe we need to attack and take out as many rogue states as we can? Even, or especially, the ones we used to support, which probably is likely a good deal of them. Think through what you are saying...
We haven't "taken out" Iraq! We've simply taken out Saddam. That we supported him in the past is irrelevant. Today, however, he was becoming a threat that could no longer ignore. He and several others; some of whom we can stop, others of whom we can't.
quote:
Have you ever taken a course in international manipulations? You are aware we are responsible for Saddam having WMD in the first place, since he used to be one of our "moderate" arab nations and we supported them against Iran? You also are aware of how we helped the Al Quaeda rise to power in instigating the Russian-Afghanistan war. We wanted to give them their own Vietnam. You are aware of the Monroe Doctrine? Having a s'posed Judeo-Christian stance has not kept our hands clean of blood in the past. Wake up and smell the imperialism.
The issue on this thread was initially what's to be done about Bush's misleading and lying (or is it li ... no, it's got to be lying, isn't it?) about why had to go to war with Iraq. But now the issue on this thread has become the defensive measures against the threat of terrorism, both of the US and other countries. (Oh, and no, I've not take a course in international manipulations; I've grown up watching it on the news and reading about it. It's not hard to see if one cares to look.) Find all the intelligence you (our country) wish, and it will do you no good unless you use it: send troops out to (a country or small rogue group) to stop the terrorists! It simply can't be "We'll wait till they bio or nuke us first," In this context, It is not my concern what past manipulations this country's been involved with. Today is today, and today's threats are today's. The game has changed dramatically. As a matter of fact, it isn't even the same game anymore, so whatever we (the US) did wrong or in a manipulation context back then is irrelevant today. However, that you and I are aware of these sins of the past--out country's manipulations--is another discussion worthy of addressing. I'm just saying that our country's past manipulations is not admissible contextually regarding the need today for an offensive tactic against terrorism.
Having a Judeo/Christian herritage has kept our hands clean of far more blood than those countries holding a non-theistic doctrine. We're not even closely compared to the blood of these countries in in a context of war initiatives (vis, China, former Soviet Union). Further, our hands are far more cleaner than those who do hold to a theistic doctrine, but have an autocracy or dictatorship, like Iraq. We are, however, guilty of a worse "blood our hands" in the area of life in our own country: the issue of abortion, but that's another issue.
Our country has been a beacon of light to other nations whether we've wanted it to be or not; holiding to Biblical ethical principles will put one on the hill as light to others, like it or not. That's how God ordained it. But that doesn't mean our nation is perfect. It does mean, however, that we understand something about the value of life, liberty and the justice for all. I will admit, however, that those days (holding to Biblical ethical principles) are fast fleeing, and that will (as it has already) change our "beacon" status, making it difficult to justify a lot of our actions.
Yes, it is a grave and darkened history of our country's wrongful pretense in worldly affairs. That is not the issue today, though. We are up against an ever increasingly armed enemy, which both the techology of today and the availability of it, demand go offensive. Intelligence will die in the aftermath and more cities and peoples will be vivid proof of said intelligence's uselessness if we do not go offensive ... in some manner or another. Such was not the case, as I noted, between Russia and the United States during the Cold War. There was (really) only the threat of large-scale nukes. You don't go on the offensive in that situation. The game is different today, and I contend that if we wait, we die. Period.
quote:
We already are doing much counter-intelligence against the Al Quaeda. They do not have a fixed location and so removing a rogue state won't be necessary.
Again, removing the nation isn't the answer; removing those--be they rulers of a state or not--is the answer. We simply can't wait until it's too late. I can't believe that we took out Saddam just for reasons of oil (as some say), and I can't believe that it was just for other economic purposes. And I can't believe that Bush was just out for a good fight. No, there was a threat--as I stated, the WMD didn't have to be in Iraq itself for Iraq to still have quick and immediate availability of them. That Bush went about it the wrong way is, as you've noted, an issue that must be addressed.
quote:
So what do you do in real life? Just curious?
What? Me? Oh, in real life I post as PoW and Fred! HA! What do I do in real life as opposed to fake life? (Hmmm! Do I sense some good-humored sarcasm here, Mr. DLW???) As my bio on this site says, I have no formal education, and I'm not trained in a particular trade--finding my place in the job market has been one of my greatest nemesis. I'm not sure what I do in real life, to be honest. I'm very lost right now and very frustrated. As far as work goes, I work for a company that takes care of the members of seven different real estate related associations: housing inspectors, construction inspectors, real estate appraisers, review appraisers and a few others (no, I'm not "in" any of these businesses). I make a meager living, but I don't know what else (or how else) to do, to tell you the truth. (Needless to say, I'm a bit depressed right now!)
quote:
We did restructure and do have a higher level of awareness. Ultimately, we do have to live with the possibility of further terrorist attacks.
No doubt. And, sadly, you're right. I suspect we'll see more crap come down on us and on other parts of the world. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, unfortunately. We can't stop them all, but I think an offensive tactic will stop a lot more than otherwise ... I hope.
For conversing and learning,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/10/2003 6:32 AM (GMT -6) | | I hope things take a turn for the better for you, Starkey.
Weren't you thinking of going back to school?
I wish I could give you some good advice about such stuff. You'd think that I as an economist, who did his dissertation in Labor Economics would know about such things, but I don't.
Sounds like you have a decent work-ethic, that helps some.
But yeah getting a college education helps a lot these days and I know that isn't cheap, both in terms of cost and opportunity cost.
You might want to consider taking courses at your local community college at night as a start.
please forgive me if I think we're just going back and forth on the war thing at this point.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/10/2003 1:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Ma man, DLW,
quote:
please forgive me if I think we're just going back and forth on the war thing at this point.
Oh, no problem. I forgot to end my post just above yours with the fact that our ideologies are different, but we both want the same outcome. Peace and safety for our country (and other countries).
Well, I was going to truck driving school, but that didn't work out. And yeah, I've thought about some night classes (I'll have to see again about grants for that!). I haven't followed through checking into that because we had no car for the longest of time. But I might be able to pull something off.
Otherwise, I'm trusting that He is able!
Yak at ya later,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/11/2003 2:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, given that I believe that Satan has control of the world and owns all the nations (1 Jn5:19; Lk 4:6-7 etc. -- though even I can't quite swallow that they are all "controlled" -- so I back off to "strongly influenced"), I am not in the least surprised to read that we were and are being manipulated. I suspect this is par for the course. With DLW, I see no substantial difference between lying about a sexual liason and lying about a shakey report, except the former didn't contribute to the deaths of multitudes.
Now Starkman, the picture I get from your talk about preemptive strikes is something like this: there's a guy in the room filled with people and he's got the gun. He used to wait till someone actually attacked him to fire. Now he shoots whenever he suspects someone might attack him or encourage anyone else who might.
YIKES.
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/11/2003 3:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Doc,
quote:
With DLW, I see no substantial difference between lying about a sexual liason and lying about a shakey report, except the former didn't contribute to the deaths of multitudes.
Has it been conclusively proven that Bush lied? If it has, I conceded. In all honesty, the radio reports I hear aren't concluding that he did lie, but only that he didn't have good or complete information, or the information was interpreted incorrectly.
quote:
Now Starkman, the picture I get from your talk about preemptive strikes is something like this: there's a guy in the room filled with people and he's got the gun. He used to wait till someone actually attacked him to fire. Now he shoots whenever he suspects someone might attack him or encourage anyone else who might.
The bad guy (Saddam) has not only fired the gun, Doc, he's slaughtered, several thousands (of his own country's people), and he's threatened to slaughter more people--Isreal and the US--if he becomes able to do so. He had to be stopped.
China can't be stopped--too darned big and powerful, but China isn't (directly, at least) threatening to knock off other countries. The former Soviet Union got stopped without our military intervention; thank the Lord. North Korea's developing nuke capability, but they're not threatening to take out the US, Isreal or anyone else unless they are first attacked. India and Pakistan have come close to destroying each other, but they're not threatening to take out the US, Israel or other nations.
Saddam had made it unscrupulously clear that he would destroy Israel and the US, given the chance. Again, in that he's already destroyed so many of his country's people, I stand firm on our military action in Iraq, but I agree with you about the lying end of it except for one thing.
That Bush lied, if Bush lied, was for a cause that was far removed from Clinton's causes for lying. That doesn't justify lying, but apparently the Bush administration felt there was no other choice if they were to stop Saddam. Quite frankly, in THIS case, I'll forgive Bush ... if he was lying!
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 07/11/2003 08:37:11 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/11/2003 5:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Apparently, innocent until PROVEN guilty doesn't apply to politicans, particularly when Christians already believe in their own minds that someone's being "unloving."
Finally, in the issue of WMD, I find it funny that everyone conveninently forgets to mention that all sources on the issue (including the highly clueless United Nations) all believed that Hussein was in possession of WMD. That wasn't the issue. Now, suddenly, Bush is lying. Alas, for some people intergrity and love are indeed the issue, but it is an issue they refuse to look at within themselves but scream when they preceive it lacking in others. Matthew 6:41-42 comes to mind...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/11/2003 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Well Honordude,
It is obvious that someone knew the intelligence was faulty but put it in the speech, irregardless.
My take on this is...
Bush is probably an innocent.
But Cheney is unlikely to be.
So lets impeach Cheney and make Powell Vice-President.
That would likely serve as a PR coup for the Bush Administration, anyways...
GB, do you have sources/proof for your literal interpretation of Satan's statement to Jesus still applying today?
Otherwise, it seems a bit over the top. Nevermind the Ozone, the fish-depletion, world-wide poverty. The gov'ts of this world are under Satan's command and so to negotiate/work with them to try to ameliorate any of the above and more would be to open oneself up to being "corrupted"/"possessed"/"attacked" by Satan.
I thought Satan was broken by Christ's resurrection. Why would he have the same control over the world like he did when he was tempting Jesus?
Also, it seems unfair to judge that GWII was a tragic waste because we were in fact manipulated. I think its tragic that we would only consider putting out a Saddam Hussein if he had WMDs that could immediately be targeted against us, the US.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/11/2003 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Well conspiracy theories aside, I doubt we can trust the CIA to say otherwise than what the Bush Administration tells them, this may settle the issue...
we will see(but if getting a blow-job in the oval office was worth pursuing, then this probably also is worth pursuing.)!!
dlw
Bush and Rice Say C.I.A. Approved Uranium Comment
July 11, 2003
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON with KIRK SEMPLE
ENTEBBE, Uganda, July 11 - President Bush said today that
intelligence agencies had approved the assertion he made in
his State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy
nuclear material from Africa.
``I gave a speech that was cleared by the intelligence
services,'' the president said. ``It was a speech that
detailed to the American people the dangers posed by the
Saddam Hussein regime. And my government took the
appropriate response to those dangers.''
Mr. Bush made his comments not long after his national
security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said that the Central
Intelligence Agency had ``cleared the speech in his
entirety.''
``If the C.I.A., the director of central intelligence, had
said, `Take this out of the speech,' it would have been
gone, without question,'' Ms. Rice said.
The comments by the president and Ms. Rice provided the
administration's most detailed account yet of how it
included in the State of the Union Message an assertion
about Iraq's nuclear weapons program that turned out to be
based on unreliable intelligence information.
Ms. Rice told reporters en route here with the president on
Air Force One that the White House had changed the speech
during its drafting to address concerns from the Central
Intelligence Agency about the assertion, which involved
intelligence on whether Iraq had tried to acquire uranium
in Africa.
But Ms. Rice said that once the changes were made, the
agency signed off on the speech, which was delivered on
Jan. 28, less than two months before the start of the war.
She said that the agency did not raise concerns with her or
the president before the speech, and that it was wrong to
suggest that Mr. Bush had deliberately misled the public to
build a case for war with Iraq.
The changes sought by the agency, she said, involved ``some
specifics about amount and place'' related to intelligence
reports that Iraq had tried to purchase a form of uranium
known as yellow cake in Niger or another African country.
``If there were doubts about the underlying intelligence,''
Ms. Rice said, ``those doubts were not communicated to the
president, to the vice president or to me.''
A senior administration official said later that Ms. Rice
had telephoned George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, before
she spoke to reporters today. Asked whether the White House
continued to have confidence in Mr. Tenet, Ms. Rice
replied, ``Absolutely.''
When he delivered the State of the Union address, Mr. Bush
was vague about the charge and attributed the information
to Britain, which had previously made the assertion in a
public document. He said: ``The International Atomic Energy
Agency confirmed in the 1990's that Saddam Hussein had an
advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design
for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different
methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British
government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''
The statement drew considerable attention at the time as
Mr. Bush made his case that Saddam Hussein was a threat to
the Middle East and the United States. But this week, the
White House acknowledged that the intelligence underlying
the statement was not solid enough to have justified
including it in Mr. Bush's address.
The admission has brought calls from some Democrats in
Congress for hearings or an investigation and has fed
skepticism among some opponents of the war about Mr. Bush's
forthrightness regarding his reasons for invading Iraq.
House Democrats angry about the use of faulty intelligence
sent a letter to Mr. Bush today in which they demand to
know why the African uranium charge was included in the
State of the Union Message.
Asked about the controversy after a meeting here with
President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Mr. Bush indicated
that he believed the information about Iraq's intentions
was correct, and that the war was justified by Mr.
Hussein's threat to the world.
His comments, and those of Ms. Rice, appeared intended to
rebut news reports that the C.I.A. had raised objections to
inserting in Mr. Bush's State of the Union Message the
claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa. The
Washington Post reported today that the C.I.A. had tried to
persuade the British government to drop a reference to the
purported deal from an official intelligence paper. And a
CBS News report Thursday evening said that the White House
had ignored a request by the C.I.A. to remove the statement
from the text of the State of the Union address.
The White House's account today raised the question of why,
if the administration believed the information to be firm
enough to include in the State of the Union address,
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell did not repeat it a week
later when he presented the United Nations with what he
said was the ``definitive'' case against Mr. Hussein.
In a briefing with reporters on Thursday night in South
Africa, Mr. Powell suggested that he had looked into the
assertion more closely and had decided it was not based on
sufficiently reliable information to repeat to the United
Nations.
``When I made my presentation to the United Nations and we
really went through every single thing we knew about all of
the various issues with respect to weapons of mass
destruction, we did not believe that it was appropriate to
use that example anymore,'' Mr. Powell said. ``It was not
standing the test of time.
``And so I didn't use it, and we haven't used it since.''
Today Ms. Rice said Mr. Powell's decision was not driven by
any new information but by longstanding concerns within the
State Department's own intelligence branch about whether
the information was reliable.
The State Department's intelligence unit ``was the one that
within the overall intelligence assessment had objected to
that sentence,'' Ms. Rice said. She was referring to a
document known as the National Intelligence Estimate, which
included the allegation about Iraq's activities in Africa
but also a footnote that said the State Department had its
doubts about whether the assertion was justified by the
evidence.
Dr. Rice said he was ``not surprised`` that Mr. Powell
decided against using the assertion in his presentation to
the United Nations given that the State Department's
intelligence officers ``had reservations with it.''
Dr. Rice said the administration did not learn until March
that the documents that were the primary basis for the
assertion about Iraq were probably forged. She said she did
not learn about the mission to Niger last year by a former
American ambassador who found no evidence to back up the
charge a month ago when she was asked about it during a
television interview.
Since coalition troops invaded Iraq, they have found no
biological or chemical weapons.
The letter sent today by 16 House Democrats, contends that
the admission of error by the White House raises
``disturbing and serious questions'' about the rest of the
administration's case that Iraq was developing a weapons of
mass destruction program.
``What reassurance can Congress and the American public
receive that the other claims you made in your State of the
Union speech regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
programs are based on solid intelligence information and
analysis?'' the Democrats ask in the letter, which was
drafted by Representative Ed Markey (Democrat of
Massachusetts).
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/international/worldspecial/11CND-WEAPONS.html?ex=1058955914&ei=1&en=9422739f03c1294c
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/14/2003 4:52 AM (GMT -6) | | What is the issue here? The issue here is specifically that Bush thought that quote:
Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Africa.
This was then used to quote:
"back their claims made prior to launching an attack against Iraq in March that Mr. Hussein was "reconstituting" his nuclear weapons program. Those claims added urgency to the White House case that military action to depose Mr. Hussein needed to be taken quickly, and could not await further inspections of the country or additional resolutions at the United Nations."
None of this concerns EVERYTHING else. This is but a period in a book. Because a cache of chemical or biological weapons hasn't yet been discovered in Iraq, we are have been told that they don't exist and that President Bush lied (that was floating around for quite some time) to his own citizens and the rest of the world. However, I think we need a refresher in recent history.
When the U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, a substantial stockpile of Iraqi weapons remained. This stockpile was no figment of faulty intelligence reports; it was catalogued in great detail by the United Nations. And, on January 27th of this year, Hans Blix reiterated the inventory of weapons that--after five years--Hussein still hadn't accounted for: 8,500 liters of anthrax, 1,000 tons of poison gas, 6,500 bombs capable of delivering chemical weapons, and "thousands" of poison gas rockets. Now let me ask you, was BLIX lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?
On December 17, 1998, Bill Clinton launched a military strike against Iraq, saying the mission was "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs." Now let me ask you, was Clinton lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?
In 1998, Senator Robert Byrd argued strongly for military action against Iraq, saying, "the administration needs to act sooner rather than later." Apparently, Byrd's sense of urgency was much more acute when a fellow Democrat occupied the White House; even though President Bush cited the same reasons as Clinton, Byrd accuses the Republican of lying.
If Bush did fabricate evidence of Saddam's weapons, he must have done so in the 1990s, before becoming president. What else could explain the prior involvement of Clinton, Blix, the U.N. inspectors and everyone else who "knew" about the Iraqi weapons program? Maybe they all hatched the scheme at a meeting of the Secret Government Where Jews And Space Aliens Control The Fate Of The World. Or, maybe President Bush planned it more recently. Yeah, post-September 11th hubris. But that would require Bush to travel back in time and brainwash all those people. It could happen...it's about as plausible as Saddam Hussein unilaterally disarming.
Ultimately, this war was a Rorschach test (a personality and intelligence test in which a subject interprets inkblot designs in terms that reveal intellectual and emotional factors -- called also Rorschach, Rorschach inkblot test) for the world. Some people simply believe that Saddam Hussein--trustworthy chap that he is/was--voluntarily disarmed while nobody was looking, and that President Bush lied to lead us to war. Frame the argument however you want, but probably, this fundamental division still underlies any discussion about the war: you either trust (admittedly, something we don't like to do of politicians) President Bush more than you trust Saddam Hussein, or you don't.
Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/14/2003 7:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Okay, so Bush et al. did not fabricate the WMD argument for going to war...
I believe it is generally agreed upon that intelligence prior to the war showed it was a much less serious threat than the Bush Administration was making it out to be. And so, it seems that having decided that a regime-change was a desirable outcome on the basis of other factors, they chose to use the WMDs argument to ensure US support for their war. So, initially, it was manipulation, overemphasis of a minor point, due to its higher likelihood of engendering support from a country still hamstrunged over 9-11.
The thing with the report that was quoted in the state of the union address is that it emphasized that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, making it a clear and present danger to the US (or capable of sponsoring "Sum of All Fears"-style mass-violence to the US). But that wasn't true since there was no proof they had been doing that. As such, the Bush Administration got caught. It is highly unlikely they were innocent of the reports falsity, but they added it to their main speech of the year in a move to very effectively rally US support for their war.
So maybe Clinton was trying to "wag the Dog" when he ordered the attacks on Iraq during his Lewinsky scandal, but he didn't get caught like the Bush Administration did. That is the big difference.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybdfryr
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybdfryr
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/14/2003 7:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The thing with the report that was quoted in the state of the union address is that it emphasized that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, making it a clear and present danger to the US (or capable of sponsoring "Sum of All Fears"-style mass-violence to the US). But that wasn't true since there was no proof they had been doing that.
Say, David, weren't there some pretty strong reports about Russial helping out Iraq or some other odd-going negotiations being worked out with Iraq and other countries (like North Korea) in order to either secure WMD or obtain access to them? I don't remember the details myself, but I recall something along these lines.
If this is so, then we're back at that sticky-wicket thing again where, do we wait for Saddam to obtain or have access to WMD or do we stop him before this. Personally, I think the fool would have used them in a heart beat at almost the cost of anything else and particularly against Israel. He'd love to have gone down as the destroyer of Israel.
Anyway ...
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/14/2003 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkdude,
it wouldn't surprise me that the US found evidence that Russia was helping Iraq acquire WMD and chose to suppress the evidence in return for Russia turning the heat on N. Korea, with whom there was a Russia and China-led break-through not long after we defeated Iraq.
So, now, by virtue of the agreement we can't go public with what we found out.
Its possible...
Here is another article where the Bush Administration, like the Blair Administration, defend the accuracy of the statement...
Bush Aides Now Say Claim on Uranium Was Accurate
July 14, 2003
By JAMES RISEN
WASHINGTON, July 13 - Senior Bush administration officials
today adjusted their defense of President Bush's claim in
his State of the Union Address that Iraq tried to buy
uranium from Africa, insisting that the phrasing was
accurate even if some of the underlying evidence was
unsubstantiated.
Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in separate
appearances on Sunday television talk programs that the
disputed sentence in Mr. Bush's January speech was
carefully hedged, enough that it could still be considered
accurate today.
While continuing to acknowledge, as the White House and the
Central Intelligence Agency did last week, that the phrase
should not have been uttered, they emphasized today that
the British had indeed, as Mr. Bush said, reported Iraq's
interest in acquiring African uranium.
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Mr. Bush
contended that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop a
nuclear bomb. Among elements he cited to make his case was
a statement that "the British government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa."
Ms. Rice, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," said that
"the statement that he made was indeed accurate. The
British government did say that."
And Mr. Rumsfeld said on the NBC News program "Meet the
Press" that "it turns out that it's technically correct
what the president said, that the U.K. does - did say that
- and still says that. They haven't changed their mind, the
United Kingdom intelligence people."
On the ABC News program "This Week," Mr. Rumsfeld added
that "it didn't rise to the standard of a presidential
speech, but it's not known, for example, that it was
inaccurate. In fact, people think it was technically
accurate."
The legalistic defense of the phrasing seemed to signal a
shift in the White House's strategy in dealing with the
political fallout over Mr. Bush's public use of evidence
that was based in part on fabricated documents and in part
on uncorroborated reports from abroad.
It came after a week in which the White House first
repudiated the statement and then blamed the Central
Intelligence Agency for allowing Mr. Bush to make it. On
Friday, George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence,
accepted responsibility, saying "these 16 words should
never have been included in the text written for the
president."
But the bout of finger-pointing between the White House and
the agency concerning the African uranium only served to
intensify the criticism of the administration for its
handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq. Rather than
quelling the controversy, the White House stoked it through
official statements, providing an opening for Democratic
leaders to attack the administration's handling of the
intelligence. So Sunday's effort by Ms. Rice and Mr.
Rumsfeld appeared to be a response by the White House to
turn down the flame on a hot story that the White House
itself had helped ignite just days earlier.
Some White House officials suggested that the public was
less interested in the story's ins and outs than the news
media and the political opposition, and that this was why
the administration chose this approach.
In the months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush
and his advisers frequently cited classified intelligence
reports that they said provided proof that Iraq was
developing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and had
links to Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. Mr. Bush and
his advisers said the threat posed by Iraq's development of
those weapons and the possibility that Mr. Hussein might
share them with terrorists made it necessary to overthrow
the Iraqi government.
Since American forces occupied the country, however, they
have not discovered conclusive evidence of the existence of
such weapons in Iraq's possession, and have also failed to
discover conclusive proof that Iraq had forged a terrorist
alliance with Al Qaeda.
The failure to find unconventional weapons has led to
intense scrutiny of the administration's approach before
the war. A group of retired C.I.A. officers has conducted
an internal review at the agency of the prewar intelligence
reports on Iraq, and Congress has also begun to investigate
the handling of the evidence.
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Mr. Bush
cited several reports in arguing that Mr. Hussein was
trying to develop a nuclear bomb.
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the
1990's that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons
development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and
was working on five different methods of enriching uranium
for a bomb," Mr. Bush stated. "The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources
tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength
aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities.
He clearly has much to hide."
Since the speech, the evidence concerning both the uranium
purchases and the aluminum tubes has come into question. In
March, the I.A.E.A. reported that documents that formed the
basis for reports that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger
were forgeries, though the C.I.A. had doubts about the
claims of the African uranium shipments long before that.
Intelligence officials say the C.I.A. told British
officials last fall that they doubted the evidence on the
matter, which London was including in a publicly released
white paper.
And in the days before Mr. Bush's address, government
officials say, a proliferation expert from the C.I.A.
discussed the evidence on Niger with a proliferation expert
from the National Security Council at the White House. The
two men now have different recollections of their
conversations on the matter, government officials say.
Still, the result was that the phrase in the speech did not
refer specifically to Niger, but rather more generally to
African uranium. Now, Ms. Rice and other American officials
contend that other information about Iraq's efforts to buy
uranium from African countries has not been discredited, so
that Mr. Bush's statement should be considered accurate.
On Sunday, Ms. Rice sought to play down the significance of
the reference in the speech and at the same time defend its
use.
"It is ludicrous to suggest that the president of the
United States went to war on the question of whether Saddam
Hussein sought uranium from Africa," Ms. Rice said on Fox.
"This was part of a very broad case that the president laid
out in the State of the Union and other places."
But she added that "not only was the statement accurate,
there were statements of this kind in the National
Intelligence Estimate. And the British themselves stand by
that statement to this very day."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/14/international/worldspecial/14INTE.html?ex=1059207892&ei=1&en=fcf113dfdcae134d
I think maybe pursuing this thing too much probably will go no where.
Yes, the US people were being manipulated, but they got their back covered over how they manipulated us. And, the war may still turn out to work for the best...
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybdfryr
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybdfryr
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/14/2003 8:55 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW said:
quote:
The thing with the report that was quoted in the state of the union address is that it emphasized that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, making it a clear and present danger to the US (or capable of sponsoring "Sum of All Fears"-style mass-violence to the US). But that wasn't true since there was no proof they had been doing that.
On this ONE issue. The problem is, again, you are only looking at this one piece of information. It is not the whole kit and kaboodle.
The "thing" with the report is not the inaccuracy of the belief that the US was contending with a "clear and present danger." Nor is it inaccurate in "that it emphasized that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons."
To simply state that it is not true that Iraq was not involved or on the verge of acquiring WMD because there is no proof is problematic in two ways.
A. Questions. Does Saddam Hussein exist? How about Osama bin Laden? Or Eric Rudolph? Saddam and Osama must not exist. Why? Because they cannot be found. And, as we all know from witnessing the recent hyperventilation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, if something can't be found, it must not exist.
The case of serial bomber Eric Rudolph is trickier. He was missing for five years. If a few months of being unable to find weapons in Iraq is cited as evidence of their nonexistence, then surely five years was plenty of time to prove Rudolph wasn't real. But, like a miracle, the nonexistent man was discovered dumpster-diving behind a supermarket.
Obviously, there's plenty of evidence supporting the existence of Saddam, Osama and Rudolph. If Saddam never existed, then how did all those body-doubles end up looking alike? Was it mere coincidence? Or were they modeling themselves after the Soup Nazi? And if Osama never existed, then who is that guy in all those video tapes? Did a member of ZZ-Top dye his beard, become bulimic and fall asleep on a tanning bed? And what about Rudolph? Those bombs didn't wire themselves!! Heh.
B. What we DO KNOW. Titillated by the administration’s admission that President Bush cited a forged document in making his case against Iraq in his January, 2003 State of the Union address, Democratic lawmakers are again insisting on a full-scale investigation into the use and possible abuse of intelligence in the lead-up to war. More generally, administration critics in Congress and in the media have become increasingly strident in their claims that Bush deceived the nation in regard to both Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and its ties to organized terrorism.
It is impossible to say what discoveries the future will bring (a fact which, incidentally, makes the Democratic strategy quite risky) but it is useful to refocus attention on what we know—not what we thought we knew, or what we think today, but what is known beyond serious dispute.
In the area of weapons of mass destruction, we know that:
--Saddam Hussein in the far and recent past had an active chemical and biological weapons program.
--Saddam had as recently as 1998 significant stockpiles of these weapons, according to both U.S. intelligence and U.N. weapons inspectors, who had seen and catalogued this stockpile.
--The Baathist regime used these chemical and biological weapons on at least half a dozen instances.
--Saddam provided no significant evidence to inspectors in 2002-2003 that he had destroyed any of this stockpile.
--In 1998, the Clinton administration launched an intensive, though short, preemptive air war against Iraq because it was convinced that Saddam’s WMD program was unchecked.
--The Iraqi dictatorship was reasonably close to obtaining nuclear weapons on two occasions in the past, and was prevented from doing so only by military force. In 1981, an Israeli air strike crippled the Osirik nuclear reactor which had been producing nuclear material for bomb use. In 1991, Operation Desert Storm again crippled Iraq’s nuclear program, which experts later estimated had been within one year of developing a bomb.
--The Iraqi dictatorship retained the scientific know-how and the services of many of the scientists who had been active in its previous nuclear efforts. It also coordinated the concealment of equipment necessary for a nuclear program. Recently, an Iraqi nuclear scientist led allied forces to a key piece of equipment that he had been instructed to bury under a rose bush at his home.
--Likewise, in late April, an Iraqi scientist involved in the biological and chemical weapons program led Americans to a site in the desert where chemical components for chemical weapons had been buried by the regime immediately prior to the onset of war.
--In both the nuclear and chemical/biological arenas, Iraq possessed many “dual use” facilities that had been used for weapons programs and could have been again with little difficulty. For example, early in the war U.S. forces stumbled across a giant buried complex which seemed well-suited for chemical weapons production. As it turned out, the facility had been a chemical weapons plant until 1998, when it had been converted to civilian production. A vast underground facility was also discovered beneath Iraq’s main civilian atomic research center, filled with sealed barrels of uranium. Upon investigation, the site was known to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which had sealed the uranium. In neither case was there any significant barrier to the reconversion of those facilities for WMD purposes on short notice.
--As was widely reported, two mobile laboratories have been captured, and many (though not all) weapons analysts consider it either probable or possible that they were used for biological weapons development.
--Along the route to Baghdad, large numbers of Iraqi troops were killed or captured in possession of gas masks. Military headquarters and bases were consistently found stocked with chemical warfare suits and large stockpiles of nerve gas antidote.
When it comes to terrorism, what we know is this:
--Saddam actively sponsored the terrorist group Hamas, boasting that he had sent $35 million to provide for the families of Hamas suicide bombers.
--Notorious terrorist figures Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas (of Achille Lauro fame) had taken up residence in Baghdad under Saddam’s protection (at least until Abu Nidal committed "suicide" last year by multiple gunshots to the head).
--A Palestine Liberation Front training camp was maintained outside of Baghdad, complete with airplane chassis for hijacker training.
--In northern Iraq, U.S. and Kurdish forces overran a base and training camp for Ansar-al-Islam, an Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist organization with hundreds of members. The Ansar-al-Islam camp included a crude poison lab, with evidence pointing to the possibility that the group had made the deadly toxin ricin for use in attacks.
--Another major terrorist facility in the desert of central Iraq was recently uncovered and destroyed by U.S. forces.
--Iraqi intelligence documents published by the London Daily Telegraph indicated that Iraqi officials had traveled to Sudan in 1998 to meet with Osama bin Laden, seeking a “strategic alliance” against America. For his part, bin Laden released a tape shortly before hostilities began urging jihadists to flock to the defense of Iraq.
--The deputy of a key Al-Qaeda associate who had been reported in Baghdad receiving medical treatment after fleeing Afghanistan was captured there shortly after the fall of the Iraqi capital.
--Whatever ties Iraq did or did not have with Al-Qaeda, it is clear that Saddam supported the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Upon their arrival in Iraq, coalition forces found items like official murals celebrating the 9-11 attack and 9-11 commemorative cigarette lighters complete with etchings of bin Laden and the World Trade Centers carried by Baath Party functionaries.
--Saddam had no compunction about using terrorism against the United States directly. In 1993, Iraqi agents were apprehended in Kuwait before they were able to carry out a plan to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush on his visit to the Emirate. Considerable evidence also links Saddam and Iraqi intelligence to the first attack on the World Trade Centers in 1993.
Now one might say that much of this compilation of evidence on WMD and terrorism is inferential, but most court cases are determined on the strength of inferential evidence. Many a convict has been sent to the "Big House" (and I don't mean that mansion in the sky either) on the basis of less than the US already has on Saddam. The odds—even absent any other special intelligence—would still seem to favor the proposition that Iraq did possess significant WMD capability and was seeking more, and there can be no question that Iraq’s was a terrorist regime.
So where are the stockpiles? Perhaps, having existed once, they no longer existed by March 2003; some Iraqis, including Tariq Aziz, claim that they were destroyed shortly before the war. Perhaps they are still hidden. Perhaps they were spirited out of Iraq by terrorists or Baathists—a possibility much more troubling than the misreading of intelligence by an over-eager administration. The least likely scenario is the one fixed upon by the hysterical left, as I said above, that Bush simply lied in order to justify a war waged for who-knows-what real reason.
The bottom line remains that Iraq was an avowed and dangerous enemy of the United States, and that no serious offensive against its foes in the war on terrorism could leave Saddam’s regime standing. The problem is that unless the administration does a better job of reminding the public (and the world) of what they do know, it runs the risk of allowing its credibility to be unnecessarily undermined with potentially great cost in Iran, North Korea, and beyond. And one of Bush’s greatest electoral assets—public belief in his sincerity and trustworthiness—will be vulnerable to attack.
Edited by - BBBCanada on 07/14/2003 2:09:29 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/15/2003 11:07 AM (GMT -6) | | This might interest some of you skeptics.
www.iraqwatch.org/
Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/15/2003 4:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
BC said:
To simply state that it is not true that Iraq was not involved or on the verge of acquiring WMD because there is no proof is problematic in two ways.
quote:
A. Questions. Does Saddam Hussein exist? How about Osama bin Laden? Or Eric Rudolph?
note:above you answer your own questions. We have evidence that these people exist, even if we can't find them. There is not very good evidence that the US had good evidence that Iraq was on the verge of getting WMDs that would threaten the US. As such, the WMD argument they used to generate support for the war was manipulation.
Ask yourself, should gov't leaders be permitted to go to launch a preemptive war on the basis of unsubstantiated concerns?
quote:
B. What we DO KNOW.
This issue is politicized.
quote:
It is impossible to say what discoveries the future will bring (a fact which, incidentally, makes the Democratic strategy quite risky) but it is useful to refocus attention on what we know—not what we thought we knew, or what we think today, but what is known beyond serious dispute.
I think what we knew is most relevant for the matter at hand.
quote:
In the area of weapons of mass destruction, we know that:
--Saddam Hussein in the far and recent past had an active chemical and biological weapons program.
These are not threatening to the US. Only local countries.
quote:
--Saddam had as recently as 1998 significant stockpiles of these weapons, according to both U.S. intelligence and U.N. weapons inspectors, who had seen and catalogued this stockpile.
--The Baathist regime used these chemical and biological weapons on at least half a dozen instances.
--Saddam provided no significant evidence to inspectors in 2002-2003 that he had destroyed any of this stockpile.
not a significant threat to US security, or a reason in and of itself for regime change. After all, the US always had regime-change as a sword hanging over Saddam's head to deter him from using these against the US. It did potentially threaten other countries, but that is common with many countries. We aren't going to be able to regime-change them all and maintain our peace-keeping presence in Iraq/Afghanistan.
quote:
--In 1998, the Clinton administration launched an intensive, though short, preemptive air war against Iraq because it was convinced that Saddam’s WMD program was unchecked.
He was also going through Whitewater or Lewinsky problems at the time and may have been wagging the dog... . Once more the threat of regime change or similar air-strikes may have sufficed to counter the WMD threat to the US.
quote:
--The Iraqi dictatorship was reasonably close to obtaining nuclear weapons on two occasions in the past, and was prevented from doing so only by military force. In 1981, an Israeli air strike crippled the Osirik nuclear reactor which had been producing nuclear material for bomb use. In 1991, Operation Desert Storm again crippled Iraq’s nuclear program, which experts later estimated had been within one year of developing a bomb.
They also used to have a decent conventional forces, but did not at the time when we were contemplating a regime-change.
quote:
--The Iraqi dictatorship retained the scientific know-how and the services of many of the scientists who had been active in its previous nuclear efforts. It also coordinated the concealment of equipment necessary for a nuclear program. Recently, an Iraqi nuclear scientist led allied forces to a key piece of equipment that he had been instructed to bury under a rose bush at his home.
Espionage and import-controls would have served to keep Iraq out of the nuclear club.
quote:
--Likewise, in late April, an Iraqi scientist involved in the biological and chemical weapons program led Americans to a site in the desert where chemical components for chemical weapons had been buried by the regime immediately prior to the onset of war.
--In both the nuclear and chemical/biological arenas, Iraq possessed many “dual use” facilities that had been used for weapons programs and could have been again with little difficulty. For example, early in the war U.S. forces stumbled across a giant buried complex which seemed well-suited for chemical weapons production. As it turned out, the facility had been a chemical weapons plant until 1998, when it had been converted to civilian production. A vast underground facility was also discovered beneath Iraq’s main civilian atomic research center, filled with sealed barrels of uranium. Upon investigation, the site was known to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which had sealed the uranium. In neither case was there any significant barrier to the reconversion of those facilities for WMD purposes on short notice.
--As was widely reported, two mobile laboratories have been captured, and many (though not all) weapons analysts consider it either probable or possible that they were used for biological weapons development.
--Along the route to Baghdad, large numbers of Iraqi troops were killed or captured in possession of gas masks. Military headquarters and bases were consistently found stocked with chemical warfare suits and large stockpiles of nerve gas antidote.
Yes, Iraq has had chemical/biological weapons and has tried hard to get nuclear weapons. As noted above, this didn't pose an immediate threat to the US but the message it did was conveyed to the US people.
quote:
When it comes to terrorism, what we know is this:
--Saddam actively sponsored the terrorist group Hamas, boasting that he had sent $35 million to provide for the families of Hamas suicide bombers.
--Notorious terrorist figures Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas (of Achille Lauro fame) had taken up residence in Baghdad under Saddam’s protection (at least until Abu Nidal committed "suicide" last year by multiple gunshots to the head).
--A Palestine Liberation Front training camp was maintained outside of Baghdad, complete with airplane chassis for hijacker training.
--In northern Iraq, U.S. and Kurdish forces overran a base and training camp for Ansar-al-Islam, an Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist organization with hundreds of members. The Ansar-al-Islam camp included a crude poison lab, with evidence pointing to the possibility that the group had made the deadly toxin ricin for use in attacks.
--Another major terrorist facility in the desert of central Iraq was recently uncovered and destroyed by U.S. forces.
--Iraqi intelligence documents published by the London Daily Telegraph indicated that Iraqi officials had traveled to Sudan in 1998 to meet with Osama bin Laden, seeking a “strategic alliance” against America. For his part, bin Laden released a tape shortly before hostilities began urging jihadists to flock to the defense of Iraq.
--The deputy of a key Al-Qaeda associate who had been reported in Baghdad receiving medical treatment after fleeing Afghanistan was captured there shortly after the fall of the Iraqi capital.
--Whatever ties Iraq did or did not have with Al-Qaeda, it is clear that Saddam supported the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Upon their arrival in Iraq, coalition forces found items like official murals celebrating the 9-11 attack and 9-11 commemorative cigarette lighters complete with etchings of bin Laden and the World Trade Centers carried by Baath Party functionaries.
--Saddam had no compunction about using terrorism against the United States directly. In 1993, Iraqi agents were apprehended in Kuwait before they were able to carry out a plan to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush on his visit to the Emirate. Considerable evidence also links Saddam and Iraqi intelligence to the first attack on the World Trade Centers in 1993.
The majority of the evidence has generally been that Saddam's Baath regime was in conflict, not in cohorts with Al Quaeda as was propagated by the Bush Administration. Yes, they have supported "terrorist" acts as have all of the other Oil-rich Arab states. Does this make them rogue states?
I think securing peace between Israel and Palestine, in part, by cutting off monetary support for Hamas is a good thing but I didn't hear the Bush Administration use this reason to justify its going to war. He didn't mention that Saddam tried to assasinate his daddy either.
quote:
Now one might say that much of this compilation of evidence on WMD and terrorism is inferential, but most court cases are determined on the strength of inferential evidence. Many a convict has been sent to the "Big House" (and I don't mean that mansion in the sky either) on the basis of less than the US already has on Saddam. The odds—even absent any other special intelligence—would still seem to favor the proposition that Iraq did possess significant WMD capability and was seeking more, and there can be no question that Iraq’s was a terrorist regime.
I believe the administration itself has admitted that the WMDs were not that important of a reason for the regime change. If they did possess significant WMD, evidence for this would come through with inspections and there would be no need for immediate regime change since Saddam had shown that he was containable. The point is that WMD evidence did not justify immediate regime-change,alienating us from much of the rest of the world, but it was manipulated so as to justify immediate regime-change.
quote:
So where are the stockpiles? Perhaps, having existed once, they no longer existed by March 2003; some Iraqis, including Tariq Aziz, claim that they were destroyed shortly before the war. Perhaps they are still hidden. Perhaps they were spirited out of Iraq by terrorists or Baathists—a possibility much more troubling than the misreading of intelligence by an over-eager administration. The least likely scenario is the one fixed upon by the hysterical left, as I said above, that Bush simply lied in order to justify a war waged for who-knows-what real reason.
Yes, we are now much safer in the West, now that the WMDs are disseminated throughout the rest of the Arab world. right.
quote:
The bottom line remains that Iraq was an avowed and dangerous enemy of the United States, and that no serious offensive against its foes in the war on terrorism could leave Saddam’s regime standing. The problem is that unless the administration does a better job of reminding the public (and the world) of what they do know, it runs the risk of allowing its credibility to be unnecessarily undermined with potentially great cost in Iran, North Korea, and beyond. And one of Bush’s greatest electoral assets—public belief in his sincerity and trustworthiness—will be vulnerable to attack.
Saddam was containable. We demonstrated with Afghanistan a commitment to retaliating against rogue states that sponsor serious terrorism against the US. Now that we have no regime-to-change, the possessors of former-WMD-of-Iraq have no such deterrence against them. The US does have limited military resources and conceivably would need to choose its battles carefully. Now we have to reconcile ourselves with the rest of the world so we don't need to shoulder the burden of peace-keeping in Iraq for the foreseeable future. We need to be able to maintain a credible threat of counter-attack against states that sponsor/shelter terrorist groups that could attack the US again.
So we were manipulated and the Nukes in Africa in the Presidents Speech was just a smoking gun that high-ups in the Bush-Administration were willing to bend their received intelligence so as to manipulate the US public into supporting an immediate regime-change.
So the question remains whether this is worth pursuing and what consequences there should be. I say impeach Cheney!
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
| 71 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:03 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|