Again, reports are not evidence. The "evidence" that Bush used were folks like "Curveball", aluminum tubing, pictures of bioweapons vehicles, contemporary stuff that were all bogus. Clinton is just your way of making it all about a bunch of reports that had been written over a decade ago which was absolutely an unconscionable basis for invading Iraq. I'm not justifying either of them but it's Bush that took us to war.

Nonsense Dingo. Did you notice that I was not using what Bush said to make my point. The Dems of course focus on this to get away from the real evidence and their statements in 1998.

And the Clinton and Democrats statements were NOT a decade ago as you know. The hypocrisy here is amazing. In 1998 based on exactly the same info available in 2002 and quoted by me (Blix, Butler) the Dems and Clinton thought Iraq was very dangerous. Later when Bush decides to do something to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions this is all no longer valid? SHOW me data that proves there was something found that invalidates any of this. As I have shown Blix did not buy it.

Here are some of the quotes from 1998 after which we had NO ONE in Iraq until Blix.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Ted you are not reading me. I said the original Iraqi REPORTS were over a decade ago. As for the rest of your post it's simply one more dance around the prickly pear. I really don't care how many democrats thought Iraq had WMDs during the Clinton administration. You continue to have this strange odd idea that if you can trot out some democrat worrying about SH having WMDs somewhere in the process then that provides an imprimatur for Bush to go to war. It is logic gone haywire. "If the democrats got it wrong then it must be right." That's right up there with "prove you don't have it." Powell, in his Feb. 2003 UN speech laid out the case. In it he included the contemporary "evidence" that I have mentioned. Even the BA apparently realized they couldn't rely completely on "prove you don't have it."

Truman said it, "the buck stops here" and this perpetual attempt by the president's supporters to pass the buck back to Clinton when it was Bush's call is getting kind of tiresome.

Well Dingo what bothers me is Dems who were FOR regime change and war if necessary in 1998 and against it later under a President from the other party.

In any case you choose to believe one of the worst liars and butchers of the 20th century on the subject of the deadliest weapons ever devised and I don’t. We will never agree.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
(John) Michael Crichton

The president is the one who took us to war and your endless attempts to employ partisan tactics to run from that fact is noted.


When you engage in such an obvious falsehood Ted it suggests you have played out your string and are getting desperate. I chose inspections over belief as you well know. Those who chose to go to war, employing obviously bogus information and a PNAC agenda, have got a lot of explaining to do and unnecessarily have hurt this country very badly. And I might add their apologists for this fraudulent invasion should join them in the docket.


Failure to prove you don't have something doesn't prove you have it. That is more to the point.

As I have said I would have preferred to wait and let it be clear the UN was paid off and never intended to enforce the Resolutions even after 12 years including 8 years of “inspections”. How much longer would you have wanted to inspect in Iraq with no compliance to 1441?

What “falsehoods” are you speaking of? The UN intel which is most of what Clinton and Bush acted on (in different ways) is still as valid as the day it was stated. You have posted SQUAT to refute even one of the statements by inspectors and you choose to believe in the fairy tale that mass murder Saddam somehow, and for little reason, destroyed billions of $$$$ worth of WMD.

I think that is ludicrous. You can babble all day but unless you can show me any reason why the doubts of Butler and Blix as stated to the UN are not valid I don’t buy it.

You are entitled to you opinion.

Sorry your argument just does not hold water. The “deficit in my imagination” is that I cannot believe that he destroyed them especially as you say “ when he had inspectors crawling all over the place”. If this were true then there would have been UN people who observed it – which by the way was the requirement of the Resolutions. If this were true Iraq would not have secretly brought in 41 tons of “growth media” in 1995 that later disappeared. If this were true there would have been records of money spent, labor used etc.

No I don’t buy it and when discussing the deadliest chemical/bio weapons in the world I don’t (and Blix didn’t) give this madman the benefit of the doubt.


Nice try. I have posted numerous statements of Blix and you have posted squat in return from him or anyone else who was there. Sure Blix said Saddam “MAY” have destroyed the WMD but then he asked very specific questions which were not answered. IF YOU have the answers POST them rather than attacking me.

They couldn't destroy WMDs outside the observation of UN inspectors? That's ridiculous. Why didn't they bring the destruction to the attention of the inspectors would be the better question. Of course that has been speculated on by experts. One would presumably be pride. If you are forced to clean up your house then perhaps you might prefer to do it yourself rather than have it done conspicuously by unfriendly foreigners. Makes the leader look weak. The second is Hussein wanted to keep some doubt in the mind of a possible invader like Iran as a deterrent. A number of experts have suggested the latter.


Of course I've answered your unaccounted WMD problems. The answer is let the inspectors inspect as inspectors had to do post invasion. It was the same in principle either way. The "squat" that goes unanswered is why you felt it was necessary to go to war when unrestricted inspections were the available alternative. You've come up with a lot of blah blah blah diversions about matters irrelevant to the inspections issue but have never really answered SQUAT as to why war was necessary. He violated some UN resolution; give me a break!

No Dingo that’s not ridiculous that was the letter of the UN Resolution they signed. And I have read all the speculation. Iraq would have done the destruction and the UN would have watched – and counted and that is all. This and nothing else you have said resolves the issue. Experts obviously felt that Iraq could NOT have done what they said they did without using money, men , etc. and this is why Blix did not buy their ridiculous answer. This is the crux of the issue. If you want to post something that resolves this then do it.

I have your opinion – you believe Saddam. I don’t.





WRONG. My blah blah are the questions that Blix asked and were not answered. All you have is speculation. Yes I agree with you that the inspectors should have been given more time but lets also remember that there were NO inspectors in Iraq for 4 years and they only got in because GW put 35,000 troops on the border. IMO we could have waited and should have – but IMO the result would have been war 6 months later.

My point stands and you do nothing to refute it. The word was "could". As to the second part, Blix did not buy their answer initially as I wouldn't have but he didn't preclude it. Inspections was his referee on the dilemma if Hussein wasn't going to be forthcoming.

It must be strange to be in the position of arguing for war over inspections when war was followed by inspections - think David Kay. As I indicated before perhaps the most useful aspect of this exchange for me is to get some sense of the black hole of illogic that this administration was capable of sinking into.


I think you need to brush up on your reading skills again. The appropriate concluding remarks from my side would be - I have your opinion - you ultimately (delay noted) believe in war over unlimited UN inspections. I would sure hate to find myself on your end of the argument. Odd that you would not have second thoughts given the way history has played out.

What does “unlimited UN inspections” mean? Do you mean we could go for say another 10-12 years and potentially find nothing? As you know this is what happened in 1991-1998. And this is exactly what UN 1441 was designed to eliminate. NO cat and mouse as Blix said Iraq was REQUIED (and they did not have infinite time) to either bring out the WMD they admitted to having produced or prove conclusively they destroyed them. They never did either – so let me ask you – how long would you have waited before demanding action? 5 years, 10?

How long would I have waited? I would leave that to the experts. The answer is so obvious I scratch my head wondering why you would even ask it. Actually I think the question on the face of it is ridiculous. The real question is which is better, inspections or war. I say inspections, no matter how often or how long. You say after some period war.

Traditionally the responsible answer to the question "When does one go to war" is when you are under imminent threat and all other peaceful alternatives have been exhausted. Your answer is even if we have full powers of investigation the culprit, who was very weak and had never attacked us except in self-defense on his own territory, still must prove he doesn't have WMD material that's on a UN check list or go to war, a point not even close to exhausting the obvious alternative. I continue to find your position truly amazing.

Perhaps if Bush had considered what dreadful consequences his preexisting plan to invade had in store, he would have paid closer attention and weighed the "evidence" more carefully and reconsidered that option.

This may be the subject for another thread. IMO Iraq had played the UN since 1991. Inspections worked to a point and then we pulled the inspectors because Iraq said they were “spies”. So what did the UN do to enforce the Resolutions? NOTHING.

After 9/11, with any possibility that Iraq might pass some WMD to the terrorists that were in the country war had to be an option. UN 1441, unlike the other Resolutions demanded active cooperation which Iraq never provided.

And please don’t tell me Iraq, who hated us and the west, would never have passed WMD to terrorists because they had “philosophical differences”. I don’t buy it. Saddam murdered 100s of thousands of his own people and IMO he would have done anything he could to get back at the US. I know you disagree.

The Congress voted for war based on the intel available, which as I have posted here was all quite accurate.

"100s of thousands of his own people"
Can quote you yesterday, can you provide a link?
"UN 1441, unlike the other Resolutions demanded active cooperation which Iraq never provided"
Are you sure you wish to use Iraq's supposed ignoring of the UN 1441 when we all know there are other active UN resolutions which are still being ignored? The resolutions I'm refering to required active participation from the aggressors as well. Certainly you won't say there are two rules of law when in reference to the same scenarios, are you?
"The Congress voted for war based on the intel available, which as I have posted here was all quite accurate".
Maybe it's just me, but I've always felt that 'accurate intelligence' required the facts to match the accusations. That when accusations are made by intelligence agencies, and those intelligence agency-sponsored accusations turn out to be completely false, that equals inaccuracy. As a sidenote, I have debated with bushlovers who state there is no evidence uranium is bad for people's health, and that more dead people in Iraq signifies more success, since simple-minded people believe the 'insurgent's' fear of peace and freedom make them want to kill even more. Uranium is fine for you, more dead means more cussess, and now incorrect intelligence is equal to correct intelligence. Too dizzying a ride for my sound logical persona.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-1...tent_288443.htm

Survey: Saddam killed 61,000 in Baghdad
( 2003-12-09 08:49) (Agencies)
Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq's Kurdish north and Shiite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality extended strongly into the capital as well.
The survey, which the polling firm planned to release on Tuesday, asked 1,178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 percent said yes.
The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population — 6.39 million — and average household size — 6.9 people — to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule. Past estimates were in the low tens of thousands. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.
The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.



Lets stop talking about it ok. Why is it that the you feel compelled to alibi this monster with a silly argument as above? In your world there is no reason to have a UN since we obviously cannot hold any country accountable, even if they AGREED to the Resolution as Iraq did, because other countries have not lived up to every UN resolution.
Which UN resolutions are you referring to sir. POST SOMETHING PLEASE beside your twisted logic.

Just a little note to TM. It would be helpful if you would "box" your quotes. It makes the progression of statement and reply far more readable.

I agree with your point that making violation of UN 1441 an excuse to go to war with Iraq places it in a class by itself. There have been many other UN violations that did not generate such a violent response; for instance resolutions against Israeli aggression. It is hypocritical to apply two different sets of rules.

With the encouragement of management I think it would be a good time to go back to the original questions to try and bring it together.

Do you feel Karen Kwiatkowski is credible?
Although she was an observer from the outside for the most part her comments are useful because they dovetail with subsequent evidence that the BA had a pre-existing agenda to go to war with Iraq and evidence was cherry picked or interpreted to bring that agenda about.

Do you think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to suit an invasion agenda?
Absolutely! And even more evidence has come out recently to confirm that point.
Bush and Blair look for UN violation excuse to attack Iraq.
To nonsubscribers of The Independent here is a more complete take on the article. Juan Cole's partial reprint and interpretation of the Independent article


If you think the administration did manipulate intelligence, who do you think was principally responsible?
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Liddy and a host of necon folks already mentioned.

The only way you can show Bush manipulated anything is to ignore all of the UN suspicions and unanswered questions going back 12 years. Irar had WMD and never satisfied the UN that they were destroyed
How can there be any need to develop “hard evidence Saddam had broken UN Resolutions” when he never ever complied with any of them.

Can you show me some documentation of complied with Resolutions? Certainly he never complied with 1441.

Same old same old. I've made my case Ted; you've made yours. It has become a broken record. To repeatedly ask me to prove something that I have said umpteen times is irrelevant to the issue of our invasion simply becomes your version of a Pyric victory I guess. Your comment disputing Bush's manipulation isn't an argument, even if it's framed as one. It doesn't address the incidents proving manipulation. Unless you have something new to bring to the table I think I'll give it a rest.

I could not agree with you more Dingo. If you believe that all that I have posted detailing the massive amount of WMD Iraq admitted to producing and then would not show proof of destruction is “irrelevant” then we have nothing further to discuss.

As far as Bush manipulation I still maintain that the damming evidence is that of the UN and any “hyping” by Bush folks is not worse than we saw from Dems and Clinton in 1998.