Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: WMD = New World Gulf of Tonkin?
America's Debate > Archive > Policy Debate Archive > [A] Foreign Policy
Google
johnlocke
In 1975 when Richard Nixon withdrew the United States from the Vietnam War it was painfully obvious that the American peace movement was able to coral a lot of support because it was correct in it's assertion that the war was not necessary.

The Gulf of Tonkin Affair ( http://www.whitehousetapes.org/exhibits/tonkin/text.htm ) was the prime reason for going to war in Vietnam, and as it was later revealed in the Pentagon Papers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers ), the entire incident was contrived.

Today with the War in Iraq many people give the same level of credence to the purpose of our military being in Iraq based soley on the idea that they believe that President Bush lied about the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq leading up to the war. However there are many differences and similarities historically speaking, it seems to me that the differences here constitute a debate.

In my opinion President Bush did not present any evidence that members of the Security Council didn't have access to, all of whom were not Republicans, all of whom, voted to go to war. Nor did he (as far as I know) withold any information that he had about the evidence for WMD in Iraq from the American public.

So the questions are as follows:

Is there any sound evidence that President Bush intentionally misled the American public, to go to war in Iraq?

Is there a correlation between the Gulf of Tonkin Affair, and the lack of WMD in Iraq ?

Google
AuthorMusician
Is there any sound evidence that President Bush intentionally misled the American public, to go to war in Iraq?

There might be, but I doubt it will ever come to light. Actually, I doubt anything like the Pentagon Papers will come out that damns the administration for intentionally misleading the American public. These people are too slick for that.

What the buildup for war in Iraq amounted to was a shotgun marketing campaign with the threat to the US from WMD originating from Iraq as the central blast of double-ought shot. Marketing types have no conscious about telling the truth. It is all persuasion to buy an idea, like protect your spouse and children with life insurance. Ancillary benefits become part of the argument, where life insurance does other things like build up net wealth. With Iraq the argument started with WMD (protect the homeland), went to get Saddam (evil guy), then shining example of democracy in the ME (future benefits), and a few others (Iraqis want this, we'll be liberators, it'll pay for itself).

Some bought it, some did not. In the end, there's buyer's remorse in that the actual results don't match the marketing arguments. The price is too high and the benefits too low. In the case of President Bush, he was probably sincere in his beliefs that WMD were about to come to this country. However, I also see the cynical use of the public fear that another 9/11 would happen to win the 2004 election. Since that time, I don't think President Bush has any belief that has survived the initial marketing plan.

It's like the insurance salesman coming back to sell more bogus policies. The effort won't work due to the client having been burned once before.

Is there a correlation between the Gulf of Tonkin Affair, and the lack of WMD in Iraq ?

Very slim. The Gulf of Tonkin Affair was used to demonstrate communist aggression in Southeast Asia. The greater correlation is with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and this was used as an argument too, along with Saddam's gassing of his own people. This goes to getting rid of Saddam, the evil guy who could send WMD our way.

No, Vietnam had no WMD-like correlation. The closest those arguments got to it was the domino effect of losing the entire Southeast Asian area to communism if Vietnam fell. Saigon surrendered on April 30, 1975 Source Link and President Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974 Source Link. Troop withdrawals began in 1973 Source Link, so the statement that In 1975 when Richard Nixon withdrew the United States from the Vietnam War is inaccurate. Ford was president at the time, and withdrawal had started years before.

Iraq isn't exactly like Vietnam. We have discovered new mistakes to make, the body counts of US troops aren't nearly as high, the deceptions are more transparent, and although the press isn't publishing disturbing photos, it is watching the politicians with hawk eyes. All of the arguments leading up to the war and in support of continuing the war are in the public record. The marketing pitches are there to see for all who care to look, as are the results of buying the policy.
aevans176
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Dec 6 2005, 03:26 AM)
Is there any sound evidence that President Bush intentionally misled the American public, to go to war in Iraq?

Is there a correlation between the Gulf of Tonkin Affair, and the lack of WMD in Iraq ?
*



Ahh... interesting coorelation, but as much as I believe that Mr. Bush isn't the most wonderful republican (if you'd even call him a Republican) to take the helm, there is overwhelming evidence and statements made by very prominent people that Iraq was a threat to national security. How about nearly a dozen direct quotes from Hillary Clinton to Sandy Berger?
here's a GREAT link... take a look.
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

It appears in Quick Time, but it has direct quotes from a number of prominent Democrats making claims about the danger of Iraq, even prior to GW's first election.

If there was/is a conspiracy, it's far wider reaching than just the Bush Whitehouse.

Sure, there haven't been any Sarin Plants found, but what about the enriched uranium found?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

What about the bomb with Sarin gas inside?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
What did globalpolicy.org say as late as March of '02?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...2/0305straw.htm

Gulf of Tonkin??? Ummm... not really. How 'bout not at all....
Vermillion
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Dec 6 2005, 03:29 PM)
Ahh... interesting coorelation, but as much as I believe that Mr. Bush isn't the most wonderful republican (if you'd even call him a Republican) to take the helm, there is overwhelming evidence and statements made by very prominent people that Iraq was a threat to national security. How about nearly a dozen direct quotes from Hillary Clinton to Sandy Berger?


My problem with this srgument is as follows: Yes, in substance it is true, many people, on both sides of the aisle, believed the WMD threat coming out of Iraq. However few of these people were in a position to know, as Bush Jr. was. Many of these people (mistakenly) believed the press coming out of the white house, about Nigerian Uranium and so on, rather than actually being able to see the evidence for themselves. And in the case of the UK, Blair was at least nominally complicit in the fabrication, and has been challenged on this a great deal.

I don't think that the President of the United States can justify his mistake (although he has never actually admitted that his facts were wrong) by arguing : "ah but some of the people not in power wihtout access to information thought so as well". While the argument is true, and has some validity, I would suggest not very much...

QUOTE
Sure, there haven't been any Sarin Plants found, but what about the enriched uranium found?


You might want to read a bit further down in the article where it says that of the 1.77 metric tons of enriched Uranium found, NONE of it would have been appropriate for nuclear weapons or for a dirty bomb.

As for FOX, it has made dozens of claims of found WMD, and it is always careful to print its retractions in small print on later pages on its website. As of now there have been no confirmed finds of any second generation chemical weapons in Iraq, no biologiu]cal or atomic weapons, no chemical, biological or nuclear construction facilities. There have been one, possibly two discoveries of first generatuion chemical weapons (Mustard gas and phosgene) in individual shells, but both were confirmed to be inert due to age, that is dating from the Iran Iraq war.


aevans176
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Dec 6 2005, 11:48 AM)
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Dec 6 2005, 03:29 PM)
Ahh... interesting coorelation, but as much as I believe that Mr. Bush isn't the most wonderful republican (if you'd even call him a Republican) to take the helm, there is overwhelming evidence and statements made by very prominent people that Iraq was a threat to national security. How about nearly a dozen direct quotes from Hillary Clinton to Sandy Berger?


My problem with this srgument is as follows: Yes, in substance it is true, many people, on both sides of the aisle, believed the WMD threat coming out of Iraq. However few of these people were in a position to know, as Bush Jr. was. Many of these people (mistakenly) believed the press coming out of the white house, about Nigerian Uranium and so on, rather than actually being able to see the evidence for themselves. And in the case of the UK, Blair was at least nominally complicit in the fabrication, and has been challenged on this a great deal.


My problem w/ your logic is that you didn't address the fact that half of the quotes were from BEFORE the Bush Whitehouse. Multiple quotes were from before the 2000 election. How else can we put it? There are a handful of quotes from people in the Clinton Administration (to include Mr. Clinton) stating this exact sentiment.

If for years prior to George Bush's presidency, prominent officals from the previous administration were stating that there was a threat in Iraq... how can liberals (not to mention Canadians! w00t.gif ) ever state that the feeling that Iraq was harboring a threat was not bi-partisan?
Vermillion
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Dec 6 2005, 07:18 PM)
If for years prior to George Bush's presidency, prominent officals from the previous administration were stating that there was a threat in Iraq... how can liberals (not to mention Canadians! w00t.gif ) ever state that the feeling that Iraq was harboring a threat was not bi-partisan?


Ah, see here is the hicup. Yes, many people had a problem with Hussein, there were concerns expressed by the Clinton administration, by the Sush Sr. administration (who let him remain in power) and the Reagan administration, who sat by as gassed the Kurds.

Nobody, not even the most anti-war people liked Hussein, or relished the idea of him being in power. However, none of the people before Bush Jr. chose to invade on false pretenses, with no real plan for what happens afterwards. Bush Jr. alone bears the responsibility for his actions.

Besides, the whole 'lots of people thought so' argument is weakened substantially by the fact that it has become clear through a dozen revalations that Bush was being councelled by a LOT of people, not Liberals, that the case for WMD was weak, that there needed to be a post-war plan, that the war might not be a good idea. You will notice how, since the war started turning sour, even Bush Jr. has called off the rhetoric of Hussein being a 'threat to the united states'. His change in justification is evidence enough for the obvious collapse of the old justifications.


Oh, and I would stop calling those opposed to the war 'Liberals' if I were you. At this point, nearly 70% of the United States is opposed to the war, and I am pretty sure the US is not 70% Liberals...
johnlocke
QUOTE
Yes, many people had a problem with Hussein, there were concerns expressed by the Clinton administration, by the Sush Sr. administration (who let him remain in power) and the Reagan administration, who sat by as gassed the Kurds.


I don't really know what that has to do with anything? Reagan used Iraq against Iran, we maintained him as an ally to help our cause in the 1980's. President Bush (41) pushed back Saddam's forces but didn't obliterate them and liberate Iraq. But heaven help me I don't know what that has to do with this thread or aevans comment.

QUOTE
Nobody, not even the most anti-war people liked Hussein, or relished the idea of him being in power. However, none of the people before Bush Jr. chose to invade on false pretenses, with no real plan for what happens afterwards. Bush Jr. alone bears the responsibility for his actions.


Can you prove the pretenses were intentionally false? This is important because if the we went for a good cause and good comes out of it, many won't care that the intel may have been blundered, many more will be inclined to believe that there were weapons their that may have been removed. Either way, until the American public saw proof that there was a direct conspiracy to cover up false evidence, they won't really call for an end to the war.


QUOTE
Oh, and I would stop calling those opposed to the war 'Liberals' if I were you. At this point, nearly 70% of the United States is opposed to the war, and I am pretty sure the US is not 70% Liberals...


I am pretty sure that 70% of the nation is not opposed to the war, however if you can prove that I would suggest you do so now. Not believing that everything is going well over in Iraq is NOT the same as being opposed to the war, there is a BIG difference.
Cube Jockey
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Dec 6 2005, 03:26 PM)
I am pretty sure that 70% of the nation is not opposed to the war, however if you can prove that I would suggest you do so now. Not believing that everything is going well over in Iraq is NOT the same as being opposed to the war, there is a BIG difference.
*


Well that's easy. It isn't quite 70% but every single poll done for months has iindicated this. Here is a CNN/Gallup Poll with historical results and numerous questions:
QUOTE
  "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" N=1,006, MoE ± 3

                  Approve Disapprove  Unsure         
11/11-13/05 35              63          2     
9/16-18/05  32      67          1 
   
9/8-11/05    40        58            2     
8/28-30/05  40      59          1
6/24-26/05  40      58          2     
5/20-22/05  40      56          4     
4/29 - 5/1/05  42      55          3     
4/1-2/05      43        54            3     
2/25-27/05  45      53            2     
2/4-6/05      50        48              2     
1/7-9/05      42        56            2     
11/7-10/04    47      51          2     
10/14-16/04  46      52          2     
9/24-26/04  48      49          3     
8/9-11/04    45        52            3     
6/21-23/04  42      56          2     
6/3-6/04      41        57            2     
5/7-9/04      41        58            1     
5/2-4/04      42        55            3
4/16-18/04  48      49          3     
3/26-28/04  51      47          2     
1/29 - 2/1/04  46      53          1     
1/2-5/04  61        36            3     
12/5-7/03  50        47          3     
11/3-5/03  45        54          1     
10/6-8/03  47        50          3     
9/8-10/03  51        47          2     
8/25-26/03  57        41          2     
7/25-27/03  60      38          2     
7/18-20/03  57      39          4     
7/7-9/03  58        39          3     
6/12-15/03  63      34          3     
4/14-16/03  76      21          3     
3/29-30/03  71      27          2     
3/24-25/03  71      26          3     
3/14-15/03  56      41          3     
1/31 - 2/2/03  54      42          4     
1/3-5/03    55        40            5     
12/02            55          39            6     
10/02            52          40            8


As you can see, recently it has been hovering close to 70%. Even right wing numbers from FoxNews polls confirm these numbers, you can google them.

QUOTE
  "In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"  Form A (N=491, MoE ± 5)

Made a Mistake  Did Not Make a Mistake  Unsure         
11/11-13/05
54  45  1     


10/28-30/05
54  45  1     


10/21-23/05
49  49  2     


9/16-18/05
59  39  2


QUOTE
"All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"  Form B (N=515, MoE ± 5)

Worth Going To War  Not Worth Going To War    Unsure

11/11-13/05
38  60  2     


9/12-15/05
45  53  2
     
8/5-7/05 
        44  54  2     


7/7-10/05
44  53  3     


6/29-30/05
46  52  2     


6/6-8/05
42  56  2 


Satisfied? This stopped being about liberal opposition to the war a long time ago.
johnlocke
Sorry CubeJockey but there is nothing in any of your polls to suggest that Americans "oppose" the war. Not agreeing with the course we've taken in handling the war is not to oppose, nor doesany persons feeling of "worthiness" to the cause even come close to amounting to opposition.

I also didn't say that only liberals opposed the war, and neither did aevans, in fact he said:
QUOTE

If for years prior to George Bush's presidency, prominent officals from the previous administration were stating that there was a threat in Iraq... how can liberals (not to mention Canadians! w00t.gif ) ever state that the feeling that Iraq was harboring a threat was not bi-partisan?


This is way off topic though, can you provide any information about the questions?
Cube Jockey
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Dec 6 2005, 10:43 PM)
Sorry CubeJockey but there is nothing in any of your polls to suggest that Americans "oppose" the war.  Not agreeing with the course we've taken in handling the war is not to oppose, nor doesany persons feeling of "worthiness" to the cause even come close to amounting to opposition.
*


Hmm interesting. I think that if I was asked "In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?" OR "All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?" it would pretty clearly be a question about whether I opposed the war or not. But hey I guess you are welcome to your opinion.

And it isn't necessarily off topic if you brought it up in defense of one of your points, plus you sort of asked for proof thumbsup.gif
Google
johnlocke
QUOTE
And it isn't necessarily off topic if you brought it up in defense of one of your points, plus you sort of asked for proof  thumbsup.gif


That's true, that's a good point I guess I did laugh.gif .

Either way, I thought you could give us some insight into the questions, you are after all very respected around these threads for your research. I am interested to know what you think in relation to the questions from above.

Do you have any comments on the relation to the Gulf of Tonkin? I ask because a lot of people seem to say often that "Bush lied about WMD" etc. But What I'm looking for is proof of a willful lie or misinterpretation to fool the American people. Lord knows that if I'm nothing in this life, I'm a believer in democracy, and proof of statements about lying to the American people about reasons for going to war would constitute a major breech of the trust that exist between the people and their government.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE
there is overwhelming evidence and statements made by very prominent people that Iraq was a threat to national security. How about nearly a dozen direct quotes from Hillary Clinton to Sandy Berger?


aevans176,

This just demonstrates that "very prominent people" can be wrong too. It does not eliminate the possibility of deception.

However, Congress was fooled on the Tonkin thing too. The observation does corelate.
aevans176
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Dec 6 2005, 10:27 PM)
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Dec 6 2005, 03:26 PM)
I am pretty sure that 70% of the nation is not opposed to the war, however if you can prove that I would suggest you do so now. Not believing that everything is going well over in Iraq is NOT the same as being opposed to the war, there is a BIG difference.
*


Well that's easy. It isn't quite 70% but every single poll done for months has iindicated this. Here is a CNN/Gallup Poll with historical results and numerous questions:


You're very right about a large number/percentage being dissatisfied with the war. I believe that has everything to do with the Gov't's lack of clear direction in relation to the end of occupation, the expense (both human and financial), and partially the media's portrayal of lack of progress.

If you had a child that went to an Ivy League College, which seemed like a great idea, then he changed majors three times, spent fortunes and years in said college, eventually you'd have to say "HEY- Get a degree or get out!"...
This is how I, as well as many of my colleagues feel about the Iraqi situation. It was probably good for the middle east, surely good for US security and the Iraqi people as a whole, but what now? This is coming from a veteran... seriously. Enough is enough. Does that mean we disagree with going to war?? I'm sorry... but not at all.

The war surely isn't the Gulf of Tonkin, unless the conspiracy was years in the making. That's possible I suppose, as the government is still sticking to the "one bullet theory" and JFK... so whatever. But to portray this as a vast Bush administration conspiracy, contrived idea, or hoax is purely near-sighted and non-objective.
TedN5
Is there any sound evidence that President Bush intentionally misled the American public, to go to war in Iraq?

We've covered this issue over and over in other topics but maybe repetition is what it takes for some people to absorb the facts. After all, repetition worked well for the administration in persuading the people and Congress that an illegal war was justified.

Clearly the administration wanted war with Iraq from the beginning and used 9/11 to scare the public into supporting it. Evidence for this comes from the account of early cabinet meetings prior to 9/11 by Bush's first Secretary of State, Paul O'neil. It is also supported by the public writings and comments of the Neoconservatives, who came to play such prominent parts in taking us into war. I'm referring to comments like "what we need is a new Pearl Harbor" to justify increased military budgets in papers sponsored by the Project for the New American Century. We also have the evidence of Richard Clark who commented in his book about the immediate fixation after 9/11 by Bush, Cheney and others on Iraq.

The CIA's position on Iraqs WMDs prior to 9/11 was that they probably had some chemical weapons and maybe some biological weapons but that they were unlikely to use them unless attacked. They only changed their position after tremendous political pressure from the administration and even then maintained that it was unlikely that Saddam had reconstitued his nuclear program. Thus the repeated public statements by the President, Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and other administration officials about the threat of "mushroom clouds" over American cities were clearly calculated to scare us into supporting an invasion. Their use of such rhetoric accounts for their desire to use selective and even manufactured evidence to support it.

To believe otherwise, we have to swallow the account that the Energy Department experts' opinion, that the aluminum tubes were suitable for rockets but not enrichment centrifuges, was crudely left out of intelligence summaries and presented to the President by CIA Director, George Tenet, who later received a Freedom Medal rather than being summarily sacked. We also have to believe that the forged documents on Iraqi efforts to acquire Niger Uranium came to the White House innocently without CIA vetting. We also have to believe that the most egregious forgery was innocently left out when the documents were finally turned over to the IAEA by Secretary of State Powell shortly before the invasion. And we also have to believe that the IAEA could still identify these documents as forgeries within a few days when State Department and other American intelligence personnel could not.

Finally, we have the smoking gun of the Downing Street Memos. Among other things, they clearly show that the highest levels of the British government had concluded by July of 2002 that the Bush Administration was determined to invade "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." (See Downing Street Memo)." The dance the administration officials performed about getting UN resolutions and "only going to war as a last resort" was, therefore, purely for propaganda value.

This is far from a comprehensive list of the evidence for criminal deception by this administration. One could construct a similar argument of deception about all the claims for al Qaeda connections to Iraq. Howeve, the WMD distrortions are more than enough to justify holding the President and his war hawks to a full accounting for their actions.

Is there a correlation between the Gulf of Tonkin Affair, and the lack of WMD in Iraq ?

There is no correlation but there are some similarities. Like Iraq the military involvement in Vietnam came after a long period of meddling in Southeast Asia most contemporaneously by supporting the French in their attempt to reacquire their Vietnam colony and then trying to prop up an unpopular government in South Vietnam. Like Iraq, deception was used to justify an escalation of the conflict although the full facts surrounding that deception are still unclear. Unlike Iraq, however, the Vietnam involvement came within the context of a global ideological and military confrontation. Many in the Johnson Administration and within the military really did believe (mistakenly) that Indonesia and the rest of SE Asia would become communist if South Vietnam fell. Although some in the Bush Administration saw Iraq in a similar way, I am convinced their primary motivation was to control the key oil regions of the world and exert American dominance.

In any case, we should have learned something from our Vietnam experience and did but forgot the lessons beginning with the 80s.
Ted
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Dec 6 2005, 04:26 AM)
In 1975 when Richard Nixon withdrew the United States from the Vietnam War it was painfully obvious that the American peace movement was able to coral a lot of support because it was correct in it's assertion that the war was not necessary.

The Gulf of Tonkin Affair ( http://www.whitehousetapes.org/exhibits/tonkin/text.htm )  was the prime reason for going to war in Vietnam, and as it was later revealed in the Pentagon Papers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers ), the entire incident was contrived.

Today with the War in Iraq many people give the same level of credence to the purpose of our military being in Iraq based soley on the idea that they believe that President Bush lied about the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq leading up to the war. However there are many differences and similarities historically speaking, it seems to me that the differences here constitute a debate.

In my opinion President Bush did not present any evidence that members of the Security Council didn't have access to, all of whom were not Republicans, all of whom, voted to go to war. Nor did he (as far as I know) withold any information that he had about the evidence for WMD in Iraq from the American public.

So the questions are as follows:

Is there any sound evidence that President Bush intentionally misled the American public, to go to war in Iraq?


None that I have seen.  he made his case strongly but did not IMO lie at all.  Most of the world and the UN thought Iraq was hiding stockpiles of WMD. And IMO they were there, and  Saddam had them moved just befor the invasion.  We know he admitted to having the stockpils and we know he never proved, or even tried to prove he destroyed any of them.

Is there a correlation between the Gulf of Tonkin Affair, and the lack of WMD in Iraq ?

NONE
*



Yogurt
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Dec 6 2005, 04:26 AM)
Is there any sound evidence that President Bush intentionally misled the American public, to go to war in Iraq?


None that anyone here, in the Congress, nor in the media has been able to produce.

Is there a correlation between the Gulf of Tonkin Affair, and the lack of WMD in Iraq ?

Probably so, insofaras it being a proximate cause that was later determined to be in error. And if you go back a little further, "Remember the Maine"? It is equally doubtful that the Maine was mined (or torpedoed). It was most likely a boiler explosion. At the time it seemed plausible that it was attacked though.
Likewise, nearly everyone in the world was convinced that Iraq had WMD (and yes, they did find some (remember that arty shell with the Sarin used as an IED?), the main debate was how to deal with it.
TedN5
Is there any sound evidence that President Bush intentionally misled the American public, to go to war in Iraq?

Here is another good article explaining how the FBI and CIA were pressured to link al Qaeda with Iraq to make the case for war. When the FBI failed to come up with anything, they were disinvited to the critical NFIB meeting that developed the final National Intelligence Estimate Report.

QUOTE
John M. Cole, who retired late last year from the FBI as program manager for foreign intelligence investigations covering Pakistan and Afghanistan, says he and other managers were tasked before the war with exhausting all sources in the field for information tying Iraq to al-Qaeda.

................................................................................
...........................................................................

Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA's al-Qaeda unit at the time, says then-CIA Director George Tenet in 2002 asked his team to review all their classified files going back 10 years. Scheuer and his analysts combed through some 20,000 documents totaling more than 65,000 pages and found no connection in Iraq of a state sponsorship of al-Qaeda.

................................................................................
..............................................................................

In speeches, Bush contradicted the classified findings of the NIE – which of course were unknown to the public at the time – insisting that Hussein's regime was an "ally of al-Qaeda" and posed a direct terrorist threat to America.
Ted
QUOTE
TedN5
Is there any sound evidence that President Bush intentionally misled the American public, to go to war in Iraq?

Here is another good article explaining how the FBI and CIA were pressured to link al Qaeda with Iraq to make the case for war. When the FBI failed to come up with anything, they were disinvited to the critical NFIB meeting that developed the final National Intelligence Estimate Report.


Although info from captured al Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi since been proven to be a (deliberate) lie Saddam was no angel in dealing with Terrorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion...t_organizations

the former government did have relationships with other militant organizations in the Middle East including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It is known that some $10–15M total was paid to the families of suicide bombers, presented as compensation for the demolition of their homes in Israeli collective punishment operations. Abu Abbas (associate with the PLO and the Achille Lauro hijacking) was found in Iraq, and had been wanted for quite some time. In August 2002, Abu Nidal (attacks in Italy and elsewhere) died in Baghdad from gunshot wounds while facing treason charges under Saddam's government.
In 1998, Iraq plotted to blow up Radio Free Europe in Prague, for broadcasting opposition communications into Iraq. According to Jabir Salim, the consul and second secretary at the Iraq embassy in Prague, Saddam Hussein had allocated $150,000 to recruit and train individuals who would not be traceable back to Iraq. This plot was aborted in December 1998 when Salim defected in Prague, revealing details of the plot to the CIA, British MI-6 and Czech intelligence.
As here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/631slkle.asp

CIA Analysis, January 2003--Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report):
"Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other allies."

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"Iraq continued to participate in terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s."

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"Throughout 2002, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests. The CIA provided eight reports to support this assessment."


And of course there are the numerous statements by Butler, and Blix (as I have posted) discussing large quantities of WMD “missing” in Iraq sine 1991. Although large quantities of WMD have not been found certainly the intel from 2002 indicated the strong possibility that Iraq still had stockpiles.



Vermillion
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 27 2005, 08:03 PM)
the former government did have relationships with other militant organizations in the Middle East including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It is known that some $10–15M total was paid to the families of suicide bombers, presented as compensation for the demolition of their homes in Israeli collective punishment operations.


Now this is interesting. While links between Iraq and non-Middle-Eastern Terrorism never materielised, there are certainly links between Iraq and the PLO and Hamas. So thats terrorism right?

Well, sort of. Those 'links' should be put into context however. When compared to the Middle East, Iraq was one of the LEAST contributors to PLO and Hamas activities of all Middle Eastern Arab nations.

Here is a quiz question. Which nation was the top of the list for contributions to the PLO and Hamas? This nation contributed more to these two terrorist organisation than EVERY OTHER middle eastern country put together, including Iraq...


Thats right, that good old Bush Jr. friend and ally, Saudi Arabia. So much for the 'war on terror'.


QUOTE
Although  large quantities of WMD have not been found certainly the intel from 2002 indicated the strong possibility that Iraq still had stockpiles.


Thats one interpretation, of course another is that when Iraq states they were destroyed by Iraq, or destroyed by US bombing in Gulf War v 1.0, they might be telling the truth. It has always stggered me that the US refused to accept that any WMD were destroyed by Allied bombing in the first Gulf war, even though they openly admitted at the time targetting Iraqi WMD stockpiles. Essentially, the US ius refusing to accept that they ever hit anything. That always struck me as deliberately obstructive to peace, almost as if they WANTED and excuse for war...

Certainly the fact that the US was unable to find a single trace of stockpiles of WMD or any evidence of WMD production sites in its 3-year occupation makes the prospect of 'existing stockpiles' seem pretty unlikely. That is what the US search teams concluded themselves, that there are no significant deposits of WMD in Iraq, and I will trust their word on this issue...
Ted
QUOTE
Now this is interesting. While links between Iraq and non-Middle-Eastern Terrorism never materielised, there are certainly links between Iraq and the PLO and Hamas. So thats terrorism right?

You bet it is and it is clear that the people blowing themselves up in Iraq today may be from the same groups. And yes the Saudis are a big source of $$. This does not make a case that we should treat Iraq as we do SA.



QUOTE
Thats one interpretation, of course another is that when Iraq states they were destroyed by Iraq, or destroyed by US bombing in Gulf War v 1.0, they might be telling the truth. It has always stggered me that the US refused to accept that any WMD were destroyed by Allied bombing in the first Gulf war, even though they openly admitted at the time targetting Iraqi WMD stockpiles. Essentially, the US ius refusing to accept that they ever hit anything. That always struck me as deliberately obstructive to peace, almost as if they WANTED and excuse for war...


QUOTE
Certainly the fact that the US was unable to find a single trace of stockpiles of WMD or any evidence of WMD production sites in its 3-year occupation makes the prospect of 'existing stockpiles' seem pretty unlikely. That is what the US search teams concluded themselves, that there are no significant deposits of WMD in Iraq, and I will trust their word on this issue...



You could not have destroyed the quantities we were looking for without knowing it was done. And remember Gulf War I was fought outside the Baghdad area and since the WMD were not used against us there is strong reason to believe they remained hidden during this time. And the fact that we did not find the WMD IMO means nothing. Saddam had ample opportunity to move them out of the country. In fact countries that had a great deal at stake in keeping Iraq in power (France for example) could have even moved the WMD for Saddam . We may never know but I find it hard to believe Saddam, who never complied with a single UN resolution or told the truth on anything until confronted with irrefutable evidence, just destroyed billions of $$$ worth of perfectly good WMD. IMO that is the least likely possibility. Certainly the Clinton Administration never believed this line of nonsense.


And they did find probable WMD production sites. In a BBC documentary on Iraq Blix and the BBC reporter are in an Iraqi factory. Blix notes that the place has been “scrubbed clean" like many of the suspected sites. He also notes that a piece of equipment that could have been used for WMD (chemical) production has the part of the machine that would bear the proof of same – removed. Iraq had many “dual use” sites as noted in the ISG report and was also caught in 1995 importing 41 TONS of bacterial growth media. As Blix said to the UN – “enough to make 5,000 liters of concentrated Anthrax”.

Of course we did destroy some of the plants that we knew (from records) produced tons of VX etc. but the issue always was where were the WMD Iraq admitted to having produced.
TruthMarch
This is kind of simple. I think the 911 'terror' attack was the Gulf of Tonkin comparison, and the WMD is equal to 'containing Communism' and 'helping poor beleaguered South Vietnam from falling into the domino theory'. The pretext in Vietnam was the fabled attack on the US ship Maddox. The pretext in Iraq is the 911 attack and fighting 'terrorism'.
I don't know if this is against the rules here (yeah I should read them more closely but instead will just take my 3 strike chances) but this link has a video clip of Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell (separate clips) stating their containment policy against Hussein's Iraq was highly successful. Here's an excerpt:
Colin Powell, Egypt, 2001
QUOTE
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Mz. Rice stated, in reference to the sanctions:
QUOTE
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

Full video link:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
Ted
QUOTE
TruthMarch
but this link has a video clip of Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell (separate clips) stating their containment policy against Hussein's Iraq was highly successful. Here's an excerpt:
Colin Powell, Egypt, 2001


Highly successful is a relative term and this was before 9/11 and the additional concerns that came thereafter. Also this is not all Powell said. He also said :

There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, .....,
We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there

And those missing “stockpiles” were the concern of the UN and the Bush administration in 2002-2003. The UN was looking for verification that Iraq destroyed (unilaterally and illegally) tons of deadly VX nerve gas and thousands of liters of Anthrax. This was the subject of UN 1441 and a s you know Iraq never complied. Iraq never complied with ANY UN Resolution and as we discovered later the plan was to wait out the Sanctions while maintaining the WMD and programs to produce more.
TruthMarch
Sorry but I think the fact is that Iraq told the US and the UN that they had no WMD anymore and they even went so far as to give up the infamous 10,000 page report on their fabled WMD programs which the US edited out over 6,000 pages. The time has come long ago to stop trusting in the politician's word and stop the aggressive actions which protract an unwinnable concept i.e. war on 'terror'. There's good reason why your hypothetical daughter gives you her diary upon demand, though it's missing a ton of dates, ripped out to be sidestepped. Now why would someone edit out pages of a document? It's a sad fact that Hussein and 'evil' Iraq turned out to be telling the truth and the US officials all turned out to be wrong.
The overall fact is that since the US deleted over 50% of a (requested) document, they have something to hide. Seriously. Let's apply the same western democracy to this. The same people claim to be exporting to Iraq. You Ted are accused of a crime. You deny it. Your accusers make lots of outlandish claims about you and your future intentions as if they were swamis and can see into the future. You defend yourself with written documented evidence, evidence which can clear the matter once and for all, for the world to behold. Then you find out your accusers burned over 50% of your evidence, and refuse to tell the world what they are hiding. No one, Ted, of course, listens to you. Why? Simple. Because for months on end they have been reading and hearing about how evil you are and how heinous your 'crimes' are, of course not mentioning that your current accusers were your previous political allies with a very nice fair comfortable relationship beneficial to all.
Think that's fair?
Ted
QUOTE
TruthMarch
It's a sad fact that Hussein and 'evil' Iraq turned out to be telling the truth and the US officials all turned out to be wrong



I have no clue what you are speaking of. The UN compiled a 12,000 page report which was still referred to by Blix in 2003.

The reality is Iraq never ever complied with a single UN resolution. Serious questions were raised by Butler and Blix concerning WMD that Iraqi records captured in 1991-1995 showed they produced and they ADMITTED to having produced. ALL UN resolutions required Iraq to bring out these WMDs for destruction supervised by the UN. Instead Iraq told the UN they destroyed the WMD unilaterally! And by the way they have no proof of doing this.

If you believe this nonsense that’s fine but the UN never did. See my posts here:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...opic=11647&st=0

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...pic=11594&st=20


If you have some secret proof that Iraq destroyed all the missing WMD please post it here so we can all see it.
TruthMarch
Allow me a moment to be playful here. Make your argument but this time without any mention of Iraq not complying with UN Security Council Resolutions because, as we all should know, a level playing field is and should be mandatory. If that is not a parameter, then the argument anyone makes is for naught. I'm sure it's a bore by now but there is a very long list of UN Resolutions directed towards Israel and the United States, and they've all been ignored. Resolutions made in the very same rooms as were the ones Iraq supposedly were ignoring. (It's funny how in retrospect Iraq did what anyone would have done if faced with assertions which are not true. After repeated responses onto deaf ears, they finally ignored them). The idea that Hussein kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq is a media fallacy.
Ted
QUOTE
TruthMarch
I'm sure it's a bore by now but there is a very long list of UN Resolutions directed towards Israel and the United States, and they've all been ignored. Resolutions made in the very same rooms as were the ones Iraq supposedly were ignoring. (It's funny how in retrospect Iraq did what anyone would have done if faced with assertions which are not true. After repeated responses onto deaf ears, they finally ignored them). The idea that Hussein kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq is a media fallacy.

Come on please. Why would I ever even try to compare Regimes like that of Saddam’s Iraq to the US. WE did not invade a neighbor or kill thousands of our citizens with VX nerve gas. AND Iraq signed said Resolutions so as to remain a soverign state and the US and the UN had the right to expect them to live up to them – which they never did. And Iraq did effectively “kick the inspectors out” in 1998 by refusing to let them “inspect”. What would you have had them do? Stay and play cards in thir spare time?

What “assertions that were not true” are you speaking of? It cannot be the WMD Iraq admitted to having can it?
TruthMarch
No one has ever asked you to compare Israel to Hitler. No one. All this is about is the fact read that: FACT that Israel and the US act exactly the same as they say Hussein did. That is to ignore the UN. It matters not a whit who or what or why. You're saying the law is only restricted to certain groups? Ha. That's so naive I doubt you even think that. This is not about particular crimes nor about particular groups. It's about the UN Security Council creating a resolution which is ignored. That's it. This idea of two sets of justice is pathetic and kind of humiliating for anyone who is truly all for real freedom and democracy.
In the end, the US and Israel have ignored more UN resolutions than Iraq ever had. And that's a sad fact which creates poor excuses. Excuses like "hell I'm not comparing dead Jewish people to dead Iraqi people" never impress me. If you wish to compare crimes and (often faulty) statistics, then this isn't the thread to do it. My part is about UN resolutions being ignored. Are you, Ted, saying it's fine for the US and Israel to ignore the UN, but it's not ok for anyone else to ignore the UN? Perhaps Iraq looked to Israel's example and decided to copy them. How about this? When the UN makes a resolution, they should be adhered to. Iraq, the US, Israel, everyone. Sound fair?
TruthMarch
QUOTE
WE did not invade a neighbor or kill thousands of our citizens with VX nerve gas

Hold on a second. First, the US is the one who provided such evil weapons and the US were the ones who shared vital top secret sattelite intelligence with Hussein so he could kill as many people as he could with efficiency. Second, one has to wonder why you don't equate that comment with the US's killing of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. Even if you use the lower bush-endorsed figure of 30,000, that's still pretty high don't you agree? And for the international record, the US invasion of Iraq is by all standards, illegal. As is the occupation of Iraq. By the way, why is Iraq worth an American life? Because the US cares for the Iraqi people? laugh.gif
Ted
QUOTE
TruthMarch
In the end, the US and Israel have ignored more UN resolutions than Iraq ever had. And that's a sad fact which creates poor excuses. Excuses like


What Resolutions have the US and Israel ignored. The Resolutions Iraq ignored grew out of a vast UN operation that cost the US lives, occupied an ally, and threatened our vital interests in the area. If your idea is that we have no right to do anything related to UN resolutions then fine- we will defend our allies and our interests in the world. Would that be ok with you or should we as a nation go hide our heads in the sand?

QUOTE
Second, one has to wonder why you don't equate that comment with the US's killing of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians


Nonsense. Want to show a link - one that has real data.

QUOTE
Hold on a second. First, the US is the one who provided such evil weapons


HUH? What exactly are you speaking of. Please post something when you make claims like this.
TruthMarch
I'm surprised someone on top of things would need provided links as it was headline news for a while not long ago. The mainstream version has Bush claiming 30,000 Iraqi civilian dead. Interesting. The President is telling us that innocent Iraqi deaths are ten times more than any American 911 statistics, and this is a country which had nothing to do with 911 at all. But here are a couple of them (which I think you may be anxious to see).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/
As for the known fact that the US supplied Iraq with his scary illegal WMD (the US isn't exclusive to this fact by the way):
http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina...hp&id=815&blz=1
"September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)".
http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html
"...more than 207 companies from 21 western countries, including at least 18 from the United States, contributed to the buildup of Saddam Hussein's arsenal. Subsequent investigations turned up more than 100 more companies participating in the Iraqi weapons buildup".
Also:
"The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories," Gonzalez said. "Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons".
Ted
QUOTE
TruthMarch
I'm surprised someone on top of things would need provided links as it was headline news for a while not long ago


Come on please this is the same internet garbage that has been going around for years and is not supported by a lot of REAL data. This on the 30,000 deaths claim: From YOUR source.

Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000.[/b]
The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes
QUOTE
and the bacteria would be based on a strain imported from the United States.


And of course this anthrax bacteria nonsense is as old as the hills. The bacteria was “based on” a “strain” (of commercially available at the time) garden variety anthrax. Iraq got this from the US and others and then , the important part – they weaponized it. Iraq was one of the few countries in the world capable of doing this.


Public misconceptions exist in the areas of treatment, prevention, detection, and destructiveness with regard to the character of anthrax. First of all, it is not the bacteria, Bacillus anthracis, that poses the greatest risk, but its dry concentrated spores. Inhaled spores, several microns in diameter, reach deep into the lungs

In a recent issue of PNAS, Wein, Craft, and Kaplan (3) filled this critical gap by providing quantitative assessment of the deaths resultant to a civilian population from an airborne attack of weaponized anthrax on a large city
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/8/4355


Your effort to blame the work of madmen on the US is ridiculous – at best.
TruthMarch
[/QUOTE]September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)[QUOTE]
The US shipping weapons-grade anthrax to Iraq. But it wasn't weapons-grade until it hit Iraqi soil, right. Gee. The US sure enabled Iraq's WMD program didn't they? When they could have just sent non-weaponized anthrax instead.
And the way you say 'your' numbers is funny. It's almost as if you're not responding with your own numbers as well. Or let me guess. Your numbers are right and my numbers are wrong, right?
Ted
QUOTE(TruthMarch @ Feb 7 2006, 05:26 PM)
September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)
QUOTE
The US shipping weapons-grade anthrax to Iraq. But it wasn't weapons-grade until it hit Iraqi soil, right. Gee. The US sure enabled Iraq's WMD program didn't they? When they could have just sent non-weaponized anthrax instead.
And the way you say 'your' numbers is funny. It's almost as if you're not responding with your own numbers as well. Or let me guess. Your numbers are right and my numbers are wrong, right?
*




The US has never EVER shipped “weaponized” anthrax to Iraq or any other country. If you have any proof that this was ever done please post the SITE link so all of us can see it. Iraq weaponized anthrax which was commericlly available, for research, from numerous countries including the US.

Anthrax As a Bioterrorist Weapon
Aerosol release of weaponized spores is the most likely mechanism for use of anthrax as a biological weapon (see References: Inglesby 2002). However, deliberate contamination of food also potentially could occur. During World War II, the Japanese reportedly impregnated chocolate with anthrax to kill Chinese children. The apartheid government of South Africa also experimented with anthrax in chocolate (see References: Sirisanthana 2002).
Although there is no formal definition of weaponized anthrax, weaponization for aerosol release generally involves:
• Use of small particle size
• A high concentration of spores
• Treatment to reduce clumping
• Neutralization of the electrical charge
• Use of antimicrobial-resistant strains or genetic modification of the organism to increase virulence or escape vaccine protection
In 1972, more than 140 countries signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, which called for termination of all offensive biological weapons research and development and destruction of existing biological weapons stocks. However, the former Soviet Union continued to expand its biological weapons program (which included weaponization of anthrax) throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.
After the demise of the Soviet Union, many of the scientists who worked in the biological weapons program left the country. The status of those scientists remains unknown; however, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea actively have recruited such experts (see References: Henderson 1999). These countries and others have been suspected of ongoing development of offensive bioweapons programs.


http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/b...nized_Anthrax_1
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2022 Invision Power Services, Inc.