Full Version: If Bush Lied about WMDs
As the Jordanian terrorist plot unravels and the tons of chemical weapons are traced, it appears that we might find links to those elusive WMDs. One suspect has already owned up to training with those weapons in Iraq prior to the resumption of fighting in '03. He also says that training was provided by Al Quaeda.
So, Al Quaeda chemical weapons training, in Iraq, under Saddam's reign, before we attacked. Tons of chemical weapons that appear to have made their way into Jordan, through Syria, from Iraq. No more than minimal coverage of these events by the liberal media outlets.
Stay tuned. (better make it FoxNews though).
So, Al Quaeda chemical weapons training, in Iraq, under Saddam's reign, before we attacked. Tons of chemical weapons that appear to have made their way into Jordan, through Syria, from Iraq. No more than minimal coverage of these events by the liberal media outlets.
Stay tuned. (better make it FoxNews though).
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 28 2004, 11:33 AM)
So, Al Quaeda chemical weapons training, in Iraq, under Saddam's reign, before we attacked. Tons of chemical weapons that appear to have made their way into Jordan, through Syria, from Iraq. No more than minimal coverage of these events by the liberal media outlets.
Stay tuned. (better make it FoxNews though).
Stay tuned. (better make it FoxNews though).
Again I refer you to my earlier comment about the foolishness of the label 'Liberal News Media'. Call it rather, media with some journalistic integrity, who do not report rumours as facts and always seem to only report things that support the position of the right.
I am not saying that everything you posit is not possible, of course it is. However I will wait until I see it in a reputable news outlet, such as the CBC for example: Not American and thus with no vested political interest... FoxNews barely counts as journalism at all.
I will also prefer to see some evidence of these claims other than taped 'confessions' of the arrested men extracted by the Jordanian authorities. I would like to remind all that the 'plot' stopped by Jordanian police to set of a series of car bombs in the UK two years ago turned out to be a total hoax and the confessions forced under duress.
Thats not to say that this is not legitimate, it may be who knows. I certainly will not be taking the word of FoxNews for it...
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Apr 28 2004, 01:47 PM)
Again I refer you to my earlier comment about the foolishness of the label 'Liberal News Media'. Call it rather, media with some journalistic integrity, who do not report rumours as facts and always seem to only report things that support the position of the right.
Ok, so CNN never reports rumors as facts? Just three weeks ago, CNN was caught inventing a statement from the White House.
Anyway, here is a CNN article on the Al-Qada WMD plot in Jordan. It says they had 20 tons of chemical weapons. Where did they get it? Surly they're not fabricating this in their backyard swimming pools. And if they (the weapons) didn't come from Iraq, then where? It is extremely suspicious.
Now I'm hearing all over the news that estimates on possible deaths would have been more like 80,000 people, up from the initial 20,000 estimate.
Looks like newsmax got this one right.
QUOTE(deerjerkydave @ Apr 28 2004, 06:40 PM)
It says they had 20 tons of chemical weapons[/i]. Where did they get it? Surly they're not fabricating this in their backyard swimming pools. And if they (the weapons) didn't come from Iraq, then where? It is extremely suspicious.
All over the news? Really? You mean all over the right wing news outlets.
NewsMax and FoxNews have reported a whole bunch of rumours and unsubstantiated stories as if they were gospel. CNN is somewhat better, but not much... Frankly I barely count CNN as legitimate news either.
HOWEVER, even your own quotes do not back up your inferences from them. You say they had 20 tons of chemical weapons. Thats some creative reading on your part, thats all. The report states clearly they had up to 20 tons of CHEMICALS. Nice try.
The very report you cited stated that much of the siezed Chemicals was Sulfuric Acid, which can be used to increase the effect of conventional weapons. This did not come from Iraq, it likely came from one of any one of a thousand mail order catalogues. I could, right now on my credit card, but tons of sulfuric acid easily. So please explain to me how again these MUST be proof of Iraq's WMD program?
There are alegations, unproven, backed up by a taped confession brought to us from a government who has a HISTORY of coercing false taped confessions, the most recent incident being only 2 years ago. Even so, you read into it about 50 times more than was actually stated and got caught misquoting to support your own thesis.
EVEN despite all this, even CNN is not trying to make any link between Iraq's supposed WMD and this action. Thats about three logical leaps you have taken all to attempt to support a theory created by the Right Wing media outlets.
FINALLY, lest pretend for a moment that all this is in fact worst case, the NewsMax actually got something right, that the great conspiracy is true, and these are WMD smuggled out of Iraq, into the hands of terrorists.
Explain to me again how the invasion of Iraq made the world a safer place again? Hussein had not used WMD on the US dispite being invaded twice, he had never sold them abroad, they were as safe in Iraq as anywhere. Now, assuming tis wild supposition is true, as a DIRECT result of the invasion, there are NOW al Quaida in Iraq where there were not before, and masses of WMD are now in the hands of international terrorists whereas they would never have been otherwise.
Please explain to me how Bush made the world safer again?
You're right Vermillion. Al-Qada terrorists are caught with 20 tons of chemicals and explosives, not because they're trying to create a chemical explosion and kill tens of thousands of people, but because they're into making car batteries or something. Your defense of Saddam and these terrorists is like catching a repeat offender with a huge meth lab and all the necessary ingredients, only to excuse them because no meth was found!
If you like to believe msnbc and the Associated Press to be "right wing news outlets", then again you'd be right.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4838076/
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J...EMPLATE=DEFAULT
So let me get this straight, you don't trust newsmax, foxnews, cnn, msnbc, and you don't trust the associated press. Where then do you get your news from, Al-Jazeera?
Finally, I did not say in any way that this proved that Iraq produced the chemicals planned in this attack. All I said was that it is suspicious, especially with one of the attacker's confession of being trained to use chemical weapons under Saddam's pre-war Iraq.
If you like to believe msnbc and the Associated Press to be "right wing news outlets", then again you'd be right.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4838076/
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J...EMPLATE=DEFAULT
So let me get this straight, you don't trust newsmax, foxnews, cnn, msnbc, and you don't trust the associated press. Where then do you get your news from, Al-Jazeera?
Finally, I did not say in any way that this proved that Iraq produced the chemicals planned in this attack. All I said was that it is suspicious, especially with one of the attacker's confession of being trained to use chemical weapons under Saddam's pre-war Iraq.
QUOTE(deerjerkydave @ Apr 28 2004, 09:42 PM)
You're right Vermillion. Al-Qada terrorists are caught with 20 tons of chemicals and explosives, not because they're trying to create a chemical explosion and kill tens of thousands of people, but because they're into making car batteries or something. ,
I know you would like to believe its no different, but I have bad news for you. there is a WORLD of difference between 'Chemicals and weapons' and Chemical weapons. Sorry.
No conspiracy or suspicion is needed to obtain the former, it is not suspicious at all, unless you are desperatly seeking to find any evidence to hold up a theory which has been the bastion of the Right for over a year dispite NO evidence to support it.
You completely redefined your argument in this last post in order to cover your error. I NEVER said these people may not have been planning an attack, I suspect they were in one manner or another. What I doubt is the forces taped confessions of the captives, and the automatic link you are trying to draw to phantom WMD in Iraq.
QUOTE
Your defense of Saddam and these terrorists is like catching a repeat offender with a huge meth lab and all the necessary ingredients
Then, you go to the OTHER standard right wing ploy, because I refuse to accept your error as fact, I clarly MUST be 'supporting Saddam and the terrorists'. That is base, insulting and unworthy, and if you do it again i will report you to the mods. Accusing someone who does not share your personal viewpoint of supporting Hussein symbolises EVERYTHING that is wrong with the extreme right, thank you for providing us with a case study.
QUOTE(deerjerkydave @ Apr 28 2004, 04:42 PM)
You're right Vermillion. Al-Qada terrorists are caught with 20 tons of chemicals and explosives, not because they're trying to create a chemical explosion and kill tens of thousands of people, but because they're into making car batteries or something. Your defense of Saddam and these terrorists is like catching a repeat offender with a huge meth lab and all the necessary ingredients, only to excuse them because no meth was found!
If you like to believe msnbc and the Associated Press to be "right wing news outlets", then again you'd be right.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4838076/
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J...EMPLATE=DEFAULT
So let me get this straight, you don't trust newsmax, foxnews, cnn, msnbc, and you don't trust the associated press. Where then do you get your news from, Al-Jazeera?
Finally, I did not say in any way that this proved that Iraq produced the chemicals planned in this attack. All I said was that it is suspicious, especially with one of the attacker's confession of being trained to use chemical weapons under Saddam's pre-war Iraq.
If you like to believe msnbc and the Associated Press to be "right wing news outlets", then again you'd be right.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4838076/
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J...EMPLATE=DEFAULT
So let me get this straight, you don't trust newsmax, foxnews, cnn, msnbc, and you don't trust the associated press. Where then do you get your news from, Al-Jazeera?
Finally, I did not say in any way that this proved that Iraq produced the chemicals planned in this attack. All I said was that it is suspicious, especially with one of the attacker's confession of being trained to use chemical weapons under Saddam's pre-war Iraq.
Repeat offender?
I wasn't aware of one clear, substantiated state sponsored terrorist act attributed to Iraq. The only things attributed to them were:
WTC I - Ramsi Yousef was a Kuwaiti traveling on a forged Iraqi and Pakistani passport. Badly forged. Some nutcase claims he was really an Iraqi agent who stole the identity of Abdul Basit. She still hasn't been able to resolve the CIA laughing at her because they got both Yousef's and Basit's fingerprints. They match. Basit was a part of Al Quaeda. Go figger.
Bush assassination - They tracked ball bearings from an unexploded bomb intended to Iraqi intelligence - as if they make special ball bearings for the sole purpose of blowing up presidents. The people trying to blow up Bush? Not Iraqis. The link to Saddam? Absurd. Tracking unexploded bomb parts to Iraqi intelligence? Priceless. In any case, attempted assassination is not terrorism or we'd be terrorists as well.
WMD - Iraq only used them during the Iraq/Iran war. We supplied them. Iran used them too. There is convincing evidence that shows Iran killed more Kurds with WMD than Saddam. War sucks, many countries, including us, use WMD. And so did Iraq. But never again - even after we invaded him twice.
Funding terrorism - Name one Arab country that DOESN'T fund Hamas to kill Jews.
Invading Kuwait - name one country in the world - including us - that has never went to war over a border dispute.
Shooting at our planes - 40,000 sorties. ZERO planes shot down. Besides, the no fly zones were not authorized by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.
My point is, you've committed rhetoric to fact. Iraq has never been involved in international terrorism and you've just inferred they are some type of leader via "repeat offending". Completely bogus.
Hence this entire WMD argument. They never used them in Gulf War 1.0. They never sold them to anybody. They never used them in Gulf War 2.0.
If they had them, why wouldn't they use them? If everyone else was so sure Iraq had them and use them, why didn't they invade ("they" being Clinton, et al).
They weren't so sure and didn't invade. Bush did. Bush has done more to promote international terrorism than Saddam ever thought about doing. Thanks for nothing.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Apr 29 2004, 10:20 PM)
If everyone else was so sure Iraq had them and use them, why didn't they invade ("they" being Clinton, et al).
They weren't so sure and didn't invade. Bush did. Bush has done more to promote international terrorism than Saddam ever thought about doing. Thanks for nothing.
They weren't so sure and didn't invade. Bush did. Bush has done more to promote international terrorism than Saddam ever thought about doing. Thanks for nothing.
I agree that tying this Jordan thing to Iraq (or even cosnidering a tie in this thread) is premature but I think the above statement is just as logically suspect.
Clinton may not have invaded, but he bombed, killed civilians, put the lives of servicemen at risk, and risked sparking terrorism all knowingly because (as he claimed) Iraq had WMD.
Clinton and Bush had the same thing to say about Saddam. Bush simply thought containment wasn't working well enough given 9/11.
If one is a lying war criminal, then we've got two on our hands...
QUOTE(US News & World Report @ Jan 11 99)
Even the success may be transitory. A second look at the 100 targets attacked in the 70-hour barrage reveals that most of the damage was less than ruinous. Iraq's weapons program survives. In fact, in one sense it wasn't really hit at all: The United States did not target facilities that produce biological or chemical weapons for a variety of reasons, including the difficulty of identifying them and the fear of dispersing poisons into the air. Sources familiar with the target lists say that the dozen "weapons of mass destruction" sites attacked during the operation were mainly missile production and development plants. The missiles, along with helicopters and drones capable of delivering poison gas or deadly microbes, were hit, but not the deadly payloads themselves.[...]
Threats as policy. The administration was modest in describing the operation's results, but it also pointed to some successes. Among them: The pilots and cruise missiles hit an airfield where the Iraqis were converting Czech-made L-29 aircraft into drones capable of spraying anthrax, Iraq's "Anthrax Air Force."[...]
The Clinton administration also must worry about terrorism in response to the recent U.S. airstrikes not just on Iraq but also on Sudan and Afghanistan. Last week, the American Embassy in Tel Aviv was shut down temporarily because of intelligence about terrorist threats that the State Department termed "specific and credible."[...]
Total cost: more than $450 million
(Estimated: Pentagon figure unavailable)
Threats as policy. The administration was modest in describing the operation's results, but it also pointed to some successes. Among them: The pilots and cruise missiles hit an airfield where the Iraqis were converting Czech-made L-29 aircraft into drones capable of spraying anthrax, Iraq's "Anthrax Air Force."[...]
The Clinton administration also must worry about terrorism in response to the recent U.S. airstrikes not just on Iraq but also on Sudan and Afghanistan. Last week, the American Embassy in Tel Aviv was shut down temporarily because of intelligence about terrorist threats that the State Department termed "specific and credible."[...]
Total cost: more than $450 million
(Estimated: Pentagon figure unavailable)
QUOTE(Newsweek @ Dec 28 1998)
The attack continued for four nights, and was ended by President Clinton on Saturday, just hours after his impeachment. ``I'm confident,'' said Clinton, ``we have achieved our mission.'' Just as during the gulf war, the men and women in uniform had their own sly take on current events. On board the USS Enterprise, in the Persian Gulf, a GBU-24 bomb, covered in graffiti, was slung under the belly of an F/A-18 Hornet strike aircraft. LEWINSKY LIP TRAINER, read one scrawl. A crew readying an F-14 took time out to talk about politicians back home, in much the same way that Persian troops, on these same shores, must have moaned about the Emperor Darius more than 2,000 years ago. ``They wear a coat and tie,'' said Todd Buczek, a 34-year-old sailor from New Hampshire. He then tugged on his fatigues: ``We wear these.'
On the ground in Baghdad, where this is not a movie, the old horror of war was visible once more. Journalists were taken on a grim tour of the Baghdad Teaching Hospital, damaged during the second night of attacks. Tariq Abdul Hussain rested on a gurney, his freshly amputated left leg lying on a bloodstained sheet. He had been injured just one hour earlier, while walking in central Baghdad. In the basement, to which staff and patients had retreated, Wisam Ahmed Obeyd, at the hospital to visit his ailing mother, sat on the floor, his legs heavily bandaged after having been cut by flying glass. ``They can't have any value for human lives,'' he said of the Americans. ``They don't even know God.''
On the ground in Baghdad, where this is not a movie, the old horror of war was visible once more. Journalists were taken on a grim tour of the Baghdad Teaching Hospital, damaged during the second night of attacks. Tariq Abdul Hussain rested on a gurney, his freshly amputated left leg lying on a bloodstained sheet. He had been injured just one hour earlier, while walking in central Baghdad. In the basement, to which staff and patients had retreated, Wisam Ahmed Obeyd, at the hospital to visit his ailing mother, sat on the floor, his legs heavily bandaged after having been cut by flying glass. ``They can't have any value for human lives,'' he said of the Americans. ``They don't even know God.''
Clinton had bad intelligence about a sudanese aspirin factory that he had bombed but for some reason the right-wing wasnt keen to cut him any slack. Seems during the clinton years some wanted to hold the prez accountable for intelligence failures but those same people have suddenly changed their views. Gee, what in the world could be going on? Im shocked, shocked.
QUOTE(santasdad @ May 8 2004, 09:30 AM)
Clinton had bad intelligence about a sudanese aspirin factory that he had bombed but for some reason the right-wing wasnt keen to cut him any slack. Seems during the clinton years some wanted to hold the prez accountable for intelligence failures but those same people have suddenly changed their views. Gee, what in the world could be going on? Im shocked, shocked.
1. My Lord!
What is it with this "Sudan" thing?! No one is really discussing Sudan, not when we have Clinton's much more pertinent "Desert Fox" bombing of Iraq to discuss.2. You know santasdad that logic actually aims back in a direction that is pertinent to the debate questions.
Namely all of those blaiming Bush for the way he attacked Iraq, seem to suddenly get very quiet when the find out (or rather, are reminded, there was nothing secret about this) that Clinton did the same thing
.Gee, I wonder what really motivates all of this Bush crticism??
...and a special treat for those who fault Bush for connecting Iraq to Al-Qaeda.
It turns out Clinton connected Iraq to Serbia. I get quotes from the article next time I stop by the library but anyone for who wishes to get a jump on it, i'll list the citation.
QUOTE
Title: Serbs and Iraqis Met, U.S. says.
Source: New York Times; 03/30/99, Vol. 148 Issue 51477, pA12, 0p
Document Type: Article
Subject Terms: MEETINGS
YUGOSLAVIA -- Armed Forces
Abstract: Reports on the meeting between Yugoslav military
specialists and Iraqi counterparts in Baghdad, Iraq in February 1999.
Purpose of the meeting.
ISSN: 0362-4331
Accession Number: 1734399
This is not some sort of round about justification for Bush. Both presidents are responsible for their own actions.
But those who fault Bush have to face facts, if Bush is a lying war criminal so's Clinton.
The Sudan thing is relevant cuz irony is always fun. Fire breathing conservatives were throwing those charges about Clinton around right up to the time Bush couldnt find WMD. Suddenly the president isnt responsible for intelligence failures and its simply funny.
Clinton believed the CIA when they told him that a factory had chemical weapons precursors in the soil but he was still the commander and chief and responsible for the action. There is a difference in scale and detail though between 3 cruisemissiles that killed nobody (wounded a janitor according to CNN) and a one year middle east war that killed 10s or 100s of thousands. There is also a difference in the allegations by former staff that the Bush administration helped push for, craft and intentionally (or incompetently) present bad evidence.
Clinton believed the CIA when they told him that a factory had chemical weapons precursors in the soil but he was still the commander and chief and responsible for the action. There is a difference in scale and detail though between 3 cruisemissiles that killed nobody (wounded a janitor according to CNN) and a one year middle east war that killed 10s or 100s of thousands. There is also a difference in the allegations by former staff that the Bush administration helped push for, craft and intentionally (or incompetently) present bad evidence.
QUOTE(santasdad @ May 9 2004, 09:39 AM)
The Sudan thing is relevant cuz irony is always fun. Fire breathing conservatives were throwing those charges about Clinton around right up to the time Bush couldnt find WMD. Suddenly the president isnt responsible for intelligence failures and its simply funny.
I not a stranger to having a little fun with a debate, but I try and keep it on topic, as defined by the original questions for debate.
Perhaps an view of one of them (the one in play here) would help...
QUOTE(overlandsailor)
When we claim that President Bush Lied to us on WMDs, are we not ignoring the fact the the previous administration also thought Iraq was dangerous and was in possession of WMDs and conducted surgical strikes against suspected WMD production sites?
Hence Sudan is distinctly off topic, but I think that's hardly a revelation...
Desert Fox, on the other hand is a perfect example of Clinton policy on Iraq. Information on this bombing campaign (it was a lot more than three bombs
) is strewn about the thread in my posts, I'll post yet more, and I take requests.A more compact version can be found here.
We have the privledge here of noting "fire-breathing" liberals for blaiming Bush over the attack of another sovereign nation (Iraq) against the will of the international community with faulty intelligence and evidence of foul play blah blah blah....
While calmly ignoring Bill Clinton's own none-too-shabby recored in doing the same.
Partisan politics is quite a circus to watch.
QUOTE(santasdad)
There is also a difference in the allegations by former staff that the Bush administration helped push for, craft and intentionally (or incompetently) present bad evidence.
...and what of Bill Clinton's use of the head UN weapons inspector (Richard Butler) as a CIA spy. Clinton can match, almost deed for deed Bush's record with Iraq...
Here's some info on Butler and for yet more information from a familiar source...
QUOTE(New Internationalist @ Sep99 Issue 316, p16, 2p, 1c)
Until his resignation last summer William 'Scott' Ritter was known as the toughest of the UNSCOM inspectors who scoured Iraq for Saddam Hussein's programme of weapons of mass destruction. Ritter joined UNSCOM in 1991 when he left the US Marines where he had been involved in arms-control work and inspections in Russia. He eventually resigned amid much publicity: 'when it became clear that the US and Richard Butler, Executive Director of UNSCOM. were manipulating inspections as a vehicle for maintaining economic sanctions, instead of disarmament. I could not be part of that. My job was to find the weapons.' [...]UNSCOM foundered on accusations -- later proved to be accurate -- that US Intelligence Services used it to spy on Iraq for purposes unrelated to its disarmament mission. Ritter himself was at the centre of this debate as he was in charge of the Concealment Inspection Unit which secretly installed listening devices to intercept Iraqi communications.
QUOTE(US News & World Report)
Whatever the motivation for the latest contretemps, there is no doubt that the relationship between Washington and UNSCOM has become very tight. Ritter suggests that, beginning with the inspection of the Iraqi Defense Ministry, the United States heavily influenced the timing and nature of confrontations with Iraq--contrary to the popular view that it was Saddam who picked his fights. American officials and Butler, the UNSCOM chief, dispute this view, saying Ritter's knowledge of events was limited. Ritter had quit UNSCOM in August and, says a top U.N. official: "He didn't know the full picture."
But several U.S. officials confirmed key elements of Ritter's account, including:
* The United States asked for the March 8 inspection of the Ministry of Defense, knowing full well that Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, had said such an inspection would be an "act of war."
* Butler met twice a week with Bill Richardson, then U.S. envoy to the U.N., to discuss UNSCOM operations. "We gave him suggestions," says a U.S. official. "I'm not saying we controlled him, but he took our advice a lot."
* Butler allowed the United States a "preview" of the critical language of his final report to the Security Council one day before the United States cited the report to justify the most recent air strikes on Iraq. The United States could have influenced the report's language, officials say--though Butler denies that it did. "I did not negotiate the language of the report with anyone," he says, "not with the U.S. or anyone." Throughout 1998, however, Butler routinely allowed Richardson and his successor, Peter Burleigh, to comment on UNSCOM reports before delivering them to the Security Council, sources say. "He collaborated with us on a lot of them," says an American diplomat. [...]On Tuesday, hours before he delivered his report to the Security Council, Butler visited the U.S. mission to the U.N., where he "previewed" language from his report. U.S. officials say they were able to offer comments. However, they say the final wording was Butler's.
Things moved quickly after that. Butler filed his final report with the Security Council. Hours later, on Tuesday night, Peter Burleigh, the acting U.S. ambassador to the U.N., told Butler it would be wise to pull the rest of the UNSCOM team out of Baghdad. The next day, the bombs and missiles began to fall.
But several U.S. officials confirmed key elements of Ritter's account, including:
* The United States asked for the March 8 inspection of the Ministry of Defense, knowing full well that Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, had said such an inspection would be an "act of war."
* Butler met twice a week with Bill Richardson, then U.S. envoy to the U.N., to discuss UNSCOM operations. "We gave him suggestions," says a U.S. official. "I'm not saying we controlled him, but he took our advice a lot."
* Butler allowed the United States a "preview" of the critical language of his final report to the Security Council one day before the United States cited the report to justify the most recent air strikes on Iraq. The United States could have influenced the report's language, officials say--though Butler denies that it did. "I did not negotiate the language of the report with anyone," he says, "not with the U.S. or anyone." Throughout 1998, however, Butler routinely allowed Richardson and his successor, Peter Burleigh, to comment on UNSCOM reports before delivering them to the Security Council, sources say. "He collaborated with us on a lot of them," says an American diplomat. [...]On Tuesday, hours before he delivered his report to the Security Council, Butler visited the U.S. mission to the U.N., where he "previewed" language from his report. U.S. officials say they were able to offer comments. However, they say the final wording was Butler's.
Things moved quickly after that. Butler filed his final report with the Security Council. Hours later, on Tuesday night, Peter Burleigh, the acting U.S. ambassador to the U.N., told Butler it would be wise to pull the rest of the UNSCOM team out of Baghdad. The next day, the bombs and missiles began to fall.
QUOTE(Human Events @ Vol. 54 Issue 49, p6, 1/4p)
Scott Ritter resigned as a UN arms inspector in Iraq earlier this year to protest what he said were efforts by the Clinton Administration to impede arms inspectors' efforts to aggressively ferret out Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Last Thursday, in a by-lined piece by New York Post reporter Christopher Francescani, Ritter is quoted as saying, "What [Chief UN Weapons Inspector] Richard Butler did last week with the inspections was a set up. This was designed to generate a conflict that would justify bombing."
The Post reported that, "Ritter said U.S. government sources told him three weeks ago when the inspections resumed that 'the two considerations on the horizon were Ramadan [the month-long Muslim holiday beginning this weekend] and impeachment.'"
Said Ritter: "You have no choice but to interpret this as 'Wag the Dog.' You have no choice."
The Post reported that, "Ritter said U.S. government sources told him three weeks ago when the inspections resumed that 'the two considerations on the horizon were Ramadan [the month-long Muslim holiday beginning this weekend] and impeachment.'"
Said Ritter: "You have no choice but to interpret this as 'Wag the Dog.' You have no choice."
I could go on....
But I am still waiting for someone to actually address some of my evidence.
Turnea - are you defending Bush, or just attacking Clinton? Just a note: some of us 'damn liberals' aren't Democrats. We aren't Clinton-lovers. We won't defend everything Clinton did because he's Clinton.
I DO think that Bush did MUCH worse than Clinton did, and I believe Bush (well, Bush administration - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) were extremely devious, and, dare I say, evil, in their regard for manipulating the intelligence, and lying to the the United States and the world to justify an immoral, illegal war.
I DO think that Bush did MUCH worse than Clinton did, and I believe Bush (well, Bush administration - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) were extremely devious, and, dare I say, evil, in their regard for manipulating the intelligence, and lying to the the United States and the world to justify an immoral, illegal war.
I agree with Sir VLCIV, I don't even know what your point is. It seems to be: "Bush is awful? Well Clinton was almost as bad!"
Clinton attacked several suspected WMD sites with precision attacks.
Bush invaded Iraq killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and 700+ American soldiers, and now presided over what may turn out to be systematic abuses over Iraqi civilians and POWs.
Yes, I suppose you could argue that Clinton is evil too, though his actions pale in camparason with those of Bush.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
Clinton attacked several suspected WMD sites with precision attacks.
Bush invaded Iraq killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and 700+ American soldiers, and now presided over what may turn out to be systematic abuses over Iraqi civilians and POWs.
Yes, I suppose you could argue that Clinton is evil too, though his actions pale in camparason with those of Bush.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
QUOTE(SirVLCIV @ May 9 2004, 07:48 PM)
Turnea - are you defending Bush, or just attacking Clinton?
Neither...
1. It's not really germane to the questions for debate.
2. I've tread rather carefully on giving my opinion on "Desert Fox" because I already know what I think. I have merely listed a purely factual overview of the Clinton administration's action, I leave jugement to others, which sadly no one has done yet. Though you might be suprised as to my judgement (I'll leave it at that).
QUOTE(SirVLCIV)
Just a note: some of us 'damn liberals' aren't Democrats. We aren't Clinton-lovers. We won't defend everything Clinton did because he's Clinton.
Never implied that you were...
Nor did I make any blanket statement about "damn liberals" (since that particular umbrella would include myself, a person whom I avoid insulting
)That "fire-breathing" crack was just poking fun at the use of the term in santasdad's post.
QUOTE(SirVLCIV)
I DO think that Bush did MUCH worse than Clinton did, and I believe Bush (well, Bush administration - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) were extremely devious, and, dare I say, evil, in their regard for manipulating the intelligence, and lying to the the United States and the world to justify an immoral, illegal war.
...and what of Clinton? The comparison is kind of the point of this thread...
QUOTE(Vermillion)
I agree with Sir VLCIV, I don't even know what your point is. It seems to be: "Bush is awful? Well Clinton was almost as bad!"
Nope...
If one is confused as to my point, one need only look at the questions for debate.
QUOTE(overlandsailor)
When we claim that President Bush Lied to us on WMDs, are we not ignoring the fact the the previous administration also thought Iraq was dangerous and was in possession of WMDs and conducted surgical strikes against suspected WMD production sites?
The one above is a good example of what I'm getting at, though one can draw a great number of useful conclusions for "Desert Fox" and the events surronding it.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Clinton attacked several suspected WMD sites with precision attacks.
Bush invaded Iraq killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and 700+ American soldiers, and now presided over what may turn out to be systematic abuses over Iraqi civilians and POWs.
Bush invaded Iraq killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and 700+ American soldiers, and now presided over what may turn out to be systematic abuses over Iraqi civilians and POWs.
There is a great difference in scale, but very little difference in nature of the actions.
1. With relatively few allies (Clinton garnered only one, Tony Blair's Britain)
2. Over the objection of the UN and tradition allies (same list of France, Russia,China all very upset)
3. Disrupting UN inspections ("Desert Fox" effectively ended inspections until Bush called for their return years later)
4. Killed a number civilians (For those who feel killing thousands is wrong, is killing dozens OK?)
5. With doubts over intelligence (according to Ritter Clinton's CIA inteference ruined inspections).
6. If the Bush action was illegal, then so was Clinton's
..and yet those who oppose Bush's actions seem to lose their voices when confronted with Clinton's. My favorite aspect of this debate is that it points out that partisan politics drives the debate over Iraq.
I'm waiting for someone to prove to me that this is not the case on this board... but I'm not holding my breath.
QUOTE(turnea @ May 10 2004, 04:30 PM)
..and yet those who oppose Bush's actions seem to lose their voices when confronted with Clinton's. My favorite aspect of this debate is that it points out that partisan politics drives the debate over Iraq.
Ok, you have posed a list of similarities, now let us examine a list of differences.
1) -Clinton had intelligence that there was WMD production going on, so launched sugical atacks against suspected WMD facilities.
-Bush had intelligence that there was WMD production going on, so pressed for unconditional, uninterrupted inspections. Having SUCCEEDED in getting the inspections he demanded, he proceeded to immediatly invade before the inspectors had had time to do much of everything, over the advice of most of the international community, AND the inspectors he had just insisted upon.
This is not just a matter of 'scale' (though clearly the difference in scale is momentous) it is also a difference of actions fitting events. Clinton took action based directly on the intel he had. Bush, by all accounts, used the same intel to semi-justify the course of action he had already decided upon, full scale invasion.
2) -Clinton apprently did not feel the evidence he was presented with justified more than precision attacks against specific targets. Bush took the same intel and tried to use it as a pretext for full scale war.
That again is not just differences in 'scale' it is an entire re-interpretation of the available evidence. We know now that several items of intel were shaky from day one, and several turned out to be outright wrong. Clinton apparently took this shaky evidence as what it was, shaky evidence, and organised the longstanding American response to such things, proportional response.
The evidence presented to Bush was just as shaky, so where did his unwavering belief and massively disproportional response come from?
3) Clinton's actions directly caused the deaths of zero Americans.
Bush's actions directly caused the deaths of 700+ and counting Americans.
4) Dispite the vocal outrage at the time of the launch, the missile attacks launched by Clinton caused no significant change in the relations of the US with other Middle Eastern states.
Bush's actions, and the fallout from them have brought Al-Qaeda into Iraq where it was not there before, killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and the burdgeoning torture and brutality revalations risk crippling US relations with the Middle east.
So in summation, yes I suppose there is a case to say that Clinton's actions were wrong and he is a criminal.
In the same way someone who kicks you in the shins is a criminal. However, to compare them with a murderer is not a reasonable comparaison.
In my mind this has nothing to do with partisan politics. Bush's actions were wrong, they were justified by either lies or willfull blindness and the results were questionable even BEFORE these brutality accusations.
IF it turns out any of the Red Cross' complaints passed over Bush's desk; if it turns out any comments or complaints from lower ranks about the apparently widespread brutality was made aware to Bush and he did nothing, then I have some diffculty understanding how he is not a War Criminal.
Either way, comparing his excesses to Clinton is like comparing a pebble to a boulder. If your point is that they are both made of rock, fine I giveyou that. But in no other way are they comparable.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ May 10 2004, 12:14 PM)
1) -Clinton had intelligence that there was WMD production going on, so launched sugical atacks against suspected WMD facilities.
-Bush had intelligence that there was WMD production going on, so pressed for unconditional, uninterrupted inspections. Having SUCCEEDED in getting the inspections he demanded, he proceeded to immediatly invade before the inspectors had had time to do much of everything, over the advice of most of the international community, AND the inspectors he had just insisted upon.
-Bush had intelligence that there was WMD production going on, so pressed for unconditional, uninterrupted inspections. Having SUCCEEDED in getting the inspections he demanded, he proceeded to immediatly invade before the inspectors had had time to do much of everything, over the advice of most of the international community, AND the inspectors he had just insisted upon.
Well, not exactly...
Clinton already had inspections going as well. The difference of course is that these inspectors:
1. Were not in the least bit afraid to point out Iraqi intransigence (which was a constant throughout UNSCOM and UNMOVIC's reign).
2. Cooperated very closely with the Clinton administration including discussing the wording of inspections reports before the final presentation.
3. Seem to have been infiltrated by the CIA, which according to Scott Ritter caused the non-cooperation which Clinton then bombed them for.
So these inspectors were different in nature (except Ritter, of course) and therefore not likely to criticize Clinton as UNMOVIC criticized Bush.
Your first point seems to boil down to: "well the inspectors didn't object to Clinton"... but placed beside the objections of the international community. That seems to be a rather (very) small issue.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
This is not just a matter of 'scale' (though clearly the difference in scale is momentous) it is also a difference of actions fitting events. Clinton took action based directly on the intel he had. Bush, by all accounts, used the same intel to semi-justify the course of action he had already decided upon, full scale invasion.
Did you not see where I posted Ritter's allegations that Clinton "wagged the dog"?
Here they are again:
QUOTE(Human Events @ Vol. 54 Issue 49, p6, 1/4p)
Scott Ritter resigned as a UN arms inspector in Iraq earlier this year to protest what he said were efforts by the Clinton Administration to impede arms inspectors' efforts to aggressively ferret out Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Last Thursday, in a by-lined piece by New York Post reporter Christopher Francescani, Ritter is quoted as saying, "What [Chief UN Weapons Inspector] Richard Butler did last week with the inspections was a set up. This was designed to generate a conflict that would justify bombing."
The Post reported that, "Ritter said U.S. government sources told him three weeks ago when the inspections resumed that 'the two considerations on the horizon were Ramadan [the month-long Muslim holiday beginning this weekend] and impeachment.'"
Said Ritter: "You have no choice but to interpret this as 'Wag the Dog.' You have no choice."
The Post reported that, "Ritter said U.S. government sources told him three weeks ago when the inspections resumed that 'the two considerations on the horizon were Ramadan [the month-long Muslim holiday beginning this weekend] and impeachment.'"
Said Ritter: "You have no choice but to interpret this as 'Wag the Dog.' You have no choice."
Sound familiar?
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Clinton apprently did not feel the evidence he was presented with justified more than precision attacks against specific targets. Bush took the same intel and tried to use it as a pretext for full scale war.
That again is not just differences in 'scale' it is an entire re-interpretation of the available evidence. We know now that several items of intel were shaky from day one, and several turned out to be outright wrong. Clinton apparently took this shaky evidence as what it was, shaky evidence, and organised the longstanding American response to such things, proportional response.
That again is not just differences in 'scale' it is an entire re-interpretation of the available evidence. We know now that several items of intel were shaky from day one, and several turned out to be outright wrong. Clinton apparently took this shaky evidence as what it was, shaky evidence, and organised the longstanding American response to such things, proportional response.
Assumptions...
Why do you assume that the reason Clinton opted to use surgical strikes and encourage a coup from the inside rather than invade is because he though the evidence was shaky?
Could he have felt that the timing would be bad (it was right at the start of impeachment proceedings) or any number of other reasons?
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Clinton's actions directly caused the deaths of zero Americans.
Bush's actions directly caused the deaths of 700+ and counting Americans.
Bush's actions directly caused the deaths of 700+ and counting Americans.
Let's not walk into the trap of determining the values of lives. Clinton killed and maimed Iraqis. The number of dead is a question of scale, not nature.
I concede point four, though I feel it hardly makes all the difference...
QUOTE(Vermillion)
In the same way someone who kicks you in the shins is a criminal. However, to compare them with a murderer is not a reasonable comparaison.
Of course "murder" is likely the more appropriate range for both of these actions if they were in fact illegal and immoral. After all Clinton wasn't dropping nasty letters out of those planes.
Oh and two more similarities:
1. Both knowingly risked terrorists retaliation.
2. Both connected Iraq to high-profile foes of the day (Clinton: Serbia; Bush:Al-Qaeda)
Vermillion,
There are missing points in your time line that I would like you to consider
* August 2, 1990: Iraqi forces invade Kuwait.
*January - February, 1991: American-led forces bomb Iraq and conduct a brief ground war, forcing Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.
*March 2, 1991: U.N. votes that Iraq must disclose data on its weapons of mass destruction.
*April 3, 1991: Iraq told weapons of mass destruction must be removed or destroyed.
*September, 1991: Iraq detains team of U.N. arms inspectors, blockading them in a parking lot. They are released after handing over papers about Iraqi plans to make nuclear weapons.
*August 2, 1992: No-fly zone established over southern Iraq to stop air attacks on Shiite Muslim rebels. No-fly zone enforced by U.S. and allied air patrols.
*January 7, 1993: More than 100 U.S., British and French planes attack radar sites and missile batteries as Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's defiance of U.N. peacekeeping grows.
*June 26, 1993: U.S. President Bill Clinton orders a missile strike on Iraqi intelligence headquarters, citing evidence of an Iraqi plot to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush.
*October 7, 1994: Iraqi troops move toward Kuwait then pull back after the United States dispatches a carrier group, 54,000 troops and warplanes.
*August, 1995: Hussein's two sons-in-law flee to Jordan and reportedly disclose information regarding Iraq's chemical and biological weapons arsenal. Later, the two return to Iraq and are killed by members of Hussein's extended clan.
*September 3-4, 1996: U.S. launches missiles against Iraqi posts in southern Iraq after Iraqi military ventures into Kurdish "safe haven."
*November 13, 1997: Iraq expels U.S. arms inspectors.
*November 20, 1997: Iraq agrees to allow U.N. inspectors, including Americans, to return.
*January 13, 1998: Iraq effectively bars U.N. arms inspectors led by an American from working.
*January 16, 1998: American-led U.N. arms inspection team leaves Iraq, other inspectors continue their work.
*January 29, 1998: U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright begins tour of Europe, Middle East to garner support for stand against Iraq.
*February 6, 1998: Middle East military buildup continues as an additional 2,200 U.S. Marines head for Gulf.
*February 11, 1998: Iraq offers to open eight presidential sites to inspections conducted under direct authority of U.N. Security Council for 60 days. Washington dismisses proposal.
*February 20, 1998: U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan arrives in Baghdad on an 11th-hour mission to find a peaceful resolution to the standoff with Iraq.
*February 23, 1998: After three days of talks in Baghdad, Annan and Iraq sign a tentative deal allowing full access to suspected Iraqi weapon sites.
*October 31, 1998: Iraq suspends all cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors and monitors.
*November 5, 1998: The U.N. Security Council votes unanimously to condemn Iraq and demands that it immediately resume cooperation with weapons inspectors.
*November 7, 1998: The United Nations begins withdrawing its arms inspectors from Baghdad.
*Nov.15-16: After some diplomatic wrangling,Iraq does an about face and agrees to let U.N. weapons inspectors do their work. U.S. President Bill Clinton warns that while Washington has accepted Iraq's agreement, the United States remained "ready to act" should there be any further defiance over weapons inspections. Clinton also called for a new government in Iraq that was "committed to peace," adding that Washington would intensify efforts toward that aim.
*December 16: The U.S. launches Operation Desert Fox -- an airstrike on Iraq a day after Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler issues a report saying Iraq had failed to live up to its promise to restore full cooperation with the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) in charge of disarming Iraq.
*December 28: U.S. jets fire on an Iraqi post in the northern no-fly zone, set up in 1991 to protect Iraqi Kurds from Saddam's forces. Iraq said that four soldiers were killed and seven wounded. Two days later, a similar incident occurs. Iraq vows to defy western patrolled "no-fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq.
This is through Clintons presidency, follows an article
"Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance, December "98"
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
I have to ask, exactly how long did anyone expect America to put up with this garbage? As far as this Tax payer is concerned, we are not an open check book, to spend resources in people and money, at the whim of the UN. We are a sovereign nation and the line needed to be drawn in the sand.....you can't say that we didn't try.
Another point that certainly influenced my position was
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
I believe that this was the straw, so to speak. In my mind it was Bagdads last chance, the numbers didn't jive and war ensued.
edited... typo
There are missing points in your time line that I would like you to consider
* August 2, 1990: Iraqi forces invade Kuwait.
*January - February, 1991: American-led forces bomb Iraq and conduct a brief ground war, forcing Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.
*March 2, 1991: U.N. votes that Iraq must disclose data on its weapons of mass destruction.
*April 3, 1991: Iraq told weapons of mass destruction must be removed or destroyed.
*September, 1991: Iraq detains team of U.N. arms inspectors, blockading them in a parking lot. They are released after handing over papers about Iraqi plans to make nuclear weapons.
*August 2, 1992: No-fly zone established over southern Iraq to stop air attacks on Shiite Muslim rebels. No-fly zone enforced by U.S. and allied air patrols.
*January 7, 1993: More than 100 U.S., British and French planes attack radar sites and missile batteries as Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's defiance of U.N. peacekeeping grows.
*June 26, 1993: U.S. President Bill Clinton orders a missile strike on Iraqi intelligence headquarters, citing evidence of an Iraqi plot to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush.
*October 7, 1994: Iraqi troops move toward Kuwait then pull back after the United States dispatches a carrier group, 54,000 troops and warplanes.
*August, 1995: Hussein's two sons-in-law flee to Jordan and reportedly disclose information regarding Iraq's chemical and biological weapons arsenal. Later, the two return to Iraq and are killed by members of Hussein's extended clan.
*September 3-4, 1996: U.S. launches missiles against Iraqi posts in southern Iraq after Iraqi military ventures into Kurdish "safe haven."
*November 13, 1997: Iraq expels U.S. arms inspectors.
*November 20, 1997: Iraq agrees to allow U.N. inspectors, including Americans, to return.
*January 13, 1998: Iraq effectively bars U.N. arms inspectors led by an American from working.
*January 16, 1998: American-led U.N. arms inspection team leaves Iraq, other inspectors continue their work.
*January 29, 1998: U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright begins tour of Europe, Middle East to garner support for stand against Iraq.
*February 6, 1998: Middle East military buildup continues as an additional 2,200 U.S. Marines head for Gulf.
*February 11, 1998: Iraq offers to open eight presidential sites to inspections conducted under direct authority of U.N. Security Council for 60 days. Washington dismisses proposal.
*February 20, 1998: U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan arrives in Baghdad on an 11th-hour mission to find a peaceful resolution to the standoff with Iraq.
*February 23, 1998: After three days of talks in Baghdad, Annan and Iraq sign a tentative deal allowing full access to suspected Iraqi weapon sites.
*October 31, 1998: Iraq suspends all cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors and monitors.
*November 5, 1998: The U.N. Security Council votes unanimously to condemn Iraq and demands that it immediately resume cooperation with weapons inspectors.
*November 7, 1998: The United Nations begins withdrawing its arms inspectors from Baghdad.
*Nov.15-16: After some diplomatic wrangling,Iraq does an about face and agrees to let U.N. weapons inspectors do their work. U.S. President Bill Clinton warns that while Washington has accepted Iraq's agreement, the United States remained "ready to act" should there be any further defiance over weapons inspections. Clinton also called for a new government in Iraq that was "committed to peace," adding that Washington would intensify efforts toward that aim.
*December 16: The U.S. launches Operation Desert Fox -- an airstrike on Iraq a day after Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler issues a report saying Iraq had failed to live up to its promise to restore full cooperation with the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) in charge of disarming Iraq.
*December 28: U.S. jets fire on an Iraqi post in the northern no-fly zone, set up in 1991 to protect Iraqi Kurds from Saddam's forces. Iraq said that four soldiers were killed and seven wounded. Two days later, a similar incident occurs. Iraq vows to defy western patrolled "no-fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq.
This is through Clintons presidency, follows an article
"Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance, December "98"
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
I have to ask, exactly how long did anyone expect America to put up with this garbage? As far as this Tax payer is concerned, we are not an open check book, to spend resources in people and money, at the whim of the UN. We are a sovereign nation and the line needed to be drawn in the sand.....you can't say that we didn't try.
Another point that certainly influenced my position was
QUOTE
Successive Iraqi declarations on Baghdad's pre-Gulf war WMD programs gradually became more accurate between 1991 and 1998, but only because of sustained pressure from UN sanctions, Coalition military force, and vigorous and robust inspections facilitated by information from cooperative countries. Nevertheless, Iraq never has fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in its declarations and has provided no credible proof that it has completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
I believe that this was the straw, so to speak. In my mind it was Bagdads last chance, the numbers didn't jive and war ensued.
edited... typo
Just a little question to toss into the mix. Why does the world blame Bush and not Saddam? Saddam had it in his power to prevent the whole darn thing. He was given 48 hours to leave the country and take his family. That is never discussed. Why? What did he get for his defiance. 2 sons dead and he is in a prison cell. That worked out real well for him, didn't it?
QUOTE
He was given 48 hours to leave the country and take his family.
From what I've read in the Woodward book, Bush was prepared to go in regardless (prevent a general from taking over, secure WMD, etc). The result likely would have been the same, though maybe less infrastructure destroyed.Doc
PP
I have to ask, exactly how long did anyone expect America to put up with this garbage? As far as this Tax payer is concerned, we are not an open check book, to spend resources in people and money, at the whim of the UN. We are a sovereign nation and the line needed to be drawn in the sand.....you can't say that we didn't try
I am very glad that you mentioned the part about the "the tax payer is concerned,we are not an open check book, to spend resources in people and money".
1. I am extremely angry that Bush asked for $89 billion and now we need at least another $25 billion and it will not end there. To me that is sticking it to the tax payer and That is only the beginning in the amount of money we pay because of the whim of the PRESIDENT.
2. And most of all the resources in people, those in the military that died, that was unnecessary.
3. Yes,I would ask how long are we to put up with this garbage. Money, deaths, and lies. Yes, I am extremely angry!
QUOTE
I have to ask, exactly how long did anyone expect America to put up with this garbage? As far as this Tax payer is concerned, we are not an open check book, to spend resources in people and money, at the whim of the UN. We are a sovereign nation and the line needed to be drawn in the sand.....you can't say that we didn't try
I am very glad that you mentioned the part about the "the tax payer is concerned,we are not an open check book, to spend resources in people and money".
1. I am extremely angry that Bush asked for $89 billion and now we need at least another $25 billion and it will not end there. To me that is sticking it to the tax payer and That is only the beginning in the amount of money we pay because of the whim of the PRESIDENT.
2. And most of all the resources in people, those in the military that died, that was unnecessary.
3. Yes,I would ask how long are we to put up with this garbage. Money, deaths, and lies. Yes, I am extremely angry!
popeye47 Posted on May 10 2004, 04:58 PM
So we would have allowed it to continue forever? Saddam Dies, one of the kids takes over, that was the plan. Not to mention the costs of maintaining the no fly zones, the every couple of yr. mini wars and bases in Saudi Arabia. How about the effects of the infidels in the Holy land, was that not a major talking point for the likes of Bin L? I have no interest in a number crunching debate so no math please, though if you didn't see Iraq as a never ending conflict from the first day of the Gulf War then quite obviously we see our recent history in different lights. The time line is long and consistent, the only real gap, was 9/11 through our action in Afghanistan, we were distracted. Iraq needed to be addressed, we needed to finish the job, we need out-a-there, maybe then we really will find some peace and peace of mind. One great and unexpected outcome of our line in the sand....war in Iraq, Kadafi certainly has been a bit friendlier.
edited to add link and Quote
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...0430-psab01.htm
Boy am I going to be happy to be out of the Holy Land!
QUOTE
1. I am extremely angry that Bush asked for $89 billion and now we need at least another $25 billion and it will not end there. To me that is sticking it to the tax payer and That is only the beginning in the amount of money we pay because of the whim of the PRESIDENT.
2. And most of all the resources in people, those in the military that died, that was unnecessary.
3. Yes,I would ask how long are we to put up with this garbage. Money, deaths, and lies. Yes, I am extremely angry!
2. And most of all the resources in people, those in the military that died, that was unnecessary.
3. Yes,I would ask how long are we to put up with this garbage. Money, deaths, and lies. Yes, I am extremely angry!
So we would have allowed it to continue forever? Saddam Dies, one of the kids takes over, that was the plan. Not to mention the costs of maintaining the no fly zones, the every couple of yr. mini wars and bases in Saudi Arabia. How about the effects of the infidels in the Holy land, was that not a major talking point for the likes of Bin L? I have no interest in a number crunching debate so no math please, though if you didn't see Iraq as a never ending conflict from the first day of the Gulf War then quite obviously we see our recent history in different lights. The time line is long and consistent, the only real gap, was 9/11 through our action in Afghanistan, we were distracted. Iraq needed to be addressed, we needed to finish the job, we need out-a-there, maybe then we really will find some peace and peace of mind. One great and unexpected outcome of our line in the sand....war in Iraq, Kadafi certainly has been a bit friendlier.
edited to add link and Quote
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...0430-psab01.htm
QUOTE
The Persian Gulf, Rumsfeld said, "is now a safer region because of the change in Iraq." He also said U.S. planes no longer are needed to enforce a "no-fly" zone over Iraq. American military aircraft patrolling the southern half of Iraq did so in part from Saudi Arabia.
snip---
U.S. forces flooded into Saudi Arabia in fall 1990, after Hussein's troops invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia welcomed the troops, and its own forces fought to push Iraq out of Kuwait.
After the war, about 4,000 uniformed Americans--mostly Air Force members--stayed in Saudi Arabia as part of the no-fly patrol operations, and as a check against further Iraqi offensives. However, they became a rallying point for Muslim fundamentalists, who charged the U.S. was trying to increase its influence over the Saudi royal family and the nation's oil reserves.
snip---
U.S. forces flooded into Saudi Arabia in fall 1990, after Hussein's troops invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia welcomed the troops, and its own forces fought to push Iraq out of Kuwait.
After the war, about 4,000 uniformed Americans--mostly Air Force members--stayed in Saudi Arabia as part of the no-fly patrol operations, and as a check against further Iraqi offensives. However, they became a rallying point for Muslim fundamentalists, who charged the U.S. was trying to increase its influence over the Saudi royal family and the nation's oil reserves.
Boy am I going to be happy to be out of the Holy Land!
I suppose it would be best if I issued a warning. We should try and stay on the questions for debate, turning this into a general Iraq War thread is almost a definite closing.
More on allied opposition to Clinton's "Desert Fox" bombing..
The Russians were pretty rough when it comes to relations with Clinton...
More on allied opposition to Clinton's "Desert Fox" bombing..
QUOTE(US News & World Report @ Dec 28, 1998 v125 i25 p32(1) )
Displays of American Military might often leave the rest of the world puzzled--and this one was particularly discomfiting to both the usual carpers and friends. People spread around the globe (but often connected by CNN) were left to wonder, like many Americans, whether this was a justified attack--or just a tack-- by an American president desperate to forestall impeachment. Unlike the 1991 gulf war, when 28 allies participated in Operation Desert Storm, the United States this time could count only on one, Great Britain, to join the bombardment of Iraq. There were questions about both the timing of the airstrikes and the lack of consultation with allies. [...]
Palestinians, meanwhile, responded to Operation Desert Fox by burning American flags. Just a few days earlier, they had jubilantly hoisted the Stars and Stripes during Clinton's precedent-making visit to the Gaza Strip.
Some of the strongest criticism of Clinton came from Moscow. President Boris Yeltsin, aides claimed, was so angry that he refused to answer phone calls from the White House. And Russia's ambassador to Washington was recalled to Moscow as an act of protest. Fulminating nationalist politicians in the Russian Duma voiced support for Clinton's impeachment and, tongue in cheek, appealed to Monica Lewinsky to calm his "emotions"
Palestinians, meanwhile, responded to Operation Desert Fox by burning American flags. Just a few days earlier, they had jubilantly hoisted the Stars and Stripes during Clinton's precedent-making visit to the Gaza Strip.
Some of the strongest criticism of Clinton came from Moscow. President Boris Yeltsin, aides claimed, was so angry that he refused to answer phone calls from the White House. And Russia's ambassador to Washington was recalled to Moscow as an act of protest. Fulminating nationalist politicians in the Russian Duma voiced support for Clinton's impeachment and, tongue in cheek, appealed to Monica Lewinsky to calm his "emotions"
The Russians were pretty rough when it comes to relations with Clinton...
I feel that congess made the mistake of trusting the words of Mr. Bush. The country was in a time that it needed to be unified in everyway. Congress believed Mr. Bush, and was behind him in his fight to deal with the WMD. That is the mistake made by congress. They trusted Bush, and they, like we, got burned badly.
QUOTE(Government Mule @ May 10 2004, 06:26 PM)
I feel that congess made the mistake of trusting the words of Mr. Bush. The country was in a time that it needed to be unified in everyway. Congress believed Mr. Bush, and was behind him in his fight to deal with the WMD. That is the mistake made by congress. They trusted Bush, and they, like we, got burned badly.
I really doubt that explains things, the Clinton administration and his allies in Congress were bombing Iraq and accusing Saddam of developing WMD long before GWB came into power.
In fact, I do believe it was Madeline Albright who first used the term "regime change" to describe US policy towards Saddam's Iraq. (Edited to Add: New York Times [ Jan 29, 1999 pA3(L) col 1 (13 col in) ])
Did Congress make a mistake in listening to him?
(Before I get knocked for insulting the Secretary, by "him" I mean Clinton
)
What is everyone crying about the war on terror is going exactly as planned for our two leaders not just big bucks for them there but here ,tell me bush isn't chenys puppet..Two senior Democratic lawmakers say Vice President **** Cheney's
former company, Halliburton, is gouging U.S. taxpayers while importing
gasoline into Iraq.
"The overcharging is so extreme that one expert has privately called
it 'highway robbery,'" the lawmakers said in the latest Democratic
attacks against the Houston company that received a no-bid contract.
In a further move against Halliburton, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.,
announced Wednesday he would propose barring the government from
awarding Iraq reconstruction contracts to companies that maintain
close financial ties to the president, vice president or members of
the president's Cabinet.
Vice President Cheney receives deferred payments from Halliburton and
also has stock options.
Senators Waxman and Dingell said Halliburton's KBR subsidiary is
billing the Army between $1.62 and $1.70 per gallon, while the average
price for Middle East gasoline is 71 cents.
They also complained that Iraqis are charged between 4 cents and 15
cents at the pump for the imported gasoline. while Americans pay $1.70
to $2.05 per gallon in the U.S.
This is more of the Bush administrations graft and corruption. When
will even the right-wing-extremist-wackos get fed up with this misuse
of governmental power?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/16/...ain578436.shtml
former company, Halliburton, is gouging U.S. taxpayers while importing
gasoline into Iraq.
"The overcharging is so extreme that one expert has privately called
it 'highway robbery,'" the lawmakers said in the latest Democratic
attacks against the Houston company that received a no-bid contract.
In a further move against Halliburton, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.,
announced Wednesday he would propose barring the government from
awarding Iraq reconstruction contracts to companies that maintain
close financial ties to the president, vice president or members of
the president's Cabinet.
Vice President Cheney receives deferred payments from Halliburton and
also has stock options.
Senators Waxman and Dingell said Halliburton's KBR subsidiary is
billing the Army between $1.62 and $1.70 per gallon, while the average
price for Middle East gasoline is 71 cents.
They also complained that Iraqis are charged between 4 cents and 15
cents at the pump for the imported gasoline. while Americans pay $1.70
to $2.05 per gallon in the U.S.
This is more of the Bush administrations graft and corruption. When
will even the right-wing-extremist-wackos get fed up with this misuse
of governmental power?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/16/...ain578436.shtml
This, unfortunately, has little to do with the topic of this thread.
More from the Clinton administration on Iraqi WMD
Sec. Albright Speaks on Iraq Attack
Anger over Clinton's bombing and claims of "cowboy" rhetoric?
Not likely in the politically charged debate over Iraq today...
More from the Clinton administration on Iraqi WMD
QUOTE(Sec. of State Madeline Albright @ Dec 16 1998)
Well, I think that they've had their chance, and I'm not going to talk about the military details of this or the length or anything like that, and I refer you to the Defense Department. But I think that the bottom line here is we gave Saddam Hussein the extra chance, and there were a lot of people that were critical for that extra chance, and Saddam Hussein blew it.
Sec. Albright Speaks on Iraq Attack
Anger over Clinton's bombing and claims of "cowboy" rhetoric?
Not likely in the politically charged debate over Iraq today...
TOPIC REMINDER:
If President Bush Lied to us about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to get us into the war in Iraq then did not all of the people quoted above do the same?
Is it not more likely, considering how many people on both sides of the Aisle believed Saddam had WMDs and programs to produce more, that the Intelligence was flawed, outdated or even more likely, based on bad assumptions including the fact that Saddam regularly claimed to have these weapons himself?
When we lay blame for this solely on the President are we not ignoring the fact that both house of congress approved this war and believed (based on their own words above) that it was justified?
When we claim that President Bush Lied to us on WMDs, are we not ignoring the fact the the previous administration also thought Iraq was dangerous and was in possession of WMDs and conducted surgical strikes against suspected WMD production sites?
Are we doing a disservice to the country by claiming people lied about WMDs rather then looking at the mistakes made and the possibility that the mistakes are likely due to the lack of human intelligence, the gutting of intelligence agency budgets and the miles of red tape that the intelligence community has to negotiate?
If President Bush Lied to us about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to get us into the war in Iraq then did not all of the people quoted above do the same?
Is it not more likely, considering how many people on both sides of the Aisle believed Saddam had WMDs and programs to produce more, that the Intelligence was flawed, outdated or even more likely, based on bad assumptions including the fact that Saddam regularly claimed to have these weapons himself?
When we lay blame for this solely on the President are we not ignoring the fact that both house of congress approved this war and believed (based on their own words above) that it was justified?
When we claim that President Bush Lied to us on WMDs, are we not ignoring the fact the the previous administration also thought Iraq was dangerous and was in possession of WMDs and conducted surgical strikes against suspected WMD production sites?
Are we doing a disservice to the country by claiming people lied about WMDs rather then looking at the mistakes made and the possibility that the mistakes are likely due to the lack of human intelligence, the gutting of intelligence agency budgets and the miles of red tape that the intelligence community has to negotiate?
Given today's events, I would say none of these people lied.
There was an artillary shell IED found today. It was a chemical weapons munition containing sarin gas. Funny thing is though, it was unmarked and resembled normal artillary munitions. Speculation has been that those who made the IED had no idea what they had, given the method of delivery (when using a mortar would have been far more effective) and the fact there were no chemical markings on the shell, that they perhaps took it from one of the many munitions dumps throughough Iraq.
Given that this shell is unmarked, and there are tens of thousands of tons of munitions in Iraq.... needle in a haystack comes to mind if they have to go through every single artillary shell now to find chemical/bio munitions since it seems the Iraqi's tried to hide them by not marking them as chemical weapons and sticking them in with regular munitions....
As well, latest news is saying that the Iraq Survery Group has confirmed findings of mustard gas two weeks ago in Iraq.
Sarin Nerve Agent Bomb Explodes In Iraq
There was an artillary shell IED found today. It was a chemical weapons munition containing sarin gas. Funny thing is though, it was unmarked and resembled normal artillary munitions. Speculation has been that those who made the IED had no idea what they had, given the method of delivery (when using a mortar would have been far more effective) and the fact there were no chemical markings on the shell, that they perhaps took it from one of the many munitions dumps throughough Iraq.
Given that this shell is unmarked, and there are tens of thousands of tons of munitions in Iraq.... needle in a haystack comes to mind if they have to go through every single artillary shell now to find chemical/bio munitions since it seems the Iraqi's tried to hide them by not marking them as chemical weapons and sticking them in with regular munitions....
As well, latest news is saying that the Iraq Survery Group has confirmed findings of mustard gas two weeks ago in Iraq.
QUOTE
"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq (news - web sites). "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy.
"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said.
"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said.
QUOTE
He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited.
"The former regime had declared all such rounds destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites)," Kimmitt said. "Two explosive ordinance team members were treated for minor exposure to nerve agent as a result of the partial detonation of the round."
"The former regime had declared all such rounds destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites)," Kimmitt said. "Two explosive ordinance team members were treated for minor exposure to nerve agent as a result of the partial detonation of the round."
Sarin Nerve Agent Bomb Explodes In Iraq
It isn't the first "weaponized" WMD found either. 2 weeks ago, mustard gas; in January, mustard gas.
Topic is now moot, unless we discuss whether Bush believed there were no WMD's and is now surprised.
Topic is now moot, unless we discuss whether Bush believed there were no WMD's and is now surprised.
QUOTE
Washington-AP -- Don't jump to any conclusions just yet. That warning comes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, after the U-S military in Iraq announced that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve gas had exploded near a U-S military convoy.
Rumsfeld told a Washington, D-C audience that the "field test" showing the presence of sarin may not be accurate. He says more analysis needs to be done -- and that it may take some time to find out just what the chemical was.
Rumsfeld told a Washington, D-C audience that the "field test" showing the presence of sarin may not be accurate. He says more analysis needs to be done -- and that it may take some time to find out just what the chemical was.
http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=1873574&nav=0oa8AfMQ
You know, its easy to determine if Iraq had chemical weapons, all we have to do is look at our reciepts from the 1980s. We know that Saddam had WMD in the past because we sold them to him.
However,
When one roadside bomb goes off, which contains two chemicals that didnt mix, misued, it hardly shows a stockpile of WMD now does it?
The case is, if there were ongoing weapons programs, and if there were weapons that were not destroyed and currently viable, or not reported in Husseins UN declaration.
Rumsfeld himself said this 'may not be accurate'..let me translate in government speak..., its false.
QUOTE(academie @ May 18 2004, 05:42 AM)
It isn't the first "weaponized" WMD found either. 2 weeks ago, mustard gas; in January, mustard gas.
Topic is now moot, unless we discuss whether Bush believed there were no WMD's and is now surprised.
Topic is now moot, unless we discuss whether Bush believed there were no WMD's and is now surprised.
Actually, no, not at all.
The find in january of Mustard gas shalls was found to have been entirely false.
"No Chemical Agent in Iraq Mortar Shells
Jan. 14, 2004
EDEN, Iraq (AP) -- Tests by Danish and American experts indicate there is no chemical warfare agent in mortar shells unearthed in southern Iraq. Earlier examinations had indicated a blister agent was in the shells, which apparently date to the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.
The U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group conducted tests on five of 36 shells found Friday and all came up negative, the Danish army said Wednesday in a statement from Copenhagen. Those results contradicted Danish and British field tests that were positive for a blister agent.
"Based on the tests, the experts conclude that none of the shells contain chemical warfare agents," the Danish army statement said, adding that more studies are needed for final confirmation.
The earliest results may have been positive because tests by troops in the field are designed to favor a positive reading, erring on the side of caution to protect soldiers."
(AP - January 14th, 2004)
In addition, the apparent 'find' of mustard gas two weeks ago was a single shell with only trace residue elements of mustard gas inside.
"WASHINGTON — A small amount of residue from mustard gas, a potentially deadly chemical agent, was found in an old artillery shell on a Baghdad street, says a U.S. military report.
The shell was from a “very old stockpile,” and for that reason experts didn't consider it evidence that former dictator Saddam Hussein was hiding illegal stockpiles of chemical weapons, said a senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the matter is classified."
(AP - May 7th)
Thus neither of the 'finds' you mention are true at all. If this is a Sarin find, it will be the first find of its kind in Iraq. The US has touted several finds in the past, but as you seem to demonstrate, they never seem to publicise as much the fact that these finds all turn out to be false...
QUOTE(Artemise @ May 18 2004, 05:28 AM)
QUOTE
Washington-AP -- Don't jump to any conclusions just yet. That warning comes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, after the U-S military in Iraq announced that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve gas had exploded near a U-S military convoy.
Rumsfeld told a Washington, D-C audience that the "field test" showing the presence of sarin may not be accurate. He says more analysis needs to be done -- and that it may take some time to find out just what the chemical was.
Rumsfeld told a Washington, D-C audience that the "field test" showing the presence of sarin may not be accurate. He says more analysis needs to be done -- and that it may take some time to find out just what the chemical was.
http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=1873574&nav=0oa8AfMQ
You know, its easy to determine if Iraq had chemical weapons, all we have to do is look at our reciepts from the 1980s. We know that Saddam had WMD in the past because we sold them to him.
However,
When one roadside bomb goes off, which contains two chemicals that didnt mix, misued, it hardly shows a stockpile of WMD now does it?
The case is, if there were ongoing weapons programs, and if there were weapons that were not destroyed and currently viable, or not reported in Husseins UN declaration.
Rumsfeld himself said this 'may not be accurate'..let me translate in government speak..., its false.
The sarin was confirmed as.... SARIN (four liters worth of confirmed sarin to be exact).
I know, I know. The ABB crowd (such as Vermillion, Artemise, etc) don't want to hear this, but hey... to bad.
Amazing how shortsighted the ABB crowd is behaving, of course has nothing to do with what year it is...
The shells have no markings on them, but of course, the ABB crowd claims it's an isolated case, fluke incident, or someone forgot to declare them and myriad other moronic reasons... never occurs to them that since the shell is unmarked (gee, wonder why it was unmarked to begin with maybe David Kay was on to something when he documented the cover-up in his report) that it is stored with more of it's kind alongside regular explosive munitions (of which there are over tens of thousands of tons of munitions to go through)... but hey, I understand... election year and all.
CLOSED. This debate has gotten personal too many times. We really need to work on sticking to the issues or we will continue to close more threads.
The staff and a number of members have expressed their dissappointment by the few of you who resort to partisan bickering and rhetoric instead of engaging in civil discourse. Remember to be constructive and feel free to refresh yourself with the Rules and Survival Guide.
The staff and a number of members have expressed their dissappointment by the few of you who resort to partisan bickering and rhetoric instead of engaging in civil discourse. Remember to be constructive and feel free to refresh yourself with the Rules and Survival Guide.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.