The wisdom of Rumsfeld

[Natoma]

What other evidence was there than those forged documents?

Indeed the whole world believed that he had WMD and programs. But guess what? The whole world wanted to let the inspectors in one last time in order to check, and if they found something, THEN something could be done. But no, the administration told the inspectors to get out after just a couple of weeks and that they were coming in.

Also, the Kay Report stated that there was MAYBE ongoing subterfuge to hide WMD programs, but that the programs themselves were so rudimentary in nature that nothing could be produced.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...e&node=&contentId=A45278-2003Oct4¬Found=true

THE INTERIM REPORT of David Kay, leader of the hunt for Iraq's weapons, strongly suggests that important parts of the case made by President Bush and his aides before the war were wrong.

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

But Mr. Kay said Thursday that what he has learned so far points to "tentative but quite frankly rudimentary efforts . . . it's not substantial at all."

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

Mr. Kay reported that "multiple sources" have told his 1,200-member team "that Iraq did not have a large, centrally-controlled chemical weapons program after 1991." In the dozen summary pages of his report made public, Mr. Kay emphasized that after three months of work his conclusions are preliminary and that he may yet find chemical or biological munitions. Yet already enough is known to conclude that both the president and the nation's intelligence community must be accountable for misstating, or being mistaken about, the extent of the Iraqi threat.

I'm the one rewriting history? It wasn't about an imminent threat?

Was it not Cheney and Bush who both stated that Iraq would have a nuclear bomb within a year? Not that they could, but that they would. If that's not something tossed out to parlay evidence of an imminent threat, I don't know what is.

There were other reasons as well (humanitarian, and spreading democracy, and stabilizing global oil prices), but you won't pick on those because they're pretty much bullet proof. You'll simply pick on the one that isn't as strong as it could be and present it as the ONLY reason we went to war. Which is BS.

Of course I won't harp on the humanitarian reason or spreading democracy or stabilizing global oil prices. Why? Because the administration never said ANY of those reasons in the lead up to war.

It was WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD. Mushroom clouds in every city. WMD WMD WMD and more WMD.

The whole world was screaming "This is about oil!" and our administration was saying "No it's not!". So they killed your bulletproof argument right there.

We went into Bosnia for Humanitarian reasons and to spread democracy. That was the stated goals of that war. We did NOT go into Iraq on those stated goals. We went in to take out his WMD and capabilities. Yet I'm the one rewriting history.

The whole point of going through the UN was to put up a front and allow the weapons inspectors to find WMD. When they found nothing, we told them to get out and we went in ourselves. 6 months later, we have still found nothing.

The point is that we should have not gone in there in the first place given the stated reasons for this war. If it were about humanitarian purposes, the argument could have been made, and quite strongly. But WMD? Now that's the sticky issue the administration finds itself in right now.

 

[Natoma]

*shrug* There was an investigation into it in Britain, and apparently the Brits believed it enough to stand behind it.

When our intelligence agency comes out and says it's a fake, When the ambassador sent to Niger to inspect the claims comes back and says the claim is fake, When the people who first brought up the claim, the italians, come out and say it is fake. There is no other recourse. The president in the face of such evidence should not use it in a State of the Union address when trying to build up support for war.

Especially since 9 days later Colin Powell publically stated that the evidence was circumspect, not good enough to bring to the UN Security Council.

The bottom line is that the administration used whatever it could, even though common sense shows that it was suspect, in order to justify its case for war. Every semantic clause, every potential detail used in order to give themselves an out later, when in fact they knew from the beginning that the information they were putting forth was false.

Not true, there was a few government agencies that gave the evidence a "credible" rating.

And as far as cuba goes, we can NOT attack cuba because of an agreement with the russians a previous president made.

The fact of the matter remains that our Intel, the Italians, and the ambassador sent to Niger to inspect the claim all said the documents were bogus. The IAEA head, Mohamed ElBaradei, also looked at the documents and labeled them bogus as well.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/uranium030716flaweddocs.html

As is now known, the documents were soon spotted as forgeries by the International Atomic Energy Agency and made public when the agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, testified before the U.N. Security Council on March 8.

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence, if it emerges, relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials.

As for the argument regarding why we can't attack Cuba. Since when have agreements signed and documented in the past stopped this administration from ripping them up? 1972 ICBM Treaty for starters anyone?

 

[RussSchultz]

Sorry Natoma, you just have a bad memory.

The administration played all the cards (terrorism, WMD, humanitarian), trying to find one that people could get behind. The ongoing threat (not imminent--the president EXPRESSLY SAID THERE WAS NO IMMINENT THREAT) was the one that gained the most traction.

I don't remember him EVER EVER EVER saying "Iraq WOULD have a nuclear weapon within a year". You're making things up to justify your indignance.

 

[Natoma]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020907-2.html

We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.

The only unfortunate part of that? The report he's referring to was a 1991 IAEA report that stated that Iraq was 6 - 24 months away from developing a weapon before Gulf War 1 in 1991, but its efforts were deterred by war and the inspections. Of course he didn't mention that little bit in his speech from September of last year. And that bit, later repeated by Cheney as saying "Iraq will have a nuke within a year" is most certainly imminent wouldn't you say? I'd be scared shitless if I knew that Iraq would have a nuke and could pass it on to their terrorist allies in Al-Qaeda. Fortunately both turned out to be false. Unfortunately they were pretty much known to be false before the comments were made.

Seems you are mistaken Russ. And yet another example of where the administration willfully doled out information that was either out of context or completely and utterly false. The context of that quote is comparing the new report in 2002 with the one from 1991 as if the new report somehow backs up the claims of the 1991 report regarding Iraq's current weapons capabilities.

That is a disingenuous and dishonest corrolation in order to make the case for war. As I said earlier, the administration either willfully lied or willfully ignored the facts in order to gather whatever it could to make its case for war. I have deep reservations about that.

Also,

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program - weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Seems as if you are the one with the poor memory Russ.

 

[RussSchultz]

Do you need a lesson in reading comprehension?

"I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

That would be pointing to the report in 1991. I don't see the subterfuge. Its not a terribly compelling bit of evidence, but it isn't subterfuge.

"Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."
And that is a completely correct statement. If Iraq, or any country or organization, obtains enough fissile material, it could fabricate a bomb from it in less than a year. It does not state that Iraq would have a bomb in a year.

 

[Natoma]

The administration played all the cards (terrorism, WMD, humanitarian), trying to find one that people could get behind.

It's a sad day imo when this administration needs to change course in order to find something that will stick with the american public on something that is purportedly so important. Yea it went something like this.

The Administration: "Hey we think we should go into Iraq because we need to free those people from the evil saddam!"

The American Public: "Meh"

The Administration: "Uh ok. Uhm, Hey! We think we should go into Iraq because we need to root out terrorism!"

The CIA: "Uhm, there's no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda."

The American Public: "Meh"

The Administration: "Goddamnit!! Ok, look, if you don't get behind this war, Saddam will use his WMD against..."

The American Public: "Weapons of Mass Destruction?? OMG Help Us! Stop Him! We must stop him!!!"

The CIA: "But there's no evidence that...."

The Administration: "Quiet you! We've got the public now! Muahahahahaha!"

The American Public: "Stop the evildoer! Kill the heathen! He's got Nukes! Fleeeeeeeeeeeee!"

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

And voila. Iraq war and current quagmire.

 

[Natoma]

You're so blind Russ. If building a bomb within a year, coupled with the attempted Uranium Niger purchase that he stated in his speech, doesn't constitute an IMMINENT threat, then I don't know what does. And be certain. He said would build a bomb within a year. if it got fissible material Not could. This while he said that Iraq had sought to purchase Uranium from Niger.

Lets see. You've got the thing all built. It just needs a little fuel. That's not imminent???

And you also lovingly glossed over the fact that Bush was corrolating the new report with the 1991 report, which I pointed out in my earlier post. Sad really that you're willing to swallow anything the administration doles out without vetting it for yourself.

 

[RussSchultz]

No, Natoma, I'm simply willing to read things and accept them at face value, rather than reading what I think he's saying and using that to fire up my indignance.

 

[RussSchultz]

Again, Natoma, reading comprehension.

"would be able"

Don't leave out the "be able" part. Without the "be able" part, it changes the meaning.

 

[Natoma]

No, Natoma, I'm simply willing to read things and accept them at face value, rather than reading what I think he's saying and using that to fire up my indignance.

Considering all the evidence to the contrary, AND his own stated words (he would build a bomb within a year with fissible material, and lookie here at the Niger brouhaha too!) among other things, you're willfully blinding yourself for accepting things at face value.

But c'est la vie. Some people simply don't care about the truth and just want to be told what they want to hear, even if it contradicts what the reality of the situation is.

 

[Natoma]

Again, Natoma, reading comprehension.

"would be able"

Don't leave out the "be able" part. Without the "be able" part, it changes the meaning.

I suppose this is along the same lines as Bush saying "Oh the brits said this about saddam's dealings with niger so I'm not lying even though my own intel and ambassador and the people who originally brought the claim to us and the IAEA chief all said it was fake" eh?

 

[RussSchultz]

But c'est la vie. Some people simply don't care about the truth and just want to be told what they want to hear, even if it contradicts what the reality of the situation is.

Gosh, that's exactly what I said about you.

Never you mind the facts, lets just interpret them as I wish.

 

[Natoma]

But c'est la vie. Some people simply don't care about the truth and just want to be told what they want to hear, even if it contradicts what the reality of the situation is.

Gosh, that's exactly what I said about you.

Never you mind the facts, lets just interpret them as I wish.

Yes, unfortunately this is coming from someone who believes that not questioning what he's told by the leaders of this country is a good way to go, especially when what he's told doesn't quite match up with everything coming from other sources as well.

 

[ByteMe]

As for the argument regarding why we can't attack Cuba. Since when have agreements signed and documented in the past stopped this administration from ripping them up? 1972 ICBM Treaty for starters anyone?

As far as I can remember this "agreement" was not put into writting. It was part of the "deal" after/during the missle crisis.

 

[RussSchultz]

Oh, is that what coming to a different conclusion is? Swallowing the story and not questioning it?

I'm not the one interpreting a speculative statement as a stated fact so that I can "prove" that somebody lied.

 

[Natoma]

Oh, is that what coming to a different conclusion is? Swallowing the story and not questioning it?

I'm not the one interpreting a speculative statement as a stated fact so that I can "prove" that somebody lied.

Taken by itself? I agree with you.

In context with everything else that's come out? You're blind.

 

[Natoma]

As for the argument regarding why we can't attack Cuba. Since when have agreements signed and documented in the past stopped this administration from ripping them up? 1972 ICBM Treaty for starters anyone?

As far as I can remember this "agreement" was not put into writting. It was part of the "deal" after/during the missle crisis.

The US and USSR signed the 1972 ICBM Treaty. How can you sign a verbal agreement... :?

Oh and btw, the Missile Crisis happened 10 years earlier in 1962. So, yeah..... :?

 

[RussSchultz]

Oh, is that what coming to a different conclusion is? Swallowing the story and not questioning it?

I'm not the one interpreting a speculative statement as a stated fact so that I can "prove" that somebody lied.

Taken by itself? I agree with you.

In context with everything else that's come out? You're blind.

Taken with everything else its reasons WHY we needed to enact a regime change.

It was shown that Saddam had the desire to build WMD.
It was shown that Saddam had the will to use them against the US or its allies (and had used them against his own peoples).
It was shown that Iraq had the technical expertise to make them.
All that was stopping them was time and materials, which might, or might not have been indefinately denied them via sanctions, at the expense of civilian lives.

I'm not blind, I simply don't read into any statements information that wasn't there to begin with.

 

[Natoma]

It was shown that Saddam had the desire to build WMD.

So do many other countries. Desire is not a reason in and of itself to go to war.

I want weapons of mass destruction. You apparently want the constitutional right to eat your enemies. Should I declare war on you because for your cannibalism? Should you declare war on me because of my wish for world domination?

It was shown that Saddam had the will to use them against the US or its allies (and had used them against his own peoples).

In the 1980s. We also had the will to use atomic weapons against our enemies in the 1940s. Should that brand us for eternity as WMD mongers?

It was shown that Iraq had the technical expertise to make them.

All that was stopping them was time and materials, which might, or might not have been indefinately denied them via sanctions, at the expense of civilian lives.

I'm not blind, I simply don't read into any statements information that wasn't there to begin with.

Kay disagrees. Again,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A45278-2003Oct4

THE INTERIM REPORT of David Kay, leader of the hunt for Iraq's weapons, strongly suggests that important parts of the case made by President Bush and his aides before the war were wrong.

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

But Mr. Kay said Thursday that what he has learned so far points to "tentative but quite frankly rudimentary efforts . . . it's not substantial at all."

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

Mr. Kay reported that "multiple sources" have told his 1,200-member team "that Iraq did not have a large, centrally-controlled chemical weapons program after 1991." In the dozen summary pages of his report made public, Mr. Kay emphasized that after three months of work his conclusions are preliminary and that he may yet find chemical or biological munitions. Yet already enough is known to conclude that both the president and the nation's intelligence community must be accountable for misstating, or being mistaken about, the extent of the Iraqi threat.

Frankly I don't give a damn about what happened 15 years ago. I give a damn about today. And in the here and now, Kay has bluntly stated that the administration's case for going to war was wrong.

 

[ByteMe]

As for the argument regarding why we can't attack Cuba. Since when have agreements signed and documented in the past stopped this administration from ripping them up? 1972 ICBM Treaty for starters anyone?

As far as I can remember this "agreement" was not put into writting. It was part of the "deal" after/during the missle crisis.

The US and USSR signed the 1972 ICBM Treaty. How can you sign a verbal agreement... :?



Oh and btw, the Missile Crisis happened 10 years earlier in 1962. So, yeah..... :?

The "topic" for my cuba statement was why the USA did NOT attack cuba. I was just answering why we did not. I ain't arguing if this was wise or not.