Well well well.....

[Natoma]

So you're saying that we knew as a fact, before we went in, that all the chemical weapons that were documented to exist at one time no longer existed?

No, but we knew, as a fact, that the Uranium purchase from Niger was fraudulent. We knew, as a fact, that the aluminum tube purchase could not be used for another other than short range rockets, not reprocessing uranium.

Go from there and who knows what else was falsified and/or "mishandled."

 

[Silent_One]

Bush's Critics Meet the Logic Police By Keith Burgess-Jackson
6/05/03
http://www.techcentralstation.com

I have heard it said repeatedly, in the pages of the New York Times, the Guardian and elsewhere, that the Bush administration "lied to" or "misled" the public about its motive(s) for going to war in Iraq. (Not "against" Iraq, but "in" Iraq. It was a war against Saddam Hussein's regime, not against the Iraqi people.)

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is true - that the Bush administration told a big whopping lie about its motive(s). Does this show that the war was unjustified? Not at all. First, motives are not reasons. A badly motivated person can do the right thing (by accident, as it were), just as a well-motivated person can do the wrong thing. That this is so is reflected in a number of common sayings, such as "It's the thought that counts," "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," and "You did the right thing for the wrong reason." The first two suggest that the act is wrong but well-meaning, the third that the act is right in spite of its poor or improper motivation.

Second, there can be more than one motive for a given action. The classic example of multiple motivation is a merchant giving correct change to a customer. This can be done both to do the right thing (by the merchant's standards) and to get the customer to come back (a case of self-interest). Morality and self-interest do not always diverge! Suppose, then, that President Bush had a disreputable motive (fill in your own; make it the very worst) in going to war. Does this show that he had no reputable (respectable, defensible) motive? No. That would be fallacious.

Third, suppose President Bush in fact had no reputable motive in going to war. Suppose he had only disreputable motives, such as defending his daddy's honor. Does this show that the war is unjustified, morally speaking? Again, the answer is no. Justification is objective; motivation is subjective. The war can be justified as an act of self-defense or liberation of a people (to name just two of many justifications) even if the person waging the war doesn't understand it in those terms - even if he or she doesn't view those as justifications. For consider: Either there is a justification for the war (objectively speaking) or there is not. If there is, then it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush. If there isn't, then it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush. Either way, it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush......<snip......As far as the justification of war in Iraq is concerned, President Bush's motives are irrelevant. Why, then, has the public debate focused so sharply, to the point of harping, on his motives? Why the constant refrain to the effect that the war is "about oil" or a way to "finish what his father started" or an attempt to "distract attention from the economy"? I have racked my brain for an answer to this question. I believe it is one part hatred of the president and all that he stands for, and one part confusion. The philosopher, qua philosopher, can deal with the latter. Perhaps a psychotherapist will have to be called in to deal with the former.

 

[RussSchultz]

Natoma: Using that same logic, with the other hints and clues that the inspectors did find, go from there and who knows what else might have been hidden? (or is still hidden)

Give the US government as much leeway as you do Saddam and stop looking back with perfect hind sight and an eye for accusations. Sure, the uranium purchase was a red herring, but its only in hindsight that we can know whether or not the threat (not of the uranium, but of the WMD programs in Iraq in general) was real or not.

 

[Silent_One]

No offence Natoma but are you not doing what you blame the administration of?-ie: blowing things out of proportion? For example you state:

No, but we knew, as a fact, that the Uranium purchase from Niger was fraudulent. We knew, as a fact, that the aluminum tube purchase could not be used for another other than short range rockets, not reprocessing uranium.

Basically those are the only 2 things we know are a fact (although the uranium issue was not a purchase but an attempt to purchase). yet elcewhere you saythings like......

On top of that, no WMD have been found in Iraq. No 500 tons of chem-bio agents that Colin Powell stated were all over the place. No nuclear (nucular if you prescribe to Bush University of spelling and pronunciation)weapons capable of hitting the continental US. Hell no nuclear weapons capable of hitting Tel-Aviv. Hell, no rockets capable of getting past the Iraqi border with any accuracy.

-- embellishment

I bluntly stated that the Uranium purchase from Niger was a fraud. I bluntly stated that the aluminum tubes purchase was a fraud. The 500 tons of chem-bio agents? That has also been proven fraudulent.

--fraudulent? Did they lie?-link please

"Hey, sure the administration/intelligence community grossly lied and/or failed in their duties to your son/daughter, but really. No one cares. Attack bush and you're on a witch hunt. We got rid of a terrible man. So what he didn't have any WMD. So what they made up all of this. Be happy and don't complain."

--witch hunt.

The administration stated that it had the intel on the WMD, yet was unwilling to share even the slightest of that with the weapon inspectors. Now that they have control of the country, it turns out that intel was falsified in quite a few instances, or "mishandled" in others.

(What others? What are the "quite a few instances" or are you just speculating?)

From what you say I could accuse you of exaggeration of the issue just as you accuse the administration.

Go from there and who knows what else was falsified and/or "mishandled."

That may be true. But I woun't speculate.

We need to find those WMD, if not to justify this war, but at the very least to restore our credibility wrt these things on the world stage

Agreed. For credibility.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma: Using that same logic, with the other hints and clues that the inspectors did find, go from there and who knows what else might have been hidden? (or is still hidden)

Give the US government as much leeway as you do Saddam and stop looking back with perfect hind sight and an eye for accusations. Sure, the uranium purchase was a red herring, but its only in hindsight that we can know whether or not the threat (not of the uranium, but of the WMD programs in Iraq in general) was real or not.

I'm not giving any leeway to Saddam. I'm asking the US government to back up what it stated as hardcore fact. I'm asking the US government to back up the claims it used to toss this country into a war people were not supportive of. Up until the state of the union address, the majority of americans wanted to give the inspectors more time to finish their job, in one last ditch effort to avoid a war.

Fear it seems, is a very powerful motivator. It's unfortunate that it's becoming clear with every passing day that the impetus for that fear was "mishandled."

 

[Natoma]

No, but we knew, as a fact, that the Uranium purchase from Niger was fraudulent. We knew, as a fact, that the aluminum tube purchase could not be used for another other than short range rockets, not reprocessing uranium.

Basically those are the only 2 things we know are a fact (although the uranium issue was not a purchase but an attempt to purchase). yet elcewhere you saythings like......

No. The Uranium issue was a *Purchase*. The documents were signed and sent as proof that Iraq had *Purchased* Uranium from Niger. The documents were "signed" by a dignatory who has not been in office for a decade.

On top of that, no WMD have been found in Iraq. No 500 tons of chem-bio agents that Colin Powell stated were all over the place. No nuclear (nucular if you prescribe to Bush University of spelling and pronunciation)weapons capable of hitting the continental US. Hell no nuclear weapons capable of hitting Tel-Aviv. Hell, no rockets capable of getting past the Iraqi border with any accuracy.

-- embellishment

You're right. The administration did apparently engage in much embellishment.

1) Colin Powell stated to the UN that Iraq had 500 tons of Chem-Bio agent. And he also stated that was a conservative estimate. At the very very low end, they could have 100 tons according to him.

2) Iraq has no long range weaponry. It posed no danger in terms of rocket technology to it's neighbors. It's rocket technology could not go farther than 160 miles.

3) Colin Powell gives a speech at the UN stating that Iraq has mobile chem-bio labs. He even shows pictures of them from Sattellite photography. We go in there and what do we find? They can't do anything but fill weather balloons with hot air and store fertilizer. Uhm, did no one check on the validity of this? Apparently not.

4) Iraq has no nuclear weapons, nor would they have been able to have a nuclear bomb built inside Iraq within a year. Where did Bush get this information from his State of the Union address? The CIA sent him a report stating that realistically Iraq could have a bomb in 10 years. A complete, worst case, utterly horrifying scenario was that they would have one within a year.

What does Bush go out and state in his speech? That Iraq would have a nuclear bomb within a year.

You're most definitely correct. Embellishment is certainly the best term available.

I bluntly stated that the Uranium purchase from Niger was a fraud. I bluntly stated that the aluminum tubes purchase was a fraud. The 500 tons of chem-bio agents? That has also been proven fraudulent.

--fraudulent? Did they lie?-link please

See above. The intelligence community in the US and Britain both stated that the Niger documents were fakes. The intelligence community both stated that it was highly implausible that Iraq would have a nuclear bomb within a year, yet Bush still stated it as fact.

Colin Powell went out and stated that the aluminum tubes Iraq purchased were for use in uranium reprocessing (the uranium purchased from Niger mind you) to make nuclear material. Yet any rocket scientist (literally) will tell you that the grade of aluminum tubes purchased could only be used for short range missiles. That had already been debunked.

I keep showing you the proof. Whether or not you choose to listen is not something in my control.

The administration stated that it had the intel on the WMD, yet was unwilling to share even the slightest of that with the weapon inspectors. Now that they have control of the country, it turns out that intel was falsified in quite a few instances, or "mishandled" in others.

(What others? What are the "quite a few instances" or are you just speculating?)

From what you say I could accuse you of exaggeration of the issue just as you accuse the administration.

I've already stated them, multiple times. And if you want to talk about exaggeration, look up none other than Condoleeza Rice speaking about Nuclear bombs going off in american cities. Bombs supplied by Iraq. Where did this occur? The tv show Meet the Press. I watch it every weekend.

Not to mention a whole boatload of quotes I posted in the "Got WMD" thread from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell, et al. You know what? I'll get them again so we can all see.

There's no doubt in my mind but that they current have chemical and biological weapons.

We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly 5 times the size of Manhattan.

I mean, yeesh. How much more proof do you need of a continued atmosphere of "mishandling" and outright lying that filled the country over the past year wrt Iraq?

Look. What it comes down to for me is this. No one wanted a war, save for the neocons in Washington. The American public was by a vast majority in favor of giving the weapons inspectors more time for this one last chane to avoid a war. When did the demographic shift? Right around Bush's state of the union address when the uranium purchase was "revealed" to the public. Not to mention Colin Powell's impassioned pleas to the UN with the 500 tons of Chem-Bio Agent and the photographs of trucks that were supposed to be Chem-Bio Labs, which turned out to be capable of nothing more than fertilizer creation and filling up weather balloons.

So what does that demographic shift tell me? People were scared into wanting a war to protect themselves. Yet the reasons they were scared into wanting a war were not truthful, or at the very least were certainly not vetted for accuracy.

In a pre-emptive environment in which we're supposed to go out after the terrorists and root them out, vetted intelligence as well as responsible use of that intelligence is crucial. Right now the administration and our intelligence community have a big fat gaping credibility wound that will not close until WMD are found and they explain these "mishandlings" that were apparently known before they were released to the public. The niger purchase was known by the CIA and british intelligence to be a fraud four months before it was released to the american public during Bush's state of the union speech.

This whole scenario is doing nothing but weakening the US's credibility, especially when we'll need it for future scenarios in which danger is real and very imminent. Ever heard of the story of a boy who cried wolf once too often?

 

[RussSchultz]

Ok, once again, you're ignoring facts and inventing your own.

There's no doubt in my mind but that they current have chemical and biological weapons.

That's an opinion. And it was a well founded one based on information at the time.

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.

He did. What did he use on Halabja? Stinkbombs? You honestly beleived Saddam that they got rid of them under the UN inspection regime and was just being ornery because they could be?

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

And the item that scientist came forward with and said was buried in his backyard had nothing to do with nuclear arms research?

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.

I think that was a fair statement at the time.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.

Once again, go ask the former residents of Halabja about that.

Your other assertations are completely laughable--brought up as fictitious evidence to back your case. "vast majority was in favor of giving the weapons inspectors more time"? Maybe in your peace marches they were.

 

[Silent_One]

No. The Uranium issue was a *Purchase*. The documents were signed and sent as proof that Iraq had *Purchased* Uranium from Niger. The documents were "signed" by a dignatory who has not been in office for a decade.

True, but the prez said "attempted to purchase" in his speach.....

Colin Powell stated to the UN that Iraq had 500 tons of Chem-Bio agent. And he also stated that was a conservative estimate. At the very very low end, they could have 100 tons according to him.

Yor right. And even the UN believed he had tons of Chem/bio wepons.

Iraq has no long range weaponry. It posed no danger in terms of rocket technology to it's neighbors. It's rocket technology could not go farther than 160 miles.

Tell that to Israel durning GW 1.

The intelligence community both stated that it was highly implausible that Iraq would have a nuclear bomb within a year, yet Bush still stated it as fact.

The same CIA/ intelligence community that screwed and said North Korea did not have the capability/ was years away from developing the bomb.?
You embellish when you say "No nuclear (nucular if you prescribe to Bush University of spelling and pronunciation)weapons capable of hitting the continental US". Who ever said they have rockets to hit the USA?

I've already stated them, multiple times. And if you want to talk about exaggeration, look up none other than Condoleeza Rice speaking about Nuclear bombs going off in american cities. Bombs supplied by Iraq. Where did this occur? The tv show Meet the Press. I watch it every weekend.

Just stick one on a plane and slam it into a building! Its not like a delivery system has to be a rocket!

The 500 tons of chem-bio agents? That has also been proven fraudulent.

again, link please. Fraudulent implys lies. Link please.

 

[Natoma]

There's no doubt in my mind but that they current have chemical and biological weapons.

That's an opinion. And it was a well founded one based on information at the time.

Opinion is not enough to start a war.

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.

He did. What did he use on Halabja? Stinkbombs? You honestly beleived Saddam that they got rid of them under the UN inspection regime and was just being ornery because they could be?

15 years ago. That's when those weapons were used on Halabja. 1988. He also used chemical weapons on Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, which the Reagan Administration got messed up in thank you very much Iran-Contra Scandal.

We have also stockpiled biological and chemical weapons. Russia has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons. What is the point of making that statement? It's common knowledge that Iraq possessed chem-bio weapons.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

And the item that scientist came forward with and said was buried in his backyard had nothing to do with nuclear arms research?

Yes, a component buried in the backyard for 10 years is proof that ongoing research is occurring. I guess if we dig up Yucatan Mountain in 100 years and find nuclear waste it will be proof that we're still developing nuclear weapons.

But sarcasm aside, , a nuclear component does not a nuclear research program make. A nuclear component does not a nuclear bomb make. And lets not even mention those high-strength aluminum tubes again.

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.

I think that was a fair statement at the time.

Who knows. Quite possibly. But then, if they had all those weapons and was actively producing those weapons, where are they? The administration sounded so cocksure that weapons would be found quite easily, growing on trees as it were. And now we can't seem to find a drop?

You would think that with all our sattellite technology and high flying bombers we'd have spotted suspicious activity to destroy hundreds of tons of chem-bio weapons or move them around.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.

Once again, go ask the former residents of Halabja about that.

Once again, using chem-bio weapons 15 years ago is not an impetus to start a war today. We used nuclear weapons 60 years ago. Does that mean a country should attack us today on that basis, for fear we'll use them again?

Your other assertations are completely laughable--brought up as fictitious evidence to back your case.

You have not proven otherwise. I've provided quotes from the Bush Administration where they admitted to having put out information that was not true. I have provided quotes articles that have stated this very point, yet I'm bringing up fictitious evidence to back my case? Yeesh.

"vast majority was in favor of giving the weapons inspectors more time"? Maybe in your peace marches they were.

In February, multiple polls were taken by CNN, USA Today, etc, in which the american people stated, by majority, that the US should give the weapons inspectors more time.

Here's a survey from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/opinion/polls/main542054.shtml

62% said yes, give weapons inspectors more time. Tellingly, 65% believed that the administration had already made up it's mind wrt Iraq. This was in late February.

USA Today, seen here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-03-poll-usat_x.htm

In early February, 75% believed that war was inevitable. Half of the people surveyed thought the weapons inspectors should be given more time.

Yes, I'm fabricating the whole thing. :?

 

[Natoma]

No. The Uranium issue was a *Purchase*. The documents were signed and sent as proof that Iraq had *Purchased* Uranium from Niger. The documents were "signed" by a dignatory who has not been in office for a decade.

True, but the prez said "attempted to purchase" in his speach.....

He cited the purchase order. That means that the sale was complete and in writing. Attempted to purchase was the language used in his speech. Why? It failed for whatever "reason." Maybe our spooks foiled it. Or the good men at our intelligence agencies foiled the plot.

Whatever the reason, the point is that once a signature is on that paper as a weapons order, it becomes a purchase. Delivery is another subject.

But as we know, those documents were fakes anyways.

Colin Powell stated to the UN that Iraq had 500 tons of Chem-Bio agent. And he also stated that was a conservative estimate. At the very very low end, they could have 100 tons according to him.

Yor right. And even the UN believed he had tons of Chem/bio wepons.

And so did I. Which is why I supported giving weapons inspectors more time to *find* those weapons and get rid of them. To do as much as possible to avoid a war.

*If* during that time it became apparent that there was no headway, *then* I would have supported a war to remove Saddam. But the point is, the administration stomped their feet and huffed and puffed with impatience until they finally said screw it and went in anyways, telling the inspectors to get out or else. We're coming in.

Iraq has no long range weaponry. It posed no danger in terms of rocket technology to it's neighbors. It's rocket technology could not go farther than 160 miles.

Tell that to Israel durning GW 1.

GW 1 is not the reason for starting GWII. They had rockets *then*. Not *now*. I suppose we should get attacked because we dropped A-Bombs on Japan. We're obviously dangerous right?

This was about the here and now. Not retribution for 12 years ago.

The intelligence community both stated that it was highly implausible that Iraq would have a nuclear bomb within a year, yet Bush still stated it as fact.

The same CIA/ intelligence community that screwed and said North Korea did not have the capability/ was years away from developing the bomb.?
You embellish when you say "No nuclear (nucular if you prescribe to Bush University of spelling and pronunciation)weapons capable of hitting the continental US". Who ever said they have rockets to hit the USA?

No one. I said that. The administration stated that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. Iraq is not the one with weapons capable of hitting the continental US. NK certainly will be.

The CIA/intelligence community never stated that NK did not have the capability to develop the A-Bomb. They had the capability back in 1993 when Clinton signed that agreement with them. Stop developing nuclear weapons, and receive financial aid.

Iraq posed no "imminent" danger to the US. NK certainly does. And I've been extremely consistent with this. We should have taken out NK. If we're going to talk about pre-emption and getting rid of all our enemies, world be damned, NK is *far* more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

I've already stated them, multiple times. And if you want to talk about exaggeration, look up none other than Condoleeza Rice speaking about Nuclear bombs going off in american cities. Bombs supplied by Iraq. Where did this occur? The tv show Meet the Press. I watch it every weekend.

Just stick one on a plane and slam it into a building! Its not like a delivery system has to be a rocket!

And yet that was done by Saudis! Not Iraqis! Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia? For years they have fostered anti-american sentiment in their lands while cultivating friendships with us. They have all the oil we could ever need. 19 of the 20 hijackers were Saudi. The saudis have blatant financial ties to Al-Qaeda throughout their government.

If there ever was casus belli for starting a war of pre-emption to get rid of a terrorist threat, Saudi Arabia is it.

The 500 tons of chem-bio agents? That has also been proven fraudulent.

again, link please. Fraudulent implys lies. Link please.

Where are the 500 tons of chem-bio agent? Colin Powell was so sure. He had photographs showing where they were being manufactured. We knew where these weapons were being stored before the war. We were so sure. Now that we get in there, nadda. What happened to the cocksure attitude of WMD?

I want to know what happened to those weapons the Bush Administration was claiming existed. Cause if they're not in Iraq, and in some cases the weapons were proven to be false in nature, then we've got a real big problem on our hands don't we.

 

[Stvn]

Oh wait. It all makes sense now.

The problem the whole time was ambigious acronyms.

WMD is not "Weapons of Mass Desctruction", but "Weapons of Mass Deception".

And it wasnt an imminent threat from Iraq's WMD, as much as it was an imminent threat from the WMD of the Bush Admin.

See, if we just stopped all our acronym-ing and spoke clearly, the world would be a much better place.

-stvn

 

[Pete]

Iraq was just a scape goat for 9/11. The American people wanted revenge on somebody and Bush gave it to them. Everything else is just BS to rationalize it. I'm sure there are other reasons as an aside, but nothing that strikes you as as different than a dozen other countries.

The revenge theory is just a scapegoat for people who aren’t willing to think. 9/11 showed the American gov’t that their primary threat is turning into not rogue nations, but rogue millionaires, who could inflict casualties on a mass scale. And Iraq was the easiest of the many rogue dictatorships around to eliminate. It was already weakened, there was previous justification from U.N. sanctions, and it had an abundant natural resource that could greatly help its people on the road to recovery.

Lying about the WMD negates the legality of the war. The doctrine of "pre-emptive strikes" claims to be legitimate because they are responding to an imminent threat. It should be obvious to most people by now that Iraq did not in any way present itself to be an imminent threat to the American people.

After 9/11, it would be negligent of our government not to take any steps they could to prevent another attack of that magnitude.

Wrt NK nuking it's neighbors. We have spy sattellites and high flying bombers that could coordinate strikes against their missile complexes and nuclear facilities no? I would be in complete support of that move.

You make it sound so easy. Why aren’t you in complete support of what the U.S., Britain, and most other countries (except those with financial interests in extending Saddam’s reign as long as possible) deemed was necessary in Iraq? It’s quite obvious that taking care of Saddam was fairly simple compared to what would await us in attacking North Korea.

Robert Kagan wrote an excellent editorial on this matter a few weeks ago in the Washington Post, titled A Plot to Deceive? The fact is, most of the people opposed to the war seemed to trust Saddam Hussein more than they did George Bush. That discounts them as little more than knee-jerk anti-Americans, IMO. I don’t know why on Earth someone would give Saddam the benefit of the doubt over practically every democratic gov’t (yes, even the French and the Germans intelligence services indicated they thought Iraq had WMD.

Cause if they're not in Iraq, and in some cases the weapons were proven to be false in nature, then we've got a real big problem on our hands don't we.

No, now that Saddam no longer has the resources of a country at his disposal, I’d say we’ve got a much smaller potential threat on our hands, both from Iraq and al-Qaeda but potentially also from the more radical wings in "Palestine," Iran, and even North Korea.

I agree that the task of rebuilding Iraq is no small matter, though, and it seems it could be going better and/or faster. But keep in mind the major part of the war ended mere *weeks* ago. Saddam ruined that country for decades--it’s fair to say it may take more than a few weeks to turn things around. The continuous looting, razing, and killing by Iraqi citizens isn't helping things, either.

 

[Natoma]

Why support the move to get rid of NK and not Iraq? There is definitive proof, very vocal proof at that, from NK wrt their weapons and weapons programs and capabilities.

Iraq does not have a bomb, and apparently would not have one anytime soon. They have very limited missile capabilities, and the country has been decimated by over a decade of sanctions.

North Korea is a far greater threat. I've been wanting to take out NK because of their abilities and facilities since January. If we're going to discuss taking out our greatest threats, then I believe we should have started with threat #1. Nuclear weapons in the hands of any madman does not make me sleep well at night. But in this case, the madman with the weapons is on a peninsula next to china.

The end goal for going into Iraq was noble and just. Getting rid of an awful dictator who was savagely oppressing his people. But the means and casus belli used to get us there were most certainly not.

Wrt the Bush issue. I have been upset because of the lack of patience given by the Bush Administration to the one last inspection process they signed on to. They agreed to give it a chance and cooperate with the inspectors, which they did not. Hans Blix reported to the media that time and time again he was rebuffed when asking for intel on weapons sites to check. And all the while, the administration was putting out statements saying that the inspections were a failure and a waste of time. In a couple of cases, before the inspections had even begun. I was not particularly enthralled with that double faced behavior.

What it basically comes down to for me is this. If the weapons really existed, there are only three options.

1) Saddam destroyed them long before 2002.
2) Saddam destroyed them just before the war.
3) Saddam ferried them out of Iraq and into a neighboring country.

Considering our spy sattellites, I doubt that Saddam could have moved hundreds of tons of chem-bio agent out of Iraq without us seeing it.

#2 is plausible as a means of discrediting the United States. Maybe he realized nothing was going to stop us from going in, so do as much psychological damage as possible.

#1 would make most of the evidence for going to war faulty.

Since no WMD have been found to date, and it's turned out that certain aspects of our intelligence have been found to be highly circumspect in nature, #1 seems to be the leading candidate for the truth. But only because our intelligence, or the use of that intelligence by the administration, has been found to be highly circumspect. If there was nothing wrong with the intelligence or use of it, I'd believe #2 or #3 more.

But right now there is little cause to have faith in our intelligence, or the usage of that intelligence by the administration.

 

[Clashman]

Some revisionist history for y'all:

Copyright 2003 Newsweek
Newsweek

February 8, 2003, Newsweek Web Exclusive

SECTION: NATIONAL AFFAIRS

LENGTH: 1060 words

HEADLINE: Powell Made His Case

BYLINE: By Jennifer Barrett; The NEWSWEEK poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, which interviewed 1,003 adults aged 18 and older on Feb. 6 and 7. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

HIGHLIGHT:
A new NEWSWEEK poll shows that more Americans support the use of military force to disarm Iraq after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation of new evidence against Saddam Hussein

BODY:
The number of Americans who support military action against Iraq increased sharply after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation at the United Nations this week, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. The survey, taken over the two days following Powell's speech, shows that 70 percent of Americans now support the use of military force against Saddam Hussein and his military. That's the highest level of support in more than a year, and a 10-percent jump from the last poll taken two weeks ago.

An even higher number--85 percent--say they would support military action if the United States was joined by its major allies and also had the full support of the U.N. Security Council. And half of those polled said they would also support a U.S. attack if only one or two major allies signed on, even if the United Nations did not give its approval--an increase of 10 percent from the poll taken two weeks ago. Americans remain reluctant to back a unilateral attack, however, with 59 percent saying they would not support a non-U.N.-sanctioned, U.S.-only attack, while 37 percent say they would.

Nonetheless, most Americans think President George W. Bush is on the right track. Sixty percent say they approve of the way he is handling policies to deal with the threat posed by Iraq and Saddam Hussein. And after slipping slightly over the past month, Bush's approval ratings reversed course and rose to 61 percent.

Support for an attack remains high even if U.N. inspectors don't find evidence that Iraq has chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons as long as the Bush administration says its intelligence reports indicate Iraq does have the banned weapons (as Powell indicated this week). Sixty percent would support military action under this circumstance--a jump of eight percent from the last poll two weeks ago--while 34 percent would oppose it (six percent don't know).

Americans are nearly evenly split on whether to take military action now or to allow more time to try nonviolent means of achieving policy goals in Iraq. Forty-six percent say force is the only way to effectively deal with Iraq and that the United States should move forward quickly with military action, while 50 percent feel the Washington should take more time to achieve its goals in Iraq without using military force. But their patience appears to be waning. In a major shift from the last poll in late January, about one-third of those polled now think U.N. inspectors should get less than a month to continue looking for banned weapons before any kind of military action is taken, a 13-percent increase. Thirty-one percent still say the inspectors should get as much time as they need (down from 41 percent two weeks ago), but 19 percent say inspectors should get about a month. Twelve percent say several months, while just three percent think inspectors should get a full year (2 percent don't know).

Seventy-seven percent of respondents say they saw, heard, or read something about Powell's speech at the United Nations in which he tried to show that Iraq is still producing or storing banned weapons and trying to hide the evidence from the U.N. inspectors. Sixty-nine percent of those polled say Powell's presentation was very (46 percent) or somewhat (23 percent) convincing in making the case the Iraq has been hiding banned weapons from U.N. inspectors. Sixty percent say Powell was very (35 percent) or somewhat (25 percent) convincing in making the case that Iraq is actively supporting Al Qaeda terrorists. And 62 percent were very convinced (41 percent) or somewhat convinced (21 percent) after Powell's presentation that Saddam poses an immediate danger to the world.

The use of commandos or special forces to capture Saddam or work with local anti-Saddam forces remains the most popular military option, with 77 percent approval. Sixty-eight percent would support air strikes against Iraq without the use of ground troops. But 58 percent would now support sending in large numbers of U.S. ground troops too. That's a 9 percent jump from the poll last month and the highest level of support for using ground troops since the question was first asked in late 2001.

Estimates of war casualties have remained at about the same level over the past few months, with three quarters of those polled saying it's very (38 percent) or somewhat (37 percent) likely that many U.S. pilots or other military personnel will be killed or taken prisoner. The vast majority also believes that it's very (68 percent) or somewhat (23 percent) likely that hundreds of Iraqi civilians will be killed or injured. And nearly eight out of 10 polled say it's very (54 percent) or somewhat (25 percent) likely that the toll on Iraqis will be even higher, with thousands or civilians killed or injured.

Despite the continued reluctance by France and Germany to use military means to disarm Saddam, fewer Americans feel that if the United States took such action against Iraq it would create serious divisions between the U.S. and its allies. Just over half (53 percent) say a military attack would create serious divisions--down from 60 percent in late January; 38 percent say it would not.

However, 71 percent of those polled say a military attack on Iraq would cause "serious problems" for the United States throughout the Arab world, and about the same number fear Iraq would retaliate by using biological or chemical weapons against Israel (73 percent) or against the United States (76 percent). Just as many respondents (75 percent) think Saddam would also eventually use weapons of mass destruction against a neighboring country if the United States did not take military action against Iraq.

Similarly, 86 percent of those polled think that if the U.S. did take military action against Iraq it would inspire terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens--a 10-percent jump from the poll taken just after the one-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks. But almost as many (83 percent) think Saddam would be instrumental in helping Al Qaeda terrorists carry out future attacks against the United States if we did not take military action against him.

The NEWSWEEK poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, which interviewed 1,003 adults aged 18 and older on Feb. 6 and 7. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

 

[Himself]

The revenge theory is just a scapegoat for people who aren’t willing to think. 9/11 showed the American gov’t that their primary threat is turning into not rogue nations, but rogue millionaires, who could inflict casualties on a mass scale. And Iraq was the easiest of the many rogue dictatorships around to eliminate. It was already weakened, there was previous justification from U.N. sanctions, and it had an abundant natural resource that could greatly help its people on the road to recovery.

I agree it was an easy target, a most expedient scapegoat, something nice to blunt the blood lust of the American public for revenge for 9/11. There was no other reason for urgency in the matter, all the so called evidence was BS and they knew it, they wanted to solve a problem at home, not in IRAQ. IRAQ was on the back burner for a decade, suddenly after 9/11 it's the next instigator of world war in the making staring Saddam Hussein as Hitler.

BTW, I would phrase that last sentence more along the lines of GWB's old buddies would get some business out of it than any BS about doing what's good for them. If you think this war will solve anything whatsoever you're dreaming, you just created the ingredients for fresh terrorists. In IRAQ you will see some other government in place, but no doubt you will get the same crap going on behind the scenes as before.

Kinda reminds me of those stories you hear about drug enforcement breaking into a house to bust up a drug operation but they get the address wrong and kill innocent civilians.

 

[Fred]

Natoma why aren't you jumping on President Clinton who bombed Iraq 4 years ago for PRECISELY THE SAME REASON as Bush. Namely WMD programs, and that he had intelligence reports that said essentially the SAME THING.

I love how all the parrots are claiming there was no evidence for WMDs found. What a lie. They found Al Samud missiles, tons of Ressin and other precursor chemicals, 2 mobile units (that despite what one report says, other reports claim that indeed they may be mobile bio lab and are not made to produce hydrogen balloons) a nuclear laboratory that shouldn't exist, plenty of dubious fertilizer labs, documents that explain how to mislead the UN and of course part of a nuke.

What are you people smoking? That alone justifies a potential longterm risk (no not necessarily imminent) but clearly a violation all the same.

 

[covermye]

I'm not even a spook but it doesn't make sense for Al-Qaeda to form an alliance with Saddam. Why? Saddam is one of the people they're trying to take down. They want to establish hardline muslim states in the holy land. You honestly think Osama would align himself with Saddam then? Saddam is enemy #1c next to Israel and America, enemies #1a and #1b

I'd file that under, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" file. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it doesn't take much to see that at this (that) time in history, these two guys had a lot more in common than not...

 

[Natoma]

Natoma why aren't you jumping on President Clinton who bombed Iraq 4 years ago for PRECISELY THE SAME REASON as Bush. Namely WMD programs, and that he had intelligence reports that said essentially the SAME THING.

He bombed Iraq because hours earlier Saddam had kicked out the weapons inspectors.

They found Al Samud missiles,

That were capable of going 5 miles over the distance specified by the UN. Yea, huge WMD that requires the loss of hundreds of US and British soldiers, and thousands of Iraqis.

tons of Ressin and other precursor chemicals,

Ricin. And it was found in the northern no-fly zone where Saddam's influence did not extend. Even Colin Powell admitted this.

The ricin that is bouncing around Europe now originated in Iraq -- not in the part of Iraq that is under Saddam Hussein's control, but his security forces know all about it

We know that there are American extremist groups (usually backwood militias) in the United States. That doesn't mean that our government is responsible for what they do, or knows where they are at all times.

2 mobile units (that despite what one report says, other reports claim that indeed they may be mobile bio lab and are not made to produce hydrogen balloons) a nuclear laboratory that shouldn't exist, plenty of dubious fertilizer labs, documents that explain how to mislead the UN and of course part of a nuke.

The two mobile units are incapable of creating and storing pathogens. The clean rooms needed to grow pathogens in mass quantities did not exist in those mobile labs. Also, where is this nuclear laboratory that you're talking about? I haven't heard anything about it on the news.

Fertilizer? I can take you to any farm in the middle of the country and you can see hundreds of pounds of fertilizer. Fertilizer is a material that was *not* banned by the UN. So finding fertilizer and trying to say "Oh this is proof of WMD!" is dubious at best. Now if you say they found chem-bio weapons derived from that fertilizer, that's a different thing. But fertilizer in and of itself is *not* illegal according to the UN.

I agree with the documents designed to mislead the UN. It was one of the reasons I stated earlier that despite a lack of weapons, Saddam dug his own grave, and rightfully so. But this is about the US and its stated reasons for going into Iraq in the first place.

I do not believe the ends justify the means, and that is basically my stance on this whole subject.

The nuclear component found was buried for 10 years in the backyard of a scientist. That does not necessarily mean that a program was ongoing. I'm sure if you go digging around Los Alamos you'll find some interesting things as well.

What are you people smoking? That alone justifies a potential longterm risk (no not necessarily imminent) but clearly a violation all the same.

You are correct. Longterm risk is most certainly not necessarily an imminent risk. North Korea represents an imminent risk and there is nothing cloudy about their weapons and their programs and the "evilness" of their regime. They did not have a nuclear bomb when we first found out about them restarting their facilities in the summer of last year. In fact they still don't. But at least then, we knew where their material was. It hadn't been moved around. What does the administration do? Ignore the situation and act as if it doesn't exist, all the while parroting the dangers of Iraq.

Am I the only one that sees just a slight disconnect there? :?

 

[Clashman]

Natoma why aren't you jumping on President Clinton who bombed Iraq 4 years ago for PRECISELY THE SAME REASON as Bush. Namely WMD programs, and that he had intelligence reports that said essentially the SAME THING.

Just to let you know Fred, there WERE tons of people pissed off at Clinton for bombing Iraq. Voices In The Wilderness started up in 1996, in protest of Clinton's policy on Iraq. Before Bush even came into office, there were already alot of people incredibly frustrated and incredibly annoyed with our Iraq policies. And despite thatl, the bombing campaigns carried out in the 1990's were of nowhere near the same scale as what has just occurred, which is I think the biggest reason why people are making a much bigger fuss about the current situation. Your attempt at insinuating that people are making a big deal about this just because it's a Republican and not a Democrat in office is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Natoma]

It seems that CIA director George Tenet is taking the blame for the "Uranium Purchase" statement making its way into the Presidents State of the Union Address:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CA01

Though the funky thing about this "admission" that seems to smell of him taking the fall is this little bit:

But U.S. officials told NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell that Tenet himself advised Rice’s top deputy, Steven Hadley, to remove a reference to the uranium report from a speech Bush delivered Oct. 7 in Cincinnati, establishing that the nation’s top intelligence officials suspected that the allegation was false more than three months before they approved Bush’s repeating it in his nationally televised address on Jan. 28.

The Washington Post reported Friday that the CIA also told British officials about its doubts and passed word along to several U.S. agencies before the State of the Union address.

Not to mention the article I quoted, here to begin this discussion in the first place which stated:

It noted that the CIA had already debunked this intelligence, and questioned why an official British government intelligence dossier published four months before Bush’s speech included the claim as part of an effort to make the case for going to war against Iraq.

So it seems that the director is attempting to take the fall for the administration. But considering that reports have already come out over the past few months that stated that the CIA was pressured by the administration to find any and all evidence that would support the case for war, I'm just a tad skeptical.