Well well well.....

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."

 

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."

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

Opinion is not enough to start a war.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. :?

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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? :?

 

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:

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

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.