so they blatantly lie and you dont care

[pub crawler]

Pub Crawler,


So if someone were to accuse you of a violant assualt on their daughter or for that matter anything, what would your response be?

Would you say, what evidence do you have to support such a claim? Would you say innocent until proven guilty?

I mean, these are not answers right?

The entire US legal and justice system has "no answer" when people make unsubstantiated claims about them and what they do, right?

Sting, it is obvious that you are not understanding (or not listening to) the debate with respect to the deceit Bush used in his rhetoric as it pertains to his "making a case for war."

Yep, take care buddy.

buddies

 

[STING2]

I'm reading everything that pertains to the war and the idea of deciet by Bush etc. There is know evidence yet that shows that Bush knowingly lied about anything. A lie is to make a statement that one knowingly knows is false. Bush has yet to do that.

I can give you clear examples of lies made by Saddam though.

 

[Angela Harlem]

A bit of semantics here STING, you believe it is up to Saddam to prove he has/had disarmed, but in terms of any potential lie/s on Bush's behalf, it is up to the accuser to prove?

I say semantics as I know you are referring back to the documents made by the UN in regard to the weapons and the opposers to Bush are basing theirs on verbal statements which have been deemed questionable etc so it is not technically the same thing....but it kinda is. For someone to look at Bush in this light, one must prove their accusations. Yet America and Bush do not? Naturally you will probably respond that Saddam has been requested repeatedly to prove he has disarmed, but what if he can't prove it? What if there is no evidence of the weapons being destroyed? He's not the most moral fellow and hardly plays by any generally agreeable fair rules of play. This places him though in potentially the same position as Bush.

My post here is by no means concrete and I can see the holes...but could you humour me for a bit?

 

[STING2]

A bit of semantics here STING, you believe it is up to Saddam to prove he has/had disarmed, but in terms of any potential lie/s on Bush's behalf, it is up to the accuser to prove?

I say semantics as I know you are referring back to the documents made by the UN in regard to the weapons and the opposers to Bush are basing theirs on verbal statements which have been deemed questionable etc so it is not technically the same thing....but it kinda is. For someone to look at Bush in this light, one must prove their accusations. Yet America and Bush do not? Naturally you will probably respond that Saddam has been requested repeatedly to prove he has disarmed, but what if he can't prove it? What if there is no evidence of the weapons being destroyed? He's not the most moral fellow and hardly plays by any generally agreeable fair rules of play. This places him though in potentially the same position as Bush.

My post here is by no means concrete and I can see the holes...but could you humour me for a bit?

In early March 1991, multiple US Armored and Mechanized divisions were only 1-2 hundred miles south of Baghdad. These divisions would of continued their advance toward Baghdad if Saddam had not signed the 1991 Ceacefire agreement. That Agreement required him to account for and verifiably disarm his entire WMD program.

Saddam was PROVEN guilty of the invasion and rape of Kuwait, using WMD more times than any other nation in history, and was proven to have large stocks of WMD. The international community required Saddam to verifiably disarm of all his WMD.

A difficult process followed where Saddam would comply and then block only to retreat again and comply. Large amounts of WMD stocks were destroyed in the years from 1991 to 1998 under the supervision of UN inspectors.

At the end of 1998, Saddam kicked the inspectors out. The inspectors report at the end of 1998 listed that Saddam still had thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard gas, and thousands of Bio/Chem Capable Artillery shells. Saddam himself had admitted to the stocks to many of these things prior to kicking the inspectors out.

From 1998-2002 there are no inspectors in Iraq. Then in late 2002 Saddam lets inspectors back in, but refuses to either show where the WMD from 1998 is, or show where the remains of the destruction are.

If Saddam destroyed the WMD, there would be significant remains of that destruction. It does not vanish into thin air. Obviously, if he did not destroy the WMD he was required to hand it over. There were only two possible choices for Saddam in regards to VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT and he did neither.

America and Bush do not have to prove anything because Saddam has already been proven guilty, as the 1991 Ceacefire agreement and inspections show. Saddam was never requested to verifiably disarm, he was required to Verifiably Disarm or face military action to insure he was disarmed.

WMD does not magically vanish into thin air. IF the WMD is still intact, show where it is or hand it over. IF it was destroyed, show where it was destroyed and the remains. The UN and member states of the UN cannot assume that Saddam just innocently lost his WMD. VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT is the standard laid down by the UN and it must be met by Saddam or otherwise he faces the consequences.

Saddam was already proven GUILTY and required to VERIFIABLY DISARM of those guilty items as well as a number of other things in regards to his invasion of Kuwait. Bush on the other hand has not been proven guilty of anything and is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Klaus]

Interesting comments from Mr. Cook, former UK foreign secretary who resigned in protest at the prospect of war in Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3425529.stm

He added: "We have got to drop this very dangerous doctrine under which we went to war of the pre-emptive strike.

"If there was no threat from Iraq and we obviously had no right to carry out a pre-emptive strike to remove that threat. And we better drop that doctrine before somebody else in the world uses it in their own back yard."

The Liberal Democrats Foreign Affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said: "It is pretty extraordinary that first Hans Blix... David Kay and now David Kay's successor have all effectively said the same thing.

"There needs to be an inquiry to consider whether we went to war on a flawed prospectus."

 

[STING2]

The case for war against Iraq was based on SADDAM's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM! Can you name anyone that says Saddam had VERIFIABLY DISARMED of all WMD weapons and programs? David Kay by the way has found WMD programs in violation of multiple UN resolutions.

 

[Klaus]

"... Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep WMDs."

Did he talk about the 80ies there?

"Before September 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowly terrorist networks are not easily contained."

Was there a connection between 9/11 and Mr. Hussein? Or was it just to frighten the US citizens to get them "in line" for war?

And the justification why you went to war without a UN mandate was that the course of the US dosn't depend on the decision of others"

Dosn't sound for me like GWB cared too much about the UN (-> other nations).

If the presidents wants to make a war for the United Nations (because of UN resoluitions) i still don't understand why he didn't go through the Security Council and why Mr. Powell just spoke about old resolutions and about verifiably dissarmment instead of wrong (or faked?) proofs, no surpise that the other nations couldn't be convinced.

Instead of that the US spoke about self-defense - and we found out that this wasn't the truth.

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

" "... Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep WMDs.""

"Did he talk about the 80ies there?"

I suggest you look at Saddam's activities in the 1990s and the bullshit that inspectors had to deal with on a constant basis from Saddam.

""Before September 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowly terrorist networks are not easily contained.""

"Was there a connection between 9/11 and Mr. Hussein? Or was it just to frighten the US citizens to get them "in line" for war?"


Read the above quote again, he did not mention 9/11. The case for war is independent of 9/11. Saddam's failure to Verifiably Disarm and the existence of terrorists or cold hard facts.

It has been the policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq since 1998. A Majority of Americans supported the removal of Saddam prior to 9/11.

"And the justification why you went to war without a UN mandate was that the course of the US dosn't depend on the decision of others""

This is false. The UN has never given a bigger mandate for the use of force than for operation Iraqi Freedom that stared in March 2003.


"If the presidents wants to make a war for the United Nations (because of UN resoluitions) i still don't understand why he didn't go through the Security Council and why Mr. Powell just spoke about old resolutions and about verifiably dissarmment instead of wrong (or faked?) proofs, no surpise that the other nations couldn't be convinced."

Totally incorrect. In March 1991, Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement with the coalition that had a number of specific conditions and had resolution 678 re-affirmed in it that authorized the use of all means necessary if Saddam failed to comply with the conditions or any subsequent resolutions.

Pretending that such conditions and agreements become null and void with the passage of a few years is absurd. None of these resolutions was ever rescended in anyway and were still in effect all the way up to Saddam's removal.

Member states of the UN including the United States were not required to PROVE ANYTHING! That was Saddam's job. SADDAM was required to VERIFIABLY DISARM! He didn't! Failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM was a material breach of multiple UN resolutions and a violation of the 1991 Ceacefire agreement under which case member states were authorized by the UN to "use all means necessary" to bring about compliance.

The UN new in 1991 that Saddam could not be trusted to fully agree with the conditions which is why they put an ENFORCEMENT mechanism in place that involved the use of military force, should Saddam prevent peaceful verifiable disarmament which he did.

Powell did return to the UN despite having overwhelming UN backing for action from the prior resolutions and Ceacefire agreement. He even decided to give Saddam one last chance to Verifiably disarm. Powell returned to the UN and got 15-0 vote on Resolution 1441 which again authorized the use of force against Saddam if he failed to Verifiably disarm.


"Instead of that the US spoke about self-defense - and we found out that this wasn't the truth."

The USA and other member states of the UN defended the entire planet with their actions and enforced multiple UN resolutions against Saddam.

The TRUTH is that Saddam NEVER VERIFIABLY DISARMED!

 

[pub crawler]

While the Bush Administration presented the public with the information they had about Al Quada and Saddam links, they never linked Saddam to 9/11.

In fact, Sting, they did.

Bush made the 9/11-Iraq connection in a deceptive, implicit manner, and he did it often. He continually invoked 9/11 in at least two separate speeches prior to the invasion in an effort to gain public support for said invasion.

It wasn't hard to read between the lines, Sting. People knew exactly the connection Bush was making, which is why so many folks were/are up in arms about it.

Take a look at his speeches at whitehouse.gov if you don't believe me.

For example, the following is directly quoted from the President's radio address of March 8, 2003:

"The attacks of September the 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030308-1.html

Brilliant on the President's part, really, the lovely way he transitions smoothly from "September 11" to "Saddam Hussein." He did it often and it worked. The American public bought it.

I am currently reading journalist and former White House strategist Kevin Phillips' book "American Dynasty" which, as you might guess, is critical of the President's "case for war." Phillips articulates Bush's methodical deceit nicely:

"By early 2003, as war approached, opinion polls showed that a large majority of Americans believed that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction justified war. A poll taken by CBS News in early April even found a 53 percent majority calling Saddam Hussein "personally involved in the September 11 terror attacks," which almost no U.S. intelligence official believed. In mid-March, the Christian Science Monitor had reported a tactic as successful as it was deceptive: 'In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11. Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.' So convinced, citizens were primed for another Iraq war, at least for one that succeeded and involved few U.S. casualties."

Sting, I cannot PROVE Bush lied in making his case for war, because it is not an issue of proof, but I KNOW precisely how the President executed his campaign of deceit.

 

[STING2]

pub crawler,

"The attacks of September the 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force."

I don't find anything wrong with that statement at all. When it comes to ALL area's of US National Security, what happened on September 11, 2001 should be on everyone's mind.


"Brilliant on the President's part, really, the lovely way he transitions smoothly from "September 11" to "Saddam Hussein." He did it often and it worked. The American public bought it."

The American public already supported regime change in Baghdad prior to 9/11.


"Sting, I cannot PROVE Bush lied in making his case for war, because it is not an issue of proof, but I KNOW precisely how the President executed his campaign of deceit."

The real issue here is how those that oppose the re-election of President Bush plan to convince/decieve the American public into believing that Bush lied to them.

 

[Scarletwine]

Sting2,
I'm sorry but I think it is time for you to give it up.
Cripes - Powell said they were missinformed, Kay, even Cheney is backing out - sort of in his freakin wicked way.

Now the CIA and the White House are in a death struggle on who exaggerated and lied.

Our President and his administration exaggerated our need for war killing (?) 510 soldiers and wounding almost 2500. How can you still support him? Where is your love for your fellow soldiers not officers?
Sorry not trying to be crazy, but my dad adn uncle served as officers and had more love for their men than the top brass.

 

[Dreadsox]

Actually, David Kay himself has indicated that the investigation needs to be into the providers of the "evidence" and not necessarily the White House. I would take that to mean that the people in the White House based their decisions on the evidence....and that the problem is....the evidence was bad.

 

[Scarletwine]

That's what he said, bbut now the CIA is fighting back.
1 - demanding a real investigation into the Valerie Cia outing

2 - Bush admin pushed for info.

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1154185&l=16074
BUSH ADMITS MISLEADING ON WMD

Less than a year after declaring there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime
continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised," President Bush
and the White House began to openly "back away from its WMD assertions
today." The New York Times reported, "White House officials are no longer
asserting that stockpiles of banned weapons would eventually be found" after
their weapons inspector, David Kay said he "doesn't think [WMD] existed"
after the 1991 Gulf War.

The backtracking is reverberating throughout the Bush administration. While
Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations last year that "our
conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and
500 tons of chemical weapons agent," he said this weekend that it could
actually be "zero tons." Powell told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq
"can produce anthrax," that it might "have produced 25,000 liters" and
showed a video of an Iraqi plane that dumping "2,000 liters of simulated
anthrax" as proof, but he now says they might have produced no anthrax at
all.

Similarly, Vice President Dick Cheney, said before the war, "there is no
doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...to use
against our friends, against our allies, and against us," but now says the
war was about Iraq's "efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." The
vice president also cited a classified report his own Administration has
labeled "inaccurate" as the "best source" of proof that Saddam Hussein and
Al Qaeda were linked.

In response, the Administration is beginning to blame the intelligence
community for the WMD fiasco, and planning an internal "review of prewar
intelligence." Administration ally Kay concurred, arguing "I think the
intelligence community owes the president [an apology] rather than the
president owing the American people." Despite Mr. Kay's assertions, experts
who knew the record of U.N. inspections knew that finding no WMD "was always
a strong possibility...but Bush administration officials never acknowledged it."

Earlier reporting found that senior Administration officials deliberately
"bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence,"
and the White House set up a separate intelligence apparatus, the "Office of
Special Plans," to "cherry-pick intelligence that supported its pre-existing
position and ignoring all the rest." For example, the president's well-known
declaration in last year's State of the Union, asserting that Iraq "sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa," remained despite CIA demands
to remove such allegations from his speech.

The US is now in the hands of a group of extremists

Fundamentalism has spawned an ideology of American supremacy

George Soros
Monday January 26, 2004
The Guardian

The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the pernicious Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action, and it elicited an allergic reaction worldwide - not because anyone had a good word to say about Saddam Hussein, but because we insisted on invading Iraq unilaterally without any clear evidence that he had anything to do with September 11 or that he possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The gap in perceptions between America and the rest of the world has never been wider. Abroad, America is seen as abusing the dominant position it occupies; opinion at home has been led to believe that Saddam posed a clear and present danger to national security. Only in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion are people becoming aware they have been misled.

Even today, many people believe that September 11 justifies behaviour that would be unacceptable in normal times. The ideologues of American supremacy and President Bush personally never cease to remind us that September 11 changed the world. It is only as the untoward consequences of the invasion of Iraq become apparent that people are beginning to realise something has gone woefully wrong.

We have fallen into a trap. The suicide bombers' motivation seemed incomprehensible at the time of the attack; now a light begins to dawn: they wanted us to react the way we did. Perhaps they understood us better than we understand ourselves.

And we have been deceived. When he stood for election in 2000, President Bush promised a humble foreign policy. I contend that the Bush administration has deliberately exploited September 11 to pursue policies that the American public would not have otherwise tolerated. The US can lose its dominance only as a result of its own mistakes. At present the country is in the process of committing such mistakes because it is in the hands of a group of extremists whose strong sense of mission is matched only by their false sense of certitude.

This distorted view postulates that because we are stronger than others, we must know better and we must have right on our side. That is where religious fundamentalism comes together with market fundamentalism to form the ideology of American supremacy.

We may have more difficulty in perceiving the absurdity of pursuing supremacy by military means, because we have learned to rely on military power and we particularly feel the need for it when our very existence is threatened. But the most powerful country on earth cannot afford to be consumed by fear. To make the war on terrorism the centrepiece of our national strategy is an abdication of our responsibility as the leading nation in the world. The US is the only country that can take the lead in addressing problems that require collective action: preserving peace and economic progress, protecting the environment and so on.

Whatever the justification for removing Saddam, there can be no doubt that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. Wittingly or unwittingly, President Bush deceived the American public and Congress and rode roughshod over our allies' opinions.

The gap between the administration's expectations and the actual state of affairs could not be wider. We have put at risk not only our soldiers' lives but the combat readiness of our armed forces. We are overstretched and our ability to project our power has been compromised. Yet there are more places where we need to project our power than ever. North Korea is openly building nuclear weapons; Iran is doing so clandestinely. The Taliban is regrouping in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan. The costs of occupation and the prospect of permanent war weigh on our economy, and we are failing to address festering problems both at home and globally. If we ever needed proof that the neo-cons' dream of American supremacy is misconceived, Iraq has provided it.

It is hard to imagine how the plans of the defence department could have gone more awry. We find ourselves in a quagmire that is in some ways reminiscent of Vietnam. Having invaded Iraq, we cannot extricate ourselves. Domestic pressure to withdraw is likely to build, as in the Vietnam war, but withdrawing would inflict irreparable damage on our standing in the world. In this respect, Iraq is worse than Vietnam because of our dependence on Middle East oil.

Nobody forced us into it; on the contrary, everyone warned us against it. Admittedly, Saddam was a heinous tyrant and it was a good thing to get rid of him. But at what cost? The occupying powers serve as a focal point for attracting terrorists and radicalising Islam. Our soldiers have to do police work in full combat gear.

And the cost of occupation is estimated at a staggering $160bn for the the fiscal years 2003-2004 - $73bn for 2003 and $87bn in a supplemental request for 2004 submitted at the last minute in September 2003. Of the $87bn, only $20bn is for reconstruction, but the total cost of reconstruction is estimated at $60bn. For comparison, our foreign aid budget for 2002 was $10bn.

There is no easy way out. The Bush administration is eager to get the United Nations more involved but is unwilling to make the necessary concessions. We have no alternative to sticking it out and paying the price for our mistake. Eventually a different president with a different attitude to international cooperation may be more successful in extricating us.

The US is not the only country at the centre of the global capitalist system, but it is the most powerful and it is the main driving force behind globalisation. The European Union may equal the US in population and gross national product, but it is far less united and far less comfortable with globalisation. In military terms, the EU does not even qualify as a power, because members make their own decisions.

Insofar as any nation is in charge of the world order, it is the US. That is not to suggest that other countries are exempt from having to concern themselves with the wellbeing of the world. Their attitudes are not without consequence, but it is the US that matters most.

If Bush is rejected in 2004, his policies can be written off as an aberration and America resume its rightful place in the world. But if he is re-elected, the electorate will have endorsed his policies and we will have to live with the consequences. But it isn't enough to defeat Bush at the polls. The US must examine its global role and adopt a more constructive vision. We cannot merely pursue narrow, national self-interest. Our dominant position imposes a unique responsibility.

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

"I'm sorry but I think it is time for you to give it up."

What the hell are you talking about?


"Cripes - Powell said they were missinformed, Kay, even Cheney is backing out - sort of in his freakin wicked way."

The only thing that has happened is that Kay and Powell believe it may not be possible to find WMD weapons.

THE fact that there is still unaccounted for WMD from the past 15 years remains.

Kay found WMD programs in total violation of resolution 1441 and the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire Agreement. One of the Programs is designed for the development of Ricen.



#1 It was never incumbent upon the USA or any other member state of the United Nations to prove that Saddam had WMD, it was incumbent upon SADDAM to prove that he had disarmed. Those were the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire.

Whether WMD is found or not found in Iraq is irrelevent to the case for war. The Case for war against Saddam has always been his failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM OF ALL WMD weapons or related programs. Saddam never verifiably disarmed.


The President did not exagerate at all. The Case for war was built primarily on the results of the work of United Nations inspectors. Saddam failed to verifiably disarm. That fact alone was all the justification needed for war. Saddam was required to verifiably disarm in 1991 because the United Nations felt that if he was not, it would pose to big a threat for the world.



"Our President and his administration exaggerated our need for war killing (?) 510 soldiers and wounding almost 2500. How can you still support him? Where is your love for your fellow soldiers not officers?
Sorry not trying to be crazy, but my dad adn uncle served as officers and had more love for their men than the top brass."


How could you not support Saddam's removal and the enforcement of 17 UN resolutions? How could you support Saddam continueing to fail to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD, and there by continueing to pose massive threat to the worlds energy supply and economy? How could you support Saddam's continued rule which included 4 Billion dollars in business on the blackmarket every year? How could you support the continued rule of Saddam that had already led to the invasions and attacks on 4 different countries, the use of WMD on more occasions than any country in history, and the murder for 1.7 million people?

How could you not support the removal of Saddam without which hundreds of thousands of Iraqi"s would die as they had in the years preceding? How many violations of international law and human rights would Saddam have to engaged in before you would support his removal? Where is your love for Iraqi citizens and innocent citizens in neighboring countries all of them past present and future targets of Saddam Hussein?

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

STING2- Simple, naive question that's been on my mind for a while: How can one VERIFIABLY DISARM what might "possibly" be NOT THERE as first presumed?

Sidenote: Is it possible not every country (in this hypothetical, Iraq) keeps a meticuluous database tracking like the rest of the world? ... maybe WMD sunk in the sea, or blew up in a freak accident that was not officially recorded...

i know, sounds stupid and ridiculuous... but if an allegation is made by US, and our govt can't support it... where is the validity of the alleged claim made by our govt.?

I'm hoping for a simple logical answer for these questions above.

 

[STING2]

theSoulfulMofo,

"STING2- Simple, naive question that's been on my mind for a while: How can one VERIFIABLY DISARM what might "possibly" be NOT THERE as first presumed?"

When Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, it was not a presumption that Saddam had WMD, it was a FACT. Iraq in the 10 years prior to the 1991 Gulf War had frequently used WMD. UN inspectors uncovered large stockpiles and documents showing list of imports and domestic production of various substances.

The only reason good enough in March 1991 to allow Saddam to continue in power was that he be disarmed of all WMD and repair the damage he had done to the region.

The inspections process continued over the years. The process was drawn out because of the constant attempts by Saddam to conceal what he had. Some stocks were destroyed, while others were still unaccounted for.

Despite admitting to still having WMD and WMD programs, Saddam continued to stall inspections in 1998 which eventually led to the inspectors being taking out of Iraq and not being allowed to return by Saddam. At that time in 1998, United Nations inspectors reported a large number of items that were still unaccounted for and yet to be verifiably destroyed or handed over.

The inspectors were prevented from doing their job from 1998-2002.

In 2002-2003, Saddam let the inspectors back in, but claimed the WMD from the UN inspectors report from 1998 had been destroyed. When asked for the evidence and remains fo the destruction, they claimed they destroyed that as well which is technically impossible.

Bad accounting or missed documents, essentially the "dog ate my homework excuse" will not cut it here.

The fact that Saddam had to account for the destruction or handing over of his entire WMD program has been in effect since March 1991.

The international community would be foolish if it were to take Saddam at his word that they "lost it" or "could not find it". No one in their right mind in charge of international security has the luxury to presume that Saddam probably, just lost it.

The process of Verifiable Disarmament is a simple one that has been accomplished by multiple countries around the world in as little time as a year. Kazakstan, Ukraine, Belarus, and South Africa can all testify to this fact.

Saddam had large stocks of WMD in March 1991 as well as other programs to produce various types of WMD. All he had to do was roll the stuff out and have the United Nations inspectors take it away or destroy it on the spot. This is not how it happened in Iraq. The process took years and was never completed.

The claim made by the US government is not a claim but a fact backed up by the UNITED NATIONS. The UNITED NATIONS has for the past 13 years maintained that SADDAM has failed to comply with 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN. Those resolutions include the Verifiable Disarmament of Saddam.

The fact that Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm as well as failing to comply with multiple UN resolutions, passed under rules which allow the use of military force to enforce them, are not allegations but indeed facts.


Kay's team has not found WMD weapons that were unaccounted for, but they have found WMD programs in total violation of the resolutions and ceacefire agreement.

In any event, such finds are not needed to justify the war as Saddam failure to comply with 17 UN resolutions dealing with Verifiable Disarmament of WMD and his invasion of Kuwait or more then enough to justify a military response.

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

thanks for the info summary...

soulfulmofo

 

[STING2]

A couple of things mentioned from David Kay in his appearence before Congress today.


He said Iraq was in violation of U.N. Resolution 1441, which mandated Saddam to disclose and destroy prohibited weapons.

He said inspectors have found hundreds of cases of Iraqi officials concealing from U.N. weapons inspectors evidence that placed Iraq in clear violation of the world body's resolutions.

 

[Rono]

Does anyone has pictures of WMD`s and the places where they where produced ? Powell is looking for some to show them to the UN members. His old ones are invalid,....

 

[ThatGuy]

I've tried to stay out of these threads because I find them too aggravating.. But I thought it was important to post this article.

Doubts were cut from Iraq report

Where the public version was full of assertions, the report to top officials contained cautions.

By Jonathan S. Landay
Inquirer Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information, and doubts about Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.

As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.

The stark differences between the public version and the then top-secret version of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate raise new questions about the accuracy of the public case made for a war that has claimed the lives of more than 500 U.S. service members and thousands of Iraqis.

Click here for the rest
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/7915254.htm

 

[STING2]

ThatGuy,

Most National Intelligence Estimates have "warnings", and "doubts" about various things. Intelligence is not a crystal ball, and the fact that there were doubts is no revelation or surprise.

What is unquestioned, is that Saddam had failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD.

 

[Dreadsox]

What is unquestioned, is that Saddam had failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD.

Interesting...I thought it was the UN's job to determine this. Not the USA. But that would mean that the UN would have had a vote to find Iraq violated the Cease-Fire. Which they never according to EVERY legal opinion from every law site that I have read on the topic of UN resolutions.

Please spare me the reaffirmed....blah blah blah. I know your opinion you know mine.

The only reason many Republicans including myself supported the war was that we were in immediate danger. Not that an f-ing resolution was violated. Not that he was supposed to do this that or the other thing. If the US had not invaded, then the UN process would have continued. And then, maybe the US could have had its vote for war.

Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Powell claimed we WERE in immediate danger. I bought it.

The US has NO business invading if we were NOT in immediate danger. The strongest case was the humanitarian case. Even then, I would have questioned that the US should be involved. Setting up a democracy.....No way...we have no business risking lives of any servicemember for this.

If we were in DANGER yes, hopnest to goodness immediate danger...I fully expect the leadership of this country to act.

There is only one reason Tennant has not been fired. He told the truth in the meetings with the president. So, who twisted the facts.....

I wonder.

 

[BVS]

Excellent post Dread.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"Interesting...I thought it was the UN's job to determine this. Not the USA."

The UN has stated that Saddam is in material breech of multiple UN resolutions including 1441. The UN has stated that Saddam has yet to fully VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD.

If you have UN document saying that Saddam has complied with ANY of the 17 UN resolutions passed against him, lets see it.

"Which they never according to EVERY legal opinion from every law site that I have read on the topic of UN resolutions."

Ah yes, the wonderful OPINION of the law sites. I disagree with their OPINION and prefer the one provided by the US Government who determines what US foreign policy is. I also prefer the majority opinion of the US congress and the American people on that issue.


"Please spare me the reaffirmed....blah blah blah. I know your opinion you know mine."

"The only reason many Republicans including myself supported the war was that we were in immediate danger. Not that an f-ing resolution was violated. Not that he was supposed to do this that or the other thing. If the US had not invaded, then the UN process would have continued. And then, maybe the US could have had its vote for war"

My friends and I as well as many other people understand the importance and seriousness of the resolutions and why violations and enforcement of them were important for the security of the region and the world.

You know its certainly not the first time leaders and people took a disrespectful attitude towards the importance of violations and enforcement of resolutions. One only wonders what the world would look like today if the resolutions and treaties passed against Germany were enforced when Hitler started to violate them in the 1930s. But hey, there was no immediate danger, was there?

The coalition invasion was apart of a process that had reached its only remaining option. Unless of course you believe Saddam would turn into Micky Mouse over night and finally fully cooperate with the inspectors.

It is rather obvious that a dictator with a 400,000 man military is never going to be fully disarmed of WMD by a group of 100 unarmed inspectors unless the dictator is willing to cooperate.

The vote was taking with 1441. Saddam had to come clean or face military force. That was the language of 1441. The UN inspections once inspectors were let back in were unable to resolve any of the relevant issues in regards to disarmament, because Saddam was unwilling to do that.

"Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Powell claimed we WERE in immediate danger. I bought it."

They claimed the world was in danger because of the unresolved facts in regards to Saddam's obligation to verifiably disarm.

As Powell said prior to the war:

"It is not incumbent upon the UN to prove that Iraq had WMD, it is incumbent upon Iraq to prove that they do not have WMD"!

"The US has NO business invading if we were NOT in immediate danger."

It is to late to respond effectively and save peoples lives once something becomes an "immediate danger" ie, missiles launched, tanks rolling across the border etc.

"The strongest case was the humanitarian case. Even then, I would have questioned that the US should be involved. Setting up a democracy.....No way...we have no business risking lives of any servicemember for this."

The strongest case was for war was Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM and the threat that entailed for the region and world based on his prior actions. The destruction of a signifcant portion of the Persian Gulf Regions oil Supply would throw the Planet into the most devestating economic depression the world has ever seen with many unknowable consequences.

This almost happened in 1990. Following the 1991 Gulf War, the United Nations passed multiple resolutions requiring Saddam to VERIFIABLY DISARM because of the great danger he could pose to the region and the world if he did not.

The Coalition military had three times as many divisions a couple hundred miles south of Baghdad in 1991 as it did in the 2003 war. Had Saddam not agreed to the Ceacefire, these divisions would have continued moving north. The price for Saddam to remain in power was his VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT among several other requirments in the resolutions.

"The strongest case was the humanitarian case. Even then, I would have questioned that the US should be involved. Setting up a democracy.....No way...we have no business risking lives of any servicemember for this."

Are you opposed to the fine work US forces have done in Bosnia and Kosovo in preventing a humanitarian disaster and establishing and developing a democracies there?

While I don't feel the humanitarian case was the strongest case for military action in Iraq, the benefits for the region and the world, of developing a democratic Iraq are enormous. The US aided and developed many democracy's throughout the world during the Cold War which helped win the cold war, prevented hot wars from starting, and helped to bring peace and stability to many area's. The Middle East will be a more secure and stable place once the majority of the regions countries become democracy's. Once that happens, the chance for war in the middle east will be as likely as the chance for war is in Europe today.


"There is only one reason Tennant has not been fired. He told the truth in the meetings with the president. So, who twisted the facts....."

I remind you that Tennant signed off on every WORD of Powells speach to the UN! NO facts were twisted. Saddam had not verifiably disarmed. NOT EVEN FRANCE disputes that fact.

The US and other used the best intelligence it had. But the case for war did not rely on intelligence, it relied on Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm. Intelligence in the past had failed to predict Saddam's invasion of Iran. It had failed to predict his invasion of Kuwait. It had failed to predict the progress Saddam was making toward a Nuclear Weapon at the time of the 1991 Gulf War. Intelligence is NOT perfect, not even close.

The chief criteria for whether Saddam had or did not have WMD after 1991 would be his willingness to cooperate with the United Nations to be VERIFIABLY DISARMED himself. This was a far better way to be sure about the questions of WMD, rather than simply relying on intelligence methods that at best could only be accurate some of the time.

Saddam failed to fully cooperate, and that was an intolerable risk for the planet in light of what Saddam had done in the past.

 

[Dreadsox]

Ummm....Are you saying Iraq is a "Cold War'? Funny to compare the two, and please lets drop the Hitler WWII comparison.

Yes, I am opposed to the United States acting unilaterally for "humanitatian reasons".Was Kosovo unilateral...or was it through Nato? What international organization were we beholden to for theinvastion of Iraq?

You cannot say that Saddam was not cooperating, when inspectors were in the country. Sorry. There was progress being made. I supported going without the approval of the UN Security Council, the only body based on the HISTORY of the UN that has the ability to determine that a Cease Fire between member states has been violated. I stand by this, UNLESS we are in immediate danger. There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to show that we were in immediate danger. Is it too much to ask, that if we are going to be THE COUNTRY that violates a history of international law, that we be CORRECT about the urgency of the danger?
Lets see, the director of the CIA does not get fired after 9/11 and after reams of incorrect intelligence. As I said before I could give two shites what the rest of the worlds' intelligence said. We are supposed to have the best. We pay for it.

As a person who has WORN the uniform, respectfully, I find it troubling that you paint and characterize others in here as less of an American because we do not stand with the majority of Americans or your friends on this. It sets quite a demeaning tone. I supported this war....even though I completely felt we were violating rules of international law. I thought that there would be NO WAY they would risk it if they were not certain. Now any country can invade another if they feel THREATENED because we were WRONG!

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"Ummm....Are you saying Iraq is a "Cold War'? Funny to compare the two, and please lets drop the Hitler WWII comparison."

I understand the value of developing democracies in troubled area's of the world such as the middle east today or Europe during the Cold War. I know how democratic society supported by a market economy is an important tool to help defend against any insurgent movement, whether it be a communist one trying to impose a dictatorship, or a religious fundamentalist one trying to impose a different style of dictatorship. Political and economic development of many different area's of the world were crucial to defending Europe and many parts of Asia against the Soviet threat. The Marshall Plan and other political and economic development policies were crucial to help winning the Cold War and defending the free world.

Economic and political development in both Iraq and Afghanistan will help improve US and global security just as it did in other area's during the Cold War by preventing movements of a dictitorial and adversarial nature from siezing power in these countries. So no, I don't find the comparison funny at all. It is in fact current US policy to do just that.

The Situation with Hitler and World War II is an excellant example of what happens when countries fail to enforce good resolutions and treaties in place to prevent such problems. If Europeans had simply enforced the treaties and resolutions in place against Germany in the 1930s, Hitler could have been stopped early on, and 50 million lives would be saved.

Read the conclusion in Ken Pollack's book, even he brings up Hitler and World War II.

"You cannot say that Saddam was not cooperating, when inspectors were in the country."

Saddam was required to do far more than simply let the inspectors into the country. He was required to roll out all of his WMD materials and programs and any documents relating to WMD when the inspectors arrived. He did not do this at all!

"Sorry. There was progress being made."

Please tell me what progress did UN inspectors make from November to March?

"I supported going without the approval of the UN Security Council, the only body based on the HISTORY of the UN that has the ability to determine that a Cease Fire between member states has been violated."

Also the body that determined that it had indeed been violated and authorized the use of force.

"There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to show that we were in immediate danger."

The criteria for the use of military force was not another Saddam invasion or attack on another country, it was compliance with the resolutions passed by the UN that had determined that Saddam's possession of WMD was an intolerable danger to the world.

"Is it too much to ask, that if we are going to be THE COUNTRY that violates a history of international law, that we be CORRECT about the urgency of the danger?"

The United States and other member states of the UN did not violate international law, they enforced it as authorized by the UN. The verifiable disarmament of Saddam was seen as an urgent matter to be achieved through military force if necessary which it became because of Saddam's unwillingness to cooperate.

"Lets see, the director of the CIA does not get fired after 9/11 and after reams of incorrect intelligence."

Intelligence is not a crystal ball and it has not been determined that the CIA was in fact incorrect. No one can currently say what Saddam did or did not have at the start of the war as far as intact weapons. We do know what he had not accounted for and that he had not verifiably disarmed. Kay also found hundreds of things that do agree with the CIA's assessment.

Based on your criteria for firing CIA chiefs, we would have a new one every month. Loads of information comes in everyday, some of it correct, some of it not.

"As I said before I could give two shites what the rest of the worlds' intelligence said."

I wouldn't say that because it is such intelligence that has helped us in the past.

"We are supposed to have the best. We pay for it."

There some countries that have human intelligence that money can't buy. Its absurd to think that because we spend x amount of money, we have some crystal ball in regards to intelligence capability. Overall, I would say it is the best in the world, but I would still say certain countries in certain regions have better intelligence then the USA on certain things, especially Israel.

It is good that the most of the basis for war was made on Saddam's failure to Verifiably disarm rather than intelligence from any other means that would always be circumstantial at best in regards to such matters.



"I supported this war....even though I completely felt we were violating rules of international law. I thought that there would be NO WAY they would risk it if they were not certain."

Everyone new they were not certain as to the precise nature of Saddams WMD program. How often have such means of intelligence been wrong in the past.

This is why the chief criteria for war was not based on a an a single informant in Saddam's inner circle or a Satellite image from space. It was based on Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM as laid down by the UN in 1991.

"Now any country can invade another if they feel THREATENED because we were WRONG!"

The United States and coalition partners followed the UN process to the T. Finally enforcing the resolutions has strenthened the UN rather than weakened it from the perspective of seriousness of Chapter VII resolutions.

The USA and other countries that cited Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY disarm were correct. Saddam never VERIFIABLY DISARMED.

How could non-proliferation efforts and other policies succeed against rogue other rogue nations if the international community was unwilling to enforce its own resolutions against the worlds biggest violator of such things.

Rather than some lawless wilderness that liberals said the world would become if the invasion took place, the international community has made more progress on the issues of WMD in Lybia, Iran, and North Korea than it had prior to the war.

 

[Dreadsox]

Do me a favor...do not respond to my arguments if you are going to take them out of context of the paragraph they are in. It is insulting.

To say that after INVADING another country our intelligence was wrong and the the world and UN thought he had the weapons too is half ASSED. I would not accept it from the kids on the playground at my school. Why did you hit that child? So and so told me he was going to hit me after school. Not good enough. Sorry.....if I expect better from the INTELLIGENCE agency I support.

ANd it DID violate international law. WE did NOT have the permission of the UN. Any, other nation does this before US and the Security Council would have had a voted condemning the action. I have sited in here examples of past precident inviolving Cease Fires. As a member state under article VII you still DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY ANOTHER PARTY VIOLATED A CEASE FIRE BREAKING THE CEASE FIRE. We got away with one. Fine. We had a vague resolution, fine. You can say we did it right until you die, however, the fact is two resolutions later recognizing us as occupiers still has not convinced many in the world that we were right.

I think that the two heads of the UN inspection teams detailed pretty much what progress was being made. Off the top of my head....They reported back pretty quick that the info Powell presented was partially innacurate.

WWII to the Cold War is not Iraq. Have there been "succeses" due to our actions, yes. Is that a constructive way to build foregin policy? Invade other countries on faulty information, scare others into submission. How long does this style of foreign policy work before we HAVE to invade another country to scare other countries again? Wow, Pollack said a lot of things in the book. Looks like he is eating some crow now too. Does that mean everything in the book was wrong? No.

Sorry, but right now, the damage done to other international relationships no longer seems to be the worth the risk knowing what we know today. If there was a shred of evidence that the justification for war WAS correct....that we were in iminent danger....then fine. Since when is it the US's responsibility to ENFORCE UN Resolutions without the UN? I provided examples in the past of situations IE North and South Korea where the UN Security Council said the Cease Fire was not violated and peace was maintained. Show me another example of where a member state ENFORCED a UN resolution without the UN.

 

[STING2]

In regards to the intelligence in Iraq, the best one can say is that certain stocks of WMD have yet to be found which is hardly surprising. I don't think its a failure of intelligence. Intelligence can only tell you so much. Its not a Crystal Ball! In any event, the case for war did not depend on intelligence for this or that agency, it depended up Saddam's willingness to come clean about his WMD, the only sure way the WMD could be removed without military force.

The military action did not violate international law, it enforced it, finally! There is not another military action in history that has had more resolutions authorizing it than the military action to disarm Saddam in 2003. The UN has never condemed the action at all. It has authorized it and approved the occupation afterwards. Look at how the UN reacted to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 for an example of what the UN does when military action is unjustified.

I've seen the material posted in here that is against the military action taken against Iraq. Its simply wrong and I don't agree with it. The UN Security Council passed several different resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq. 678, 687 and 1441. 1441 mentions Iraq being in material breech of its obligations and it further authorizes the use of military force if those obligations are not met. The resolutions are not vague either. The fact that some are not convinced in the world about this does not change the fact that the war was legal and justified under international law.

I do not recall the UN inspectors answering or resolving any of the multiple questions about Saddam's WMD program. The problems that existed at the end of 1998, still continued to exist in March 2003. The UN inspectors failed to resolve these issues over the 4 months they were in country. They made no progress in that area. They could have stayed there for another 10 years and still failed to resolve the issues. Its impossible for unarmed inspectors to disarm an armed dictator who his unwilling to come clean and fully disarm of all WMD material and programs. The only way the UN inspections process could fully work is if Saddam fully cooperated and he didn't.

There are a variety of examples from the Cold War, World War II and other points in history that demonstrate that the policies in the run up to the war in Iraq, and after it, were indeed the correct policies.

The Foriegn Policy the President has conducted has been very effective in resolving major security issues that others had failed to do for years. It was based on international law and was not unilateral as critics claim. The war was not based on "faulty intelligence". It was based on Saddam's failure to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. It is a policy that wisely uses military action against those who will never be detered, and deter's those who may have not been detered before. The style of foreign policy conducted in regards to Saddam is consistent with past US foreign policy and in compliance with international law.

I think Pollack wrote an excellant book that was never dependent on the US finding stockpile x or stockpile y in the aftermath. I did not necessarily agree with everything in it when I read it prior to the war. There are certainly some caculations as to the cost of the aftermath in terms of rebuilding that are certainly off the mark. But the need to remove Saddam because of the threat he posed to the region and the world remains sound.

Despite whatever conflicts and arguments that arose of the war, the US's relationships with its Allies remain fundamentally strong. Germany and France have continued to work hard with the USA to stop Al Quada's global network and German troops have been helping in Afghanistan. The UN has passed multiple resolutions approving the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq and dozens of countries are heavily involved in the process. For the first time since 1945, Japan has deployed troops to a combat zone. Soldiers from Spain, Italy, Ukraine and Poland have done incredible work in securing and rebuilding many area's of Iraq. The global community is united and strong in its commitment to resolve the issue's over Iran's nuclear program. Progress continues to be made on on North Korea with China, Russia, South Korea, Japan and the USA working hard to find a diplomatic solution over the issues of North Korea's Nuclear power. US exports are strong and people continue to buy American and come to the USA. On all sorts of levels, the US position in the world and its relationships with its longtime Allies are still strong. The United Nations has enforced its resolutions passed against Saddam and is heavily engaged in several ways in the rebuilding of Iraq.

The United States was just one member state that helped to enforce the UN's resolutions against Iraq. The US and other member states action in Iraq was not independent of the UN. It was authorized by the UN. Just as the USA and other member states used forced in 1991 to enforce certain UN resolutions.

It was never incumbent upon the any member state of the UN to prove that Saddam had WMD. It was incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he did not. Saddam failed to do this. Saddam failed to Verifiably Disarm of all WMD. This was an intolerable danger to the region and the rest of the world that made the use of military force necessary.

 

[Rono]

Still no prove,...

 

[ThatGuy]

Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind

Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq

By Jim Miklaszewski
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 02, 2004

With Tuesday?s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself ? but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

?Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn?t do it,? said Michael O?Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

?People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president?s policy of preemption against terrorists,? according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi?s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late ? Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. ?Here?s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we?re suffering as a result inside Iraq,? Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration?s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi?s killing streak continues today.
? 2004 MSNBC Interactive

Source