The Al Gore Admin's War on Terror

[deep]

Colin Powell NEVER resigned.

Sting

This may be the silliest thing you ever posted

Secretary of State Colin Powell confessed on Meet the Press yesterday (May 16) that he and the CIA had been hoodwinked by sources who provided the United States with inaccurately sourced, incorrect, and "deliberately misleading" information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Powell used that information in his Feb. 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations and expressed his regrets in the interview for using it. From the Meet the Press transcript:

When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

 

[STING2]

The majority of your fellow Americans happen to believe that your president has lied to you. If more than half the country thinks their leader is a liar, that's frankly, very disturbing.

If that were really the case, Bush would have lost the election in November 2004. No poll done before or now can give you a more accurate read of what the American people think and feel than the Presidential election of 2004.

 

[BVS]

There's a BIG difference. North Korea currently has nuclear weapons that could blow California off the map.

So we only pick on the ones that can't hurt us???

Actually aren't their claims that they don't have the launching capabilities to reach the US?

 

[STING2]

and i believe that one day pigs will fly.

what do you THINK?

we saw what happens when you go to war based upon a belief, that if you close your eyes and wish real hard it will come true.

and only one (maybe two, the UK) thought the intelligence was worth going to war over. they might have agreed that, on balance, it certainly looked like Hussein had a WMD program (though it was in his best security interests to make it appear more dangerous than he actually was), but only the US wanted to go to war over a perception based upon dodgey intelligence.

Its not a perception based on dodgey evidence but a fact reported by UN inspectors that Saddam had failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD.

 

[deep]

If that were really the case, Bush would have lost the election in November 2004. No poll done before or now can give you a more accurate read of what the American people think and feel than the Presidential election of 2004.

do you believe that some of the voters may have been influenced by the battle for Falluhah that began about two weeks before the electioin

that some are inclined to support the administration when we are in a "hot battle"?

 

[STING2]

based upon your line of reasoning we should nuke Japan again.

if it is based on what a country did
in the past and previously had the capability of doing.

#1 In the case of Japan, it was an enemy over 60 years ago. Today the country is one of the biggest ally's of the United States and has over 40,000 US troops stationed on its territory. It is a democracy with a market economy and is heavily engaged in international trade. Japan has not invaded or attacked any countries in over 60 years. The regime that existed in World War II has been gone for decades.

#2 In the Case of Saddam, Saddam was still there in 2003 with a long history of past behavior that was a strong idicator of what he would do in the future. In addition he was in violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement, multiple UN resolutions and had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD. A dicator in total violation of UN resolutions, smuggling Billions of dollars of goods across his borders in violation of sanctions and a the weapons embargo. Everything that Saddam was doing pointed to a renewed conflict in the future and with potentially new weapons on his terms.

The two cases are not even comparable.

 

[STING2]

Yeah I've heard it all before...No where did I ever claim he never had them, but we went into war based on crap intelligence saying we know he has and claims that we know where they are...remember the whole dog and pony show that Colin Powell put on for the UN.

Shit claims and shit intelligence...

The central case for war was not bits and pieces of intelligence that said a stockpile was here or there, but what the United Nations inspectors had no for years, that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD. As of right now, there are thousands of stocks of WMD that remain unaccounted for. The international community decided in 1991 following the Gulf War that all of Saddam's stockpiles had to be verifiably destroyed or dismantled because failure to do so constituted a severe security risk to the region and the world because of his previous behavior.

 

[80sU2isBest]

In an effort of consistency how many of you support going into Syria to get that truckload of WMD's?

I'm not saying it wasn't a truckload of WMD's.
I'm asking if you would support going to Syria in an effort to disarm them from the same weapons that we were supposedly going after in Iraq. Is it a matter of quantity or just hostile/docile regimes?

If we had intellignce agencies telling us that Syria had them and Syria consistently refused to abide by UN resolutions, yes, I'd support attacking them.

It was more than one truckload, by the way, whatever it was.

 

[BVS]

The central case for war was not bits and pieces of intelligence that said a stockpile was here or there, but what the United Nations inspectors had no for years, that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD. As of right now, there are thousands of stocks of WMD that remain unaccounted for. The international community decided in 1991 following the Gulf War that all of Saddam's stockpiles had to be verifiably destroyed or dismantled because failure to do so constituted a severe security risk to the region and the world because of his previous behavior.

Yeah yeah, once again I've heard it all, but that's not how the war was sold to the world. If that's all we needed Powell wouldn't have had to put on that show.

 

[STING2]

In an effort of consistency how many of you support going into Syria to get that truckload of WMD's?

I'm not saying it wasn't a truckload of WMD's.
I'm asking if you would support going to Syria in an effort to disarm them from the same weapons that we were supposedly going after in Iraq. Is it a matter of quantity or just hostile/docile regimes?

The hostile/docile regimes question is always a huge factor. Syria has a history of hostile behavior towards Israel and certain groups in Lebanon but this has been very limited since the mid 1970s. More important has been Syria's support for terrorist involved in attacks against Israel. Outside of this, Syria has cooperated with the global community on a number of issues and has often been careful of avoiding conflict with its Arab or Muslim neighbors in Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordon.

A new problem has come up though in respect to Syria cracking down on Islamic militants crossing the border from Syria into Iraq.

Syria voted for resolution 1441 in the fall of 2002 which was the last resolution to approve the use of military force against Saddam if he failed to comply with other UN resolutions.

I have doubts about the truck loads of material that were supposedly shipped from Iraq into Syria. I think this is unlikely. Independent of that, Syria has no Nuclear or Biological weapons programs. It has had chemical weapons program for decades but has never used chemical weapons on the battlefield.

Syria is not currently in violation of any UN resolutions, but their support or housing for terrorist is a huge concern although most of these terror groups are focused on Israely/Palestinian conflict.

Probably the biggest concern with Syria, is the possiblity that former Saddam regime elements are hiding in Syria, and are helping to fund the insurgency in Iraq from there.

Right now, I would say to the degree that Syria has anything to do with the funding or safe passage of insugents fighting in Iraq is the only thing that would warrent military action from the US/Coalition at the moment.

Syria's behavior, WMD abilities, and potential to cause serious harm to the region or planet, are no where near where Saddam was when he was in power. But this caculation could change if it is found that Syria has been or is becoming a key player in the insurgency in Iraq.

 

[STING2]

Show me where I made such claims, get off it Sting and just admit there are larger threats in this world and there are other opressors out there, yet we aren't going after them, so that can't be used as a reason to go after him. And if definately doesn't justify lumping it in with the war on terror.

You claimed that are lots of bad dictators out there. I asked you a simple question. I'll ask it again:

"How many dictators over the past 20 years have invaded and attacked four different countries, threatened most of the planets energy supply with sabotage or seizure, used WMD more times than any other leader in history, murdered 1.7 million people, held up a UN inspections process for over a decade, been in violation of 17 different UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules, violated a Ceacefire Agreement, been engaged in a multi-Billion dollar smuggling, and failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD as required by UN resolutions?"

Lets see if you can find more than one!

Please name these other "oppressors and threats" that were larger than Saddam and please specifically explain why they were a bigger threat to the planet than Saddam.

 

[STING2]

Sting

This may be the silliest thing you ever posted

Powell had always said he would step down at the end of Bush's first term. He never resigned in the middle of the administration that he served in, that is what I was refering to.

 

[STING2]

do you believe that some of the voters may have been influenced by the battle for Falluhah that began about two weeks before the electioin

that some are inclined to support the administration when we are in a "hot battle"?

The second battle for Fallugah started AFTER the election, not before it.

The criticism back then was the reverse, that Bush waited to start the "hot battle" until after the election so he would not have to deal with the effect increased casualties would have on the election.

 

[U2DMfan]

The hostile/docile regimes question is always a huge factor. Syria has a history of hostile behavior towards Israel and certain groups in Lebanon but this has been very limited since the mid 1970s. More important has been Syria's support for terrorist involved in attacks against Israel. Outside of this, Syria has cooperated with the global community on a number of issues and has often been careful of avoiding conflict with its Arab or Muslim neighbors in Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordon.

A new problem has come up though in respect to Syria cracking down on Islamic militants crossing the border from Syria into Iraq.

Syria voted for resolution 1441 in the fall of 2002 which was the last resolution to approve the use of military force against Saddam if he failed to comply with other UN resolutions.

I have doubts about the truck loads of material that were supposedly shipped from Iraq into Syria. I think this is unlikely. Independent of that, Syria has no Nuclear or Biological weapons programs. It has had chemical weapons program for decades but has never used chemical weapons on the battlefield.

Syria is not currently in violation of any UN resolutions, but their support or housing for terrorist is a huge concern although most of these terror groups are focused on Israely/Palestinian conflict.

Probably the biggest concern with Syria, is the possiblity that former Saddam regime elements are hiding in Syria, and are helping to fund the insurgency in Iraq from there.

Right now, I would say to the degree that Syria has anything to do with the funding or safe passage of insugents fighting in Iraq is the only thing that would warrent military action from the US/Coalition at the moment.

Syria's behavior, WMD abilities, and potential to cause serious harm to the region or planet, are no where near where Saddam was when he was in power. But this caculation could change if it is found that Syria has been or is becoming a key player in the insurgency in Iraq.

Good answer.

My problem with the Iraq fiasco is the timing and undue stress on our miltary in prosecuting the actual WOT. I felt like this type of fight was neccessary but not in Iraq, any number of places, Iran, Syria, Saudi, maybe even Sudan before Iraq. I just think it was a poor decision as far as timing.

The strategy may well work out, but to win "hearts and minds" in the middle east, as I think is vital to this conflict, the timing and presentation of reasoning for Iraq were a debacle. When Zarqawi or Bin Laden or any other bastard wants to point at the evil US and recruit he has a walking talking example right in the middle east, we have not made it easier to prosecute the WOT, we have made it worse.

So I can make my own list of good reasons for ousting Sadaam and couldnt think of many for the timing and reasoning for the way in which it was done. Perhaps the most aggregious thing the Bush White House did, and I am not sure Gore would have done it, maybe he would have is to piggyback the fear and paranoia of the post 9/11 feelings in America as to build a case in Iraq that was already ready-made. They took the easiest route to public opinion on the backs of the 9/11 victims and those it terrorized, that to me is unforgivable.

Would Al Gore be prosecuting it differently? Yes
How? Well I could do the semantics, I am not an expert but my guess is subtract Iraq from this whole equation and the load on our soldiers is substantially lighter even if it's just until the next fight pops up. But I believe in picking the right fights, I don't think Iraq was vital to anything but a 2nd front and a constnat military prescence in the ME. That I would have bought, but they didn't sell that. They sold the fear, shame on them.

 

[anitram]

If that were really the case, Bush would have lost the election in November 2004. No poll done before or now can give you a more accurate read of what the American people think and feel than the Presidential election of 2004.

What do you mean IF that were the case? It IS the case!

In the latest poll, the majority of Americans feel Bush lied to them. I linked you to the article, feel free to read it. I never said anything about what they thought a year ago, for God's sake.

 

[BVS]

You claimed that are lots of bad dictators out there. I asked you a simple question. I'll ask it again:

"How many dictators over the past 20 years have invaded and attacked four different countries, threatened most of the planets energy supply with sabotage or seizure, used WMD more times than any other leader in history, murdered 1.7 million people, held up a UN inspections process for over a decade, been in violation of 17 different UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules, violated a Ceacefire Agreement, been engaged in a multi-Billion dollar smuggling, and failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD as required by UN resolutions?"

Lets see if you can find more than one!

Please name these other "oppressors and threats" that were larger than Saddam and please specifically explain why they were a bigger threat to the planet than Saddam.

Apparently you have a problem reading, I never said there were any that I would consider worse, just that there are others out there.

 

[U2DMfan]

Powell had always said he would step down at the end of Bush's first term. He never resigned in the middle of the administration that he served in, that is what I was refering to.

I believe this is correct.
I think Powell stated as far back as '03 that he only intented to serve one term. It may have been later.

That said, there were no doubts he had difficulties with the decision made over Iraq, he himself has stated his own case, I don't need to.

 

[STING2]

Good answer.

My problem with the Iraq fiasco is the timing and undue stress on our miltary in prosecuting the actual WOT. I felt like this type of fight was neccessary but not in Iraq, any number of places, Iran, Syria, Saudi, maybe even Sudan before Iraq. I just think it was a poor decision as far as timing.

The strategy may well work out, but to win "hearts and minds" in the middle east, as I think is vital to this conflict, the timing and presentation of reasoning for Iraq were a debacle. When Zarqawi or Bin Laden or any other bastard wants to point at the evil US and recruit he has a walking talking example right in the middle east, we have not made it easier to prosecute the WOT, we have made it worse.

So I can make my own list of good reasons for ousting Sadaam and couldnt think of many for the timing and reasoning for the way in which it was done. Perhaps the most aggregious thing the Bush White House did, and I am not sure Gore would have done it, maybe he would have is to piggyback the fear and paranoia of the post 9/11 feelings in America as to build a case in Iraq that was already ready-made. They took the easiest route to public opinion on the backs of the 9/11 victims and those it terrorized, that to me is unforgivable.

Would Al Gore be prosecuting it differently? Yes
How? Well I could do the semantics, I am not an expert but my guess is subtract Iraq from this whole equation and the load on our soldiers is substantially lighter even if it's just until the next fight pops up. But I believe in picking the right fights, I don't think Iraq was vital to anything but a 2nd front and a constnat military prescence in the ME. That I would have bought, but they didn't sell that. They sold the fear, shame on them.

The need to remove Saddam's regime from power in Iraq is something that had to be done, independent of 9/11 the war on terror and anything related to Bin Ladin. The United States and the coalition had inspections and containment strategy that failed in many area's and totally fell apart by the end of the 1990s. It was time for Saddam to turn around and comply with the resolutions or be removed from power. It would have been a serious mistake to allow Saddam the opportunity to re-arm himself which he would have had given the eroded conditions of the sanctions and weapons embargo. Although Saddam's military was much smaller than it was during the 1991 Gulf War, it was still 400,000 strong, and Saddam would only need to drive a military force 20 million across the border into Saudi Arabia and into Kuwait to cause tremondous damage to the global economy becaue of the seizure and sabotage of much of the planets energy supply.

When it comes to timing, I'd say the removal of Saddam came later than it should of. In hindsite, military action should have been taken in 1999 or 2000 once it became obvious that Saddam was never going to comply with the UN resolutions and prior to the serious erosion of sanctions and the embargo.

 

[STING2]

Apparently you have a problem reading, I never said there were any that I would consider worse, just that there are others out there.

I got you now. Sorry about that.

 

[BVS]

I got you now. Sorry about that.

No prob...

 

[najeena]

Sting, your devotion to the Bush administration is admirable in it's totality, and terrifying as well. Is there anything he's done that you don't approve of? I ask because I've read your posts for years, and have never seen you admit that he's not infallible.

 

[Angela Harlem]

If that were really the case, Bush would have lost the election in November 2004. No poll done before or now can give you a more accurate read of what the American people think and feel than the Presidential election of 2004.

That's um...wrong. 50 million or so voted, yes? The election shows what the slim majority of that 50 million or so thought, not all of the US.

 

[Irvine511]

The need to remove Saddam's regime from power in Iraq is something that had to be done, independent of 9/11 the war on terror and anything related to Bin Ladin. The United States and the coalition had inspections and containment strategy that failed in many area's and totally fell apart by the end of the 1990s. It was time for Saddam to turn around and comply with the resolutions or be removed from power. It would have been a serious mistake to allow Saddam the opportunity to re-arm himself which he would have had given the eroded conditions of the sanctions and weapons embargo. Although Saddam's military was much smaller than it was during the 1991 Gulf War, it was still 400,000 strong, and Saddam would only need to drive a military force 20 million across the border into Saudi Arabia and into Kuwait to cause tremondous damage to the global economy becaue of the seizure and sabotage of much of the planets energy supply.

When it comes to timing, I'd say the removal of Saddam came later than it should of. In hindsite, military action should have been taken in 1999 or 2000 once it became obvious that Saddam was never going to comply with the UN resolutions and prior to the serious erosion of sanctions and the embargo.

so why has the postwar been such a messy? why wasn't there even elementary post-war planning? why didn't they greet us with roses? why didn't the oil pay for the reconstruction? why did we have too few troops to keep the peace? why have we had hundreds of cases of unspeakably inhumane treatment of detainees, including up to a hundred deaths and the deployment of what must be called torture in Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Basra, and in secret detention centers around the world?


the fact remains: the absence of the primary rationale for the war remains a big deal. and the primary rationale for the war was one that was guaranteed to scare the bejesus out of every American man, woman, and child, and the election results had much to do with that and the constant ratcheting up of Security Alerts that even Tom Ridge has admitted were entirely politically motivated. it's a correlation of utter convenience that you make between the election results and the approval of the invasion of Iraq. election results are far, far more complex than that, and the only time someone boils them down to a monocausal explanation is when he's desperately seeking to buttress support for a rapidly sinking ship.

if you are such a strong supporter of the war, STING2, then why don't you pillory the administration for fucking it up so badly in the post-war instead of droning on and on and on about UN resolutions?

further, on a personal note, why i am angry about is less the actual invasion of Iraq than about how it was conducted, pre and post-war, and about how it was sold.

i don't think that those of us on the anti-war side should delude ourselves that the alternative was that much better: an Iraq pulverized by still more sanctions, poverty and tyranny or one in which Saddam lived to see another day cannot be good for the world.

and yet, the arrogance, the hubris, the bravado, the sheer bloodthirst of this administration had pretty much guaranteed failure before the first bomb had even dropped. some of us saw this way back when, and knew that a war led by W who preferred to feminize our allied detractors and spit in the face of the UN was simply incapable of the deft political and military planning and execution that such an audacious move would have required.

right war? i don't know. i am far more persuaded by the moral argument against Saddam, and an opportunity to reverse our shameful history propping up of any anti-communist tyrant (which has radicalized the Muslim world).

right man? absolutely not.

and while Iraq just might be better off today than 3 years ago, it is rather obvious that the urban dwellers of NYC, London, and DC -- not to mention Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia -- are far less safe.

 

[Irvine511]

That's um...wrong. 50 million or so voted, yes? The election shows what the slim majority of that 50 million or so thought, not all of the US.

no -- 120m voted. roughly 59m for Bush, and 58m for Kerry.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Ah, apologies. That's where I fudged up some figures 50 odd mil (or 59 as you've confirmed) for Bush is not 'Support by the people of the US'.

 

[randhail]

Ah, apologies. That's where I fudged up some figures 50 odd mil (or 59 as you've confirmed) for Bush is not 'Support by the people of the US'.

How is it not support of the people of the US?? The MAJORITY of people voted for him. He received the most votes ever in a Presidential election. Things may be different now, but at the time he had the support of the people.

 

[Angela Harlem]

No. The majority of voters voted for him, not the majority of the people.

 

[randhail]

No. The majority of voters voted for him, not the majority of the people.

That is a terrible argument because if you did not vote at all, then you have no right to gripe about anything. It's like crying over spilled milk. People had a chance in November to oust him, but that was not done. It's funny how a person could be apathetic about voting and have the nerve to complain about things. People in Iraq lined up for hours to vote, fearing for their life, and yet so many choose not to vote here.

 

[BVS]

That is a terrible argument because if you did not vote at all, then you have no right to gripe about anything.

I've never bought that argument, what if they equally didn't like both opponents? And don't say vote for an independent, because honestly in America that's really a waste of a trip to stand in line.

 

[Angela Harlem]

That is a terrible argument because if you did not vote at all, then you have no right to gripe about anything. It's like crying over spilled milk. People had a chance in November to oust him, but that was not done. It's funny how a person could be apathetic about voting and have the nerve to complain about things. People in Iraq lined up for hours to vote, fearing for their life, and yet so many choose not to vote here.

What is terrible about facts? Bush supporters continually spout how Bush won fair and square and with the support of the majority. The truth is, it's a bogus comfort and small victory under these conditions. 1 in 5/6 (whats your population, again?) felt strongly enough to get off their arses and vote for him. Look at it that way. That's a piss poor effort.

You cannot say the majority of Americans approve.