PDA

View Full Version : Look, Ma, no WMDs!!


RTFirefly
01-24-2004, 05:22 PM
It's about as official as it's gonna get: there were no WMDs in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43180-2004Jan23.html?nav=hptop_tb). The departing chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq said yesterday that he now believes Saddam Hussein did not stockpile forbidden weapons after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and the incoming chief inspector indicated that he will shift the focus of the hunt from finding weapons to learning what became of Hussein's weapons programs.

The CIA announced officially yesterday that Charles A. Duelfer, a former senior U.N. weapons inspector, will succeed David Kay, who is resigning after nine months of unsuccessful searches for banned weapons in Iraq. Duelfer, who as a private academic said the Bush administration's prewar allegations on Iraq's weapons were "far off the mark," said yesterday that his goal is to reconstruct Iraq's "game plan" for its weapons and weapons programs.

Also yesterday, Kay said in an interview with the Reuters news agency that most of what will be found in the Iraq weapons search has already been found. Of the stockpiles alleged by the administration, "I don't think they existed," he said. "I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s." Game over.

elucidator
01-24-2004, 05:35 PM
Not according to Richard "Big Dick" Cheney...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/23/MNG3M4G9GV1.DTL

"Vice President Dick Cheney revived two controversial assertions about the war in Iraq Thursday, declaring there is "overwhelming evidence" that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al Qaeda and that two trailers discovered after the war are proof of Iraq's biological weapons programs.

The vice president stood by positions that others in the administration have largely abandoned in recent months, as preliminary analysis of the trailers has been called into question..."

[snip]

"..."We've found a couple of semi-trailers at this point which we believe were in fact part of (a WMD) program," Cheney said. "I would deem that conclusive evidence, if you will, that he did in fact have programs for weapons of mass destruction."

That view is at odds with the judgment of the government's lead weapons inspector, David Kay, who said in an interim report last October that "we have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort...."

And so on and so forth.

What the hell is going on here? Cheney didn't get the memo? Doesn't read the newspapers? How can he stand there with a straight face and state as unequivocal fact something which, at the very best, is open to question? Is he really that clueless, or do they think that we are?

Rashak Mani
01-24-2004, 05:40 PM
Powell: Possible Iraq had no WMDs (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_5)

Game Over ? Hardly. If US voters don't care about being lied too... nothing changes.

vibrotronica
01-24-2004, 05:57 PM
What the hell is going on here? Cheney didn't get the memo? Doesn't read the newspapers? How can he stand there with a straight face and state as unequivocal fact something which, at the very best, is open to question? Is he really that clueless, or do they think that we are?

I don't think he has a choice. I think they've painted themselves into such a corner that they believe any admission on their part that they might have been wrong would be disasterous. Plus, they've gotten away with it for this long, why stop now? The Big Lie has worked for them for three years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But their continued assertions that the nuclear anthrax lasers are there will eventually begin to undermine their credibility. And remember, with a closely split electorate, it doesn't take too many changed minds to throw them out of office.

At this point, they're probably considering the possibility of faking something to save face. Perhaps in October, or just before the "power transfer" in June or July. I don't know if they'll go through with it or not, but it's got to be on somebody's desk about now. They have shown absolutely no compunction to do whatever it takes to hold on to power.

rjung
01-24-2004, 06:07 PM
The Big Lie has worked for them for three years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Yup. I don't expect this thread to get past page 1 without Sam Stone or Scylla or Brutus popping by to tell us that Dick's probably privvy to some sooper-secret intelligence that he can't share with anyone else that conclusively proves Saddam had six bazillion tons of Anthrax at his disposal, and the American forces in Iraq will turn 'em up Any Minute Now...

It's not a matter of fooling all the people all the time, it's a matter of fooling just enough people some of the time -- namely, 51% of the voters on election day 2004.

Revtim
01-24-2004, 06:17 PM
It's not a matter of fooling all the people all the time, it's a matter of fooling just enough people some of the time -- namely, 51% of the voters on election day 2004.And 2000 proved you don't even need that.

Hail Ants
01-24-2004, 07:22 PM
Yeah, and?

The invasion of Iraq was less about WMD than it was about 9/11, the same as the first Gulf War was less about stopping aggression than it was about oil.

Saddam still refused to allow UN inspectors to verify his claims, so what is any reasonble person supposed to think of that (particularly post-9/11).

Marley23
01-24-2004, 07:27 PM
The invasion of Iraq was less about WMD than it was about 9/11, the same as the first Gulf War was less about stopping aggression than it was about oil.

Saddam still refused to allow UN inspectors to verify his claims, so what is any reasonble person supposed to think of that (particularly post-9/11).
I understand where you're coming from. Here are my problems with that:

1) I'd like to think you need actual evidence of something to go to war, not a lack of evidence against it.
2) The September 11th hijackers didn't need WMD
3) There's no evidence tying Saddam to Al Qaeda or any attacks against America or its allies, and the administration's attempts to make those connections were/are unverified.

samclem
01-24-2004, 07:28 PM
Saddam still refused to allow UN inspectors to verify his claims, so what is any reasonble person supposed to think of that (particularly post-9/11).
Most of the reasonable persons gave their views above.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-24-2004, 07:33 PM
Yeah, and?

The invasion of Iraq was less about WMD than it was about 9/11, the same as the first Gulf War was less about stopping aggression than it was about oil.

Saddam still refused to allow UN inspectors to verify his claims, so what is any reasonble person supposed to think of that (particularly post-9/11).
Remind me agin, WTF did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Oh yeah...nothing.

Saddam WAS alllowing inspection but Bush invaded anyway. Not that it mattered. Bush had no authority to unilaterally enforce UN Resolutions.

Beagle
01-24-2004, 07:52 PM
Man, am I ever going to wish the search function was working when Syria coughs up the Iraqi WMDs, or they are used on France for the "headscarf" ban. [aside] The media is really sticking it to France by calling their proposed secularity law a "headscarf ban." Welcome to our world.

What part of Saddam having a weapons program, hiding it from the UN, and keeping critical elements in place to reconstitute it do people have trouble with?

Moreover, nobody I know ever suggested that actual stockpiles of WMDs were the real reason to attack Iraq. The real reasons are quite obvious to even a half-assed student of modern history. I'd like to think I'm at least that. I'll do a short list: mass murder, use of WMDs, starting wars, funding terrorism, and mass torture. NO, THERE ARE NOT LOTS OF DICTATORS JUST LIKE SADDAM RUNNING AROUND. That's the stupidest argument I've ever seen trotted out. The other worst mass murder factory (North Korea) is right there on the list (Axis of Evil).

Hating Bush as a 24-7 occupation, consuming all that once made you a human being, I don't really get.

I laughed at Clinton. I thought he was a big, fat liar. I don't remember ever expending much emotional energy on the man except when he treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem. So, basically, the left could not be more wrong on foreign policy if it tried to be. Even a stopped clock would blow away standard D logic on foreign policy.

Syria, shutting up.

Lybia, running scared.

North Korea, trying to engage diplomatically.

Saddam, a lice farm

Usama, hiding.

Sorry, but it's going to take a lot for your leftie "intelligentsia" to convince me that the basic rule of dealing with dictators, religious nutjobs, or thugs have changed.

If you want to spin the rules in the other direction, I guess France, Luxembourg, Germany, and Belgium could form a military alliance and put Saddam back in power. I wish they would try that so I don't have to listen to their crap any more.

xenophon41
01-24-2004, 08:00 PM
Holy fuck, that was an idiotic post.

Hail Ants
01-24-2004, 08:03 PM
In a way there's a positive side to not finding any WMD. If we had it would have just been more fodder for the anti-American arab press to feed to the unwashed masses, i.e. they just would have said we planted them there.

This way it not so subtly reinforces the idea of just what we are willing and able to do.

pantom
01-24-2004, 08:24 PM
Well, in an ideal world he would be impeached, tried for the murder of the 500 soldiers who've died so far, never mind the Iraqis, and jailed for the rest of his life.
In the real world, he's got a better-than-even chance to be re-elected.
And beagle, I hardly spend 24/7 hating the man. Every time I look at my investment account, which has grown prodigiously as a result of having guessed correctly a little more than three years ago that he'd come close to bankrupting the Federal government and therefore send gold to new highs vs the dollar, I do a little bow in the general direction of DC.
Right now, I'm resting comfortably on the cash, waiting for November. If he wins again, I'll bow again in the general direction of DC, and buy gold again, and sit and wait for him to finish the job. His incompetence is pathetically predictable that way.

samclem
01-24-2004, 08:40 PM
Hating Bush as a 24-7 occupation, consuming all that once made you a human being, I don't really get.

I actually sleep about 4-5 hours per night. Hating burns up a lot of energy.

Marley23
01-24-2004, 08:53 PM
What part of Saddam having a weapons program, hiding it from the UN, and keeping critical elements in place to reconstitute it do people have trouble with?
The lack of evidence that it happened? The inspectors were not going to go away in a few weeks and let him do whatever he wanted.

Hating Bush as a 24-7 occupation, consuming all that once made you a human being, I don't really get.
I'm glad your psychic powers have told you what I spent my time thinking about. :rolleyes:

I laughed at Clinton. I thought he was a big, fat liar. I don't remember ever expending much emotional energy on the man except when he treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem. So, basically, the left could not be more wrong on foreign policy if it tried to be.
Meanwhile, Clinton passed up on chances to invade Iraq because he felt Al Qaeda was a bigger threat, whereas Bush chose to divert resources from the hunt from Al Qaeda and from his other nation-building project (Afghanistan) to go after Saddam.

North Korea, trying to engage diplomatically.
That was true before Iraq.

Saddam, a lice farm
Saddam losing the war (how surprising) justifies starting it?

Usama, hiding.
'We said we wanted him dead or alive, and almost 2 1/2 years later, he's hiding.' Very successful. Hiding is what that guy does. His organization IS (http://www.indo.com/bali121002/) STILL (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/12/saudi.blast/) AT (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/15/terror/main583850.shtml) WORK. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/2320893.stm)

If you want to spin the rules in the other direction, I guess France, Luxembourg, Germany, and Belgium could form a military alliance and put Saddam back in power.
Talk about crap I'm tired of listening to...

Gomez
01-24-2004, 09:01 PM
Man, am I ever going to wish the search function was working when Syria coughs up the Iraqi WMDs,


I genuinely don't mean any disrespect but from where I'm standing the "Saddam shipped the WMD's to Syria" ploy represents the last vestage of the Bush Administrations gossamer tissue of lies, corruption and obfuscation.

Frankly, I have trouble believing that during the siege of Baghdad Saddam was (to paraphrase ex-UK Foreign secretary Robin Cook) holed up in some bunker somewhere arranging the relocation of his WMD's with a big grin on his face knowing that George Bush would have had to answer some pretty tricky questions once the dust had settled. If he had them, why didn't he use them? Because he was scared of us? Well if that was the case and he knew that, if push came to shove, he was never going to use them why didn't he reveal them to the inspectors?

I think the only reasonable resolution to these questions is 'He didn't have anything to show'.


What part of Saddam having a weapons program, hiding it from the UN, and keeping critical elements in place to reconstitute it do people have trouble with?


We went to war ostensibly because Saddam Hussein had Weapons. Actual Weapons of Mass Destruction. Cases and cases of botulinum toxin, well funded underground laboratories fully staffed and overflowing with VX nerve gas and anthrax cultures. That was what they promised they were saving us from.

The emphasis of the administrations original casus belli has now shifted from actual Weapons of Mass Destruction to the apparatus to manufacture said weapons. This is, in itself, a tacit admission of deceit. It is becoming even more problematic since it seems that there is very little evidence even of a weapons program. A couple of Semi-trailers that tested negative for the presence of WMD's and some dessicated shells from the Iran/Iraq war does not make a weapons program.

As for hiding anything from the UN, well...as I recall in the run up to war Saddam was co-operating enough with the weapons inspectors enough for Hans Blix to strongly advise giving him more time. That didn't seem to matter one iota to Baby Bush, however, who apparently had no qualms about conjuring up fictitious weapons from whole cloth to justify the dropping of real ones on innocents.


Moreover, nobody I know ever suggested that actual stockpiles of WMDs were the real reason to attack Iraq.


Several very prominent people stated exactly that.


Tony Blair, on may 29th 2003 said:
" have said throughout and I just repeat to you, I have absolutely no doubt at all about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. And rather than speculating, let's just wait until we get the full report back from our people who are interviewing the scientists."



George W. Bush, on March 18th 2003 said:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."



Dick Cheney, on August 28th 2002 said:
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."


Not that you'd be able to get them to admit that now, of course. They're too busy distorting and contorting their previous statements into moebius strips of lies and tortured logic to make them more palatable to the mindless, faceless peon masses before they dump them down the memory hole.

(I'm not saying that you're mindless and faceless, just that the Administration seems to have a very low estimation of the intelligence of the American Public)


I'll do a short list: mass murder...and mass torture.


I'd like to deal with these two first since they go together pretty seamlessly. A couple of times now in other threads I've raised the point that using Saddam's atrocities to justify an invasion in which around 10,000 civilians (according to http://www.iraqbodycount.net) have died is a misapplication of Utilitarian reasoning.

Ethical Consequentialist arguments like this always bothers me because it sounds suspiciously like the logic of a shady corporate bean counter totting up the figures and deciding that the cost in lives is balanced by the bottom line. There is a name for this sort of Utilitarian blindness, always believing in the greatest good for the greatest number, and that name is fascism. You can see that almost by definition such impositions are tyrannical.

There is also a name for pointing to the evil deeds of other men to justify your own evil and that is tu quoque fallacy of which the "liberation" argument is a shining example.

The bottom line is actually that the Iraqi people (40% of whom are under the age of 14) were unable to make the conformed consent to take the risk. For the Iraqi dead, the solution was worse than the problem and we did not have the right to make that decision for them.

Besides, at the moment the country seems to be sliding ever more towards Religious Theocracy as militant factions vie for control of the fledgling government. For all we know now it could be a case of 'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss'. We really shouldn't pontificate about how benevolent we were in deposing Saddam until we know that the next regime will actually be any better. Especially since, if it's worse (and call me cynical here if you like but it's undoubtedly true) the Shrub most likely won't rush to 'liberate' them a second time.

What we have done in Iraq is instigate the worlds first ever mass mercy killing, without the consent of the people we were killing and at the moment we have absolutely no idea whether or not it actually did any good.


funding terrorism,


Do you have cites?


starting wars,


Need I remind you that America helped fund at least one (to my knowledge) of those wars and supplied Saddam with weaponry so devastating it would make the hooded hordes of Hades curl up into fetal balls and cry like sissies? When Saddam started wars that benefited us we helped him out as much as we can. Your statement should read "Starting wars that may have jeopardised our interests". Don't you think that's a little hypocritical for a casus belli?


use of WMDs,


Again, when he used those WMD's against the Kurds our moral outrage was conspicuous by its absence. We can't just seize on atrocities we shrugged our shoulders about fifteen years ago and claim they represent a valid reason to launch a Just war. Not if we're honest with ourselves, anyway.


Hating Bush as a 24-7 occupation, consuming all that once made you a human being, I don't really get.


What, exactly, is wrong with, well... if not actually hating Bush then at least speaking of him with scorn and contempt? To be honest (and please, this is just my opinion) I believe Bush is an amoral scumbag. A sort of anti-midas who turns everything he touches to pure stinking excrement. I don't base this on his personality but on what I perceive to be the consequences of his actions. It's not as though Bush ran over my cockerspaniel and then used it as a hood ornament on the ride home. I have no visceral, gut reason for disliking him. I only have my reading of his policies and their consequences. What is wrong, in principle, with holding a bad opinion of Bush based on such readings?


Syria, shutting up.


Could you please provide some cites to prove they were making noise?



Lybia, running scared.


To an extent, you may be right but I feel that Libya's admission that they posessed WMD's was more to do with a desire to rejoin the international community, something they've been trying to do for years. YMMV.


North Korea, trying to engage diplomatically.
[/quote

My perception is that North Korea is following her own agenda and we're trying to engage diplomatically with Kim Jong II. Can you elaborate?

[quote]
Saddam, a lice farm


LOL :D


Usama, hiding.


Umm, hasn't he always been hiding? And didn't he recently release a videotape to Al Jazeera with the CIA confirmed was authentic?

I don't claim to be part of the liberal 'Intelligentsia' but I'd appreciate your thoughts.

DirkGntly
01-24-2004, 09:03 PM
I'm really, really, really tired of hearing "Bush Lied."

For f**k's sake, people...what was said in that State of the Union speech was based on information obtained from the British gov't which they still claim is accurate. (No cite - it was posted in another thread, which I'll have to research later, when I'm not quite as tired/lazy as I am at this moment.) Making a decision on inaccurate info (and there was no reason to believe it was inaccurate - Iraq had stonewalled on previous resolutions, and British intelligence has a reputation for being notoriously scrupulous about their reports...they are, after all, British and all that...) is NOT the same as lying...

To the best of my knowledge this president has NOT wagged his finger in the face of the American people and stated something which was 180degrees opposite of the actual case...
(I'm sorry, but if it involves genitalia, it IS sexual relations...)

Gomez
01-24-2004, 09:03 PM
Apologies, that last post was addressed to Beagle

Spavined Gelding
01-24-2004, 09:14 PM
I get the idea that we are not even talking about weapons of mass destruction--defined as chemical weapons along the lines of nerve gas, mustard gas and other fatal chemical agents, biological weapons like anthrax, and nuclear bombs. We are not even talking about weapons of mass destruction programs that amount to anything more than pipe dreams and the sort of preliminary and incomplete sketches that any intelligent layman could formulate. We are talking about (wait for it) weapons of mass destruction program related activity. While this phrase is useful in trying to keep the soccer moms in a state of nervous anxiety it is difficult of definition.

Presumably, if the janitors from the Greater Baghdad Consolidated Medical Laboratory got together for a co-ed volley ball tournament that would qualify as a WMDPRA. Our friend from the North Country predicted early on that the threshold for WMDs would be lowered but it's hard to believe we could get much lower than this.

The base problem is that no matter how lame, false or fraudulent the reasons for going into Iraq were, we are there and we can't get out. Like B'rer Fox we have punched the tar baby and now we're stuck. We are $200 Billion and 500 dead service people stuck. And now it is starting to look as if we have a civil war on our hands.

There was a song that the troops use to sing when in the presence of tolerant or just plain disgusted officers or NCOs:

"Neck deep in the big muddy, and the big fool said to push on."

We can trust that the President, the Vice-president and the Secretary of Defense are unfamiliar with the song.

Marley23
01-24-2004, 09:20 PM
For f**k's sake, people...what was said in that State of the Union speech was based on information obtained from the British gov't which they still claim is accurate.
Oh, well, then it MUST be true.

Making a decision on inaccurate info (and there was no reason to believe it was inaccurate - Iraq had stonewalled on previous resolutions, and British intelligence has a reputation for being notoriously scrupulous about their reports...they are, after all, British and all that...) is NOT the same as lying...
I haven't been playing the "Bush liar" card because I'm frightened he actually believes this crap. Either way, even if the British vouch for them, the evidence wasn't there, and there were reasons to believe along the way that (as some complained) the evidence was being politicized. There were always questions being ignored. After the IAEA said the notorious aluminum tubes were unsuitable for uranium refinement, Bush went ahead and kept saying they were evidence of a nuclear weapons program. In important situations, you don't let someone else do the fact-checking and then go "not my fault!"

To the best of my knowledge this president has NOT wagged his finger in the face of the American people and stated something which was 180degrees opposite of the actual case...
(I'm sorry, but if it involves genitalia, it IS sexual relations...)
I'm sorry, but that's a lame analogy. Clinton lied in court and should have been punished. Not impeached, but punished. Bush has either lied or been completely wrong, potentially because he WANTED to believe, about a number of things. Neither gives me any confidence in him and neither is becoming of a President.

Desmostylus
01-24-2004, 09:26 PM
Not that you'd be able to get them to admit that now, of course. Don't be so sure:Iraq Illicit Arms Gone Before War, Departing Inspector States
Published: January 24, 2004 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/24/politics/24WEAP.html?pagewanted=1)

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said the administration stood by its previous assessments that Mr. Hussein had both weapons programs and stores of banned weapons.

"Yes, we believe he had them, and yes we believe they will be found," Mr. McClellan said. "We believe the truth will come out."

<snip>

The top administration officials who had been most vocal in accusing Iraq of building stockpiles of banned weapons, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney, have stood by their positions in recent weeks. Asked during an interview on Thursday with National Public Radio whether the administration had given up on finding banned weapons, Mr. Cheney replied, "No, we haven't."

Richard Pearse
01-24-2004, 09:42 PM
I'm really, really, really tired of hearing "Bush Lied."



Hear hear. Someone is only lying if they know what they are saying is false. Calling Bush a lier is a bit over the top. Sure he was wrong, but he was relying on what other people were telling him. He may have been guilty of choosing to believe the people who were telling him what he wanted to hear, but I think he probably believed it when he said it.

Desmostylus
01-24-2004, 09:45 PM
Coupla minor points:

...some dessicated shells from the Iran/Iraq war does not make a weapons program.As far as I know, there's only been two instances where this claim has been made, and in both cases subsequent tests showed no evidence of chemical or biological weapons material.Again, when he used those WMD's against the Kurds our moral outrage was conspicuous by its absence. We can't just seize on atrocities we shrugged our shoulders about fifteen years ago and claim they represent a valid reason to launch a Just war. Not if we're honest with ourselves, anyway.The absence of outrage at the time was probably due to two factors, at least in the Halabja incident that Bush was always talking about -

a) the assessment of the Defense Intelligence Agency was that it was done by Iran, not Iraq.

b) the DIA's assessment that whoever did it, it was probably accidental. Iran and Iraq were attacking each other at the time, and probably didn't even know that the Kurds were there.

That's a far cry from the "deliberate genocide" claims that seem to have become accepted as truth, much like the "Saddam threw the inspectors out" lie that the Administration used so often.

furt
01-24-2004, 09:56 PM
Someone is only lying if they know what they are saying is false. Calling Bush a lier is a bit over the top. Sure he was wrong, but he was relying on what other people were telling him. He may have been guilty of choosing to believe the people who were telling him what he wanted to hear, but I think he probably believed it when he said it.That's a balanced and reasonable approach. What are you doing in this thread?

DirkGntly
01-24-2004, 10:23 PM
I hope I can get the quote thingy to work in the new format...

Originally posted by Marley23:
In important situations, you don't let someone else do the fact-checking and then go "not my fault!"

Actually, that's EXACTLY what you do, whether you're a CEO, Military General or the President of the US. You take information presented to you from what are hopefully reliable sources, and you make a decision based on that information. What is expected, that the President is going to personally head an inspection team for months on end? No, there are other people to do that.
Again, based on previous history, Iraq had a track record of stalling and misleading UN inspectors. If you are stalling and misleading, then it's logical that you are hiding something...
It's is also not logical to question an intelligence report from a third party (Britain) that also happens to agree with the majority of the findings of your own intelligence. Yes, there were probably other indicators, but they apparently didn't outweigh the other types of intelligence we had. Of course, we're all armchair-presidenting here, with 20/20 hindsight...which is ALWAYS more accurate than whatever you are working with at that moment...
...I think I'll go play YESTERDAY'S lotto numbers, based on information I have now...

RTFirefly
01-24-2004, 10:32 PM
Man, am I ever going to wish the search function was working when Syria coughs up the Iraqi WMDs Since I seem to be in the wager business these days (see the Election Predictions thread), I'm open to one here, if you think the odds favor Syria coughing up same by a date certain.

What part of Saddam having a weapons program, hiding it from the UN, and keeping critical elements in place to reconstitute it do people have trouble with? Well, I must admit I don't think you invade another country over some notes on the backs of envelopes.
Moreover, nobody I know ever suggested that actual stockpiles of WMDs were the real reason to attack Iraq. You don't know George W. Bush, but you must know of him. He's the President, and all that. Here's his words (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html) from his speech to the nation last March 17: Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.
The real reasons are quite obvious to even a half-assed student of modern history. I'd like to think I'm at least that. I'll do a short list: mass murder, use of WMDs, starting wars, funding terrorism, and mass torture. If Bush lied to us, and Congress, and the UN about his reasons for going to war, then this was, in effect, a use of the US military to conduct a war for personal and private reasons. Impeachment and criminal trial would be the appropriate response.

If he had wanted to justify the invasion of Iraq strictly on human-rights grounds, he had every opportunity to make that case. As others have pointed out, that was not the case that was made; getting rid of Saddam the human-rights violator was never presented as more than a fringe benefit.
NO, THERE ARE NOT LOTS OF DICTATORS JUST LIKE SADDAM RUNNING AROUND. That's the stupidest argument I've ever seen trotted out. The other worst mass murder factory (North Korea) is right there on the list (Axis of Evil). I'd disagree. But it's your assertion. Got any cites?

There's a reason this is important. There are lots of countries that still have lousy human-rights records. If it's a justification that we trot out for invasion when we're in the mood to do so, then it's the international equivalent of selective enforcement of the law, just another 'gotcha' device that ultimately erodes the credibility of our opposition to human-rights abuses by the mounting evidence that we only care about it when we damned well feel like caring. If we're going to invade countries based on their maltreatment of their own citizens, we might want to keep lists of just who the worst offenders are, and work our way through the lists from the top down. I'm sure groups ranging from the UN to Amnesty International could help us out.
Hating Bush as a 24-7 occupation, consuming all that once made you a human being, I don't really get. Don't worry, I pretty much get all that out of my system in this forum. Besides, I don't hate him; I just regard him as a morally worthless human being, and the worst President since WWII. Including Nixon.
I laughed at Clinton. I thought he was a big, fat liar. I don't remember ever expending much emotional energy on the man except when he treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem. So, basically, the left could not be more wrong on foreign policy if it tried to be. Bush raised this one in his SOTU address, about using the criminal justice system to deal with those who tried to blow up the WTC in 1993.

The question is, who was suggesting alternatives back then? Was the GOP hollering for war against somebody? They may have been, but I don't remember; feel free to refresh my memory. I bet Bush's official reaction at the time was along the lines of, "we need to sign another left-handed starter. Any free agents available?"
Syria, shutting up. Quiet beforehand.
Lybia, running scared. Lybia was trying to get back in the good graces of the West well before 9/11. I can dig you out a cite if you want.
North Korea, trying to engage diplomatically. Which they wanted to do all along, and were pissed at us for our refusal to engage them diplomatically.
Saddam, a lice farm Whatever.
Usama, hiding. And al-Qaeda still quite at large. Been to Istanbul lately?

Marley23
01-24-2004, 10:36 PM
Actually, that's EXACTLY what you do, whether you're a CEO, Military General or the President of the US. You take information presented to you from what are hopefully reliable sources, and you make a decision based on that information. What is expected, that the President is going to personally head an inspection team for months on end? No, there are other people to do that.
I didn't say the President personally. I said you have to have some sort of intelligence agency - I think we have a few of them - investigate the claims as well. The CIA doesn't seem to think the claims are true, so ignoring them and saying "the word of MI5 is good enough" doesn't cut it.

Again, based on previous history, Iraq had a track record of stalling and misleading UN inspectors. If you are stalling and misleading, then it's logical that you are hiding something...
Where is it, then? Oh, it's a logical assumption. I thought the thing to do is do your best to find out if it's true so you don't have to assume in the first place.

It's is also not logical to question an intelligence report from a third party (Britain) that also happens to agree with the majority of the findings of your own intelligence.
It's not logical to check things out for yourself? Hoo boy. The Nigerian uranium claim wasn't just false, it was laughably false. That, among other gaffes, says to me that people picked and chose the intelligence to support what they already thought instead of making a reasoned appraisal. That's a pretty terrible thing to do when you're leading a country. Finding excuses to go to war? Yipes.

Of course, we're all armchair-presidenting here, with 20/20 hindsight...
I was making all the same complaints before it was 20/20, and I think George Bush has been wrong more often than I have in this regard.

vibrotronica
01-24-2004, 10:39 PM
Originally Posted by DirkGntly
I'm really, really, really tired of hearing "Bush Lied."

Then you are tired of the truth. Face it, Dirk. He lied to your face, and he's still lying to you.

Desmostylus
01-24-2004, 10:43 PM
It's is also not logical to question an intelligence report from a third party (Britain) that also happens to agree with the majority of the findings of your own intelligence.It might not be logical to question it, but it also wouldn't be logical to use it in the first place. You'd use your own intelligence, which presumably you had more confidence in.

Trouble is, the US's own intelligence flatly contradicted the UK's, now didn't it?

And when the Director of the CIA tells you to take it out of the speech, I suppose you'd think it'd be logical to sneak it back in again, yes?

Magiver
01-24-2004, 11:04 PM
I understand where you're coming from. Here are my problems with that:

3) There's no evidence tying Saddam to Al Qaeda or any attacks against America or its allies, and the administration's attempts to make those connections were/are unverified.

Saddam was publicly writing checks to the Palestinian families of the dearly exploded. Prior to his check writing campaign, he launched missles at Israel. He attacked Kuwait. His regime repeatedly threatened Allied aircraft in the agreed upon no-fly zone. He attempted to murder a US President. Any of these reasons qualify as an attack against the US and her allies.

He had warheads designed for chemical weapons and he buried chemical weapons left over from the war with Iraq in a manner that suggested he might like to use them again sometime. He spent over 20 billion on a nuclear weapons program and the scientists who worked on it hid information.

If OBL is to be believed, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia was the catalyst for 9/11. The UN never lifted a finger to correct that fact. The countries who had the most to gain by maintaining the former regime were also the countries who were least involved in keeping the region stable and also the loudest critics of any change in responsibility.

That's what the war is about. You can type WMD until your fingers fall off but President Bush never gave that as a single reason for going to war. He threw a whole list of them on the table. He did that for a reason. Just as the UN resolutions were worded (by the United States) the way they were, so the United States could finish the job if it became necessary. If you wish to argue that the United States could successfully stay in the region in perpetuity then you can make a case along those lines. I think 9/11 would counter that argument. If you want to put forth the notion that the United States could leave the region without causing chaos then make the pitch.

And any politician who can stand in front of a camera and say they voted for the use of force but didn't think it should be used is a BS liar. The same people who voted for use of force in Bosnia and again in Kosovo knew what they were voting on. And the United States had no vested interest in those wars. None. You can't spin that any other way but to say we intervened in 2 nations and killed thousands of people because we wanted to intervene in a civil war. And we did so because European nations wanted us to. Any justification for those 2 wars can also be used for the removal of Saddam’s regime. He was a mass murdering thorn in the world’s ass and the United States was taking all the lumps for it. That’s why people support the war.

agiantdwarf
01-24-2004, 11:05 PM
Lybia was trying to get back in the good graces of the West well before 9/11. I can dig you out a cite if you want.

Please do.

New Iskander
01-24-2004, 11:21 PM
No WMD and no Saddam in Iraq.

I can live with that.

All you lefties, just repeat out loud, "Death to dictators!" Do it few times. Does it bring back memories? You used to believe in that, didn't you?

As far as I'm concerned, US can take out a dictator somewhere every year and under any guise. There may be fiscal objections to that, but not moralistic ones.

David Simmons
01-25-2004, 12:23 AM
The game seems to be headed toward pinning the tail on the intelligence agencies. This seems to be the administration ploy even though many reasonable people doubted that the intelligence that was revealed supported a preemptive war. The administration's claims about the intelligence ignored the caveats that such agencies always put on their output.

As far as Saddam's history of deception goes, GW's history of deception is closing fast.

I guess David Kay now saying that there never were any such weapons after the first Gulf War is the January "Big Bang" surprise that was supposed to come last September.

I still don't understand how so many members of Congress went to sleep and let the blank check war resolution get through without a fight. A sickening case of political cowardice in my opinion.

minty green
01-25-2004, 01:09 AM
Someone is only lying if they know what they are saying is false. Calling Bush a lier is a bit over the top. Sure he was wrong, but he was relying on what other people were telling him.Ah, the willful ignorance defense. But are you really so whacked out on prescription medication that you think Bush's underlings told him nothing other than that it was an iron-clad lock that Saddam had tons and tons of Bad Shit just waiting for him to push a big red button? Really?

'Cause if you think there was any serious suggestion to the shrub that the guys who know weren't really all that sure, then I submit that he's a reprehensible piece of shit for not caring enough to delve deeper than what the nice Mr. Wolfowitz was telling him.

Rashak Mani
01-25-2004, 01:11 AM
So the best defense of Bush's honor is that he was given bad/false info ?

- So how come not a single high level Pentagon or CIA official was fired and publicly humiliated for giving Bush the "info" he asked for ? I understand the notion that Bush didn't "lie", that he instead just parroted what was given to him in "good faith". He isn't an expert in Middle East or anything else... so granted he didn't know jackshit about the subject. Why is Dick Cheney then REPEATING that WMDs exist ?

The other typical answer is that Saddam had to be taken down anyway.

- So why did Bush mention WMD and Al Qaeda in Iraq ? If Saddam deserved it so badly why bring in terrorism and excuses into it ? Maybe to convince reluctant voters or congressmen ? Why didn't Bush just come forward and say "Saddam needs to go". Just because he is "evil" and we are tired of staying in Saudi Arabia... we want to go to Iraq.

He fed the US and the world cherry picked info... that is lying or misinformation... call it what you want. Now his administration insists in pushing these reasons. Its lying now if it wasn't lying before.

elucidator
01-25-2004, 01:17 AM
No WMD and no Saddam in Iraq.

I can live with that.

All you lefties, just repeat out loud, "Death to dictators!" Do it few times. Does it bring back memories? You used to believe in that, didn't you?

As far as I'm concerned, US can take out a dictator somewhere every year and under any guise. There may be fiscal objections to that, but not moralistic ones.

A few names for you. Trujillo, Batista, Samoza, Syngman Rhee, Pinochet, Duvalier, Reza Pahlavi, Uguarte, Marcos,....the list goes on and on. However you wish to slice this thin bologna, the US has installed and maintained far more bloody dictators than it ever dislodged. Many "lefties" died fighting these men, and the bullets that killed them were manufactured, bought and paid for by the USA.

We have little enough to be proud of, let's not don the mantle of noble purity too quickly. The world at large might regard us with some plausible skepticism, to see us present ourselves as the paladins of virtue and liberty, armored in righteousness.

Recent virtue, like new wine, sets the teeth on edge.

vibrotronica
01-25-2004, 01:18 AM
Saddam was publicly writing checks to the Palestinian families of the dearly exploded. Prior to his check writing campaign, he launched missles at Israel. He attacked Kuwait. His regime repeatedly threatened Allied aircraft in the agreed upon no-fly zone. He attempted to murder a US President. Any of these reasons qualify as an attack against the US and her allies.
So we went to war for a check writing campaign? We went to war for the SCUDS he launched against Isreal during a war that happened over ten years ago? IIRC, we went to war to restore the MONARCHY in Kuwait over a decade ago, and were successful. How many of those Allied aircraft did he actually hit and shoot down in the no fly zone? Did he actually murder the Elder Bush? Were his actions ever actually a threat to the Elder Bush? Refresh my memory.

If, as you assert, any of these actions were enough to invade Iraq, why did the administration feel compelled to claim that Iraq possessed chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons when in fact they did not? If, as you claim, there were plenty of reasons for war against Iraq without invoking weapons of mass destruction, why invoke them? Why even mention weapons of mass destruction? Why not just make the case based on things you don't have to lie about?

He had warheads designed for chemical weapons and he buried chemical weapons left over from the war with Iraq in a manner that suggested he might like to use them again sometime.

Are you referring to the mortar shells filled with unidentifiable goo they found leftover from the Iran Iraq war? How exactly do you think they were a threat to the United States? If these 10+ year-old abandoned "weapons" were so potent, why weren't they dug up and used against our troops as they raced through Iraq? Do you have any proof that Sadaam Hussien had "warheads designed for chemical weapons" or do you, like George W. Bush, say things that aren't true?

He spent over 20 billion on a nuclear weapons program and the scientists who worked on it hid information.
Ooh! Over $20 billion? That's news to me! I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for some kind of confirmation on that. Plus, the evidence now indicates that the "information" the scientists were "hiding" was that there was no nuclear weapons program. If you believe there was a nuclear weapons program in place, please produce some evidence. Because David Kay, whose job it was to find evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq, says there weren't any and there weren't any prospects for making any. I'll take his word over yours.

If OBL is to be believed, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia was the catalyst for 9/11. The UN never lifted a finger to correct that fact. The countries who had the most to gain by maintaining the former regime were also the countries who were least involved in keeping the region stable and also the loudest critics of any change in responsibility.

So what, exactly, does this have to do with Iraq? Was the UN supposed to demand that the US withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia to please Osama bin Laden? Why won't you admit that the reason most of our Euopean allies were against the war was because we failed to produce enough evidence that there were, in fact, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as we claimed in front of the United Nations? Or is perpetuating this lie just easier?

That's what the war is about. You can type WMD until your fingers fall off but President Bush never gave that as a single reason for going to war. He threw a whole list of them on the table. He did that for a reason. Just as the UN resolutions were worded (by the United States) the way they were, so the United States could finish the job if it became necessary. If you wish to argue that the United States could successfully stay in the region in perpetuity then you can make a case along those lines. I think 9/11 would counter that argument. If you want to put forth the notion that the United States could leave the region without causing chaos then make the pitch.

I don't know what war you're talking about, but I have a very clear memory of George W. Bush telling me that the reason he was invading another sovereign country was because they possesed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons which they could use to kill lots of Americans. And why do you persist in connecting Sadaam Hussein and the attacks of September 11, 2001? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Iraq had anything to do with it? You can type that until your fingers fall off, but it's still not going to make it true. And do you really think that this invasion is going to allow us to withdraw our troops from the Middle East? In fact, we're going to be in Iraq for a long, long time.

And any politician who can stand in front of a camera and say they voted for the use of force but didn't think it should be used is a BS liar. The same people who voted for use of force in Bosnia and again in Kosovo knew what they were voting on. And the United States had no vested interest in those wars. None. You can't spin that any other way but to say we intervened in 2 nations and killed thousands of people because we wanted to intervene in a civil war. And we did so because European nations wanted us to. Any justification for those 2 wars can also be used for the removal of Saddam’s regime. He was a mass murdering thorn in the world’s ass and the United States was taking all the lumps for it. That’s why people support the war.

Gee, that's funny. I seem to remember this time last year a certain person saying in the State of the Union address that we should invade Iraq because they threatened us with weapons of mass destruction. But it turns out that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Who is the "BS liar" again? Is it bad to be a "BS liar"? It seems from this post you think it is bad to be a "BS liar". I think that if you're a "BS liar" you're a bad person, don't you? What constitutes a "BS liar"? Saying something is so that is not so? Saying you have proof that something is so when in fact you do not have proof that something is so? Does that make you a "BS liar"? Do you want a "BS liar" as your president? I don't.

Marley23
01-25-2004, 01:33 AM
If OBL is to be believed, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia was the catalyst for 9/11. The UN never lifted a finger to correct that fact.
I'm confused. What are you proposing? The UN should have gone to war against America to get American troops out of Saudi Arabia? Should have imposed sanctions on the US until we withdrew? That's absurd. You can't blame Europe that America was attacked. The government knew damn well that keeping troops there was NOT going to be popular among the religious nuts and chose to do it anyway.

The countries who had the most to gain by maintaining the former regime were also the countries who were least involved in keeping the region stable and also the loudest critics of any change in responsibility.
Is this to say America is keeping the Middle East stable?

Magiver
01-25-2004, 03:08 AM
Is this to say America is keeping the Middle East stable?

Yes. If Saddam had conquered Kuwait it would have destabalized the region.

At the beginning of the Gulf War he had the 3rd largest standing army in the world. He tried to conquer Iran. He successfuly put down 2 civil wars in his own country. If he had succeeded with Kuwait it is likely he would have gone after Saudi Arabia. They were obviously afraid of this senario. Since they are the keepers of the Islamic flame, all hell would have broken loose. Then there would have been a worldwide energy crisis. Oil is currently part of a every country's energy grid. If you remove it, for even a short period, there d be economic chaos.

Magiver
01-25-2004, 03:11 AM
It would be nice if I had the f!@#$ing spell check turned on.

Marley23
01-25-2004, 03:22 AM
At the beginning of the Gulf War he had the 3rd largest standing army in the world. He tried to conquer Iran.
And failed miserably.

If he had succeeded with Kuwait it is likely he would have gone after Saudi Arabia.
That's the line the first Bush Administration pushed for a while - that Saddam was about to invade Saudi Arabia as well - but satellite intelligence photos showed the Iraqi soldiers weren't going anywhere else.

That's not to say it would have been a good thing. But I wouldn't want to say ANYBODY is keeping the Middle East stable, because it's not. It's not very far from complete chaos, and a large Western invasion doesn't strike me as a way to stabilize it.

Leaper
01-25-2004, 03:39 AM
Then, of course, there are the people who say that WMDs (and, by implication, any claims made about them) don't matter, because we did good by invading Iraq.

OTOH, I don't know how widespread this opinion really is, or if it reflects well or poorly on those who think it...

Gary Kumquat
01-25-2004, 06:15 AM
What part of Saddam having a weapons program, hiding it from the UN, and keeping critical elements in place to reconstitute it do people have trouble with?

The fact that no evidence has been found for it, and that even Bush's head weapons inspector concludes that it didn't exist.

Kay told Reuters by telephone shortly after stepping down from his post on Friday he had concluded there were no such stockpiles to be found.

"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said


Moreover, nobody I know ever suggested that actual stockpiles of WMDs were the real reason to attack Iraq.
Oh really. Please read the following statement from Bush. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2309049.stm I've summarised some of the more amusing points here:

the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons...The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself - or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Doc Nickel
01-25-2004, 06:32 AM
How many of those Allied aircraft did he actually hit and shoot down in the no fly zone? Did he actually murder the Elder Bush?

-I'm sorry, it's quite irrelevant, but I couldn't help but read that and think of Sideshow Bob complaining about his prison conviction:

"Attempted murder. Feh, do they award the Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?"

I know it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and no excuse for anything, but attempting a crime, although unsuccessful, is still a crime. Technically, Hussein's shooting at our planes in the "no fly" zone was itself an act of war- they did so with some regularity, and I seem to recall at least one plane (a British one?) being hit and limping home. (No cite, and no, I'm not saying it justifies the War. Just pointing it out.)

Richard Pearse
01-25-2004, 06:52 AM
'Cause if you think there was any serious suggestion to the shrub that the guys who know weren't really all that sure, then I submit that he's a reprehensible piece of shit for not caring enough to delve deeper than what the nice Mr. Wolfowitz was telling him.

Hey I'm not batting for him or anything, I'm just saying that he may well have wanted to believe it and when you want to believe something, it is very easy to do so. I don't dispute that he is one of the most dangerous people currently on the planet.

RTFirefly
01-25-2004, 07:57 AM
Lybia was trying to get back in the good graces of the West well before 9/11. I can dig you out a cite if you want.
Please do.
Here you go. (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010501faessay4768/ray-takeyh/the-rogue-who-came-in-from-the-cold.html) This was in the category of "I know I can find the damned thing, but it may take awhile," hence my "I'll dig it out for you if you ask."

Note that it's from the May/June 2001 issue of Foreign Affairs.
As the Bush administration struggles to define its foreign policy, with sanctions slipping on Iraq and the prospect of missile defense raising complications around the world, a new question has emerged: How should Washington handle a "rogue" state that is gradually abandoning its objectionable practices? What should the United States do when its long-standing policy toward a maverick country such as Libya starts to pay off -- and that country finally begins to clean up its act? The question has recently become a pressing one as, in a surprising twist of events, the often and justifiably maligned Libyan regime of Colonel Mu'ammar Qaddafi has started to meet international demands and redress its past crimes.

RTFirefly
01-25-2004, 08:04 AM
I owe that cite (or my awareness of it, at least) to Joshua Micah Marshall's excellent Talking Points Memo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com) blog. Besides blogging, Marshall has in recent years produced some of the Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com)'s finest articles, which is saying a lot, because the WM has been one of this country's best political magazines for decades.

BarnOwl
01-25-2004, 08:42 AM
It's not a matter of fooling all the people all the time, it's a matter of fooling just enough people some of the time -- namely, 51% of the voters on election day 2004.

Normally, I'd agree with you, rjung, but...

Even 30% will do, when you can augment it with a battallion of hackable electronic voting machines. Which I am certain he will do.

RTFirefly
01-25-2004, 08:45 AM
Saddam was publicly writing checks to the Palestinian families of the dearly exploded. Prior to his check writing campaign, he launched missles at Israel. He attacked Kuwait. His regime repeatedly threatened Allied aircraft in the agreed upon no-fly zone. He attempted to murder a US President. Any of these reasons qualify as an attack against the US and her allies. Except that all but the checks to the suicide bombers' families were old news. You don't start a war with another country over stuff on this level that happened a decade ago.

And the check-writing may have modestly encouraged local terrorism in Israel/Palestine, but unless you can show that the next of kin turned around and gave that money to terrorists, it didn't even go towards financing local terrorism, let alone the international terrorism that Bush said was the problem.
That's what the war is about. You can type WMD until your fingers fall off but President Bush never gave that as a single reason for going to war. He threw a whole list of them on the table. He did that for a reason. Just as the UN resolutions were worded (by the United States) the way they were, so the United States could finish the job if it became necessary.OK. Since you mention the UN resolutions, let's look at 1441 (http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-1441.html):Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, ...1441 contains a brief, passing mention of Iraq's repression of its civilian population and a couple of other doodads, but it's fundamentally and overwhelmingly about the WMDs.

This is what we got the UN to sign on to. This was the justification we gave to the world for going into Iraq.

Now let's take a look at the Congressional resolution (http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html) authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq: Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
It also includes a passing reference to Saddam's repression of his own people - one brief clause amid paragraphs and paragraphs about (a) Iraqi WMDs, (b) terrorism, and (c) connecting the two.

And just for good measure, here's Bush's address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021016-1.html) when he signed the resolution. That sucker is ALL about the WMDs. I'd quote it, but this post is long enough already.

You can say what you like, but the historical record is clear: the reason the Bush Administration gave to the world, to the Congress, and to the American people for invading Iraq was the threat that Iraqi WMDs represented. Period.

Rashak Mani
01-25-2004, 08:50 AM
You know what this all looks like ? Like the police bursting into a house with a half cooked bogus search warrant in order to arrest someone who didn't committ that specific crime. Suddenly the police stick new charges in order to justify their bogus search. So this mentality of "he was a criminal anyway" who cares if the police didn't have any proof comes into being.

Now this creates something called a precedent... after all Cuba might have a WMD program too. Prove to us that Cuba doesn't have WMD ? They have an advanced biological programs ! (also called medicine). You might think of course that Bush wouldn't invade people for nothing... so while he abuses this precedent only to take down bad guys its not a major problem... but who determines "bad guy" status ?

Why make up crimes for Saddam if he had so many ? I actually think that taking down Saddam through diplomatic, economic or military means (yep military last) was a necessity... but no one ever claimed that. Probably because that meant having no IMMEDIATE and URGENT excuse to invade. It was this urgency to go to war that made the world most reluctant to understand Mr. Bushie Jr. The price is being paid now in the streets of Baghdad everytime a US soldier gets maimed or killed.

DirkGntly
01-25-2004, 08:56 AM
Oh. My. God.
Now this is a frightening thought:
Originally posted by Antiochus:
Even 30% will do, when you can augment it with a battallion of hackable electronic voting machines. Which I am certain he will do.
So if Bush wins in '04, the argument is going to be, "He didn't really win, he hacked the voting machines"???!?!?!?!?!?

Jesus horking Christ on a pogo-stick, you folks are DELUSIONAL!! And I thought Dean was unstable...

I'm outta this debate, because that's just crazy, man...

milroyj
01-25-2004, 09:10 AM
Impeachment and criminal trial would be the appropriate response.

Ha, Ha. What are you going to do when he is re-elected, instead?

elucidator
01-25-2004, 09:40 AM
Bravely spoken! One simply must admire such plucky aplomb in the face of certain doom.

Spavined Gelding
01-25-2004, 09:43 AM
Friends, we all know what is going on here. There is not one point made in this thread that has not been repeatedly made before in God knows how many arguments here and in the Pit. We all know what an embarrassment it was to the President when it was finally conceded that there was no African uranium. The President and his people are not about to let that happen again by admitting that the other rationales for the invasion and occupation were false. Their answer to the pretty obvious falsity of the substantive basis for the war is to stonewall the whole thing. Thus we have the Vice-president insisting that we will someday find the WMDs. Thus we have the President insisting that the purpose for the war was to bring democracy to Iraq. Thus we have people equating nominal support for the Palestinian uprising with complicity in 9/11. It is all the Big Lie. If the Lie can be made to hold together until this November its purpose will have been accomplished.

Certainly we will have a general grasping of straws featuring stuff like the report, supported solely by some Kuwaiti secret agent, that Saddam made an attempt on George H.W. Bush's life some ten years ago, and claims that Iraqi missiles were capable of delivering chemical agents, and claims that the invasion was to rescue the people of Iraq. The problem is for those of us who see the war as an unjustified, unnecessary and mistaken foreign adventure to keep our composure in the face of this balderdash and to have the patience to rebut it when raised, even though raised again, and again, and again.

Optihut
01-25-2004, 09:44 AM
So if Bush wins in '04, the argument is going to be, "He didn't really win, he hacked the voting machines"???!?!?!?!?!?

There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.

You know what this all looks like ? Like the police bursting into a house with a half cooked bogus search warrant in order to arrest someone who didn't committ that specific crime. Suddenly the police stick new charges in order to justify their bogus search. So this mentality of "he was a criminal anyway" who cares if the police didn't have any proof comes into being.

If only it had been the police, but since the USA disregarded the input of the UN and of the weapons inspectors, I'd rather say it was a private security firm at best.

Milum
01-25-2004, 09:52 AM
DirkGntly: I'm outta this debate, because that's just crazy, man.
Don't Dirk! Please don't leave. You misunderstood. This is NOT a debate. A debate is where open-minded people exchange their points of view. This thread is a gang bang and you are the babe. Listen, these people don't hate Bush. They hate you. They hate you because you are right and they have been proven wrong and all they have left is their vengeful rhetoric. Pity them.

They know not what they say or do.

Optihut
01-25-2004, 10:39 AM
Don't Dirk! Please don't leave. You misunderstood. This is NOT a debate. A debate is where open-minded people exchange their points of view. This thread is a gang bang and you are the babe. Listen, these people don't hate Bush. They hate you. They hate you because you are right and they have been proven wrong and all they have left is their vengeful rhetoric. Pity them.

They know not what they say or do.

Irony is so... Ironic!

elucidator
01-25-2004, 10:43 AM
How many times do I have to say it before you people start catching on! Cognitive Dissonance is the number one threat to our nation, and it is growing at pandemic rates! The evidence is right in front of you!

When your CD volunteer calls, give, and give generously! Cognitive Dissonance - a mental disorder that masquerades as a political position! Remember - CD doesn't just strike the rich and powerful, but the people they get killed under the influence of CD! Custer, McNamara, LBJ, GWB....remember these names? All chronic sufferers of CD!

Remember the words of our CD Poster Boy: "Heavens to Betsy, yes! Give so that CD doesn't strike again! Cookie. Where's my cookie?..."

Ronnie Woo Woo
01-25-2004, 11:22 AM
I think that one of the points that a lot of people are missing is that whether Bush actually lied or just presented information which he actually believed which turned out to be wrong is kind of a matter of semantics. The fact is that this administration started planning for an invasion of Iraq pretty much since Day 1. O'Neil said that Bush had said "find me a way to do it", or something along those lines.

When someone already has made up their mind that something has to happen, it can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for that person to ever look at all the information coming in objectively. In other words, Bush didn't care that the information on the aluminum tubes as part of a nuclear program was dead wrong. He didn't care that the UN wanted more time. He didn't care that there was no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. He only cared about information that would support his point of view, no matter how unreliable or biased.

Because Bush refused to look at any information contrary to the decision he had made long before to go get Saddam it doesn't really matter whether he actually lied or not. It only matters that he had blinders on and got us into this quagmire as a result. This was simply a matter of arrogance. Bush, Cheney, Rumy and Ashcroft know best. Question them and you lack patriotism, even though they never question themselves.

David Simmons
01-25-2004, 12:49 PM
Our friendy warhawks repeat the mantra "Bush haters." Not all who think the Iraq war was a disaster from which it will take us years to recover hate Bush. If he were governor of Texas, or a failed oil executive no one would care. What we don't like are things that GW does as President of the USA. Like deciding to invade Iraq for God only know what private bug up his *** and pass it off as "liberating Iraqis" after other excuses are exposed as bogus. Or proposing elimination of capital gains or inheritance tax to help the "little people." Or proposing marketable timber cutting to "save the forests." Or on and on and on.

RTFirefly
01-25-2004, 01:33 PM
Don't Dirk! Please don't leave. You misunderstood. This is NOT a debate. A debate is where open-minded people exchange their points of view. This thread is a gang bang and you are the babe. Listen, these people don't hate Bush. They hate you. They hate you because you are right and they have been proven wrong and all they have left is their vengeful rhetoric. Pity them.

They know not what they say or do.You're right about one thing, Milum: it isn't much of a debate.

One side in this 'debate' has piles of cites supporting strong arguments. The other side has 'these people hate Bush'.

Nope, no debate here. :rolleyes:

Mr. Svinlesha
01-25-2004, 02:36 PM
A few responses just at random:

Beagle ~ Man, am I ever going to wish the search function was working when Syria coughs up the Iraqi WMDs, or they are used on France for the "headscarf" ban.Pathetic, really. Just fucking pathetic.

No, more than pathetic. Stupefying.

The argument that Iraq would give its “WMDs” to terrorists or other nations is just one more unsubstantiated insinuation from the pro-war crowd. There is no evidence that Iraq has ever done so, and in fact no historical evidence that any country would do so. In fact, quite the opposite: Terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna has pointed out that the Iraqi regime had a long history of sponsoring terrorism against Israel, Kuwait, and Iran, providing money and weapons to these groups. Yet over many years Saddam did not transfer chemical, biological, or radiological materials or weapons to any of them “probably because he knew that they could one day be used against his secular regime.”

In the judgment of U.S. intelligence, a transfer of WMD by Saddam to terrorists was likely only if he were “sufficiently desperate” in the face of an impending invasion. Even then, the NIE concluded, he would likely use his own operatives before terrorists.

Even without the particular relationship between Saddam and bin Laden, the notion that any government would turn over its principal security assets to people it could not control is highly dubious. States have multiple interests and land, people, and resources to protect. They have a future. Governments that made such a transfer would put themselves at the mercy of groups that have none of these. Terrorists would not even have to use the weapons but merely allow the transfer to become known to U.S. intelligence to call down the full wrath of the United States on the donor state, thereby opening opportunities for themselves. Moreover, governments with the wherewithal to have acquired such weapons and the ambition to want them used are likely to have their own means of delivering them—through people who take orders. In the 1993 assassination attempt on former president George H. W. Bush, for example, Saddam relied on his own intelligence operatives. All in all, governments would have little to gain and perhaps everything to lose by giving their WMD to terrorists.

Iraq and WMD, 48.This observation is equally true with regard to accusations that states would freely give such material to other states, especially to regional power rivals. If you don’t believe me, ask Colin Powell (http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=January&x=20040121210443adynned0.7071649&t=usinfo/wf-latest.html): With regard to the suggestion that Iraq's WMD may have "ended up in Syria," Powell said, "that is always a possibility, but I have seen no hard evidence to suggest that is the case, that suddenly there were no weapons found in Iraq because they were all in Syria. I don't know why the Syrians would do that, frankly: why it would be in their interest. They didn't have that kind of relationship with Iraq."(Quick thanks to Desmostylus for the link.)

I have become bone-numbingly tired of this particular technique, so often employed by the pro-war contingent in these discussions: take an illogical accusation, support it with a couple of unsubstantiated rumors from the right-wingnut blog factory, and then present it here as if it were unrefutable fact or even worthy of serious debate. The depth to which the American political discourse has fallen over the last 5 years continues to amaze me. But you’ve given me an idea. Although the search function is off line, I happen to have a couple of old debates bookmarked. I therefore invite you to join me in the Pit (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4488301#post4488301) for a review of the total SHITE your fellow warmongers have been spewing lo these last few months. Moreover, nobody I know ever suggested that actual stockpiles of WMDs were the real reason to attack Iraq.Even more pathetic and stupefying. What sort of idiots buy into this lame-ass historical revisionism, I wonder? The real reasons are quite obvious to even a half-assed student of modern history. I'd like to think I'm at least that.Yes, I would have to agree with that assessment.I'll do a short list: mass murder, use of WMDs, starting wars, funding terrorism, and mass torture.Ooopsie. You forgot one: the possession by Iraq of “WMDs.” Even if you don’t believe that to be a “real” reason for the invasion, you (I assume) cannot deny the fact that it was given by the Bush administration as one of the reasons to invade Iraq. And as it turns out, that particular reason was bogus. In addition, there exists a mountain of evidence that the administration knew it was making false claims – specifically, mischaracterizing intelligence prior to the invasion as “certain,” when, in fact, it was not; setting up shadow intelligence agencies to produce data that one-sidedly supported the necessity of armed intervention; and pressuring intelligence agencies to skew their conclusions in favor of the administration’s position.


1920’s Style Death Ray ~ Someone is only lying if they know what they are saying is false. Calling Bush a lier is a bit over the top. Sure he was wrong, but he was relying on what other people were telling him. He may have been guilty of choosing to believe the people who were telling him what he wanted to hear, but I think he probably believed it when he said it.You’re right, in a sense. I certainly can't say, for example, that I know for a fact that Bush lied.

However, I can state that there exists a large body of circumstantial evidence that would seem to indicate that Bush himself, as well as key members of his administration, chose to exaggerate the threat Iraq posed to the US, and embarked on a kind of “smear campaign” to that end. It is no sense irrational to suspect the administration of ulterior motives, given the public record.

There are also some rather tricky questions that both sides of the debate need to address, such as, “What is a lie?” or “How does a lie differ from an exaggeration?” I mean, if I were to say that I believe Bush purposefully exaggerated the threat Iraq posed in order to instigate a war, is that significantly different from claiming that he “lied”? How does one draw a line between “spinning,” “exaggerating,” and “lying”? Is the deceitful employment of misleading rhetoric equivalent to lying?


Magiver ~ You can type WMD until your fingers fall off but President Bush never gave that as a single reason for going to war. He threw a whole list of them on the table. He did that for a reason. Just as the UN resolutions were worded (by the United States) the way they were, so the United States could finish the job if it became necessary.No, you’re right: the administration muddied the waters so that they would always be able to backtrack to some sort of rationale for the invasion.

But it is nevertheless the case that one of the reasons the US invaded Iraq was that country’s alleged possession of “WMDs.” And in fact, that is the only reason that would lend US actions legitimacy on the world stage: it is legitimate for one nation to “preempt” a military attack upon its territory by another nation, according at least to one rather broad interpretation of the UN Charter. Under this doctrine of “preemption,” Iraq could be deemed a potential threat to the US only to the extent that it possessed “WMDs.” To claim retroactively that the “WMD” argument was not central to the US justification for war is to give the lie to US claims that the war was not a violation of the UN Charter. And any politician who can stand in front of a camera and say they voted for the use of force but didn't think it should be used is a BS liar.That, on the other hand, I agree with whole-heartedly.


Finally, elucidator ~

I'm stealing it. Hope you don't mind.

pantom
01-25-2004, 03:08 PM
Mr Svinlesha, as usual, a sterling effort.
As usual, it will of course fall on deaf ears and blind eyes, as has already been amply demonstrated, and as former Treasury Secretary O'Neill has already pointed out. The surprise for me when he said it was that anyone was surprised.

Rashak Mani
01-25-2004, 10:42 PM
Check out this thread guys on claims of the past:

What pro-war guys said before (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=236525&page=1&pp=50)

Stoid
01-26-2004, 12:40 AM
And 2000 proved you don't even need that.


Yeah...sometimes all you gotta do is falsely claim that a bunch of people who are statistically unlikely to vote for you are convicted felons.

Urban Ranger
01-26-2004, 01:38 AM
Actually, that's EXACTLY what you do, whether you're a CEO, Military General or the President of the US. You take information presented to you from what are hopefully reliable sources, and you make a decision based on that information.

1. There was no clear evidence that Iraq had any BCN weapons. Remember all those things that Powell said in front of the UNSC? Lo, they couldn't find any of those.

2. When somebody messed up as badly as Dubya did, the responsible thing to do is to admit to the screw up and resign. Did we see W do that?


What is expected, that the President is going to personally head an inspection team for months on end? No, there are other people to do that.

And? Did he believe Hans Blix and his crew?


Again, based on previous history, Iraq had a track record of stalling and misleading UN inspectors.

Oh yeah, if history were to be a guide, I can't see how W got elected in the first place.

New Iskander
01-26-2004, 02:10 AM
We have little enough to be proud of, let's not don the mantle of noble purity too quickly. The world at large might regard us with some plausible skepticism, to see us present ourselves as the paladins of virtue and liberty, armored in righteousness."The world at large" is way more rotten then we are, never forget that.

Recent virtue, like new wine, sets the teeth on edge.We shall never try to improve, then?

David Simmons
01-26-2004, 02:12 AM
What is expected, that the President is going to personally head an inspection team for months on end? No, there are other people to do that.

And "other people to do that" were led by the President's hand-picked guy who was going to blow the war doubters out of the water with facts, man, facts and who just resigned saying he doubts that the post-Desert Storm weapons existed.

What the hell does it take to get the message through?

Raises megaphone, yells at top of voice - There were no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons!!!!!!!!! Hence no justification for the claim of imminent danger requiring a preemptive war!!!!!!!!!


Again, based on previous history, Iraq had a track record of stalling and misleading UN inspectors.
.

Fill in the blanks - Again, based on previous history, _________ had a track record of stalling and misleading ___________.

Poor Mr. Svinlesha! He posts calm, reasoned and coherent statements and gets back things along the lines of; "Yeah, you pinko liberals want to stand around and wait for another terrorist strike at the US."

Reading the war hawks crap makes me surer than ever that Barnum underestimated by an order of magnitude.

Marley23
01-26-2004, 02:25 AM
http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0100&id=2004012600410001508101

More from Kay:

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. intelligence agencies need to explain why their research indicated Iraq possessed banned weapons before the American-led invasion, says the outgoing top U.S. inspector, who now believes Saddam Hussein had no such arms.

"I don't think they exist,'' David Kay said Sunday. "The fact that we found so far the weapons do not exist - we've got to deal with that difference and understand why.''

Kay said his predictions were not "coming back to haunt me in the sense that I am embarrassed. They are coming back to haunt me in the sense of `Why could we all be so wrong?'''

Kay told The New York Times in a later interview posted for Monday's editions that U.S. intelligence agencies did not realize Iraqi scientists presented Saddam with fanciful plans for weapons programs and then used the money he authorized for other purposes.

"The whole thing shifted from directed programs to a corrupted process,'' he told the Times. "The regime was no longer in control; it was like a death spiral. Saddam was self-directing projects that were not vetted by anyone else. The scientists were able to fake programs.''

He said he has had U.S. intelligence analysts some to him, "almost in tears, saying they felt so badly that we weren't finding what they had thought we were going to find - I have had analysts apologizing for reaching the conclusions they did.''
My two cents: when he says "I don't think they exist," I think he means they don't exist in Syria as well. :rolleyes:

Desmostylus
01-26-2004, 02:53 AM
My two cents: when he says "I don't think they exist," I think he means they don't exist in Syria as well. :rolleyes:Ah, but he also said that some material that may be related to a WMD program, may have been moved to Syria.

What more proof do you need? He was obviously talking about a screwdriver, a sheet of aluminum, and a rusty nail, which when combined with all of the other parts necessary to make a nuclear weapon, could be used to make a nuclear weapon!!!! ;)

Aro
01-26-2004, 04:28 AM
Oh. My. God.
Now this is a frightening thought:

So if Bush wins in '04, the argument is going to be, "He didn't really win, he hacked the voting machines"???!?!?!?!?!?

Jesus horking Christ on a pogo-stick, you folks are DELUSIONAL!! And I thought Dean was unstable...

I'm outta this debate, because that's just crazy, man...I assume from your response you have yet to read this report. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-01.htm)

It may, perhaps, make you think twice on this particular issue. Or not.

Zoe
01-26-2004, 07:28 AM
Beagle
What part of Saddam having a weapons program, hiding it from the UN, and keeping critical elements in place to reconstitute it do people have trouble with?

Gary: The fact that no evidence has been found for it, and that even Bush's head weapons inspector concludes that it didn't exist.

From an interview with Kay:
Kay told Reuters by telephone shortly after stepping down from his post on Friday he had concluded there were no such stockpiles to be found.

"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.

Beagle, keep in mind that this is the same David Kay that President Bush used to support our presence in Iraq in his State of the Union Address just this past week! Even the man who has taken Kay's place at one time said that there was no evidence of WMD.
They are now looking mainly for a paper trail only.

Again, if the President wasn't lying, why isn't he holding those who mislead him accountable? Why isn't there an investigation into our own intelligence sources? How could the information presented by Colin Powell to the UN be so wrong? (And I'm not blaming Powell, here.)

devilsknew
01-26-2004, 07:56 AM
Ha, Ha. What are you going to do when he is re-elected, instead?
Leave the fascism to the fascists and move to Germany.

devilsknew
01-26-2004, 08:01 AM
Now that's irony that is ironic.

DirkGntly
01-26-2004, 09:04 AM
Aro,
I actually have read that report - what I find so surprising is that otherwise clear-thinking posters can get so completely blinded by their own ideologies. That particular report is essentially nothing more than left-wing-corporate-conspiracy theory disguised as a journalism piece. Can some calmer heads prevail here?? Please...?

Now, I would like to point out that Kay's statements indicate that US intelligence on Iraq was flawed, which is EXACTLY the point I was making - decisions were made on faulty information. Was the deck stacked in favor of going to Iraq? I'm not 100% sold that it was - I'm also not 100% sold that it wasn't, and hence the point of debate; present differing ideas and see where it leads.

But I cannot abide the wild conspiracy-theory speculation on voting machines, etc. that's suddenly started being bandied about here. That's just ludicrous! CAN they be tampered with? Probably, in their current configuration. ARE they being tampered with? Most likely not...

Aro
01-26-2004, 09:35 AM
DirkGntly, I don’t mean to hi-jack this thread away from the central theme with this side issue, so apologies to the OP...

I actually have read that report - what I find so surprising is that otherwise clear-thinking posters can get so completely blinded by their own ideologies. That particular report is essentially nothing more than left-wing-corporate-conspiracy theory disguised as a journalism piece. Can some calmer heads prevail here?? Please...?The interesting thing is, I see the report linked as generally covering the centre. I have read many far-left conspiracy theory spiels and would consider this report to be the sane, middle ground on this issue. Of course, this could merely be my European socialist leanings coming into play. :)

But I cannot abide the wild conspiracy-theory speculation on voting machines, etc. that's suddenly started being bandied about here. That's just ludicrous! CAN they be tampered with? Probably, in their current configuration. ARE they being tampered with? Most likely not...
You initial post seemed to indicate that you found even the possibility of tampering happening as an utterly nonsense idea. I posted that article to show there certainly exists the possibility of tampering in election results via control of the machines. It has flagged up an issue that warrants further regard and suitable action to ensure it never does become an controversial issue. It cannot just be dismissed as the loony-ravings of the far-left or some ridiculous conspiracy theorist. It is something that needs to be addressed.

It is not necessarily far-fetched for people (or corporations) to act against public notions of correctness or morality in order to achieve something favourable to their own narrow interests. To assume it is never a possibility would be to ignore the lessons of history.

laigle
01-26-2004, 09:42 AM
My, isn't it convenient how every time the Pubbies get caught with their pants down its just a delusional left wing conspiracy theory? I guess I'll use that excuse if I ever get arrested. "Your honor, the things you saw on that videotape were beamed into your head by Democrats because they're insane! You must wear this aluminum foil deflector beanie to protect yourself from them!"

Optihut
01-26-2004, 09:57 AM
DirkGntlyI posted that article to show there certainly exists the possibility of tampering in election results via control of the machines. It has flagged up an issue that warrants further regard and suitable action to ensure it never does become an controversial issue. It cannot just be dismissed as the loony-ravings of the far-left or some ridiculous conspiracy theorist. It is something that needs to be addressed.

Although, come to think of it, it'd be kind of amusing, if some third party nobody would win the election by manipulating the voting machines :D

DirkGntly
01-26-2004, 09:59 AM
Aro,
The initial post about machine-tampering implied that Bush coulnd't win in '04 WITHOUT tampering with the machines - and that's what triggered my reaction. I mean, c'mon...is that EVEN logical? Yes, there are/will be some questions/problems with new technology and I won't deny that, but for that poster to have implied...well, you see where I'm going here.

IF Bush wins in '04, I will be the FIRST PERSON to post a link back to this thread, WHEN someone jumps up and says that Bush only won "because he tampered with the voting machines!" I can easily see that becoming the cry of the far-left, instead of 00's "he stole the election." (I'm not wanting to start a debate on whether he did, or not, merely using for example/comparison.)

laigle,
Where did I get caught with my pants down?? To imply that machine-tampering is the only way for a 'pubbie' to win IS delusional...irrational...illogical...(see previous 2 paragraphs). It IS possible that a conservative/Republican CAN win an election, folks...if it weren't so, there would NEVER be any in ANY office (which would be quite the wet dream for some, I'm sure).

Instead of asking, "What did the Democrats/liberals/whatever do wrong?" maybe you should ask, "What did the Republicans/conservatives/whatever do RIGHT?" It is at least REMOTELY possible that some of what the conservatives are preaching is resonating with a significant portion of the population, don't you think??

milroyj
01-26-2004, 10:08 AM
Leave the fascism to the fascists and move to Germany.

Is that name-calling in GD? I didn't think that was allowed in this forum. Anyway, stating that President Bush will be re-elected makes me a fascist? How so? And what's up with the slam on Germans?

Aro
01-26-2004, 10:25 AM
Aro,
The initial post about machine-tampering implied that Bush coulnd't win in '04 WITHOUT tampering with the machines - and that's what triggered my reaction. I mean, c'mon...is that EVEN logical?
<snip>
IF Bush wins in '04, I will be the FIRST PERSON to post a link back to this thread, WHEN someone jumps up and says that Bush only won "because he tampered with the voting machines!"I agree with this. I didn't mean to imply that I thought Bush, or even the GOP, would necessarily get involved with that level of subterfuge or deceit, as I'm sure the vast majority of politicians, regardless of leaning, at heart do believe in the notion of democracy and fairness.

But the issue worth watching, for me, is some faceless corporation who could have the motive and opportunity to 'pull strings' with the machines on the closely contested swing states to favour a politician who would later invoke / remove legislation that would support their specific interests. Such a scenario is not too difficult to imagine, but rather horrible to contemplate.

So, (to end the hi-jack) there’s no sign of any WMDs then? To quote Bob Dylan in "It's alright Ma", “Your empty handed armies, are all going home”.

devilsknew
01-27-2004, 03:03 AM
Is that name-calling in GD? I didn't think that was allowed in this forum. Anyway, stating that President Bush will be re-elected makes me a fascist? How so? And what's up with the slam on Germans?
That's not name calling, sheesh! The implication is that if George Bush is elected again, it means another four years of what to me, IMO, is equivalent to a fascist regime (this opinion is shared by others, I'm sure). The irony is that I have nothing against Germany and would probably feel safer and more ideologically compatible with modern Germans/Germany, despite their political history.

Rashak Mani
01-27-2004, 06:11 AM
I agree with this. I didn't mean to imply that I thought Bush, or even the GOP, would necessarily get involved with that level of subterfuge or deceit, as I'm sure the vast majority of politicians, regardless of leaning, at heart do believe in the notion of democracy and fairness.

Well its not so unbeleivable... Nixon did resort to "subterfuge"... it wouldn't be the first time a Republican did it. Tonkin Bay rings a bell too. Considering that you only need to fake a few thousand votes in key states just makes it even easier to get away with.

Milum
01-27-2004, 07:45 AM
devilknew"... if George Bush is elected again, it means another four years of what to me, IMO, is equivalent to a fascist regime (this opinion is shared by others, I'm sure)."

Call me stupid, but I just love those silly novelty songs...

All Around the World by "Little Willie" John

And if I don't love you baby
Grits ain't groceries
Bush is Nazises
And Mona Lisa was a man.
:)

Hail Ants
01-28-2004, 09:14 PM
Weapons of mass destruction, schweapons of fass restruction...

When are you people going to realize that its not about the details, its about the overall, and Iraq was merely phase one (and an amazingly successful one at that). Here's several reasons why... (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004126.asp)

Rashak Mani
01-29-2004, 01:46 AM
Weapons of mass destruction, schweapons of fass restruction...

When are you people going to realize that its not about the details, its about the overall, and Iraq was merely phase one (and an amazingly successful one at that). Here's several reasons why... (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004126.asp)

Well this "amazing" sucess seems to be taking a while... I wonder when Bushie Oil Jr. will go to step 2 Israeli Palestinian... never mind step 3 North Korea... or step 5 Chechen War. Why piss Putin ? Why do I feel Bush is fucking things up more than solving them...

Mr. Svinlesha
01-29-2004, 03:00 AM
Hail Ants: Weapons of mass destruction, schweapons of fass restruction...

When are you people going to realize that its not about the details, its about the overall, and Iraq was merely phase one (and an amazingly successful one at that).What a pathetic, last ditch defense from the side of the aisle that, prior to the war, was screaming that Hussein was an overwhelming threat to America, one requiring a military response.

Me, I guess I’m just too stupid to realize it’s not about the “details”…tiny little insignificant “details,” like the tons of chemical munitions, the thousands of liters of botulinum toxin, the drone aircraft, the yellowcake purchases, the aluminum tube centrifuges, etc., etc. Stupid, stupid me. Good thing we have Hail Ants here to enlighten us as to what’s really going on.

But if these "details" were so unimportant, I wonder why Bush made such a big deal about them? That he didn’t just step up to the podium and state flatly, ”My fellow Americans, fuck the details…our invasion of Iraq is just phase one of the overall”…?

Hell, at least that would have been honest.

Desmostylus
01-29-2004, 03:44 AM
That he didn’t just step up to the podium and state flatly, ”My fellow Americans, fuck the details…our invasion of Iraq is just phase one of the overall”…?

Hell, at least that would have been honest.They actually did make it clear that it was just phase one in the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document. Trouble is, they fucked up phase one so comprehensively that there's not much chance of ever getting to phase two.

Hail Ants
01-29-2004, 06:07 PM
Not finding any WMDs in Iraq is exactly the same as Saddam launching Scuds at Israel in the first Gulf War. Yes, its embarrassing, frustrating, and a public relations nightmare. But strategically, its meaningless.

Saddam's regime is gone forever and that's a good thing. Among other reasons, because he was perceived as having stood up to and won against the West (by remaining in power after the Gulf War). Potential 9/11-style Arab terrorist strongmen take note: We are not afraid to, are capable of, and don't need anyone's permission to take out our enemies, past present or future.

Marley23
01-29-2004, 06:13 PM
Saddam's regime is gone forever and that's a good thing. Among other reasons, because he was perceived as having stood up to and won against the West (by remaining in power after the Gulf War).
Who, other than Saddam, perceived him as winning? That's absurd.

Potential 9/11-style Arab terrorist strongmen take note: We are not afraid to, are capable of, and don't need anyone's permission to take out our enemies, past present or future.
Maybe nobody told you Saddam had nothing to do with September 11th, but he didn't. Getting rid of him won't intimidate Osama bin Laden. Are you serious? Terrorists who don't mind blowing themselves up aren't afraid that you'll go after them unilaterally. That course will only inflame the population of the Arab world anyway.

OliverH
01-29-2004, 06:24 PM
Potential 9/11-style Arab terrorist strongmen take note: We are not afraid to, are capable of, and don't need anyone's permission to take out our enemies, past present or future.

Read: We're just as willing to sacrifice innocent civilians for the sake of our sheer fanatism as you are. Which is why we made sure there's twice as many of you, giving us twice as many reasons to bomb a nation back into the stone age.

Hail Ants
01-29-2004, 06:34 PM
Who, other than Saddam, perceived him as winning? That's absurdBasically the entire Arab world did. They don't have much success winning wars so this was viewed as a 'win'.

Terrorists who don't mind blowing themselves up aren't afraid that you'll go after them unilaterally.No, but the thousands of people who support them do. It takes a lot more than just the ones actually ready to die to do these things.

Look, I know everyone is going to call me a racist but I don't care about political correctness post 9/11. This is how you deal with the hostile arab world. With strength, intimidation, and overwhelming military power. This is why Israel still exists even though its totally surrounded by fanatical enemies who hate them. Plus, this is why arabs always lose... (http://www.strategypage.com/search.asp?target=d:\inetpub\strategypageroot\dls\docs2002\20020909.htm&search=why%20arabs%20lose)

We're just as willing to sacrifice innocent civilians for the sake of our sheer fanatism as you areI don't consider defending our country against global terrorism 'fanatism'...

vibrotronica
01-29-2004, 06:41 PM
Basically the entire Arab world did. They don't have much success winning wars so this was viewed as a 'win'.
Do you have a cite for this assertion?

OliverH
01-29-2004, 06:46 PM
Basically the entire Arab world did. They don't have much success winning wars so this was viewed as a 'win'.

Your say-so doesn't make it so.


No, but the thousands of people who support them do. It takes a lot more than just the ones actually ready to die to do these things.

And you think they will be impressed by bullying? Helped Israel a lot.


Look, I know everyone is going to call me a racist but I don't care about political correctness post 9/11.

Ah, I take it then the KKK is all about being politically incorrect, huh? Butchering a few innocent people is an issue of not being politically correct?


This is how you deal with the hostile arab world. With strength, intimidation, and overwhelming military power. This is why Israel still exists even though its totally surrounded by fanatical enemies who hate them.

Israel has precisely ZERO success with your oh-so-great strategy. But hey, if a few of these desert rats get eradicated, who cares, huh? Maybe just round them all up and make sure none of them will ever raise a hand again, right?


I don't consider defending our country against global terrorism 'fanatism'...

I don't consider summary killings 'defending your country', and I don't consider ignorance and nationalistic drivel being threatened by terrorism. It is precisely self-posses spew like yours, declaring American lives as infintely more valuable and all other human beings of the planet as inferior that fuel this hatred. You don't have the slightest idea what it means to be threatened by terrorism, nor do your great leaders have any experience fighting it, let alone successfully. You just declare the rest of the world expendable, figuring that if no one is there anymore, there is no one who can threaten you. You are spitting on the graves of the victims of terrorism worldwide.