What on earth are you talking about?
Because it was believed to be taking place. The Iraq WMD claims, on the other hand, we knew were false.
Sorry, I can’t locate the part that states condition under which massive bombardments will be implemented. The whole resolution 1244 about Kosovo seems remarkably like resolution 1441 about Iraq.
The bombing of Serbia was not authorised by UN SC because Russia and China were absolutely against it. China went as far as keeping Belgrade embassy open, which US prompltly hit (entirely by accident, no doubt, even Clinton said so).
Thanks for the laughs.
Obfuscatory bullshit. The Kosovo resolution specifically authorized troops to take steps necessary to maintain the peace. This would include dealing with agressive military forces. The Iraq resolution merely authorized ‘severe consequences’.
If you don’t see a difference between this, I’d suggest that it’s your own partisanship and not the imagined partisianship of others getting in the way.
The resolution I’ve already provided you with provides for UN forces to be engaged in:
It also demands
Thanks for providing some ignorance to fight.
Do you honestly dispute the truth?
The claims of genocide were believed and IIRC weren’t checked until after war was begun. The WMD claims, on the other hand, were shot down by the inspectors and in large part, by the CIA itself. We had to create the OSP just to cherry pick rejected intel.
So, yes, we thought there was genocide going on in Kosovo, and we knew there weren’t WMD in Iraq.
Yep, **New Iskander ** is the barrell of fish in the bait shop of ignorance.
The mainstream media mantra now is that that the Downing street minutes are old news :mad: no, the OSP was, but putting the OSP and the several memos toghether, now there is plenty of evidence to even beging to talk about impeachment. If the mainstream media is not pounding on this “because the American people alredy believe Bush lied” :rolleyes: (another mantra from the mainstream media) mainstream media is now part of the problem.
Simply a quibble, but I’d say that the mainstream media has been part of the problem for quite some time now. Profits over patriotism.
Sigh. May be you can go through these Warning: it will take some time.
Give me an example of one known political figure in the whole world who stated that Saddam has no WMD, prior to US invasion.
Also, read about inspectors.
I gave up after this:
http://www.issues2000.org/askme/kosovo.htm
Tap dancing.
Most leaders depended on similar sourses of information, the well was poisoned (the question is now who did it) and the kicker however is that the majority of world leaders saw the evidence and concluded it was NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY WAR.
you shit.
No one would have claimed “I’m sure he doesn’t have any” since, well the inspectors were pulled out before they’d completed their job. HOwever, it was developing that, no, he didn’t have any.
the real issue is show me which political figures were stating ‘we know he has them and where they are, and that’s sufficient cause to invade another country’
at the time, I wasn’t certain he didn’t have them, but I certainly knew that he didn’t have the capability of launching them at teh US. and I was willing to wait til the inspectors had done their job. those of us opposed to the war (including other world leaders) kept saying 'let the inspectors complete their job, there’s no reason to invade right this second. Now it appears that BUsh administration made the decision to invade first then looked around for rationals to support it. and when they couldn’t find any good ones, they cherry picked data to support an unsubstantiated one. No credible person makes rational, wise decisions that way.
god this asshole is just like trying to grab oil with your hands.
huh.
I disagree. You could stuff what passes for Isk’s brain into an average size olive.
Ram it sideways friend.
If you have a cite, provide it. I’m not going to go pawing through your google vomit.
I need to link to a politician? Why? Shifting the goalposts much?
Read through the Dope archives on the OSP. Hell, I’ll even give you an actual cite rather than a google shotgun blast.
["Kay’s testimony was the catalyst for this u-turn, but only one of his claims is correct: that he was wrong. The truth is that much of the intelligence community did not fail, but presented correct assessments and warnings, that were overridden and suppressed. On virtually every single important claim made by the Bush administration in its case for war, there was serious dissension. Discordant views - not from individual analysts but from several intelligence agencies as a whole - were kept from the public as momentum was built for a congressional vote on the war resolution.
Precisely because of the qualms the administration encountered, it created a rogue intelligence operation, the Office of Special Plans, located within the Pentagon and under the control of neo-conservatives. The OSP roamed outside the ordinary inter-agency process, stamping its approval on stories from Iraqi exiles that the other agencies dismissed as lacking credibility, and feeding them to the president.
At the same time, constant pressure was applied to the intelligence agencies to force their compliance. In one case, a senior intelligence officer who refused to buckle under was removed.
Bruce Hardcastle was a senior officer for the Middle East for the Defence Intelligence Agency. When Bush insisted that Saddam was actively and urgently engaged in a nuclear weapons programme and had renewed production of chemical weapons, the DIA reported otherwise. According to Patrick Lang, the former head of human intelligence at the CIA, Hardcastle “told [the Bush administration] that the way they were handling evidence was wrong.” The response was not simply to remove Hardcastle from his post: “They did away with his job,” Lang says. “They wanted only liaison officers … not a senior intelligence person who argued with them.”
When the state department’s bureau of intelligence and research (INR) submitted reports which did not support the administration’s case - saying, for example, that the aluminum tubes Saddam possessed were for conventional rocketry, not nuclear weapons (a report corroborated by department of energy analysts), or that mobile laboratories were not for WMDs, or that the story about Saddam seeking uranium in Niger was bogus, or that there was no link between Saddam and al-Qaida (a report backed by the CIA) - its analyses were shunted aside. Greg Thielman, chief of the INR at the time, told me: “Everyone in the intelligence community knew that the White House couldn’t care less about any information suggesting that there were no WMDs or that the UN inspectors were very effective.”
When the CIA debunked the tales about Niger uranium and the Saddam/al-Qaida connection, its reports were ignored and direct pressure applied. In October 2002, the White House inserted mention of the uranium into a speech Bush was to deliver, but the CIA objected and it was excised. Three months later, it reappeared in his state of the union address. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed never to have seen the original CIA memo and deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley said he had forgotten about it.
Never before had any senior White House official physically intruded into CIA’s Langley headquarters to argue with mid-level managers and analysts about unfinished work. But twice vice president Cheney and Lewis Libby, his chief of staff, came to offer their opinions. According to Patrick Lang: “They looked disapproving, questioned the reports and left an impression of what you’re supposed to do. They would say: ‘you haven’t looked at the evidence’. The answer would be, those reports [from Iraqi exiles] aren’t valid. The analysts would be told, you should look at this again’. Finally, people gave up. You learn not to contradict them.”
The CIA had visitors too, according to Ray McGovern, former CIA chief for the Middle East. Newt Gingrich came, and Condi Rice, and as for Cheney, “he likes the soup in the CIA cafeteria,” McGovern jokes.
Meanwhile, senior intelligence officers were kept in the dark about the OSP. “I didn’t know about its existence,” said Thielman. “They were cherry picking intelligence and packaging it for Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to take to the president. That’s the kind of rogue operation that peer review is intended to prevent.” "](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1141401,00.html)
You really believe this song and dance would’ve been necessary if they weren’t fully aware of the facts, if they weren’t trying to subvert democracy and truth?
And this is supposed to prove… what? That inspectors believed there were WMD there in the 90’s? That in 2001 Blix believed that not everything was accounted for? Going to blame Blix for pointing out, truthfully, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? What, he should’ve lied to the world and presented a biased report?
By the way, here are a few cites that’ll probably tell you a good bit more about the inspections process: “The CIA began placing American spies among U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq only a year after the end of the Persian Gulf war of 1991 and worked closely with the United Nations to organize the inspections,”
Your “average size” olive looks to be about three inches across. Surely you meant to refer to just the pimiento stuffed inside that monster?
In other “beating a dead horse” news, Stars and Stripes gave the Downing Street Memos a writeup today: Relatives of some troops killed in Iraq seek hearings on Downing Street memo
I sure hope all our troops knew that they were being lied to back in 2002, otherwise they might find this new information upsetting.
“Google vomit” Good one. Consider it stolen.
OK, you win. Congratulations!
Is anybody else thinking all the Pubbie huffing and puffing over the Durbin comment about U.S. tortures at Gitmo and elsewhere resembling stuff done by Nazis, et. al., is just cover to keep the media off the Downing Street Memo story?
New Iskander, I asked you a specific question. Answer it or accept you can’t.
Princhester,
I have no idea what you talking about.
Which tell us all we need to know about Mr. Durbin sense of timing (or lack thereof).
Misusing and misunderstanding what Mr. Durbing said is the only talking point the right has.
I much enjoyed watching this forum on C-SPAN, where words like “official inquiry” and “impeachment charges” were used in all seriousness. Something tells me this will be swept under the rug and forgotten about by next week.
Oh, dear, dear…
Can we agree on anything just once? How about us “right-wingers” being evil bastards, who will cheat, lie, misuse and abuse at a drop of a hat? Can we agree on this? We can? Well, then, what is Mr. Durbin doing giving us the opportunity to create smoke screens precisely when the whole country need to concentrate on THE MEMOS?
What, you take it back? We are not evil bastards? No? We still are evil bastards but we are not supposed to behave like them, ever? Then what the hell is the point in being evil bastards? Or what’s the point to behave nicely if you still call us evil bastards? What’s the Bloody Point?