What part of the “beware of dog” analogy is unclear to you?
If you don’t believe Blix, how about the Duelfer Report:
We’ve got a live one here, folks.
So you base your opinions about a decision that killed 4484 US warriors and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis in an unnecessary war on …
“Blix surmised”
If that works for you si be it,
I have higher standards.
You are conflating multiple things here, and it really does not make you look good. You asked Ravenman for a quote about the ‘myth’, and he gave you one demonstrating that it’s no myth…that, in fact Blix said exactly what Ravenman said he said. If that’s conjecture on his (Blix) part, well, that wasn’t the question you asked. Then you are attempting to build a strawman for Ravenman’s views that is both wrong AND has nothing to do with what you actually asked for.
You are confusing a minor side issue with the main subject of this thread. And you are denying the validit of a quote you specifically asked for when it was clearly given to you.
Is it your opinion in defending Bush’s unwise and fateful decision to kick the inspectors out and start a war was that he exhausted all peaceful means possible prior to resorting to war in March 2003?
It would be gentlemanly of you to concede Ravenman’s point that Blix had indeed remarked that Iraq had deliberately allowed the idea that they possessed WMDs to persist as a cheap and easy deterrent, rather than vaulting into another misreading of his posts.
No. You injected a very misleading claim that you must need because your views on the topic are overall very weakly supported by facts and history and reason.
The notion that Saddam was bluffing about having WMD to keep Iran at bay is probably true since SH reportedly told FBI agent Piro that shortly before he was hanged. But he was ckearly speaking about the time frame prior to the September 11, 2011 attacks on US soil.
Early in 2002 SH sent his foreign minister out to tell the world that he had no WMD and told the Brits directly that they could send in MI6 agents in to verify that claim.
In December 2002 SH sent Amir al Saadi to offer to let CIA, FBI and US military in to search alongside UN inspectors for WMD they thought that may be there.
No Bluffing by SH after 9/11.
Sorry you need to keep your facts straight.
The facts about Blix stand where they stand.
This goes back to the topic.
I deserve an answer to this question.
If you have an answer, please give it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW
Is it your opinion in defending Bush’s unwise and fateful decision to kick the inspectors out and start a war was that he exhausted all peaceful means possible prior to resorting to war in March 2003?
I’m not sure why you would say this. The people who believed in the invasion STILL believe in it, and would be willing to do it again if we ever made them able by electing them.* Like any religion, Neo-conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.
(* This is why the GOP must be denied the Presidency until they purge themselves of that ideology. One more general election loss oughta do it.)
Right, the fact is you challenged Ravenman for a quote and he provided it. He’d said nothing about the timeframe of the quote, just that Blix had said it.
I’m going to parse this as “Is it your opinion that Bush exhausted all peaceful means possible priot to resorting to war in March 2003?” because I’m not in the business of defending the decision Bush made.
In my opinion, no, he did not exhaust all peaceful means. Bush obviously disagreed, and he was the one with authorization from Congress to invade if he determined that all peaceful means had been exhausted.
It won’t happen again because the electorate won’t stand for a repeat of Iraq.
No. I am not defending Bush’s actions. He had no valid justification for the war. Congress also had insufficient justification to vote for war.
My opinion is that the law was a blank check for Bush to start the war as he pleased. Which is what happened, which is what Congress approved. Congress cocked the gun and Bush pulled the trigger; it’s factually inaccurate to absolve Congress of authorizing the war.
None at all? You’re saying that Saddam Hussein was thoroughly transparent and cooperative with inspectors beginning on September 12, 2001?
“The facts about Blix stand where they stand.” -Ntfldbw
“Right, the fact is you challenged Ravenman for a quote and he provided it. He’d said nothing about the timeframe of the quote, just that Blix had said it.” -Today, 02:09 PM Human+Action.
Do people here argue points using out of date and out of context and out of relevance just to make some kind of point?
I have acknowledged that SH told FBI agent Piro that he bluffed that he had WMD but after the attack on 9/11 he quit that game.
Are you suggesting that Bush didn’t know how to read a bluff - and then didn’t know that the bluff was ended in 2002?
Ravenman tried to tell me that Bush acted on Saddam Hussein’s bluff - making it sound as if Blix endorsed the idea that the bluff was going on in 2003 as well.
It was not.
So your Ravennan cited a quite that leads away from the facts.
That is dishonest and I called him on it.
If you aporeciate the truth about things we all must stick with facts and relevance wherever it is possible.
Don’t you agree?
Do you think Blix was surmising about 2003?
It really does matter about the timeframe when having the discussion I thought we were trying to have.
That’s the nature of a bluff, you can’t just call it off. Hussein’s actions contributed to the impression that Iraq was producing WMDs, and did influence the decision to invade. Further, the idea that Saddam instantly dropped his bluff is suspect. Here is the UN Weapons Inspectors Report, referring to the November 2002 UNMOVIC team:
It’s easy to apply information from Saddam’s 2004 debriefing retroactively, but using what was known at the time, it wasn’t unreasonable to think that Iraq had WMDs and was stalling to try and hide them. This was a mistaken belief, but a fairly reasonable one.
Sure.
Unclear, based on his remarks, but naturally the background of Iraq’s actions influenced the U.N. and U.S. attitudes and actions toward them. How could it be otherwise?
I wrote what I wrote - SH quit the “bluffing” that he had WMD to keep Iran at bay, during the months following the al Qaeda attack on the Pentagon, WTC and one other target on US soil.
As I wrote earlier, SH’s Foreign Minister offered the Brits to come on in and locate the WMD because SH was saying publically that he had none. That first offer came in the spring if 2002. Another public offer to let the CIA come in came in December 2002.
Would I call that showing a desire to cooperate? Certainly.
Had Hussein ordered all his underlings to slavishly obey the UNMOVIC team with no conditions, stalling, or anything short of perfect and immediate cooperation, it’s possible he could have prevented the invasion. Perhaps not, we can’t know for sure.
But, the combination of previously representing that he still had WMDs, and some intitial non-cooperation, is a potent combination if, like Bush and his team, you’re already predisposed to believe that Iraq was producing WMDs and in any case needed to be invaded for various other reasons.
Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein’s adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.
Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain.
“We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us,” he said.
Al-Saadi complained that Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw based their criticisms of Iraq’s weapons declaration on “old, rehashed reports” from what he called the previous “discredited” arms inspection program in the 1990s.
As the United Nations increases the number of weapons inspectors in Iraq, the United States will provide the experts with more detailed intelligence, American officials said.
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix urged the U.S. and Britain to hand over any additional evidence they have about Iraq’s secret weapons programs. The Bush administration has already been providing the inspectors with information about Iraqi weapons sites, officials said.
Bush agreed with the UNSC that Iraq should get s final opportunity to comply.
Blix reported no problems surrounding access to sites from day one of renewed inspections and by early Blix said he could call Iraq’s attitude on cooperation to be pro-active but it still would take a few months to resolve some old outstanding issues to declare Iraq in compliance.
So you’re accusing Blix of lying or being misinformed when he said in February 2003 that Iraq was cooperating on process but not on substance?
Again, for the reading impaired, I am not saying the war is justified. I’m saying people have a tendency to misremember, or even invent, their own history of events.
Hey not fooled by W, we are still waiting for to back up that claim. Hows about you put up?