AURaptor I have a question...

POSTED BY: RiveR6213
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:09
VIEWED: 19104
PAGE 2 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 3, 2009 4:59 PM

Nobody leaves anyone alone on this planet.

The laughing Chrisisall

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, April 3, 2009 5:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
As if you know there's a rest of the world outside your home state.

I know quite a lot actually. I recall from when I lived in Saarbrucken Germany how serious soccer is, and oddly, how they love Guns and Roses years after the US has forgotten them. Our classmates were tri-lingual (german, french, and english) wheras I struggled with my Deutsch.

I learned the value of a good haggle in Tel Aviv. While the world maligns the Israelis I saw naught but an honorable people working hard to preserve what they have built.

I learned the value of preserving history in the deep south of the US. I've seen little confederate flags fly over the graves of southern civil war soldiers aside american flags of southern soldiers from later wars, and it seemed very...right. Mal would agree with me.

I learned that no matter how nice the weather is in San Francisco, I don't want to go back.

I know that no matter how far I travel and where I go next, in the end I want Indiana soil over my grave.

Your problem C is that you are pumped full of euro bias. I doubt you've ever been stateside, yet you seek to paint us with some sort of broad euro-bias brush.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 3, 2009 6:11 PM

Quote:
Actually, I don't care either. If the rest of the world see us that way, then maybe they will leave us the F*** ALONE

Here's the funny thing Wulf: THEY DO LEAVE US ALONE!!!!!!

Since when have we been invaded by France or Venezuela or Saudi Arabia????

Our troops get killed but only when we're in THEIR country!! Maybe we should leave THEM alone!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, April 3, 2009 6:15 PM

Actually, I COMPLETELY AGREE.

We need to stop interfering with EVERY other country.

Period.

Except for Mexico. Them? We can just nuke for morbid.

(kidding!)

SIGNYM

Friday, April 3, 2009 6:47 PM

So anyways.... my conversation with rapo isn't going too well. I really don't intend for rapo to express his opinions just to have him encircled by hostiles. I'm truly curious as to how he feels, what he thinks, and why.

rapo- do you want to continue this off-line?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, April 3, 2009 7:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I really don't intend for rapo to express his opinions just to have him encircled by hostiles.

He's not entirely alone. I'll stand with the Spartan no matter how many Persians try to swarm.

But you are correct, you're not getting the conversation you want, you're initating a mob spectacle that you cannot control and can only watch.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, April 3, 2009 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
He's not entirely alone. I'll stand with the Spartan no matter how many Persians try to swarm.

And you'll be overrun and slaughtered just like him every time.

Quote:
But you are correct, you're not getting the conversation you want, you're initating a mob spectacle that you cannot control and can only watch.

So what else is new?

SIGNYM

Friday, April 3, 2009 8:09 PM

Quote:
you're initating a mob spectical that you cannot control and can only watch.

Which is why I suggested taking this off-line. Now, if RAPO wants to talk off-line, great.

OTOH if he doesn't want to, it implies that he himself is only willing to engage in mob spectacle, and not really up for an honest discussion.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, April 3, 2009 8:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

OTOH if he doesn't want to, it implies that he himself is only willing to engage in mob spectacle

Bingo!
He's nothing short of an internet masochist, craving the attention and hatred of the liberal legions over anything else.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 3, 2009 9:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
I know quite a lot actually. I recall from when I lived in Saarbrucken Germany how serious soccer is, and oddly, how they love Guns and Roses years after the US has forgotten them. Our classmates were tri-lingual (german, french, and english) wheras I struggled with my Deutsch.

I learned the value of a good haggle in Tel Aviv. While the world maligns the Israelis I saw naught but an honorable people working hard to preserve what they have built.

I learned the value of preserving history in the deep south of the US. I've seen little confederate flags fly over the graves of southern civil war soldiers aside american flags of southern soldiers from later wars, and it seemed very...right. Mal would agree with me.

I learned that no matter how nice the weather is in San Francisco, I don't want to go back.

I know that no matter how far I travel and where I go next, in the end I want Indiana soil over my grave.

Your problem BS, is that you are so pumped full of US bias. I doubt you've ever been to any of the places you claim to have been too, yet you claim to know how non-American's think better than non-Americans, while painting all foreigners (especially those that disagree with you) with some sort of broad "Insular-US-Bias" brush.

Quote:

Your problem C is that you are pumped full of euro bias. I doubt you've ever been stateside, yet you seek to paint us with some sort of broad euro-bias brush.

Whatever you have to believe to get you through the night BS.

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, April 3, 2009 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Your problem BS, is...

*yawn*

CITIZEN

Friday, April 3, 2009 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Your problem BS, is...

*yawn*

You can dish it out, but can't take it, I see. How, predictable.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 3, 2009 9:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

You can dish it out, but can't take it, I see. How, predictable.

C'mon Cit, let's overrun and slaughter these guys.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 3, 2009 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Hey, I just heard from the French, any time you have a war you can't win, they said they'd do all the fighting for you again.

Considering we weren't even a country yet, and England was the biggest, baddest Empire on the planet back then, I'd be embarrassed to even bring that up.

Just be glad we don't hold grudges.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 3, 2009 10:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Considering we weren't even a country yet, and England was the biggest, baddest Empire on the planet back then, I'd be embarrassed to even bring that up.

Just be glad we don't hold grudges.

You desperately need to brush up on your history.

Besides, considering how long ago the Second World War was, and that America ran it more like a business than helping it's allies, not to mention the Russians doing most of the fighting, I'd have thought you should be embarrassed bringing it up.

Perhaps you should stop holding grudges

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 3, 2009 10:45 PM

The purpose was clearly stated in Congresses in the Iraq War Resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_A
gainst_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002#Contents

Our reputation wasn't the REASON why we went to war, but it was certainly on the line.

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 3, 2009 10:46 PM

citizen, once again, you prove me right,and you wrong.

Attaboy!

SIGNYM

Friday, April 3, 2009 10:51 PM

Rapo, I'm not asking for Congress' resolution, what I want to know is how YOU see it.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 3, 2009 10:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen, once again, you prove me right,and you wrong.

Attaboy!

I think stealing my words and throwing them back at me, because you're not bright enough to come up with your own come back, proves something quite different to you being right. As usual you attempt to claim yourself the winner, when as usual you've proven yourself nothing but an ignorant fool.

You're consistent in that regard at least. Lets see if you're consistent enough to drag one of your sock puppets in to defend you...

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 3, 2009 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rapo, I'm not asking for Congress' resolution, what I want to know is how YOU see it.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

How I 'see it' ?? It is what it is. Did I fully agree or 'buy' the whole process ? I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I just wanna know precisely what it is you're asking.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 4, 2009 12:07 AM

The resolution had a dozen reasons (as I recall) why we might invade Iraq. It also urged GWB to use diplomacy and to use our troops- but only to ensure American security.

Like all good political documents, it said many things to many people- even if some of the points contradicted each other. It was a real multi-legged Christmas tree. I doubt that you were fully on-board with every single item. Perhaps you had reasons of your own which didn't appear in the resolution. So I would like to know what YOUR reasons were, even if "because the President said so" or more generically "for the good of the nation".
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 4, 2009 1:48 AM

Let me give you an idea where I'm going with this.

It's clear that you have a personal code. What I'm trying to figure out is what kind of code governs your political decisions. Is it the same or different than the one that informs your day-today life? If it's different, how is is different?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, April 4, 2009 2:43 AM

What gives? Is your ant farm broken or something?

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 4, 2009 9:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
How I 'see it' ?? It is what it is. Did I fully agree or 'buy' the whole process ? I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I just wanna know precisely what it is you're asking.

He's asking for your opinion. Something you've formed yourself, rather than taken fully formed from some radio host. Get it?

KWICKO

Saturday, April 4, 2009 12:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
What gives? Is your ant farm broken or something?

And yet, here you sit, fascinated and watching...

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 4, 2009 12:54 PM

BDN... are you comparing your ally to an ant colony, only less interesting???

Hmmm... that's not nice!

Anyway rapo, it shouldn't be THAT hard to come up with an opinion - or at least a reaction.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 4, 2009 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Anyway rapo, it shouldn't be THAT hard to come up with an opinion - or at least a reaction.

*post edited*

Oh, you want me to say something like I think it was wrong, that Bush royally screwed up, or something, and we'd better off had we not gone into Iraq in the 1st place.

I can't say that, not because I think Bush was 100% right ( I think he did F up the post war period, and misunderestimated the threat from insurgency ), because hindsight is 20/20. For 10 yrs, and a previous administration, we were told that Saddam had this and that an might give terrorist WMD. Of course there was some who disagreed, just as some said Hitler would stop after he took Poland. That's the tough part, in trying to figure out who to believe, and dealing w/ the possible consequences of your action/inaction.

We knew what 10 yrs of sanctions did to Saddam - nothing. So long after the fact, I just don't know what the point of asking me what my OPINION is about events in the past. Why not ask me what I think on dropping the A-Bomb on Japan while you're at it ?

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 4, 2009 1:56 PM

Umm... well, clarify for me. You cited the Congressional resolution. It can- and has been- interpreted in contradictory ways depending on which parts are given greater weight, since it says more than one thing.

So, what do YOU think of it? Do you agree with every point? If not, which points do you agree with, which do you disagree with, and why?

Or does it even MATTER to you whether you do or not? Would you support it anyway, whether or not you agreed with its rationale, because its headed in the "right direction" which you have defined for reasons of your own?

Or would you support it anyway, even if you felt it was heading in the "wrong direction", because you trust the people who proposed it?

Clearly, you supported the invasion of Iraq. Why?
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 4, 2009 2:04 PM

I see we cross-posted.

No, I don't want you to say that you think Bush effed up.

Quote:
For 10 yrs, and a previous administration, we were told that Saddam had this and that an might give terrorist WMD. Of course there was some who disagreed, just as some said Hitler would stop after he took Poland. That's the tough part, in trying to figure out who to believe, and dealing w/ the possible consequences of your action/inaction. We knew what 10 yrs of sanctions did to Saddam - nothing. So long after the fact, I just don't know what the point of asking me what my OPINION is about events in the past. Why not ask me what I think on dropping the A-Bomb on Japan while you're at it ?

Okay, so basically you trusted that the Bush and Clinton administrations had the correct facts and gave them to you correctly, and also had the best answer for the time and gave that to you correctly also. Right?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 4, 2009 2:04 PM

Answered above, w/ post edit.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 4, 2009 2:14 PM

You said: We knew that...

I even highlighted it.

Umm. I "knew" no such thing. But you felt you did. What did you base your knowledge on?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 4, 2009 2:36 PM

What would come out as the Food for Oil ( Or Oil for Food) scam, something on which the press here in the U.S. has done amazing back flips and contortions to avoid doing any substantial reporting. Iraq was divided up into 3 zones, remember that ? No fly zones, in the north and south? We had the U.N. all up in Sadddam's ... back side, and he still was playing games w/ us, fighting us on every site which needed to be inspected, the dude simply wasn't cooperating. He'd give the appearance of playing along, but then would take 2 steps back for every 1 he took forward. Kofi Annan did more than simply look the other way, his own son profited from this ginormous scam. ( That whole ugly affair probably deserves its own thread )

So, we KNEW the sanctions were having no real effect on Saddam. He was actually making out like a bandit. The people of Iraq were the ones who suffered.( And naturally, who do you think the world protesters were blaming for THAT situation as well ? You got it, the good ol US of A. ) Not because of the sanctions, but because of the crooked, under table dealings being made w/ Saddam and much of Western Europe, circumnavigating the U.N. mandates.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 4, 2009 2:59 PM

Well, as it turns out, Saddam had actually destroyed his WMD. What he refused to do was ADMIT to having destroyed them, apparently out of fear that if Iran thought they could attack Iraq with impunity they would.

Saddam's lack of cooperation in accounting for his WMD was infamous. The UN's lack of spine was also rather infamous. So in broad brush, I could see a lot of reasons to be concerned about Iraq and WMD.

But there were several countervailing pieces of information which might have shed more light on the situation

1) Most of the evidence presented by Bush (aluminum tubes, attempted yellowcake purchases etc) were discounted by technocrats of various sorts. Were you aware of their technical assessments? If so, how did you account for them?

2) The UN had a highly motivated team- UNMOVIC, under Hans Blix- which was determined to get to the truth no matter what. Were you aware of their existence, their mission, and aggressive procedures? If yes, how did you account for it?

3) Whether Saddam had WMD or not, their impact ON US would would depend on third parties since Iraq had neither long-range delivery system nor did it have a history of wanting to attack the US directly in a terrorist fashion. So any WMD would have to come to us through a separate terrorist group: al Qaida, perhaps. But the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida was previously determined to be pretty weak, and based on testimony from a source known by the CIA and NSA to be unreliable (Curveball). Did you know this? If so, how did you account for it?

4) How did you account for the absolute urgency of invading Iraq? From the time that the issue was first mentioned to the point of invasion, the urgency seemed to ramp up... even while Iraq was under inspections. What do you suppose was happening which would cause what appeared to be a static situation to become so urgent?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 4, 2009 3:11 PM

Rapo, I truly appreciate your replies. I'm gonna have to get to real life now but I hope to continue this discussion later. PLEASE let me know if I'm coming across as disrespectful or confrontational. Such is not my intention as I wish you all the best.

Cheers.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 4, 2009 3:13 PM

Different opinions, as I said before, don't mean that much when you're dealing w/ such issues as WMD. If a tube or some other type of manufactured element has more than 1 use, you have to take into consideration the history of Saddam and what he's more LIKELY to make use of, if given the chance.

al Qaeda is only 1 terrorist group, and it's been shown that unlikely partners, when faced w/ a common enemy , can run joint operations, if only for a limited time. And Iraq was known to have friendly ties w/ other terrorist, so this claim that al Qaeda and Iraq weren't linked that tightly is of little use to me. This is from the same intel that told us that he HAD WMD, and we're suppose to believe them in other areas, with even LESS credible / reliable evidence ? Sorry, when I see Gov't buildings in Iraq w/ murals praising the WTC attack, I'll side w/ caution over pretty much everything else. Thanks anyways.

Quote:
Rapo, I truly appreciate your replies. I'm gonna have to get to real life now but I hope to continue this discussion later. PLEASE let me know if I'm coming across as disrespectful or confrontational. Such is not my intention as I wish you all the best.

No, you're doing a solid job, and I also appreciate it. Any snarky sounding remarks I may be tossing in w/ my replies are purely meant in the general sense, and not directed towards you. Just so we're clear. Ditto on all the best, as real world beckons here as well.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 4, 2009 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Ditto

*UGHHHHHH*

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 4, 2009 4:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

4) How did you account for the absolute urgency of invading Iraq?

Saddam was belligerent & NEEDED TO BE TAUGHT A LESSON (with the blood of our troops). It's that simple.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 4, 2009 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Ditto
*UGHHHHHH*

The laughing Chrisisall

I swear, I didn't do it intentionally, or w/ any malice afore thought, but once it was typed, I knew it was gonna irk someone. Glad it was you that I irked.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 4, 2009 11:24 PM

URA biped.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 5, 2009 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
URA biped.

The laughing Chrisisall

Takes one to know one.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, April 5, 2009 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Takes one to know one.

I'm rbr yr glu...

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 5, 2009 4:56 PM

Quote:
If a tube or some other type of manufactured element has more than 1 use

I guess this is where being a techie has some advantage. Along the same lines as "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear"... you can't make uranium centrifuge tubes out of just any old aluminum tubes. Centrifuge tubes need to have a high tensile strength, if you take an aluminum destined for some other purpose and TRY to use if for fuel enrichment it'll fall apart. I can't remember which agency looked at those tubes (prolly the DOE since they have a lot of experience with uranium enrichment, but may have been the NRC) but the technical evaluation of those tubes was that they were categorically unsuited for uranium enrichment. And when I heard that the supposed document between Saddam and Niger bore signatures of people no longer in the Niger government, with misspelled names... I said, the hell with it, CLEARLY someone is just pumping up specious information to make it look like something that it isn't!

It didn't help that Saddam was in "delay, deny, and obfuscate" mode, that every concession was wrung from him with more bombing (or the threat of more bombing), and that his regime made ambiguous purchases- such as buying way more agar medium than Iraq's hospitals and research facilities could account for. So I get that Saddam himself wasn't coming clean in a transparent way, that his participation in the certification of his nation (as meeting UN mandates) was being squeezed from him, which really didn't create trust. (Hmmm... kinda like the way the banks are eying each other now. But I digress!

) OTOH, what Saddam did or didn't do in no way took away from the "ground truth" being established by UNMOVIC. In my book, you keep your eye on THE question: Does Saddam have current, useful WMD? And try not to get sidetracked by the motives of EITHER government. It's back to the silk-purse/ sow's-ear : no amount of "opinion" or wishful thinking or supposition or fear is going to change one thing into another.

But you didn't answer my other question, which I think is important: Given that Iraq was in the process of undergoing a digital rectal exam, WHY did invasion become so terribly urgent???? I just couldn't square the idea of a robust WMD production program... one able to produce WMD in meaningful amounts... with the concept of it being invisible to satellite (including chemical) detection, ground inspection, and inventory accounting. When Rumsfeld went off the deep end and claimed that he knew that WMD had been deployed east, west, norht south somewhat of Baghdad... Man, I just rolled my eyes. It seemed to me that the closer and closer Blix got to the end of the inspection and still finding nothing the more and more frantic the Bush administration became about invading, and the more outlandish their claims became. It went WELL past the original complaint (Saddam didn't account for his WMD of 1990) and way into.... He's making them NOW! He's gonna bomb us! He's deployed his WMD!

THAT didn't square at all with "ground truth". Not basing my viewpoint on "trust"... not trusting Saddam or Blix or Bush.... just parsing out the possible from the incredible.

I guess I just keep bumping into a couple of your ways of processing information which seems to give me heartburn. One is your view of all information as "opinion". Reality is not a matter of "opinion": it is as it is. My intellectual challenge, as I see it, is to see as closely as I can what REALLY IS. To match my mental model- my opinion- to reality. It has meant giving up a whole boatload of shoulds and shouldnts, fair and unfair. People sometimes behave in ways I can't stomach, but if I block that out of my mental model I will be unable to predict what they'll do next. The other related issue is the way you ignore countervailing information. If you're looking to see the world only in a way which bolsters your opinion, that's exactly what you'll do. But if you're looking at the world simply to SEE IT AS IT IS you'll have to come to terms

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 5, 2009 5:09 PM

Anyway, reality calls. Looking forward to yr reply.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, April 5, 2009 7:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
this claim that al Qaeda and Iraq weren't linked that tightly is of little use to me

The laughing Chrisisall

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 6, 2009 8:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Considering we weren't even a country yet, and England was the biggest, baddest Empire on the planet back then, I'd be embarrassed to even bring that up.

Just be glad we don't hold grudges.

You desperately need to brush up on your history.

Besides, considering how long ago the Second World War was, and that America ran it more like a business than helping it's allies, not to mention the Russians doing most of the fighting, I'd have thought you should be embarrassed bringing it up.

Perhaps you should stop holding grudges

Yes, it is true that the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS treated WWII like a business, or a political play. That is all FDR's despicable fault. Since this is the party and politics AuRap usually opposes and ridicules, surprising you would bring that up. Having FDR refusing to assist Yurp, and sacrifice the lives of servicemen at Pearl Harbor just to play politics is certainly henious.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 6, 2009 9:36 AM

Quote:
It didn't help that Saddam was in "delay, deny, and obfuscate" mode,

As I stated earlier, it was a history of 10 yrs or more in which Saddam was playing this shell game, and I think the Bush administration wanted to send a message, " No more yankee our wankee " Also, pure speculation here, as I don't recall reading this specific point, but it's likely the administration knew the U.N. was wholly corrupt, via the Food for Oil scam, but didn't want to come out and say so, for it needed the credibility of that same U.N. to back up the 10+ yrs of resolutions against Iraq.

As far as the wild claims dept., I'd have to say it was bad intel. Remember the story of the mystery cargo ships, which were reported sailing around somewhere out in the ocean, allegedly having questionable cargo manifest, and were suspected to be carrying the bulk of Saddam's WMD material ?

Quote:
The UK Independent reports American and British military and intelligence services are tracking the movement of 3 cargo ships that have been cruising around the Indian Ocean which may be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

No ships were ever even FOUND,that I ever heard about, and it seems never existed. But there the story was, being repeated on all major networks. I never heard of an explanation, or where this story came from, and how it became so widely reported / accepted when there was nothing to it. Stuff like that really annoy me, because as the media is so breathless in throwing out such nuggets of information, we never back track the story to its source and ask the serious questions.... how does crap like this make it to the evening news ?

Overall, the attitude of the administration and many Americans were that, we're sick of dealing w/ Saddam, and we want him to come clean or we're gonna use force to do it.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 6, 2009 9:48 AM

Chris

Your 'screw ball' pic is too large and serves no function. Kinda like you head.

Seriously, I expect better from you.

CITIZEN

Monday, April 6, 2009 11:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Yes, it is true that the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS treated WWII like a business, or a political play. That is all FDR's despicable fault. Since this is the party and politics AuRap usually opposes and ridicules, surprising you would bring that up. Having FDR refusing to assist Yurp, and sacrifice the lives of servicemen at Pearl Harbor just to play politics is certainly henious.

Sounds like the politics you're supporting all the time RapSock. Or do you prefer DobsonAllianceFan? Both are true.

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Monday, April 6, 2009 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

You can dish it out, but can't take it, I see. How, predictable.

Um, actually if you look at the time stamp on that post it is 11:03 or rather 5:03pm eastern time. In other words, it was time to go home and play with my baby daughter. This stands opposed to you, sitting in another timezone staring at your computer screen in a frothy rage into the wee hours of the morning.

Well I'm back to the computer now if you want to continue losing debates with me. I left Friday on a rather high note in fact, after you repeated my own arguement back at me, unable to think of something substantial to type. I just finished reading down the thread and observed you accusing rap of the same thing later. Projecting your own traits on others perhaps?

JSF, glad to see you in the thread.

CITIZEN

Monday, April 6, 2009 12:59 PM

Heh, whatever we've never even had a debate. Maybe if you ever had a debate with anyone, rather than making insubstantial troll posts in every thread, instead of an on topic or worthwhile post, you'd realise that. Until then though, I guess you can continue to troll and make yourself look stupid, supporting far right authoritarians, erroneously claiming to be a libertarian and blaming other people for your actions. Not that that isn't par for the course of a RapSock...

Whatever makes you feel self important TrollCompanyMan

" Lets see if you're consistent enough to drag one of your sock puppets in to defend you..."
Guess so...

SIGNYM

Monday, April 6, 2009 2:35 PM

Rapo, you seem to give a great deal of credibility to rumor (Ships reported to be circling the Indian Ocean) and none at all to known facts!

Why is that???? (Yes, that's a real question).

ALSO.... you didn't answer my previous questions: WHile Saddam was in the middle of the equivalent of a digital rectal exam, what made the the invasion so suddenly urgent?

The UNMOVIC team included BOTH Scott Ritter and David Kay (Bush's choice for post-war inspection) as well as CIA plants. It performed intrusive searches of Saddam's palaces, industrial sites, military sites, universities and hospitals, storage and transportation facilities, previous WMD manufacturing sites etc. The search was directed by CIA intel, satellite detection (For example, if they saw three large trucks at a "chicken processing factory" which has never had three large trucks there before, they'd check it out.) previous inspection, and inventory data.

The teams wouldn't talk about their inspection targets, assuming their hotel rooms were bugged, but pass the target location to each of their four separate teams on a piece of paper literally while standing by their vehicles that morning. Then each team would drive in a random fashion and arrive at the target only at the last minute.

They went on the assumption that they'd have only FIVE MINUTES to inspect before the facility was "sanitized", so they'd kick in the door and their (roughly) 30 people- missile experts, computer experts, bioweapons experts, chemical weapons experts, nuclear experts and security forces would fan out all at once through the entire facility, sampling for isotopes, special alloys (nuclear materials handling), chemical weapons and their precursors (using hand-held detectors) and grabbing computers, drawings, and samples as they went.

All in all, the UNMOVIC teams conducted roughly 1000 inspections (ten per day, every day) in the four months they were allowed to operate. Click on the "opportunity lost" link of this article for an in-depth description of what UNMOVIC did in Iraq.
www.vertic.org/onlinedatabase/unmovic/dsp_unmovicBackground.cfm

Again, so the questions don't get lost in the shuffle:

What made the invasion so suddenly urgent? Iraq as being intrusively probed at the time. So- what made the invasion such a top priority?

How do you explain the Administration's somewhat wilder claims about WMD being deployed?

Why did you give greater credibility to certain types of rumors (not even in the Bush administration's list of allegations) while ignoring countervailing technical information (inspection results, DOE/ NRC technical evaluation of aluminum tubes etc.)?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

KPO

Monday, April 6, 2009 2:49 PM

Quote:
...and sacrifice the lives of servicemen at Pearl Harbor just to play politics is certainly henious.

Have you picked up an outlandish partisan view on history here? I've heard historians dismiss this idea.

Heads should roll

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 6, 2009 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
it was a history of 10 yrs or more in which Saddam was playing this shell game, and I think the Bush administration wanted to send a message, " No more yankee our wankee "

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 6, 2009 4:00 PM

First of all, I only briefly 'bought into ' the missing cargo ships story. After a while, I found it peculiar that we never saw these ships, they weren't boarded, and NOTHING was revealed about the validity of the story. It just simply went away.

How does a reporter go to his editor and say " Chief, I got this great story!" , and then there was zero follow up - that I ever saw or heard about - by the national or even international media. That particular event still annoys the hell out of me.

Also, I did answer your question. This President was no longer willing to play the shell game. It had become tiresome. And yes, while the WTC attacks altered our consciousness on the state of the world, going to Iraq wasn't a response BECAUSE of al Qaeda and Saddam were working hand in hand. They weren't. It was valid to raise that question, but it's more important to understand that the previous issues w/ Iraq were the primary reason for military force, not for any retribution directly connected to 9/11/01. We waited a full year after Afghanistan to rev up action in Iraq.

You're missing the point w/ the U.N. inspections. And this is VITAL.

It wasn't the responsibility of UNSCOM to go on a wild goose chase and play 'gotchya!' w/ Iraqi inspection sites, the burden of responsibility was upon IRAQ to show us what they had. And they had admitted that they had some items. Hell, we KNEW they did because we SOLD them the stuff! Along w/ France and Germany. But then the list of what Iraq claimed it had came back, and it simply didn't match up w/ what we KNEW they had.

And when an item came up missing, we asked them to verify what they did with it, if it was destroyed,or what, and in many instances, they simply had nothing to show. They said 'trust us', and nothing more. Sorry, that wasn't gonna cut it. Not after 9/11, not with crazy, blood thirsty groups, like al Qaeda, out there who were well financed, dedicated and committed to causing all manner of chaos and destruction.

Remember, we'd had a decade of terrorist attacks, around the world... USS Cole,2 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, just for starters. So, there's that to ponder a bit, and recall as to what the hell we were thinking in going into Iraq. Folks tend to forget that sort of stuff.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 6, 2009 4:08 PM

Chris,

thank you, robot.

SIGNYM

Monday, April 6, 2009 10:13 PM

Quote:
Also, I did answer your question. This President was no longer willing to play the shell game. It had become tiresome.

So... the President gets "tired" of Saddam's attitude, even though it appeared more and more likely than Saddam DID destroy his WMD and DIDN'T have ongoing production programs? He commits troops and money and kills thousands of civilians, in the face of WMD NOT being in Iraq, just because the process was "tiresome"?????

Don't you find that reasoning just a bit... peculiar????

When balancing risks and benefits. SURELY "tiresome" wasn't on the list???

Quote:
It wasn't the responsibility of UNSCOM to go on a wild goose chase and play 'gotchya!' w/ Iraqi inspection sites, the burden of responsibility was upon IRAQ to show us what they had. And they had admitted that they had some items. Hell, we KNEW they did because we SOLD them the stuff! Along w/ France and Germany. But then the list of what Iraq claimed it had came back, and it simply didn't match up w/ what we KNEW they had.

Yes, I agree. It was up to Saddam to prove that he was clean, not the UN.

But the question that should have concerned Bush was not whether Saddam was a tyrant or a bad man (he was) but whether or not he posed a threat to US security. And the answer to THAT question was looking more and more like: NO. So WHY NOT let UNMOVIC (It was UNMOVIC, not UNSCOM, in 2002) finish its inspections?

Aside from GWB being tired" of the process, that is.

And, how do YOU account for the Administrations increasingly wild claims about WMD being deployed and so forth? The answer is: You haven't and you prolly can't.

Quote:
Remember, we'd had a decade of terrorist attacks, around the world... USS Cole,2 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, just for starters. So, there's that to ponder a bit, and recall as to what the hell we were thinking in going into Iraq. Folks tend to forget that sort of stuff.

I haven't forgotten. But invading Iraq because somebody else attacked makes no sense. It's akin to a 2-year old's temper tantrum, or a bunch of six-year olds telling scare stories.

If those are the bases in which GWB decided to go to war (because Saddam was "tiresome" even tho he was in compliance, and because of general unfocused paranoia) then... my god, GWB was a disaster just waiting to happen. I really expect better judgment from my Presidents. And since I don't think Cheney was THAT stupid, there prolly were other reasons to invade, besides Saddam being a toothless dick.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 6, 2009 10:38 PM

Sig

You have to realize, when I say Bush was 'tired' of Saddam's game, I'm not LITERALLY saying it was only Bush, and that he was some how personally annoyed, and THAT's why went to war. Those are MY words for describing the overall attitude of the Administration and those in the U.S. Gov't saw Iraq, and how our patience had come to an end.

Attacking Iraq does makes absolute sense if you see it as a threat, or likely to facilitate potential threats. It's what Bush and the administration had in the way of intel, and that's what they had to go on. This attitude toward Iraq pre-dates Bush from even BEING in the White House, so don't try to lay it completely on him alone. Sure, he chose to use force, but not until after the U.N. sanctions, the 15-0 Security Council vote, and Congress approved. This was far from Bush waking up in a bad mood one day and deciding -" I hate Saddam.... we should just go and kick his ass! "

I'm getting the feeling that we're simply going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. I don't know what else needs to be said, informative as it was to exchange views.

Still not satisfied ? Then might I direct you to an article by Christopher Hithchens, no right wing zealot , to be sure.

Quote:
DOES THE PRESIDENT deserve the benefit of the reserve of fortitude that I just mentioned? Only just, if at all. We need not argue about the failures and the mistakes and even the crimes, because these in some ways argue themselves. But a positive accounting could be offered without braggartry, and would include:

(1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of many highly suggestive links between the two elements of this Hitler-Stalin pact. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before the coalition intervention, has even gone to the trouble of naming his organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

(2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.

(3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

(4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite.

(5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment, respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism. (One had already suspected as much in the Iraqi case.)

(6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat.

(7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.

(8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy.

(9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of greatly enlarging this number.

(10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.

It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a presentation. It would also be welcome if he and his deputies adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other words, stated plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.

The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the obvious. Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this conc

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

RUE

Monday, April 6, 2009 10:47 PM

"It's what Bush and the administration had in the way of intel, and that's what they had to go on."

Then surely the best and most recent intel - the lack of WMDs as noted by UNMOVIC - should have factored most heavily. One would think it would have given the administration - pause - at least - enough to let UNMOVIC finish the job.

Can you speculate a bit ? What IF UNMOVIC had been allowed to finish to job ? And then had found no WMDs ?

Would you have supported the decision to attack Iraq at that point ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 6, 2009 11:00 PM

Rue

What part of " It's a slam dunk " do you NOT get ? Seriously, and remember that Tenet wasn't Bush's man. He was a Clinton hold over.

Iraq wasn't cooperating. The UN, clearly shown to be corrupt to its very core , could have played "where are the WMD ?" for a thousand yrs, and still not found anything, not because they weren't there, but because Saddam WAS NOT BEING HONEST !! He hadn't been honest for 10+ yrs, and it had paid off for him, personally. That's what so many here are overlooking ( intentionally or not ) is that Saddam simply wasn't going to give up what he was obligated to give up. Either the WMD we KNEW he had, or some means of verifying that they really were destroyed, and weren't buried in the sand, or shipped over the border into Syria.

RUE

Monday, April 6, 2009 11:14 PM

"slam dunk" ...

And yet, I have to get back to UNMOVIC. They weren't finding any WMD production sites or WMDs that could possibly have threatened the US. Why go with an opinion based on 10-year old information when you have fresh real data coming in ?

"The UN, clearly shown to be corrupt to its very core , could have played "where are the WMD ?" for a thousand yrs, and still not found anything ..."

But what UNMOVIC could have determined definitively was if there were any production plants. If there was no production, there could have been no WMDs - anywhere. Not in Iraq, in Syria, not buried in the sand.

"Saddam simply wasn't going to give up what he was obligated to give up."

But, then, he most definitively had. So how do you explain that ?

So, to get back to my question - if UNMOVIC had been allowed to finish and NOT found any production sites or WMDs, would you still have supported an attack on Iraq ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 6, 2009 11:43 PM

rue, you're simply going to play contrarian to everything I say. Saddam wasn't going to give up what he had, and he most certainly did NOT. We KNEW he hadn't, so there's no point in arguing it any further.

It all comes down to this - are you willing to bet the security of the U.S. and countless others when it comes to conflicting intel and a tyrant who has shown he'll use WMD on civilians ? Bush weighed the options, as did the U.S. Congress, & made their choice. I happen to agree w/ him, and even those who aren't Bush supporters do the same.

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 6, 2009 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Saddam wasn't going to give up what he had, and he most certainly did NOT. We KNEW he hadn't, so there's no point in arguing it any further.

It all comes down to this - are you willing to bet the security of the U.S. and countless others when it comes to conflicting intel and a tyrant who has shown he'll use WMD on civilians ?

The laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 12:00 AM

Not being contrarian - but every claim made by Bush or those in his administration: aluminum tubes, yellowcake, WMDs buried in the sand, deployed around Baghdad, the Colin Powell presentation, etc - was known at the time to not be true by a substantial number of people.

Further, the UNMOVIC inspections were showing that there was no WMDs threatening the US.

So this: "Saddam wasn't going to give up what he had, and he most certainly did NOT. We KNEW he hadn't, so there's no point in arguing it any further" is a badly flawed opinion. Many people actually knew otherwise - and knew correctly, as it turns out.

So, to get back to the question - if UNMOVIC had been allowed to finish the job and had showed no production facilities and no WMDs - would you have supported the attack ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 12:09 AM

every claim by Bush was NOT known at the time to not be true. The yellowcake absolutely was accurate, for starters. We don't know what's buried in the sand, so claiming that there is none there is a presumptive act to the hilt.

Yes, I'd have supported the attack anyways, because the UN was rotten to the core, and Saddam was a , as Christopher Hitchens aptly describes as a " psychopathic autocrat."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 5:56 AM

Quote:
Attacking Iraq does makes absolute sense if you see it as a threat, or likely to facilitate potential threats.

Somewhere between "seeing" Iraq as a threat and it actually being a threat is a chasm of missing and contradictory data.

Quote:
It's what Bush and the administration had in the way of intel, and that's what they had to go on.

Hell, rapo, even I knew there was different data! Bush's problem was that he ignored the data.

Quote:
This attitude toward Iraq pre-dates Bush from even BEING in the White House

But UNMOVIC was a new factor, one that Clinton would have taken seriously. And don't forget- Clinton DIDN'T invade Iraq, and prolly wouldn't have given that the situation was de-escalating, not the other way around.

Quote:
so don't try to lay it completely on him alone. Sure, he chose to use force, but not until after the U.N. sanctions, the 15-0 Security Council vote

Which chose to give Iraq one final chance.

Quote:
and Congress approved.

I read the resolution. It's nto as clear-cut as you think

Quote:
This was far from Bush waking up in a bad mood one day and deciding -" I hate Saddam.... we should just go and kick his ass! "

I never said he did. In fact, I said that it doesn't seem right that would be the only reason, or even A reason to invade so I expect there were OTHER, weightier reasons behind "Saddam's been dragging his feet, but about to be cleared."

BTW- Did you explain the administration's more hysterical claims about WMD?

How did you rationalize away the UNMOVIC findings.

And why was invasion so URGENT? WHY couldn't Bush have waited another month or two???
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 10:05 AM

Time for a quickie, will add more later on -

Bush weighed the options of what he had before him, and sided w/ the intel which ( yes, here we go again ) EVERYONE knew even before he was in office. You don't know what was known by our intel, so you can't say " even you " knew the weight and amount of such data. Hell, there's almost ALWAYS 'different data'. There was different data on what Hitler was doing to the Jews, but most of it pointed to it being not good. Same here.

Hell, the invasion wasn't " urgent " . It was 10 yrs in the making, and a full year after we went into Afghanistan. Saddam was given chance after chance after chance for a decade to come clean, he never did. Spare me this ' urgent' nonsense. It simply isn't the case. Not by a long shot.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:41 AM

So it wasn't urgent because he wasn't an "imminent threat"? And if he wasn't and imminent threat, why invade?

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure", by Lightning Seeds

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:46 AM

Quote:
Saddam wasn't going to give up what he had, and he most certainly did NOT. We KNEW he hadn't, so there's no point in arguing it any further.

If you're speaking of Saddam's alleged WMD, that's a faulty argument from the start. You claim that Saddam wasn't going to give up what he had, but it would be more accurate to say that he COULDN'T give up what he DIDN'T HAVE, because he'd already given it up.

And once again, what "We [your word, not mine] KNEW" was dead wrong. So when everything you "KNOW" has been demonstrably wrong so many times, you really need to reexamine your "knowledge" and your learning processes.

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure", by Lightning Seeds

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 12:32 PM

Saddam and his sons were actually thoughtful fellows. After they would kidnap and rape their young schoolgirl of the day, they would always place a thank-you card to the parents inside the box they'd leave on the front doorstep, containing the young lady's severed head. Only tender and caring men would leave a note. Who would want to kill such teddy-bears as these? Another example of their generous kindness were the mutiple mass graves we uncovered. Row after row, pit after pit, thousands upon thousands of dead civilians, women & children, all buried in perfect geometric balance to the surrounding environment. The Heusseins were quite Green, to the surprise of many. Again, why kill people who were just trying to heal the Earth. And of course, every town had their own police station, where their local pride shown brightly in the form of torture rooms and rape rooms. Nothing wrong here folks. Certainly nothing that anyone who values human life would even care a scintilla about, for sure. Saddam's payments for decades to Palestinian suicide bombers...just a myth dontcha know. Sum it all up, big mistake to take out Saddam. All the goodness he created, and the wonderful society of millions of people he molded, will now forever be a vanished mystery for the ages. Maybe PBS can do another Nova episode where they go back and revisit the ancient land of the fertile crescent, trying to recapture the joy and fun times of the lost Huessein era.

RIPWASH

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 12:32 PM

I always saw the Iraq situation as a belligerant man-child wanting too much power (Saddam) and a supposed governing authority (the *cough* UN) that was WAY too lenient on him. For years Saddam was pushing the limits of what he was being allowed to do. Each resolution against him was nothing more than a hand slap and a stern look. He was given multiple chances to let weapons inspectors in. Which he did, but if they started looking a little too hard, he'd kick them out. Then the UN would sanction another hand slapping. Before the US went in, as Rap said, he was given even more chances to prove he didn't have them anymore. He was supposed to document how each and every potential WMD was dismanted. He submitted a HUGE report. A report that was missing the documentation of several thousand missiles. When asked about that he said he didn't know ("I don't recall" more or less) what happened to them. For YEARS, the UN basically let him get away with horrible acts. The WMDs against his own people being one of them. Saddam liked the position he was in because he was being allowed to do despicable things and he kept pushing the limits of what he could do because he knew he would only get another hand slapping if he got caught.

I'm a big "What if" kinda guy. What if we didn't go in? What if he DID actually have WMD's that he was skillfully hiding or that he spirited away? What if he decided to push his imposed limits again? What if he DID have a relation ship with certain terrorist groups and was more than willing to help them (like the ABC report from 1999 said, yet contrary to the House committee's report on the subject - which should be enough to raise even more eyebrows)? We will never know. All we have to go by is a hindsight is 20/20 kind of thing.

My main question, however, is if supposedly so many people knew that what Bush was doing was wrong and that the information he was presenting the American people was erroneous . . . why didn't they stand up and scream? Where were they at the time? I don't recall hearing from any of them. And I'll admit fully to being partially ignorant if that's the case, but you would think these people would have been interviewed on the news if they made a big enough stink about it.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 1:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I always saw the Iraq situation as a belligerant man-child wanting too much power (Saddam) and a supposed governing authority (the *cough* UN) that was WAY too lenient on him. For years Saddam was pushing the limits of what he was being allowed to do. Each resolution against him was nothing more than a hand slap and a stern look. He was given multiple chances to let weapons inspectors in. Which he did, but if they started looking a little too hard, he'd kick them out. Then the UN would sanction another hand slapping. Before the US went in, as Rap said, he was given even more chances to prove he didn't have them anymore. He was supposed to document how each and every potential WMD was dismanted. He submitted a HUGE report. A report that was missing the documentation of several thousand missiles. When asked about that he said he didn't know ("I don't recall" more or less) what happened to them. For YEARS, the UN basically let him get away with horrible acts. The WMDs against his own people being one of them. Saddam liked the position he was in because he was being allowed to do despicable things and he kept pushing the limits of what he could do because he knew he would only get another hand slapping if he got caught.

I'm a big "What if" kinda guy. What if we didn't go in? What if he DID actually have WMD's that he was skillfully hiding or that he spirited away? What if he decided to push his imposed limits again? What if he DID have a relation ship with certain terrorist groups and was more than willing to help them (like the ABC report from 1999 said, yet contrary to the House committee's report on the subject - which should be enough to raise even more eyebrows)? We will never know. All we have to go by is a hindsight is 20/20 kind of thing.

My main question, however, is if supposedly so many people knew that what Bush was doing was wrong and that the information he was presenting the American people was erroneous . . . why didn't they stand up and scream? Where were they at the time? I don't recall hearing from any of them. And I'll admit fully to being partially ignorant if that's the case, but you would think these people would have been interviewed on the news if they made a big enough stink about it.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

2 explanations to your last question.

1. George Bush, cheerleader from Yale, was just too darn smart and clever in his multiple deceptions of the situation, and all the Dems were just bedazzled and overwhelmed by his powerful brilliance and determination.

2. The Dems, once again, looked at poll numbers, ignoring their own beliefs, and voted to give Bush the power he wanted, for political expediency.

So who's actions were worse? Looking back, my memory tells me that Susan Sarandon was the first person in America to stand up and say no to invading Iraq. She did that nice Ben & Jerry paid-for commercial criticizing Bush and the pending invasion back in 2003. I've learned to take my political lead from people who rub lemons on their bare breasts. Hope you've learned something over the years too.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 1:43 PM

Saddam needed a spanking, it's just my opinion that Special Ops could have done it quicker & cheaper than how we did it.
Stability shamility, no such thing in that region unless we make it the 52nd state.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 1:56 PM

Quote:
Saddam was given chance after chance after chance for a decade to come clean, he never did. Spare me this ' urgent' nonsense. It simply isn't the case. Not by a long shot.

Are you saying is WASN'T urgent? Because BUSH said it was! And so did the rest of his administration! They said:

"imminent threat"
"mortal threat"
"urgent threat"
"immediate threat"
"serious and mounting threat"
"unique threat"
Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction"

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." (Bush)

"This is about imminent threat. (9McClellan)

Iraq "threatens the United States of America." (cheney)

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (Rumsfeld)

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction." (RUmsfeld)

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." (Bush)

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." (Bush)

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." Bush

-----------------
Clearly, this was not a precautionary invasion. Nor was it an invasion over bookkeeping.

Iraq was portrayed as an "imminent" threat.

So - Ive asked you this question three or four times by now: How do you account for the above statements?

If the Bush administration did NOT see Iraq as a particularly urgent threat- as you say they didn't- Why did they claim that it was?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

If the Bush administration did NOT see Iraq as a particularly urgent threat- as you say they didn't- Why did they claim that it was?

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 2:14 PM

Quote:

If the Bush administration did NOT see Iraq as a particularly urgent threat- as you say they didn't- Why did they claim that it was?

Salesmanship? 'Cause you'll never buy the undercoating from the dealer if they tell you the car was rustproofed at the factory?

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Salesmanship? 'Cause you'll never buy the undercoating from the dealer if they tell you the car was rustproofed at the factory?

The laughing Chrisisall

KPO

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 3:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Saddam was given chance after chance after chance for a decade to come clean, he never did. Spare me this ' urgent' nonsense. It simply isn't the case. Not by a long shot.
Are you saying is WASN'T urgent? Because BUSH said it was! And so did the rest of his administration! They said:

"imminent threat"
"mortal threat"
"urgent threat"
"immediate threat"
"serious and mounting threat"
"unique threat"
Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction"

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." (Bush)

"This is about imminent threat. (9McClellan)

Iraq "threatens the United States of America." (cheney)

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (Rumsfeld)

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction." (RUmsfeld)

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." (Bush)

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." (Bush)

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." Bush

-----------------
Clearly, this was not a precautionary invasion. Nor was it an invasion over bookkeeping.

Iraq was portrayed as an "imminent" threat.

So - Ive asked you this question three or four times by now: How do you account for the above statements?

If the Bush administration did NOT see Iraq as a particularly urgent threat- as you say they didn't- Why did they claim that it was?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

This is a very important reality that Bush apologists need to stare long and hard at.

Undoubtedly there was a feverish rush to war on what had been a stable, contained ten year situation (albeit a nuisance one).

And so what it boils down to in my mind; was Bush and his administration lying to whip up hysteria for a war that there were other motives for? Or did the hysteria just grow and grow on its own within the administration, after some kind of intelligence trigger, and the president just couldn't get a grip?

Because it seems they couldn't stress enough how urgent the situation was. Either Bush was hysterical, or he wanted us to be. Either way doesn't reflect well on him.

Rap?

Heads should roll

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 3:38 PM

Quote:
why didn't they stand up and scream? Where were they at the time? I don't recall hearing from any of them.

I did. Others did too.

Did you hear of these antiwar demonstations?

More Than 100,000 March in Washington, DC
Antiwar Protest Largest Since '60s OCT 26
www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1027-06.htm

Anti-War Demonstration - Washington, DC - 10 Dec 2002

Longshore Union Official, Antiwar Protesters
Face Jail After Oakland Cops Fire on Port Protest
www.internationalist.org/defendoakland251003.html

50,000 people took part in a demonstration in San Francisco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

On January 16, 2003... Americans attended a{n antiwar} rally in Washington, D.C. The U.S. Park Police... stopped providing estimates of crowd size after being threatened with lawsuits by the organizers of the Million Man March, but said that protest organizers only had a permit for 30,000 demonstrators. According to rally organizers, more than 200,000 Americans were in attendance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

On January 18.... NION and ANSWER jointly organized protests in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco. Other protests took place all over the United States, including various smaller places such as Lincoln, Nebraska.

In San Francisco, between 150,000 and 200,000 people attended the demonstration. The San Francisco police had originally estimated the crowd size at 55,000, but admitted later that they had badly underestimated the number and changed their estimate to 150,000. In Washington, "at least tens of thousands"[27], or "several hundred thousand"[28] people demonstrated through the city, ending with a rally at The Mall.
ibid

But you can blame the so-called liberal MSM for a blackout on anti-war news and views.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 5:10 PM

Quote:

I always saw the Iraq situation as a belligerant man-child wanting too much power (Saddam) and a supposed governing authority (the *cough* UN) that was WAY too lenient on him.

Funny,
I always saw the Iraq situation as a belligerant man-child wanting too much power (Dubya) and a supposed governing authority (the *cough* Congress) that was WAY too lenient on him.

So we're not all that far apart on how we see things! :)

Quote:

My main question, however, is if supposedly so many people knew that what Bush was doing was wrong and that the information he was presenting the American people was erroneous . . . why didn't they stand up and scream? Where were they at the time? I don't recall hearing from any of them. And I'll admit fully to being partially ignorant if that's the case, but you would think these people would have been interviewed on the news if they made a big enough stink about it.

Pardon my bluntness, but where were YOU during that time period? I mean, were MILLIONS of protesters in the U.S. and the rest of the world not quite enough to make an impact on your consciousness? Don't know about you, but I hadn't seen those kinds of protests since the Viet Nam War era. If they weren't being covered, you might've been watching the wrong news outlets...

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure", by Lightning Seeds

RIPWASH

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 5:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Funny,
I always saw the Iraq situation as a belligerant man-child wanting too much power (Dubya) and a supposed governing authority (the *cough* Congress) that was WAY too lenient on him.

LOL Well, that's just because you're weird.(joke!)

The Dems were whooping and hollering against him since he took office . . . after they initially agreed about the need to take Saddam out of power that is.

There's a funny song by the Groucho Marx that many attributed to the Democratic Party when it came to Bush.

http://www.earthstation1.com/pgs/movies/des-HF_I'm_Against_It.wav.html

Because whatever he seemed to say, they'd disagree. Even when he changed his stance and went along with them . . . they'd be against it.

I don't mind you being blunt. No problem with that at all. I see protestors in a different light than I do people in power. Sigy seemed to imply that there were plenty of people in power (leaders of nations, advisors, etc) who knew that what was being done by the US was wrong, but I just don't recall them screaming that it was wrong when it all went down. Again, I could be wrong. I just don't remember it. I DO remember hearing Democrats AND Republicans alike saying what a threat Saddam Hussein was and the need for action, but once it was politically expedient for them to be ANTI-war, then they changed their position and anyone who disagreed with THEM in their own party were pretty much ostrasized (Zell Miller and Joe Leiberman).

I remember being discouraged because there were no WMD's found, but at the same time I was disgusted with what WAS found (the mass graves, the rape rooms, etc.). And I'm sorry but those things made it right in my own mind for us to be there regardless of the original intentions.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 6:10 PM

OTOH, I feel our invasion created so many more problems than they solved: sectarian warfare, the rape of Iraq's infrastructure and Paul Bremmer's economic "shock therapy", tens of thousands of direct and indirect civilian casualties, our VERY OWN rape rooms (!), Iranian dominance of Shiite militias....

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RIPWASH

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 6:13 PM

Action or in-action . . . both have their own unforseen circumstances.

Not to downplay what has happened since we went in to Iraq, but what could have happened if we did nothing, as was done for years before that?

And I truly doubt that any "rape rooms" you speak of were sanctioned by our government. If so, then I would be appalled. But Iraq's rape rooms WERE.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 6:14 PM

Rapo, I hate to keep buggin' ya, but you haven't answered one of my questions.... one which I've asked several times over by now, in various forms:

How do you account for the spectacular claims by the Bush administration which presented Iraq as such an imminent and growing threat that no delay was possible?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 7:13 PM

Quote:
My main question, however, is if supposedly so many people knew that what Bush was doing was wrong and that the information he was presenting the American people was erroneous . . . why didn't they stand up and scream? Where were they at the time? I don't recall hearing from any of them.

I do, hell, I recall being one of em, from almost the moment they started spinning fables back in 2001 - AND I remember such folks being treated like PirateNews about it by all the mainstream media outlets too, which isn't too surprising given that (and this is fact, you can check yourself) they'd been "on the payroll" and recieving money from that administration to write favorable reviews for a while at that point.

No way were they bitin the hand that fed em, and right now I am laughing at the same sources sucking up to THIS administration in hopes of not being called to account for that.

-F

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 7:28 PM

Quote:
Not to downplay what has happened since we went in to Iraq, but what could have happened if we did nothing, as was done for years before that?

A LOT was being done in the years before: the no-fly zones and embargo were ultimately successful in that Saddam DID get rid of his WMD. He just didn't want to say so, since he was facing a threat from Iran.

It's hard to say what "might have" happened, but I can take a couple of guesses. Iraq qould have inked its contracts with Russia and France just as soon as they had been declared in compliance with UN R1441. The payments would have been made in Euros, not dollars, weakening the dollar relative to the Euro.

Oil prices would have remained stable. The US trade deficit would not have zoomed up, oil-producing countries (like Iran and Venezuela) would not have been enriched, and the US budget deficit would not have included a 3 trillion-dollar hole.

Bush may have placed more focus on Afghanistan (and possibly Pakistan and Iran). Money would have flowed into Iraq, making it possible for Iraq to re-arm itself, but also opening up the nation to more foreigners and possibly better intel. It's hard to say. Most Favored Nation status could have been used as a carrot to move Iraq in the direction we wanted.

IF the no-fly zones had been continued, the Kurds in the north would have made more progress towards independence, and the Shiites to the south might have stabilized into a functional group, which they were not at the time of invasion.

Quote:
And I truly doubt that any "rape rooms" you speak of were sanctioned by our government. If so, then I would be appalled. But Iraq's rape rooms WERE.

Ours were too. Abu Ghraib, Bahgram AFB in Afghanistan and Gitmo all used the same techniques and materials. That's NOT a coincidence!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 7:29 PM

So anyway Rapo, I still have that outstanding question for you.

ETA: Can I give you a suggestion?

After saying unequivocally that the invasion was NOT urgent, that it was the culmination of years of frustration with Saddam's lack of transparency and accountability, it's gonna be very hard to try to explain why the Bush administration said exactly the opposite. So either there was more going on the the background that simple "accounting" issues and the Bush administration was expressing a sincere sense of urgency, or they were attempting to stampede people into an invasion not based on security issues. Or maybe both.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 8:58 PM

Sig, after 10 yrs of no progress,we didn't RUSH into this war. That's all I'm saying. Clinton era officials said EXACTLY the same thing as Bush's, but the 9/11 attacks hadn't taken place yet. The 9/11 attacks made the '98 Fatwa by OBL 'solid'. As in, he MEANT what he said, and we had ignored him. No longer could we ignore the threat. And no longer could we ignore the threat by Saddam, who had, I remind everyone, attempted to assassinate our former President.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 9:02 PM

And you need to look long and hard at THESE quotes.

( please take note of dates as well )

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the pr

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 9:10 PM

Delusional idiots droning on about inferences made from incomplete intel. And your point is...?

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 9:12 PM

Sig, please, either this is a bad day or what ever, but you really testing my last nerve here.

Time had run out per Iraq. Resolution after resolution had yielded no results. 'Urgent' is to be understood to mean in the sense that we no longer were in a position by which we could allow them to skate by w/ out dire consequences.

The rules had changed. Don't you see ? I'm thinking you do, but simply because you hate Bush, and your ill conceived notions of what Republicans are all about, you vilify the move, completely out of hand, and want to bash this dead horse into dust.

No personal offense meant, but I'm getting g-damn annoyed here. It's been civil up to a point, but there comes a time when I've said every thing I can, 3 or 4 times now, and still no answer will suffice. At some point, we simply must move on and try another hill to dance on.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 9:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Delusional idiots droning on about inferences made from incomplete intel. And your point is...?

The laughing Chrisisall

Well, we agree that the Democratic party IS full of delusional idiots.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Time had run out per Iraq. Resolution after resolution had yielded no results. 'Urgent' is to be understood to mean in the sense that we no longer were in a position by which we could allow them to skate by w/ out dire consequences.

Nonsense. It was time to install a speed-trap, that's all. We USED the moment. It was a DECISION, not an inevitability. You will not see that due to your authoritarian nature.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Well, we agree that the Democratic party IS full of delusional idiots.

Yes, just like the Republicans.
See? We can agree on stuff.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 9:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

You will not see that due to your authoritarian nature.

The laughing Chrisisall

What the hell is that suppose to even mean? Do you even KNOW ? It's my OPINION, and has not one damn thing to do w/ anything remotely "authoritarian" . That's just a clever way you attempt to dismiss my views. Be better than that, if you can.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:44 PM

Quote:
Sig, please, either this is a bad day or what ever, but you really testing my last nerve here.

Good!

But you still haven't answered my question.

Quote:
Time had run out per Iraq. Resolution after resolution had yielded no results. 'Urgent' is to be understood to mean in the sense that we no longer were in a position by which we could allow them to skate by w/ out dire consequences.

Why not? What would the consequences have been if Bush had waited another month or three, or even six? Would the USA face a dire security threat? Would Iraq attack us with WMD? You keep using global phrases like "We were no longer in a position..." but very short on specifics. Stop the handwaving. Give me ONE GOOD REASON why we couldn't wait three months. Just ONE.

And in addition, that's not what the Bush administration said. They didn't say- We have to invade because Saddam ran out the clock. We have to invade because Iraq's WMD bookkeeping is crappy. We have to invade because we want to save UNMOVIC the trouble of inspecting. We have to invade because- gosh darn it! - we're just sick and tired of Iraq dragging their feet in providing us a list of what happened to the final 5% of their WMD, even though we know its degraded by now!

They said "imminent threat", not "imminent buzzer"

"Growing threat" not "status quo".

Quote:
The rules had changed.

NO, THEY HADN'T. UN Resolution 1441 was still in force. UNMOVIC was winding up its inspection. Nothing of substance was found. IF UNMOVIC had uncovered evidence of WMD production, storage or deployment I would have said: Hell YEAH! Go in with guns blazing! FRY THE GUY!

But if all you're telling me is that the people were still crapping their pants over 9-11 and that "somehow" justified invading an entirely uninvolved nation over specious data at best... while ground truth was in the process of being gathered and most of the remainder of the world was content to let the process play out... all because a timer went off in Bush's head...

C'mon man. Give it some juice. Explain to me WHY we had to invade Iraq at that very moment, and not three months later. And if we really didn't, then explain to me why the Bush administration said we did. And make it specific. No more catch-phrases.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

KPO

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 12:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And you need to look long and hard at THESE quotes.

( please take note of dates as well )

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should rem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 12:56 AM

KPO, also, please look at the DATES on the quotes. Although UNMOVIC was formed in 1999 it did not begin inspections until Nov 2002. http://www.vertic.org/assets/YB03/VY03_Mines.pdf

Most of the quotes PREDATE the inspections. I consider those quotes irrelvant to the situation immediately before invasion, since the situation was changing for the better (even according to Hans Blix).

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:21 AM

Okay rapo, one LAST chance! (Saddam had several; you can too!)

"The reason why the United States had to invade Iraq before the UNMOVIC inspections were complete was because ____________ would ____________"

Saddam would invade?
Shit would happen?
Pigs would fly?

I dunno... You tell me!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

KPO

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
KPO, also, please look at the DATES on the quotes. Although UNMOVIC was formed in 1999 it did not begin inspections until Nov 2002. http://www.vertic.org/assets/YB03/VY03_Mines.pdf

Most of the quotes PREDATE the inspections. I consider those quotes irrelvant to the situation immediately before invasion, since the situation was changing for the better (even according to Hans Blix).

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Good point. Interesting link as well.

Heads should roll

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 2:55 AM

Sig, I answered your question,fully, completely and several times. I'm done. Thank you for the earlier civil discussion.

We waited 10+ yrs. That was enough time.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE