PDA

View Full Version : US Inspector: No WMD in Iraq since 1991



Ronin
6th October 04, 03:45 PM
Inspector: Iraq had no WMDs

By KEN GUGGENHEIM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. The report also says Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of UN sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

Contrary to prewar statements by President George W. Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, according to the report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

Duelfer's findings come less than four weeks before an election in which Bush's handling of Iraq has become the central issue. Democratic candidate John Kerry has seized on comments this week by the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that the United States didn't have enough troops in Iraq to prevent a breakdown in security after Saddam was toppled.

The inspector's report could boost Kerry's contention that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that sanctions and UN weapons inspectors should have been given more time.

But Duelfer also supports Bush's argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear to inspectors that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if sanctions were lifted, the report said.

On Wednesday, Bush cited Saddam's "history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America" in calling the invasion the right thing to do.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," Bush said in a campaign speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

Duelfer presented his findings in a report of more than 1,000 pages, and in appearances before Senate committees.

The report avoids direct comparisons with prewar claims by the Bush administration on Iraq's weapons systems. But Duelfer largely reinforces the conclusions of his predecessor, David Kay, who said in January, "We were almost all wrong" on Saddam's weapons programs. The White House did not endorse Kay's findings then, noting that Duelfer's team was continuing to search for weapons.

Duelfer found that Saddam, hoping to end UN sanctions, gradually began ending prohibited weapons programs starting in 1991. But as Iraq started receiving money through the UN oil-for-food program in the late 1990s, and as enforcement of the sanctions weakened, Saddam was able to take steps to rebuild his military, such as acquiring parts for missile systems.

However, the erosion of sanctions stopped after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer found, preventing Saddam from pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

Duelfer's team found no written plans by Saddam's regime to pursue banned weapons if UN sanctions were lifted. Instead, the inspectors based their findings that Saddam hoped to reconstitute his programs on interviews with Saddam after his capture, as well as talks with other top Iraqi officials.

The inspectors found Saddam was particularly concerned about the threat posed by Iran, the country's enemy in a 1980-88 war. Saddam said he would meet Iran's threat by any means necessary, which Duelfer understood to mean weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam believed the use of chemical weapons against Iran prevented Iraq's defeat in that war. He also was prepared to use such weapons in 1991 if the U.S.-led coalition had tried to topple him in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Saddam "had the intent and capability" to build weapons of mass destruction, and that he was "a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction."

But before the war, the Bush administration cast Saddam as an immediate threat, not a gathering threat who would begin pursuing weapons in the future.

For example, Bush said in October 2002 that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." Bush also said then, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Senator Richard Durbin said Wednesday that Duelfer's findings showed there is "no evidence whatsoever of the threats we were warned about." The Illinois Democrat spoke after Duelfer gave a closed-door briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said Duelfer showed Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction had degraded since 1998. But Roberts called the report inconclusive on what happened to weapons stockpiles Saddam is believed to have once possessed.

Ronin
6th October 04, 03:45 PM
The source:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/09/23/640967-cp.html


Well, ain't THAT a kick in ol GWB teeth...

CaptShady
6th October 04, 03:47 PM
Hmm, did they find out that the tens of thousands of Iraqi skeletons were fake? Or the mass graves, and torture chambers weren't true? Just curious.

WingChun Lawyer
6th October 04, 03:48 PM
"But before the war, the Bush administration cast Saddam as an immediate threat, not a gathering threat who would begin pursuing weapons in the future.

For example, Bush said in October 2002 that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." Bush also said then, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." "

Whether you believe the war was necessary or not, I believe a president should be held responsible for serious statements such as these.

Deadpan Scientist
6th October 04, 03:49 PM
Ronin.... don't be a bad boy, please write some of your own thoughts as to the validity of the claims in the article

zenbert
6th October 04, 03:49 PM
Well, they are going to say that Saddam is a menace and had every intention to acquire WMD, developing missiles, etc. Blaire was defending himself on this topic already.

But as always, GWB is teflon coated. I've not seen this country so divided on the election. The number of registered voters is all time high. I'm going to be on absentee, but nothing is stopping me from voting this year...

CaptShady
6th October 04, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
"But before the war, the Bush administration cast Saddam as an immediate threat, not a gathering threat who would begin pursuing weapons in the future.

For example, Bush said in October 2002 that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." Bush also said then, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." "

Whether you believe the war was necessary or not, I believe a president should be held responsible for serious statements such as these.

Ah, but what if you're a Senator, and you say the same thing? A congressman?

Ronin
6th October 04, 03:54 PM
Sorry, I was in a rush...

It seems that, if I recall the whole "axis of evil" thing, that the #1 concern was the WMD.
THAT was the reason. Period.
Now we now that, not only were the UN inspectors right, not only were the analysts that were "shouted down" right, but that 1000's of US soldiers and 10s of thousands of civilians have been killed for LIES.

Rumsfield said there are no ties to Bin Laden.

So, why did the US Coalition invade Iraq?
Why did Powell make a fool of himself at the UN?

WingChun Lawyer
6th October 04, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Ah, but what if you're a Senator, and you say the same thing? A congressman?

They should be held responsible for what they do, of course. The problem is, GWB has already done lots of shit, whereas Kerry has only endorsed part of Bushīs policy.

If you must choose the lesser of two evils, you might as well go with the one who has not, as of yet, dragged the country to a shithole over the guy that may well do it. My opinion, of course.

Ka-Bar
6th October 04, 03:55 PM
GASP! No WMD's?!? Oh mercy, I AM shocked.

zenbert
6th October 04, 03:57 PM
You asked Ronin, and what do you hear but an echo? :D

I'm waiting for my copy: "America: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction"

To WCL's point, we shouldn't settle for anything less than desirable either. It's a crappy year.

CaptShady
6th October 04, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
They should be held responsible for what they do, of course. The problem is, GWB has already done lots of shit, whereas Kerry has only endorsed part of Bushīs policy.

If you must choose the lesser of two evils, you might as well go with the one who has not, as of yet, dragged the country to a shithole over the guy that may well do it. My opinion, of course.

It's not like they just believed GWB, the same belief existed before GWB took office, and certain former presidents, existing senators and congressman made similar statements. To fry GWB on this alone is majorly fucked. Almost as fucked up as being in a position to vote "lesser of 2 evils", but not quite.

Ronin
6th October 04, 03:59 PM
Whatever may have been said by others is one thing, the fact is, GWB ACTED against the UN, and it cost the lives of tens of thousands of people.

There must be some accountability.

Beatdown Richie
6th October 04, 04:01 PM
> Hmm, did they find out that the tens of thousands of Iraqi skeletons
> were fake? Or the mass graves, and torture chambers weren't true?
> Just curious.
Three points:
1. was Saddam going to hand those skeletons over to Al-Quaeda to scare Americans with, or what? It was claimed that Iraq was a THREAT to the States' security. I think everyone should get used to the fact that Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell et al took the American people and the world for a ride, fooled them, lied to them, you get the picture. How much the Democrats knew, or how much they just relied on the same flawed interlligence and misinformation, is interesting, but right now we're not in a position to tell.

Of course, the next line of defense is, "But he WANTED to construct WMD, and he WOULD have, if he COULD have." Wanting to do something in and of itself does not warrant a war, and it seems Saddam DIDN'T, 'cause he COULDN'T.

2. The death toll on the Iraqi civilian population after the invasion is beyond 13000 according to iraqbodycount.com. Plenty enough to fill some mass graves. But the world is a better place now that Saddam is gone, and that's what counts, right?

3. Accepting that killing civilians is a sufficient reason for interventions (which it may be, in some cases), shouldn't the States have done something about the Congo, or Sudan?

CaptShady
6th October 04, 04:01 PM
FUCK the UN! We dont' fucking answer to them.

Ronin
6th October 04, 04:04 PM
No, the US was instrumental in creating the UN, so no, its not FUCK the UN.
Its not about answering to the UN, its about:
THEY WERE RIGHT, THE US WAS WRONG.

WingChun Lawyer
6th October 04, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
To fry GWB on this alone is majorly fucked. Almost as fucked up as being in a position to vote "lesser of 2 evils", but not quite.

No. He was the one who was, ultimately, responsible for the war.

The responsibility for acting on false information rests on his shoulders, whether he acted on information which he believed to be false himself, or if he actually believed what he said.

Going to war is a terribly serious decision, and the basis for such a decision must be as clear and as undisputable as possible. "They said that too" is NOT an acceptable excuse for dragging his country to a shithole.

Even here he would have been impeached by now. A major mistake such as that is beyond excuses, beyond justifications - and the commander in chief bears the responsibility.

Mind you, I am not defending Kerry, from what you guys tell me he is not exactly Madre Teresa, to say the least. Still, it is essential to place the blame on the right shoulders when you have to decide who will be your president.

CaptShady
6th October 04, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by ronin69
No, the US was instrumental in creating the UN, so no, its not FUCK the UN.
Its not about answering to the UN, its about:
THEY WERE RIGHT, THE US WAS WRONG.

Show me where in the U.S's constitution there's any mention of the U.N. governing us or our actions!

They were right, the US was wrong .... but that so isn't a GWB club, when Kerry was right fucking there saying the same thing BEFORE GWB took office, and was there voting YES to give power to the president to attack, BECAUSE HE BELIEVED LONG BEFORE GW TOOK OFFICE that there were WMD's.

garbanzo
6th October 04, 04:08 PM
WMD were the stated reason for going to war.

We've been suckered. Hoodwinked. Bamboozled.

Ronin
6th October 04, 04:08 PM
You don't go to war based on heresay and speculation.
You don't make up shit to add weight to your "believes" and your "maybes".

CaptShady
6th October 04, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo
WMD were the stated reason for going to war.

We've been suckered. Hoodwinked. Bamboozled.

By John Kerry, Bill Clinton AND George Bush (I & II).

It wasn't the ONLY reason stated prior to the war, but it definitely was the main reason stated.

garbanzo
6th October 04, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by ronin69
You don't go to war based on heresay and speculation.
You don't make up shit to add weight to your "believes" and your "maybes".


You don't.

We do.

Ronin
6th October 04, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Show me where in the U.S's constitution there's any mention of the U.N. governing us or our actions!

They were right, the US was wrong .... but that so isn't a GWB club, when Kerry was right fucking there saying the same thing BEFORE GWB took office, and was there voting YES to give power to the president to attack, BECAUSE HE BELIEVED LONG BEFORE GW TOOK OFFICE that there were WMD's.

I'm Canadian, I don't give a shit about american politics.
This is NOT about Kerry or Bush, not in terms of who said what and who agreed with whom.
This is about a goverment that fucked up, BIGTIME, in so many ways, it makes my head hurt.

WingChun Lawyer
6th October 04, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
They were right, the US was wrong .... but that so isn't a GWB club, when Kerry was right fucking there saying the same thing BEFORE GWB took office, and was there voting YES to give power to the president to attack, BECAUSE HE BELIEVED LONG BEFORE GW TOOK OFFICE that there were WMD's.

One of them was directly responsible for the war, creating a nationwide movement towards gathering support for a war based on false reasons. The other agreed with that.

I know where to place the blame. Do you?

CaptShady
6th October 04, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
One of them was directly responsible for the war, creating a nationwide movement towards gathering support for a war based on false reasons. The other agreed with that.

I know where to place the blame. Do you?

Can you please ... please please please tell me how the fuck he "agreed" with it when he stated it over a year before Bush was inaugurated??? The fuck you think Kerry said "Sadam Hussein is a threat and has WMD's" just to hear himself speak, and was NOT trying to gather support? Just because Bush finally took some fucking action on what ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL (repeated for you to understand) believed, and HE'S the fucking bad guy? So you'd rather have a fucking wishy washy leader that believes there's a threat and won't do dick about it?

Peter H.
6th October 04, 04:14 PM
I've read where the report also claimed that Saddam's senior staff thought they had weapons.

As for going against the UN, we didn't go against the UN. When there was an attempt to bring it to a vote, France swore to Veto it no matter what the results. So, it was decided not to put the issue to a vote. The security council was almost evenly split, with one of the main opposers to action, Russia, actually begining to waiver in exchange for assistance with thier own terrorist issues.

I wish I had the links to give you guys on that but I don't I am just running from memory.

blankslate
6th October 04, 04:14 PM
The world will be much better off without that madman in office.

garbanzo
6th October 04, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
By John Kerry, Bill Clinton AND George Bush (I & II).

It wasn't the ONLY reason stated prior to the war, but it definitely was the main reason stated.

John Kerry did not lead the invasion of Iraq.

Bill Clinton did not lead the invasion of Iraq.

George I did not lead the invasion of Iraq.

George II led the invasion of Iraq.

George II and his VP have both said, within the last week, that it was the right move.

garbanzo
6th October 04, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by blankslate
The world will be much better off without that madman in office.

Rationalization after the fact and a debatable statement.

CaptShady
6th October 04, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo
John Kerry did not lead the invasion of Iraq.

Bill Clinton did not lead the invasion of Iraq.

George I did not lead the invasion of Iraq.

George II led the invasion of Iraq.

George II and his VP have both said, within the last week, that it was the right move.

Whoa whoa whoa, are we talking about going to war based on one man's supposed lies, or not?

The issue your bringing up doesn't have enough evidence at this time. I'm sure if YOUR kids were tortured, murdered and buried by Sadam, you'd be agreeing with GW now wouldn't you? So I guess THAT side of things is relative now, isn't it.

Ronin
6th October 04, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Peter H.
I've read where the report also claimed that Saddam's senior staff thought they had weapons.

As for going against the UN, we didn't go against the UN. When there was an attempt to bring it to a vote, France swore to Veto it no matter what the results. So, it was decided not to put the issue to a vote. The security council was almost evenly split, with one of the main opposers to action, Russia, actually begining to waiver in exchange for assistance with thier own terrorist issues.

I wish I had the links to give you guys on that but I don't I am just running from memory.

The Un wanted the inspectiosn to continue, they were right.
The UN said that the US did NOT have enough evidence to warrant an attack, they were right.
The UN inspectors said there was no evidence of WMD, they were right.

The US had crappy evidence and they went to war and killed tens of thousands of people.

WHY ?

WingChun Lawyer
6th October 04, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Just because Bush finally took some fucking action on what ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL (repeated for you to understand) believed, and HE'S the fucking bad guy?

Ah, now you are seeing the light. The one who takes the fucking action is the one who takes the fucking blame as well.

The one who agreed with the one who took the fucking action should be considered irresponsible for his POLITICAL POSITION, but the one who took the fucking action should be held responsible for the INSUING UNNECESSARY DEATHS AND POLITICAL PROBLEMS AND FINANCIAL PROBLEMS AND GENERAL SHIT.

Whether he thought he as doing the right thing or not. Mistakes are not tolerated on that level of power.

Got it?

garbanzo
6th October 04, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Whoa whoa whoa, are we talking about going to war based on one man's supposed lies, or not?

The issue your bringing up doesn't have enough evidence at this time. I'm sure if YOUR kids were tortured, murdered and buried by Sadam, you'd be agreeing with GW now wouldn't you? So I guess THAT side of things is relative now, isn't it.

We have enough evidence to know that George Bush is President and that the President is commander in chief of the armed forces.

I'm sure that if my family were amomg the 11,000 civilians killed since we invaded I wouldn't be viewing the U.S. as liberators.

As a matter of fact, I'd probably want to kill someone.

CaptShady
6th October 04, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo
We have enough evidence to know that George Bush is President and that the Presiden is commander in chief of the armed forces.

And as such can only authorize military action for 30 days, without congressional approval. That's whatcha call a "system of checks and balances" there m'boy. Meaning other parties are directly responsible, and not just one man, because last I'd heard, and I may be wrong .. we've occupied Iraq longer than 30 days.

CaptShady
6th October 04, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by ronin69
The Un wanted the inspectiosn to continue, they were right.
The UN said that the US did NOT have enough evidence to warrant an attack, they were right.
The UN inspectors said there was no evidence of WMD, they were right.

The US had crappy evidence and they went to war and killed tens of thousands of people.

WHY ?

The UN said this stuff for TWELVE years. How long do you give them?

Saddam killed tens of thousands just for fun.

garbanzo
6th October 04, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
And as such can only authorize military action for 30 days, without congressional approval. That's whatcha call a "system of checks and balances" there m'boy. Meaning other parties are directly responsible, and not just one man, because last I'd heard, and I may be wrong .. we've occupied Iraq longer than 30 days.

Ahh. There's the rub.

That's where the "we're already there, we can't cut and run" argument comes in.

By the way, what is the mechanism by which section 5b of the War powers Resolution, which calls for the 60 (not 30) day period, is to be enforced?

Has it ever been enforced?

(As per the debating rules agreed to by both parties, these questions are rhetorical.)
That's whatcha call a toothless bit of legislation, m'boy.

Beatdown Richie
6th October 04, 04:27 PM
> Just because Bush finally took some fucking action on what ALL ALL
> ALL ALL ALL (repeated for you to understand) believed, and HE'S the
> fucking bad guy?
who do you mean by ALL?

'cause me, personally, I didn't believe it. I remember watching Powell giving his slide show of "here we see some trucks in front of some building in the Iraqi desert, now in this next picture they're gone, clearly they're transporting WMD" to the UN and thinking "Who are you kidding? Is that all you got??"

blankslate
6th October 04, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo
Rationalization after the fact and a debatable statement.

After the fact? We haven't voted yet. ;)

garbanzo
6th October 04, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by blankslate
After the fact? We haven't voted yet. ;)

It's okay. Bush has it in the bag. Don't bother. Stay home.:)

Peter H.
6th October 04, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by ronin69
The UN inspectors said there was no evidence of WMD, they were right.


I agree with all your points except one, the final report from Hans Blix still claimed non-compliance and the inablity to account for much of the existing stockpiles that were documented in 1991. They claimed no evidence of an on-going WMD development program, but not a lack of existance of said weapons, and at the time the burden of proof had been placed on the Iraqi government to show proof of the destruction of those weapons.

All intelligence brought up at the time still claimed the weapons were their, ours, Britain's, France's. The argument wasn't the existance of said weapons, but the way to deal with them.

Turns out the whole world was duped. I don't think war was the solution, but I do think Saddam needed to be removed and that the weapons inspections were not working either.

I also think that it was to Iraq's benefit to trick the world into believing it still had these wapons, whether they existed or not, as it kept the Khurds, Iran, and the rest of their enemies at bay for fear of them.

As it was, Uday Hussein was threatening to use the weapons durning the pre-war build-up.

Otherwise, I think all your points are valid.

As for why? I ask myself that too. The answer is, no one had the balls to stand up and do it earlier, and now, there may have been no reason to do so. My baby brother has already been over twice, once during Afghanistan, and once to support the building of facilities in Qatar, and next year, if things keep along this same pace, he will be there again. My father, who is retired, is still eligible to be recalled for a while longer, he may go. And despite my discharge, if the draft is reinstated, I am eligible to be called and sent. My good friend's 18 year old daughter just got out of army boot, she's looking at being sent as soon as she finishes school. Cute little blonde girl with a sunshine smile. My best friend's boy friend broke his ankle in basic and washed out, but he just buried his best friend from high school who joined just before he did. She sits with him late at nights as he cries and has nightmare about it and wishes it had been him who had gone instead. My instructor's son-in-law is a pilot, he's been over a few times, delivering cargo and troops, he gave the boy his first salute (my instrcutor is a retired MSgt) and has to watch his grandson because mommy is so wrecked when daddy has to go away.

I ask myself why everyday. I ask myself why previous president's didn't take action. I ask myself why did we ever support this man. I ask myself why on a lot of things.

zenbert
6th October 04, 05:05 PM
Lord Acton - Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When unchecked, the cowards are equally liable in the failings.

Freddy
6th October 04, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
FUCK the UN! We dont' fucking answer to them.

Thats what Saddam basically did too. Although the U.S. government pretending to enforce U.N. sanctions on Iraq but when they could get support for an invasion by the U.N. they told the U.N to fuck off (something Saddam has been doing). (Hypocrisy? Rogue nation?) :eek:

Freddy
6th October 04, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Show me where in the U.S's constitution there's any mention of the U.N. governing us or our actions!



Thats what Saddam said too.

The whole notion of U.S. Government "enforcing U.N sanctions against Iraq" was a hypocritical farce then.




http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/08/sprj.irq.uss.valley.forge/

"...The Americans are part of a coalition from 11 countries that are enforcing U.N. sanctions against Iraq imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. ....."

blankslate
7th October 04, 09:21 AM
How else could this scenario have played out?

If Saddam had no weapons, why the continual game playing with inspectors?

What did France, Germany, and Russia, etc. want us to do? Wait, and wait, and threaten and wait some more?

Give Saddam more time to torture and kill his own people and actually develop some type of weapons?

Saddam was dangerous and had every intent on getting revenge on the US. America always makes the mistake of waiting too late before action is taken. And then we get criticized if we take pre-emptive action.

So I suppose the scenario in 2002/2003 would have been...let the UN inspectors do their job. They would have said "we can't find any weapons". (Saddam had supposedly already violated a number of other sanction conditions.) Then what should we have done?

Ronin
7th October 04, 09:24 AM
Its not about what Saddam was doing to his people, there was and is, alot worse goin on in other places, its not about what Saddam MIGHT have done to the US.
Its about the REASONS the US goverment gave for invading Iraq.
And the reason(s) were BS.

blankslate
7th October 04, 09:24 AM
What would have been a better scenario?

Saddam would still be in power right now, correct?

garbanzo
7th October 04, 09:25 AM
What Roni said.

Ronin
7th October 04, 09:25 AM
Not the point and you now it.
There are worse guys in power around the world.
Why Iraq?

CaptShady
7th October 04, 09:33 AM
Within the report: Saddam had a multitude of people "faked out" (including John Kerry). This was NOT a result of "Bush lies" no matter how you try to play it like it was.

Also in the report: Saddam was putting things in place to start up his weapons program as soon as sanctions were lifted.

Also in the report: France, Russia, and the head of the UN security council were lining their pockets via the Food For Oil program. Kind of puts new detail on that whole "without UN support" argument, doesn't it! OF COURSE they weren't going to support it, the well of money would have run dry! OF COURSE they stalled and stalled for 12 fucking years!

blankslate
7th October 04, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by ronin69
Not the point and you now it.
There are worse guys in power around the world.
Why Iraq?


I'm starting to wonder myself.

I'd like to know what a better scenario would have been. I assume at some point the UN Inspectors would have outlined that there were no WMDs present in Iraq. This would have been qualified by the fact that he had them at some point in the past and was currently in violation of some other sanction conditions (i have no idea what those were).

What should the US course of action been at that point?

WingChun Lawyer
7th October 04, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by ronin69
Its not about what Saddam was doing to his people, there was and is, alot worse goin on in other places, its not about what Saddam MIGHT have done to the US.
Its about the REASONS the US goverment gave for invading Iraq.
And the reason(s) were BS.

Thatīs what I have been saying all along, gentlemen. You may or you may not support the war on Iraq for various reasons, but the man in charge sent you there BASED ON FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.

He is responsible for that, and should be kicked out of office for that, and for that alone. We would have a very different situation if he had stated from the beginning that he wasnīt actually sure about the WMD, but Saddam was too great of a threat to remain unchecked.

Ronin
7th October 04, 09:41 AM
Look, this has nothing to do with what France or anyone else was doing.
This has nothing to do with HOW many people were mislead.
This has to do with a goverment that went to war when the evidence they had was, AT BEST, very, VERY doubtful.

They had NO facts to support the WMD.

As for the rest of the "reasons", there were much worse tyrants than Saddam, and there still are.
The ties between Iraq and Osama were "stretched" to be kind.
The list can go on, and on.

Again, like Truman said:
"The buck stops here".

Many may have been mislead by the so-called inteligence, but the head of the goverment is, and always will be, the one responsible.

And the inteligence didn't convince anyone else, why did it convince the Senetors and the congressmen ??

WingChun Lawyer
7th October 04, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by ronin69

And the inteligence didn't convince anyone else, why did it convince the Senetors and the congressmen ??

I guess they did not want to face the political consequences of being "chickens" as opposed to the "hawks". There was a massive campaign for the war on Iraq, as far as I know - people voting against it would risk too much, even if the stated reasons for the war were obviously based on fragile evidence.

SCO
7th October 04, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
I guess they did not want to face the political consequences of being "chickens" as opposed to the "hawks".
Yep.

Originally posted by Beatdown Richie
'cause me, personally, I didn't believe it. I remember watching Powell giving his slide show of "here we see some trucks in front of some building in the Iraqi desert, now in this next picture they're gone, clearly they're transporting WMD" to the UN and thinking "Who are you kidding? Is that all you got??"
Yep. It was bloody obvious.
I was wondering what went through Powell's head then. My guess is he thought something like "I do this, I sacrifice my reputation because I feel it`s my duty, but this is all bullshit and it`s a big mistake, too. We`re all going to regret this, I`m doing it already."

It was clear to see that the Bush admin was not even that interested in WMD, they wanted a war. The "evidence" looked very weak to fabricated. The whole reasoning and timing of events was pathetic. For people who were not emotionally caught up in the concerted "patriotic" media build-up.

The whole philospophy was "We know the way, we lead, you follow or get out of the way. No more of your objections, we`re changing the rules now. We don`t really know much about the world out there, but it can`t be that complex, It`ll work somehow. God is on our side."

Bush junior should have really consulted his natural father instead of consulting his 'higher father' before invading Iraq . In fact, he should have never stopped drinking. Comparing Bush senior and junior just shows once again how stupid the current president is.

Peter H.
7th October 04, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by ronin69

And the inteligence didn't convince anyone else, why did it convince the Senetors and the congressmen ??

I think that maybe the point you are missing Ronin. The intelligence did convince other people, just about everyone, including the UN security council.

The question before them was not: "Does Iraq have WMDs"
The question was: "What to do about the WDMs Iraq has"

You can argue about whether it was right to go to war or not, whether the way the war was executed was effective or not. But the presense of WMDs was not a question until pretty much this election cycle, the entire world's intelligence said they were their, mainly because the US, Russia, China, and other countries had been providing him with the weapons or the ability to produce them, and no evidence had been shown for their destruction, and some sources had contunied to supply him with materials after the embargo, as well as the proven showing that Iraq was continuing to develop improved means of delivering WMDs.

For people, and by this I mean world leaders, members of our own Congress, the UN, and such, to come forward now and claim they didn't support/didn't want the war because there were no WMDs and they knew it all along is revisionist.

If you want to be fore the war, be for it, if you want to be against it, be against it. But don't try to rewrite and retell the history of this problem from 1991 until 2004.

My belief is that there are two valid stands on this issue:
Based on what was known in 2001 - 2002, the war was justified.
and
Based on what was known in 2001 - 2002, the war was unjustified.

To come back and say, "Well, now we know there weren't any weapons, so what we did in the past was wrong." That's hindsight, and while it is a good point for us to reflect on, and a pretty damning condemnation of the entire world's intelligence community, the UN weapons inspection processes, and the way Iraq was handled and treated for the previous decade. You can use that in any situation, any conflict, you can hindsight anything to death, any issue, any subject.

Just because you know now that the romp in the back seat of your Buick got the prom queen pregnant, doesn't change the fact that the issue at the moment said act occured was whether or not to bang her when she told you she was on the pill.

Ronin
7th October 04, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Peter H.
I think that maybe the point you are missing Ronin. The intelligence did convince other people, just about everyone, including the UN security council.

The question before them was not: "Does Iraq have WMDs"
The question was: "What to do about the WDMs Iraq has"



Ok, now you got me, WHO did it convince ?
Not Canada, for example.
GB doesn't count.
Spain ? Spain went after the promise of 100 of millions of US Aide and the potential for development in Iraq.
Who went with the US BECAUSE of the so-called evidence?
The UN security council was convinced? WHO in the council was convinced that either couldn't be bullied by the US, or "motivated" by the US to be convinced?

You know who I blame for this?
Hans, that pussy !!
He just wouldn't make the call, he kept trying to save his ass, Mr "we need more time" !!

WingChun Lawyer
7th October 04, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Peter H.
I think that maybe the point you are missing Ronin. The intelligence did convince other people, just about everyone, including the UN security council.

Excuse me, Hans Blix didnīt say anything like that, if my memory doesnīt fail me. He said Iraq most likely didnīt have anything, he just needed further access to prove that once and for all.

NO DEFINITE PROOF WAS OFFERED. Remember? There was a small possibility that Saddam had those WMD hidden somwhere; no inspector ever said there was a small possibility that Saddam didnīt have those WMD.

And please provide a link proving that the UN security council believed that BS about the WMD. You said it, you prove it.

Peter H.
7th October 04, 12:12 PM
You can argue the bullying issue for both sides, France threatened military action against African nations that were moving to support the US.

The burden of proof was on Iraq to prove they had destroyed the wapons inventoried in 1991. Hans Blix repeatedly said Iraq could not/would not provide proff, or allow the inspectors to verify destruction.

As for who's intel: France for one, the biggest opponent to the war, it was a big deal here when it was shown some of our intel was based off of feild work done by French sources. I'm also willing to bet Israel, Iran, Syria, and Turkey, Iraq's local allies/enemies, also believed in the existance in the WMDs.

I do support your condemnation of Hans Blix, I have read where he was actually the third choice on the matter, and the UN settled on him because he was the only one Iraq did not oppose to leading the inspections.

WingChun Lawyer
7th October 04, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Peter H.
The burden of proof was on Iraq to prove they had destroyed the wapons inventoried in 1991. Hans Blix repeatedly said Iraq could not/would not provide proff, or allow the inspectors to verify destruction.

Maybe. But it is one thing to not provide proof of something, and it is another entirely different thing to state that you do have definite proof of something.

Saddam didnīt provide proof that he had destroyed the WMD, but Bush didnīt provide proof that Saddam had WMD - AND Blix said he was quite convinced there were no WMD, proof of destruction or not.

No one was convinced, Peter. Sorry man, but that one you made up on the spot.

Peter H.
7th October 04, 12:59 PM
Don't accuse me of making up the facts, I don't have to. Hans Blix's briefings are a matter of public record, I'll provide links and quotes:

From the 25 November 2002 Meeting and briefing

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp


The first point to be made is that Iraq continues to state in the Declaration, as it has consistently done before its submission, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when inspectors left at the end of 1998 and that none have been designed, procured, produced or stored in the period since then.
While individual governments have stated that they have convincing evidence to the contrary, UNMOVIC at this point is neither in a position to confirm Iraq's statements, nor in possession of evidence to disprove it.
The purpose of the Security Council resolutions requiring Iraq to declare all WMD programmes and creating an extensive and intensive inspection system is to attain, through peaceful means, confidence that Iraq is rid of or ridding itself of all such programmes and proscribed items - verified disarmament.
A declaration cannot, if it stands alone, create confidence. The listing of sites or of persons, the reporting of production, importation, destruction and consumption figures and the opening of doors, giving access to inspections, is not enough to create confidence that no weapons programmes and proscribed items remain. The statements need to be supported by documentation or other evidence. Only so do they become verifiable.
During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated.


There is a complete passage verifying what I said about Hans Blix's statements. Iraq says they were destroyed, other sources say they were not. Blix cannot say one way or the other, but that IRaq was required to provide proof of destruction and had lied about destructions and programs in the past.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/cluster6mar.pdf

That is a link to the 6 March 2003 report of the UNMOVIC, page 11 to about 20 lists unresolved issues with Iraq and continued failure to comply with resolution and failure to provide proof of the ending of weapons programs and such.

Never accuse me of making crap up on the spot. Sometimes memory fails me, and I will rectify the situation when it does. But I don't lie...

...except to my ex-wife.

Ronin
7th October 04, 01:30 PM
Unoffically *looks around*, the biggest source of Intel was from the Israelis.

blankslate
7th October 04, 01:53 PM
I need to know the biggest source of burritos....like quick, man.

Ronin
7th October 04, 01:58 PM
Mexico.

zenbert
7th October 04, 02:03 PM
Tuesday news : http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

"Why the intelligence proved wrong (on WMDs), I'm not in a position to say," Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "I simply don't know."

When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

But a short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement: "A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq." (Rumsfeld statement)

Rumsfeld's restated position mirrors what Vice President Dick Cheney had said as recently as June.

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report." "It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

Suggesting that the 9/11 commission had reached a contradictory conclusion was "irresponsible," he said.

Before the war, in a speech in Atlanta in September 2002, Rumsfeld said he the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are in fact al Qaeda in Iraq."

Ronin
7th October 04, 02:08 PM
I guess its one thing to say something UNDER oath and another to back peddle the same BS.

SRK85
7th October 04, 02:30 PM
Damn Ahemed Chalabi(SP) and the Iareali spies for this mess.

CaptShady
7th October 04, 02:30 PM
Edwards said HIMSELF during the presidential debate, that over 60 countries have established Al-qaeda networks in them. OVER SIXTY!!! Yet Iraq somehow had the magical powers to deflect ANY members at all?

WingChun Lawyer
7th October 04, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Peter H.
Don't accuse me of making up the facts, I don't have to.

You said the UN security council was convinced of the existance of WMD. Prove it.

Ronin
7th October 04, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Edwards said HIMSELF during the presidential debate, that over 60 countries have established Al-qaeda networks in them. OVER SIXTY!!! Yet Iraq somehow had the magical powers to deflect ANY members at all?

What is your point?
The biggest center for AL-Qaeda is where ?
Saudi Arabia, yet...

CaptShady
7th October 04, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by ronin69
What is your point?
The biggest center for AL-Qaeda is where ?
Saudi Arabia, yet...

My point is, Edward's believes that Al-qaeda exists in such large groups, yet none existed in Iraw.

Ronin
7th October 04, 02:43 PM
* takes a really long drag from his spliff *

What ? Who ? where ?

The leperchaun's ??

WingChun Lawyer
7th October 04, 02:51 PM
Quite frankly, Shady, it is hard to argue with you because you keep changing the subject. I believe no one here said congressmen (and Kerry in particular) are blameless for the Iraq situation, but Bush is the one who bears the lionīs share of the responsibility, for the simple reasons that 1) he orchestrated the whole WMD bullshit campaign to get the popular support, and 2) he is the big honcho, the godfather, the one in charge, the great cornholio, the prez.

Ronin
7th October 04, 02:57 PM
The big cheese.

Ronin
7th October 04, 02:59 PM
The grande taco.

Ronin
7th October 04, 03:00 PM
Mr. Big Mac.

Freddy
7th October 04, 03:04 PM
The whole notion of altruism of overthrowing Saddam because he killed thousands of civilians is a farce. When Saddam killed those Kurds he got a slap on the wrist and the U.S. government looked the other way for years.
Has anyone forgotten Pinochet. The man who murdered thousands and overthrown a democrated elected government. The had him in custody. They let him go.

Let us not forget un-democratic governments like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan whom torture their own people as well. And of course when the South African Aparthied regime existed absolutely No British or American forces where used to overthrow them. Not to mention theres a few other un-democratic regimes out there that some how was forgotten for years if not decades.


Hypicritical?

zenbert
7th October 04, 03:06 PM
Off the subject a little, but where the heck is my captain when I needed him?


-----------

Walt Whitman on Ab "O Captain! My Captain!"

O Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done, The ship has weather'd every rack,
the prize we sought is won, The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring; But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red, Where on the deck my Captain lies, Fallen cold and dead.
O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells; Rise up- for you the flag is flung- for
you the bugle trills,

For you bouquets and ribbon'd wreaths- for you the shores
a-crowding,
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head!
It is some dream that on the deck,
You've fallen cold and dead.

My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still,
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will,
The ship is anchor'd safe and sound, its voyage closed and done,
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won;
Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

Freddy
7th October 04, 03:13 PM
You should become a poet! :) Very good!

zenbert
7th October 04, 03:17 PM
I love Walt's poems. I hope he'll forgive me from the graves for borrowing his patriotism in a different light.

Peter H.
7th October 04, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
You said the UN security council was convinced of the existance of WMD. Prove it.

1991, post GW1, WMDs and WDM programs and scientists were inventoried and noted.

12 years and some 14+ Security council resolutions demanding the removal of WMDs, ending of programs, and free access of inspectors to verify these actions were taken. Including one in 2001, maybe 2002. At anytimeone of these resolutions came up for a vote, if any of the permanent members of the security council belived that further proof was unecessary, that Iraq had complied, or they just wanted this to end, they could have vetoes the resolution.

They did not.

There was also not a vote to issue a resolution claiming Iraqi compliance with disarmament.

It therefore stands to reason that the security council was convinced of the existance of these weapons.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline3.htm#2002
That is a timeline of the resolutions against Iraq. As late as 13 Nov 2002, the security council was still insisting on the need for inspections, indicating they were convinced that there were weapons present, or that weapons that had been present were unaccounted for, at the very least.

It is the only logical conclusion. Had France, Russia, German, or another permanent member felt that there were no weapons present, they could have vetoed any number of resolutions and moved for the ending of sanctions. They did not. Instead, they supported sactions, disarmament, and inspection.

Again, the question is not whether the world was convinced of the presence of the weapons, it was what to do about them.

Ronin
7th October 04, 03:21 PM
Peter, that as an example, is a huge stretch.
Sorry, but using THAT as evidence to prove what you said is ALMOST as bad as what the US goverment did.

Stick
7th October 04, 03:51 PM
Shady, how many of Clinton's "gates" infuriated you? "Travelgate", the whole "white water" affair, "Monicagate"?

That Bush has no "gate" to his name is pathetic and to me says that despite what Fox news and republicans love to say, there is much more to the media than a liberal agenda. Shit never sticks to this administration, no matter how much they spew out of their rancid mouthes.

Tens of thousands of people are dead as a direct result of this administration's policies and actions, and GW somehow looks like a choir boy to half of my country..... absolutly disgusting.

Clinton is impeached for a blowjob...... and Dubya sits pretty on a pile of rotting bodies.

Peter H.
7th October 04, 03:54 PM
Without telepathy, that is the closest to proof you will get. The fact that many of thise votes were unanimous, or close to unanimous is enough to convince me that the security council, when taken as a group, was convinced enough of the existance of the weapons to warrent multiple actions and resolutions against Iraq.

In the over decade long struggle with this, I do not recall a resolution calling for the lifting of the sanctions for either Iraqi compliance with previous resolutions, or for Iraqi disarmament. I could be wrong, and I would like to be shown that there was such resolutions, if you can show me that a majority of the security council believed this, by proposing and voting on a resolution, like I can demonstrate my belief with what I have posted and cited, I will change my stance on that issue.

Otherwise, I do not feel that my stance is a stretch. Even the detractors of the current conflict, groups who often times take stances contrary to the United States, supported these resolutions.

Peter H.
7th October 04, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi

Clinton is impeached for a blowjob...... and Dubya sits pretty on a pile of rotting bodies.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a context outside of normal presidential immunity. What he lied about was the blowjob.

Stick
7th October 04, 04:04 PM
People always say that, but we all know it was for the head!

garbanzo
7th October 04, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Peter H.


It therefore stands to reason that the security council was convinced of the existance of these weapons.



If you mean that the Security Council believed that Saddam Hussein had some such weapons in the past, then yes, it stands to reason.

If you mean that the Security Council believed that Saddam Hussein had some such weapons at the time the U.S. invaded, then no, it does not stand to reason.

The data are being confused with their interpretation.

Datum: "As late as 13 Nov 2002, the security council was still insisting on the need for inspections..."

Interpretation: "...indicating they were convinced that there were weapons present, or that weapons that had been present were unaccounted for, at the very least."

The purpose of the inspections was to insure that Iraq had complied with the resolutions calling for the removal of the weapons.

The implication that the entire Security Council somehow bought the administration's assertions is a stretch.

CaptShady
7th October 04, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi
Shady, how many of Clinton's "gates" infuriated you? "Travelgate", the whole "white water" affair, "Monicagate"?

That Bush has no "gate" to his name is pathetic and to me says that despite what Fox news and republicans love to say, there is much more to the media than a liberal agenda. Shit never sticks to this administration, no matter how much they spew out of their rancid mouthes.

Tens of thousands of people are dead as a direct result of this administration's policies and actions, and GW somehow looks like a choir boy to half of my country..... absolutly disgusting.

Clinton is impeached for a blowjob...... and Dubya sits pretty on a pile of rotting bodies.

Which policies and actions belong solely to Bush? The belief of WMD's? Sorry buddy, there's a TON of people that believed the WMD's were there, 2 of which were Kerry and Edwards. Going to war? Sorry, both KnE voted to give the pres permission .. had they and other democrats voted no, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, so that doesn't fly either.

What's disgusting about your beloved "gates" is that the intregrity of that office will NEVER be the same. We now live in a world where it's okay for a president to attempt, and take drugs in their past, to sexually harrass and assault women, to lie in a court of law, to dodge drafts, etc, and YES I'm talking about Clinton AND Bush. That's the biggest crime here. Using deaths of "tens of thousands" to win support for Kerry is bunk too. He stabbed tens of thousands in the back. Using it as if it's some horrid number to get an emotional response it stupid too ... millions died at Saddam's hand.

garbanzo
7th October 04, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Which policies and actions belong solely to Bush? The belief of WMD's? Sorry buddy, there's a TON of people that believed the WMD's were there, 2 of which were Kerry and Edwards. Going to war? Sorry, both KnE voted to give the pres permission .. had they and other democrats voted no, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, so that doesn't fly either.


To say that he voted for the war is a distortion. He voted for a resolution to authorize the President to use force. The object of this resolution was to give the President the authority he needed when he went to the U.N.

The resoultion also called upon the President to do certain things which he never did, for example, reporting back to Congress.

The resolution was not pre-approval for going apeshit.

And yes, the propogation of the belief in the existence of WMD as a justification for war belongs to Bush.

The State Department is part of the Executive, and as such, accountable to the President.

Consider the following, delierately miseleading bits from their website, posted in 2002 but still there for all to see:


"Saddam Hussein's Iraq represents a threat to the peace and security of the world because it is the crossroads where weapons of mass destruction, state support for terrorism, international aggression, and a sustained assault on human rights converge in a single place, under a single tyrant."


"Since his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein has demonstrated his contempt for the international community by flouting repeated U.N. demands to eliminate his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons."


"Moreover, strong evidence suggests that al Qaeda terrorists escaping from Afghanistan have found refuge inside Iraq."

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/

Peter H.
7th October 04, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo

The implication that the entire Security Council somehow bought the administration's assertions is a stretch.

Not each individula member, but as a body, yes they did, that is what their voting shows. And it isn't just this administrations assertations.

A preponderance of the evidence shows ongoing belief that the UN security council believed that the WMDs and programs to develop WMDs still existed. The only ways to claim otherwise are:
1) Show resolutions supporting a contray stance
2) Completely discount Security council resolutions as indicating the will and beliefs of the council.

I have yet to see 1, and 2 invalidates the purpose of the council, if a resolution is not an indication of the council, why pass it? The council has no other method of expressing itself as a body other than resolutions.

Dejavu
7th October 04, 06:43 PM
I believe that many of you are going off tangent. Who cares if the UN approved it? Who cares if Kerry supported it? It was the Bush Administration who started the war. Now we find that the reasons in which he based the war on to be false, thus he sent us to war without telling us the real reason. That is where he is at fault. He was the one who took action, thus he will get the blame.

SRK85
7th October 04, 06:57 PM
but most of the intelligence Bush got before the war was false and was crated by the Israelis or Ahmed Chalabi.

CaptShady
8th October 04, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by garbanzo
To say that he voted for the war is a distortion.

Really .. I've heard Kerry say, a dozen times "I VOTED FOR THE WAR BECAUSE ..."

Ronin
8th October 04, 08:48 AM
Maybe Clinton should have pulled a Rumsfield, under oath admit you fucked up and lied, and then, afterwards, retract it by saying you misunderstood the question.

CaptShady
8th October 04, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by ronin69
Maybe Clinton should have pulled a Rumsfield, under oath admit you fucked up and lied, and then, afterwards, retract it by saying you misunderstood the question.

Short problem with your timelines there big guy.

blankslate
8th October 04, 09:13 AM
Once again proving that there is liberal bias in the media.

CaptShady
8th October 04, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by blankslate
Once again proving that there is liberal bias in the media.

Lets do it again. Here's a link to an article, that if you changed the words from republican to democrat in each instance ... not only would it be mainstream news, but you'd see Dan "bleeding heart" Rather pre-empting regular TV every 5 minutes with a "special" report! :

FL Officials Asked To Probe Voter Fraud (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041008/D85IUUD01.html)

Here's another. Only in this report, switch Bush-Cheney with Kerry-Edwards, and tell me Peedee wouldn't blow his fucking top with this! He'd probably skip classes or whatever business he had to today, just to "inform" people on how it's a vast right wing conspiracy!!! Dan "I'm the most biased reporter on maintream TV" Rather would probably be up in fucking arms!

Bush, Cheney Left Off Mo. County Ballots (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20041008/ap_on_el_pr/brf_ballot_error&printer=1)

Shug
8th October 04, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
"But before the war, the Bush administration cast Saddam as an immediate threat, not a gathering threat who would begin pursuing weapons in the future.

For example, Bush said in October 2002 that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." Bush also said then, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." "

Whether you believe the war was necessary or not, I believe a president should be held responsible for serious statements such as these.

no, you see, you're only held accountable for lies relating to things such as a blow job.

However, its COMPLETELY justified when the person lying is the complete symbol for close-minded nationalism, and glorified imperialistic policies

CaptShady
8th October 04, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Shug
no, you see, you're only held accountable for lies relating to a blow job.

However, its COMPLETELY justified when the person lying is the complete symbol for close-minded nationalism, and glorified imperialistic policies

With the blow job, Clinton lied and said it didn't happen. Who else did?

With WMD's, Kerry stated his belief of their existance before Bush did. So how is it that Bush alone lied?

Shug
8th October 04, 10:26 AM
I've said this I don't know how many times; I DON'T CARE.

I'm neither democrat or republican, it is MY opinion that what happened is wrong, whether either fuckheads were for it or not.

And Bush LIED and told us Iraq was STILL producing weapons of mass destruction. I was making that comparison, read slowly; "you're - only - held - accountable - for - things - RELATING TO - a blow job

something that was minor in comparison to Bush's bullshit. What am I saying? If a lie is a lie IMPEACH THE FUCK

Shug
8th October 04, 10:28 AM
which seems to be the popular right wing opinion regaurding Clinton; "uuuuuughhhh, he LIED"

as though it affected or had to do with anything office related.

then when you bring up Bush's lies;

"uuuuggggghhhhhhhh, he';s helping other countries!!! Yeah, ugh, the deathtoll is high, but we're helping, with no reward (ignore Haliburton being there, it never happened) 9_9"

so you know what I say?

THE MOTHERFUCKER LIED, IMPEACH HIM

SRK85
8th October 04, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Really .. I've heard Kerry say, a dozen times "I VOTED FOR THE WAR BECAUSE ..."

Thats the only thing I dont like about Kerry. Last weeks debate Kerry said theres a right way and a wrong way to disarm Saddam. And I was just totally shocked. I knew there were no WMDs in Iraq last week so why the hell did Kerry think Saddam was a threat?

Peter H.
8th October 04, 11:27 AM
It's not that Clinton lied. Presidents are allowed to lie, we expect that from them. It's that Clinton lied at a time not protected by executive privilege. Sayin, "No honey, I didn't get a hummer from the intern" is fine, saying, while under oath during a civil case brought about due to actions that occured before you took office, that was not fine.

Not that it mattered, as much as I disliked Clinton, that was a fiasco and a waste of everybodies money.

WingChun Lawyer
8th October 04, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Peter H.
It's not that Clinton lied. Presidents are allowed to lie, we expect that from them. It's that Clinton lied at a time not protected by executive privilege.

Irrelevant. The public interest of the statement is infinetely more important than the circunstances in which the lie was told. You are considering that the form is more important than the content.

And presidents are not allowed to lie in matters of public interest. Not down here, at least.

Shug
8th October 04, 01:00 PM
they shouldn't be able to anyway. I'm sick of these supposed "representatives" acting as though they're above the people. Its as though our country is ruled by a body of napoleans

Stick
8th October 04, 02:24 PM
regardless of where it's told, the lie that covered up one stained dress is absolutly nothing compared to the lie that's killed over 10,000 people.

Bush has done far more to discredit our country and the office of the president than Clinton ever did. If you don't see that, your values are ridiculously warped in need of serious reconsideration.

CaptShady
8th October 04, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi
regardless of where it's told, the lie that covered up one stained dress is absolutly nothing compared to the lie that's killed over 10,000 people.

Bush has done far more to discredit our country and the office of the president than Clinton ever did. If you don't see that, your values are ridiculously warped in need of serious reconsideration.

Dude, you're blind in more than one way. He lied in a fucking courtroom, UNDER OATH. He's THE fucking executive branch of our government, and has no respect for the law! If you can't see how bad that it, your head needs examined.

Bush was given info in which not only he ... but many many others INCLUDING Kerry believed, and retold what was in that info. You're fucking acting like Bush was told "there's no WMD's there, so go out and say there IS". These so are NOT "Bush Lies". Clinton said the same fucking thing while he was in office, but was too big of a pussy to do anything about that OR Bin Laden.

Peter H.
8th October 04, 02:36 PM
I am not saying that lieing is right, but the fact is executive privilege protects a US president from a lot. Whether you think that is right or wrong, it exists, and covers a lot. Clinton's failure was not realizing the executive privilege did not cover what he did.

Other presidents have lied about and done far worse things, for sure. Clinton did far worse things than lie about a hummer, but it was the opening his enemies were looking for, the one time he commited an infraction, however small in the scheme of things, that they could attempt to nail him on.

Ronin
8th October 04, 02:40 PM
You guys remember a president that coined: " I have no recollection of that" ?

blankslate
8th October 04, 02:41 PM
Bush was misled. Clinton wanted some head.

garbanzo
8th October 04, 02:41 PM
How did it come to pass that Clinton was asked questions about his pecker under oath?

How is it that an investigation into his real estate dealings when he was not President, which resulted in no crimminal charges, led to an investigation of a blow job?

Why was Kenneth Starr given the latitude to do whatever is necesssary to bring down the President?

Can you say "vast right wing conspiracy"?

Stick
8th October 04, 02:42 PM
Saying "it was the right thing" is what drives it home for me, these people refuse to admit that they made a mistake, and that's just as bad- fuck, it's worse.

Considering that aids have come out quoting (god I wish I could remember who it was, Rummsfeld or Cheney) cabinet members as saying "how can we relate [9-11] to Iraq".... yeah, lying and "stretching the truth" to fit your desires, pretty damn close.

I don't trust this administration as far as a 12 year old girl could throw them.

garbanzo
8th October 04, 02:45 PM
Dai:

That's because WMD's were a pretext not a reason for invasion.

The reason we invaded is an attempt make the neoconservative fantasies about converting the Mid East into a series of happy little pro-American democracies a reality.

Stick
8th October 04, 02:47 PM
"stretching the truth" = pretext.

Yeah, I got ya.

garbanzo
8th October 04, 02:51 PM
pre·text

: a purpose or motive alleged or an appearance assumed in order to cloak the real intention or state of affairs

That about sums it up.

Stick
8th October 04, 02:52 PM
That's not what I- oh never mind, I'll just let it go.

:: downs more nyqil ::

Fucking flu.

Peter H.
8th October 04, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo
How did it come to pass that Clinton was asked questions about his pecker under oath?

How is it that an investigation into his real estate dealings when he was not President, which resulted in no crimminal charges, led to an investigation of a blow job?

Why was Kenneth Starr given the latitude to do whatever is necesssary to bring down the President?

Can you say "vast right wing conspiracy"?

I can say Rat Droppings, it does not mean I want to eat them.

I no more buy in to a vast right-wing conspiracy to bring down Clinton than vast conspiracy to kill Kennedy, fake a moon landing, humilate the current president.

Janet Reno didn't have to release the hounds on her boss, I think it was a misjudgement on her part. In her zeal to prove Clinton's hands clean, she forgot that oops, they aren't. Once an independent council was appointed, she had to let it run it's course, everyone did, otherwise the issue would never have been settled.

My old government professor, the right honorable Noelke, gave me the best advice for looking at a government and pulling the truth out of it, or close enough that you might actually be able to make a judgement on what is happening:

Power Expands, Power Operates in the Dark, Government is about who controls Power, Those who seek Power will lie to get it, once taken Power cannot be retrieved peacefully.

I've looked at this whole debacle from that perspective, the WMDs, War on Terror, the whole lot. I'm fairly confident in my assesment of the situation. But I've been wrong before, but I've yet to get anyone who has shown me I am wrong on this.

What I have determined, and this is more so now than in any election I can personally remember, is that both of the current politicians are nothing but demagogues, and I don't mean they are championing the peons. Neither one is worthy of the awesome responsibility of being president, and neither one is worthy of my vote.

As this discussion has run the board on recent political history and resulted in basicly nothing, I'm going to pull out of this one and leave it at that.

Shug
8th October 04, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Dude, you're blind in more than one way. He lied in a fucking courtroom, UNDER OATH. He's THE fucking executive branch of our government, and has no respect for the law! If you can't see how bad that it, your head needs examined.

Bush was given info in which not only he ... but many many others INCLUDING Kerry believed, and retold what was in that info. You're fucking acting like Bush was told "there's no WMD's there, so go out and say there IS". These so are NOT "Bush Lies". Clinton said the same fucking thing while he was in office, but was too big of a pussy to do anything about that OR Bin Laden.

IT WAS UNCONFIRMED SPECULATION DUMBASS, everyone agreed because they were EXPECTING there to be WMD ANYWAY. They KNEW the info they got from the british had NO REAL PROOF, and then when it blew up in their face it was suddenly "oops, our bad, but he was a threat anyway, haha," another lie perpetuated by Bush.

He knew DAMN WELL they didn't have enough to make those accusations, what they had wouldn't even fly in a court room. There was no substance to the intelligence whatsoever.

And if you think Bush wouldn't lie under oath, you really are seriously delusional.

Thats what I hate about affiliates of either party, even if they KNOW something's wrong, they'll try to justify it to their death if need be to sustain their precious beliefs. It makes me sick.

CaptShady
9th October 04, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by Peter H.
What I have determined, and this is more so now than in any election I can personally remember, is that both of the current politicians are nothing but demagogues, and I don't mean they are championing the peons. Neither one is worthy of the awesome responsibility of being president, and neither one is worthy of my vote.

AMEN!! Vote Bednarik!!!!!!!!