I found a summary article on the AP. After some searching I found the source article on the Washington Post and reposted it here. I'm curious for everyone's response on it.

quote:

Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy No U.S. Troop Withdrawal Date Is Set By Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, January 16, 2005; Page A01 President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath. "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me." With the Iraq elections two weeks away and no signs of the deadly insurgency abating, Bush set no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops and twice declined to endorse Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's recent statement that the number of Americans serving in Iraq could be reduced by year's end. Bush said he will not ask Congress to expand the size of the National Guard or regular Army, as some lawmakers and military experts have proposed. In a wide-ranging, 35-minute interview aboard Air Force One on Friday, Bush laid out new details of his second-term plans for both foreign and domestic policy. For the first time, Bush said he will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the top priority for many social conservative groups. And he said he has no plans to cut benefits for the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who collect monthly disability and survivor payments as he prepares his plan for partial privatization. Bush was relaxed, often direct and occasionally expansive when discussing his second-term agenda, Iraq and lessons he has learned as president. Sitting at the head of a long conference table in a cabin at the front of the presidential plane, Bush wore a blue Air Force One flight jacket with a red tie and crisp white shirt. Three aides, including his new communications adviser, Nicolle Devenish, accompanied him. With his inauguration days away, Bush defended the administration's decision to force the District of Columbia to spend $12 million of its homeland security budget to provide tighter security for this week's festivities. He also warned that the ceremony could make the city "an attractive target for terrorists." "By providing security, hopefully that will provide comfort to people who are coming from all around the country to come and stay in the hotels in Washington and to be able to watch the different festivities in Washington, and eat the food in Washington," Bush said. "I think it provides them great comfort to know that all levels of government are working closely to make this event as secure as possible." The president's inaugural speech Thursday will focus on his vision for spreading democracy around the world, one of his top foreign policy goals for the new term. But it will be Iraq that dominates White House deliberations off stage. Over the next two weeks, Bush will be monitoring closely Iraq's plan to hold elections for a 275-member national assembly. He must also deliver his State of the Union address with a message of resolve on Iraq, and he will need to seek congressional approval for about $100 billion in emergency spending, much of it for the war. In the interview, the president urged Americans to show patience as Iraq moves slowly toward creating a democratic nation where a dictatorship once stood. But the relentless optimism that dominated Bush's speeches before the U.S. election was sometimes replaced by pragmatism and caution. "On a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad," he said. "I am realistic about how quickly a society that has been dominated by a tyrant can become a democracy. . . . I am more patient than some." Last week, Powell said U.S. troop levels could be reduced this year, but Bush said it is premature to judge how many U.S. men and women will be needed to defeat the insurgency and plant a new and sustainable government. He also declined to pledge to significantly reduce U.S. troop levels before the end of his second term in January 2009. "The sooner the Iraqis are . . . better prepared, better equipped to fight, the sooner our troops can start coming home," he said. Bush did rule out asking Congress to increase the size of the National Guard and regular army, as many lawmakers, including the president's 2004 opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), are urging. "What we're going to do is make sure that the missions of the National Guard and the reserves closely dovetail with active army units, so that the pressure . . . is eased." A new report released last week by U.S. intelligence agencies warned that the war in Iraq has created a training ground for terrorists. Bush called the report "somewhat speculative" but acknowledged "this could happen. And I agree. If we are not diligent and firm, there will be parts of the world that become pockets for terrorists to find safe haven and to train. And we have a duty to disrupt that." As for perhaps the most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the administration has so far been unsuccessful in its attempt to locate the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Asked why, Bush said, "Because he's hiding." While some terrorism experts complain U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, could do more to help capture the al Qaeda leader, Bush said he could not name a single U.S. ally that is not doing everything possible to assist U.S. efforts. "I am pleased about the hunt, and I am pleased he's isolated," Bush said. "I will be more pleased when he's brought to justice, and I think he will be." Bush acknowledged that the United States' standing has diminished in some parts of the world and said he has asked Condoleezza Rice, his nominee to replace Powell at the State Department, to embark on a public diplomacy campaign that "explains our motives and explains our intentions." Bush acknowledged that "some of the decisions I've made up to now have affected our standing in parts of the world," but predicted that most Muslims will eventually see America as a beacon of freedom and democracy. "There's no question we've got to continue to do a better job of explaining what America is all about," he said. On the domestic front, Bush said he would not lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. While seeking reelection, Bush voiced strong support for such a ban, and many political analysts credit this position for inspiring record turnout among evangelical Christians, who are fighting same-sex marriage at every juncture. Groups such as the Family Research Council have made the marriage amendment their top priority for the next four years. The president said there is no reason to press for the amendment because so many senators are convinced that the Defense of Marriage Act -- which says states that outlaw same-sex unions do not have to recognize such marriages conducted outside their borders -- is sufficient. "Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously. . . . Until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate." Bush's position is likely to infuriate some of his socially conservative supporters, but congressional officials say it will be impossible to secure the 67 votes needed to pass the amendment in the Senate. Yesterday morning, the day after the interview, White House spokesman Scott McClellan called to say the president wished to clarify his position, saying Bush was "willing to spend political capital" but believes it will be virtually impossible to overcome Senate resistance until the courts render a verdict on DOMA....

The article goes on to discuss Social Security, Medicare, and other domestic topics

quote:

Originally posted by BigManwithaPlan Hey... I just found this article of the AP and was curious for everyone's response on it. I'll add my own thoughts on it later. [/COLOR]

true, but 49% of the population doesn't see things that way

quote:

Originally posted by BigManwithaPlan I found a summary article on the AP. After some searching I found the source article on the Washington Post and reposted it here. I'm curious for everyone's response on it.

Oops caught this after I opened a new thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail true, but 49% of the population doesn't see things that way

That's the only reason I'm able to sleep at night.

Search ain't over until someone does an anal cavity search of Saddam!

Problem is they haven't found a volunteer yet.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Search ain't over until someone does an anal cavity search of Saddam! Problem is they haven't found a volunteer yet. [[[smoke]]]

keep us posted on that one

http://photomatt.net/dropbox/2004/1...ed-flipflop.mov

http://cdn.moveon.org/censure/caugh...eo/rumsfeld.swf

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r

What the cartoon fails to convey is how, at the time, we were very eager to give him any chemical that he wanted.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?...12&s=scheer1230

I'm surprised that more people don't study the history of this - considering that it's such a topic of discussion nowadays.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X What the cartoon fails to convey is how, at the time, we were very eager to give him any chemical that he wanted. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?...12&s=scheer1230 I'm surprised that more people don't study the history of this - considering that it's such a topic of discussion nowadays.

Yeah, the mass graves argument is really flawed on its own, because those happened years ago, they weren't happening anymore. People in the Bush administration who also worked for Reagan (e.g. Rumsfeld) and also think tanks who promoted the war were aiding Saddam at the time and helped him get the chemical weapons that caused those graves. If that was the argument, there are current graves being filled in other countries today that we choose to ignore, though they could be prevented with action.

It was always about WMDs as the issue for why we needed to go to war, until they were not found. Everything else, like bringing democracy and mass graves was window dressing to the cause for war. Think about this fact: Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to provide the U.N. with lists of his WMDs, allow inspectors unlimited access and destroy weapons or else he would be removed. So, if Saddam HAD followed those steps (if he still had WMDs to turn over at the time, rather than us thinking he was lying when he said he had nothing) we would have left him in power! If there was a concern over mass graves continuing and that's really why we acted, why would we have provided him a scenario to remain in power as a dictator and continue doing that to Iraqis?

This argument is simply an after-the-fact attempt to justify the action since their main reason was not true.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X What the cartoon fails to convey is how, at the time, we were very eager to give him any chemical that he wanted.

Yes, and at the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, several countries contributed chemicals and it was the U.S. that led the embargo of selling chemicals to Iraq in the U.N.
All this before Saddam's head grew out of proportion and his synapse snapped...

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Yeah, the mass graves argument is really flawed on its own, because those happened years ago...

So I guess that makes it ok then huh?

quote:

...they weren't happening anymore.

With Saddam not being there; that would be the more correct term.

quote:

People in the Bush administration who also worked for Reagan (e.g. Rumsfeld) and also think tanks who promoted the war were aiding Saddam at the time and helped him get the chemical weapons that caused those graves. If that was the argument, there are current graves being filled in other countries today that we choose to ignore, though they could be prevented with action.

Let's not kid outselves, as stated in my previous post, the U.S. are not alone in this arguement.
And we're forgetting our time line.
The mass graves are those of his own people only days after the Iran-Iraq war.
War is one thing; commiting genocide on your own people is totally different.
No I'm not say one is better than the other, but in war, there are rules of conduct. (at least, there is supposed to be).

quote:

It was always about WMDs as the issue for why we needed to go to war, until they were not found. Everything else, like bringing democracy and mass graves was window dressing to the cause for war.

While WMDs were the main point, they weren't the only point.
It was the one most accepted however, and apparently the only point Leftists seem to grasp.

quote:

Think about this fact: Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to provide the U.N. with lists of his WMDs, allow inspectors unlimited access and destroy weapons or else he would be removed. So, if Saddam HAD followed those steps (if he still had WMDs to turn over at the time, rather than us thinking he was lying when he said he had nothing) we would have left him in power! If there was a concern over mass graves continuing and that's really why we acted, why would we have provided him a scenario to remain in power as a dictator and continue doing that to Iraqis?

The man repeatedly violated 16 UN Security Council resolutions.
How many times does one have to ask before steps are taken?
If Saddam HAD followed the steps?
Highly unlikely, but it was obvious that the benefit of the (world's) doubt was given and Saddam hung himself with it.

quote:

This argument is simply an after-the-fact attempt to justify the action since their main reason was not true.

While it is true that the WMDs were not found, it is also true that WMDs existed.
Did they just disappear? More likely they went over the border before they were found...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r While WMDs were the main point, they weren't the only point. It was the one most accepted however, and apparently the only point Leftists seem to grasp.

I'll say it again: Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to provide the U.N. with lists of his WMDs, allow inspectors unlimited access and destroy weapons or else he would be removed. So, if Saddam HAD followed those steps we would have left him in power! Saddam staying in power = no democracy, no mass graves argument. It was about WMDs & security, that was THE argument. Otherwise there's no reason not to have taken action long before September 11th. I will find the Ari Fleisher quote on this if I have to.

The mass grave argument doesn't hold up if we were willing to leave him in power for meeting totally separate guidelines. Please show me one specific credible source (e.g. not Sean Hannity), just one, that states that one single mass grave was filled in the last decade from genocide? The people who he attacked long ago were the Kurds and he was since unable to get to them with the no fly zone in the north.

The mass graves happened YEARS ago and we just suddenly decided that we were going to take action? Why wasn't Bush concerned about them when we said we would not be the world's policeman when he ran in 2000? Also, then when are we invading the Sudan? They are allowed to currently fill graves? Make no mistake, Saddam was a war criminal, but there are many others we ignore who do the same things & there simply hasn't been a major PR campaign to highlight these leaders to the public. If something is based on principle, you can't pick & choose who is allowed to break the rules and who can't.

As far as U.N. resolutions, how many have been made regarding Israel/Palestine? Furthermore, how was Saddam breaking a resolution with inspectors on the ground that were finding no WMDs? Right when the inspectors were pulled before the start of the war, the biggest violation was Iraq was not destroying Al Samuud missiles that went several kilometers further than treaties allowed at a rate deemed fast enough. You have to have proof that WMDs exist and know that for a FACT before you go to war based on them. The search has already has been given up. Show me the Daily Show clips again!

Look, it all boils down to a simple cost-benefit analysis. Forget ideology and idealism. What pro-war activists have failed to establish is the reconciliation between what was promised and the elimination of a regime actively involved in state terrorism that actually constituted a threat. Is the removal of a regime that had no connections to 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction worth the $120 billion + and 1400 American lives spent?

Fuck idealism. Fuck democracy in the middle east. I'm a goddamn libertarian realist. The money I'm spending is not worth the "freedom" their getting. We willingly allow North Korea to exist despite concentration camps, torture, and their threats because it's not worth it to respond. As such, I welcome anyone to make a case that Iraq was more of a threat than n. Korea ever was that justifies this kind of response. WHY should American lives and American tax dollars be spent on this cause? Can ANYONE answer that question with a straightforward response?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider As such, I welcome anyone to make a case that Iraq was more of a threat than n. Korea ever was that justifies this kind of response. WHY should American lives and American tax dollars be spent on this cause? Can ANYONE answer that question with a straightforward response?

Because we never would have gotten to know Baghdad Bob and you would be without an avatar if we invaded NK instead?

I think this could have all been avoided if either they didn't withdraw in the first Gulf War or the UN started taking a stronger stance on things. As it is now, nobody cares about what the UN says because they don't back it up. I think the UN should hit hard and fast on countries and/or leaders that violate human rights. Diplomatic pressure only works if there are consequences for not following warnings/sanctions.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergenc...imeline_03.html


http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/con...91/h910221g.htm

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 and we just suddenly decided that we were going to take action?

1984

The State Department announced on 6 March that, based on "available evidence," it "concluded" that Iraq used "lethal chemical weapons" (specifically mustard gas) in fresh fighting with Iran.

On 20 March, U.S. intelligence officials said that they had "what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass-producing the lethal chemical warfare agent".

European-based doctors examined Iranian troops in March 1984 and confirmed exposure to mustard gas.[15] The UN sent expert missions to the battle region in March 1984, February/March 1986, April/May 1987, March/April 1988, July 1988 (twice), and mid-August 1988. These missions detailed and documented Iraq�s CW use.

According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq uses to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Post�s source said that this data was essential to Iraq�s war effort.

The United States re-established full diplomatic ties with Iraq on 26 November, just over a year after Iraq�s first well-publicized CW use and only 8 months after the UN and U.S. reported that Iraq used CWs on Iranian troops.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

A somewhat comprehensive history

http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...q/histindex.htm

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I'll say it again: Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to provide the U.N. with lists of his WMDs, allow inspectors unlimited access and destroy weapons or else he would be removed. So, if Saddam HAD followed those steps we would have left him in power! Saddam staying in power = no democracy, no mass graves argument. It was about WMDs & security, that was THE argument. Otherwise there's no reason not to have taken action long before September 11th. I will find the Ari Fleisher quote on this if I have to. The mass grave argument doesn't hold up if we were willing to leave him in power for meeting totally separate guidelines. Please show me one specific credible source (e.g. not Sean Hannity), just one, that states that one single mass grave was filled in the last decade from genocide? The people who he attacked long ago were the Kurds and he was since unable to get to them with the no fly zone in the north. The mass graves happened YEARS ago and we just suddenly decided that we were going to take action? Why wasn't Bush concerned about them when we said we would not be the world's policeman when he ran in 2000? Also, then when are we invading the Sudan? They are allowed to currently fill graves? Make no mistake, Saddam was a war criminal, but there are many others we ignore who do the same things & there simply hasn't been a major PR campaign to highlight these leaders to the public. If something is based on principle, you can't pick & choose who is allowed to break the rules and who can't. As far as U.N. resolutions, how many have been made regarding Israel/Palestine? Furthermore, how was Saddam breaking a resolution with inspectors on the ground that were finding no WMDs? Right when the inspectors were pulled before the start of the war, the biggest violation was Iraq was not destroying Al Samuud missiles that went several kilometers further than treaties allowed at a rate deemed fast enough. You have to have proof that WMDs exist and know that for a FACT before you go to war based on them. The search has already has been given up. Show me the Daily Show clips again!

You're completely missing the point...months ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, someone tell me how time has any relavance to the mass graves arguement?
If I go kill someone and no one finds out until I'm 90, then new evidence comes up and I'm convicted, guess what? I'm going to jail...

Well at least you're now starting to get more points in...
WMD and security are at least two reasons instead of one.

How was Saddam breaking a resolution with inspectors on the ground?
How about kicking them out and not letting them back in? I'd say if he had nothing to hide, why kick out U.N. inspectors unless he did have something to hide or move stuff before evidence was found.
We all know he had them, there tons to evidence to support that thanks to Trancer-X's posts (thanks buddy)
There's this great misconception after Saddam buying all these chemicals weapons during the Iran-Iraq war that they simply "disappeared". Where did they go? Did we really expect this former tyrant to destroy his WMD on his own just because he was asked to? Riiiiight...
Not with his record and everyone knew it, heck he was even willing to starve millions of his own people!
I'm willing to bet that the U.S. was counting on the fact that Saddam thought no one had the guts (especially the toothless U.N.) to come and get him.
Hell I'm surprised someone finally did, but after 9-11, things changed a lot and endless debating becames rather exhausted.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r You're completely missing the point...months ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, someone tell me how time has any relavance to the mass graves arguement? If I go kill someone and no one finds out until I'm 90, then new evidence comes up and I'm convicted, guess what? I'm going to jail... Well at least you're now starting to get more points in... WMD and security are at least two reasons instead of one. How was Saddam breaking a resolution with inspectors on the ground? How about kicking them out and not letting them back in? I'd say if he had nothing to hide, why kick out U.N. inspectors unless he did have something to hide or move stuff before evidence was found. We all know he had them, there tons to evidence to support that thanks to Trancer-X's posts (thanks buddy) There's this great misconception after Saddam buying all these chemicals weapons during the Iran-Iraq war that they simply "disappeared". Where did they go? Did we really expect this former tyrant to destroy his WMD on his own just because he was asked to? Riiiiight... Not with his record and everyone knew it, heck he was even willing to starve millions of his own people! I'm willing to bet that the U.S. was counting on the fact that Saddam thought no one had the guts (especially the toothless U.N.) to come and get him. Hell I'm surprised someone finally did, but after 9-11, things changed a lot and endless debating becames rather exhausted.

What new evidence came to light that Saddam was a war criminal? We knew that years ago when it happened, we didn't just suddenly find out about it and then take action. Like you said, right after the Iran-Iraq war...in the 80s!!! He was a murderer and was starving his people (which is why it doesn't make sense that we allowed sanctions that clearly helped worsen that. I'm saying this a 3rd time and when I get home from work I wil find the white house spokesperson's statement that agrees, THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT HIM IN POWER AND NOT BROUGHT DEMOCRACY OR HELD HIM RESPONSIBLE FOR MASS GRAVES IF HE REALLY DID HAVE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF WMDS AND TURNED THEM OVER!!!!!!!!! Are we going to the Sudan to stop them from killing or not? That is why the mass graves argument doesn't make sense: the police wouldn't know you committed murder when it happened, camp outside your house for 20 years and then suddenly decide to arrest you, but say you wont be arrested if you just give up your gun that they still think you have, all the while ignoring another person next door who's currently murdering people.

Yes he had WMDs earlier, but inspectors destroyed mass quantities of them over a number of years, in fact they destroyed them as they were found. Furthermore, many types of WMDs don't last forever, they have to be maintained and reconstituted. Many weapons we knew he had before were over 20 years old. As for when inspectors went into Iraq after W. called for them, go back and check, Saddam DID NOT kick them out, Bush warned them to leave because he was going to invade.

So we knew in "fact" that Saddam stil had active weapons despite what had been destroyed after the 1st war, but we just didn't happen to catch massive truckloads of them moving to another country on satellite, none of our sources knew where they were, none of our intelligence resources that were almost entirely focused on the country noticed any movement? I really fear that the security at Sportmart down the street does a better job tracking shoplifters in their store than our intelligence does tracking deadly weapons. Then again the final WMD report says they may have never existed and Chalabi, now an enemy rather than an ally, provided us with a lot of misleading information that was taken as fact to bolster the case. Look at how evidence was shown in the Cuban Missile Crisis: clear satellite evidence of what was nuclear missiles pointed at the U.S. Not just saying we're pretty sure they have them. Otherwise using the same logic as a precedent, any country could rightfully attack the U.S. because we certainly have WMDs and they could just say we were a threat to their security.

As for security, it's not a 2nd reason, it's the reason why WMDs were able to be used as a justification for war by the administration. 9/11 happened and then they argued that to protect security we couldn't allow him to have WMDs. That was the argument. Without the allegations he had them, there would not have been an invasion. Every other supposed point existed long before 9/11 and Bush went to the U.N. based on WMDs, nothing else.

Lastly, Occrider is right that NK is the bigger threat, they commit serious crimes against their own people and 100% without a doubt have nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there's a guy named Osama Bin Laden, who was not allied with Saddam (conservatives tend to not want to believe this, but it's true, they had opposite goals). Taking care of Al Qaeda, the people who attacked us, had nothing to do with Iraq until after we took out Saddam and now they're invading the country and killing our soldiers. Where did the vast majority of the hijackers come from? Saudi Arabia? Why not address problems there? No freedom or democracy there either.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Let's not kid outselves, as stated in my previous post, the U.S. are not alone in this arguement. And we're forgetting our time line. The mass graves are those of his own people only days after the Iran-Iraq war. War is one thing; commiting genocide on your own people is totally different.

That doesn't help our position very much when we did, in fact, effectively looked the other way when he gassed his own people, all because we wanted business with the little tyrant.

If more murder was done after the Iran-Iraq war, so be it - I fail to see any relevance of any timeline of when genocide was killed, whether it be when they were taken off our terrorist list all throughout the 80's (through Republican presidents, mind you), or when they were put back onto the terrorist list in the early 90's. The act of genocide is inexcusable no matter when it occurred. If we were to unseat him as a result of accumulation of this mass murder, fine � I have no problem with that cause. But we also cannot dismiss our inadvertent part of his genocidal actions.

However, his genocidal actions were not sold to Congress, press, or the public as a means to invade, and you or any other conservative cannot historically revise what sold us to going to war.

quote:

No I'm not say one is better than the other, but in war, there are rules of conduct. (at least, there is supposed to be).

Like no torture? Does that count? If so, why are we about to hire the man as new Attorney General who authorized and advocated such actions?

quote:

While WMDs were the main point, they weren't the only point. It was the one most accepted however, and apparently the only point Leftists seem to grasp.

Bullshit. It was THE main point SOLD to Congress, the Press, and the public, period. There�s no way in hell this president would have been able to sell the neocon war in Iraq without a threat to the U.S. and you know it. Personally I would have liked to hear his humanitarian argument a great deal more, but this reason coupled with compliance of UN resolutions and geopolitical motives of spreading democracy was a distant, distant, distant third, fourth, and fifth compared to the threat Saddam supposedly posed to us by WMD and distorting the truth of involvement with Al Qaeda and 9/11 (see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030319-1.html). Please try not to wipe away history for us � I remember quite distinctly what was sold to us as THE reason for going to war. Most analysts, even conservative ones agree that our invasion would not have occurred had there not been some sort of immediate threat and tie-in to the current terrorist policy.

quote:

The man repeatedly violated 16 UN Security Council resolutions. How many times does one have to ask before steps are taken? If Saddam HAD followed the steps? Highly unlikely, but it was obvious that the benefit of the (world's) doubt was given and Saddam hung himself with it.

Do you realize how many other countries around the world, including our allies, violate UN resolutions? This reason alone was, on the grand scheme of things, insignificant and a backburner issue compared to the supposed �threat� he gave us.

quote:

While it is true that the WMDs were not found, it is also true that WMDs existed. Did they just disappear? More likely they went over the border before they were found...

Did you read the Duelfer report very well? How about any other intelligence reports on the matter? There�s no evidence of this occurring whatsoever. It�s highly likely that the biological and chemical weapons were considered useless through time, rather than supposedly going over the borders. Here�s a little claim/fact sheet of Powell�s assertions to the UN prior to invasion:

http://www.sierrafoot.org/soapbox/B...raq_powell.html

Specifically referencing the chemical and biological weaponry, this Administration�s evidence was taken out of bits and pieces of intelligence reports. The full context of those reports (the �fact� part of that website pertaining to chem./biol. WMD unaccounted for stockpiles) were taken primarily from 2 sources: Rummy�s Defense Dept. in the run-up to the war:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pentago...aq_weapons.html

And Hussein Kamel, Saddam�s brother-in-law who defected from Iraq and later went back only to be assassinated. The interview that occurred with Kamel gave some juicy tidbits that Bush and the neocons twisted to fit their agenda, while leaving out some important tidbits in the process, such as:

quote:

In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically: "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed" (p. 13). Kamel specifically discussed the significance of anthrax, which he portrayed as the "main focus" of the biological programme (pp.7-8). Smidovich asked Kamel: "were weapons and agents destroyed?" Kamel replied: "nothing remained". He confirmed that destruction took place "after visits of inspection teams. You have important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq." (p.7) Kamel added: "I made the decision to disclose everything so that Iraq could return to normal." (p.8) Furthermore, Kamel describes the elimination of prohibited missiles: "not a single missile left but they had blueprints and molds for production. All missiles were destroyed." (p.8) On VX, Kamel claimed: "they put it in bombs during last days of the Iran-Iraq war. They were not used and the programme was terminated." (p.12). Ekeus asked Kamel: "did you restart VX production after the Iran-Iraq war?" Kamel replied: "we changed the factory into pesticide production. Part of the establishment started to produce medicine [...] We gave insturctions [sic] not to produce chemical weapons." (p.13). Despite the significance of these claims, it was not known that Kamel made this assertion until February 2003. Kamel's claim was first carried on 24 February 2003 by Newsweek, who reported that Kamel told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims (Newsweek, 3/3/03). Newsweek reported that the weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Newsweek reported. However, these facts were "hushed up by the U.N. inspectors" in order to "bluff Saddam into disclosing still more", according to Newsweek. http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html

Let�s keep in mind that the statements made by this Administration such as 4 tons of VX nerve gas being unaccounted for describe weaponry that was made prior to �91. They left out this part of the interview from which they based their material on. After �91 it was more or less a question up in the air on their WMD proliferation and stockpiling, which of course after-the-fact details by Duelfer, the Senate Intelligence Report, and the Kay report explain their lack of ability to start up the programs (though admittedly Saddam was wanting to potentially start them back up). This is likely the reason why we have statements from Administration members like these prior to the push for war:

quote:

Cheney: �Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point� 9/16/01 http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresi...vp20010916.html

quote:

Powell: �And even though they may be pursuing weapons of mass destruction of all kinds, it is not clear how successful they have been. So to some extent, I think we ought to declare this a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.� 2/23/01 http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/931.htm Powell later said the next day in Cairo: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

And there�s also the distinct possibility of bookkeeping errors in the unaccountability. From the AP Press:
http://www.notinourname.net/war/wmd...rors-6sep03.htm

And then, of course, we have that darn liberal media, the NYTimes investigative reporter Judith Miller citing Ahmed Chalabi as a source for Saddam�s supposed nuclear capability. I need not state the bullshit liar and opportunist Chalabi turned out to be, unless you haven�t been following the news much on him.

So IOW, our intelligence was questionable at best on Saddam�s stockpiles, but this was simply not the picture given to Congress, the Press, or the public now, was it?

quote:

You're completely missing the point...months ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, someone tell me how time has any relavance to the mass graves arguement? If I go kill someone and no one finds out until I'm 90, then new evidence comes up and I'm convicted, guess what? I'm going to jail...

Exactly. So tell me, why didn�t we immediately cut ties with Saddam at that point of him gassing the Kurds in the 80�s, immediately put his ass back on the list of terrorist nations where it belongs, and ceased from playing both sides of the fence?

quote:

How was Saddam breaking a resolution with inspectors on the ground? How about kicking them out and not letting them back in? I'd say if he had nothing to hide, why kick out U.N. inspectors unless he did have something to hide or move stuff before evidence was found.

Well we don�t have to resort to hindsight on this one � he kicked UN inspectors out because he caught us in the act of inserting CIA spies in with the inspectors. He busted us, and we were actually in violation of the inspection agreement by conducting espionage under the cover of UN weapons inspections:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/200...28_Big_Lie1.HTM

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/j.../iraq-j07.shtml

And we left on our own accord, Saddam didn�t kick us out at all. He merely caught us in the act of violating the UN agreement on inspections. Revisionist history strikes again.

Keep in mind that in no way am I excusing Saddam�s actions altogether, but this point consistently seems to be overlooked by the warmongers.

Added in edit: Wait - are you talking about just prior to our invasion? Please cite your source with specific reference to the fact that Saddam kicked out UN inspectors prior to our invasion. From all intelligence and factual accounts, the Coalition kicked them out ourselves so we could start our bombing campaign.

quote:

We all know he had them, there tons to evidence to support that thanks to Trancer-X's posts (thanks buddy)

We also know that there was plenty of evidence that was filtered out that clearly showed our evidence for his WMD arsenal and capability was shaky at best. What do you make of that?

quote:

There's this great misconception after Saddam buying all these chemicals weapons during the Iran-Iraq war that they simply "disappeared". Where did they go? Did we really expect this former tyrant to destroy his WMD on his own just because he was asked to? Riiiiight...

According to Senate and Duelfer intelligence reports, yes he did, in fact, destroy much of his weaponry. I�ve covered the part about missing stockpiles earlier.

quote:

Not with his record and everyone knew it, heck he was even willing to starve millions of his own people!

Quite true. So why didn�t we press for humanitarian purposes as the primary reason then?

quote:

I'm willing to bet that the U.S. was counting on the fact that Saddam thought no one had the guts (especially the toothless U.N.) to come and get him. Hell I'm surprised someone finally did, but after 9-11, things changed a lot and endless debating becames rather exhausted.

How did things change after 9/11? How did our post-p/11 policy of pursuing Al Qaeda terrorists have anything to do with dictator regimes such as Iraq that didn�t have any known �corroborative relationship� with Al Qaeda or 9/11? If this was the case, why are we still doing terrific business with other known homicidal dictators around the globe? Why haven�t we attacked other countries and allies known to harbor Al Qaeda terrorists? Why the double standard?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 If this was the case, why are we still doing terrific business with other known homicidal dictators around the globe? Why haven�t we attacked other countries and allies known to harbor Al Qaeda terrorists? Why the double standard?

Phase III = Profit


The same reason why we were selling arms to both sides of the Iran/Iraq conflict.

We were financing the Nicaraguan Contra's, and there was some good (blood) money to be made via (what later became known as) Iraqgate and the Iran-Contra Affair!

Firestarter.. your flames have been extinguished by Mister opus

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Firestarter.. your flames have been extinguished by Mister opus

(Flames that were about as potent as a wet pack of matches)

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.