Fabrication and Common Sense

[Labrocca]

All too often the left is attempting to convince us that the Iraq War was something the Bush administration intentionally attempted to create. There is speculation that the administration fabricated evidence that Saddam had WMDs.

Here is my simple question. If they did fabricate the evidence why didn't they fabricate WMDs inside Iraq? One has to eventually use common sense. They could have created evidence inside Iraq and claim they had found the WMDs. Heck ...they could have done this a year ago. There is a LOT of desert out there.

http://www.gop.com/DemFacts/ThenNow.aspx

That's some great soundbites of top Democrat leaders pre-war that Saddam was a threat. Were their statements blind following of George Bush? Even in pre-war days the parties weren't exactly friendly. The war was a POPULAR choice and most Americans supported it including Democrats. Of course WMDs weren't found and then the spin began.

So why hasn't the Bush administration fabricated more evidence if indeed it fabricated the initial evidence? Common sense tells me...it didn't fabricate ANY evidence to begin with.

[Elrathin]

Here is my simple question. If they did fabricate the evidence why didn't they fabricate WMDs inside Iraq? One has to eventually use common sense. They could have created evidence inside Iraq and claim they had found the WMDs. Heck ...they could have done this a year ago. There is a LOT of desert out there.


Lab, this is one area where I feel you just don't understand. It's easy to take information A and information B and try to connect them. This is essentially what they did with the information IMO. To fabricate ACTUAL WMDs in Iraq is about as simple as the Bush administration being behind 9/11. It would take a conspiracy on a GRAND scale that they simply are not able to do.

Physical evidence and information are two distinctly different things and information is more easily manipulated than physical evidence and takes a lot less amount of people to do it. And no I am not on the Bush lied bandwagon, but I do recognize the possibility (Again I am saying possibilities not fact) that he either acted on the intelligence thinking that going into Iraq would fill in the holes or that he cherry picked the evidence.

[Tsky]

All too often the left is attempting to convince us that the Iraq War was something the Bush administration intentionally attempted to create. There is speculation that the administration fabricated evidence that Saddam had WMDs.

Here is my simple question. If they did fabricate the evidence why didn't they fabricate WMDs inside Iraq? One has to eventually use common sense. They could have created evidence inside Iraq and claim they had found the WMDs. Heck ...they could have done this a year ago. There is a LOT of desert out there.

http://www.gop.com/DemFacts/ThenNow.aspx

That's some great soundbites of top Democrat leaders pre-war that Saddam was a threat. Were their statements blind following of George Bush? Even in pre-war days the parties weren't exactly friendly. The war was a POPULAR choice and most Americans supported it including Democrats. Of course WMDs weren't found and then the spin began.

So why hasn't the Bush administration fabricated more evidence if indeed it fabricated the initial evidence? Common sense tells me...it didn't fabricate ANY evidence to begin with.


Lab,
It is very obvious that the information he used was fabricated or was twisted to make the American public believe something that was not true. We can speculate all day on how or why that happened but we cannot deny that it did happen. Iraq had no WMD’s. Somebody lied to somebody who lied to somebody else who lied to our President. Why isn’t our President interested in finding out where the lies came from? Why is it ok to use outright false intelligence as the main reason to invade a country and not be sickened and interested in firing someone after the truth is revealed? Why has the President stubbornly refused to acknowledge his mistake but instead uses deflection by telling us that America is ‘better off because Saddam is not in power’? Yeah, that’s fine and dandy but what about the WMD’s?

I believe the reason for going to war had nothing to do with WMD's. Once we invaded Iraq there was no need of going through the trouble of making up nuclear weapons, as if no one could tell where they came from. Do you know how difficult it would be to create a fake nuclear bomb? Anyway, once we were there the "mission was accomplished". The End.

It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s common sense.

[Drocket]

What Elrathin said - cherry-picking intelligence to mislead people is easy. Manufacturing physical evidence is a whole lot harder.

Beyond that, though, there's also the reality that, if the Iraq war had gone well, they wouldn't be facing the criticism over why it was started, at least not on any meaningful level. If we actually had been greeted as liberators, and had democracy magically taken root and bloom, then very few people would seriously be questioning why the war happened in the first. Sure, we were wrong about WMDs, but hey, it all worked out for the best, so why complain, right?

Starting a war under false pretenses is something the American public would be entirely satisfied to overlook - as long as you win the resulting war...

[Tsky]

What Elrathin said - cherry-picking intelligence to mislead people is easy. Manufacturing physical evidence is a whole lot harder.

Beyond that, though, there's also the reality that, if the Iraq war had gone well, they wouldn't be facing the criticism over why it was started, at least not on any meaningful level. If we actually had been greeted as liberators, and had democracy magically taken root and bloom, then very few people would seriously be questioning why the war happened in the first. Sure, we were wrong about WMDs, but hey, it all worked out for the best, so why complain, right?

Starting a war under false pretenses is something the American public would be entirely satisfied to overlook - as long as you win the resulting war...


I actually think Bush was banking on the very logic you just used. "No one will care about all of this false information once Saddam is ousted and we leave Bagdad. Of course we will still have military there to guard the oil fields but I will be a hero and rich."

Too bad Al-Qaeda, who the U.S. obviously didn't take seriously, and the other religious factions in Iraq had other plans...

[JohnnyAwake]

All too often the left is attempting to convince us that the Iraq War was something the Bush administration intentionally attempted to create. There is speculation that the administration fabricated evidence that Saddam had WMDs.

Here is my simple question. If they did fabricate the evidence why didn't they fabricate WMDs inside Iraq? One has to eventually use common sense. They could have created evidence inside Iraq and claim they had found the WMDs. Heck ...they could have done this a year ago. There is a LOT of desert out there.

http://www.gop.com/DemFacts/ThenNow.aspx

That's some great soundbites of top Democrat leaders pre-war that Saddam was a threat. Were their statements blind following of George Bush? Even in pre-war days the parties weren't exactly friendly. The war was a POPULAR choice and most Americans supported it including Democrats. Of course WMDs weren't found and then the spin began.

So why hasn't the Bush administration fabricated more evidence if indeed it fabricated the initial evidence? Common sense tells me...it didn't fabricate ANY evidence to begin with.


Democrats are now against the war because they're doing their job; That is representing their constituents. A majority of Americans want out. Last time I checked these people work for us and not President Bush. So regardless of where you sit on the idea of bringing troops home (more today instead of less tommorow) if you're not part of the majority concensus, then sorry tough luck. Don't blame the Democrats if that bothers you; Blame the Democracy and it's tyranny of the majority.

[Alonzo]

Here is my simple question. If they did fabricate the evidence why didn't they fabricate WMDs inside Iraq? One has to eventually use common sense. They could have created evidence inside Iraq and claim they had found the WMDs. Heck ...they could have done this a year ago. There is a LOT of desert out there.

I've said it before, evidence was cherrypicked, stretched, and possibly fabricated because they were convinced that they really did have WMD, the evidence was just lacking. They were positive that they'd find actual WMD's when they got there.


That's some great soundbites of top Democrat leaders pre-war that Saddam was a threat. Were their statements blind following of George Bush? Even in pre-war days the parties weren't exactly friendly. The war was a POPULAR choice and most Americans supported it including Democrats. Of course WMDs weren't found and then the spin began.

Most didn't support war on the evidence that existed before Bush brought his evidence forth. Most Democrats didn't support the war in the run up because other methods had not been exhausted. He was not seen as a threat that needed immediate military action to overthrow him.

[Labrocca]

I've said it before, evidence was cherrypicked, stretched, and possibly fabricated because they were convinced that they really did have WMD, the evidence was just lacking. They were positive that they'd find actual WMD's when they got there.

That's quite possible imho. However one has to realize that almost everyone else was convinced he had WMDs as well. This includes other nations intelligence agencies. And if you want to speculate..Saddam may have sold, moved or destroyed his WMDs upon invasion or imminence of invasion. He knew the day we would attack and enter...we all did. He could have easily gotten rid of them in time. IMHO it's more suspicious we didn't find anything YET he wasn't allowing inspectors full access.

The whole thing stinks but sometimes you just have to realize a fubar when you see it.

Most didn't support war on the evidence that existed before Bush brought his evidence forth. Most Democrats didn't support the war in the run up because other methods had not been exhausted.

Are you talking about the elected Democrats or the Democrat leaders? Because they plainly were backing Bush.

Rewriting of history is tough when you have video evidence.

http://www.gop.com/demfacts/DemsAtoZ.aspx

Democrats are now against the war because they're doing their job; That is representing their constituents.

This might be true BUT...it's playing politics to deny you were against the war all along and certainly the Dems win politically as the war is painted as a failure. Is there ANY evidence that the war in Iraq is going bad? It's entirely subjective. If you compare the Iraq War to say...the Vietnam War..then Iraq is a MAJOR success. Yes soldiers are dying...that's what a good soldier does. They fight for the freedoms we take for granted. They are fighting for our safety, our stability, for democracy and the Iraq people.

Physical evidence and information are two distinctly different things and information is more easily manipulated than physical evidence and takes a lot less amount of people to do it.

This is a good response to my question. And that is certainly the most common sense response here.


Good discusssion people...thanks.

[Alonzo]

I've said it before, evidence was cherrypicked, stretched, and possibly fabricated because they were convinced that they really did have WMD, the evidence was just lacking. They were positive that they'd find actual WMD's when they got there.

That's quite possible imho. However one has to realize that almost everyone else was convinced he had WMDs as well. This includes other nations intelligence agencies. And if you want to speculate..Saddam may have sold, moved or destroyed his WMDs upon invasion or imminence of invasion. He knew the day we would attack and enter...we all did. He could have easily gotten rid of them in time. IMHO it's more suspicious we didn't find anything YET he wasn't allowing inspectors full access.

The whole thing stinks but sometimes you just have to realize a fubar when you see it.

Most didn't support war on the evidence that existed before Bush brought his evidence forth. Most Democrats didn't support the war in the run up because other methods had not been exhausted.

Are you talking about the elected Democrats or the Democrat leaders? Because they plainly were backing Bush.

Rewriting of history is tough when you have video evidence.

http://www.gop.com/demfacts/DemsAtoZ.aspx



That's filled with quotes like these:

Sen. Boxer: "He Is A Threat, There's No Question, Because He's Got These Weapons, We Believe, But We Need To See The Extent Of It." (Dan Eggen, "GOP Senators Defend Case For Strikes Against Iraq," The Washington Post, 8/12/02)........

"Biden Said He Was Open To Any Number Of Possible Changes [To The Iraq War Resolution] 'As Long As The Bottom Line Is The Condition Upon Which You Are Authorized To Go To War Is To Deal With Weapons Of Mass Destruction.'" (Jon Frandsen, "Senate Poised To Begin Debate On Iraq As Talks Continue Over Resolution," Gannett News Service, 10/2/02)........

Sen. Clinton: "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. … It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)......

DNC Chairman Howard Dean: "I Believe That Iraq Does Have Chemical And Biological Weapons, And They Are A Threat To Many Nations In The Region, But Not To The United States." (PBS' "Newshour," 2/25/03).........

Gore: "You Know, In 1991, I Was One Of Those Who Put Partisanship Completely Aside And Supported President Bush At That Time In Launching The Gulf War. And In That War, We Saw How Saddam Had Threatened His Neighbors And Was Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, And Biological Weapons. And We're Not Going To Allow Him To Succeed." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)......



It's filled with quotes calling him a threat, but not calling for a war at this moment. It has quotes pertaining to the 98 campaign and the first gulf war (as in the case of Gore) and uses that to say they supported the 2003 war. Then there are many that say "something needs to be done", there's even a few "we need to see more" in there. There's only a few people in there who said they support the way the war came about. Saying "we need to do something" isn't the same as saying "we need to invade", though it may be to some far right people.

Then there are the Clinton quotes. It's funny how they use a bombing campaign, one where he decided he didn't want to invade and take over Iraq, as evidence that he supported taking over Iraq.

[lily]

Labrocca Wrote:
And if you want to speculate..Saddam may have sold, moved or destroyed his
WMDs upon invasion or imminence of invasion. He knew the day we would attack
and enter...we all did. He could have easily gotten rid of them in time.
IMHO it's more suspicious we didn't find anything YET he wasn't allowing
inspectors full access.

Labrocca........what sense does this make? We know Sadaam wasn't stupid. If
he had the weapons he would have used them....he was already being invaded
for them.




Are you talking about the elected Democrats or the Democrat leaders? Because
they plainly were backing Bush.

In the video we don't have years........the appearance of the leaders sure
are different between each statement.......but it still doesn't change the
fact that the final decison was Bush's, as the CIC and leader of this country. There was no big hurry as Bush was pretty much contained.

Here are just two examples of what
and where he was getting his information from.

Our old buddy Chalabi....listened to without backing up what he said. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi)


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/images/20040120-7_d012004-2-515h.jpg




Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi1 (Arabic: Ø£Ø*مد الجلبي 'Ahmad al-JalabÄ«) (born
October 30, 1944) was interim oil minister in Iraq[1] in April-May 2005 and
December-January 2006 and deputy prime minister from May 2005 until May
2006. Chalabi failed to win a seat in parliament in the December 2005
elections, and when the new Iraqi cabinet was announced in May 2006, he was
not awarded a post. Once dubbed the "George Washington of Iraq" by American
neoconservatives, he has fallen out of favor and is currently under
investigation by several U.S. government sources. He is also wanted for
embezzling nearly $300 million through a bank he created in Jordan. There is
also a great deal of circumstantial evidence that his recent disfavor is
linked to speculation that he worked as a double agent for the Iranian
government for the purpose of involving the United States in the war in Iraq
under the assumption that after the United States left the region, Iran
would be the ones to benefit from the turmoil to follow, and that this fact
was covered up by the American government due to the embarrassment it would
cause the president after having invited him to the State of the union
speech. It is also speculated widely in Washington that many of the United
States current problems with Iran stem from the man who almost single
handedly convinced the United States to invade Iraq, and the animosity felt
by the current American administration towards the government of Iran on
this issue.


Obvious forged documents (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/)




Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.
From David Ensor
CNN Washington Bureau
Friday, March 14, 2003 Posted: 10:43 PM EST (0343 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments
said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been
dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General
Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of
uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in
his presentation to the U.N. Security Council outlining the Bush
administration's case against Iraq.

"I'm sure the FBI and CIA must be mortified by this because it is extremely
embarrassing to them," former CIA official Ray Close said.



This might be true BUT...it's playing politics to deny you were against the
war all along and certainly the Dems win politically as the war is painted
as a failure.

That's one way to look at it.......the other would be to admit you were
wrong.......I think every Democrat, besides Hillary has done so.

[JohnnyAwake]

This might be true BUT...it's playing politics to deny you were against the war all along and certainly the Dems win politically as the war is painted as a failure. Is there ANY evidence that the war in Iraq is going bad? It's entirely subjective. If you compare the Iraq War to say...the Vietnam War..then Iraq is a MAJOR success. Yes soldiers are dying...that's what a good soldier does. They fight for the freedoms we take for granted. They are fighting for our safety, our stability, for democracy and the Iraq people.



I don't quite see how the Dems could say they're against the war from the get go when their voting record is public. Seems obvious that dems that voted for it were for it, and to argue otherwise would be pretty foolish.

The war is subjective; You're right. However regardless of casualty counts and ratios. Was the cost really worth the benefit. I think you and I are the people who ultimately decide this.

[Labrocca]

I don't quite see how the Dems could say they're against the war from the get go when their voting record is public.

I agree but that's not what they are doing now....

http://www.gop.com/demfacts/DemsAtoZ.aspx

Go ahead and just read that page...watch the videos. It's Democrat leaders one after another contradicting themselves. Showing their true colors as hypocrits and liars.

[Drocket]

Go ahead and just read that page...watch the videos. It's Democrat leaders one after another contradicting themselves. Showing their true colors as hypocrits and liars.

Ignoring the fact that you're relying on a link directly to the GOP, a COMPLETELY unbiased and reliable source... (And What In The Hell Is Up With Their Capitalizing Every Single Word On The Page?)

Most of those before and afters aren't even contradictions. Just start at the top, with Bayn. The 'before' are several quotes saying it would be bad if Saddam got WMDs. The after is, first, a quote saying that Iraq wasn't a haven for foreign terrorists, and second, a quote saying that had he been given more information about Iraq beforehand, he'd likely have made different decisions. Find the contradiction. I'll wait.

The Dean section is rather interesting. Before:
"I Believe That Iraq Does Have Chemical And Biological Weapons, And They Are A Threat To Many Nations In The Region, But Not To The United States."

After:
"Saddam Hussein Was Never A Threat To The United States."

Wow, he TOTALLY changed his viewpoint, didn't he? Or, um, not.

Seriously, they're cherry-picking quotes out of years upon years of speeches by these very public figures, and they're forced to post these non-contradictions as proof of the Democratic parties contradictions? This is the best they can do? Hell, I could do a better job than this manufacturing false contradictions, even though I think the entire premise is BS.

There's a few legitimate contradictions in there (see: Hillary), but the vast majority of this is so bad, doesn't even qualify as misleading.

[tony mitra]

Well, here is another way of looking at it. I was posting about one Mr. Gwynne Dyer, a Canadian born journalist living in London, who was banned from most Canadian papers for most of the last decade.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BKZFKZQGL._AA240_.jpg

In the book above, he writes a criticism of the media, himself included, for not being more probing on the issue of the Iraq WMD slogan before the war started.

Take, for example, the British Press. The foreign-owned newspapers (Conrad "Lord" Black's Daily Telegraph and Rupert Murdoch's Times and Sun) did their duty by their North American based masters and loyally supported Mr. Bush's war, whereas the British-owned papers mostly opposed the invasion of Iraq (Daily Mirror. Daily Mail, The Independent, and the Guardian). But even the papers that opposed Britain's participation in the war did an absolutely awful job of analyzing the ludicrous claims about Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD), which the Blair government used to sell the war to the British public.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51N7155AQ5L._AA240_.jpg

Media Lens, a UK-based left wing media-watch project, did a postwar survey of how often Mr. Scott Ritter, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, was mentioned in the pre war period in the Independent, and the Guardian, the most vociferously antiwar of the British national dailies. Ritter had published a book in 2002 in which he asserted that the Iraqi regime had cooperated with his team in dismantling "90-95 percent" of its WMD by the time his mission was withdrawn in December 1998, leaving the country "fundamentally disarmed". Subsequent rearmament would have been impossible, Ritter said, and any chemical or biological weapons that Iraq still retained would long ago have turned into "harmless sludge".

Ritter was almost constantly on the road in the year before the invasion, challenging the official assertions in Washington and London about Iraqi WMD. You would have expected him to be quoted almost daily in those paper's blanket coverage of the relentless march to war. In fact, he was scarecely mentioned at all; only a dozen brief references were made to him in the Guardian in 2002 and only in 8 out of 5,648 articles on Iraq in the Independent in 2003.

Neither of these papers has to apologize for its general coverage, but how can we account for this startling failure to use the most convincing testimony against the British government's fraudulent case for war? It is fairly easy to guess the answer. The British media may be less reverent of authority than their American counterparts, but for both, the starting point for most news coverage is what governments do and say, including their own. Most of the time official sources set the agenda and define what is legitimate news and the media play catch-up - and it is very hard, even in Britain, for the media to say that the government is simply flat-out lying.


So there it is - another source that faults the media, both American and British, for failing to source Scott Ritter enough times so that an alternative view could also be aired that Iraq just could not have had any WMD. This in essence is similar to what Hans Blix was also saying, just before the invasion, and got thoroughly marginalized and trashed by the US administration for it.

These would point to the likelyhood that the US wanted to take Saddam out, and tried to somehow connect 9/11 and terrorism to Iraq as an excuse, rather than serious concern about any WMD. And as Mr. Dyer noted, the press failed the public by towing the government line.

Cheers.
:)

[Deadshot]

Could we prove a conspiracy something on a Watergate or John Grishom novel level, I don't think that we could.

But we can begin to see how one of two things did happen. Either they did lie about the whole thing or they simply didn't read the intelligence correctly, but either way it's bad.

See, Labrocca, if it is a conspiracy and they did lie then we have a group in power who is resonsible for a war and the killings of tens of thousands of people.

But if the latter is true, and they simply mis-read or incorrectly asessed the intelligence then we have a group in power who are not smart enough to see bad intelligence.

I, personally, think it's the latter. That being the case, to not admit a mistake or at least attempting to not compound it would be the honorable thing to do. Instead it's "Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!" In their minds no mistakes have been made, or at the very least no BIG mistakes, and history will prove them right.

What's funny about that attitude is that since Bush and Co. have ROASTED the Right and virtually crippled the GOP (something that no Democrat could have done) history will be shaped by those who come after Bush Jr. Those people, in the immediate future, will attempt to change his policy and will begin to do things that are the polar opposite of Bush's wishes. If successful, those policies will continue and every year after his reign will be one of changing his policies.

So from 2009 on Presidents and their staff will talk about correcting Bush Jr's mistakes. We won't ever find the evidence for the conspiracy so many on the Far Left want to find, I don't believe that evidence really exists. Instead we'll simply have to be satisfied with the fact that for the next 20-30 years Bush will be the punching bag for the Left, and - a la Nixon - an embarrassment for the Right.

[ViolaLee]

..........Somebody lied to somebody who lied to somebody else who lied to our President. Why isn’t our President interested in finding out where the lies came from? ..........He knows where the lies came from. He and Cheney sought out the lies to fix the intelligence around their agenda to invade, as the Downing Street Memo reads. Chalabi, known liar, told them Iraq had WMD. He has since been proven to be untrustworthy, but Bush and Cheney liked what he had to say and used it. They also had intelligence from tortured people, who were tortured into saying what they wanted to hear.

Published on Friday, October 27, 2006 by Agence France Presse
Confession That Formed Base of Iraq War was Acquired Under Torture: Journalist

An Al-Qaeda terror suspect captured by the United States, who gave evidence of links between Iraq and the terror network, confessed after being tortured, a journalist told the BBC.

Iban al Shakh al Libby told intelligence agents that he was close to Al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and "understood an awful lot about the inner workings of Al-Qaeda," former FBI agent Jack Clonan told the broadcaster.

Libby was tortured in an Egyptian prison, according to Stephen Grey, the author of the newly-released book "Ghost Plane" who investigated the secret US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) prisons that housed terror suspects around the world.

US President George W. Bush confirmed the existence of the network of CIA holding facilities overseas during a September 6 speech defending controversial US interrogation practices.

Libby was apparently taken to Cairo, Clonan told the broadcaster, after being captured in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

"He (Libby) claims he was tortured in jail and that would be routine in Egyptian prisons," Grey said.

"What he claimed most significantly was a connection between ... Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. This intelligence report made it all the way to the top, and was used by (former US secretary of state) Colin Powell as a key piece of justification ... for invading Iraq," he told the broadcaster.

Powell claimed in a UN Security Council meeting in February 2003, weeks before a US-led coalition invaded Iraq, that the country under Saddam Hussein had provided weapons training to Al-Qaeda, saying he could "trace the story of a senior terrorist operative", whom Grey alleges is Libby.

"At the time, the caveats to say this intelligence was extracted under torture were not provided," Grey said.

Grey said that, after being held in Egypt, Libby was transferred to a secret CIA facility in Bagram, just north of Afghanistan's capital Kabul. The journalist said he had also met other people held in that facility who describe the torture that Libby faced at the CIA facility.

Since then, "he disappeared", Grey said.

"Like hundreds of other people arrested after September 11, he's vanished into a sort of netherworld of prisons where astonishingly, President Bush now says the prisons have emptied. " link (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1027-04.htm)

Just more proof that you don't get real intelligence from torturing people. People being tortured will say whatever you want to hear.

This is not the USA I know and love anymore.

[Trish]

In March of 2006, The New York Times published an article that asserts Hussein’s top military commanders believed Iraq possessed WMD until 3 months before the war. The article reveals that upon learning that no WMD existed, the commanders were dismayed. The article also asserts that Hussein’s paranoia over an uprising of Shiite Iraqis, coupled with an obsession with secrecy led Hussein to make decisions which fueled the US’ belief that WMD still existed immediately prior to the war. Hussein was apparently relying on the efforts France, Germany, and Russia in the UN to prevent any attack on Iraq, and also assumed that if those efforts failed any military action the US initiated against Iraq would be short-lived as he surmised the US had no stomach for prolonged military action. Hussein embarked on a deadly game of playing both ends against the middle. In order to keep enemies like Iran confused as to exactly what Iraq’s military capabilities might be, while at the same time complying with UN inspection requirements to avoid war, Hussein ordered a clandestine clean-up of facilities where any evidence of the country’s WMD past existed.

“Mr. Hussein did take some steps to avoid provoking war, though. While diplomatic efforts by France, Germany and Russia were under way to avert war, he rejected proposals to mine the Persian Gulf, fearing that the Bush administration would use such an action as an excuse to strike, the Joint Forces Command study noted.

In December 2002, he told his top commanders that Iraq did not possess unconventional arms, like nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, according to the Iraq Survey Group, a task force established by the C.I.A. to investigate what happened to Iraq's weapons programs. Mr. Hussein wanted his officers to know they could not rely on poison gas or germ weapons if war broke out. The disclosure that the cupboard was bare, Mr. Aziz said, sent morale plummeting.

To ensure that Iraq would pass scrutiny by United Nations arms inspectors, Mr. Hussein ordered that they be given the access that they wanted. And he ordered a crash effort to scrub the country so the inspectors would not discover any vestiges of old unconventional weapons, no small concern in a nation that had once amassed an arsenal of chemical weapons, biological agents and Scud missiles, the Iraq survey group report said.

Mr. Hussein's compliance was not complete, though. Iraq's declarations to the United Nations covering what stocks of illicit weapons it had possessed and how it had disposed of them were old and had gaps. And Mr. Hussein would not allow his weapons scientists to leave the country, where United Nations officials could interview them outside the government's control.

Seeking to deter Iran and even enemies at home, the Iraqi dictator's goal was to cooperate with the inspectors while preserving some ambiguity about its unconventional weapons — a strategy General Hamdani, the Republican Guard commander, later dubbed in a television interview "deterrence by doubt."

That strategy led to mutual misperception. When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell addressed the Security Council in February 2003, he offered evidence from photographs and intercepted communications that the Iraqis were rushing to sanitize suspected weapons sites. Mr. Hussein's efforts to remove any residue from old unconventional weapons programs were viewed by the Americans as efforts to hide the weapons. The very steps the Iraqi government was taking to reduce the prospect of war were used against it, increasing the odds of a military confrontation.� http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/international/middleeast/12saddam.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=db0bb206c9d4a5db&ex=1299819600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1192723518-AwCkvSxfmwAo22KLPS82Lw

In early 2003, Newsweek published a report detailing the information provided to the US in the mid 1990’s by Hussein Kamel (Saddam’s son-in-law who defected). Kamel supplied information that Iraq had disposed of large quantities of biological and chemical weapons immediately after the Gulf War. Kamel was himself responsible for turning over to the UN inspectors Iraqi stockpiles of prohibited weapons for destruction. The information provided by Kamel indicated that the Iraqi stockpile of WMD no longer existed. The US (both Clinton and Bush administrations) did not put much faith in the assertions that all the prohibited weapons had been destroyed because this same information provided by Kamel also revealed just how extensively and often Saddam had lied to the UN in the past about Iraq’s WMD programs. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1139

There was a lot uncertainty and suspicion about Iraq’s WMD programs between the Gulf War and the Iraq War. Iraq not only had a history of using WMD against its enemies, but also had a history of using such weapons against its own citizens. Hussein repeatedly lied about Iraq’s past WMD capabilities. For more than a decade Hussein pursued a strategy of refusing to comply with UN mandates to provide complete and accurate information as to what weapons had been destroyed and when the destruction had taken place. Hussein kept his own top commanders ignorant of just what the country’s military capabilities were. Hussein’s history of a willingness to use WMD, his repeated lies to the UN, his paranoia of the Shiite’s, his obsession with keeping Iran off-balance with the “deterrence by doubt�, and the secret, furtive manner he employed to erase any trace of Iraq’s WMD history were a deadly combination. It was Hussein’s decades-long web of lies, secrecy and obsessive paranoia that led to the Iraq War.

Bush cannot be blamed that Hussein’s deterrence by doubt strategy, combined with Hussein’s history of lies and non-compliance, was interpreted by the US as evidence Hussein was still lying. Hussein’s strategy was successful. It did indeed generate a great deal of doubt. Hussein’s mistake was in not realizing that the doubt would not only exist for the Shiite’s and Iran but for the US as well.

[Scorpion]

So why hasn't the Bush administration fabricated more evidence if indeed it fabricated the initial evidence? Common sense tells me...it didn't fabricate ANY evidence to begin with.


If I may, let's look at your theory from the perspective of arrogance. By and large the Bush administration, and especially Cheney, are arrogant to the extreme and see themselves as some knd of untouchables.

Evidence was presented that Iraq possessed WMDs and that evidence was used as a run up to invasion and war. That evidence was, for the most part, demonstrated by reliable review to be false.

Given the arrogance of the Bush administration I would postulate that they rationalized that the invasion of Iraq and capture of Hussein dignified their falsehoods and there was no further need for fabricated evidence.

Of course, I'm speculating, but I believe that I've done so rationally given the past behavior of the Bush team.

[ViolaLee]

Trish,

We could have listened to the UN inspectors Hans Blix and Scott Ritter who said they'd destroyed all of Iraq's WMD and were not finding any more weapons during their inspections. They were in Iraq in 2003 inspecting, while Bush lied on TV and said Saddam wouldn't let them back in.

We didn't have to listen to the main stream media, who of course wants their ratings to go up, so of course war is tempting prospect for them. The New York Times wrote plenty of fabricated articles by Judith Miller who was in cahoots with Scooter Libby and the rest of the architects for war.

Why are you so intent on defending the Iraq war? It's an unjust war. We didn't have to do it. Now almost 4000 US troops are dead. It's cost about ONE TRILLION DOLLARS already. More to come for both those numbers.

It's not worth it.

[Deadshot]

But this thread was started under the moniker of "Common Sense." Well if we attack a country who might have nuclear weapons, what's to stop us from attacking a country that DOES have nukes, like North Korea?

See if we begin to follow the "common sense" of POTUS Bush you can begin to see the shit he's gotten us into. I gave my explanation, in a post above, for what I thought happened to Bush in regards to Iraq, but let's assume you're right.

We attacked and took over a country that "supposedly" had Nukes. In the end we found no nukes, the leader was executed and the country is currently in a multi-way civil war. Now what does common sense tell you about how the others in the, so-called, Axis of Evil feel?

Do you see the fear and danger that exists now in North Korea and Iran? Wouldn't common sense tell you that they'd be next on our hit list, especially with Bush talking about Iran, nukes and WWIII in the same sentence?

Wouldn't common sense tell you that, even if EVERYTHING you say about Bush is not only right, but irrefutibly right, we're in a most dangerous position now? Since America is the ONLY nation to really put forward both her men and her treasure to stop these regimes, wouldn't common sense dictate that those regimes, and any others who might want nukes in the future, target the USA as an enemy?

Bush has brought us to the place where the common sense approach to the future would be much like that of the 1950's - building a shelter and praying for a future!

And this is the positive side, i.e. Bush has never been wrong. Thank God that's bullshit, now we can attempt diplomacy and move forward with hope, not fear.

[Labrocca]

Great post Trish...everyone else is just posting lefty spin on reality.

If I may, let's look at your theory from the perspective of arrogance. By and large the Bush administration, and especially Cheney, are arrogant to the extreme and see themselves as some knd of untouchables.

That's only an opinion.

Do you see the fear and danger that exists now in North Korea and Iran? Wouldn't common sense tell you that they'd be next on our hit list, especially with Bush talking about Iran, nukes and WWIII in the same sentence?

And this is a bad thing how? Basically you are telling me that Iran and North Korea now know we are serious when it comes to preventing their nuclear ambitions. That imho might be worth the war in iraq all by itself.

Most of those before and afters aren't even contradictions. Just start at the top, with Bayn. The 'before' are several quotes saying it would be bad if Saddam got WMDs. The after is, first, a quote saying that Iraq wasn't a haven for foreign terrorists, and second, a quote saying that had he been given more information about Iraq beforehand, he'd likely have made different decisions. Find the contradiction. I'll wait.

It's offensive that you placed blinders on to read that page then post here your bullshit response. A little honesty in a reply isn't too much to ask for is it? You are making stuff up now...blatantly imho.

Sen. Bayh: "The Question Is, Do You Want Saddam Hussein Having Chemical Weapons, Having Biological Weapons, Possibly One Day Having A Nuclear Weapon? Do You Want To Have To Deal With That? And If The Answer Is No, Then What Do You Do About It And When Do You Do Something About It?" (CNN's "Live Event/Special," 12/1/01)

Sen. Bayh: "Iraq Was Not A Haven For Foreign Terrorists Before March 2003 …" (William Schneider, "Challenging Bush's 'Safety' Defense," National Journal, 2/11/06)

The before quote obviously advocates a pre-emptive action even if there are no WMDs or Nukes. It's based on the assumption that Saddam is trying to obtain them. The same assumption just about ALL OUR LEADERS had. We have one president but we have many many representatives.

The after quote...clearly spin. Because he didn't use Iraq being a haven for terrorists in his statements before. He clearly understood Saddam was a "possible" threat as many of our senators and congressional leaders thought.

Saddam was toppled with the blessing and advocation from Democrats...end of story. Now they are back-peddling the affair as if they didn't have a thing to do with it.

Blame it all on Bush. That's the only message the Democrats have, sadly it's working.

[Wndrtch]

Here is my simple question. If they did fabricate the evidence why didn't they fabricate WMDs inside Iraq? One has to eventually use common sense. They could have created evidence inside Iraq and claim they had found the WMDs. Heck ...they could have done this a year ago. There is a LOT of desert out there.


Lab, this is one area where I feel you just don't understand. It's easy to take information A and information B and try to connect them. This is essentially what they did with the information IMO. To fabricate ACTUAL WMDs in Iraq is about as simple as the Bush administration being behind 9/11. It would take a conspiracy on a GRAND scale that they simply are not able to do.

Physical evidence and information are two distinctly different things and information is more easily manipulated than physical evidence and takes a lot less amount of people to do it. And no I am not on the Bush lied bandwagon, but I do recognize the possibility (Again I am saying possibilities not fact) that he either acted on the intelligence thinking that going into Iraq would fill in the holes or that he cherry picked the evidence.


...or, he could have decided to fight a war against terror, and decided that we need to have US Forces in the heart of the Middle East. Have you looked at a map of the Middle East? Iraq is smack-dab in the middle, bordering Iran's Western boarder. If you look at Iran’s Eastern boarder, guess who's there? Afghanistan!

US Armed Forces control both Eastern and Western boarders to Iran. Do you think that was by accident? And, Iraq is also a boarder nation to Syria.

[Deadshot]

Do you see the fear and danger that exists now in North Korea and Iran? Wouldn't common sense tell you that they'd be next on our hit list, especially with Bush talking about Iran, nukes and WWIII in the same sentence?

And this is a bad thing how? Basically you are telling me that Iran and North Korea now know we are serious when it comes to preventing their nuclear ambitions. That imho might be worth the war in iraq all by itself.

Blame it all on Bush. That's the only message the Democrats have, sadly it's working.



Hmmm....being on a war footing, because common sense says that if you make the threat you must follow through with it, for the next few decades...is that really a good thing?

Honestly, Lab, you realize that we won't be out of Iraq for decades to come, right? And now your happy with the fact that we make Iran and North Korea paranoid that we could invade. :dizzy:

Anyone that can read a chart of our military's OB (Order of Battle) and realize our manpower shortages realizes that another war would cause a draft! No wonder the "Bush Sux" thing is working so well.:clapper:

[Labrocca]

I welcome a draft. The US Military can draft both my sons into service if need be.

Honestly, Lab, you realize that we won't be out of Iraq for decades to come, right?

One only has to Google "bush patience iraq" to see how many times the Presidents asks for patience. Also being that they refuse to set a timetable to leave it's not hard to deduce that we will be there for a LONG time...at least for the Bush presidency. I am certain Hillary won't withdraw us either.

[Deadshot]

You would actually welcome a draft that would put your two sons in harms way for little to no gain?

That's the difference between you and I. This isn't Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan in 1941, nor is the stalemate that was WWI. The American people simply won't stand for a draft to knock out terrorists who are on the run already!

[Drocket]

And this is a bad thing how? Basically you are telling me that Iran and North Korea now know we are serious when it comes to preventing their nuclear ambitions. That imho might be worth the war in iraq all by itself.
I certainly hope you're kidding. What they know is that there's simply nothing we can do to stop them. We're bogged down in Iraq, Afghanistan is going to hell and Bin Laden is off somewhere having a good old time. We can be 'serious' all we want, but the reality is that there's absolutely nothing we can do to stop them.

The before quote obviously advocates a pre-emptive action even if there are no WMDs or Nukes.
Obviously? Not in the slightest. Believe it or not, there are options between "doing nothing" and "all out war".

The same assumption just about ALL OUR LEADERS had. We have one president but we have many many representatives.
All of them who got their information from the Bush administration, who's reports (redacted) WMDs (redacted) in Iraq. They (redacted) Saddam. (redacted).

(redacted) make decisions based on (redacted). WMDs (redacted) (redacted) (redacted).

All of which is to say: the main mistake they made was in trusting Bush.

The after quote...clearly spin. Because he didn't use Iraq being a haven for terrorists in his statements before.
It also has nothing to do with his before quote, thereby making the claims that this is somehow a contradictions rather ridiculous. When the best you got to show contradictions in your opponents positions are cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes that STILL aren't contradictions, you kind of have a problem.

He clearly understood Saddam was a "possible" threat as many of our senators and congressional leaders thought.
Again, there are options between doing nothing and all-out-war.

[Wndrtch]

I certainly hope you're kidding. What they know is that there's simply nothing we can do to stop them. We're bogged down in Iraq, Afghanistan is going to hell and Bin Laden is off somewhere having a good old time. We can be 'serious' all we want, but the reality is that there's absolutely nothing we can do to stop them.

So with this line of "logic", we should disband our law enforcemen, seeing how crime will happen anyways, and we are powerless to stop it?

All of them who got their information from the Bush administration, who's reports (redacted) WMDs (redacted) in Iraq. They (redacted) Saddam. (redacted).

(redacted) make decisions based on (redacted). WMDs (redacted) (redacted) (redacted).

All of which is to say: the main mistake they made was in trusting Bush.

...and this guy

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

Again, there are options between doing nothing and all-out-war.


Like, impose 14 UN resolutions, all of which were violated along with a cease-fire? You mean, we could do that?

[Marley]

"It's easy to take information A:"

In 1991, in order to save his hide, Saddam Hussien admitted, disclosed, declared that he possessed WMD and agreed to allow international inspectors observe and confirm their destruction.


"and information B:"

Seven years later, after stalling and jerking around these inspectors WITHOUT them successfully completing their duty, Saddam Hussien ejected them, permanently destroying the integrity of the weapons inspection process instead, and leaving the existence of Iraq's WMD a REALITY until PROVEN destroyed as already AGREED to.

and try to connect them.

AKA "logic."

Class dismissed.

[Scorpion]

Great post Trish...everyone else is just posting lefty spin on reality.

If I may, let's look at your theory from the perspective of arrogance. By and large the Bush administration, and especially Cheney, are arrogant to the extreme and see themselves as some knd of untouchables.

That's only an opinion.



First, labelling anything contrary to your opinion as a "lefty spin on reality" is absurd.

Second, certainly my post was speculative, but no more so then yours. I was simply offering a theory, food for thought. Nothing more

Your off-handed dismissal of whatever you disagree with is quite disengenuous.

[lily]

In early 2003, Newsweek published a report detailing the information provided to the US in the mid 1990’s by Hussein Kamel (Saddam’s son-in-law who defected). Kamel supplied information that Iraq had disposed of large quantities of biological and chemical weapons immediately after the Gulf War. Kamel was himself responsible for turning over to the UN inspectors Iraqi stockpiles of prohibited weapons for destruction. The information provided by Kamel indicated that the Iraqi stockpile of WMD no longer existed. The US (both Clinton and Bush administrations) did not put much faith in the assertions that all the prohibited weapons had been destroyed because this same information provided by Kamel also revealed just how extensively and often Saddam had lied to the UN in the past about Iraq’s WMD programs.

.....and now we know he was telling the truth.......but instead Bush chose to believe Chalabi, a known liar and crook, with nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[Elrathin]

It was Hussein’s decades-long web of lies, secrecy and obsessive paranoia that led to the Iraq War.

No matter how the road was paved, Bush, this administration, and all those that voted for the war chose to walk it, and fire that first shot.


Bush cannot be blamed that Hussein’s deterrence by doubt strategy, combined with Hussein’s history of lies and non-compliance, was interpreted by the US as evidence Hussein was still lying.


Noone is saying that Bush is responsible for Saddam's lies only that he is responsible for acting on poor intelligence. You can say what you want, but there WAS DEFIANTLY DOUBT on the intelligence. Instead of doing the right thing and making sure the evidence was valid, he chose to present his evidence as SOLID which it wasn't and hope that going to war would exonerate any doubt. It didn't, it only created more doubt and divide this country in the process because of it.

See the thing is, the one correct thing you pointed out is that Saddam was at fault as well. There is no denying that. Had he done what was needed, this wouldn't have happened either. But on the flip side, if you are going to go to war and you know people are going to die, you make DAMN SURE there is no other choice and your information is solid to risk that much.[hr]
...or, he could have decided to fight a war against terror, and decided that we need to have US Forces in the heart of the Middle East. Have you looked at a map of the Middle East? Iraq is smack-dab in the middle, bordering Iran's Western boarder. If you look at Iran’s Eastern boarder, guess who's there? Afghanistan!

Honestly, if that was the reason, it was a poor one. Due to our actions, we have only proven to create MORE terrorists than we are killing. How is that winning the war on terror again?


US Armed Forces control both Eastern and Western boarders to Iran. Do you think that was by accident? And, Iraq is also a boarder nation to Syria.


I'm sorry we "control" nothing as far as borders are concerned or we wouldn't be having foreign fighters in Iraq.

[hr]
And this is a bad thing how? Basically you are telling me that Iran and North Korea now know we are serious when it comes to preventing their nuclear ambitions. That imho might be worth the war in iraq all by itself.


Have you ever backed into a corner a scared dog? Chances are no matter what you have in your hand, it is going to attak because it feels it has no other choice.

By doing what we have, we are starting to back them into a corner and not all scared dogs lay down quietly.

[Trish]

Trish,

We could have listened to the UN inspectors Hans Blix and Scott Ritter who said they'd destroyed all of Iraq's WMD and were not finding any more weapons during their inspections. They were in Iraq in 2003 inspecting, while Bush lied on TV and said Saddam wouldn't let them back in.

We didn't have to listen to the main stream media, who of course wants their ratings to go up, so of course war is tempting prospect for them. The New York Times wrote plenty of fabricated articles by Judith Miller who was in cahoots with Scooter Libby and the rest of the architects for war.

Why are you so intent on defending the Iraq war? It's an unjust war. We didn't have to do it. Now almost 4000 US troops are dead. It's cost about ONE TRILLION DOLLARS already. More to come for both those numbers.

It's not worth it.



First of all, no matter who we "listened" to none of us had any way of knowing if Hussein was telling the truth. He had lied so often about the very same thing, had placed so many roadblocks in the way of the inspectors, had repeatedly refused to provide complete and accurate details of how the WMD's had been destroyed, that there existed very real concerns that this was simply another one of his "shell" games. Then we had all the photographs where Iraqi's were "scrubbing" away the evidence of past WMD activities. At the time those photos were damning. They seemed to confirm that Hussein was indeed hiding something, and hiding something big. We now know "why" Hussein ordered things handled so secretly - to keep Iran guessing, but the tactic backfired at the time.

As to defending the war, I'm not. I don't have to. The Iraq War is a fact of life. We're there no matter what I personally think about it. This post was not about defending the war, but rather attempting to put into perspective all the "Bush is a liar," we went to war based on "lies," that keep getting repeated so often that people no longer question them. Those comments aren't accurate....they weren't accurate then, and they aren't accurate now.[hr]


In early 2003, Newsweek published a report detailing the information provided to the US in the mid 1990’s by Hussein Kamel (Saddam’s son-in-law who defected). Kamel supplied information that Iraq had disposed of large quantities of biological and chemical weapons immediately after the Gulf War. Kamel was himself responsible for turning over to the UN inspectors Iraqi stockpiles of prohibited weapons for destruction. The information provided by Kamel indicated that the Iraqi stockpile of WMD no longer existed. The US (both Clinton and Bush administrations) did not put much faith in the assertions that all the prohibited weapons had been destroyed because this same information provided by Kamel also revealed just how extensively and often Saddam had lied to the UN in the past about Iraq’s WMD programs.

.....and now we know he was telling the truth.......but instead Bush chose to believe Chalabi, a known liar and crook, with nothing to lose and everything to gain.



Yes, we know that now - after the fact. Hindsight is always 20/20. Unfortunately, all we had to go on at the time was a long history of deceit and uncompliance, coupled with what at the time was evidence that appeared to support our belief Hussein was lying once again. After all - Hussein was a known liar and crook as well.[hr]


Noone is saying that Bush is responsible for Saddam's lies only that he is responsible for acting on poor intelligence. You can say what you want, but there WAS DEFIANTLY DOUBT on the intelligence.



No, what they are saying is that Bush lied and fabricated intelligence. There was certainly doubt as to whether or not WMD still existed in Iraq. However, AT THE TIME, Hussein's history of lies, coupled with the secretive clean-up efforts and intercepted Iraqi messages gave the impression that Hussein was once again playing fast and loose with the truth. AT THE TIME, the intelligence appeared to be sound. Obviously, it wasn't sound. But even Saddam's own top commanders were kept in the dark - how was the US to know what even Saddam's inner-circle did not know?

[lily]

First of all, no matter who we "listened" to none of us had any way of knowing if Hussein was telling the truth. He had lied so often about the very same thing........,

Sadly Trish.......we are now finding ourselves in the same shoes.


Then we had all the photographs where Iraqi's were "scrubbing" away the evidence of past WMD activities. At the time those photos were damning. They seemed to confirm that Hussein was indeed hiding something, and hiding something big. We now know "why" Hussein ordered things handled so secretly - to keep Iran guessing, but the tactic backfired at the time.

Speaking of photographs.....I remember Rumsfeld holding up maps, saying he knew exactly where the WMD were. I knew right then and there something was not quite right. If we had the maps, why did we need to invade, instead of just bombing like we have done in the past. Even after we invaded........why weren't those sites the first places we went to?


Yes, we know that now - after the fact. Hindsight is always 20/20. Unfortunately, all we had to go on at the time was a long history of deceit and uncompliance, coupled with what at the time was evidence that appeared to support our belief Hussein was lying once again. After all - Hussein was a known liar and crook as well.

No......one was a known crook and liar and everything to gain and the other had no reason to lie. We took everything Chalibi had to say, with no questions asked and he was very well rewarded for his efforts. He was being paid by our government, he had seats in the Iraqi parliment.........and if all else failed, he always had Iran.

[Labrocca]

the reality is that there's absolutely nothing we can do to stop them.

I hope you're kidding with that statement...it's absurd. We have 150k troops pretty damn close to both countries that could be mobiled into Iran in a heartbeat and into N. Korean in about 48 hours.

First, labelling anything contrary to your opinion as a "lefty spin on reality" is absurd.

Too bad that we are talking about a lot of facts here and not opinions. Trish has pointed out actual statements and so have I. When you take facts and try to change their meaning...that's spin. Example...you calling my opinions (facts) absurd.

Your off-handed dismissal of whatever you disagree with is quite disengenuous.

lol...funny..truly funny

Have you ever backed into a corner a scared dog? Chances are no matter what you have in your hand, it is going to attak because it feels it has no other choice.

And comparing a nation to a dog is laughable. And even if your comparison was true...if a dog bites someone...you have no choice but to kill the dog. N. Korea and Iran are snarling pretty hard. Iran has been sneaking under the fence while we aren't looking btw.

You can say what you want, but there WAS DEFIANTLY DOUBT on the intelligence.

Doubt? From where? Do you mean Bush should have doubted what was handed to him from Clinton? Nothing is certain but certainly there was enough indicators that required us to make our best judgement and remove Saddam. Why take chances post-9/11???

[lily]

I hope you're kidding with that statement...it's absurd. We have 150k troops pretty damn close to both countries that could be mobiled into Iran in a heartbeat and into N. Korean in about 48 hours.

Is this the exit strategy out of Iraq then.........because those troops seem pretty busy right now.



Doubt? From where? Do you mean Bush should have doubted what was handed to him from Clinton?

Now you're blaming the intelligence on Clinton?

Nothing is certain but certainly there was enough indicators that required us to make our best judgement and remove Saddam. Why take chances post-9/11???

What does Iraq have to do with 911?

[Elrathin]

No, what they are saying is that Bush lied and fabricated intelligence. There was certainly doubt as to whether or not WMD still existed in Iraq. However, AT THE TIME, Hussein's history of lies, coupled with the secretive clean-up efforts and intercepted Iraqi messages gave the impression that Hussein was once again playing fast and loose with the truth. AT THE TIME, the intelligence appeared to be sound. Obviously, it wasn't sound. But even Saddam's own top commanders were kept in the dark - how was the US to know what even Saddam's inner-circle did not know?


AT THE TIME, more could have been done. There was plenty that should have been done instead of GOING TO WAR. Are you saying ALL AVENUES were exhausted? Are you saying NOTHING else could have been done? If there is ONE thing that could have been done, then going to war should NOT HAVE HAPPENED.[hr]
And comparing a nation to a dog is laughable.

I've heard worse Hillary analogies from conservatives. However, no matter how much you dislike it, it is not invalid by far.


And even if your comparison was true...if a dog bites someone...you have no choice but to kill the dog. N. Korea and Iran are snarling pretty hard. Iran has been sneaking under the fence while we aren't looking btw.

The moral is you don't back them up. Rhetoric only hinders any political solutions. Or are you saying war is the ONLY way to solve things now?


Doubt? From where?

There was quite a bit international intelligence that casted doubt.


Why take chances post-9/11???


Because not everything is about 9/11.

[Trish]

No......one was a known crook and liar and everything to gain and the other had no reason to lie. We took everything Chalibi had to say, with no questions asked and he was very well rewarded for his efforts. He was being paid by our government, he had seats in the Iraqi parliment.........and if all else failed, he always had Iran.


I am assuming that by your statement "the other had no reason to lie" you are referring to Saddam Hussein. He had the same reasons he had for lying for the past two decades. The only difference this time was that he miscalculated...the deception meant to keep Iran and the Shiites off balance also served to "deceive" the US into believing he was lying yet again. What's that old saying? Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive? Lies and deception had served him so well in the past, it's likely he never dreamed that would not continue to serve him well.

[lily]

[quote=Trish]

I am assuming that by your statement "the other had no reason to lie" you are referring to Saddam Hussein.

I guess I should have been clearer, my fault.......sorry. I was refering to your post #17 and Sadaam's son in law's statement. He is the one that had nothing to lose and Chalabi had evrything to gain.

[Trish]

Are you saying ALL AVENUES were exhausted? Are you saying NOTHING else could have been done? If there is ONE thing that could have been done, then going to war should NOT HAVE HAPPENED.




No, I'm not saying all avenues were exhausted. I AM saying that Bush made a judgment that continued "diplomatic" efforts were not going to be any more effective against Hussein than they had been for the preceeding 12 years.

The question of whether the US should have gone to war or not is moot. We're there. But the continued assertions that the war was predicated on "lies" and "fabrications of intelligence" by Bush is simply not true.

It would be wonderful if the US government was privy to every dirty deal, slight-of-hand, machination, distortion, untruth, political subterfuge, etc. of every other nation before decisions were made, especially decisions regarding war. But, I'm afraid that is not a realistic expectation. The US is no more psychic than the rest of the world in this regard. Like everyone else, we have to do the best we can with what we have available at the time and hope and pray to God we're right. If we're not, we have to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, learn from our mistakes and try to do better in the future.

You see that's what I find great about America. It's not that we're perfect, or anywhere near perfect. It's that we STRIVE to do better than we've done in the past. We TRY to live up to an ideal. We screw up, we fall down, we backslide - we're human. But damn it, we keep trying to BE that ideal. The dissent of government decisions, the questioning of policies, the outcry against our own actions when we deem them wrong - all of that is part of the process of Americans trying to living up to the ideal upon which we were founded. But dissent, questioning, and outcries must be based on accurate assessment of issues, not simply emotional reaction or we are doing ourselves a grave disservice.

[Labrocca]

Because not everything is about 9/11.

Maybe if you were in NYC on that day you would feel differently. You didn't see 2 of the largest buildings in the world demolished and NYC smoldering for days. You didn't witness hundreds of people instantly dying from a terrorist attack.

Or are you saying war is the ONLY way to solve things now?

The threat of war is a tool for diplomacy. It's useless however if the threat of war won't be held up. I didn't say it was the ONLY way but our leaders and MOST AMERICANS felt at the time it was time for it. Saddam had showed his defiance. Many in governemtn were well aware of the dangers if we did nothing and that includes the Democrat leaders.

[Drocket]

the reality is that there's absolutely nothing we can do to stop them.

I hope you're kidding with that statement...it's absurd. We have 150k troops pretty damn close to both countries that could be mobiled into Iran in a heartbeat and into N. Korean in about 48 hours.

What, any simply leave Iraq? I thought it would be a horrible, horrible mistake to leave Iraq. Beyond that, Iran has over twice the population of Iraq: if we can't stabilize Iraq, you think we have a shot of managing a problem three times larger? Hell, forget three times larger - invading Iran would piss off Syria, Turkey, Pakistan and a half-dozen other countries in the area so badly, we'd realistically be fighting a war on about 10 fronts. And that's not even getting into the fact that even in Iraq, only a small portion of the population is actively fighting us, while the rest just wait it out until we go home. Invading Iran would unleash a level of violence that's virtually unimaginable.

Iran has us over a barrel. It's just that simple.

[Tsky]

Are you saying ALL AVENUES were exhausted? Are you saying NOTHING else could have been done? If there is ONE thing that could have been done, then going to war should NOT HAVE HAPPENED.




No, I'm not saying all avenues were exhausted. I AM saying that Bush made a judgment that continued "diplomatic" efforts were not going to be any more effective against Hussein than they had been for the preceeding 12 years.

The question of whether the US should have gone to war or not is moot. We're there. But the continued assertions that the war was predicated on "lies" and "fabrications of intelligence" by Bush is simply not true.

It would be wonderful if the US government was privy to every dirty deal, slight-of-hand, machination, distortion, untruth, political subterfuge, etc. of every other nation before decisions were made, especially decisions regarding war. But, I'm afraid that is not a realistic expectation. The US is no more psychic than the rest of the world in this regard. Like everyone else, we have to do the best we can with what we have available at the time and hope and pray to God we're right. If we're not, we have to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, learn from our mistakes and try to do better in the future.

You see that's what I find great about America. It's not that we're perfect, or anywhere near perfect. It's that we STRIVE to do better than we've done in the past. We TRY to live up to an ideal. We screw up, we fall down, we backslide - we're human. But damn it, we keep trying to BE that ideal. The dissent of government decisions, the questioning of policies, the outcry against our own actions when we deem them wrong - all of that is part of the process of Americans trying to living up to the ideal upon which we were founded. But dissent, questioning, and outcries must be based on accurate assessment of issues, not simply emotional reaction or we are doing ourselves a grave disservice.


Focusing solely on your first part of your post my question is this: If all necessary means had not been exhausted, why rush to war? Secondly, what basis did Bush have to make the judgement that 12 years was long enough for Iraq to 'get their act together'?

Those were the 'common sense' questions that many of us had before the war started. What reason did the U.S. have to preemptively strike Iraq, of all the non-complying dictatorships in the world, and lead them into war?

The answer your President gave us was twofold.

1. Iraq had WMD's. (Bush said this was the main reason)
2. Iraq had connections to 9/11.

It turns out the answers to the commons sense questions asked by Congress, Democrats and the American public were lies. In what universe is it OK for the President of the United States to lead his country in to war based on lies and not have hell to pay for such a poor decision? You said we made a mistake and can learn from it and move on. When you make a poor decision that causes the deaths of over 1 million people then it goes beyond just making a mistake. It is gross negligence. Has the President really learned from his mistake? No. Since admitting that Iraq had no WMD's he has steered clear of the topic and reinforces his belief that we should 'stay the course' and 'the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein.'

He has never admitted that his decision to go to war was a mistake and he has never apologized to the American public or the families of the dead soldiers for starting a war based on false information. Obviously that is acceptable to you but don't be surprised that many people are disgusted.

[Wndrtch]

Focusing solely on your first part of your post my question is this: If all necessary means had not been exhausted, why rush to war? Secondly, what basis did Bush have to make the judgement that 12 years was long enough for Iraq to 'get their act together'?

LOL!!
Are you kidding? Saddam had 14 YEARS of playing games of hide & seek with the in-effectual UN! There were also 17 VIOLATED UN resolutions! I don't call that "rush to war". How much longer did you want to give the guy? Would 23 broken UN resolution be enough? At what point does one wake-up, and relies you're being played for a fool?

Those were the 'common sense' questions that many of us had before the war started. What reason did the U.S. have to preemptively strike Iraq, of all the non-complying dictatorships in the world, and lead them into war?

And none of you were privy to sensitive, "top-secret" raw data files from our intel community, and the intel of our international partners. The President did, the Congress did, and the Pentagon did, and ALL of them came to the same conclusions. The intel may not have been up-to-date, but NOBODY LIED!!

Even the "Anointed-One", Bill Clinton felt it necessary to go after Iraq, he just didn't have the stones to get it done.

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Of course, if you just want a "common-sense" quote...

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Normally, this alone would be justification to re-engage an enemy, unless of course, you are in the habit of denying history.

The answer your President gave us was twofold.

1. Iraq had WMD's. (Bush said this was the main reason)
2. Iraq had connections to 9/11.

1. He did, and everybody else on the planet thought so to.
2. Never said by Bush. He said that there was evidence that Saddam had begun dialog with known terrorist groups, including Al Qaida, which was cross-referenced with Britians' intel and Russia/Poland.

It turns out the answers to the commons sense questions asked by Congress, Democrats and the American public were lies. In what universe is it OK for the President of the United States to lead his country in to war based on lies and not have hell to pay for such a poor decision? You said we made a mistake and can learn from it and move on. When you make a poor decision that causes the deaths of over 1 million people then it goes beyond just making a mistake. It is gross negligence. Has the President really learned from his mistake? No. Since admitting that Iraq had no WMD's he has steered clear of the topic and reinforces his belief that we should 'stay the course' and 'the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein.'

If you want to hold on the "Lies" bit, then show me evidence that Bush intentionally lied. Likewise, please confirm the number of deaths you posted, and where you got those inflated numbers.

Your comments also lack the perspective that Iraq was part of a larger plan to confront Global Terrorism. If one wants to "effectively" fight a war on terror, YOU MUST have a military presence in the Middle East somewhere, as THAT's where terrorism was born, is supported from, and breeds. Once you make that decision, it becomes obvious that Iraq is key because of its geographical location.

He has never admitted that his decision to go to war was a mistake and he has never apologized to the American public or the families of the dead soldiers for starting a war based on false information. Obviously that is acceptable to you but don't be surprised that many people are disgusted.


Going to war was not a mistake, therefore he has nothing to apologies for. That he didn't plan well enough at the outset, is a reasonable criticism.

[Elrathin]

Maybe if you were in NYC on that day you would feel differently. You didn't see 2 of the largest buildings in the world demolished and NYC smoldering for days. You didn't witness hundreds of people instantly dying from a terrorist attack.

My comment was not everything is about 9/11. So am I to understand to you EVERYTHING is about 9/11?



The threat of war is a tool for diplomacy.


It is a tool, but it shouldn't be the ONLY tool used and it sure in the hell shouldn't be the first tool that's pulled out in talks with other countries. Labeling the Axis of Evil was a very poor choice of words for Bush.[hr]
And none of you were privy to sensitive, "top-secret" raw data files from our intel community, and the intel of our international partners. The President did, the Congress did, and the Pentagon did, and ALL of them came to the same conclusions. The intel may not have been up-to-date, but NOBODY LIED!!

No, not ALL of them came to the same conclusion, there were those that voted against going to war.

As for the information, it wasn't just not up to date, there was much that was simply NOT true.

[Wndrtch]

No, not ALL of them came to the same conclusion, there were those that voted against going to war.

True. There will always be Politicians, afraid to do hard & difficult things.

As for the information, it wasn't just not up to date, there was much that was simply NOT true.

Informtation that is later discovered to be "not true", does not constitute someone as a liar. Unfortunately, Presidents don't have crystal balls (maybe brass ones :evil:), dispite what Hillary says ("If I knew then, what I know now..."). You have to ACT on what you have in hand.

[Elrathin]

True. There will always be Politicians, afraid to do hard & difficult things.

Or smart ones that don't want to waste lives on faulty intelligence.


Informtation that is later discovered to be "not true", does not constitute someone as a liar. Unfortunately, Presidents don't have crystal balls (maybe brass ones :evil:), dispite what Hillary says ("If I knew then, what I know now..."). You have to ACT on what you have in hand.


I never said Bush was a liar, but I fault him for either cherry picking the evidence (possibility) or moving on faulty intelligence. And what is this shit about Hillary, I don't care what she said, I don't like her so what's your point bringing up Hillary?

And there was evidence he had IN HAND that contradicted some of the other intelligence, so why not ACT on that? I would rather be sure and be in the right, then be unsure and be wrong and kill a lot of people in the process.

[Wndrtch]

I never said Bush was a liar, but I fault him for either cherry picking the evidence (possibility) or moving on faulty intelligence. And what is this shit about Hillary, I don't care what she said, I don't like her so what's your point bringing up Hillary?

The Hillary comment was to drive-home the crystal ball point. "Had I known then, what I know now..." is a crystal ball statement.

And there was evidence he had IN HAND that contradicted some of the other intelligence, so why not ACT on that? I would rather be sure and be in the right, then be unsure and be wrong and kill a lot of people in the process.


First off, post or link to, what the contradicted evidence is, so it can be evaluated in context (and Joe Wilson doesn't count). We can't discuss what is "actionable", until we have both data-points to weigh.

[Tsky]

True. There will always be Politicians, afraid to do hard & difficult things.

Or smart ones that don't want to waste lives on faulty intelligence.


Informtation that is later discovered to be "not true", does not constitute someone as a liar. Unfortunately, Presidents don't have crystal balls (maybe brass ones :evil:), dispite what Hillary says ("If I knew then, what I know now..."). You have to ACT on what you have in hand.


I never said Bush was a liar, but I fault him for either cherry picking the evidence (possibility) or moving on faulty intelligence. And what is this shit about Hillary, I don't care what she said, I don't like her so what's your point bringing up Hillary?

And there was evidence he had IN HAND that contradicted some of the other intelligence, so why not ACT on that? I would rather be sure and be in the right, then be unsure and be wrong and kill a lot of people in the process.



There was no rush to war? In the speech you kindly referred to from Clinton he was of the belief that Saddam was stock piling nuclear weapons and he suggested that the way to find out was: “But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.�

He was obviously not trying to be a wimp he was trying to be DIPLOMATIC because apparently Clinton did believe Saddam had WMD's and he wanted to deal with him as you would deal with someone who has the capability to blow up his neighbors DIPLOMATICALLY!!! Nowhere did Clinton suggest killing Saddam and all of his sons either.

Sure people believed Saddam could have WMD’s but your President and his cohorts boldly asserted that Saddam 100% did have WMD’s. He and/or his staff presented evidence that Saddam had sought yellow cake from Niger and had uranium enriched tubes, remember?
A resolution was passed to find out just how significant a nuclear threat from Saddam was. Here is the outline of events:

DISARMING SADDAM-A CHRONOLOGY OF IRAQ AND UN WEAPONS INSPECTIONS FROM 2002-2003
July 2003
Press Contacts: Daryl Kimball, Executive Director, (202) 463-8270 x107; Paul Kerr, Research Analyst, (202) 463-8270 x102

Prior to the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1441 in November 2002 giving Iraq a “final opportunity� to comply with its disarmament requirements under previous Security Council resolutions. At issue was Iraq’s failure to provide an adequate accounting of its prohibited weapons programs or to convince UN inspectors that its weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed as Baghdad claimed.

UN weapons inspectors worked in Iraq from November 27, 2002 until March 18, 2003. During that time, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) conducted more than 900 inspections at more than 500 sites. The inspectors did not find that Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons or that it had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

Although Iraq was cooperative on what inspectors called “process�—allowing inspectors access to suspected weapons sites, for example—it was only marginally cooperative in answering the questions surrounding its weapons programs. Unable to resolve its differences with Security Council members who favored strengthening and continuing weapons inspections, the United States abandoned the inspections process and initiated the invasion of Iraq on March 19.
Following is a summary of the major events of the decision to pursue, then abandon, UN weapons inspections in Iraq.

Skip to: 2002, 2003

2002
January 29, 2002: In his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush labels Iraq a member of an "axis of evil," along with Iran and North Korea. The president's speech is the first of many statements by top U.S. officials on the dangers posed by Iraq. Several of these officials question the ultimate worth of arms inspections and advocate the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as the only way to guarantee that Iraq will not develop weapons of mass destruction in the future.
March 7, 2002: Iraqi officials meet with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) Executive Chairman Hans Blix to discuss arms inspections for the first time since 1998. UN officials fail to win the return of inspectors at this meeting or two subsequent ones that occur in May and July.

September 12, 2002: Amid increasing speculation that the United States is preparing to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, Bush delivers a speech to the United Nations calling on the organization to enforce its resolutions on disarming Iraq. Bush strongly implies that if the United Nations does not act, the United States will-a message that U.S. officials make more explicit the following week.

September 16, 2002: Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return "without conditions." Iraqi and UN officials meet September 17 to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month. The United States contends that there is nothing to talk about and warns that the Iraqis are simply stalling. The Bush administration continues to press the Security Council to approve a new UN resolution calling for Iraq to give weapons inspectors unfettered access and authorizing the use of force if Iraq does not comply.

November 8, 2002: The UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1441. The resolution declares that Iraq "remains in material breach" of past resolutions and gives Iraq a "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" set out by Security Council resolutions stretching back to the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. It also strengthens UNMOVIC's and the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) powers to conduct inspections throughout Iraq, specifying that Iraq must allow "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to "facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect." UN inspectors are given the authority to prohibit the movement of vehicles and aircraft around sites to be inspected and have the right to interview anyone they choose, without Iraqi officials present, in any location they wish. Additionally, the resolution overrides a 1998 memorandum of understanding between Baghdad and UN Secretary-General Annan that had placed special conditions on inspections of presidential sites to which Iraq had previously denied the inspectors access.
The resolution also warns that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it fails to comply with its disarmament obligations.

November 13, 2002: Iraq accepts Resolution 1441 in a letter to Annan from Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabr.

November 27, 2002: UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin.

December 7, 2002: Iraq submits its declaration "of all aspects of its [weapons of mass destruction] programmes" as required by Resolution 1441. The declaration is supposed to provide information about any prohibited weapons activity since UN inspectors left the country in 1998 and resolve outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that had not been answered by 1998.
The resolution requires the declaration to be "currently accurate, full, and complete," but UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors tell the UN Security Council on December 19 that the declaration contains little new information.

December 19, 2002: Following IAEA and UNMOVIC briefings to the UN Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell states that the Iraqi declaration contains a "pattern of systematic…gaps" that constitute "another material breach" of Iraq's disarmament obligations.
2003

February 5, 2003: Powell briefs the Security Council in an effort to persuade members that Iraq is subverting the inspections process. He publicly presents intelligence for the first time to support Washington's claim that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction and interfering with inspections. France, China, and Russia are not persuaded and support continued inspections.

February 24, 2003: The United States, United Kingdom, and Spain co-sponsor a new Security Council resolution saying "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it by Resolution 1441."
The same day, Russia and France submit a memorandum stating that military force should be a "last resort" and that force should not yet be used because there is "no evidence" that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. The memorandum also says, however, that "inspections…cannot continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm." It further adds that Baghdad's cooperation, although improving, is not "yet fully satisfactory."
The memorandum proposes that the inspectors submit a program of work that lists and clearly defines specific disarmament tasks. Such a report is already required under Resolution 1284, which created UNMOVIC in 1999.
The memorandum also suggests "further measures to strengthen inspections," including increasing staff and bolstering technical capabilities. Additionally, it proposes a new timeline mandating regular reporting to the Security Council about inspectors' progress, as well as a progress report to be submitted 120 days after the program of work is adopted.
Neither measure is adopted.

March 7, 2003: UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix tells the Security Council that Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors in providing information about past weapons activities has improved, although Baghdad has not yet complied with its disarmament obligations. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors had stated during briefings to the Security Council on January 27 and February 14 that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations. Yet, both deemed the cooperation insufficient.

The United States, United Kingdom, and Spain co-sponsor another resolution stating that Iraq "will have failed" to comply with Resolution 1441 unless Baghdad cooperates with its disarmament obligations by March 17. The draft resolution implies that the council members would take military action if Iraq failed to meet the deadline.

March 17, 2003: After U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to build support for the new resolution fail, the United States decides not to seek a vote on it-a reversal of Bush's March 6 statement that the United States would push for a Security Council vote on the resolution, regardless of whether it was expected to pass.
Annan announces that UN weapons inspectors will be withdrawn from the country.

Bush announces that Hussein and his sons have 48 hours to leave Iraq or the United States will initiate military action.

March 18, 2003: UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors leave Iraq.

March 19, 2003: The United States commences military action. The United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland provide troops to the U.S.-led invasion.

May 1, 2003: Bush declares an end to "major combat operations." U.S. forces had not discovered any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction since entering the country.
************************************************** **

Initial reports showed Saddam did not have any WMD’s and they only ‘stayed the course’ for 4 months before abandoning the process even though there was no evidence to suggest that Saddam was completely non-compliant. The initial reports showed he didn’t have any WMD’s and the actions of the President after those initial reports showed that he too believe there was no WMD’s because his action towards Iraq turned very aggressive (even to the point of telling him how much time he had to leave the country, wasn’t that also telling him how much time he had to assemble his ‘hidden’ WMD’s and blow the American soldiers to pieces?) Bush’s actions convinced me and many other thinking Americans that Iraq couldn’t possibly have had WMD’s in such an amount that warranted going to war. It turns out we were right and your President was wrong. But he didn’t have to be wrong. If he would have ‘stayed’ the course with the inspectors we wouldn’t be in this mess.

[Tsky]

How many of you think with the urging of the U.S. the U.N. would send inspectors into North Korea for 4 months and then tell Kim Jong il and his homeboys they have 48 hours to leave the country before we strike? The U.S. would be blown to ashes in 12 hours. That is because N. Korea does have nuclear weapons.

You only tell a dude he has 48 hours to disarm if you KNOW FOR A FACT he cannot harm you.

Bush knew there were no WMD's when we invaded Iraq. The previous inspectors had proven that.

[Labrocca]

So am I to understand to you EVERYTHING is about 9/11?

My view of the world changed that day. 9/11 isn't everything to me but it's certainly reshaped my views. I am not the only person that feels this way. Some are entirely disconnected from what happened that day. Watching it on CNN wasn't the same experience. Anything inside the TV appears distant. It's unlike reality. That day was more horrific than most can ever imagine. I was tramatized for about a year. I had to seek therapy and ultimately left NYC and lost my business because of 9/11. The WTC were more to me than any other building in the USA and this is NOT any post-9/11 boast. I was personally attached to those buildings in many ways.

Is your opinion that it was no big deal? Or that 3000 American lives attacked and killed in an Islamic Extremist attack were an isolated incident and couldn't happen again? Are you one of the naive that thinks it was our own government?

It is a tool, but it shouldn't be the ONLY tool used and it sure in the hell shouldn't be the first tool that's pulled out in talks with other countries.

And that's exactly when we attacked Iraq. As far as I know..we haven't attacked Iran or N. Korea. So it's obviously not the first tool used with those countries.

You only tell a dude he has 48 hours to disarm if you KNOW FOR A FACT he cannot harm you.

Very few countries have intercontinental missle capabilities and we were certain that Iraq didn't YET have nuclear weapons. N. Korea is testing missiles and nukes...how long do we wait before we take them out? I say 2 well placed Nukes into N. Korea will fix the problem. One into their nuclear facility and the other into their capital while Kim is eating dinner.

[Elrathin]

My view of the world changed that day. 9/11 isn't everything to me but it's certainly reshaped my views. I am not the only person that feels this way.

My opinion of the world changed that day to, but it didn't make me panicked to the point I am jumping at my own shadows and threatening people.


Some are entirely disconnected from what happened that day. Watching it on CNN wasn't the same experience. Anything inside the TV appears distant. It's unlike reality. That day was more horrific than most can ever imagine. I was tramatized for about a year. I had to seek therapy and ultimately left NYC and lost my business because of 9/11. The WTC were more to me than any other building in the USA and this is NOT any post-9/11 boast. I was personally attached to those buildings in many ways.

And that is a sad thing for you, but please don't act like everyone that watched it on T.V. was somehow disconnected. I had family and friends in NYC at the time, one friend which lost his life. I am not disconnected.

I hold a different view than you though. I see 9/11 as a wakeup call, but not a panic call where we rush out and threaten everyone with "You are either with us or against us".


Is your opinion that it was no big deal? Or that 3000 American lives attacked and killed in an Islamic Extremist attack were an isolated incident and couldn't happen again? Are you one of the naive that thinks it was our own government?

It is a big deal, but again, overreaction solves NOTHING. Rational thought is what prevails. And no I don't think our government did it, Lab, you should know me better than that by now.

Again, I hold a different view, that's all.

[Labrocca]

Glad to know you aren't disconnected from 9/11 but my statement still holds true that SOME are.

but it didn't make me panicked to the point I am jumping at my own shadows

For me it was shadows from the sky that made me freak out and panic on a daily basis. For months I just stopped looking at the sky.

I see 9/11 as a wakeup call, but not a panic call where we rush out and threaten everyone with "You are either with us or against us".

I don't see this as our governments reaction. We have named 3 nations as evil out of many. We have tried to pursuade nations to stand at our side...not threaten them or push them away (cept maybe France for a time).

Syria is now more ally than enemy post-Iraq War...the same goes for Pakistan...so our diplomacy has made SOME inroads.

What's this thread about again? :)

[namguy]

All too often the left is attempting to convince us that the Iraq War was something the Bush administration intentionally attempted to create. There is speculation that the administration fabricated evidence that Saddam had WMDs.

Here is my simple question. If they did fabricate the evidence why didn't they fabricate WMDs inside Iraq? One has to eventually use common sense. They could have created evidence inside Iraq and claim they had found the WMDs. Heck ...they could have done this a year ago. There is a LOT of desert out there.

http://www.gop.com/DemFacts/ThenNow.aspx

That's some great soundbites of top Democrat leaders pre-war that Saddam was a threat. Were their statements blind following of George Bush? Even in pre-war days the parties weren't exactly friendly. The war was a POPULAR choice and most Americans supported it including Democrats. Of course WMDs weren't found and then the spin began.

So why hasn't the Bush administration fabricated more evidence if indeed it fabricated the initial evidence? Common sense tells me...it didn't fabricate ANY evidence to begin with.


He hasn't the grey matter to frabricate, Bush, he's a puppit that's all he is. The big oil interests plays him like a fiddle, it's no secret, everyone knows the fix is in. Can you imagine what the Reps would say and do if a Dem was president along with a vice president that has hugh money interests in the middle of a war zone we're in:dizzy: