Don't lie to us.... Don't retract your words...

[MetalMilitia]

CFAP-
The Bush Administration is now saying it never told the public that Iraq was an "imminent" threat, and therefore it should be absolved for overstating the case for war and misleading the American people about Iraq's WMD. Just this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase "imminent threat" ? while also using the synonymous phrases "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction" ? all just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq was "contained" and "threatens not the United States." While Iraq was certainly a dangerous country, the Administration's efforts to claim it never hyped the threat in the lead-up to war is belied by its statements.

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.?
White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02


Why don't they JUST COME CLEAN and admit that they said a few things, and hyped the situation TO the media? It would look a hell of a lot better than retracting statements, and moments of akward silence.... or in a better example... getting grilled like Rummy did on meet the press.

Don't they at least owe that to the public?

-MM-:crs:

[substand]

I see a lot about threat in there, not much about imminent (only from Ari Fleischer- or however you spell his name).

There may be a lot in there that leads people to beleive it was an imminent threat, however- I think its hard for libs to make a case that "Bush lied about the imminence of the threat" ... I say this for 3 reasons:

1) If Bush was trying to make everyone think the threat was imminent, why all the talk about "preemptive strike" ? Bush in fact made the case for war several times (including in his highest profile speeches) saying in probably the most high profile speech before the war (State of the Union 2003)


Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

2) If libs beleived the threat was imminent, why were they protesting? They never supported the war, not before it, and not after it. If they did beleive the threat was imminent, surely they would not have been protesting, and then they would have ample cause for complaining now.

3) If libs did not beleive the threat was imminent, as evidenced by their protests, they have no reason to say Dubya lied about the imminency of the threat- as they were not convinced it was imminent.

Basically the liberal argument has gone from something like "We don't need to go to war, its not an imminent threat- you said so yourself! We're supporting our troops, but we're not supporting the war" to "We supported the war and look, you lied! There was no imminent threat! The war was a quagmire, but the puny threat Saddam posed is evident because we ran over his army and took the country within 3 weeks!"

[SeekNDestroy]

I know I'm sidetracking, but don't confuse liberals with those opposing the war. I'd consider myself a liberal, and I supported it on the grounds it would bring freedom to the Iraqi people.

As for the imminent threat part, the only relevant issue is whether Bush accurately reported what the intelligence people said. If the analsysts said it was an imminent threat - and it appears they did - then who is GWB to tell them they're wrong??

[substand]

Sorry, I don't mean to say all liberals opposed the war. Just that most of those who opposed the war are liberals and most liberals opposed the war.

[DontBeAfraid]

You are stretching things a little subs.


The first protesters correctly never beleived there was an imminent threat. their argument was We support the troops not the war.

Many people did beleive the lies of the "imminent threat", however, and only supported the war because of this make beleive "threat"; they are the people that fit into your box of we supported the war and look you lied about the threat. This really eliminates your whole second point.

the speech by bush doesnt downplay the "imminent threat" at all. In fact it only reinforces the fact that terrorists can strike any time so we should all be scared.... It was a "we gotta hit them now BEFORE they hit us" speech.
It would have made more sense if he was talking about a terrorist organization and not a broke down country which was only able to maintain some stability in its region via the illusion of power.

[substand]

Just as an example, from the Green Party website, 9/20/2002:

As a reason to oppose the war, they said "There is no evidence that the security and safety of the United States are directly threatened by Iraq. Iraq has not been linked to Al Qaeda or other currently active anti-American terrorists. Even if such evidence were to be presented, unilateral attacks by the U.S. on Iraq would not be the most effective, legal or moral option available. "

(see whole press release at http://www.gp.org/press/pr_09_24_02.html)

Also from the same website, another press release on 01/20/04

"...Can we justify a war based on deceit and cooked intelligence about Iraq's 'imminent threat' to the U.S. ..."

(see whole press release at http://www.gp.org/press/pr_01_02_04.html)


And that only took a couple of minutes to find, searching a total of 3 articles.

If the Greens are too liberal, here are some more examples:

Ted Kennedy in Oct 2003, complaining about the war:

"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud" (see http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/kennedy.iraq/ for the quote)

Ted Kennedy in Sept 2002:

"but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security" (see http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html)

While these people are saying Bush has not made the case for an "imminent threat" (and nor did he try) in 2002, so we should not go to war, they complain in the 2nd half of 2003 and 2004 that Bush made the case for an imminent threat that wasn't there.

John Filandering Kerry before the war, after he voted in favor of it:

"In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack."


John F Kerry after the war quoted by the AP in Chicago Sun Times at http://www.suntimes.com/elections/issues/iraq.html:

"Now Bush is changing his story and backing off the claim of imminent threat in Iraq."

Just for reference, Kerry is on the Foreign Intelligence Committee, and had the same info as Bush. (see http://foreign.senate.gov/about.html) for who is on the committee)

I can go on and on, but I'll stop now.

Surely you can find hipocracy in everyone. I'm guilty of it, and you can probably find it published. But on such issues, you won't find so many hipocrites as you will on liberals about this.

--------------------------------------------

Since I guess I've earned the nickname subs, I'm wishing my handle was "sudstand" so I'd be called "suds" ... after, as MM puts it "the solution and cause of all life's problems" (or something like that)

[DontBeAfraid]

You are seeing things all wrong.... They were against the war before it started because "Iraq is not a threat", and now they are still against the war because "Iraq was not a threat". Only now the argument that "Iraq is not not and never was a threat" has been solidified.

Though Kerry does come off as hypocritical in his statements, the war was sold to the citizens on the "imminent WMD threat" and now the bush regime is saying that imminent was NEVER implied.

FYI the president, as commander and chief of the armed forces, is privy to much more info than some senator, no matter what committees they are on. This is how security clearance works, ask laz, he has some. I used to have some as well.

Wanna know something? The unit I was in got a frag-O(heads up), before 9/11 happened, that we were going to be in Iraq in 2003....... :dunno:

[substand]

They were against the war before it started because "Iraq is not a threat",

So how do you explain all the Democrat congressmen who supported the war in thier vote, but before their vote (and after the vote but still before the war) said that Iraq was not an imminent threat, and indeed said Bush/CIA/State Dept never classified or said it was (or convinced us it was) and then after the war (mid-late 2003, and so far in 2004) said that everyone did... The best example above was Kerry, but I can supply more if I need to.

[substand]

I guess maybe I'm unique in that I supported a war with Iraq even before it became an issue (against my dear Libertarian Party and its 2000 candidate whom I voted for, Harry Browne) and I supported it after. Maybe I'm special in that I NEVER THOUGHT OF IRAQ AS AN IMMINENT THREAT (as I supported the impending war before Bush came along), and maybe I'm just reading too many biased "Republican" opinions straight from "Democrats" mouths themselves...

[DontBeAfraid]

So how do you explain all the Democrat congressmen who supported the war in thier vote, but before their vote (and after the vote but still before the war) said that Iraq was not an imminent threat, and indeed said Bush/CIA/State Dept never classified or said it was (or convinced us it was) and then after the war (mid-late 2003, and so far in 2004) said that everyone did... The best example above was Kerry, but I can supply more if I need to.
I try to vote for as few hypocrites as possible, but this year its "anybody but bush" which means kerry, I was hoping for dean - screaming is just what the UN needs.

I havent always sided with Liberals, but then I learned about conservatives.... Bush thinks he was put in charge of the US by god. Bush senior said he doesnt consider atheists to be citizens or patriots.... :boxer:

[substand]

eeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[lazserus]

Isn't that the sound the Ewoks made in Return of the Jedi ?

[Emerald_Dragon]

>So how do you explain all the Democrat congressmen who supported the
>war in thier vote, but before their vote (and after the vote but still before
>the war) said that Iraq was not an imminent threat,

IMO, they voted for the war because they believed the POTUS and his report on the alleged WMDs. After all, not everyone has access to his level of clearance for the intel gathered by the CIA. but I guess in this case, the CIA data was correct, but the selective reporting of the OSP over-ruled and chose to reveal unsubstantiated leads as fact, to feed the press and President and precipate a war.

So to me, I understand why everyone [Dems and Repubs, Libs and Cons] voted for a war. Now that we've learned we were lied to, the coverup and revisionism begins.

Who wouldn't appear ambiguous given what they were told?

[mickydoolittle]

this isn't the Clinton Administration.

The world is a safer place and less harm is being brought to humanity by the hussein regime.

Be glad AMERICA stepped up to the plate and did what needed doing.

Ungrateful whiny little spoiled shiits ... geezus..what is this planet coming to? Take your hat off and place your right hand over your heart the next time you hear my nationbal anthem. Think about those that gave all and remember to be thankful for having the freedom to come to a board like this and post as you do--you wouldn't have been able to in Iraq or 1/3 of the nations on the planet currently.
motherfuq'n ingrates.

[Emerald_Dragon]

i guess some would have a difficult time grasping certain facts. the truth is hard to come by when so many, are ill informed. it doesn't help that some choose not to follow truth and instead, adopt a shallow "we are never wrong" approach, to history. to derail it by distorting it because they can't answer obvious questions.

how can anyone claim the moral high ground, when they don't portray it? you're not doing a service to your cause/arguments when you're making it look ill-informed. oh well, such is the day in the life of an american ostrich.

[substand]

Isn't that the sound the Ewoks made in Return of the Jedi ?

I thought it was the wookie, but in this case its a quicker and higher pitched version, from the likes of Howard Deaniac.


they voted for the war because they believed the POTUS and his report on the alleged WMDs. After all, not everyone has access to his level of clearance for the intel gathered by the CIA.

Many do have his level of clearance, and many in congress do. to be sure, not even a majority do- but these committees- that's thier purpose: to review and study small issues in depth and report back to the rest of the chamber what they've learned.

Besides, it is not simply the president's report which was in 'error' (assuming it was in error and that WMD are and never were in Iraq since 1998). Its also the UN's report, Frances Report, Britain's report, the CIA's report, the State Dept's report, and many other countries and agencies around the world, all of whose intelligence was 'wrong' and whose reports are in 'error'.

[mickydoolittle]

dissenter.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>Many do have his level of clearance, and many in congress do.

was wondering where this thread was...

yeah, the guys on the senate intelligence committies would have access. but hey, if only a few people have the real picture while the majority don't, who wins in a vote?


>Besides, it is not simply the president's report which was in 'error'

i thought he was saying what they told him to say? The OSP?
IMO, the POTUS didn't think about it, he just did as he was told.
that, or he's a better actor than Reagan ever was.


>Its also the UN's report,

you mean Hans Blix? the guy that said they weren't allowed to inspect until the US threatened to invade, and then they started to inspect, and the U.S. military shows up to invade? sure, they couldn't find all the WMDs that daddy dubya listed, 10 years of regular bombings could do that to military infrastructures.

its hard to account for things when they no longer exist. after all, satellites pinpointed where all his assets were anyway, how else could Powell have all those documents? its not like he used anyone's graduate term paper to support claims that Iraq possessed nukes capable of hitting allies in 45 minutes..


>Frances Report

don't know what they said, but I remember the pacifist French were against the war because they had some oil deals with Iraq. they lost like $4 Billion or something because of the invasion. same with Germany.

>Britain's report

was "sexed" up and David Kelly [the whistleblower] isn't alive to provide any insight. neither is John Kokal.

>the CIA's report

said that the Uranium yellow cake was not reliable, which backed up Ambassador Wilson's investigation. but his wife Valerie Plame was exposed in retaliation thanks to the Rove-erer. Even Tenet tried to extract the lies in the SOTU, he only succeeded in previous speeches by the POTUS.

>the State Dept's report

as announced by Powell to a dis-believing, unsupportive United Nations, has yet to find anything voiced from it. yeah, it was an error alright. an error of omission...of the truth.

Clarke, Kwiatowski(sp?), O'Neill, and that UN translator. How many people need to blow the whistle before you see it was a grand manipulation where dissenters were ignored and the lies propagated? How many more administrative resignations? do you want the truth out? or the distortions, excuses and revisions of the events?

[substand]

yeah, the guys on the senate intelligence committies would have access. but hey, if only a few people have the real picture while the majority don't, who wins in a vote?

Perhaps, but look at the voting records of those on the committee. John Kerry voted for it, and he was on the committee.


you mean Hans Blix? the guy that said they weren't allowed to inspect until the US threatened to invade, and then they started to inspect, and the U.S. military shows up to invade? sure, they couldn't find all the WMDs that daddy dubya listed, 10 years of regular bombings could do that to military infrastructures.

Not the most recent Hans Blix reports. There aren't 10 years between 1998 and 2003, which were the reports I was referring to (UN weapons inspections, not Blix). If in 1998 we have reports of how much illegal weapons and WMD material are left (and this number would be on the low side if it is not reliable- for obvious reasons), and in 2002-2003 Iraq said all of it has been destroyed, but only offered evidence of destruction of some of it, how can we conclude that it was destroyed? Take a compulsive and completely proven liar's word? Even if you want to attribute it to military strikes, surely Iraq would have also blamed it on that. But they didn't. In addition, we are assuming that after misleading inspectors for several years in trying to keep thier weapons, then kicking them out, Iraq then decided to destroy all their banned material themselves? Thats kind of stretching the realm of beleivability, don't you think?

I don't think you got my point when I was referring to all (or most) of the countries reports on Iraqi WMD (or at least those countries who we might consider to matter- as in not East Timor) and how they all agreed that Iraq possessed banned materials and weapons- when you say


How many people need to blow the whistle before you see it was a grand manipulation where dissenters were ignored and the lies propagated?

My point was that it would have had to have been much grander than you're thinking... It would have had to include the whole world- including countries who did not want the US to go to war. I just think all the intel on the subject is more beleivable than a few partisans who are blowing more than whistles, it makes more sense to either beleive 1) Iraq faked having WMDs in which case it brought this on itself when all they had to do was come clean, or 2) they had them and hid them really well or moved them (in which case they still brought it on themselves)

[mickydoolittle]

Wow. I tip my virtual hat to you. Impressive.
:toast:

[Emerald_Dragon]

>...Take a compulsive and completely proven liar's word?

so you're saying we should believe Powell and Rice?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13434081_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-THE%2DBIG%2DLIE-name_page.html
"
At a Feb. 2001 press conference, Powell told reporters that the sanctions program was put into place "for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction."
...
In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
...
Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
"

and later, what does Powell [et al] say?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3426703.stm
"
In the run-up to the US-led war against Iraq, he gave a presentation to the Security Council, in which he asserted that Saddam Hussein had amassed secret weapons of mass destruction.

He said then that he believed Iraq possessed, among other things, between 100 and 500 tonnes of chemical weapons agents.
....
On Friday, Mr Kay, who had led the US hunt for weapons in Iraq, resigned.

He told Reuters news agency he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

"I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said.
"


but as we all know, after 9/11, he had tons of WMDs and nukes. which are now in Syria and Iran. The ones that didn't exist.



>and in 2002-2003 Iraq said all of it has been destroyed,
>but only offered evidence of destruction of some of it,

are you attempting to re-write history here? or just our perception of history? are you seeking truth, or spreading distortion?

how do you prove something you don't have? esp when others have made sure you couldn't get any and current investigations proved you didn't have any. IMO, it didn't matter if SH was lying or not, we were going in to take him out [reference Clarke].

[substand]

>...Take a compulsive and completely proven liar's word?

so you're saying we should believe Powell and Rice?

I knew you were going to use that against me, but I had no idea it would be Powell and Rice =)

The three statements you mention first- I hope you do not mean them to be mutually exlusive in their meanings, because of course they are not and I will be glad to explain if anyone feels the need:


At a Feb. 2001 press conference, Powell told reporters that the sanctions program was put into place "for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction."
...
In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
...
Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

If anything, they certainly boost my argument (in another thread i think) that the Bush administration never plausibly led us to beleive in an "imminent threat."

And I don't beleive we should neccesarily trust anyone in government, I was only asserting that it is easier to trust people like Powell than people like Saddam. BTW, IMO the mirror is not the best source for things like this- I don't think they make things up, just that when possible, it would be better to kill the horse with words from its own mouth: in this case http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm is the transcript from the State Dept that proves your point.

I am willing to say Powell either lied (of course playing politician as they often do), was mistaken (which I would really doubt), or intelligence changed (which is much more plausible than being mistaken, but less so than lying for political reasons)... In fact, I am not sure when all the satellite photos he showed in his UN presentation were taken above Iraq, but I would be willing to concede that it was before inspectors resumed.

That being said, I will certainly be much more skeptical of his comments in the future, but we forget what my argument was based on. These comments frequently refer to the fact that saddam has not been able to rebuild his military or continue his WMD programs... I was saying that not everything had been destroyed by the time weapons inspectors left in 1998, because had they, Saddam would have had no reason to kick them out, and sanctions should have been lifted. Even if the politics of Britain and US and UN would not have allowed the lifting of sanctions, let me quote some sources:

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/1998/sres1194.htm from an anti-sanction site (which I assume would not be trying to prove my point, so I looked no further) is UN Security Council resolution 1194 which "recalls" and "notes" that Iraq has not fulfilled its obligations to disarm as specified in res. 687 and that Iraq has not cooperated and recalls Iraq's agreement to disarm. It also "demands" that Iraq allow inspectors back in, and allow them access to sites Iraq had been restricting.

Large (declassified) findings by the CIA in Oct 2002 (well after the powell speech) http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
I admit on those I did not look very long for a 2001 report by the CIA on Iraq prior to Powells speech (which would have had to occur within a month of that speech). We must also remember that in Feb 2001, Powell and the Bush administration in general could not have been that well breifed on everything in only 1 month after being in office, even if they breif them before speeches (I don't know what all the CIA/FBI/other agencies read before every every public outing, the only one I know for sure is the State of the Union Address). In any case, either Powell lied (or was mistaken if you beleive this 2002 cia report at all) then, or later. Or the intel changed. I'm not sure. (no sarcasm intended- even though it sounded that way to me)

Of particular interest in that report:


More than 10 years after the Gulf war, gaps in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains a stockpile of chemical agents, probably VX,[3] sarin, cyclosarin,[4] and mustard.

Which, the gaps in thier accounting is specifically what I was referring to.


are you attempting to re-write history here? or just our perception of history? are you seeking truth, or spreading distortion?

While my "avatar" may lead one to think I would rewrite history, I am indeed seeking truth, and my statements are corroborated above (i will gladly take more time when I have it for research if you wish- but I was just seeking to establish that Iraq had not accounted for everything, which they were required to do) About the truth- none of us will ever know the complete and unabated truth until: 1) the most important peopel who compiled all the reports come clean and say they lied, 2) saddam said he lied, or 3) we find WMD in iraq... though even then we might not know the complete truth because either side could be pressured to lie, and I imagine if we do find WMD millions of people will say we planted them there. But that will be the closest we come. In the mean time, I happen to think the evidence supports the view that Saddam had WMD (and at a minimum he was in violation of the resolutions- if you can tell me he wasn't with a straight face and credible sources, i'd love to hear it)

As for what was left unaccounted for, see Hans Blix's report


They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq’s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

This quote just shows Iraq did not account for everything. You can read the full report from the UN at: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm


how do you prove something you don't have? esp when others have made sure you couldn't get any and current investigations proved you didn't have any. IMO, it didn't matter if SH was lying or not, we were going in to take him out [reference Clarke].

The issue is not proving something doesn't exist... of course in science there is proof by contradiction or induction, in which case contradiction proves nothing here (the only way it would work is if one says "saddam did not have illegal weapons" and then we find them). Proof by induction is similar (though impossible to bring to its logical conclusion) to my argument.

Saddam was not trying to prove something didn't exist. He was trying to prove he destroyed something that did exist, which he failed to do.

In any case, I agree with you on your last point- It didn't matter if Saddam was lying or not, we were going in to take him out. You don't even need to reference Clarke. See that it was official US policy since 1998 (under Clinton) to affect regime change in Iraq.


Though it endorsed regime change in Iraq, the Clinton administration, which was fighting off impeachment, simply did not have the wherewithal to contemplate a ground invasion; it settled for a 70-hour air campaign.

(at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A55841-2003Feb23&notFound=true, among other sites that mention this)

It just so happened that the War on Terror provided us a great opportunity to reshape the middle east in democracy, and thus lessen the chance of terrorism against us in the long run (though undoubtedly increase it in the short run)- its one of the few longterm policies the US has that I see.

In extra defense of this, I don't beleive WMDs were the sole reason (and certainly the Bush administration didn't say it was the sole reason) for going into Iraq. In fact, I think it was a relatively minor reason and that with every mad Lib cry for "more proof" the Bush admin. caved in and gave "more proof" making it look like it was lying in the first place. I thought it was right to go into Iraq, well before WMD became a big issue (read the long opinion peice at at http://www.constitutionallychallenged.com/home/slar-101802-1.cfm for more info that agrees with me), but even after the initial bantering I also agree with http://www.constitutionallychallenged.com/home/slar-022003.cfm (a much shorter opinion peice after all the "proof" of WMDs that questions the need for them)

[lazserus]

More than 10 years after the Gulf war, gaps in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains a stockpile of chemical agents, probably VX,[3] sarin, cyclosarin,[4] and mustard.
I'm glad this was put in there. I'm starting to think a lot of people on this board think WMD are just nuclear weapons. A small dose of VX can kill hundreds of people. If detonated in the atmosphere, we're talking a death toll equivalent to Hiroshima.

[Emerald_Dragon]

that was alot to digest.


>I hope you do not mean them to be mutually exlusive in their meanings,

:grin
no. they were complementary to each other. redundant if you look at from my POV.


>If anything, they certainly boost my argument that the Bush administration
>never plausibly led us to beleive in an "imminent threat."

yeah right, statements made months before the 'imminent' pro-war propaganda and before Powell reversed what he said to the UN.
all timing and obfuscation. politics.


> it would be better to kill the horse with words from its own mouth:

point taken. will try to do that more often. but government websites are such a dry read. i think they do it to put you to sleep before you get to the juicy parts, like where the CIA was involved with the JFK assassination and stuff. And even then, you had to ask, "Why were they there?" and "Why didn't they say anything without having been forced to?".


>I am willing to say Powell...

...said what he was told. to lie. they used his credibility. they figured if they could get the guy who said they had no weapons and couldn't get any, to say that they did, it would be more credible. but well, they're done using him. or, he's not speaking for them anymore. the bush gang. what did he say on David Letterman?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/26/powell.letterman/
"Oh, I'll be secretary of state for as long as I serve at his pleasure."


>I was saying that not everything had been destroyed by the time weapons inspectors left in 1998,
>because had they, Saddam would have had no reason to kick them out,
>and sanctions should have been lifted.

i agree with you. he prolly had a handful of WMDs leftover in reserve in case the Iranians started another offensive. and likely, he wouldn't have wanted to waste them on Kuwait since he wanted it to be part of Iraq. But certainly, he would not have had tons and tons as professed by Powell to the UN. nor nuclear as implied.


>from an anti-sanction site is UN Security Council resolution 1194

and again, we (the US) are showing our selective enforcement and portraying our allegiance. Israel. They have ignored more UN resolutions than any country out there. But we don't threaten them with war. We're buddy buddy with them. Its no wonder the Muslim 3rd world hate us and will kill themselves to cause us misery. This is a bad political stance. They're even teaching their children to hate us.


>the Bush administration in general could not have been that well breifed
>on everything in only 1 month after being in office,

that didn't seem to matter, they wanted to go to Iraq [O'Niell, Clarke] when the enemy was in Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia.
they don't even want to speak publicly under oath to the 911 commission. if that doesn't tell you they have something to hide, nothing will.


>if you can tell me he [SH] wasn't with a straight face and credible sources

come on now, we knew North Korea was more of a threat. If our reasons for going into Iraq were for Iraq's WMDs and liberating the oppressed people, we really should have gone to NK. all things equal. but we went to Iraq. it has oil, NK doesn't.

NK has been proven to sell weapons to terrorists, has nuclear capability, has attacked its neighbors (South Korea), and oppressed it people and foreigners.


>In any case, I agree with you on your last point- It didn't matter if Saddam was lying or not,
>we were going in to take him out.

i'm aware of that policy (circa 1991? or 1986?). which is why i'm resistant to the propaganda that justifies the invasion of a foreign country under false pretenses so the masses can accept it. and when you [and others] repeat it like its the truth, it bothers me. i find it disingenuious. misleading.

its like advertising milk is good for you. sure it is, if you're of European decent and not lactose intolerant. But the latter facts are left out because so few people are affected by it. Much like so few people believe Iraq had nothing to do with 911 (~30% pre-war).


>of course in science there is proof by contradiction or induction,

we're talking fact or fiction, not science where postulates and theorums rule.


>read the long opinion peice at for more info that agrees with me),

:D i hardly believe that a link referencing your own website would do anything but support your arguments. no thanks. have read some of the articles and feel that they didn't quite have all the information. only the necessary bits to support your agenda, not very objective or informative. but i doubt they were meant to be.


>I don't beleive WMDs were the sole reason

and this is where we agree. they were the smokescreen, the wool over our eyes, the red herring.

IMO, we are there to maintain our civilation. sustain our lifestyle. support our capitalist economy. without which, we would cease to be a world power. a nation. i don't like being lied to about it. i'm not afraid of the truth.


and even when we leave Iraq end of June, will it be safe for us? or anyone?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.main/index.html
"
Video showed crowds chanting and cheering at the scene, with charred corpses hanging from the bridge over the Euphrates.
"

i thought we were building bases there [3]? IMO, stories like these will keep our military in Iraq, regardless of what the politicians say now.

[substand]

>I hope you do not mean them to be mutually exlusive in their meanings,


no. they were complementary to each other. redundant if you look at from my POV.

Sorry, I got it after I reread it and meant to take that part out... indeed they were meaning the same thing =)


i agree with you. he prolly had a handful of WMDs leftover in reserve in case the Iranians started another offensive. and likely, he wouldn't have wanted to waste them on Kuwait since he wanted it to be part of Iraq. But certainly, he would not have had tons and tons as professed by Powell to the UN. nor nuclear as implied.

The tons Powell was referring to were the "tons" left out of the Dec 2002 report from Iraq.


but government websites are such a dry read.

So true.


and again, we (the US) are showing our selective enforcement and portraying our allegiance. Israel. They have ignored more UN resolutions than any country out there. But we don't threaten them with war. We're buddy buddy with them.

Well, none of the resolutions on Israel are actionable or binding... All condemn this, condemn that. That's not to say that we wouldn't have just vetoed a binding resolution- no doubt we would. And of course, there is a good reason that all resolutions must be enforced selectively- namely that it would be impossible to successfully enforce all of them- there's been 800 on the security council alone (many of Israel's come from the GA if I'm not mistaken) since 1992. The other reason (for Israel in particular) is one of strategy, not just favoritism. Sure, if we had supported the Arabs over Israel a long time ago, it would have benefitted our long term interests (esp for oil), however, now that we've put our support behind them, it would be a little silly to overthrow the only democracy in the area so that it could be replaced with another dictatorship or Islamic state, no?


Its no wonder the Muslim 3rd world hate us and will kill themselves to cause us misery. This is a bad political stance. They're even teaching their children to hate us.

I wouldn't say that is the only reason Muslims hate us (nor would I say most of them do, but we surely are not well liked by a lot of them)... We also have a long history of supporting dictators there, which I hope we are now trying to overcome. They are teaching their children to hate us, Palestinian TV has cartoons and music videos aimed at young children teaching the virtues of blowing yourself up.


they don't even want to speak publicly under oath to the 911 commission. if that doesn't tell you they have something to hide, nothing will.

They might not want to speak publicly under oath for reasons other than "something to hide." The 9/11 commission is not required to list questions before hand. A answer under oath that might reveal secrets that need to stay that way is another good reason. I don't doubt there is something to hide, all politicians have something to hide. I just think that with the way this thing has been shaping up as a Bush trial, what incentive does he have to testify? Besides, there is always the old argument that if advisors or the pres can be called to testify publically that will affect the kind of advice they are willing to give.


come on now, we knew North Korea was more of a threat. If our reasons for going into Iraq were for Iraq's WMDs and liberating the oppressed people, we really should have gone to NK. all things equal. but we went to Iraq. it has oil, NK doesn't.

We haven't been at diplomatic loggerheads with NK for over a decade. Then there's the China issue- don't want to piss them off. NK does all those things, and theres no reason we can't go after them in the future if need be. But we certainly can't be everywhere at once, plus NK doesn't fit into the plan of changing the shape of the mid east.

i'm aware of that policy (circa 1991? or 1986?)
I'm sure the policy got its idea back around then (Wolfowitz I beleive is one of the principle sources) but it was actually in 1998 that it became official US policy. Clinton couldn't do it because people would have said he's just distracting us from his sexcapades (some say) or there was no political will (and like one of the 9/11 commissioners asked, "how did you create the political will for Kosovo), or perhaps he just didn't like the idea but signed off on it anyway.


and when you [and others] repeat it like its the truth, it bothers me. i find it disingenuious. misleading.

I'm not repeating it like truth, just one of the many justifications for war, and again, the evidence leads me to agree with Powell's later statements. Perhaps it was trumped up, war charges seldom aren't, but he was still in violation, and it was an easy sell and target for the US to continue the War on Terror (insofar as reshaping the Middle East)


i hardly believe that a link referencing your own website would do anything but support your arguments. no thanks. have read some of the articles and feel that they didn't quite have all the information. only the necessary bits to support your agenda, not very objective or informative. but i doubt they were meant to be.

I didn't mean it to do anything but support my arguments. Its a little more in depth than the other articles, but still full of hyperbole.


IMO, we are there to maintain our civilation. sustain our lifestyle. support our capitalist economy. without which, we would cease to be a world power. a nation. i don't like being lied to about it. i'm not afraid of the truth.

Right, and whats wrong with that? I don't really think capitalism has much to do with it, though we were certainly more concerned with the area because of the oil, thats not the only reason for it (and the others aren't solely window dressing)


and even when we leave Iraq end of June

We won't be leaving Iraw in June, it will be much later more than likely. June is just the transfer of power.



i thought we were building bases there [3]?

I assume you mean permanent bases... I honestly have no clue, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>The tons Powell was referring to were the "tons" left out of the Dec 2002 report from Iraq.

you mean the ones that didn't exist to begin with?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3596033.stm
"
On Friday he conceded that information "appears not to be... that solid".

The claim failed to persuade the Security Council to back the war, but helped sway US public opinion.
"

If the rest of the world's intelligence agencies did not believe it was reliable, we should?
If the rest of the world's intelligence agencies warned us about the 911 attack, we ignore them?

These points, if true, should tell us, that we don't know what we're talking about, intelligence-wise. That our intelligence conclusions are inept. That our national credibility has been lost by this administration. You'd think, that with $30+ Billion/year of known funding, winning the Cold War, and orchestrating successful coups in foreign countries, our intelligence agencies are really good at what they do.

OTOH, given what we now know [Kwiatowski, O'Neill, Clarke, Kelly, Kokal, Wilson/Rove/Plame], it should be fairly evident that it was not an intelligence failure. It was an intelligence success where the Office of Special Plans [Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al] selectively chose un-substantiated reports of WMDs, presented them to the POTUS, Powell, and Congress, to justify and propagandize the war in Iraq. If no one can make that connection, what are they doing talking politics? Unless of course, they're out to help distort the connections and discredit the whistleblowers.


>>and when you [and others] repeat it like its the truth, it bothers me.
>>i find it disingenuious. misleading.
>I'm not repeating it like truth, just one of the many justifications for war,

as far as i can tell, as broadcast by mass media and its parrots, it [WMDs]was the major reason for pre-emptive war.
what were the other reasons for war? foreign policy? people's liberation? SH wouldn't sell us oil?

without the WMD imminent threat, why would the U.S. bother to attack, when in the past, it has always funded the opposition to support regime changes? i believe you're out to 'marginalize' the truth, make it less a case of national wrongdoing and more a case of "we're doing it for the good of the people of Iraq". Are you really seeking truth?


>>IMO, we are there to maintain our civilation.
>Right, and whats wrong with that?

a number of things. instead of using diplomacy and int'l commerce to get what we (as a country) "want and need" like other mature nations, we're using our superior military to do so all the while feeding lies to our people as to why we are doing it. How can we be morally just? that "God" supports what we're doing by speaking thru our POTUS? How can we be proud to be AMERICAn? :ohmy:

Do you believe we shouldn't pay for resources like everyone else, when we can take it and lie about it?

[Emerald_Dragon]

heres an article supporting your position that Clarke may not be all he seems to be. Haven't read it yet, but will when i get some more time...

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/040504_Clarke_orchestra.html

"
There's a very troubling aspect of Clarke's testimonies that can and should be questioned. He maintains that he had repeatedly urged, both in the Clinton and Bush administrations, that direct action be taken to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But there is abundant evidence that Clarke's plans had been listened to and implemented.
"


hmm, was that this thread?? uh-oh...

[mickydoolittle]

blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah.

That's all this anounts to actually. Get to your tired and oft thrashed point already so we can provide you with a quick merciful virtual destruction.

. . . or . . .

Keep posting from your ass, it's all the same in the end anyhow.

[Emerald_Dragon]

sorry. some ideas are hard to grasp. not everyone can understand. maybe you should try another subject you're more into. besides interjecting nonsense.

[mickydoolittle]

what makes you so certain my post was in reference to you?

. . .how very vain. . .

[Emerald_Dragon]

well, considering my responses have taken up many pages of this thread, most of your personal attacks are against me, and your remarks are 'typical' of you, it was with my consolation and acknowledgement to you, that i believed your marginalizing remarks were directed against my statements.


i've been wrong before and if i'm wrong now, i retract my rebuttal. otherwise, they stand, as printed.

[mickydoolittle]

:mad: <---- who's this remind everyone of?

Not everything is about you ED....your bubble has burst and no one cares.

[Emerald_Dragon]

*yawn* is that all?

you bore me, move along.

[Donsun]

blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah.

That's all this anounts to actually. Get to your tired and oft thrashed point already so we can provide you with a quick merciful virtual destruction.

. . . or . . .

Keep posting from your ass, it's all the same in the end anyhow.


:rolling: :thumbs:

[mickydoolittle]

*yawn* is that all?

you bore me, move along.


_____

make me

[Thor]

When should we leave Iraq? Tomorrow? The sooner the better? Iraq is just another backwards nation, ruled for years by a dictator, so reliant on being told what to do, when to do it, etc. that the people there are lost. It's not their fault, they were governed (and I use that term loosely) for many years by an Idi Amin, so they are a truly confused people. What IF Iraq were to become a democracy? What would be wrong with that? Any ideas for what the government SHOULD be? All I hear is "we shouldn't be there with our troops" dialogue. Does anyone here have any valid ideas *doubtful* for what should happen over there? Tell me what would happen were we to leave Iraq tomorrow? Would an Al Sadr take over? Then what? What do you think? Or do you even?