I suppose that the CIA and the UN weapons inspectors don’t count because “every” U.S. institute that studies WMDs from afar had some opinion that turned out to be wrong. At this point, the Bush II administration wishes it had found WMDs, but if you’ve got wishes in one hand and Niger browncake in the other let’s just see which one fills up faster.[/quote]
The search for WMD in Iraq has been a disappointment. We can argue about specifics, but most people expected much, much more. But that doesn’t make Bush’s claims a complete and sloppy fabrication. U.S. intelligence has been wrong before; it will be wrong again. But we know Iraq had those weapons at one time, and we also know it was responsible for proving it destroyed them. The burden of proof was on Iraq, not the U.S.
Trying to claim that the whole WMD angle to the war was a set-up by Bush is just dishonest. Reasonable people may disagree as to the merits of the WMD case, but prior to the war, most people (and not just Americans) assumed Saddam had WMD. What they questioned was the right to wage war on that basis.
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. (Applause.)
So in what was probably his biggest speech this year, Bush said just the opposite. He said the threat was not imminent, but that we could not afford to wait until the threat fully emerged.
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. (Applause.)
So in what was probably his biggest speech this year, Bush said just the opposite. He said the threat was not imminent, but that we could not afford to wait until the threat fully emerged.[/quote]
Cold Front… I have made that point so many times here… but that fact is too damaging to the Bush critics’ arguments… so they continue to pretend that that fact doesn’t exist.
Not on its own – but when you see how amateurish the reliance upon the Niger yellowcake story was, it seems might suspicious. Add in the hatchet job done on Valerie Plame and her husband, and you get a sense that the Bush administration didn’t care about the truth.
The problem is when U.S. intelligence is right, but the White House is so set on their ways that they don’t even listen.
Sorry, but before undertaking something as solemn as a war, the U.S. ought to do a bit of due diligence. Iraq frantically opened up its borders to the inspectors, turned over massive amounts of documents, etc. The UN inspectors tried and didn’t find anything. With the entirety of Iraq under the U.S. military, our own military WMD investigators have found nothing. More than 300 U.S. soldiers are dead – and the White House doesn’t even care that the war was based on a faulty premise.
The WMD angle just doesn’t have an ounce of credibility anymore, so I don’t see why you even bother. Do we have a new doctrine where we are just going to invade all sorts of countries based on half-baked Neo-Con oil fantasies, or are we going to let Powell and his team finally get a word in edgewise?
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. (Applause.)
So in what was probably his biggest speech this year, Bush said just the opposite. He said the threat was not imminent, but that we could not afford to wait until the threat fully emerged.[/quote]
Cold Front… I have made that point so many times here… but that fact is too damaging to the Bush critics’ arguments… so they continue to pretend that that fact doesn’t exist.[/quote]
I know, I know. They just have too much invested in it.
As there was not just no “imminent” theat but actually no threat at all, then what countries are we now going to destroy and rebuild now? We can’t keep sending our military overseas for pointless military expeditions just to get them sunk down into deadly quagmires.
It’s odd how well The Onion predicted the future. More than 2 years ago, they published “Bush: ‘Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finally Over’”, at theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html
Perhaps given how Cold Front feels Mein Kampf hasn’t gotten enough attention from world leaders for its qualities as a roadmap, he could now encourage the wider world to recognize the prescience of The Onion.
Not on its own – but when you see how amateurish the reliance upon the Niger yellowcake story was, it seems might suspicious. Add in the hatchet job done on Valerie Plame and her husband, and you get a sense that the Bush administration didn’t care about the truth.[/quote]
What you fail to point out is that it’s not at all uncommon – typical, really – for political proponents of a case to slightly exaggerate its merits in order to justify their policy or to go after critics of that policy who go public. But what you said was something of a completely different order: you said the Bush case for WMD was a “complete and sloppy fabrication.” You simply have no basis for making that claim.
The problem is when U.S. intelligence is right, but the White House is so set on their ways that they don’t even listen.[/quote]
Really? George Tenet took the unusual step of going with Colin Powell to the United Nations when Powell made his case against Iraq. That’s a pretty strong sign of support coming from a guy who was already in office when Bush assumed the presidency and who heads up the CIA.
Sorry, but before undertaking something as solemn as a war, the U.S. ought to do a bit of due diligence. Iraq frantically opened up its borders to the inspectors, turned over massive amounts of documents, etc. the UN inspectors tried and didn’t find anything.[/quote]
Please, quit shilling for Saddam. He stalled on a number of key points – overflight rights, the right to interview scientists, etc., and showed signs throughout that he wasn’t fuly cooperating. Even the U.N. team reported this.
The WMD angle just doesn’t have an ounce of credibility anymore, so I don’t see why you even bother. Do we have a new doctrine where we are just going to invade all sorts of countries based on half-baked Neo-Con oil fantasies, or are we going to let Powell and his team finally get a word in edgewise?[/quote]
I bother because you are misrepresenting the WMD case before the war. You are the one mischaracterizing it as a complete and sloppy fabrication by the Bush administration when there were good reasons for believing WMD were in country and that the UN team would never get the support from the Iraqis to find them.
I don’t believe a damn thing the Bush administration says these days. I definitely don’t believe in sending U.S. soldiers halfway around the earth on the basis of wishful speculation. I also don’t believe you or the Bush administration take the loss of American life in this misadventure seriously at all.
I served in the armed forces and fought in a war. Have you?
The number of our military personel killed so far has been ridiculously small, considering the large military goals accomplished. You can’t try to sell your partisan purposes as concern for the troops. It is not love of the troops that vexes you about Iraq; it is your hatred of Bush.
Your argument is falling apart (not that it was solid to begin with)… and now you are making ridiculous assertions.
Half of my family has served in the US military and I have a cousin in Baghdad presently. I take the loss of most life, not only American lives, very seriously.
If so, then please take the deaths of our soldiers seriously. Don’t sell them out just because you’ve gotten into political rut.
If so, then give me a single “large” military goal accomplished. Just because a Republican chickenhawk in a flight suit stands in front of a sign that says “Mission Accomplished” doesn’t mean anything was actually done. The United States is not a single bit safer because of the war in Iraq – if anything, we have unfortunately solidified the worst stereotypes of the U.S. as being out for oil, world hegemony, etc. that the rest of the world has always thought about us.
You’ve got the cart before the horse. I was hoping Bush would rise the occasion, but he sold out the troops for stupid oil dreams sold to him by the Project for a New American Century guys riddling his cabinet.
If so, then please take the deaths of our soldiers seriously. Don’t sell them out just because you’ve gotten into political rut.[/quote]
The only rut I’m in right now is the one I made over the last few hours running circles around your arguments.
The men and women in the armed forces despise Monday morning quarterbacking such as yours. They want support, not half-assed partisan commentary that’s too lazy to even do a decent web search before coming out with its feverish opinions. They would recognize right away that you don’t give a shit about them any more than you do honest debate.
If so, then give me a single “large” military goal accomplished. Just because a Republican chickenhawk in a flight suit stands in front of a sign that says “Mission Accomplished” doesn’t mean anything was actually done. The United States is not a single bit safer because of the war in Iraq – if anything, we have unfortunately solidified the worst stereotypes of the U.S. as being out for oil, world hegemony, etc. that the rest of the world has always thought about us.[/quote]
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Oil. chickenhawks. World Domination. Standard Leftist playbook.
As Tigerman said, the U.S. military removed Saddam and his two sons from power. It also removed beyond any doubt the fact that he might threaten the U.S. through WMD and terrorism. It is now providing security for what will be the first real democratic state in the Arab world. These are enormous accomplishments that should make all true Americans proud.
[quote]… most of what everyone knew about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction had nothing to do with this or any other government’s intelligence collection and analysis. Had there never been a Central Intelligence Agency… the case for war against Iraq would have been rock solid. Almost everything we knew about Saddam’s weapons programs and stockpiles, we knew because the Iraqis themselves admitted it.
Here’s a little history that seems to have been completely forgotten in the frenzy of the past few months. Shortly after the first Gulf War in 1991, U.N. inspectors discovered the existence of a surprisingly advanced Iraqi nuclear weapons program. In addition, by Iraq’s own admission and U.N. inspection efforts, Saddam’s regime possessed thousands of chemical weapons and tons of chemical weapon agents. Were it not for the 1995 defection of senior Iraqi officials, the U.N. would never have made the further discovery that Iraq had manufactured and equipped weapons with the deadly chemical nerve agent VX and had an extensive biological warfare program.
Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq’s own admissions:
That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.
That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.
That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.
That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.
That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.
That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.
That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).[/quote]
For those of you who cannot think clearly due to your disdain for George Bush… perhaps you will understand if Bill Clinton explains the threat posed by Sadam and his regime.
[quote=“Bill Clinton on February 17, 1998”]It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal. . . . In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of 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.[/quote]
This article is really just too good… so I’m posting excerpts of it a bit at a time:
[quote]The Clinton administration did not in fact respond. War was averted by a lame compromise worked out by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. But within a few months, Saddam was again obstructing U.N. inspectors, driving a deeper wedge into the U.N. Security Council and attempting to put a final end to the inspections process. He succeeded. At the end of 1998, the Clinton administration launched Operation Desert Fox, a four-day missile and bombing attack on Iraq that was aimed principally at known and suspected facilities for producing weapons of mass destruction and missiles. The effect of the bombings on Iraq’s programs and stockpiles, however, was unknown, as Clinton acknowledges. But one effect of Operation Desert Fox was that Saddam expelled the U.N. inspectors altogether. Beginning in December 1998 and for the next four years, there were no U.N. inspectors in Iraq.
What did Saddam Hussein do during those four years of relative freedom? To this day, no one knows for sure. The only means of learning Iraqi activities during those years were intelligence, satellite photography, electronic eavesdropping, and human sources. The last of these was in short supply. And, as we now know, the ability to determine the extent of Saddam’s programs only by so-called technical means was severely limited. American and foreign intelligence services pieced together what little information they could, but they were trying to illuminate a dark cave with a Bic lighter. Without a vast inspection team on the ground, operating unfettered and over a long period of time, it was clear that the great unanswered questions regarding Iraq–what happened to the old stockpiles of weapons and what new programs Saddam was working on–could never be answered. [/quote]
[quote]The Bush administration’s threat of war beginning last summer led France and Russia to reverse themselves and to start taking the Iraq weapons issue seriously again. In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the Security Council agreed on a new round of inspections, during which Saddam was to do finally what he had promised to do back in 1991 and ever since: make a clean breast of all his programs, answer all the unanswered questions about his admitted stockpiles of weapons, and fully disarm. Resolution 1441 demanded that, within 30 days, Iraq provide “a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material.”
Iraq did not comply with this demand within 30 days–or, for that matter, within 90. In his March 6, 2003, report to the U.N. Security Council, Hans Blix reported that the declared stocks of anthrax and VX remained unaccounted for. In the last chance given to Iraq by Resolution 1441, Iraq had failed to provide answers. As Blix reported again in May 2003, “little progress was made in the solution of outstanding issues…the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation.” [/quote]