May 1, 2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

[Sinergy 3]

I come up with such good stuff when i read some comments on here, but by the time my kids are in bed and im ready to sit here and soak in some of the stuff actually posted on here, ITS TOO LATE

i need to time myself better

[Ban Hammer 12,876]

that bush was given faulty intelligence is not to be blamed on him. try pointing fingers at the cia and others, who have the mandate to provide accurate intelligence. to blame bush for such is like blaming the owner of a gas station for the oil companies racking up record profits.

First things first. The reason people blame Bush for the use of bad intelligence is because there is evidence that his administration cherry-picked the intelligence they used to justify a case for war. They picked the most sensational intelligence, which had the least credibility and that the intelligence agencies had the least confidence in.

That's been the whole focus of debate in the UK - sure blame the CIA if they gave 100% backing to a particular piece of intelligence, blame the administration if they did a PR exercise and chose the evidence they wanted people to believe.

as for saddam posing a threat to the usa, did he not do that with his invasion of kuwait previously?. did saddam not use chemical weapons on his own people? and we are to stand by idle while such occurs? did saddam ever renounce his claims to kuwait? nope........

Yes he did, no-one has denied that. Yet, once again we were prepared to more than tolerate him during the 70's and 80's - with the full knowledge that he was guilty of atrocities against his own people. In fact, the govts of the US, France and others sold him many of the weapons (including chemical and biological agents - hell France even sold the guy a nuclear reactor) which he turned on his own people and the people of neighbouring Iran. To give it some context, the US STILL SELLS WEAPONS TO DICTATORS AROUND THE WORLD - for all our moral postulating on fighting terrorism, and promoting democracy we are still prepared to export terror to other countries.

Furthermore, Saddam posed significantly less of a threat to us in 2003 than he did in 1991. His military was pitiful compared to what he had built up during the 1980's (with the US' help), so why is it people are so sold on the idea that the guy is somehow more dangerous contained than he was before? Its because exaggerated claims were made pertaining to his alleged WMD stockpiles and ability to use them. No conclusive evidence has been demonstrated that those stockpiles were present. In fact the only evidence that was presented has been shown to be inaccurate, exaggerated or blatantly plagiarised.

yes, oil and our access to such is a national interest. as saddam had over 10 years to comply with un resolutions and balked and blocked such all the way, i'd say it's high time we did something. all saddam and his cronies did during their time was milk that country dry. just look at the palaces they found, while the average iraqi was starving. even the un food for oil program was a joke. and let's include saddam's sons, one of whom ran the security police in iraq, which caused many to disappear.........heaven forbid your daughter might catch that one son's eyes!

Again - we didn't care about this until after the claims about 'threat to the US' were shown to be false. More than that, we continue to tolerate, bankroll and arm dictators the world over. Very few wars are started for purely noble, humanitarian causes - millions are dying in the Sudan (and were in 2003) - massive genocide is going on there. Why is it we are more concerned with Iraq I wonder?

having a pre-emptive plan to invade iraq, i'm sure we have such for many nations. it's called an "oplan" do the planning in advance rather than when it's needed, it saves time

But Bush claimed again and again and again that WAR WAS A LAST RESORT. It's been proven quite clearly that it wasn't (Downing Street memo).

so you can blame the president for this and that. fact is, he cannot be held responsible for false intelligence that is presented to him. the one to blame for that is our national intelligence agencies. perhaps what would be better is to call for their resignation.

Yes you can, when he accepted spurious (sensationalist) claims against the advice of agency officials who registered their reservations.

to cherry pick intel, as you have described above, would be an effort i'd like to see. what you are hinting at is that bush had the time to sift through mountains of intel for the nuggets he wanted. i find such to be ludicrous.

as for saddam's war machine being less of a threat, tell that to the kurdish villages that were wiped out by the iraqi army and chemical weapons

you state that the war was not a last resort? what did you want, 10 more years of sanctions and the oil for food program? get real

and btw, you'll always find an advisor having reservations. it's their way of distancing themselves from any real decision

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

to cherry pick intel, as you have described above, would be an effort i'd like to see. what you are hinting at is that bush had the time to sift through mountains of intel for the nuggets he wanted. i find such to be ludicrous.

as for saddam's war machine being less of a threat, tell that to the kurdish villages that were wiped out by the iraqi army and chemical weapons

you state that the war was not a last resort? what did you want, 10 more years of sanctions and the oil for food program? get real

and btw, you'll always find an advisor having reservations. it's their way of distancing themselves from any real decision

I wonder how much you have read about this. They did cherry pick the intelligence. Doesn't seem that difficult to me - you are given a number of reports and you choose the one that supports your agenda.

What do you think that whole issue with Senator Joseph Wilson was all about was about?

...in 2003 he revealed that he was the envoy sent to Africa to investigate reports that the Iraqi president had tried to buy nuclear material there.

He reported privately after his February 2002 trip to the African state of Niger that the allegation was not true - but it appeared in President George W Bush's State of the Union address 11 months later anyway.

In July 2003, Mr Wilson announced that his trip had disproved the allegations Mr Bush later repeated.

"I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons programme was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat," he wrote in the New York Times.

source - BBC news

In the UK, Dr David Kelly, a former UN weapons inspector approached a BBC journalist claiming that that evidence presented to the United Nations by the US and UK as to Iraqs military capabilities was 'sexed up' and otherwise highly exaggerated by officials in Tony Blair's office, most specifically his (then) press secretary Alastair Campbell. Incidentally, Dr Kelly turned up dead not long after - apparently as a result of suicide (a man with no history of depression BTW...). This was a HUGE news story in the UK, caused a bunch of resignations in both government and the media - but the basis of the story was essentially true. Read up on it if you don't believe me.

Colin Powell DID present a fictional intelligence dossier to the UN security council which was cobbled together from a PHD student thesis on the internet. The guy even came forward claiming the work was his, it even had the same typos from the original work. This wasn't the work of intelligence agencies - it was the work of a PR office trying to justify a war based on an exaggerated threat to western national security.

Then there's the Downing Street Memo. These are leaked minutes of UK government meetings attended by Tony Blair (amongst others) which gives a pretty unvarnished account of what was going on during the build up to the war. This again made big news in the UK, but barely got coverage in the US, despite the fact that it showed that Bush and Blair lied over the reasoning for the war.

Again without the positive proof of WMD, or of the capability to use them there was no justification for a war against Iraq. You keep banging on about kurdish villages, atrocities against iraqis - but that wasn't what the war was sold on. It was sold and supported on the assertion that there was a DIRECT IMMINENT THREAT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. There wasn't.

In any case - why is it we are prepared to start a war with Iraq, but do little or nothing about say the Sudan where massive genocide is going on? Yes there are evil dictators in the world - as I said before we have and continue to arm and support many of them, yet we are extremely selective in the ones we choose to fight. That's why I don't see this as you apparently do, as some sort of moral crusade against evil.

This was not a war for humanitarian purposes - but for economic profit. Its no coincidence that the Iraqi reconstruction is being handled almost exclusively by US corporations and contractors. That's caused no small amount of resentment in other countries, the UK for instance got almost nothing out of that conflict whatsover despite being part of the military coalition. This was about oil, just as it was when the US removed the president of Iran and installed the Shah.

Edited May 1, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fandango 1,439]

I think it's funny how we as common laypeople are sitting here in judgement of the situation when we really prolly know jack sqaut. I don't have top secret clearance, don't think anyone else here does either. Yet at the same time, I can look back on all the evidence that has been made public...even from the Clinton era...on how very much a thread Iraq was to us. Kerry for instance, was writing letters to Clinton demanding we go to war...and even if we don't have any other support, we go in alone.

Now all of a sudden, it's all Bush's doing...even tho a lot of these things transpired before he took office.

I do however, find it hilarious that the dems have distanced themselves from this whole thing, when without their support, there'd be no war in Iraq. I think they have banked on the general stupidity of the people to forget everything...and sadly, they were right.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's funny how we as common laypeople are sitting here in judgement of the situation when we really prolly know jack sqaut. I don't have top secret clearance, don't think anyone else here does either. Yet at the same time, I can look back on all the evidence that has been made public...even from the Clinton era...on how very much a thread Iraq was to us. Kerry for instance, was writing letters to Clinton demanding we go to war...and even if we don't have any other support, we go in alone.

Now all of a sudden, it's all Bush's doing...even tho a lot of these things transpired before he took office.

I do however, find it hilarious that the dems have distanced themselves from this whole thing, when without their support, there'd be no war in Iraq. I think they have banked on the general stupidity of the people to forget everything...and sadly, they were right.

The evidence is there. Iraq presented less of a threat to the US with regards to WMD than Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Everyone in government who supported the war has no right to throw up their hands now and claim that they were duped. The evidence as it has been subsequently revealed to the public was very flimsy. Many of the politicians I suspect, voted for party political reasons to present a united party front, not necessarily to reflect their own conscience on the matter.

[Fuzzness 2]

I think it's funny how we as common laypeople are sitting here in judgement of the situation when we really prolly know jack sqaut. I don't have top secret clearance, don't think anyone else here does either. Yet at the same time, I can look back on all the evidence that has been made public...even from the Clinton era...on how very much a thread Iraq was to us. Kerry for instance, was writing letters to Clinton demanding we go to war...and even if we don't have any other support, we go in alone.

Now all of a sudden, it's all Bush's doing...even tho a lot of these things transpired before he took office.

I do however, find it hilarious that the dems have distanced themselves from this whole thing, when without their support, there'd be no war in Iraq. I think they have banked on the general stupidity of the people to forget everything...and sadly, they were right.

Lisa my dear all we're doing is using common sense to form our opinions and beliefs on the situation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's funny how we as common laypeople are sitting here in judgement of the situation when we really prolly know jack sqaut. I don't have top secret clearance, don't think anyone else here does either. Yet at the same time, I can look back on all the evidence that has been made public...even from the Clinton era...on how very much a thread Iraq was to us. Kerry for instance, was writing letters to Clinton demanding we go to war...and even if we don't have any other support, we go in alone.

Now all of a sudden, it's all Bush's doing...even tho a lot of these things transpired before he took office.

I do however, find it hilarious that the dems have distanced themselves from this whole thing, when without their support, there'd be no war in Iraq. I think they have banked on the general stupidity of the people to forget everything...and sadly, they were right.

Lisa my dear all we're doing is using common sense to form our opinions and beliefs on the situation.

Indeed. What's the alternative - take politicians at their word?

[Fandango 1,439]

I think it's funny how we as common laypeople are sitting here in judgement of the situation when we really prolly know jack sqaut. I don't have top secret clearance, don't think anyone else here does either. Yet at the same time, I can look back on all the evidence that has been made public...even from the Clinton era...on how very much a thread Iraq was to us. Kerry for instance, was writing letters to Clinton demanding we go to war...and even if we don't have any other support, we go in alone.

Now all of a sudden, it's all Bush's doing...even tho a lot of these things transpired before he took office.

I do however, find it hilarious that the dems have distanced themselves from this whole thing, when without their support, there'd be no war in Iraq. I think they have banked on the general stupidity of the people to forget everything...and sadly, they were right.

The evidence is there. Iraq presented less of a threat to the US with regards to WMD than Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Everyone in government who supported the war has no right to throw up their hands now and claim that they were duped. The evidence as it has been subsequently revealed to the public was very flimsy. Many of the politicians I suspect, voted for party political reasons to present a united party front, not necessarily to reflect their own conscience on the matter.

hindsight is a beautiful thing

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's funny how we as common laypeople are sitting here in judgement of the situation when we really prolly know jack sqaut. I don't have top secret clearance, don't think anyone else here does either. Yet at the same time, I can look back on all the evidence that has been made public...even from the Clinton era...on how very much a thread Iraq was to us. Kerry for instance, was writing letters to Clinton demanding we go to war...and even if we don't have any other support, we go in alone.

Now all of a sudden, it's all Bush's doing...even tho a lot of these things transpired before he took office.

I do however, find it hilarious that the dems have distanced themselves from this whole thing, when without their support, there'd be no war in Iraq. I think they have banked on the general stupidity of the people to forget everything...and sadly, they were right.

The evidence is there. Iraq presented less of a threat to the US with regards to WMD than Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Everyone in government who supported the war has no right to throw up their hands now and claim that they were duped. The evidence as it has been subsequently revealed to the public was very flimsy. Many of the politicians I suspect, voted for party political reasons to present a united party front, not necessarily to reflect their own conscience on the matter.

hindsight is a beautiful thing

Hindsight!? the war justification was a crock of ###### from day 1!, when Bush pushed ahead with war without letting UN weapons inspectors finish their work. The fact that the evidence was came out later supporting what people suspected anyway only supports that. This was pre-meditated, NOT a last resort, and not based on any perceived national security threat to the west. That is simply fact. Hindsight has nothing to do with it, except to confirm people's opinions that they were right about it to begin with.

It also shows how horribly our elected representatives failed us.

[Fandango 1,439]

I think it's funny how we as common laypeople are sitting here in judgement of the situation when we really prolly know jack sqaut. I don't have top secret clearance, don't think anyone else here does either. Yet at the same time, I can look back on all the evidence that has been made public...even from the Clinton era...on how very much a thread Iraq was to us. Kerry for instance, was writing letters to Clinton demanding we go to war...and even if we don't have any other support, we go in alone.

Now all of a sudden, it's all Bush's doing...even tho a lot of these things transpired before he took office.

I do however, find it hilarious that the dems have distanced themselves from this whole thing, when without their support, there'd be no war in Iraq. I think they have banked on the general stupidity of the people to forget everything...and sadly, they were right.

The evidence is there. Iraq presented less of a threat to the US with regards to WMD than Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Everyone in government who supported the war has no right to throw up their hands now and claim that they were duped. The evidence as it has been subsequently revealed to the public was very flimsy. Many of the politicians I suspect, voted for party political reasons to present a united party front, not necessarily to reflect their own conscience on the matter.

hindsight is a beautiful thing

Hindsight!? the war justification was a crock of ###### from day 1!, when Bush pushed ahead with war without letting UN weapons inspectors finish their work. The fact that the evidence was came out later supporting what people suspected anyway only supports that. This was pre-meditated, NOT a last resort, and not based on any perceived national security threat to the west. That is simply fact. Hindsight has nothing to do with it, except to confirm people's opinions that they were right about it to begin with.

It also shows how horribly our elected representatives failed us.

"We know that (Hussein) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Former V.P. Al Gore, during a speech in September 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, Oct. 10, 2002.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998

"(Saddam Hussein) will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

When Al Gore ran against GWB, he said this:

"We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone...And if entrusted with the presidency, my resolve will never waver."

How about an exerpt from the briefing of Hans Blix -

'Although no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were used by Iraq during the Gulf War, their existence in Iraq is well known. Iraq's president, Saddam Husayn, used WMD during his war with Iran (1980-88 ). He also dropped mustard gas and an unidentified nerve agent on the Kurdish population of northern Iraq in 1988. Most worrisome are the estimates of Khidhir Hamza, the former director general of Saddam Husayn's nuclear program, who believes that Saddam will have between three to five nuclear weapons by 2005'

On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believes that Iraq may have an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." On January 28, however, Russia's opinion had begin to shift following a report the previous day by UN Inspectors which stated that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm.

Mar 2002 August Hanning, head of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Services, tells the New Yorker magazine that “It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb within three years.” (Germany has been particularly assiduous in tracking Saddam, as he is known to have used German and UK companies when trying to build a nuclear bomb before the Gulf War. Mr Hanning was quoted in the New Yorker, 25 March 2002. “The great terror,” page 52.)

July 2002 Khidir Hamza, a defecting Iraqi nuclear science director, gives extensive evidence to US Congress (A full transcript of his Capitol Hill Hearing Testimony, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is available on Federal Document Clearing House, dated July 31 2002.). It includes:-

• “With the workable design and most of the needed components for a nuclear weapon already tested,” he said, “Iraq is in the final stages of its programme to enrich enough uranium for the final component needed in the nuclear core.”

• German intelligence, with whom he has been in contact, believes Iraq now has “ten tonnes of uranium and one tonne of low-level uranium” – enough to make three bombs by 2005.

• “The Iraqi economy is basically on a war footing,” he concluded. “If Saddam manages to break into the nuclear club, he will become the undisputed leader of the Arabs.”

Quote:

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program." -- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle and John Kerry, among others, Oct. 9, 1998.

Quote:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Quote:

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

With prevailing world opinion like this...If it was a crock of sh!t...whose crock of sh!t was it???

[Ban Hammer 12,876]

I think it's funny how we as common laypeople are sitting here in judgement of the situation when we really prolly know jack sqaut. I don't have top secret clearance, don't think anyone else here does either. Yet at the same time, I can look back on all the evidence that has been made public...even from the Clinton era...on how very much a thread Iraq was to us. Kerry for instance, was writing letters to Clinton demanding we go to war...and even if we don't have any other support, we go in alone.

Now all of a sudden, it's all Bush's doing...even tho a lot of these things transpired before he took office.

I do however, find it hilarious that the dems have distanced themselves from this whole thing, when without their support, there'd be no war in Iraq. I think they have banked on the general stupidity of the people to forget everything...and sadly, they were right.

The evidence is there. Iraq presented less of a threat to the US with regards to WMD than Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Everyone in government who supported the war has no right to throw up their hands now and claim that they were duped. The evidence as it has been subsequently revealed to the public was very flimsy. Many of the politicians I suspect, voted for party political reasons to present a united party front, not necessarily to reflect their own conscience on the matter.

hindsight is a beautiful thing

Hindsight!? the war justification was a crock of ###### from day 1!, when Bush pushed ahead with war without letting UN weapons inspectors finish their work. The fact that the evidence was came out later supporting what people suspected anyway only supports that. This was pre-meditated, NOT a last resort, and not based on any perceived national security threat to the west. That is simply fact. Hindsight has nothing to do with it, except to confirm people's opinions that they were right about it to begin with.

It also shows how horribly our elected representatives failed us.

"We know that (Hussein) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Former V.P. Al Gore, during a speech in September 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, Oct. 10, 2002.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998

"(Saddam Hussein) will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

When Al Gore ran against GWB, he said this:

"We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone...And if entrusted with the presidency, my resolve will never waver."

How about an exerpt from the briefing of Hans Blix -

'Although no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were used by Iraq during the Gulf War, their existence in Iraq is well known. Iraq's president, Saddam Husayn, used WMD during his war with Iran (1980-88 ). He also dropped mustard gas and an unidentified nerve agent on the Kurdish population of northern Iraq in 1988. Most worrisome are the estimates of Khidhir Hamza, the former director general of Saddam Husayn's nuclear program, who believes that Saddam will have between three to five nuclear weapons by 2005'

On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believes that Iraq may have an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." On January 28, however, Russia's opinion had begin to shift following a report the previous day by UN Inspectors which stated that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm.

Mar 2002 August Hanning, head of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Services, tells the New Yorker magazine that “It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb within three years.” (Germany has been particularly assiduous in tracking Saddam, as he is known to have used German and UK companies when trying to build a nuclear bomb before the Gulf War. Mr Hanning was quoted in the New Yorker, 25 March 2002. “The great terror,” page 52.)

July 2002 Khidir Hamza, a defecting Iraqi nuclear science director, gives extensive evidence to US Congress (A full transcript of his Capitol Hill Hearing Testimony, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is available on Federal Document Clearing House, dated July 31 2002.). It includes:-

• “With the workable design and most of the needed components for a nuclear weapon already tested,” he said, “Iraq is in the final stages of its programme to enrich enough uranium for the final component needed in the nuclear core.”

• German intelligence, with whom he has been in contact, believes Iraq now has “ten tonnes of uranium and one tonne of low-level uranium” – enough to make three bombs by 2005.

• “The Iraqi economy is basically on a war footing,” he concluded. “If Saddam manages to break into the nuclear club, he will become the undisputed leader of the Arabs.”

Quote:

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program." -- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle and John Kerry, among others, Oct. 9, 1998.

Quote:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Quote:

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

With prevailing world opinion like this...If it was a crock of sh!t...whose crock of sh!t was it???

nothing further to add bravo!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

to cherry pick intel, as you have described above, would be an effort i'd like to see. what you are hinting at is that bush had the time to sift through mountains of intel for the nuggets he wanted. i find such to be ludicrous.

Take a look at the Iraq - AlQaeda link claim that Bush rode all the way to the invasion. There is only one source that the claim that Iraq was training AlQaeda in chemical and biological weapons was based on: a captured AlQaeda operative.

Despite the DIA advising the administration in February of 2002 that the claim by the AlQaeda operative (Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi) is more than dubious (they actually advised that he is most likely intentionally misleading the debriefers), the claim made it into many major speeches by top Bush administration officials (Rice, Powell, Cheney and Bush himself) for many more months. Bush himself claimed in October 2002, some 7-8 months after having been advised that the source is not reliable, that "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases." His administration knew this claim to be bogus at the time and they made it nonetheless days before Congress was to authorize military action against Iraq.

That's but one very specific example of where the Bush administration lied us into this illegal military adventure.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's funny how we as common laypeople are sitting here in judgement of the situation when we really prolly know jack sqaut. I don't have top secret clearance, don't think anyone else here does either. Yet at the same time, I can look back on all the evidence that has been made public...even from the Clinton era...on how very much a thread Iraq was to us. Kerry for instance, was writing letters to Clinton demanding we go to war...and even if we don't have any other support, we go in alone.

Now all of a sudden, it's all Bush's doing...even tho a lot of these things transpired before he took office.

I do however, find it hilarious that the dems have distanced themselves from this whole thing, when without their support, there'd be no war in Iraq. I think they have banked on the general stupidity of the people to forget everything...and sadly, they were right.

The evidence is there. Iraq presented less of a threat to the US with regards to WMD than Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Everyone in government who supported the war has no right to throw up their hands now and claim that they were duped. The evidence as it has been subsequently revealed to the public was very flimsy. Many of the politicians I suspect, voted for party political reasons to present a united party front, not necessarily to reflect their own conscience on the matter.

hindsight is a beautiful thing

Hindsight!? the war justification was a crock of ###### from day 1!, when Bush pushed ahead with war without letting UN weapons inspectors finish their work. The fact that the evidence was came out later supporting what people suspected anyway only supports that. This was pre-meditated, NOT a last resort, and not based on any perceived national security threat to the west. That is simply fact. Hindsight has nothing to do with it, except to confirm people's opinions that they were right about it to begin with.

It also shows how horribly our elected representatives failed us.

"We know that (Hussein) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Former V.P. Al Gore, during a speech in September 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, Oct. 10, 2002.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998

"(Saddam Hussein) will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

When Al Gore ran against GWB, he said this:

"We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone...And if entrusted with the presidency, my resolve will never waver."

How about an exerpt from the briefing of Hans Blix -

'Although no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were used by Iraq during the Gulf War, their existence in Iraq is well known. Iraq's president, Saddam Husayn, used WMD during his war with Iran (1980-88 ). He also dropped mustard gas and an unidentified nerve agent on the Kurdish population of northern Iraq in 1988. Most worrisome are the estimates of Khidhir Hamza, the former director general of Saddam Husayn's nuclear program, who believes that Saddam will have between three to five nuclear weapons by 2005'

On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believes that Iraq may have an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." On January 28, however, Russia's opinion had begin to shift following a report the previous day by UN Inspectors which stated that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm.

Mar 2002 August Hanning, head of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Services, tells the New Yorker magazine that “It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb within three years.” (Germany has been particularly assiduous in tracking Saddam, as he is known to have used German and UK companies when trying to build a nuclear bomb before the Gulf War. Mr Hanning was quoted in the New Yorker, 25 March 2002. “The great terror,” page 52.)

July 2002 Khidir Hamza, a defecting Iraqi nuclear science director, gives extensive evidence to US Congress (A full transcript of his Capitol Hill Hearing Testimony, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is available on Federal Document Clearing House, dated July 31 2002.). It includes:-

• “With the workable design and most of the needed components for a nuclear weapon already tested,” he said, “Iraq is in the final stages of its programme to enrich enough uranium for the final component needed in the nuclear core.”

• German intelligence, with whom he has been in contact, believes Iraq now has “ten tonnes of uranium and one tonne of low-level uranium” – enough to make three bombs by 2005.

• “The Iraqi economy is basically on a war footing,” he concluded. “If Saddam manages to break into the nuclear club, he will become the undisputed leader of the Arabs.”

Quote:

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program." -- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle and John Kerry, among others, Oct. 9, 1998.

Quote:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Quote:

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

With prevailing world opinion like this...If it was a crock of sh!t...whose crock of sh!t was it???

I'll grant you Bush is not solely to blame for this, but its fair to say that seeing as he prosecuted the war, therefore he is in first in line for a large amount of the blame. Doesn't seem so complicated to me....

His administration sold this entirely on the basis that Saddam possessed WMD and would use them directly against the western world. Only when that story was exposed as false, did they apply spin to suggest that they intended to liberate the iraqis all along.

We DO know however that the justifications for the conflict were greatly exaggerated and none of this addresses the central question (that people have wanted an answer to for the last 3 years) of why a heavily contained, militarily crippled Iraq represented a clear and present threat to the national security of the United States.

Again I ask - what is it about Iraq that made it more dangerous and more terrorist-friendly than the likes of Iran, Libya and North Korea?

I hope noone is suggesting that when the government lies about an issue that has cost 10's of thousands of lies, we should not hold them to account for it?

Edited May 1, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fandango 1,439]

How bout the fact that due to the agreement he made re his surrender during desert storm, he agreed not to have any?

Lemme ask you....if Bush HADN'T gone in & Saddam had used them...how would you feel? I say with prevailing world opinion the way it was, I'm GLAD my politicians decided to go in.

If you really wanna hold someone to blame...how about congress? wasn't it 77% aproval????? without its approval, bush couldn't have done chit. This isn't a dictatorship. Like I said before, gotta love how there's such selective memory amongst the democrat community....they act as if no one remembers what was said and done beforehand.

Oh wait! no one does!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How bout the fact that due to the agreement he made re his surrender during desert storm, he agreed not to have any?

Lemme ask you....if Bush HADN'T gone in & Saddam had used them...how would you feel? I say with prevailing world opinion the way it was, I'm GLAD my politicians decided to go in.

If you really wanna hold someone to blame...how about congress? wasn't it 77% aproval????? without its approval, bush couldn't have done chit. This isn't a dictatorship. Like I said before, gotta love how there's such selective memory amongst the democrat community....they act as if no one remembers what was said and done beforehand.

Oh wait! no one does!

It doesn't matter. There was NO DEMONSTRABLE PROOF that Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the United States. Why? Because UN weapons inspectors were not allowed to finish their work, because Bush et al had already decided months, no years before that they were going into Iraq. Why did we rush into it at that specific time - because bush et al had already set the timetable for war before the issue was debated in the senate or congress.

There is proof that the administration sold the case for war based not only on exaggerated information, but information that they KNEW was a lie. I don't see how that can be defended on any level.

Who is to blame? The Bush administration, primarily, for pushing the policy. And yes politicians in congress and the senate are to blame for not voting according to their conscience - we now know a lot of politicians had significant reservations about the administrations case for war at the time, but for one reason or another they decided to vote for military action.

In any case, this is besides the point. The war was illegal according to the United Nations.

Edited May 1, 2006 by Fishdude