The video you provide here is a powerful witness to the democratic party leaders' confirmation of Iraq's commitment to the proliferation of WMD, and their constant goading of President Bush to address a situation which they identified as a threat to world peace.
More important, it provides a coda to the perfidy of these same democratic leaders as they now attack President Bush for his difficult and bold decision to neutralize Saddam's ability to make regional war, without bothering to even address, let alone repudiate, their previous cautionary statements.
At the time, it could have gone 'either way', but for their constant urging that President Bush 'do something about it'. (President Clinton was never willing.)
These self-serving scoundrels deserve nothing less than public shaming, including stocks and being pelted by street debris.
Yet they now have the unmitigated gall to suggest that President Bush acted 'unilaterally', and not only divorce themselves from the process which lead our country to war, but even used his actions, which they themselves forced upon us for good or ill, as their political weapons of mass destruction.
To paraphrase Michael Moore:
"Shame on you, Liberal Democrat Polilticians. Shame!"
Anyone who actually believes that President Bush lied about Saddam's WMD's is either so sand-poundingly ignorant that they shouldn't be allowed to breed, or so infected with BDS that they need to be quarantined for the good of the country. The part that still has it's sanity intact.
Everyone, not just the USA, but Britain, France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, hell little green Martians thought that Saddam had WMD's. Saddam WAS trying to buy yellowcake uranium AS THE BRITISH INTELLIGENCE TOLD US, and they still stand by those statements. Bush didn't lie, Joseph Wilson did. Saddam's own damn generals thought that they had chemical weapons in their arsenal.
But "Bush lied". Yeah. Right. I've got a straightjacket with your name on it.
First of all, hilarious title. I chuckled for awhile on that one. And I agree...
"Could it have been, say, eight years of Bill Clinton?"
No. Maybe it was because the Bush's used to be his buddies. Or maybe he was so full of himself that he was deranged. Probably both.
"Fucking murderer.We'd have been far better off just dropping the sanctions against Iraq that were killing the children..."
How did we react when he doing all that killing during the 80s? We...sent him more weapons. And who was vice president then? When I hear cries about how evil Saddam was, I always think of the video of Rumsfeld shaking his hand. Why don't you post that video up here? Or how about the one of Cheney saying, in 1994, all of the reasons we should NOT have gone further in the first Gulf War?
It doesn't make it any less wrong when Democrats support bullshit wars, either. I don't care what party they belong to....LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin...Bush lied about Iraq...Hillary will lie about Iraq...I don't tow any party line when it comes to completely uneccesary sacrafice.
We are in a very serious conflict, most of which should not be fought militarily. Afghanistan would be one example of a necessary military struggle. Pakistan could be another, especially if Musharaf keeps shooting his mouth off and Al Qaeda continues to build up their forces there.
The rest of it needs to be fought in other ways and we need a president who is willing to explore those options.
Dave, the argument is not whether or not Saddam was trying to get WMDs. It's whether or not he had them. Well, he did have them at one time. We gave them to him. Then we destroyed them all in Gulf War I. In 2002, he didn't have shit. Of course, he was trying to get them but he failed.
And Joe Wilson didn't lie, either. The Wilsons are yet another example, in a long line of many, who thought their first duty was to serve their country, not Dick Cheney's corporate goals.
Mark, you are so disconnected from reality that I often wonder why your brain does not fall out of your head.
And Joe Wilson didn't lie, either. The Wilsons are yet another example, in a long line of many, who thought their first duty was to serve their country, not Dick Cheney's corporate goals.
Joe Wilson did indeed lie. Please do the damned research yourself.
"Joe Wilson did indeed lie. Please do the damned research yourself."
Other than the usual suspects, who are your sources for proving that Joe Wilson lied? I've spent plenty of time-too much time, actually-reading the accusations against him. They all sound like the typical conservative fake outrage machine bullshit we are all accostomed to so if you have something else, I'd love to see it. My question for you, though, is...why do you immediately believe them all AND discount everything he said on his trip to Niger?
Remember, this is the column that Cheney wrote "Did he bring his wife with him" on? This is a documented fact. Go through his points. Where are the lies in here?
Here is good capsule on the Joe Wilson smear campaign
Links to all the sources are at the bottom of the article.
Kevin, you know I respect you and your opinions but why do you insist on believing that Bush et al mostly told the truth about Iraq? Is all of the evidence "liberal bias?"
As for the other article, first of all, an article from 2003? Don't you think this is a little dated, considering the information that has come out since? If this information is true, why has the administration, since that time, come out and said there were no WMDs there?
What he "planned" to do with it and what he could with it, at the time we invaded, are two different things. I'm sure he had all sorts of plans and/or delusions, none of which would have amounted to anything because we had effectively contained him. I am not going to deny that he was a problem but on the same level as Afghanistan? No. Pakistan? No. Saudi Arabia? No. Syria? No. Iran? No.
Think about how much farther ahead we would be if we had thoroughly cleaned out Afghanistan. Bush et al exagerrated and outright lied about Iraq because they wanted to go in no matter what. They lost focus on where the real problem was and our military and our country are severly damaged as a result.
Not hardly. Oh, save quoting me, I've read your sources. I've also seem them called into question. They also fail to note that most of their "conspiracy", theoretically by the US government, was halted unceremoniously by FBI arrests in 89-90. (I guess they were trying to fake everybody out by arresting, trying, and jailing those responsible. Wow!)
The total amount of sales directly during the Iran-Iraq was was under a million dollars.
France and Germany each had over 5 billion in sales during that period.
Not that it's surprising, given the source.
It's really not worth getting into with you.
I'll merely note:
* The (unmarked) binary sarin shell that was well beyond Iraqi capability in '91, that was found (and accidentally detonated) as an IED.
They either bought it from somebody - and binary sarin's not easily found - or built it between 91 and 03.
* 60 tons of mustard gas was tagged in '98 by the UN Weapons Inspectors. (So much for it being "destroyed). When we invaded, that facility was stripped bare, and no trace of the mustard gas was found. 5 years later and it (and it's containers).. evaporated?
There were thousands of known, undestroyed weapons (including the anthrax (16 thousand liters worth) you're citing that "we sold" (the samples they were produced from) Iraq) - that had been tagged by the Inspectors - that had not been destroyed that we've never found post-invasion.
You didn't pay attention to the original piece I did on the reasons (note the plural) I believe we invaded Iraq, did you? Nope, your eyes just glazed over and your brain went into vapor-lock, even though you left four (4) comments on it.
WRT Iraq: Yes, indeed. As I made clear in my earlier piece, "regime change" in Iraq was a goal of the second Bush administration from Day One. The timetable was only accelerated by 9/11. And it was the right thing to do, for several reasons.
Saddam was seen (rightly) as a threat that had to be dealt with - as Bill Clinton said, not through "some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction, and to continue to press for the release of the sanctions" but, again as Bill Clinton said, "This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance."
"And so we had to act and act now." - With a four-day bombing campaign, and five more years of "one last chance(s)" all of which left Saddam with a "third route" that he was happily prepared to use once again.
Instead Bush et al. decided that we really did need to "act now" and that invasion was the only route to "regime change." As Hillary said "I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security."
I don't expect you to ever get a grip on this, Markadelphia. You're too wrapped up in visions of intricate conspiracies.
There is actually very good evidence to conclude that our intelligence was "compromised" by politics to justify a war in Iraq. There are many details, so read the latest entries on my blog.
http://warandroses.blogspot.com/
"But the key here is that SADDAM ACTED AS THOUGH HE STILL HAD WMD."
Exactly! He acted like he had them, both our own intelligence and foreign intel(whether faulty or not) said he had them. Were we supposed to just ignore the threat like Clinton did for years with Al-Qaeda?
Bush said things that turned out to be false. It's a big step to go from saying he told falsehoods to "Bush lied, people died."
And hell, Saddam may have actually had weapons and gotten rid of them right before we went in (it's not like we weren't talking about it) We'll never know, and it doesn't really matter at this point anyway.
Also, what good are "UN Resolutions" if they are never enforced? Saddam violated them 13 times over many years and no one did a damn thing, including Clinton. All we ever did was say "You're a bad man! and then lobbed over a few cruise missiles.
Iraq has turned into quite the quagmire for the U.S. but I'm not about to say it was unjustified. Badly planned maybe, but not unjustified.
Mark, your call for pics of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam are silly, but Kevin should post them along with Pics of FDR & Stalin sharking hands.
The bottom line is that the US has dealt with some terrible people to further its interests. Sometime this has awful consequences, a million starving Ukranians for Stalin, a bloody stalemate between Iraq and Iran to keep either from dominating the Mideast Oil wealth. Sometimes those are the best of bad outcomes, when the alternative is a German victory in Europe, or a Tyrannical super state armed with Mideast oil riches.
You may rightly decry these actions as allowing US interests to contribute to the deaths of civilians, but you make the timeless liberal mistake of allowing the Perfect be the Enemy of the good.
Even if you don't grant me that, at least realize you are willing to make the same mistakes that you accuse Bush, Clinton, or an amorphous "US Policy" of doing. Putting the Iraqi people in harms way to further your political goal.
Your willingness to abandon the Iraqi People to the "mercy" of Iran/Al-Queda/ or the Sectarian Strongman de jour so you can defeat the evil Bush policies is just as political and appalling.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 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 program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
"[W]e 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 programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998.
"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 (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 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." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout 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.
This brings us to the inevitable observation: If all these people were so easily and thoroughly fooled by someone they now call "The Stupid One", then they are themselves too stupid to hold elective office.
You can quote all the Democrats you want. I disagree with them as much as President Bush.
Speaking of banging heads against the wall, did anyone go and read Eric Wild's blog post about this? Or are we still doing the confirmation bias thing? Pretty solid stuff there, Eric.
I think the damage that has been done to this country as a result of our invasion of Iraq is starting to show..for those people that want pay attention.
Once again Markadelphia deliberately misses the point: "regime change" was a bipartisan effort, yet only Bush is being blamed for the invasion of Iraq and all things subsequent.
And the NYT piece? Call me in sixteen years and we'll see how prescient Parag Khanna was. And I would think you'd take offense at the piece, since it paints your beloved Obama with the same brush as Hillary and McCain (but, puzzlingly, not Romney....)
You can quote all the Democrats you want. I disagree with them as much as President Bush.
Just so you know, and speaking as a libertarian I have a pretty good handle on this, when you trash both major parties there is a pretty good chance you yourself are well outside the mainstream.
Stunning and dead on right.
If you accept the premise of "European patriotism" - which the actual voting Europeans didn't seem to do with the Maastricht treaty. Sure confounded that technocratic elite.
Even less plausible is his notion of "Asian pride" being invested into Chinese power. There is no pan-Asian culture, and even if politics can morph fairly quickly, culture is inherently conservative. The Japanese are more likely to re-arm than to look to China in lieu of the U.S. as a protector.
A more interesting read is Peter Drucker's "The New Realities", which postulates the end of the nation state as the dominant poltical organization. Whether it is replaced by super-states (a la the EU) or devolution into pan regional tribalism isn't clear.
I ask Did your read Eric's piece, Mark? Once again, your bias blinds you (and Eric).
UN INSPECTORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
AS OF 18 MARCH WITHDRAWAL, HANS BLIX TELLS SECURITY COUNCIL
Says New Environment in Iraq, with Full Access and Cooperation,
Should Allow Establishment of Truth about ‘Unaccounted for’ Items.
So... Has Blix says: We can't find his weapons, and he hasn't fully cooperated. And this is Proof Bush was wrong?
Every statement form the inspectors in the leadup to the war is was full of such qualifiers. When asked straight out if Saddam was cooperating with inspectors, the answer was no.
The UN inspectors were not in Iraq to find out if Hussein had WMD's. Their job was to verify that he had destroyed the WMD's that he previously had admitted having and had agreed to destroy. They could not verify that he had destroyed them. So, where were those WMD's?
A bit more searching has turned up stories that show my comment above to be wrong. UN Resolution 1441 of 11/08/02 does not limit the inspectors to only such verification.
But, my question still stands. Where are the weapons that Hussein admitted having, and had agreed to destroy, but which the inspectors could not verify the destruction of?
"yet only Bush is being blamed for the invasion of Iraq and all things subsequent."
Well, he certainly is not the only one to blame in my opinion. I've written many a word on the dumb ass bullshit that Democrats have down during the last eight years.
I think the Times piece is accurate and Obama is not above criticism and certainly shoulders some responsibility for our country's direction. But, currently :, he is not in the executive branch. That is where the person is who drives policy in this country and makes things happen. Congress is painfully slow at making anything happen and reminds me, at times, of a one legged man at a butt kicking contest.
Juris, will check out Drucker
"Where are the weapons that Hussein admitted having, and had agreed to destroy, but which the inspectors could not verify the destruction of?"
Will we ever know? Is it possible for us to really know, given that none of us work for US intelligence or the White House?
Regardless, I still say Iraq was a mistake and, in the end, it has made us look weaker. Kevin, you have written that it would be a mistake to pull out of Iraq because OBL would then have ammo to say we look weak...that he chased away the infidel. Let's assume we give a shit about what he says. Isn't the fact that he and Zawahari are still out there..six and a half years after orchestrating the worst attack on US soil a heckuva a lot of ammo? How weak is that?
By focusing on Iraq, we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other areas of the world where extremism is (and always has been) more prevalent than Iraq. Had we actually finished the job in 2001-02, focused all of our energies on completely eliminating any chance for Al Qaeda to build anything in Waziristan, completely wiped out any sort of insurgency in Afghanistan, and started leaning more, with the Saudi government, on the madrassas in the Kingdom, imagine where we would be.
Speaking of Saudi Arabia, didn't we remove all of our forces from there? And wasn't that number one on OBL's list of demands? So, I hope you can see that your argument about pulling out of Iraq makes no sense because Al Qaeda can claim failure on our part to neutralize their top guys and claim success on chasing us from the Holy Land.
That is where the person is who drives policy in this country and makes things happen.
ROTFLMAO - you and Bush/Cheney seem to have the same view of the Presidency. Me? Give me Calvin Coolidge.
Congress is painfully slow at making anything happen and reminds me, at times, of a one legged man at a butt kicking contest.
Our system was designed to give Congress more power than the Executive - largely because it was believed it would be more responsive, and responsible, than the President. Also, that slowness was considered a virtue, in that haste often makes waste. Congress can move fast enough - when it has to. The worst thing that could happen would be for it to be EASIER to pass new laws.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/01/bush-lied-made-false-statements.html (23 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
The video you provide here is a powerful witness to the democratic party leaders' confirmation of Iraq's commitment to the proliferation of WMD, and their constant goading of President Bush to address a situation which they identified as a threat to world peace.
More important, it provides a coda to the perfidy of these same democratic leaders as they now attack President Bush for his difficult and bold decision to neutralize Saddam's ability to make regional war, without bothering to even address, let alone repudiate, their previous cautionary statements.
At the time, it could have gone 'either way', but for their constant urging that President Bush 'do something about it'. (President Clinton was never willing.)
These self-serving scoundrels deserve nothing less than public shaming, including stocks and being pelted by street debris.
Yet they now have the unmitigated gall to suggest that President Bush acted 'unilaterally', and not only divorce themselves from the process which lead our country to war, but even used his actions, which they themselves forced upon us for good or ill, as their political weapons of mass destruction.
To paraphrase Michael Moore:
"Shame on you, Liberal Democrat Polilticians. Shame!"
Anyone who actually believes that President Bush lied about Saddam's WMD's is either so sand-poundingly ignorant that they shouldn't be allowed to breed, or so infected with BDS that they need to be quarantined for the good of the country. The part that still has it's sanity intact.
Everyone, not just the USA, but Britain, France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, hell little green Martians thought that Saddam had WMD's. Saddam WAS trying to buy yellowcake uranium AS THE BRITISH INTELLIGENCE TOLD US, and they still stand by those statements. Bush didn't lie, Joseph Wilson did. Saddam's own damn generals thought that they had chemical weapons in their arsenal.
But "Bush lied". Yeah. Right. I've got a straightjacket with your name on it.
First of all, hilarious title. I chuckled for awhile on that one. And I agree...
"Could it have been, say, eight years of Bill Clinton?"
No. Maybe it was because the Bush's used to be his buddies. Or maybe he was so full of himself that he was deranged. Probably both.
"Fucking murderer.We'd have been far better off just dropping the sanctions against Iraq that were killing the children..."
How did we react when he doing all that killing during the 80s? We...sent him more weapons. And who was vice president then? When I hear cries about how evil Saddam was, I always think of the video of Rumsfeld shaking his hand. Why don't you post that video up here? Or how about the one of Cheney saying, in 1994, all of the reasons we should NOT have gone further in the first Gulf War?
It doesn't make it any less wrong when Democrats support bullshit wars, either. I don't care what party they belong to....LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin...Bush lied about Iraq...Hillary will lie about Iraq...I don't tow any party line when it comes to completely uneccesary sacrafice.
We are in a very serious conflict, most of which should not be fought militarily. Afghanistan would be one example of a necessary military struggle. Pakistan could be another, especially if Musharaf keeps shooting his mouth off and Al Qaeda continues to build up their forces there.
The rest of it needs to be fought in other ways and we need a president who is willing to explore those options.
Dave, the argument is not whether or not Saddam was trying to get WMDs. It's whether or not he had them. Well, he did have them at one time. We gave them to him. Then we destroyed them all in Gulf War I. In 2002, he didn't have shit. Of course, he was trying to get them but he failed.
And Joe Wilson didn't lie, either. The Wilsons are yet another example, in a long line of many, who thought their first duty was to serve their country, not Dick Cheney's corporate goals.
Mark, you are so disconnected from reality that I often wonder why your brain does not fall out of your head.
And Joe Wilson didn't lie, either. The Wilsons are yet another example, in a long line of many, who thought their first duty was to serve their country, not Dick Cheney's corporate goals.
Joe Wilson did indeed lie. Please do the damned research yourself.
And while you're at it, please explain where Saddam's 1.8 metric tons of "yellow cake" and 500 tons of unrefined uranium came from and what he planned to do with it? You know, when the sanctions were dropped?
"Joe Wilson did indeed lie. Please do the damned research yourself."
Other than the usual suspects, who are your sources for proving that Joe Wilson lied? I've spent plenty of time-too much time, actually-reading the accusations against him. They all sound like the typical conservative fake outrage machine bullshit we are all accostomed to so if you have something else, I'd love to see it. My question for you, though, is...why do you immediately believe them all AND discount everything he said on his trip to Niger?
Take a look at the original column.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND
Remember, this is the column that Cheney wrote "Did he bring his wife with him" on? This is a documented fact. Go through his points. Where are the lies in here?
Here is good capsule on the Joe Wilson smear campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson#Other_journalists.27_responses_to_Wilson
Links to all the sources are at the bottom of the article.
Kevin, you know I respect you and your opinions but why do you insist on believing that Bush et al mostly told the truth about Iraq? Is all of the evidence "liberal bias?"
As for the other article, first of all, an article from 2003? Don't you think this is a little dated, considering the information that has come out since? If this information is true, why has the administration, since that time, come out and said there were no WMDs there?
What he "planned" to do with it and what he could with it, at the time we invaded, are two different things. I'm sure he had all sorts of plans and/or delusions, none of which would have amounted to anything because we had effectively contained him. I am not going to deny that he was a problem but on the same level as Afghanistan? No. Pakistan? No. Saudi Arabia? No. Syria? No. Iran? No.
Think about how much farther ahead we would be if we had thoroughly cleaned out Afghanistan. Bush et al exagerrated and outright lied about Iraq because they wanted to go in no matter what. They lost focus on where the real problem was and our military and our country are severly damaged as a result.
We gave them to him.
Not hardly. Oh, save quoting me, I've read your sources. I've also seem them called into question. They also fail to note that most of their "conspiracy", theoretically by the US government, was halted unceremoniously by FBI arrests in 89-90. (I guess they were trying to fake everybody out by arresting, trying, and jailing those responsible. Wow!)
The total amount of sales directly during the Iran-Iraq was was under a million dollars.
France and Germany each had over 5 billion in sales during that period.
Not that it's surprising, given the source.
It's really not worth getting into with you.
I'll merely note:
* The (unmarked) binary sarin shell that was well beyond Iraqi capability in '91, that was found (and accidentally detonated) as an IED.
They either bought it from somebody - and binary sarin's not easily found - or built it between 91 and 03.
* 60 tons of mustard gas was tagged in '98 by the UN Weapons Inspectors. (So much for it being "destroyed). When we invaded, that facility was stripped bare, and no trace of the mustard gas was found. 5 years later and it (and it's containers).. evaporated?
There were thousands of known, undestroyed weapons (including the anthrax (16 thousand liters worth) you're citing that "we sold" (the samples they were produced from) Iraq) - that had been tagged by the Inspectors - that had not been destroyed that we've never found post-invasion.
Somebody's lying here, all right.
And Joe Wilson didn't lie, either.
Joe Wilson either lied in the NY Times, or in front of Congress.
He told 2 completely separate stories between his public PR against Bush, and his testimony under oath.
Lionizing him because he calls someone you don't like names (while his under oath, sworn testimony, backed that person's statements) is inane.
(*banging my head against a brick wall....*)
Mark:
You didn't pay attention to the original piece I did on the reasons (note the plural) I believe we invaded Iraq, did you? Nope, your eyes just glazed over and your brain went into vapor-lock, even though you left four (4) comments on it.
WRT Joe Wilson: Pull up the Senate Select Committee report (a PDF file) and read page 40-47.
WRT Iraq: Yes, indeed. As I made clear in my earlier piece, "regime change" in Iraq was a goal of the second Bush administration from Day One. The timetable was only accelerated by 9/11. And it was the right thing to do, for several reasons.
Saddam was seen (rightly) as a threat that had to be dealt with - as Bill Clinton said, not through "some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction, and to continue to press for the release of the sanctions" but, again as Bill Clinton said, "This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance."
"And so we had to act and act now." - With a four-day bombing campaign, and five more years of "one last chance(s)" all of which left Saddam with a "third route" that he was happily prepared to use once again.
Instead Bush et al. decided that we really did need to "act now" and that invasion was the only route to "regime change." As Hillary said "I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security."
I don't expect you to ever get a grip on this, Markadelphia. You're too wrapped up in visions of intricate conspiracies.
There is actually very good evidence to conclude that our intelligence was "compromised" by politics to justify a war in Iraq. There are many details, so read the latest entries on my blog.
http://warandroses.blogspot.com/
"But the key here is that SADDAM ACTED AS THOUGH HE STILL HAD WMD."
Exactly! He acted like he had them, both our own intelligence and foreign intel(whether faulty or not) said he had them. Were we supposed to just ignore the threat like Clinton did for years with Al-Qaeda?
Bush said things that turned out to be false. It's a big step to go from saying he told falsehoods to "Bush lied, people died."
And hell, Saddam may have actually had weapons and gotten rid of them right before we went in (it's not like we weren't talking about it) We'll never know, and it doesn't really matter at this point anyway.
Also, what good are "UN Resolutions" if they are never enforced? Saddam violated them 13 times over many years and no one did a damn thing, including Clinton. All we ever did was say "You're a bad man! and then lobbed over a few cruise missiles.
Iraq has turned into quite the quagmire for the U.S. but I'm not about to say it was unjustified. Badly planned maybe, but not unjustified.
(*banging my head against a brick wall....*)
Long ago on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate msg board, a number of us founded a support group for people addicted to reasoning with fools.
Remember, the first step is admitting your addiction.
Mark, your call for pics of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam are silly, but Kevin should post them along with Pics of FDR & Stalin sharking hands.
The bottom line is that the US has dealt with some terrible people to further its interests. Sometime this has awful consequences, a million starving Ukranians for Stalin, a bloody stalemate between Iraq and Iran to keep either from dominating the Mideast Oil wealth. Sometimes those are the best of bad outcomes, when the alternative is a German victory in Europe, or a Tyrannical super state armed with Mideast oil riches.
You may rightly decry these actions as allowing US interests to contribute to the deaths of civilians, but you make the timeless liberal mistake of allowing the Perfect be the Enemy of the good.
Even if you don't grant me that, at least realize you are willing to make the same mistakes that you accuse Bush, Clinton, or an amorphous "US Policy" of doing. Putting the Iraqi people in harms way to further your political goal.
Your willingness to abandon the Iraqi People to the "mercy" of Iran/Al-Queda/ or the Sectarian Strongman de jour so you can defeat the evil Bush policies is just as political and appalling.
And now for some more quotes:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 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 program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
"[W]e 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 programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998.
"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 (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 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." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout 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.
This brings us to the inevitable observation: If all these people were so easily and thoroughly fooled by someone they now call "The Stupid One", then they are themselves too stupid to hold elective office.
You can quote all the Democrats you want. I disagree with them as much as President Bush.
Speaking of banging heads against the wall, did anyone go and read Eric Wild's blog post about this? Or are we still doing the confirmation bias thing? Pretty solid stuff there, Eric.
I think the damage that has been done to this country as a result of our invasion of Iraq is starting to show..for those people that want pay attention.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin
Stunning and dead on right.
Once again Markadelphia deliberately misses the point: "regime change" was a bipartisan effort, yet only Bush is being blamed for the invasion of Iraq and all things subsequent.
And the NYT piece? Call me in sixteen years and we'll see how prescient Parag Khanna was. And I would think you'd take offense at the piece, since it paints your beloved Obama with the same brush as Hillary and McCain (but, puzzlingly, not Romney....)
You can quote all the Democrats you want. I disagree with them as much as President Bush.
Just so you know, and speaking as a libertarian I have a pretty good handle on this, when you trash both major parties there is a pretty good chance you yourself are well outside the mainstream.
Stunning and dead on right.
If you accept the premise of "European patriotism" - which the actual voting Europeans didn't seem to do with the Maastricht treaty. Sure confounded that technocratic elite.
Even less plausible is his notion of "Asian pride" being invested into Chinese power. There is no pan-Asian culture, and even if politics can morph fairly quickly, culture is inherently conservative. The Japanese are more likely to re-arm than to look to China in lieu of the U.S. as a protector.
A more interesting read is Peter Drucker's "The New Realities", which postulates the end of the nation state as the dominant poltical organization. Whether it is replaced by super-states (a la the EU) or devolution into pan regional tribalism isn't clear.
I ask Did your read Eric's piece, Mark? Once again, your bias blinds you (and Eric).
UN INSPECTORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
AS OF 18 MARCH WITHDRAWAL, HANS BLIX TELLS SECURITY COUNCIL
Says New Environment in Iraq, with Full Access and Cooperation,
Should Allow Establishment of Truth about ‘Unaccounted for’ Items.
So... Has Blix says: We can't find his weapons, and he hasn't fully cooperated. And this is Proof Bush was wrong?
Every statement form the inspectors in the leadup to the war is was full of such qualifiers. When asked straight out if Saddam was cooperating with inspectors, the answer was no.
The UN inspectors were not in Iraq to find out if Hussein had WMD's. Their job was to verify that he had destroyed the WMD's that he previously had admitted having and had agreed to destroy. They could not verify that he had destroyed them. So, where were those WMD's?
Hmmm ...
A bit more searching has turned up stories that show my comment above to be wrong. UN Resolution 1441 of 11/08/02 does not limit the inspectors to only such verification.
Mea culpa ...
Hmmm ...
But, my question still stands. Where are the weapons that Hussein admitted having, and had agreed to destroy, but which the inspectors could not verify the destruction of?
I like bananas.
"yet only Bush is being blamed for the invasion of Iraq and all things subsequent."
Well, he certainly is not the only one to blame in my opinion. I've written many a word on the dumb ass bullshit that Democrats have down during the last eight years.
I think the Times piece is accurate and Obama is not above criticism and certainly shoulders some responsibility for our country's direction. But, currently :, he is not in the executive branch. That is where the person is who drives policy in this country and makes things happen. Congress is painfully slow at making anything happen and reminds me, at times, of a one legged man at a butt kicking contest.
Juris, will check out Drucker
"Where are the weapons that Hussein admitted having, and had agreed to destroy, but which the inspectors could not verify the destruction of?"
Will we ever know? Is it possible for us to really know, given that none of us work for US intelligence or the White House?
Regardless, I still say Iraq was a mistake and, in the end, it has made us look weaker. Kevin, you have written that it would be a mistake to pull out of Iraq because OBL would then have ammo to say we look weak...that he chased away the infidel. Let's assume we give a shit about what he says. Isn't the fact that he and Zawahari are still out there..six and a half years after orchestrating the worst attack on US soil a heckuva a lot of ammo? How weak is that?
By focusing on Iraq, we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other areas of the world where extremism is (and always has been) more prevalent than Iraq. Had we actually finished the job in 2001-02, focused all of our energies on completely eliminating any chance for Al Qaeda to build anything in Waziristan, completely wiped out any sort of insurgency in Afghanistan, and started leaning more, with the Saudi government, on the madrassas in the Kingdom, imagine where we would be.
Speaking of Saudi Arabia, didn't we remove all of our forces from there? And wasn't that number one on OBL's list of demands? So, I hope you can see that your argument about pulling out of Iraq makes no sense because Al Qaeda can claim failure on our part to neutralize their top guys and claim success on chasing us from the Holy Land.
That is where the person is who drives policy in this country and makes things happen.
ROTFLMAO - you and Bush/Cheney seem to have the same view of the Presidency. Me? Give me Calvin Coolidge.
Congress is painfully slow at making anything happen and reminds me, at times, of a one legged man at a butt kicking contest.
Our system was designed to give Congress more power than the Executive - largely because it was believed it would be more responsive, and responsible, than the President. Also, that slowness was considered a virtue, in that haste often makes waste. Congress can move fast enough - when it has to. The worst thing that could happen would be for it to be EASIER to pass new laws.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>